January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S67 

nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, 

certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical 

nurse specialists, our current Medicaid 

law has not kept up with the multiple 

specialties and titles of these advanced 

practitioners, nor has it recognized the 

critical role physician assistants play 

in the delivery of primary care. 

I have been a long-time advocate of 

advanced practice nurses and their 

ability to extend health care services 

to our most rural and underserved 

communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and 

throughout the United States by their 

willingness to practice in what some 

providers might see as undesirable locations—extremely rural, frontier, or 

urban areas. This legislation ensures 

they are recognized and reimbursed for 

providing the necessary health care 

services patients need, and it gives 

those patients the choice of selecting 

advanced practice nurses and physician 

assistants as their primary care providers. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 63 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid 

Advanced Practice Nurses and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO SERVICES OF ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSES AND 

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS UNDER 

STATE MEDICAID PROGRAMS. 

(a) PRIMARY CARE CASE MANAGEMENT.— 

Section 1905(t)(2) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1396d(t)(2)) is amended by striking 

subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(B) A nurse practitioner (as defined in 

section 1861(aa)(5)(A)). 

‘‘(C) A certified nurse-midwife (as defined 

in section 1861(gg)). 

‘‘(D) A physician assistant (as defined in 

section 1861(aa)(5)(A)).’’. 

(b) FEE-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM.—Section 

1905(a)(21) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) 

is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(21)’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘services furnished by a certified pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family nurse practitioner (as defined 

by the Secretary) which the certified pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family 

nurse practitioner’’ and inserting ‘‘services 

furnished by a nurse practitioner (as defined 

in section 1861(aa)(5)(A)) or by a clinical 

nurse specialist (as defined in section 

1861(aa)(5)(B)) which the nurse practitioner 

or clinical nurse specialist’’; 

(3) by striking ‘‘the certified pediatric 

nurse practitioner or certified family nurse 

practitioner’’ and inserting ‘‘the nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist’’; and 

(4) by inserting before the semicolon at the 

end the following: ‘‘and (B) services furnished by a physician assistant (as defined in 

section 1861(aa)(5)) with the supervision of a 

physician which the physician assistant is 

legally authorized to perform under State 

law’’. 

(c) INCLUDING IN MIX OF SERVICE PROVIDERS

UNDER MEDICAID MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS.—Section 1932(b)(5)(B) of such Act (42 

U.S.C. 1396u–2(b)(5)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, with such mix including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician 

assistants, certified nurse midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (as defined in section 1861(bb)(2))’’ after ‘‘services’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to items 

and services furnished in calendar quarters 

beginning on or after 90 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, without regard 

to whether or not final regulations to carry 

out such amendments have been promulgated by such date. 

By Mr. INOUYE: 

S. 65. A bill to provide relief to the 

Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for settlement of certain claims against the 

United States; to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, almost 

14 years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ‘‘to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in 

Canada to have the merits of their 

claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of 

Federal Claims.’’ 

That bill was introduced as Senate 

Resolution 223, which referred the 

Pottawatomi’s claim to the Chief 

Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims and required the Chief Judge to 

report back to the Senate and provide 

sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to 

determine whether the claim of the 

Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal 

or equitable in nature, and the amount 

of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United 

States. 

Nine years ago, the Chief Judge of 

the Court of Federal Claims reported 

back that the Pottawatomi Nation in 

Canada has a legitimate and credible 

legal claim. By settlement stipulation, 

the United States has taken the position that it would be ‘‘fair, just and equitable’’ to settle the claims of the 

Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the 

sum of $1,830,000. This settlement 

amount was reached by the parties 

after 7 years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the 

Court of Federal Claims concluded that 

the settlement amount is ‘‘not a gratuity’’ and that the ‘‘settlement was 

predicated on a credible legal claim.’’ 

Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. 

v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94–1037X at 

28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer). 

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the payment of those funds 

that the United States has concluded 

would be ‘‘fair, just and equitable’’ to 

satisfy this legal claim from amounts 

appropriated under section 1304 of title 

31 of the United States Code. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a 

measure of justice for a tribal nation 

that has for far too long been denied. 

