Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. This bill provides critical investments that will support the development of clean and alternative energy and utilization of domestic energy resources. Further, this legislation provides much needed resources to improve our Nation's water infrastructure. This bill fosters American innovation in clean energy and energy efficiency. It supports worthy programs that further hydrogen, wind, hydropower, and solar technologies, as well as weatherization assistance for families and programs for building and industrial technologies. These programs better our Nation's security and economy by putting people to work advancing energy independence and sustainability. I am very pleased that working with the senior Senator from Hawaii, we were able to include $6 million in this legislation for the Hawaii Energy Sustainability Program at the University of Hawaii's Hawaii Natural Energy Institute. This funding will allow for the continuation of the program's important work supporting increased use of clean, safe sources of energy. We must continue to invest in the development and implementation of systems to allow for a transition away from foreign oil. As Hawaii relies on imported oil for about 90 percent of its energy needs, work to facilitate this transition is critical to the State's energy security. Moreover, the Hawaii Energy Sustainability Program will provide economic development benefits and will further research valuable in applications both in Hawaii and nationwide. This bill will also help address water infrastructure needs around the country. Provisions contained within the bill permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct essential navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration projects. Such projects are particularly important for Hawaii, given our remote geography and our interconnected and diverse ecosystems. I appreciate the inclusion of nearly $14 million for Hawaii water development and infrastructure projects. As Hawaii is susceptible to threats from severe weather and flooding, I was proud the bill contained specific provisions addressing this need. Working with Senator Inouye, $1 million was included to assist the State of Hawaii and Pacific Territories with updating and preparing comprehensive flood plans. Also, much needed funding for the Ala Wai Canal and Waiakea-Palai Stream flood damage reduction projects is included in the legislaiton. On Oahu, accumulation of silt and debris from the Manoa, Palolo, and Makiki streams has significantly reduced the carrying capacity of the Ala Wai Canal. Funding of $233,000 has been provided to complete necessary studies that will mitigate and reduce flooding threats to property and roads in the Waikiki and neighboring areas, while ensuring public safety and enhancing human and environmental health. Given the damage to roads, residences, bridges, drainage systems, and personal property over the years due to the flooding of Waiakea and Palai Streams, $300,000 has been included to initiate the Precontruction Engineering and Design phase needed to minimize flooding in the affected communities. We know from experience that investment in wise stewardship and management at a watershed level will have a significant positive impact on numerous natural resources. For the island of Maui, I was involved in securing $100,000 for the West Maui Watershed to initiate a study that may ultimately result in additional watershed improvements. A completed reconnaissance study for the area has already identified flood damage reduction, aquatic and marine ecosystem restoration, and shoreline protection projects that could be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers along with county and State agency partners. Further, recognizing that shoreline erosion threatens upland development and coastal habitats along much of Hawaii's shoreline, I worked to include $500,000 for a regional sediment management demonstration program to better understand the dynamics of complex coastal processes and promote the development of long-term strategies for sediment management. These resources will assist in protecting communities from severe weather and further conservation efforts in coastal communities. I am encouraged by the inclusion of provisions that will invest in our science and technology sectors and enhance U.S. competitiveness. It is vital that we support the research and development of sustainable and clean energy technologies. Such efforts empower us as a country to reduce our reliability on foreign oil and strengthen our ability to meet our energy needs domestically. In conclusion, I thank the senior Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their efforts in developing and managing this bill through the legislative process.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the resolution offered by my colleague and dear friend, Senator Inouye, and passed by this body. It is a resolution honoring the historic milestone of Hawaii's 50th anniversary of statehood. In the center of the Pacific on islands rising from the bottom of the ocean, Hawaii joined our great and diverse Nation as its 50th State 50 years ago. Similar to the 49 States that came before it, Hawaii has something unique to share with the world. Everyone who is born in Hawaii or comes to Hawaii embraces the aloha spirit as a value and way of life. The aloha spirit is good for the United States and it is good for the world. I was a teacher at Kamehameha Schools when Congress voted to make Hawaii the 50th State in March of 1959. Fire crackers and sirens went off across the island of Oahu in celebration. The bells at historic Kawaihao Church started to ring and hundreds of people gathered there. The next day, the newspaper headlines hailed the good news. My brother, Rev. Dr. Abraham Akaka, who was minister at Kawaihao Church, delivered the sermon. Brother Abe named Hawaii ``The Aloha State,'' and 50 years later we still call it that. I would like to quote a few words my brother said on that historic day in March of 1959: Aloha consists of this new attitude of heart, above negativism, above legalism. It is the unconditional desire to promote the true good of other people in a friendly spirit, out of a sense of kinship. Aloha seeks to do good, with no conditions attached. We do not do good only to those who do good to us. One of the sweetest things about the love of God, about Aloha, is that it welcomes the stranger and seeks his good. A person who has the spirit of Aloha loves even when the love is not returned. And such is the love of God. This is the meaning of aloha, Hawaii's gift to the cultural fabric of the United States and the world. While we celebrate this landmark anniversary next month, we must remember that the privileges of statehood came with obligations. Hawaii and the United States have a sacred trust relationship with the indigenous people of Hawaii that still remains to be fulfilled. In admitting Hawaii as the 50th State, Congress and the people of Hawaii have recognized the importance of addressing the needs of Native Hawaiians and preservation of their culture and traditions. I am proud to continue this legacy as we move forward with that promise. I congratulate Hawaii and its people on 50 years of statehood. I am proud to represent this great State in the Senate.