Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Hawaii State Legislature took a historic step on January 28, 2004, and invited education Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto to address a joint session of the house and senate, underscoring the priority public education will be accorded during their legislative session.

As a teacher first, then principal and now superintendent, her words were

progressive, and at times, provocative. She was honest about the system's shortcomings, clear on the improvements that need to be made, and focused on increasing student achievement by enhancing and supporting the relationship between teacher and student.

Hawaii Superintendent Hamamoto's words are worthy of both local action and national consideration. I ask that the full text of her statement be printed in the Record.

The statement follows.

Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto

Mr. President, today I introduce the U.S. Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act of 2004. This legislation would formally establish the U.S. Military Cancer Institute (USMCI), and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is a professor of surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, DC area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African American and Hispanic subpopulations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2004. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multi-disciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the U.S. Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act of 2004. This legislation would formally establish the U.S. Military Cancer Institute (USMCI), and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is a professor of surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, DC area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African American and Hispanic subpopulations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2004. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent (FMAP) of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multi-disciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize a great American and a true military hero who has honorably served our country for 35 years in the Army and Army Nurse Corps: BG William T. Bester. Brigadier General

Bester has had a long and distinguished military career, which he began as a staff nurse before obtaining advanced education as a nurse anesthetist. He served at various medical facilities including Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, WA, Okinawa, Japan and Fort Sill, OK. His tremendous leadership skills led to his selection as a nurse instructor at the Army Medical Department Academy of Health Sciences in San Antonio, TX, and as a nurse recruiter in Indiana. He also served as a personnel management officer at the Army personnel command in Alexandria, VA, and as deputy commander for nursing at the medical facility at Fort Ben Harrison, IN. Brigadier General Bester served with distinction in a series of assignments as deputy commander for nursing at the Medical Department Activity, MEDDAC, at Fort Leavenworth, KS, deputy commander for nursing for the Sixty-seventh Combat Support Hospital, Wuerzburg, Germany, commander for Medical Task Force 67 assigned to provide comprehensive medical support to the National Support Element in Tazar, Hungary, during Operation Joint Endeavor, and finally commander, MEDDAC and director of health services, Fort Jackson, SC. In every assignment, Brigadier General Bester was recognized for his loyal, dedicated, and proactive leadership throughout the military community.

In 2000, Brigadier General Bester was appointed the twenty-first chief of the Army Nurse Corps. As chief, Brigadier General Bester planned, implemented and monitored all policy and programs for 3,415 Army nurses and over 13,000 reserve component nurses. He successfully implemented numerous recruiting and retention initiatives in his tireless pursuit to combat the impact of the nationwide nursing shortage on the nurse corps and the Army civilian nurse workforce. Brigadier General Bester was instrumental in obtaining congressional sanctioned direct hire authority for civilian registered nurses. This dramatically improved the fill rate of professional nurses in Army medical treatment facilities. With regard to recruiting Army nurses, Brigadier General Bester championed expansion of Reserve officer training corps nursing scholarships to almost 200 schools across the country and expanded the number of available slots for the Army Enlisted Commissioning Program for Nursing from 55 to 75. To meet the growing need for nurse educators and researchers, Brigadier General Bester and his Federal Nursing Service colleagues worked with the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Congress to successfully establish a Ph.D. program in nursing science and a perioperative clinical nurse specialist program at the Graduate School of Nursing.

As the Assistant Surgeon General for Force Projection and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Health Policy and Services, Brigadier General Bester shouldered the most complex policy and readiness issues. He consistently achieved positive results by fostering harmonious working relationships within the Pentagon and the Office of the Army Srugeon General. Brigadier General Bester was at the forefront of efforts to articulate the ``medical position'' to Army colleagues, Congress, TRICARE beneficiaries, and the sister services. He effectively oversaw and synchronized the conversion of the 91B and 91C Military Occupational Specialty into the 91W Future Medic--one of the most important and wide-ranging medical training initiatives of the past 20 years. Brigadier General Bester also championed the medical reengineering initiative changes to the medical force structure, quality management techniques for the Army Medical Department, improved civilian personnel hiring incentives, and improved Reserve component integration.