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying 

legal claim of the Canadian 

Pottawatomi. 

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups—successors-in-interest—of 

the historical Pottawatomi Nation and 

their claim originates in the latter 

part of the 18th century. The historical 

Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to 

the United States. They occupied and 

possessed a vast expanse in what is now 

the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, 

Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 

1833, the United States annexed most of 

the traditional land of the 

Pottawatomi Nation through a series 

of treaties of cession—many of these 

cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. 

In exchange, the Pottawatomis were 

repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure 

and, in addition, that the United 

States would pay certain annuities to 

the Pottawatomi. 

In 1829, the United States formally 

adopted a Federal policy of removal— 

an effort to remove all Indian tribes 

from their traditional lands east of the 

Mississippi River to the west. As part 

of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to 

cede the remainder of their traditional 

lands—some 5 million acres in and 

around the city of Chicago and remove 

themselves west. For years, the 

Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to 

cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, 

pressed by settlers seeking more land, 

sent a Treaty Commission to the 

Pottawatomi with orders to extract a 

cession of the remaining lands. The 

Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks 

using extraordinarily coercive tactics—including threats of war—in an 

attempt to get the Pottawatomis to 

agree to cede their territory. Finally, 

those Pottawatomis who were present 

relented and on September 26, 1933, 

they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as 

the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven 

members of the Pottawatomi Nation 

signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members 

of the ‘‘Wisconsin Band’’ were not 

present and did not assent to the cession. 

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United 

States would give to the Pottawatomis 

5 million acres of comparable land in 

what is now Missouri. The 

Pottawatomi were familiar with the 

Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate 

refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the 

land to 5 million acres in Iowa. The 

Treaty Commissioners were sent back 

to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the 

Iowa land. All but seven of the original 

77 signatories refused to accept the 

change even with promises that if they 

were dissatisfied ‘‘justice would be 

done.’’ Treaty of Chicago, as amended, 

Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of 

Chicago was ratified as amended by the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the 

Pottawatomis sent a delegation to 

evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was 

‘‘not fit for snakes to live on.’’ 

While some Pottawatomis removed 

westward, many of the Pottawatomis— 

particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose 

leaders never agreed to the Treaty—refused to do so. By 1836, the United 

States began to forcefully remove 

Pottawatomis who remained in the 

east—with devastating consequences. 

As is true with many other American 

Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many 

of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid 

on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. 

Those who reached Iowa were almost 

immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their 

will and without their consent. 

Knowing of these conditions, many of 

the Pottawatomis including most of 

those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously 

resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of 

the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it 

necessary to flee to Canada. They were 

often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments 

disclose that many Pottawatomis were 

forced to leave their homes without 

their horses or any of their possessions 

other than the clothes on their backs. 

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any 

Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of 

the Wisconsin Band—those still in 

their traditional territory and those 

forced to flee to Canada—petitioned 

Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty 

of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 

Stat. 172) the Congress declared that 

the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit 

their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the 

Pottawatomi Indians who had refused 

to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United 

States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 

64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of 

memo dated October 7, 1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid 

to the Wisconsin Band. 

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band—most of 

whom now resided in three areas, the 

States of Michigan and Wisconsin and 

the Province of Ontario—petitioned the 

Senate once again to pay them their 

fair portion of annuities as required by 

the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 

57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 

21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the 

Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that 

still remained in the East. In addition, 

the Congress ordered the Secretary to 

determine ‘‘the Wisconsin Bands proportionate shares of the annuities, 

trust funds, and other monies paid to 

or expended for the tribe to which they 

belong in which the claimant Indians 

have not shared, and the amount of 

such monies retained in the Treasury 

of the United States to the credit of 

the claimant Indians as directed the 

provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.’’ 

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the 

Secretary of the Interior directed Dr. 

W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in 

both the United States and Canada. Dr. 

Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin 

Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and 

Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also 

concluded that the proportionate share 

of annuities for the Pottawatomis in 

Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 

and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in 

Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress 

thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 

29, 1928 to satisfy most of the monies 

owed to those Wisconsin Band 

Pottawatomis residing in the United 

States. However, the Wisconsin Band 

Pottawatomis who resided in Canada 

were never paid their share of the tribal funds. 

Since that time, the Pottawatomi 

Nation in Canada has diligently and 

continuously sought to enforce their 

treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never 

been provided their day in court. In 

1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the 

purpose of dealing with claims between 

both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary 

Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the 

Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim 

heard in this international forum. 

Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, 

the Pottawatomis then came to the 

U.S. Congress for redress of their 

claim. 

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the 

Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims 

Commission Act, ICCA, granted the 

Commission jurisdiction over claims 

such as the type involved here. In 1948, 

the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis 

from both sides of the border—brought 

suit together in the Indian Claims 

Commission for recovery of damages. 

Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 

No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 

1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims 

Commission dismissed Pottawatomi 

Nation in Canada’s part of the claim 

ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians 

living outside territorial limits of the 

United States. Hannahville Indian 

Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 

(1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band 

residing in the United States that was 

filed in the Indian Claims Commission 

was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court 

in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community 

v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). 

The Court of Claims concluded that the 

Wisconsin Band was owed a member’s 

proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under 

various treaties, including the Treaty 

of Chicago and entered judgment for 

the American Wisconsin Band 

Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. 

Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA. 

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation 

in Canada came to the Senate and after 

careful consideration, we finally gave 

them their long-awaited day in court 

through the congressional reference 

process. The court has now reported 

back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this 

bill would make constitutes a ‘‘fair, 

just and equitable’’ resolution to this 

claim. 

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada 

has sought justice for over 150 years. 

They have done all that we asked in 

order to establish their claim. Now it is 

time for us to finally live up to the 

promise our government made so many 

years ago. It will not correct all the 

wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is 

willing to admit when it has left 

unfulfilled an obligation and that the 

United States is willing to do what we 

can to see that justice—so long delayed 

is not now denied. 

Finally, I would just note that the 

claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in 

Canada is supported through specific 

resolutions by the National Congress of 

American Indians, the oldest, largest 

and most-representative tribal organization here in the United States, the 

Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in 

Canada, and each and every of the 

Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain 

in the United States today. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 65 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of 

the Treasury shall pay to the Pottawatomi 

Nation in Canada $1,830,000 from amounts appropriated under section 1304 of title 31, 

United States Code. 

(b) PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF SETTLEMENT.— 

The payment under subsection (a) shall— 

(1) be made in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement dated May 22, 

2000, entered into between the Pottawatomi 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S69 

Nation in Canada and the United States (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Stipulation 

for Recommendation of Settlement’’); and 

(2) be included in the report of the Chief 

Judge of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims regarding Congressional Reference 

No. 94–1037X, submitted to the Senate on 

January 4, 2001, in accordance with sections 

1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code. 

(c) FULL SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The 

payment under subsection (a) shall be in full 

satisfaction of all claims of the Pottawatomi 

Nation in Canada against the United States 

that are referred to or described in the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement. 

(d) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, the Indian Tribal 

Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 

U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment under subsection (a). 

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and 

Ms. LANDRIEU): 

S. 66. A bill to amend title 10, United 

States Code, to permit former members 

of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability rated as total 

to travel on military aircraft in the 

same manner and to the same extent as 

retired members of the Armed Forces 

are entitled to travel on such aircraft; 

to the Committee on Armed Services. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I 

am reintroducing a bill which is of 

great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel 

privileges on military aircraft to those 

who have been totally disabled in the 

service of our country. 

Currently, retired members of the 

Armed Services are permitted to travel 

on a space-available basis on nonscheduled military flights within the 

continental United States, and on 

scheduled overseas flights operated by 

the Military Airlift Command. My bill 

would provide the same benefits for 

veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities. 