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to craft the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill provides our troops with the resources, training and equipment they need to fulfill their mission. It takes care of our troops and their families, including a 3.4-percent across-the-board pay raise. Additionally, it authorizes fiscal year 2010 end strengths to allow for the expansion of our Armed Forces and provide a greater time period between deployments, which will ease some of the burden placed on our troops and their families. This bill includes important language to ensure that the Iraqi and Afghan governments take more responsibility for ensuring their own security and stability. It provides nearly $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and National Police Force; extends for one year the authority for the Department of Defense--DOD--to support State Department programs for security and stabilization assistance; emphasizes the need to establish comprehensive measures of progress for the administration's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and report regularly to Congress on progress in the region; and provides funding for the Commanders' Emergency Response program in Iraq and Afghanistan to enable Commanders to quickly fund humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects and authorizes funds to promote Afghan-led local development. I am pleased that this bill provides our brave men and women in uniform the equipment, training and support they require. The bill fully funds readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that forces are trained and their equipment deployment ready. This bill provides $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. This is very timely as there have been reports of stepped up use of Improvised Explosive Devices--IED--in Afghanistan. In light of the recent missile tests conducted by North Korea, the authorization to convert six additional Aegis ships for missile defense capabilities and field additional Terminal High Altitude Air Defense--THAAD--and Standard Missile 3--SM-3--missile defense capabilities is very timely. As a long time proponent of corrosion control for DOD systems, I am happy to note that this bill provides for corrosion protection to keep equipment working effectively for a longer period of time. This is especially important in light of our current budget situation. If we can protect our systems from the detrimental effects of corrosion and make them last longer, it will save valuable resources. As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we must ensure that there is thorough oversight of the Department of Defense's programs and activities. This bill takes important steps to accomplish this including, enhancing the ability of the DOD IG to conduct audits by authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses; requiring DOD to justify all sole-source contract awards in excess of $20 million; and improving DOD financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business process reengineering before it approves a new business system modernization program. One of my priorities as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is to ensure our servicemembers and veterans receive the health care services they need, including treatment for invisible wounds of war such as post-traumatic stress disorder. I am pleased that this bill takes some important steps in caring for our troops. For example, it: Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel and to consider the feasibility of additional officers and enlisted specialties as behavioral health counselors; authorizes the service secretaries to detail up to 25 officers each year as students to study for doctorate degrees in clinical psychology; requires person- to-person mental health assessments at designated intervals for servicemembers deployed in connection with contingency operations; requires an assessment of case management services for behavioral health care under TRICARE; authorizes travel and transportation allowances for up to three individuals to travel with seriously injured or wounded individuals during their inpatient stay; authorizes compensation to caregivers for the assistance they provide to servicemembers with combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in daily living; and, requires the Department of Defense to initiate a process of reform and improvement of the TRICARE system. It extends eligibility for TRICARE Standard to gray area retirees. I have also worked to improve the collaboration and cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help smooth the transition from military to civilian life. I applaud the inclusion of language in this bill that requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the exchange of medical data between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, an issue I have worked on with Chairman Levin. In addition, the bill authorizes the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly operate a Federal Health Care Center to showcase its ability to work in unison to serve current and former servicemembers. This bill exemplifies what can be achieved when we put aside our party differences and work together to support our military. Moreover, it demonstrates our commitment to provide our troops and their families with the support that they require and deserve.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator for the clarification. First, I understand the current economic climate. I want the Federal Government to save as much money as it can and to reduce all the inefficiencies there are. My amendment would do that. My amendment also has been supported by a bipartisan group of Senators. I am proud that the cosponsors include Senators Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin, Inouye, Webb, and Warner. It is a bipartisan effort to correct certain inequities in the Federal retirement system. That has been our effort in these amendments. Also, this effort was supported by a huge number of groups. Some of the organizations are: The American Federation of Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union; International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; American Postal Workers Union; National Association of Letter Carriers; National Rural Letter Carriers Association; National Federation of Federal Employees; National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; Senior Executives Association; Federal Managers Association; Government Managers Coalition; National Association of Postal Supervisors; National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.; and the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. That is the kind of support we have. This amendment will ensure that all Federal employees are treated the same when it comes to retirement. This will save money, due to the reduced lost days of work and avoid unnecessary employee transfers, which reduces the need for additional training; reduces litigation costs borne by the government due to different treatment of different classes of employees; improve employee morale, which increases efficiency; and ensure that we are able to transfer institutional knowledge to the next generation of Federal workers. OPM estimates that $68 million is wasted per year because of the different leave policies in effect. In fact, the amendment would certainly help in that respect. My amendment will reduce the Federal deficit by $36 million over 10 years. This amendment has the bipartisan support of the committee of jurisdiction and by both managers and employees. I have read a list of the others who support it. This is a good government bill that protects the taxpayers' dollars. I look forward to continuing this effort. I want to at this time say that this is a good amendment. I will fight for these provisions in conference. But I don't want to hold up the Defense authorization bill. Under the circumstances, I will withdraw this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1522 to enhance the retirement security of Federal employees.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Coburn for allowing me to speak at this time. I have been working with him in our Committee on Homeland Security. We have taken up these amendments in committee. I think I am correct when I say that Senator Coburn at the time did support these amendments.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, I am proud to join with Senators Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin, Inouye, Webb, and Warner in this bipartisan effort to correct certain inequities in the Federal Government retirement system. This amendment is very similar to an amendment that was included in the House-passed fiscal year 2010 national Defense authorization bill. Each of these revisions is much needed and has been thoroughly debated by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Many of the changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans and are strongly supported by many organizations. The list of supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major Federal employee union, postal unions, supervisors, and postmasters, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and several government managers groups. I spoke in more detail last evening about the substance of the amendment. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA. Yes.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, may I further comment that these provisions, without question, are much needed in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories. COLA rates, and with them the pay of Federal employees, are slated to go down later this year if we do not act. This is the reason we are trying to move it at this time. Most of these employees in Hawaii are defense employees, as in these other States and territories as well. The provisions on this issue are nearly identical to the bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. Most of the provisions are in the House Defense authorization bill. Again, Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories received untaxed cost-of- living allowances that do not count toward retirement instead of locality pay that other Federal employees receive. This bill grew out of a Bush administration proposal in response to repeated litigation over the different systems. This transition will cost a substantial amount of money for several reasons. The budget implications are better than they appear. A large portion of appropriated costs of the COLA provisions are intergovernmental transfers from Federal employers to either the annuity or the Social Security trust fund. According to the CBO report, employer contributions, intragovernmental transactions, do not affect the deficit. Many employees in Hawaii and Alaska and the territories, of course, are looking at this as something that is necessary as they continue to work in the Federal Government in this area. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 1522 to S. 1390. I understand there is not yet an agreement to consider the amendment, but I am hopeful there will be one soon. Amendment No. 1522 would enhance the retirement security of Federal employees and address inequities in the system. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, I am proud to join with Senators Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin, Inouye, Webb, and Warner in this bipartisan amendment. Each of these revisions is much needed and has been thoroughly debated by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Many of the changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans and are strongly supported by many organizations. The list of supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major Federal employee union; postal unions, supervisors, and postmasters; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and several government managers groups. Most important to my home State of Hawaii, the amendment provides retirement equity to Federal employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories. More than 23,000 Federal employees in Hawaii, including more than 17,000 Defense Department employees and another 30,000 Federal employees in Alaska and the territories, currently receive a cost-of-living allowance which is not taxed and does not count for retirement. Because of this, workers in the nonforeign areas retire with significantly lower annuities than their counterparts in the 48 States and DC. COLA rates are scheduled to go down later this year, along with the pay of nearly 50,000 Federal employees if we do not provide this fix. In 2007, I introduced the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in October 2008. Unfortunately, the House did not have time to consider the bill before adjournment. I reintroduced S. 507, which is included in the amendment, with Senators Murkowski, Inouye, and Begich. It is nearly identical to the bill that passed the Senate last year. It is a bipartisan effort to transition employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories to the same locality pay system used in the rest of the United States while protecting employees' take-home pay. The measure passed unanimously through the committee on April 1, 2009. The second provision I wish to highlight corrects how employees' annuities are calculated for part-time service under the Civil Service Retirement System. This provision removes a disincentive that now discourages Federal employees near retirement from working on a part- time basis while phasing into retirement. It would treat Federal employees under CSRS the same way they are treated under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System. The third provision I wish to discuss would allow FERS participants to apply their unused sick leave to their length of service for computing their retirement annuities as is done for CSRS employees. The Congressional Research Service found that FERS employees within 2 years of retirement eligibility used 25 percent more sick leave than similarly situated CSRS employees. OPM also found that the disparity in sick leave usage costs the Federal Government approximately $68 million in productivity each year. This solution was proposed by Federal managers who wanted additional tools to build a more efficient and productive workplace and to provide employees with an incentive not to use sick leave unnecessarily near retirement. Finally, I wish to add that this amendment will make good on the recruitment promise made to a small group of Secret Service agents. Approximately 180 Secret Service agents and officers hired from 1984 through 1986 were promised access to the DC Police and Firefighter Retirement and Disability System. This amendment is meant to provide narrow and specific relief only to this small group of agents and officers by allowing them to access the retirement system they were promised at the time they were hired. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act of 2009. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Inouye, Kennedy and Cantwell, have joined me in introducing this bill. Our bill will reunite Filipino World War II veterans who are U.S. citizens and U.S. residents with their children in the Philippines, who have languished for years on the visa waiting list. In seeking an exemption from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas for the children of the Filipino veterans, our bill will address and resolve an issue rooted in a set of historical circumstances that are now nearly 7 decades old. In 1934, the Philippines, an American possession since 1898, was placed on the path to independence. The enactment of the Philippine Independence Act established the Philippines as a commonwealth with certain powers over its internal affairs but with the United States retaining sovereign power. It also set a 10-year timetable for the commonwealth's independence from the U.S. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to Japan's increasingly aggressive military posture in Asia and the Pacific by issuing a presidential order that called and ordered into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States all of the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The authority for this presidential order was the Philippine Independence Act, which retained for the United States sovereign power over the commonwealth. Accordingly, over 200,000 Filipinos were drafted into the United States armed forces, and served honorably during World War II. In 1942, Congress passed the Second War Powers Act, including Sections 701 and 702, Nationality Act of 1940, which authorized the naturalization of all aliens serving in the U.S. armed forces. Pursuant to this act, about 7,000 Filipinos serving in the U.S. armed forces outside the Philippines became U.S. citizens. Naturalization of the Filipinos who had served in the U.S. armed forces in the Philippines began in Manila in August 1945, but was halted two months later when the American vice consul's naturalization authority was revoked. At the time, U.S. officials indicated that the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines had expressed concerns that the naturalization, and likely emigration to the U.S., of the Filipino veterans would drain the soon-to-be-independent Philippines of essential manpower and undermine the new nation's postwar reconstruction efforts. Others, however, believed this was a pretext for what came to be known as the Rescissions Act of 1946. In February and May 1946, the 79th Congress passed the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, PL 79-301, and the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, PL 79-391, respectively. Now collectively known as the Rescissions Act of 1946, PL 79-301 authorized a $200 million appropriation to the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines conditioned on a provision that service in the Commonwealth Army of the Phillippines should not be deemed to have been service in the active military or air service of the U.S. It would take Congress more than four decades to acknowledge that the Filipino World War II veterans had, indeed, served in the U.S. armed forces. The Immigration Act of 1990 included a provision that offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship to those Filipino veterans who had not been naturalized pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940. And nineteen years later, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, of 2009 included a provision that authorized the payment of benefits to the 30,000 surviving Filipino veterans in the amount of $15,000 for those who are citizens and $9,000 for those who are non-citizens. Of the 30,000 surviving Filipino World War II veterans, 7,000 are U.S. citizens and reside in this country. Many of these U.S. citizens filed visa petitions for their children, who remained in the Philippines. Now in their eighties and nineties, these men continue to wait for their children, who languish on the visa waiting lists, to join them. The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act exempts the veterans' children, about 20,000 individuals in all, from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas. It does not require any appropriation and will serve to not only reunite these veterans with their children, but also honor their too-long-forgotten World War II service to this Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act of 2009. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Inouye, Kennedy and Cantwell, have joined me in introducing this bill. Our bill will reunite Filipino World War II veterans who are U.S. citizens and U.S. residents with their children in the Philippines, who have languished for years on the visa waiting list. In seeking an exemption from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas for the children of the Filipino veterans, our bill will address and resolve an issue rooted in a set of historical circumstances that are now nearly 7 decades old. In 1934, the Philippines, an American possession since 1898, was placed on the path to independence. The enactment of the Philippine Independence Act established the Philippines as a commonwealth with certain powers over its internal affairs but with the United States retaining sovereign power. It also set a 10-year timetable for the commonwealth's independence from the U.S. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to Japan's increasingly aggressive military posture in Asia and the Pacific by issuing a presidential order that called and ordered into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States all of the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. The authority for this presidential order was the Philippine Independence Act, which retained for the United States sovereign power over the commonwealth. Accordingly, over 200,000 Filipinos were drafted into the United States armed forces, and served honorably during World War II. In 1942, Congress passed the Second War Powers Act, including Sections 701 and 702, Nationality Act of 1940, which authorized the naturalization of all aliens serving in the U.S. armed forces. Pursuant to this act, about 7,000 Filipinos serving in the U.S. armed forces outside the Philippines became U.S. citizens. Naturalization of the Filipinos who had served in the U.S. armed forces in the Philippines began in Manila in August 1945, but was halted two months later when the American vice consul's naturalization authority was revoked. At the time, U.S. officials indicated that the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines had expressed concerns that the naturalization, and likely emigration to the U.S., of the Filipino veterans would drain the soon-to-be-independent Philippines of essential manpower and undermine the new nation's postwar reconstruction efforts. Others, however, believed this was a pretext for what came to be known as the Rescissions Act of 1946. In February and May 1946, the 79th Congress passed the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, PL 79-301, and the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, PL 79-391, respectively. Now collectively known as the Rescissions Act of 1946, PL 79-301 authorized a $200 million appropriation to the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines conditioned on a provision that service in the Commonwealth Army of the Phillippines should not be deemed to have been service in the active military or air service of the U.S. It would take Congress more than four decades to acknowledge that the Filipino World War II veterans had, indeed, served in the U.S. armed forces. The Immigration Act of 1990 included a provision that offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship to those Filipino veterans who had not been naturalized pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940. And nineteen years later, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, of 2009 included a provision that authorized the payment of benefits to the 30,000 surviving Filipino veterans in the amount of $15,000 for those who are citizens and $9,000 for those who are non-citizens. Of the 30,000 surviving Filipino World War II veterans, 7,000 are U.S. citizens and reside in this country. Many of these U.S. citizens filed visa petitions for their children, who remained in the Philippines. Now in their eighties and nineties, these men continue to wait for their children, who languish on the visa waiting lists, to join them. The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act exempts the veterans' children, about 20,000 individuals in all, from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas. It does not require any appropriation and will serve to not only reunite these veterans with their children, but also honor their too-long-forgotten World War II service to this Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. This ``by-request'' bill consists of several provisions addressing major facility construction projects and major facility leases for fiscal year 2010. It would authorize five major medical facility construction projects and fifteen major facility leases. The bill would authorize $1,196,230,000 for the major facility construction projects and $196,227,000 for the major facility leases. I am introducing this bill for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the administration. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have not taken a position on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration. This ``by-request'' bill consists of several provisions addressing major facility construction projects and major facility leases for fiscal year 2010. It would authorize five major medical facility construction projects and fifteen major facility leases. The bill would authorize $1,196,230,000 for the major facility construction projects and $196,227,000 for the major facility leases. I am introducing this bill for the review and consideration of my colleagues at the request of the administration. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have not taken a position on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am, along with Senators Voinovich, Leahy, Tester, Baucus, and Carper, introducing the Providing for Additional Security in States' Identification Act of 2009, or the PASS ID Act. This bill represents a pragmatic approach to resolving many of the most troubling aspects of the REAL ID Act, which has been in place for the past 4 years. REAL ID was intended to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendation for enhancing the security of drivers' licenses. I support the 9/11 Commission's recommendation, but I have been a long-time opponent of the existing REAL ID Act due to the tremendous financial burden it imposes on States and the serious privacy risks it creates. Initially, DHS estimated the cost of implementing REAL ID to be $23 billion, of which $14 billion would be borne by the States. In the final regulations, DHS's overall cost estimate decreased to $10 billion, $4 billion of which States would have to pay. Many States are facing serious budget shortfalls and simply cannot afford this cost. Additionally, REAL ID calls for all States to store copies of individuals' documents such as birth certificates and their photographs in databases and to provide all other State Departments of Motor Vehicles with access to that information. REAL ID does not require any privacy protection of these State databases, which would contain massive amounts of personal information. These databases could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves and the backbone for a national identification database. Because of these problems, the Department of Homeland Security has been forced to provide a series of extensions for compliance. All 50 States plus the District of Columbia and the territories were granted extensions until December 31, 2009. DHS may automatically grant States further extensions to May 11, 2011, if they meet certain benchmarks for compliance. Under the final regulations, complete implementation is required by December 1, 2017. Even under this drawn out timeline, it is unclear if many States will comply. Several States, including Hawaii, have passed resolutions expressing their opposition to REAL ID. Eleven States have outright rejected REAL ID, putting millions of Americans at risk of not being able to enter Federal facilities or board commercial airplanes next year if they do not meet DHS benchmarks. Americans' personal information could also be compromised if REAL ID were to fully take effect in its current form. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. Because of my grave concerns with the REAL ID program, during the last Congress, I along with several of my colleagues introduced the Identity Security Enhancement Act, which would have repealed the REAL ID Act and replaced it with a negotiated rulemaking process that would have enhanced the security of State driver's licenses while also providing for strong privacy protections. Unfortunately, this bill did not advance, and we are now closer than ever to forcing states to ensure compliance with REAL ID. I along with my colleagues, the Department of Homeland Security, privacy and civil liberties groups, and the National Governors Association and National Council of State Legislators--representing a broad range of views on REAL ID--have been working together to develop a bill that will address the onerous problems with REAL ID in a practical manner that can win bipartisan support. I believe that the bill we are introducing represents a pragmatic alternative to REAL ID, which will save States considerable money and address the most troubling aspects of the REAL ID Act. The PASS ID Act does exactly what the 9/11 Commission recommended: it sets strong security standards for the issuance of identification cards and driver's licenses. What it does not do is go far beyond that recommendation by requiring the collection of Americans' personal information and storing it in a centralized repository accessible by any State government. This legislation starts with repealing the existing flawed REAL ID Act, and replaces it with a modification of the original act that peels away the most troubling aspects that add high costs without real security benefits, and implements strong new protections to protect the privacy rights of individuals. Perhaps the most important improvement in the PASS ID Act is the removal of the mandate that States share all of their driver's license data with each of the other States. This provision created a clear risk to the privacy of all Americans' personal information and posed a great risk for identity theft and fraud. Moreover, it was this provision that raised the specter of a national database of all Americans' personal information. The PASS ID Act instead will allow States to continue to maintain their own individual databases with more stringent security requirements. In addition, the PASS ID Act includes all of the privacy protections called for in my previous bill, the Identity Security Enhancement Act. The bill calls on the States to put procedures in place to protect information that is stored or transmitted in an electronic format. The bill also for the first time protects any machine readable data stored on identification cards and driver's licenses themselves. In particular, Social Security numbers, which are not allowed to be printed on the face of a license, would no longer be allowed to be stored in the machine readable zone, MRZ, of a license either. Because of the ability of licenses to hold more and more electronic information, it is also important to institute important new protections for the use of the data stored on licenses. A new industry is growing up surrounding the collection and sale of data stored in MRZs for marketing purposes. Often people are not informed that their personal information is being collected and might be tracked with their purchases or sold to third parties. This bill would allow scanning of licenses to support law enforcement purposes but not for other purposes. For example, a store would be able to scan a driver's license to double check that the patron is old enough to buy alcohol, but it would not be allowed to sell the information on the card to marketers. This is an important step forward to ensure that privacy and security protections keep pace with technology, while still ensuring that the MRZ can be used for its intended purposes. The other change that I want to point out is the clarification of Americans' right to travel on commercial aircraft and to enter Federal buildings. The current law restricts these rights by requiring a REAL ID to board commercial aircraft and to enter Federal buildings. This bill recognizes the importance of secure identification to increase the safety and security of commercial air travel and a narrower range of Federal buildings. Compliant State identification will remain the preferred method to board an aircraft, but the PASS ID Act will clarify that people cannot be denied boarding solely because they lack secure identification. The Transportation Security Administration will resolve any security concerns with people lacking a PASS ID the same way they resolve other security issues--with additional screening or other inquiries as needed. Additionally, PASS ID would narrow the secure identification requirement from all Federal buildings to only Federal facilities containing mission functions critical to homeland security, national security, or defense. This bill does not address all of my concerns with REAL ID. Some others will be disappointed that it does not address all of their concerns. However, the reality that we face is that in less than a year, States will be required to comply with a law on the books that simply is overly burdensome and unworkable. I believe that the legislation introduced today is the best bill that can garner broad bipartisan support. It represents a strong step toward fixing the most serious shortfalls in the REAL ID Act and would introduce long-overdue, important new protections. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we are working to address a seriously flawed law already on the books. I urge my colleagues to talk to your Governors and other State government officials, your constituents, and to privacy experts to understand just how much this legislation does to improve existing law. By taking the time to work with all stakeholders, I think that we have achieved a solution that leaves us much better off than we are today. As always, my goal remains to ensure the privacy rights of all Americans, and I will continue to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that privacy rights are protected fully during the implementation of PASS ID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Tobacco products kill approximately 400,000 people each year. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, must be provided with the authority to regulate deadly tobacco products, restrict advertising, and further restrict access of tobacco to children. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that almost 10 percent of Hawaii high school students smoke. Flavored cigarettes are one of the repulsive methods used by tobacco companies to get children and teenagers to start smoking. In 2004, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company tried to exploit images of my home state of Hawaii and the name of one of our islands in an attempt to make smoking more attractive. One of the cigarettes, which was named Kauai Kolada, was flavored with hints of pineapple and coconut. Another lime-flavored cigarette was featured in the predatory marketing campaign. It was extraordinarily offensive that a manufacturer of such a deadly product would exploit and taint the images and names from Hawaii in an attempt to attract young smokers. This is just one example of some of the products and marketing used to attract young people to become smokers. This legislation includes a long overdue prohibition on fruit and candy flavored cigarettes. It also will permit the FDA to restrict advertising, marketing, and sales practices in an attempt to further limit the access of tobacco products to children. This bill will help protect our children and improve the public health of our country. We must prevent tobacco companies from cultivating another generation of smokers so that they can increase sales and reap more profits at the expense of the health and well-being of our families. In order to supplement the loss in revenue from this bill, the House added provisions to increase revenue through the introduction of a Roth-like option for Thrift Savings Plan participants. The additional revenue also covered a number of annuity enhancement, correction, and equity provisions for Federal employees. The Lieberman amendment included these provisions as well as the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act, to provide Federal employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories locality pay. I strongly supported the Lieberman amendment and all the Federal employee annuitant provisions, and I am very disappointed that a lack of cooperation for this bipartisan amendment led to its defeat. I am hopeful that we will be able to address these critical issues to Federal employees very soon. I appreciate all of the work done on this important issue by my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and my friends from Connecticut, Senators Dodd and Lieberman. I look forward to the enactment of this vital legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Administrative Judge Leave Equity Act, a bill to provide leave equity for Administrative Law Judges, ALSs, Contract Board of Appeals Judges, CBAJs, and Immigration Law Judges. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend, Senator Mark Pryor. In 2004, Congress passed the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act, which changed the leave accrual rate for mid- career employees entering the Federal workforce. Under the Act, agency heads were given the discretion to allow workers to qualify a period of an employee's non-Federal career experience as a period of Federal service. Additionally, the Act stated that all senior executives and senior-level employees accrued annual leave at the maximum rate of eight hours for each biweekly pay period. Although senior executives were placed under a pay-for-performance system, administrative law judges accrued leave at the maximum rate, the same as other senior-level employees. Under the last administration, the Office of Personnel Management denied administrative law judges leave equity because they are not under a pay-for-performance system. I believe it is inappropriate for administrative law judges to be placed under any type of pay-for- performance system because it could compromise their independence. Independent decisionmaking is essential for administrative law judges, and is the reason ALJs and CBAJs do not receive bonus awards. Currently, there is a shortage of ALJs to adjudicate benefits claims in the Social Security Administration. There are approximately 765,000 cases pending and not enough ALJs to process the backlog. I believe this bill will provide the Federal Government with an important tool in its efforts to recruit and retain highly-skilled administrative law judges. I am pleased that this bill enjoys broad support from employee groups that represent administrative law judges, including the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the Association of Hearing Office Chief Judges, the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, the Forum of U.S. Administrative Law Judges, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the Senior Executives Association. The time has come to give administrative law judges the same benefits as other senior-level employees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Administrative Judge Leave Equity Act, a bill to provide leave equity for Administrative Law Judges, ALSs, Contract Board of Appeals Judges, CBAJs, and Immigration Law Judges. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend, Senator Mark Pryor. In 2004, Congress passed the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act, which changed the leave accrual rate for mid- career employees entering the Federal workforce. Under the Act, agency heads were given the discretion to allow workers to qualify a period of an employee's non-Federal career experience as a period of Federal service. Additionally, the Act stated that all senior executives and senior-level employees accrued annual leave at the maximum rate of eight hours for each biweekly pay period. Although senior executives were placed under a pay-for-performance system, administrative law judges accrued leave at the maximum rate, the same as other senior-level employees. Under the last administration, the Office of Personnel Management denied administrative law judges leave equity because they are not under a pay-for-performance system. I believe it is inappropriate for administrative law judges to be placed under any type of pay-for- performance system because it could compromise their independence. Independent decisionmaking is essential for administrative law judges, and is the reason ALJs and CBAJs do not receive bonus awards. Currently, there is a shortage of ALJs to adjudicate benefits claims in the Social Security Administration. There are approximately 765,000 cases pending and not enough ALJs to process the backlog. I believe this bill will provide the Federal Government with an important tool in its efforts to recruit and retain highly-skilled administrative law judges. I am pleased that this bill enjoys broad support from employee groups that represent administrative law judges, including the Association of Administrative Law Judges, the Association of Hearing Office Chief Judges, the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, the Forum of U.S. Administrative Law Judges, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and the Senior Executives Association. The time has come to give administrative law judges the same benefits as other senior-level employees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to support the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Tobacco products kill approximately 400,000 people each year. The Food and Drug Administration must be provided with the authority to regulate deadly tobacco products, limit advertising, and further restrict children's access to tobacco. I commend my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, for his long-term commitment to advancing this vital public health legislation, and I want to thank my friend from Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd, for managing this bill. I am proud to support their efforts. Included in the bill are a number of Federal retirement provisions that go a long way to support retirement security and provide more options for Federal employees. The provisions in the managers' amendment would make four changes to enhance the Thrift Savings Plan, TSP. First, automatic enrollment in the TSP would encourage Federal workers to plan for their retirement. Federal employees would be automatically enrolled in the TSP with the option of opting out of the program. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board--FRTIB--indicated that raising TSP participation by just 1 percent would mean approximately 21,000 participants will have an improved ability to live comfortably in retirement. Second, Federal employees also will be eligible for immediate matching TSP contributions from their employing agency. A recent survey from the profit sharing--401k Council of America shows that 65 percent of large employers now provide immediate matching retirement contributions. The amendment would allow the Federal Government to catch up to the practices of other large employers. Third, FRTIB will have the option to create a ``mutual fund window'' in which major mutual funds will be available to TSP participants. Employees will be able to select mutual funds that are appropriate for their investment needs. The final TSP component is the addition of a Roth individual retirement account option for participants. The Department of Defense strongly supports the inclusion of a Roth option because it is advantageous for uniformed servicemembers who would benefit more from posttax contributions than from traditional pretax contributions. I also am proud to support my other good friend from Connecticut, Senator Joseph Lieberman in offering an amendment to address a number of other Federal employee retirement issues. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, I believe we have an opportunity to provide critical support to the tobacco bill and correct certain retirement inequities. Most important to my home State of Hawaii, the amendment provides needed retirement equity to Federal employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories. Nearly 20,000 Federal employees in Hawaii, and another 30,000 Federal employees in Alaska and the territories, currently receive a cost-of-living allowance, COLA, which is not taxed and does not count for retirement purposes. Because of this, workers in the nonforeign areas retire with significantly lower annuities than their counterparts in the 48 States and DC. COLA rates are scheduled to go down later this year along with the pay of nearly 50,000 Federal employees if we do not provide this fix. In 2007, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, offered a proposal to correct this retirement inequity. After soliciting input from the affected employees, I introduced the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in October 2008. Unfortunately, the House did not have time to consider the bill before adjournment. I reintroduced S. 507, which is included in the amendment, with Senators Lisa Murkowski, Daniel Inouye, and Mark Begich. It is nearly identical to the bill that passed the Senate last year. It is a bipartisan effort to transition employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories to the same locality pay system used in the rest of the United States, while protecting employees' take-home pay. In this current economic climate we must be careful not to reduce employees' pay. The measure passed unanimously through the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on April 1, 2009. OPM recently sent Congress a letter asking for prompt and favorable action on this measure. Retirement equity is one of the most important issues facing Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories. I urge my colleagues to support this change. One of the other provisions in the amendment corrects how employees' annuities are calculated for part-time service under the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS. This provision treats Federal employees under CSRS the same way they are treated under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System, FERS. Eliminating this unnecessary disparity is a matter of fairness and correction. Similarly, this amendment includes a provision to treat unused sick leave the same under the new retirement system as under the old system. The Congressional Research Service , CRS, found that FERS employees within 2 years of retirement eligibility used 25 percent more sick leave than CSRS employees within 2 years of retirement. OPM also found that the disparity in sick leave usage costs the Federal Government approximately $68 million in productivity each year. This solution was proposed by the managers who wanted additional tools to build a more efficient and productive workplace and to provide employees with an incentive Congress should have retained years ago. This amendment also will make good on the recruitment promise made to a small group of Secret Service agents. Approximately 180 Secret Service agents and officers hired during 1984 through 1986 were promised access to the DC Police and Firefighter Retirement and Disability System. This amendment is meant to provide narrow and specific relief only to this small group of agents and officers by allowing them to access the retirement system they were promised at the time they were hired. The majority of these retirement reform provisions have the endorsement of all the major Federal employee groups including: the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Active and Retired Federal Employee Association, the Senior Executives Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Government Managers Coalition, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the list goes on. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Danny K. Davis, to reintroduce the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act of 2009. This legislation promotes greater diversity among the Federal Government's elite corps of senior executives and establishes a central office of management for these top-level Federal executives. Last year, we introduced this bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was not able to pass the bill before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. The Senior Executive Service, SES, is the most senior level of career civil servants in the Federal Government. Senior executives are essential to an efficient and effective Federal Government in management and operations. Over the next ten years, ninety percent of the career SES will be eligible to retire. As agencies begin to consider employees for SES positions, it is important that they develop pipelines into highly qualified candidate pools that represent diverse backgrounds, and ensure that applicants of all races, ethnicities, genders, and abilities be equally considered. According to reports by the Government Accountability Office, a diverse SES can bring a greater variety of perspectives and approaches to policy development, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. A 2007 Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program report by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, showed that the percentage of minorities and women at senior pay levels in the Federal Government, including SES, is lower than in the total civilian labor force and the Federal workforce as a whole. According to a 2007 GAO report, only 15.8 percent of the SES was minorities compared to 32.8 percent of the entire workforce. The Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act directly addresses this gap. This legislation would require Federal agencies to submit a plan to OPM on how the agency is removing barriers to minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities to obtain appointments in the SES. The bill encourages agencies, to the extent practicable, to include minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities on their Executive Resource Boards as well as other qualification review boards that evaluate SES candidates. Furthermore, the legislation re-establishes the Senior Executive Service Resource Office, SESRO, at OPM, which was dissolved during an internal reorganization of OPM in 2003. This bill would restore SESRO's responsibilities of overseeing and managing the corps of senior executives. SESRO would serve as a central resource for agencies and provide oversight of agency recruitment and candidate development. Additionally, it would be responsible for ensuring diversity within the SES through strategic partnerships, mentorship programs, and more stringent reporting requirements. For too long, ethnic minorities, women, and persons with disabilities have been under-represented and this bill attempts to reform shortcomings in the system. In America's workforce, we need leadership that reflects its varied cultures and backgrounds. A more diverse SES will better ensure that the executive management of the Federal Government is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my fellow, Louise Kitamura, be granted the privileges of the floor for today.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Danny K. Davis, to reintroduce the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act of 2009. This legislation promotes greater diversity among the Federal Government's elite corps of senior executives and establishes a central office of management for these top-level Federal executives. Last year, we introduced this bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was not able to pass the bill before the adjournment of the 110th Congress. The Senior Executive Service, SES, is the most senior level of career civil servants in the Federal Government. Senior executives are essential to an efficient and effective Federal Government in management and operations. Over the next ten years, ninety percent of the career SES will be eligible to retire. As agencies begin to consider employees for SES positions, it is important that they develop pipelines into highly qualified candidate pools that represent diverse backgrounds, and ensure that applicants of all races, ethnicities, genders, and abilities be equally considered. According to reports by the Government Accountability Office, a diverse SES can bring a greater variety of perspectives and approaches to policy development, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. A 2007 Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program report by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, showed that the percentage of minorities and women at senior pay levels in the Federal Government, including SES, is lower than in the total civilian labor force and the Federal workforce as a whole. According to a 2007 GAO report, only 15.8 percent of the SES was minorities compared to 32.8 percent of the entire workforce. The Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act directly addresses this gap. This legislation would require Federal agencies to submit a plan to OPM on how the agency is removing barriers to minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities to obtain appointments in the SES. The bill encourages agencies, to the extent practicable, to include minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities on their Executive Resource Boards as well as other qualification review boards that evaluate SES candidates. Furthermore, the legislation re-establishes the Senior Executive Service Resource Office, SESRO, at OPM, which was dissolved during an internal reorganization of OPM in 2003. This bill would restore SESRO's responsibilities of overseeing and managing the corps of senior executives. SESRO would serve as a central resource for agencies and provide oversight of agency recruitment and candidate development. Additionally, it would be responsible for ensuring diversity within the SES through strategic partnerships, mentorship programs, and more stringent reporting requirements. For too long, ethnic minorities, women, and persons with disabilities have been under-represented and this bill attempts to reform shortcomings in the system. In America's workforce, we need leadership that reflects its varied cultures and backgrounds. A more diverse SES will better ensure that the executive management of the Federal Government is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.