As commander of the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Brigadier General Bester effectively guided the only worldwide, medically matrixed health promotion and preventive medicine organization within the Department of Defense. He accelerated a transformation that enhanced the center's relevance to the Army and its ability to deliver effective support across the operational spectrum in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on America. His emphasis on deployment occupational and environmental health issues, and the provision of operationally focused, health risk assessment guidance to combatant commanders within an operational risk management framework, directly contributed to saving the lives and health of our deployed soldiers in Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf.

Brigadier General Bester's accomplishments are eloquent testimony to his talent, dedication, loyalty, and determination to ensure that the best possible medical and preventive medicine support is always available to our soldiers, civilians, and family members. Brigadier General Bester has established a legacy of superior performance to be emulated by all, which reflects exceptionally on himself, the United States Army, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation on behalf of a grateful nation for his dedicated service. Congratulations to my friend, Brigadier General Bill Bester. I wish him Godspeed.

Mr. President, I have voted today to oppose the termination of debate on the Medicare Conference Report because I have carefully analyzed the report and come to the conclusion that far from being a bipartisan compromise on prescription drug benefits, the report is nothing short of an attempt to compromise the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid system as we know it.

When it comes to health care in America, there are many parties in interest--providers, patients, care facilities, and pharmaceutical suppliers, to name a few. These groups have interests that may, at times, be in conflict, but I believe one overwhelming interest unites them all: providing the American public with the health care services and treatment that it needs. Regrettably, I find that the report we have been asked to consider has abandoned this powerful unifying principle.

Worse than abandoning our commitment to the health of our Nation, when viewed as a whole, the report strikes at the foundation of the Medicare and Medicaid system. Rather than buttressing the system of comprehensive care for our senior citizens and disabled persons, the report actually sows the seeds of its demise by undermining its ability to provide a prescription drug benefit, subsidizing competing private health plans, and increasing Medicare premiums without increasing the benefits provided.

The overwhelming drive to reconsider the Medicare and Medicaid systems came from listening to our constituents and their frustration with the ever-increasing cost of the medicines they needed. From blood thinners, to antibiotics, to state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals for cancer and HIV/AIDS, the cry for help was clear: the cost of prescription drugs was breaking the backs of the Americans who were paying for these expensive, but life-saving therapies.

Far from addressing these needs, however, the report actually makes the problem worse. On the administrative level, the report dilutes the Medicare systems's purchasing power by mandating the purchase of necessary medications by individual Medicare regions, rather than as a whole system. With more individual buyers, pharmaceutical companies are more able than ever to raise their prices, because the individual regions will have less bargaining power.

The report will also impact average beneficiaries by potentially depriving them of the specific drugs they need by providing coverage for only one or two of each class of drug. In a world where antibiotic resistant strains of common ailments are on the rise, this could be a very expensive proposition, if the drug you need is not one of the covered drugs in the antibiotic class. Difficulties only escalate in medically complex cases where patients' individual responses to pharmaceutical may vary dramatically, as in treatments for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.

Even worse, what flexibility there is in the report to tailor the limited drug benefit to the needs of individual patients must now be requested and petitioned for by the patients themselves. Placing the paperwork burden on seniors and the disabled only shifts the burden to the people least able to bear it, and I would not be surprised to learn that as a result, more and more beneficiaries will lose access to the medicines they need.

Finally, the report strikes a further blow to more than 6 million of our neediest citizens, those who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. At present, States have the statutory flexibility to make any copayments for persons who are ``dual eligible.'' Under the report, however, persons with dual coverage will face increased out-of-pocket expenses because States will lose this flexibility. As a result, Americans who are already below the poverty level would be expected to make copayments between $1 and $3--a great hardship for single persons with incomes of less than $8980 per year, and couples with incomes of less than $12,120 per year.

More than failing to provide the promised prescription drug benefit, however, the report actually paves the way for eventually dismantling Medicare and Medicaid altogether. The report establishes a demonstration project for ``premium support'' in six metropolitan areas. ``Premium support'' does not mean, as one might think, additional Federal support for areas where costs are especially high, and premiums are not sufficient to cover all expense. Just the opposite, it is a way of increasing the Medicare premiums Americans pay in order to compensate for rising health care costs. Moreover, with a ``demonstration project'' such as this in place, it would be a simple step to broaden the ``project'' to include the entire United States-- and with an estimate average 25 percent increase in premiums, the costs to American citizens would be substantial.

The report would also provide a $12 billion subsidy to private Health Maintenance Organizations and Preferred Provider Organizations--HMOs and PPOs. With a massive subsidy such as this, there will be no question but that HMOs and PPOs will have a competitive edge over Medicare because they will receive more money per plan participant than Medicare will--and with more money, subsidized insurers will be able to provide more benefits.

``Premium support'' and a $12 billion subsidy for private insurers look suspiciously like a one-two punch aimed at Medicare. On the one hand, ``premium support'' will increase the cost of Medicare without raising benefit levels, while on the other, a multi-billion dollar subsidy will allow HMOs and PPOs to slash premiums and provide more services. Add to this a prescription drug benefit that actually leaves millions of Americans worse off than they are now, and it is difficult to see how this conference report responds to the simple unifying principle of our health care system: providing Americans with the health care they need.

Mr. President, after much deliberation, I have decided to oppose the conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act.

The conference report before us today is a serious departure from the comprehensive and balanced approach to energy policy passed by the U.S. Senate earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 84 to 14. The Senate bill carefully weighed many competing interests and struck a fair and even-handed balance that would have strengthened our national security, safeguarded consumers, and protected the environment.

The conference report has tipped the studied balance of the Senate bill drastically in favor of short-term business interests. Regrettably, I am not surprised by the sweeping changes made to the Senate bill because the conference report was prepared by the Republican leadership behind closed doors, without the participation of their Democratic counterparts. Under these circumstances, one cannot be surprised that balance was lost, and a flawed conference report emerged.

Upon review of the bill, I was initially pleased to note its positive aspects. My completed review of the conference report, however, revealed that these few beneficial provisions were far outweighed by the many items injurious to the American people as a whole. The conference report erodes the careful web of environmental protections that safeguard the public health and our natural resources. It promotes a static energy industry by failing both to encourage the development of alternate fuel sources and energy efficient technologies, and does nothing to police the energy industry to prevent a recurrence of the Enron debacle. For example, the conference report does not include the broad, effective prohibitions against price gouging schemes used by Enron and other energy trading firms, included in the Senate version of the Energy bill.

As science has helped to illuminate the negative impacts of environmental pollutants on public health, Congress has responded by enacting a series of statutory protections designed to safeguard the American people by restricting the levels of pollutants that enter our environment. The conference report substantially undermines these protections.

For example, the report would exempt three major metropolitan areas from meeting the Clean Air Act's ozone-smog standard. While industry in these areas may enjoy a respite as a result of the conference report, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases will not. Moreover, it should be noted that this particular provision appeared for the first time in the conference report, and was never debated by the Senate or the House. Without such debate, my colleagues and I are unable to judge whether there are any mitigating factors that might justify a rollback of the Clean Air Act in these three cases.

Of direct concern to my home state of Hawaii is the treatment of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and producers of this common gasoline additive. As a fuel additive, MTBE helps gasoline to burn more cleanly, but outside of our gas tanks, MTBE is a proven cancer causing agent that has contaminated groundwater supplies across the country. In Hawaii alone, there are approximately 500 known contamination sites, and in a state completely dependent on its isolated groundwater, this is an alarming statistic. Under this conference report, the State and its counties would have no legal recourse against the producers of MTBE for the expensive process of environmental cleanup, including the remediation and clean up of contaminated soil, water supplies and wells.

The conference report also exempts all construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage under the Clean Water Act. It goes further and completely removes hydraulic fracturing--an underground oil and gas recovery method from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Domestic oil and gas production contributes significantly to the short-term security of our national energy infrastructure, but I do not believe that our security interests outweigh our health interests. Nor do I believe that conventional fuel sources can ever provide a long- term solution to our energy security.

As a further blow to ongoing efforts to reduce our nation's dependence on conventional fuels, the Republican conferees dropped Senate-passed provisions that would have encouraged further research, development, and demonstrations of hydrogen fuel resources, for which Hawaii is rapidly developing a keen expertise. The measure also eliminated the broadly-supported goals for introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

I support strong renewable portfolio standards, RPS, that provide incentives for producing renewable energy in this country. These measures--such as RPS for electricity, requirements for measures to reduce dependence on foreign oil, climate change policy, and technology--have been dropped from the conference report.

The conference report further dilutes efforts to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by weakening Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE standards. I believe that strong CAFE standards drive the development and implementation of fuel efficient technologies for use in cars and trucks, and history has proven the strength of this approach. With the volatility of international fossil fuel sources, and the decline of our worldwide stock of this resource, strong CAFE standards are more important than ever. By introducing a variety of new and difficult criteria for the administrative development of CAFE standards, it will prove difficult or impossible for any President to strengthen the current set of standards before being halted by industry lawsuits.

As a Senator from an island state, I am also concerned about provisions that seek to weaken the laws that protect our coastlines such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. For example, the conference report shortens

the time within which states can appeal state consistency review determinations made by the Secretary of Commerce, thus limiting the rights of states under the CZMA.

The conference report also jeopardizes federal conservation lands by allowing the Secretary of Energy to determine the siting of transmission lines through certain national forests and national monuments--even over the objections of the Federal agency charged with maintaining and preserving these natural treasures.

Mr. President, I must also express my serious concern with regard to the provisions of H.R. 6 as they relate to the development of energy resources on Indian lands and the impact of these provisions on the United States trust responsibility for Indian lands and resources. To allow this bill to be passed without amendment, would, in my view, alter the bedrock principles upon which relations between the United States and the Indian nations are founded.

The United States trust responsibility is perhaps the most fundamental principle of Federal Indian law. It was first enunciated in 1832 by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall. It is the polestar which has guided the course of dealings between the Indian tribes and the United States over the last two centuries.

The United States trust responsibility for Indian lands and resources is derived from treaties and agreements between the Indian nations and the United States, statutes, executive orders, court rulings, and regulations. The Congress has legislated on this basis. The Federal courts have ruled on that basis, and the Executive branch has premised policy on this basis and promulgated regulations based upon this fundamental principle of Federal-Indian law.

The Federal Government's trust responsibility for Indian lands and resources is based on the fact that the United States holds legal title to lands that are held in trust for Indian tribal governments. As the principal agent of the United States as trustee for Indian lands and resources, under current law, the Secretary of the Interior must authorize and approve any activities affecting Indian lands and trust assets.

However, recently the United States Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. Navajo Nation case that tribal governments may not hold the Secretary of the Interior accountable for mismanaging trust assets except if there is a specific authorization contained in a Federal statute. As a result of this ruling, tribal governments are looking to the Congress to protect longstanding principles of established trust law and to clarify with certainty the meaning of the trust responsibility after the Court's pronouncement in the Navajo Nation case.

The Indian provisions of H.R. 6 unfortunately fail to provide a means for tribal governments to call upon the United States, as trustee for Indian lands and resources, to assist them in remedying any damages incurred to tribal lands, nor do they establish express statutory standards for the administration of the U.S. trust responsibility.

The bill requires that any tribe attempting to avail itself of the powers to regulate and develop its own energy resources must waive its rights to seek any recourse against the Secretary of the Interior. This requirement signals a dramatic departure from existing law, and tribal governments across the country have expressed serious concern that this bill will erode the United States' trust responsibility, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Navajo Nation case.

As tribal governments seek to further their rights to self- determination in new areas, such as the leases, agreements, and rights- of-way affecting tribal lands that are addressed in this bill, there must also be an evolution of the duties that the trustee for Indian lands and resources--the United States--undertakes on behalf of tribes desiring to develop energy resources.

My view is that there is a well-founded and long-established partnership between Indian tribal governments and their trustee--and that it is this relationship which assures that if there is any harm or damage done to tribal lands and resources caused by other parties, the tribes will have the full force of the United States government to assist them in securing redress for such harm.

With this end in mind, I respectfully suggested that those standards applicable under the Indian Self-Determination Act be incorporated into this bill, such as the annual trust asset evaluation that is authorized in that act to be conducted by the Secretary of the Interior as a condition of the Secretary's approval of a tribal government's right to enter into leases, business agreements, and rights-of-way without the Secretary's approval.

Unfortunately, this language was not adopted, and instead the bill provides that the Secretary will have the discretion to determine the manner in which trust resources will be managed, and what, if any, ongoing oversight there will be as tribal governments move into an arena that is associated with serious financial and environmental risks.

In addition, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Navajo Nation case, the absence of expressly-stated statutory standards for the administration of the government's trust responsibilities as they relate to the development of energy resources on Indian lands is, I believe, a further derogation of the trust relationship that cannot be overstated.

In another section of the bill, state and tribal governments are effectively excluded from the process by which conditions for the operation of hydropower projects are established, and as a result, the protection of fish and wildlife resources is left up to those for whom the financial incentives to reduce costs at the expense of the survival of fish and wildlife resources are great.

There are many in Indian country who share these concerns, and would perhaps express them more strongly than I have been able to do. We do not have a record of which we can be proud when it comes to our dealings with the first citizens of this land, and I fear that this measure will not mark a new, more constructive direction in Federal- Indian relations.

Mr. President, two men involved in the process of bringing this conference report to the floor for a vote--Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Ted Stevens--are very dear to me and I have the honor of working with them on a daily basis. I hope they will understand that, as much as I would like to support them and their interests, I must oppose this conference report.

ethanol subsidy

Madam President, I commend Senator Arlen Specter and the Committee on Veterans Affairs for their efforts in support of S. 1156, the Veterans Health Care Authorities Extension and Improvement Act of 2003, which would improve the provision of long-term health care for veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the section of S. 1156 that authorizes the VA to provide Filipino veterans residing in the United States the same medical benefits that are currently provided to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States. Approximately 9,500 Filipino veterans residing in the United States would be eligible for these benefits.

Many of you are aware of my continued support and advocacy on behalf of the Filipino World War II veterans, and the importance of addressing their plight. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the wrongs committed against these World War II veterans, and I am grateful to the committee for the assistance and consideration given to my past initiatives. While some strides have been made, I believe more needs to be done to assist these veterans who are in their twilight years. Of the 120,000 who originally served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, approximately 59,899 Filipino veterans currently reside in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000, or roughly one-third of the current population, by 2010.

I support the provision in S. 1156 that authorizes the VA to provide Filipino veterans residing in the United States the same medical benefits that are currently provided to veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States. However, I remain concerned that these benefits are restricted to only those veterans residing in the United States. In my view, a distinction should not be made between veterans residing in the United States and those residing in the Philippines.

As a result of a citizenship statute enacted by the Congress in 1990, some Filipino veterans who were able to travel came to the United States to become United States citizens. At the same time, many other Filipino World War II veterans were unable to travel to the United States and take advantage of the naturalization benefit because of their advanced age. The law was subsequently amended in the Fiscal Year 1993 Departments of State, Justice, Commerce and the Judiciary Appropriations Act, Public Law 102-395, to allow the naturalization process for these veterans to occur in the Philippines. Since then, a distinction has been made, and benefits have been provided to only those Filipino veterans residing in the United States.

I believe it is unfair to make this distinction. The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941, military order. Together, these gallant men and women stood in harm's way with our American soldiers to fight our common enemies during World War II. Because all Filipino veterans stood in equal jeopardy during World War II, I do not believe we should draw a distinction based on their current residency in the U.S. or in the Philippines. All of them were at equal risk, and so all should receive equal benefits.

Accordingly, I introduced S. 68, the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 2003, which provides health and disability compensation benefits that are similar to the provision included in S. 1156, but without limitations based on the residency of the veterans. I strongly urge Chairman Specter and members of the Committee to give consideration to S. 68, and to work with me in the coming year to provide health benefits to veterans residing in the Philippines.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, so let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Many of the Filipinos who fought so hard for our nation have been honored with American citizenship. Let us now work to repay all of these brave men and women for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans' benefits they deserve.

Mr. President, a few moments ago I read an article that appeared in The State newspaper of Columbia, SC: ``Misled and Undermanned: the Truth on Iraq.'' It was prepared by my dear friend and colleague, Ernest F. Hollings, the senior Senator of South Carolina.

His words reminded me of sad moments--reminded me of a divided America--and reminded me of the pain we all experienced. I do hope my colleagues will set aside a few moments to read and reflect on these thoughts of my dear friend from South Carolina.

I do not believe that Senator Hollings wrote this article with any other motive than to share his candid observations as someone who was there and who understands well the situation currently before us. His words are thought-provoking, and deserve the attention of all of our colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings' article be printed in the Record:

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of funding for astronomy within the National Science Foundation. I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senators Bond and Mikulski, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.

The committee's bill recognizes that the budget request provided inadequate funding for NSF's astronomical facilities. In response, the committee bill provided additional funding for radio astronomy facilities, but the funding level in other areas remains inadequate. For example, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory would be reduced below last year's level.

One specific high priority area for investment in optical astronomy that will be needed to develop the next generation of ground- based telescopes is in the area of adaptive optics. This will enable a major advance in astronomy that will have far-reaching effects in other areas, including national security. The National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey in Astronomy has identified this as the enabling breakthrough that will be needed for the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope, the top priority for optical astronomy.

For fiscal year 2004, about $5 million in additional funding for adaptive optics development is needed in order to develop the future generation of ground based telescopes, particularly for the GSMT. Would the chairman and ranking member be willing to join me in examining this possibility during conference on this bill?

I would like to raise another issue. The Advanced Technology Solar Telescope was identified as the highest priority solar astronomy initiative for the coming decade. Presently, the National Solar Observatory is leading a national effort to identify a site for this future telescope and to make the overall project a success by addressing the long lead technologies. Progress on these is essential in order for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope to achieve operations by 2007-2008 when NASA's complimentary space mission, the Solar Dynamics Observer, is launched. The combination of these two observatories will provide an unprecedented synergy between space- and ground-based solar observations that we believe will be of great scientific benefit. Unfortunately, the budget request does not provide the necessary funding to accommodate these needs.

One specific area that has emerged as critical is to begin the preparatory work on the mirror for this telescope and to develop fully the fabrication and polishing techniques that will be necessary. Would the chairman and ranking member join me in helping to identify $2 million in additional funding during conference to address this issue?

I thank both Senators for their leadership in helping the U.S. remain scientifically and technologically competitive by providing critical investments in research.

Mr. President, it is most unfortunate that we in the Senate found ourselves embroiled in a lengthy and costly debate over four of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations--and make no mistake: this debate will cost more than is readily apparent.

On a simple level, the preparation for 30 hours of debate on the Senate floor will translate into hundreds--possibly thousands of man hours of preparation. My fellow Senators, their staffs, and the myriad interested civic groups will toil ceaselessly to ensure that both Democrats and Republicans will be able to get their messages across to the American people. The media coverage and analysis are likely to be comprehensive and focused intensely down to the most minute details. Like a ravenous beast, this spectacle will devour our time, attention, and energy, until eventually, it consumes itself.

My Democratic colleagues and I are acutely aware of another cost of this debate: the cost of opportunities lost to the Senate and to the Nation. Thirty hours of sustained attention could have addressed the needs of the 3 million citizens who have lost their jobs since the President took the oath of office. Thirty hours of continuous inquiry could have finished our constitutionally mandated duty of providing funds for the Federal Government. Thirty hours of debate could have broken the logjam on Medicare and Medicaid reform. Any of these goals would have been worthy of America's time, but regrettably, our 30 hours of debate will purchase for us none of these noble ends.

Instead, our colleagues from across the aisle will have spent this time on four men and women--four men and women who have jobs. Four men and women who collectively make a million dollars every year. Four men and women who have already been the subject of countless hours of debate in the Senate, and whose records have already been displayed amply before the American people. Four prosperous men and women against the millions of American citizens who are unemployed.

By far the highest price of these 30 hours of debate, however, will be its contribution to the growing rift between people of different ideological bents. The Senate has always been a place where Senators--a group as diverse and varied as the people they represent--have been able to put aside their differences and work for the good of the country as a whole. As one Senator who has had the privilege of participating in the life of this institution for over 40 years, I cannot understand why the majority leadership has brought us to this point.

My grave concern is tempered only by my hope and confidence that we will rise above the divisive spirit that provoked today's debate, and begin to do the work of the Nation and its people.

Mr. President, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to two civil servants whose exemplary work in the U.S. Senate Army Congressional Liaison office has been formally recognized by the U.S. Army at a recent awards ceremony. For many years, my constituents have benefitted from their outstanding, timely, and compassionate service. It is my honor to also recognize their service, and to bring to your attention the nature of the awards given to Ms. Margaret Tyler and Mrs. Trulesta Pauling.

Ms. Tyler and Mrs. Pauling, both assigned to the Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Headquarters, Department of the Army, were recognized in a ceremony held on October 23, 2003.

Ms. Tyler and Mrs. Pauling, Congressional Liaison Representatives for the

U.S. Army's Senate Liaison Division on Capitol Hill, were each awarded the Army Staff Identification Badge and the Commander's Award for Civilian Service for exceptionally meritorious achievement. Both women were recognized for their work in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

According to the award citations, Ms. Tyler and Mrs. Pauling managed their increased caseload with calm, grace, professionalism, and efficiency. Their commitment to excellence and devotion to duty has had a significant and

long-lasting, positive impact on soldiers and their families.

The Commander's Award for Civilian Service is the fourth highest Department of the Army award for civilians. All Army civilian employees are eligible for consideration to receive this award for service, achievement and heroism. It is equivalent to the Army Commendation Medal awarded to soldiers.

The Army Staff Identification Badge was first proposed by General Douglas MacArthur while he was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, on December 28, 1931. The award of the lapel button for civilian personnel in the grade of GS-11 and higher was authorized in 1982 and is a symbol of exemplary service.

Once again, I extend my sincere congratulations to these two outstanding civil servants.

Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a fascinating article by Dr. James Schlesinger, who served our Nation in a number of prestigious positions, such as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The article, ``Underappreciated Victory,'' was published in the October 2003, issue of the Naval History magazine, a publication of the Naval Institute Proceedings. The article calls for the recognition of the world-historic significance of the Battle of Midway in 1942 because it was the turning point in our Nation's war in the Pacific, which, in turn, proved critical to our efforts in the European theater of war. Yet the Battle of Midway, which played such a crucial strategic role for both the European and Pacific war, scarcely gets mentioned in the history books. I wish to submit a copy of Dr. Schlesinger's article to be printed in the Record. This brilliant article sets the record straight.

I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current situation in Iraq and the growing concern that many of my colleagues have expressed regarding our policies in this most volatile and dangerous region of the world.

Last October, I was one of 23 Members of this Senate who voted against a resolution to authorize the war in Iraq. Voting on a resolution to send our young men and women to war is one of the most difficult issues any politician has to face.

I voted against going to war for five main reasons.

First and foremost, I did not believe the administration had made a compelling case that attacking Iraq was in our vital national interest.

Second, I was not convinced that the classified information presented to the Senate offered conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein provided a threat to the American people or that he would use weapons of mass destruction if he possessed them.

Third, I was not convinced that his regime was aligned with al-Qaida terrorists or was in any way involved with the September 11 attack on the United States.

Fourth, I did not see that the administration had presented a well- thought-out plan for dealing with postwar Iraq.

Finally, I believed that attacking Iraq when many of our closest allies and virtually all of the Nations in the region were opposed to it would cast the United States as the aggressor in this conflict and deal a terrible blow to our international reputation and prestige.

I was convinced that going to war under these circumstances would almost certainly sacrifice the almost near universal support and good will this Nation had gained following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. I regret today I still have many of the same concerns about the policy.

Having said that, the majority of my colleagues disagreed with me, and Congress approved an attack on Iraq. I know this is not to second- guess but only because it sets the stage for where we are today. The question for the Senate is what should the Congress do at this point? Our principal responsibility as Senators is to protect the people of this great Nation. Particularly, it is my belief we must fight for those who defend us. I have often said less than 1 percent of our population protects all the rest of us by wearing our Nation's uniform. I will say once again, I strongly believe it is our sacred duty to serve them. We simply must support the men and women willing to serve in harm's way.

Our forces fought gallantly in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our military strategy proved to be effective in war even if the rationale for war and postwar strategy can be questioned. Our forces proved once again that they are the most effective fighting force in the world.

Today, more than 125,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Iraq. While

all of us would like to know how long they will stay and how long they will be needed, I am confident each and every one of my colleagues agree they deserve our support. To guarantee the support, we must ensure that we provide sufficient funding for our forces to be equipped and ready to meet the challenges they face in Iraq.

Many in this body question the administration's policy. They want to criticize the war because we have not yet found weapons of mass destruction. Our debate should not be focused on whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of how we came to be in Iraq, I ask my colleagues what do we want to do now? Should we punish the administration for putting us in this position? I would only say in seeking to mete out punishment on those political leaders with whom we might disagree, we will most likely only punish our sons and daughters who have volunteered to risk their lives. That we cannot let happen.

The question we must ask at this moment is, How should we proceed? The cost of the ongoing war on terrorism is staggering. As has been mentioned often in the Senate, $87 billion is an enormous amount of money. Since September 11, the Congress has approved the supplemental defense funding in excess of $100 billion in response to the terrorist attacks on our Nation and for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, because of these costs, coupled with the impact of large tax cuts, we no longer are running a surplus. Instead, we have a deficit estimated to exceed $500 billion.

I understand my colleagues' frustration and understand why they demand better accountability. In seeking solutions, they have argued we should not have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. They want Iraq to use its oil reserves to pay for its own infrastructure. I am all for Iraq paying as much as it can to rebuild its country, but realistically, it is not in any position today to do much of that.

So should we wait? I would argue no. Our sons and daughters are in Iraq and the conditions are not good. The infrastructure to support our military and Ambassador Bremer and his staff is not conducive to getting Iraq back on its feet. We cannot turn our backs on our men and women serving in that theater because we disagree with this war. But even more important, we want our forces to come home as soon as possible.

I can assure my colleagues of one thing: Our forces will be in Iraq a lot longer if we refuse to make the investment in that country's infrastructure.

Three weeks ago, Hurricane Isabel caused widespread power outage in the Washington, DC, area. For several days, many were without power and we complained. Let me say to my colleagues that was a minor inconvenience compared to what our forces face in Iraq. I know we were all grateful when we finally saw the Pepco truck in our neighborhoods. It was a real boost to our morale.

I can assure you our troops in Iraq are the strongest supporters of us putting up $20 billion to help get Iraq reconstruction started. For them, getting this money will be like seeing the Pepco truck finally enter their neighborhood.

This funding is not charity. The fastest way for us to get our sons and daughters home is to get Iraq back up and running. Congress approved this war, the Congress agreed it was worth the cost to rid the international community of Saddam Hussein. In reviewing this request, it is not a question of whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It is not really relevant if Saddam was or was not linked to Osama bin Laden. It is not a question of whether this war was right or wrong for our country. Those issues will be debated next year as the country determines its next President and its next Congress. It does not matter how we voted last October. This October it is our responsibility to support the men and women in the military who are doing what we required of them.

I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental request to support our military forces to help end this conflict quickly and do all we can to get our sons and daughters home sooner.

Mr. President, it has come to my attention that Mr. Mark Shields, whose syndicated column appears in more than 100 newspapers, including The Washington Post and the St. Petersburg Times, paid tribute in a recent column to our dear friend and colleague, the Honorable Ernest F. Hollings.

That column was most insightful, as it examined the character of Senator Fritz Hollings, who, unfortunately, has announced that he will not be seeking reelection to the U.S. Senate after nearly four decades of service in this Chamber.

I hope that throughout the history of our Nation there will always be a Fritz Hollings. As Mr. Shields noted in his column, Fritz Hollings ``was a leader of uncommon courage and uncommon candor.'' Indeed, Fritz Hollings' leadership, courage, and candor will be sorely missed.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Shields' column, as it appeared on September 5, 2003, in The State, one of the newspapers in Senator Hollings' home State of South Carolina, be printed in the Record.