We owe these heroic men and women 

who have given so much to our country 

a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can 

never repay them for the sacrifices 

they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make 

their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. 

One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these 

distinguished American veterans. I 

have received numerous letters from 

all over the country attesting to the 

importance attached to this issue by 

veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me 

in saying ‘‘thank you’’ by supporting 

this legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 66 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF 

CERTAIN DISABLED FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 10, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after section 1060b the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain 

disabled former members of the armed 

forces 

‘‘The Secretary of Defense shall permit 

any former member of the armed forces who 

is entitled to compensation under the laws 

administered by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs for a service-connected disability 

rated as total to travel, in the same manner 

and to the same extent as retired members of 

the armed forces, on unscheduled military 

flights within the continental United States 

and on scheduled overseas flights operated 

by the Air Mobility Command. The Secretary of Defense shall permit such travel on 

a space-available basis.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of 

such title is amended by inserting after the 

item relating to section 1060b the following 

new item: 

‘‘1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain 

disabled former members of the 

armed forces.’’. 

By Mr. INOUYE: 

S. 67. A bill to amend title 10, United 

States Code, to authorize certain disabled former prisoners of war to use 

Department of Defense commissary 

and exchange stores; to the Committee 

on Armed Services. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I 

am reintroducing legislation to enable 

those former prisoners of war who have 

been separated honorably from their 

respective services and who have been 

rated as having a 30 percent serviceconnected disability to have the use of 

both the military commissary and post 

exchange privileges. While I realize it 

is impossible to adequately compensate 

one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation’s enemies, I do feel this gesture is 

both meaningful and important to 

those concerned because it serves as a 

reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 67 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF 

WAR. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 54 of title 10, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after section 1064 the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1064a. Use of commissary and exchange 

stores: certain disabled former prisoners of 

war 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, former 

prisoners of war described in subsection (b) 

may use commissary and exchange stores. 

‘‘(b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—Subsection (a) 

applies to any former prisoner of war who— 

‘‘(1) separated from active duty in the 

armed forces under honorable conditions; 

and 

‘‘(2) has a service-connected disability 

rated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 

30 percent or more. 

‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) The term ‘former prisoner of war’ has 

the meaning given that term in section 

101(32) of title 38. 

‘‘(2) The term ‘service-connected’ has the 

meaning given that term in section 101(16) of 

title 38.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections at the beginning of chapter 54 of 

such title is amended by inserting after the 

item relating to section 1064 the following 

new item: 

‘‘1064a. Use of commissary and exchange 

stores: certain disabled former 

prisoners of war.’’. 

By Mr. INOUYE: 

S. 68. A bill to require the Secretary 

of the Army to determine the validity 

of the claims of certain Filipinos that 

they performed military service on behalf of the United States during World 

War II; to the Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that 

would direct the Secretary of the Army 

to determine whether certain nationals 

of the Philippine Islands performed 

military service on behalf of the 

United States during World War II. 

Our Filipino veterans fought side by 

side with Americans and sacrificed 

their lives on behalf of the United 

States. This legislation would confirm 

the validity of their claims and further 

allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are 

entitled to. As this population becomes 

older, it is important for our nation to 

extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who 

participated in making us the great 

Nation that we are today. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 68 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the written application of any person who is a national of the 

Philippine Islands, the Secretary of the 

Army shall determine whether such person 

performed any military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the Armed Forces of 

the United States during World War II which 

qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans’, or other benefits under the 

laws of the United States. 

(b) INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED.—In 

making a determination for the purpose of 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 

all information and evidence (relating to 

service referred to in subsection (a)) that is 

available to the Secretary, including information and evidence submitted by the applicant, if any. 

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 

(a) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.— 

The Secretary of the Army shall issue a certificate of service to each person determined 

by the Secretary to have performed military 

service described in section 1(a). 

(b) EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.—A 

certificate of service issued to any person 

under subsection (a) shall, for the purpose of 

any law of the United States, conclusively 

establish the period, nature, and character of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE