Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the REAL ID Act of 2005. The REAL ID Act became law over a year and a half ago, but opposition remains strong and vocal. I hold in my hand a list of hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association--NGA-- to the American Civil Liberties Union--ACLU--to the National Rifle Association--that believe the REAL ID Act was a grave mistake. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005. There were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation; and no debate on the floor of the Senate. Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to a must-pass piece of legislation, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act--Public Law 109-13, in conference and therefore received virtually no scrutiny before passage. Every Member of Congress who supported providing much needed funding to our troops and relief to the Indonesia tsunami victims was forced to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act, an unrelated bill. That is why I come to the floor today to spark a real debate on REAL ID. I say to my colleagues there are serious problems with REAL ID and it's time Congress took a closer look. My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law: places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments; and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights. There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. This law mandates that State-issued IDs, such as driver's licenses, comply with certain security standards and procedures, as determined by the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--in order to be accepted by the Federal Government for such purposes as boarding an airplane or entering a Federal building. These procedures include electronically verifying the authenticity of each identifying document, such as birth certificates, passports, and social security cards, presented to a local Department of Motor Vehicles--DMV--office. Such a requirement likely will involve developing an extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that connect the thousands of DMVs to one another and to a host of Federal agencies. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures--NCSL--and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators--AAMVA. In addition, every current driver's license holder must be reenrolled under the new screening process which will more than double the workload at local DMVs across the country and far exceed their current capacity. REAL ID will put an end, at least temporarily, to online and mail license renewals and will cause huge lines and back-up at the DMV. Although security should never be sacrificed for convenience, it is important that states have the time and flexibility to implement the additional security standards in an effective manner. Moreover, reenrollment will be the mostly costly piece of REAL ID, estimated at approximately $8 billion over 5 years by NGA, NCSL, and AAMVA. There are a number of other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security. In total, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion according to the NGA study. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation to date, and no funds were included for fiscal year 2007. That leaves a hefty pricetag for the States, especially for legislation that was passed with no review. In addition to the cost imposed on States, REAL ID imposes an unrealistic timeframe. Under the law, states must have REAL ID compliant systems in place by May 2008. Yet implementing regulations have not been issued. DHS is expected to issue the regulations early next year. However, as of today, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has not received the draft regulations, and OMB is allowed 90 days by Executive order for review of all proposed regulations. That would give states a little over a year to develop electronic verification systems, redesign driver's license cards, establish protocols on how to handle and secure personal information, increase DMV personnel, and find a way to fund it all. It has taken DHS over a year and a half just to issue the regulations. Expecting the States to execute the new system in even less time is unrealistic. In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on States, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties. The REAL ID Act will require each State's driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the new State databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft. Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the Federal, State, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards. The potential for the private sector to scan and share the information contained on a REAL ID compliant license exponentially increases the risk of identity theft as well. Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide States with the means to implement data security and antihacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the act. REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security. As the Honolulu Star Bulletin noted in a October 1, 2006, editorial, the REAL ID Act gives us ``a false sense of security.'' I come to the floor today to inject some reality into REAL ID. Unfunded mandates, privacy, and security are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. It is my hope that when DHS issues the REAL ID regulations, the following issues are addressed: (1) limiting access to the REAL ID networks; (2) securing data that is electronically stored on driver's licenses and ID cards; (3) allowing flexibility in the technological solutions employed by the States; (4) defining the role Federal agencies will play in developing and connecting with the electronic verification systems; (5) ensuring that individuals' privacy rights provided by the Federal Government and State governments are protected; (6) providing a means to correct inaccurate information held in the REAL ID networks; and (7) ensuring that the information contained in the license cannot be scanned or shared by private entities. I hope that the regulations will be well thought out and reflect the stakeholder input provided to DHS over the past year and a half which included the issues I just raised. However, given what I have heard from participants about the rule- making process thus far, I am concerned that the regulations are being developed by too few people without enough stakeholder engagement. When DHS began this process, the State Working Group was developed to gather input from stakeholders. However, the engagement process was not as robust as it could have been. Participants in the working group never received feedback from DHS on their proposals and DHS never reconvened the group to evaluate a draft of the regulations. I also am concerned that given the shortsightedness of the law DHS was given by Congress, it may be the case that a complete replacement of the REAL ID Act is necessary. I am looking to DHS to issue workable regulations. However, if our personal privacy is not protected and the burden placed on states is too great, a legislative change to REAL ID may prove necessary. Congress established a negotiated rulemaking process to improve the security of drivers licenses and ID cards in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. According to participants, that process was making headway when the REAL ID Act passed repealing the negotiated rulemaking language and imposing much stricter guidelines. Today Senator Sununu and I introduce the Identification Security Enhancement Act, which will repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform Act. It is my intention to review the forthcoming DHS regulations before pursuing any action on our bill. I am hopeful that new legislation will not be necessary, and I look forward to working with DHS to produce workable guidelines. However, I believe that introducing the Identification Security Enhancement Act now is important because it will send a message that the intent of the entirety of Congress is not reflected in the REAL ID Act. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical. I ask my colleagues to join us in injecting reality into the REAL ID Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the REAL ID Act of 2005. The REAL ID Act became law over a year and a half ago, but opposition remains strong and vocal. I hold in my hand a list of hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association--NGA-- to the American Civil Liberties Union--ACLU--to the National Rifle Association--that believe the REAL ID Act was a grave mistake. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005. There were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation; and no debate on the floor of the Senate. Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to a must-pass piece of legislation, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act--Public Law 109-13, in conference and therefore received virtually no scrutiny before passage. Every Member of Congress who supported providing much needed funding to our troops and relief to the Indonesia tsunami victims was forced to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act, an unrelated bill. That is why I come to the floor today to spark a real debate on REAL ID. I say to my colleagues there are serious problems with REAL ID and it's time Congress took a closer look. My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law: places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments; and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights. There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. This law mandates that State-issued IDs, such as driver's licenses, comply with certain security standards and procedures, as determined by the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--in order to be accepted by the Federal Government for such purposes as boarding an airplane or entering a Federal building. These procedures include electronically verifying the authenticity of each identifying document, such as birth certificates, passports, and social security cards, presented to a local Department of Motor Vehicles--DMV--office. Such a requirement likely will involve developing an extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that connect the thousands of DMVs to one another and to a host of Federal agencies. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures--NCSL--and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators--AAMVA. In addition, every current driver's license holder must be reenrolled under the new screening process which will more than double the workload at local DMVs across the country and far exceed their current capacity. REAL ID will put an end, at least temporarily, to online and mail license renewals and will cause huge lines and back-up at the DMV. Although security should never be sacrificed for convenience, it is important that states have the time and flexibility to implement the additional security standards in an effective manner. Moreover, reenrollment will be the mostly costly piece of REAL ID, estimated at approximately $8 billion over 5 years by NGA, NCSL, and AAMVA. There are a number of other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security. In total, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion according to the NGA study. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation to date, and no funds were included for fiscal year 2007. That leaves a hefty pricetag for the States, especially for legislation that was passed with no review. In addition to the cost imposed on States, REAL ID imposes an unrealistic timeframe. Under the law, states must have REAL ID compliant systems in place by May 2008. Yet implementing regulations have not been issued. DHS is expected to issue the regulations early next year. However, as of today, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has not received the draft regulations, and OMB is allowed 90 days by Executive order for review of all proposed regulations. That would give states a little over a year to develop electronic verification systems, redesign driver's license cards, establish protocols on how to handle and secure personal information, increase DMV personnel, and find a way to fund it all. It has taken DHS over a year and a half just to issue the regulations. Expecting the States to execute the new system in even less time is unrealistic. In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on States, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties. The REAL ID Act will require each State's driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the new State databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft. Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the Federal, State, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards. The potential for the private sector to scan and share the information contained on a REAL ID compliant license exponentially increases the risk of identity theft as well. Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide States with the means to implement data security and antihacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the act. REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security. As the Honolulu Star Bulletin noted in a October 1, 2006, editorial, the REAL ID Act gives us ``a false sense of security.'' I come to the floor today to inject some reality into REAL ID. Unfunded mandates, privacy, and security are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. It is my hope that when DHS issues the REAL ID regulations, the following issues are addressed: (1) limiting access to the REAL ID networks; (2) securing data that is electronically stored on driver's licenses and ID cards; (3) allowing flexibility in the technological solutions employed by the States; (4) defining the role Federal agencies will play in developing and connecting with the electronic verification systems; (5) ensuring that individuals' privacy rights provided by the Federal Government and State governments are protected; (6) providing a means to correct inaccurate information held in the REAL ID networks; and (7) ensuring that the information contained in the license cannot be scanned or shared by private entities. I hope that the regulations will be well thought out and reflect the stakeholder input provided to DHS over the past year and a half which included the issues I just raised. However, given what I have heard from participants about the rule- making process thus far, I am concerned that the regulations are being developed by too few people without enough stakeholder engagement. When DHS began this process, the State Working Group was developed to gather input from stakeholders. However, the engagement process was not as robust as it could have been. Participants in the working group never received feedback from DHS on their proposals and DHS never reconvened the group to evaluate a draft of the regulations. I also am concerned that given the shortsightedness of the law DHS was given by Congress, it may be the case that a complete replacement of the REAL ID Act is necessary. I am looking to DHS to issue workable regulations. However, if our personal privacy is not protected and the burden placed on states is too great, a legislative change to REAL ID may prove necessary. Congress established a negotiated rulemaking process to improve the security of drivers licenses and ID cards in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. According to participants, that process was making headway when the REAL ID Act passed repealing the negotiated rulemaking language and imposing much stricter guidelines. Today Senator Sununu and I introduce the Identification Security Enhancement Act, which will repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform Act. It is my intention to review the forthcoming DHS regulations before pursuing any action on our bill. I am hopeful that new legislation will not be necessary, and I look forward to working with DHS to produce workable guidelines. However, I believe that introducing the Identification Security Enhancement Act now is important because it will send a message that the intent of the entirety of Congress is not reflected in the REAL ID Act. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical. I ask my colleagues to join us in injecting reality into the REAL ID Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for all of the public service efforts of the senior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes. My friend has served in the Senate since 1977, which makes him the longest serving United States Senator from Maryland. It has been a pleasure working with Senator Sarbanes over the years on a number of issues. In 2001, I was fortunate to be added to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. At that time, the Senator from Maryland was serving as the chairman of the committee and it was a memorable session to be a part of the committee. In the wake of the accounting failures of Enron and other public companies, Chairman Sarbanes conducted a very thorough series of hearings which led to the legislation which is now known as Sarbanes-Oxley. This is landmark legislation that has increased corporate responsibility and resulted in more effective oversight of public companies. Without the vision, courage, and ability of my friend from Maryland, that legislation would not have been possible. Despite numerous obstacles, he brought about comprehensive accounting reform. In addition, I have enjoyed working closely with the Senator from Maryland in trying to improve the financial literacy of our country. Rising health care costs and insurance premiums and the lack of affordable housing have contributed to making the lives of working families more difficult as they strain to meet their day-to-day needs. The ability of families to meet their increasing financial obligations is hampered by their significant debt burdens, particularly credit card debt, and by predatory lending practices such as refund anticipation loans. A lack of financial literacy makes it harder for families to deal with the difficult decisions they are confronted with daily. Senator Sarbanes organized the first set of hearings on the issue of financial literacy and led the creation of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, the purpose of which is to promote financial literacy and education among all American consumers. Senator Sarbanes has been a champion for Federal employees. Throughout his Senate career, he has fought to ensure that Federal employees and members of the military receive equal pay increases. He understands that the Federal civilian workforce plays a significant role in the support of our Armed Services, and I am honored to join him annually in offering a resolution calling for pay parity between the military and Federal workers. He has been a leading advocate for consumer protection, increasing access to affordable housing, and improving public transportation in our country. I will miss having my good friend from Maryland in the Senate. He has served Maryland and the country very well. Millie and I wish him and his family the very best. Paul Sarbanes

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered by the senior Senator from North Dakota, Kent Conrad, to H.R. 5384, the Fiscal Year 2007 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I am proud to have joined Senator Conrad, as well as the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, to provide much needed relief to agricultural communities across our nation in need of assistance. This legislation is important to the agricultural industry in the State of Hawaii, in particular the County of Hawaii which was significantly impacted by the October 15, 2006, earthquake. I was in my home State during this earthquake measuring 6.7 in magnitude and present during aftershocks that were felt days after the initial tremor. A few hours after the earthquake occurred, I spoke with Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Director David Paulison to ensure that FEMA was ready to support State and local response and recovery efforts in Hawaii. In addition, the day after the earthquake I toured the Big Island with Senator Inouye, the National Guard, and State Civil Defense to assess the resulting damage. While I am pleased that Federal, State, and local agencies have been able to work cooperatively to provide public and individual assistance, the needs of our agricultural community must not be ignored. Irrigation systems damaged by the earthquake are the sole source of water for a majority of farmers and members of rural communities in this region. In addition to the economic impact, it is imperative that we recognize that the livelihoods of these hard working individuals have drastically been impacted by the earthquake. It is for this reason I join my colleagues in supporting this amendment which would provide $3 million to the Farm Service Agency, FSA, for its Emergency Conservation Program to repair broken irrigation pipelines and damaged and collapsed water tanks. Of this amount, $2 million will go toward repairing the damages to stone fences on cattle ranches in the Kona and Kohala areas, and another $1 million is needed under the Emergency Loan Program to cover losses of agricultural income. The amendment also provides $2 million to the Big Island Resource Conservation and Development Council to repair of the Kohala Ditch system that was also severely damaged by the earthquake; and $10 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, Emergency Watershed Protection Program for the repair of the Lower Hamakua Ditch and the Waimea Irrigation System/Upper Hamakua Ditch--which were heavily damaged by the earthquake and are negatively impacting the farming community on the Big Island. I commend Senator Conrad for his dedication and commitment to our Nation's farmers and ranchers. This amendment is necessary to ensure that they may continue to provide U.S. agricultural products, and I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has long been evident that our immigration system needs to be reformed, and the current debate on immigration is long overdue. I am pleased that this body is addressing this important issue in such a comprehensive manner. However, if the Senate's debate on immigration is to be truly comprehensive, it must address not only its better-known propositions and factors but also its lesser-known ones as well. My bill seeks to address and resolve an immigration issue that, while rooted in a set of historical circumstance more than seven decades old, remains unresolved to this day. It is an issue of great concern to Filipino World War II veterans and to Filipino Americans, and it ought to be an issue of great concern to all American veterans and citizens with an interest in justice and fairness. Before I discuss the specifics of my bill, I would first like to thank my dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Daniel K. Inouye, for cosponsoring this bill. In the 101st Congress, Senator Inouye authored Section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, which provided for the naturalization of Filipino World War II veterans. Senator Inouye has a long history of being involved in this important effort and it is an honor to have his support on my bill today. To understand the significance of this bill, it is important to first provide some background about the historical circumstances that got us to where we are today. In 1941, on the basis of 1934 legislation enacted prior to Philippine independence, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order. Through this order, President Roosevelt invoked his authority to ``call and order into the service of the Armed Forces of the United States,'' including ``all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.'' This order drafted more than 200,000 Filipino citizens into the United States military. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American soldiers in the defense of our country. Throughout the course of World War II, these Filipino soldiers proved themselves to be courageous and honorable comrades in arms as they helped the United States fulfill its mission. There was no question that they would be treated the same as American troops. These Filipino soldiers are war heroes, and deserved to be treated as such. They provided active duty service on behalf of the U.S. military, which should have qualified them for the same benefits as other active- duty veterans. Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act in 1946, which included a rider that conditioned an appropriation of $200 million, for the benefit of the postwar Philippine Army, on the basis that service in the Commonwealth Army should not be deemed to have been service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Commonwealth Army members were those called into the service of the United States Armed Forces for the Far East. These members served between July 26, 1941, and June 30, 1946. Similarly, Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which provided that service in the New Philippine Scouts was not deemed to be service in the U.S. military. New Philippine Scouts were Filipino citizens who served with the United States Armed Forces with the consent of the Philippine government. They served between October 6, 1945, and June 30, 1947. These veterans are now in their eighties and nineties. Of the 200,000 Filipino veterans that served in World War II, close to 49,000 survive. Some of these veterans receive U.S. benefits, some do not. By 2010, it is estimated that there will be just 20,000 survivors. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of the many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War II was finally recognized by our government, and Filipino veterans were offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. According to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, about 15,000 Filipino veterans live in the U.S. and became citizens between 1941 and 1995 under the authority of the Immigration Act of 1990. Between that time about 11,000 veterans who live in the Philippines were successfully naturalized. These thousands of Filipino veterans clearly wished to spend their golden years in the United States, and I am pleased that the 1990 Immigration reform efforts provided them the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the offer did not extend to the adult sons and daughters of these veterans. As a result, the Filipino veterans who fought on behalf of America, and who now live in American and continue to contribute to America, must do so alone. Due to a backlog in the issuing of visas, many of the children of these veterans have waited more than twenty years before being able to obtain an immigrant visa. My bill, by exempting children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the numerical limitation on immigrant visas, will ensure that our Filipino World War II veterans can enjoy and be supported by their family members in their twilight years. I believe it is a simple yet profound way that this country may honor the sacrifices made more than six decades ago by these war heroes. I urge my colleagues to honor the valiant contributions of Filipino World War II veterans to our Nation by supporting my bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for the opportunity to speak at this time. I rise today in support of Senator Kent Conrad's amendment. I thank Senator Conrad for his leadership and agreeing to include a provision on behalf of the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and myself to H.R. 5385, the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Mr. President, I was in Hawaii on October 15, 2006, when we felt a violent tremor, an earthquake measuring 6.7 in magnitude that rocked the Hawaiian Islands, and it set off a series of aftershocks for days afterward. The earthquake loosened rocks, dirt, and building foundations, and subsequent heavy rains have continued to undermine the structural integrity of public utilities, buildings, roads, and related infrastructure. In recognition of these damages, President Bush on October 17, 2006, declared the State as a major disaster area. While this declaration enabled some relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, a significant amount of damage remains unaddressed. The farming community was hit particularly hard by the earthquake. The water intakes for the Lower and Upper Hamakua Ditches and the Kohala Ditch on the Big Island were buried by landslides. The earthquake and the many aftershocks also caused the collapse of earthen tunnels and wooden flumes and cracks in dams. These irrigation systems provide the sole source of water for most farmers and other members of rural communities in the region. The Big Island also suffered a collapsed lane on the Hawaii Belt Road on the Hamakua Coast, north of Hilo town. The provision would add $21 million to address the agriculture damages caused by the October 15th earthquake: $12 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, Emergency Watershed Protection Program for the repair of the Lower Hamakua Ditch and the Waimea Irrigation System/ Upper Hamakua Ditch--which were heavily damaged by the earthquake, and are negatively impacting the farming community on the Big Island; $3 million to the Big Island Resource Conservation and Development Council to repair of the Kohala Ditch system that was also severely damaged by the earthquake; $6 million to the Farm Service Agency, FSA, for its Emergency Conservation Program to repair broken irrigation pipelines and damaged and collapsed water tanks. Of this amount, $2 million will go towards repairing the damages to stone fences on cattle ranches in the Kona and Kohala areas, and another $2 million is needed under the Emergency Loan Program to cover losses of agricultural income. Mr. President, last week I met with Big Island farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods have been dramatically impacted by the October earthquake. They need water for their farms or they risk losing cattle and crops. The damage done to Hawaii's irrigation systems is too severe to be repaired by the State alone. I promised that I would not abandon these hard-working individuals. I ask my colleagues to support Senator Conrad's amendment, which would also help Hawaii's farmers and ranchers recover from last month's earthquake. Senator Inouye and I urge our colleagues and ask them for their support. Thank you very much. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to say at the outset that I am cognizant of the constraints placed upon the Appropriations Committee and I am very pleased that funding has been included to obviate the need for the administration's proposals to charge veterans more for their care. That said, I don't believe it is in anyone's interest--least of all veterans--to cut funding for the VA watchdog, the inspector general. The President's budget and this VA-MilCon bill both call for a reduction in 27 IG staff members. Our amendment seeks to restore this cut and ensure the IG can do his job by adding $2.5 million in resources. The money for this amendment would be drawn from the construction account and would amount to only a half of a percent of the entire account. If this bill is enacted as is, the OIG oversight function would suffer. There would be an increased risk of criminal activity, waste, and abuse across VA programs and operations. It would result in fewer monetary benefits in a time of fiscal restraint, fewer reports with recommendations for improved economy and efficiencies, and fewer arrests, indictments, and convictions of individuals who prey on America's veterans or seek to defraud VA. The loss of staff would markedly diminish the IG's ability to address complex issues such as the recent loss of VA data and other information technology issues. Furthermore, it would reverse the recent trend of the OIG expanding its truly independent oversight of VA's health care programs and operations and reduce OIG field presence where veterans receive care at VA facilities across the Nation. During the recent VA data theft incident, had it not been for the diligence of investigators from the VA IG's office, it is likely it would have taken even longer for the Secretary, Congress and affected veterans to have learned of the loss. Now is not the time to cut the IG's funding and staff. Clearly, it is more important than ever that VA has the effective internal oversight that only a robust and fully funded Inspector General's Office can provide. The authors of the VA independent budget realize this and have written a letter to the House and Senate leadership in support of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is a small amount of money relative to the overall spending in this bill. Indeed, such a modest amount is essential to ensuring the billions included in this bill are spent wisely. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment for funding for VA oversight. I am talking about properly funding the VA Inspector General's Office. I do have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation expressing the sense of the Congress that States should enact joint custody laws for fit parents, so that more children are raised with the benefit of having both parents in their lives. One of the most significant problems facing our Nation today is the number of children being raised without the love and support of both parents. Even if it is not possible for the parents to remain in a committed partnership, it is important that, when possible, each parent as well as their extended families have every opportunity to play an active role in their children's life. A number of recent studies have suggested that children greatly benefit from joint custody or shared parenting arrangements. In my own home State of Hawaii, it is a way of life to have our keiki, or children, raised and nurtured by the extended family and we have seen how our children flourish when the responsibility of child rearing is shared. This Nation's children are our most vital resource and every effort should be made to ensure that they receive the guidance and encouragement they need to thrive. I urge States to pass joint custody laws for fit parents so all children can be raised within the extended embrace of both parents and their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2006,'' with Senator Lautenberg which would reaffirm the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office's, GAO, authority to audit the financial transactions and evaluate the programs and activities of the intelligence community (IC). Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, is introducing similar legislation. The bill Senator Lautenberg and I offer today is in keeping with legislation introduced in 1987 by Senator John Glenn, the former chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to ensure more effective oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal. The need for greater oversight and availability of information to appropriate congressional committees is not new. What is new is that Congress does not have the luxury of failure in this era of terrorism. Failure brings terrible consequence. Since 9/11, effective oversight is needed now more than ever for two very basic reasons: First, intelligence reforms have spawned new agencies with new intelligence functions demanding even more inter- agency cooperation. The Congress needs to ensure that these agencies have the assets, resources, and capability to do their job in protecting our national security. However, now the Congress cannot do its job properly, in part, because its key investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, is not given adequate access to the intelligence community, led by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Moreover, intelligence oversight is no longer the sole purview of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Other committees have jurisdiction over such departments as Homeland Security, State, Defense, Justice, Energy, and even Treasury and Commerce, which, in this war on terrorism, have intelligence collection and sharing responsibilities. Nor is the information necessary for these committees to exercise their oversight responsibilities restricted to the two intelligence committees as their organizing resolutions make clear. Unfortunately, the intelligence community stonewalls the GAO when committees of jurisdiction request that GAO investigate problems despite the clear responsibility of Congress to ensure that these agencies are operating effectively to protect America. This is not always the case. Some agencies recognize the valuable contribution that GAO makes in improving the quality of our intelligence. As Lieutenant General Lew Allen, Jr., then Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), observed in testimony before the Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities, on October 29, 1975: ``Another feature of congressional review is that since 1955 resident auditors of the General Accounting Office have been assigned at the Agency to perform on-site audits. Additional GAO auditors were cleared for access in 1973, and GAO, in addition to this audit, is initiating a classified review of our automatic data processing functions.'' Not surprisingly, this outpost of the GAO still exists at the NSA. Second, and equally important, is the inability of Congress to ensure that unfettered intelligence collection does not trample civil liberties. New technologies and new personal information data bases threaten our individual right to a secure private life, free from unlawful government invasion. The Congress must ensure that private information being collected by the intelligence community is not misused and is secure. Over 30 years ago, Senator Charles Percy urged Congress to ``act now to gain control over the Government's dangerously proliferating police, investigative, and intelligence activities.'' He noted that ``we find ourselves threatened by the specter of a `watchdog' Government, breeding a nation of snoopers.'' The privacy concerns expressed by our former colleague have become vastly more complicated. As I have noted, the institutional landscape has become littered with new intelligence agencies with ever-increasing demands and responsibilities on law enforcement at every level of government since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. They have the legitimate mission to protect the country against potential threats. Congress' role is to ensure that their mission remains legitimate. The intelligence community today consists of 19 different agencies or components: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; Defense Intelligence Agency; National Security Agency; Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Department of Energy; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Reconnaissance Office; National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency; Coast Guard; Department of Homeland Security, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service, entitled ``Congressional Intelligence Oversight,'' be included in the Record. As both House Rule 48 and Senate Resolution 400 establishing the intelligence oversight committees state, ``Nothing in this [charter] shall be construed as amending, limiting, or otherwise changing the authority of any standing committee of the [House/Senate] to obtain full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence activities of any department or agency of the Government relevant to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of such committee.'' Despite this clear and unambiguous statement, the ability of non- intelligence committees to obtain information, no matter how vital to improving the security of our Nation, has been restricted by the various elements of the intelligence community. Two recent incidents have made this situation disturbingly clear. At a hearing entitled ``Access Delayed: Fixing the Security Clearance Process, Part II,'' before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on which I serve as Ranking Member, on November 9, 2005, GAO was asked about steps it would take to ensure that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget, and the intelligence community met the goals and objectives outlined in the OPM security clearance strategic plan. Fixing the security clearance process, which is on GAO's high-risk list, is essential to our national security. But as GAO observed in a written response to a question raised by Senator Voinovich, ``while we have the authority to do such work, we lack the cooperation we need to get our job done in that area.'' The intelligence community is blocking GAO's work in this essential area. A similar case arose in response to a GAO investigation for the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the House Government Reform Committee on how agencies are sharing terrorism-related and sensitive but unclassified information. The report, entitled ``Information Sharing, the Federal Government Needs to Establish Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive but Unclassified Information'' (GAO-06-385), was released in March 2006. At a time when Congress is criticized by members of the 9-11 Commission for failing to implement its recommendations, we should remember that improving terrorism information sharing among agencies was one of the critical recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Moreover, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 mandated the sharing of terrorism information through the creation of an Information Sharing Environment. Yet, when asked by GAO for comments on the GAO report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refused, stating that ``the review of intelligence activities is beyond GAO's purview.'' However, as a Congressional Research Service memorandum entitled ``Overview of `Classified' and `Sensitive but Unclassified' Information,'' concludes, ``it appears that pseudo-classification markings have, in some instances, had the effect of deterring information sharing for homeland security.'' I ask unanimous consent that the memo be printed in the Record following my remarks. Unfortunately I have more examples, that predate the post 9-11 reforms. Indeed, in July 2001, in testimony entitled ``Central Intelligence Agency, Observations on GAO Access to Information on CIA Programs and Activities'' (GAO-01-975T) before the House Committee on Government Reform, the GAO noted, as a practical matter, ``our access is generally limited to obtaining information on threat assessments when the CIA does not perceives [sic] our audits as oversight of its activities.'' I ask consent that this testimony also be printed following my remarks. It is inconceivable that the GAO--the audit arm of the U.S. Congress--has been unable to conduct evaluations of the CIA for over 40 years. If the GAO had been able to conduct basic auditing functions of the CIA, perhaps some of the problems that were so clearly exposed following the terrorist attacks in September 2001 would have been resolved. And yet, it is extraordinary that five years after 9-11 the same problems persist. Once more I refer to Senator Glenn's bill S. 1458, the ``General Accounting Office-Central Intelligence Agency Audit Act of 1987.'' On its introduction he said, ``in the long run, I believe carefully controlled GAO audits of CIA will lower the probability of future abuses of power, boost the credibility of CIA management, increase the essential public support the Agency's mission deserves, assist the Congress in conducting meaningful oversight, and in no way compromise the CIA mission.'' Unfortunately, S. 1458 did not become law, and nearly 20 years later, the CIA's apparent management challenges led to the creation of the Director of National Intelligence with the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. If Senator Glenn's proposal made in 1987 had been accepted, perhaps, again, some of the problems that became apparent with our intelligence agencies following 9-11 might never have occurred. I want to be clear that my legislation does not detract from the authority of the intelligence committees. In fact, the language makes explicit that the Comptroller General may conduct an audit or evaluation of intelligence sources and methods or covert actions only upon the request of the intelligence committees or at the request of the congressional majority or minority leaders. The measure also prescribes for the security of the information collected by the Comptroller General. However, my bill reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct audits and evaluations--other than those relating to sources and methods, or covert actions--relating to the management and administration of elements of the intelligence community in areas such as strategic planning, financial management, information technology, human capital, knowledge management, information sharing, and change management for other relevant committees of the Congress. Attached is a detailed description of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the materials were ordered to be printed in

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am extremely pleased with Senate passage of legislation that will authorize a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' compensation. The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006, S. 2562, directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2006, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children, and certain related benefits. The COLA will be the same as the increase provided to Social Security recipients, which is projected to be approximately 2.9 percent. It is vital that veterans' disability compensation rates keep pace with the increasing cost of living. Without an increase to offset the effects of inflation, veterans and their families would lose the value of this important benefit. Passage of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006 is the least that Congress can do to help disabled veterans provide adequately for their families. Many times, VA disability compensation is a major, and in some cases the sole, source of income for a veteran and his or her family. For those who gave so much to this nation, we owe them this sign of gratitude. In closing, I thank all of my colleagues for their support for our Nation's veterans. I anticipate swift passage of this important legislation by the House of Representatives.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as a conferee to the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, I urge my fellow conferees to retain the Senate's strong whistleblower protections for federal employees. The Senate bill includes an amendment I offered with Senator Collins that mirrors our bipartisan measure, S. 494, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act. S. 494 and the amendment have strong bipartisan support in the Senate. In the House, Representatives Tom Davis and Henry Waxman, the chairman and ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Representative Todd Platts, the sponsor of companion legislation to S. 494, have asked Representative Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to include strong whistleblower protections in the final defense authorization bill. The Senate action was a significant step forward for Federal whistleblowers and the American taxpayer. Congress must assert its original intent of the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, which protects Federal employees who disclose any waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress encourages such disclosures, which save lives and taxpayer dollars, and has repeatedly said that the courts should not erect barriers to disclosures which limit the flow of information from Federal employees who may have knowledge of government wrongdoing. We have all heard of the brave men and women who have come forward at great personal risk to report cases of waste and threats to public safety. Examples include: Mr. Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, who disclosed to Congress that the actual cost of the Medicare reform bill was $156 billion more than what the Bush administration told us. He was prohibited by his supervisors from alerting Congress to this huge discrepancy prior to the bill's enactment and was threatened with firing if he did so; U.S. Border Patrol Agents Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, who disclosed security lapses along our northern border, including a lack of staff, equipment, and detention facilities. As a result, their supervisors proposed 90-day suspensions and demotions for 1 year; and Mr. Donald Van Winkle, an air-monitoring technician at the Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky, who revealed serious operational failures with monitors used to detect leaks of chemical warfare agents. As a result of this disclosure, Mr. Van Winkle lost his security clearance, thus denying him the ability to continue his job. Unfortunately, current law does not provide any independent review for this type of retaliation. This spring, the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not protect public sector employees, including Federal workers, from retaliation when disclosing government wrongdoing as a part of their official duties. Instead, the Court held that protection is left to State and Federal whistleblower laws. Unfortunately, Federal whistleblower protections have been watered-down by repeated decisions by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which ignore clear congressional intent that disclosures are protected without restriction to time, place, form, motive, or context, including disclosures made during the ordinary course of an employee's job. As a result of various court decisions, honest employees have been denied protection from retaliatory practices. In fact, only one federal whistleblower has won on the merits of their claim before the Federal Circuit in the past 12 years. This egregious lack of employee protection has a serious chilling effect on good faith whistleblowing. Although President Bush issued a memo in 2001 requiring Federal employees to disclose waste, fraud, and abuse, the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have eroded protections for disclosures and placed Federal workers in a no-win situation. Congress must take action now to restore the protections granted by the WPA. My amendment will: clarify congressional intent that Federal employees are protected for any disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse-- including those made as part of an employee's job duties; provide an independent determination as to whether the loss or denial of a security clearance is retaliation against a whistleblower; and suspend the Federal Circuit's sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower cases for 5 years. Congress has the responsibility to guarantee strong and meaningful protections for Federal whistleblowers. Federal employees must know they will not face retaliation when disclosing information that protects our national security, safeguards the health of our children, or saves taxpayer dollars. If Congress is serious about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that the government for the people and by the people actually is working in the best interests of the people, then we must protect those who wish to disclose illegal or unethical activities. Whistleblowers should not be restrained because they fear retaliation for doing what is right. Again, I thank my Senate colleagues for supporting this important measure, and I urge our House counterparts to join with us in strengthening whistleblower protections.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the TANF Economic and Financial Education Promotion Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, and Obama. I appreciate the work of our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education. As noted in the bill's findings, high levels of personal debt and bankruptcy filings combined with a negative personal savings rate in 2005 have put more and more individuals on the edge of financial insolvency. Individuals who are already living with less-than-ideal financial circumstances--such as most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, recipients and others who are not financially self- sufficient and live outside the financial mainstream--apply to predatory lenders for short-term loans with comparatively high interest rates or fees, or are able to save little or nothing for emergencies or future events. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason millions of Americans do not set up mainstream accounts and, thus, put themselves into greater financial peril. Economic and financial education can help individuals and families meet short-term obligations and maximize their well-being in the long- term, particularly in populations traditionally underserved by mainstream financial systems. Such education can provide access to the tools needed to create household budgets, initiate savings plans, and build assets, as well as keep vulnerable individuals from unknowingly entering or being forced into financially devastating credit arrangements. Core goals of economic and financial literacy activities complement TANF's aims to reduce welfare dependency, helping people achieve self-sufficiency. For families transitioning from welfare into work, challenges continue to abound, including obtaining child care and transportation. Another challenge that is often overlooked, however, is the difficulty of transitioning from a benefits- to a wage-based income. Financial and economic literacy programs that educate families through this transition about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, can help to ensure that they have access to these important work benefits. The bill we are introducing today would tackle this problem for a targeted group of Americans by making economic and financial education an allowable use of federal TANF funds and a qualified work activity under the law. The bill would also require States, through collaborations with local banks, community-based organizations, business entities, and members of the Federal Financial Literacy and Education Commission, to promote financial education in their state TANF plans. States must ensure that such activities are accessible to the target population by way of appropriately-geared curriculum, provide relevant and practical information to participants, include a direct delivery component, and, to the extent practicable, work with an asset building program conducted in that state. This bill aims to make a big difference for one of our country's most vulnerable populations and provide them access to tools that can allow them to stand on their own feet, for themselves and their families. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, Sarbanes and Baucus. I thank our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education. Americans are not saving enough for retirement. Longer life spans, combined with low savings and high consumer debt, are putting many mid- life and older Americans on the path to entering retirement years with a lower quality of life, delaying their retirement to catch up with inadequate savings, or becoming a significant financial burden on their loved ones. In 2005, only 42 percent of workers or their spouses calculated the amount they needed to save for retirement a major decrease from 53 percent in 2000. Only about half of working Americans are covered by a pension plan. Inadequacy of retirement nest eggs and other preparation for retirement will certainly impact the U.S. economy and government services, as we know that the number of older individuals in the U.S. is projected to more than double over the next 30 years, from 35 million to 75 million people. We will inevitably see serious increases in long-term care and other health costs. Furthermore, individuals of questionable moral character are determined to erode older Americans' lifetime savings through fraud or aggressive marketing tactics selling unnecessary products or those with exorbitant and hidden fees. The Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse reported that incidents of identity theft targeting individuals age 60 and older increase from 1,821 victims in 2000 to a startling 21,084 victims in 2004. More people in the U.S. should have basic competency in money management to avoid becoming victims of financial fraud and abuse. The Education for Retirement Security Act is intended to address both the lagging savings rate and increases in fraud and abuse by establishing a grant program to arm midlife and older individuals with critical information and knowledge. It would do this by authorizing a grant program similar in structure to one which has proven successful in the Excellence in Economic Education Act, which awards a grant to a national entity that provides subgrants to community organizations to carry out programs that enhance economic, financial, and retirement literacy, and reduce financial abuse and fraud among the target population. The national entity would evaluate subgrantees on the performance and effectiveness of their programs, identify best practices and programs for replication, and assess any behavioral change, including asset accumulation, made by program participants. The bill would also create a national training and technical assistance grant program toward creating and making available instructional materials and information promoting economic and financial education, and providing training and other related assistance to subgrantees. Economic and financial education can lead individuals to avoid scams and bad decisions about investments, mortgages, and pension plans, and ensure that they have access to tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare adequately for retirement. The limited timeframe that midlife and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and benefit from more informed financial practices, makes critical the type of education that this bill would support. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the TANF Economic and Financial Education Promotion Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, and Obama. I appreciate the work of our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education. As noted in the bill's findings, high levels of personal debt and bankruptcy filings combined with a negative personal savings rate in 2005 have put more and more individuals on the edge of financial insolvency. Individuals who are already living with less-than-ideal financial circumstances--such as most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, recipients and others who are not financially self- sufficient and live outside the financial mainstream--apply to predatory lenders for short-term loans with comparatively high interest rates or fees, or are able to save little or nothing for emergencies or future events. A lack of basic consumer finance education, including lack of familiarity with how a checking or savings account works, has been cited as a major reason millions of Americans do not set up mainstream accounts and, thus, put themselves into greater financial peril. Economic and financial education can help individuals and families meet short-term obligations and maximize their well-being in the long- term, particularly in populations traditionally underserved by mainstream financial systems. Such education can provide access to the tools needed to create household budgets, initiate savings plans, and build assets, as well as keep vulnerable individuals from unknowingly entering or being forced into financially devastating credit arrangements. Core goals of economic and financial literacy activities complement TANF's aims to reduce welfare dependency, helping people achieve self-sufficiency. For families transitioning from welfare into work, challenges continue to abound, including obtaining child care and transportation. Another challenge that is often overlooked, however, is the difficulty of transitioning from a benefits- to a wage-based income. Financial and economic literacy programs that educate families through this transition about taxes and tax benefits that they may be eligible for, such as the Dependent Care Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, can help to ensure that they have access to these important work benefits. The bill we are introducing today would tackle this problem for a targeted group of Americans by making economic and financial education an allowable use of federal TANF funds and a qualified work activity under the law. The bill would also require States, through collaborations with local banks, community-based organizations, business entities, and members of the Federal Financial Literacy and Education Commission, to promote financial education in their state TANF plans. States must ensure that such activities are accessible to the target population by way of appropriately-geared curriculum, provide relevant and practical information to participants, include a direct delivery component, and, to the extent practicable, work with an asset building program conducted in that state. This bill aims to make a big difference for one of our country's most vulnerable populations and provide them access to tools that can allow them to stand on their own feet, for themselves and their families. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Education for Retirement Security Act of 2006, with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Stabenow, Sarbanes and Baucus. I thank our former colleague, Senator Corzine, for initiating this important financial and economic literacy bill, of which I had been an original cosponsor. This bill is a product of revisions suggested by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy and the American Savings and Education Council, as well as consultation with other community groups such as the National Association of Securities Dealers and National Council on Economic Education. Americans are not saving enough for retirement. Longer life spans, combined with low savings and high consumer debt, are putting many mid- life and older Americans on the path to entering retirement years with a lower quality of life, delaying their retirement to catch up with inadequate savings, or becoming a significant financial burden on their loved ones. In 2005, only 42 percent of workers or their spouses calculated the amount they needed to save for retirement a major decrease from 53 percent in 2000. Only about half of working Americans are covered by a pension plan. Inadequacy of retirement nest eggs and other preparation for retirement will certainly impact the U.S. economy and government services, as we know that the number of older individuals in the U.S. is projected to more than double over the next 30 years, from 35 million to 75 million people. We will inevitably see serious increases in long-term care and other health costs. Furthermore, individuals of questionable moral character are determined to erode older Americans' lifetime savings through fraud or aggressive marketing tactics selling unnecessary products or those with exorbitant and hidden fees. The Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse reported that incidents of identity theft targeting individuals age 60 and older increase from 1,821 victims in 2000 to a startling 21,084 victims in 2004. More people in the U.S. should have basic competency in money management to avoid becoming victims of financial fraud and abuse. The Education for Retirement Security Act is intended to address both the lagging savings rate and increases in fraud and abuse by establishing a grant program to arm midlife and older individuals with critical information and knowledge. It would do this by authorizing a grant program similar in structure to one which has proven successful in the Excellence in Economic Education Act, which awards a grant to a national entity that provides subgrants to community organizations to carry out programs that enhance economic, financial, and retirement literacy, and reduce financial abuse and fraud among the target population. The national entity would evaluate subgrantees on the performance and effectiveness of their programs, identify best practices and programs for replication, and assess any behavioral change, including asset accumulation, made by program participants. The bill would also create a national training and technical assistance grant program toward creating and making available instructional materials and information promoting economic and financial education, and providing training and other related assistance to subgrantees. Economic and financial education can lead individuals to avoid scams and bad decisions about investments, mortgages, and pension plans, and ensure that they have access to tools they need to make sound financial decisions and prepare adequately for retirement. The limited timeframe that midlife and older Americans have in which to assess the realities of their individual circumstances, recover from bad economic choices, and benefit from more informed financial practices, makes critical the type of education that this bill would support. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in introducing this bill, and I urge other colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I extend my warmest aloha and congratulations to the individuals being recognized and honored by the Kauai Filipino Centennial Celebration Committee as Kauai Filipino Centennial Awardees in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the arrival of the first migrant workers from the Philippines to Hawaii. I was pleased that the Senate last year accepted by unanimous consent my resolution, S. Res. 333, recognizing the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States and acknowledging the contributions of the Filipino-American community to our country over the last century--including members of the Kauai community. It is an honor earned and richly deserved and a privilege for me to share in the spirit of this very personal and historical celebration with family and many friends in recognizing commitment and service to the Filipino community. This prestigious award tells of the important place these men and women hold in our community. It recognizes their extraordinary contributions and service to Hawaii. These individuals include leaders in all walks of life: journalists, educators, artists and entertainers, athletes, doctors, attorneys, clergy, public servants, and businessmen. The honorees are: Leonora Albayalde, Jose Alvarez, Connie Aquino, Rosalina Arzadon, Greg Bakiano, Elena Barbasa, Guadalupe L. Bulatao, Jose E. Bulatao, Jose E. Bulatao, Jr., Juanito Buza, Hilda Cannon, Clemente Ceballos, Marie Ceballos, Les Ceballos, Catalino C. Cortezan, Josefina A. Cortezan, Consuelo O. Cuaresma, Consuelo Dela Cruz, Gerald Dela Cruz, Dr. Arnulfo Dias, Emil Diaz, Steven M. Domingo, Josephine C. Duvauchelle, Marcelino Francisco, R. Barbara Bulatao Franklin, Vil Galiza, Eugene Jiminez, Martha Sialana Kruse, Esperanza Labez, Ricardo Laabez, Inocencio Lapenia, Alfredo Lardizabal, Ben Largusa, Alfredo Laureta, Jesus ``Gene'' Layosa, Rhoda Libre, Domingo Los Banos, Jr., Eduardo Malapit, Vicky Masuoka, George Menor, Mable Jean Odo, Emilio ``Spud'' Olivas, Paul Parongao, Dr. Ramon Dela Pena, Cesar Portugal, Rick Rasay, Sister Florence Remata, Dr. William Renti-Cruz, Robert Riola, Frances Sagadraca, Eddie Sarita, Rudy Sina, Catalino Suero, Jimmy Tejada, Amadeo Timbol, Dr. Mariano Torres, Liza Trinidad, Maria B. Valenciano, Placido Valenciano, Randal Valenciano, Adelino Valentin, Floro Villabrille, Alfredo Villanueva, Millie Wellington, and Rodney Yadao. These individuals stand out among their peers having truly made a positive difference. I extend my congratulations and best wishes to our honorees and their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Hilo All- Stars, the 2006 Cal Ripken Baseball World Champions. This is the second consecutive year that a team from Hawaii captured the 12-and-under title. Last year, a Honolulu squad defeated Mexico, by a score of 1 to nothing, to win the championship game. On Sunday, August 20, Hilo won the Ripken World Series in Aberdeen, MD against international champions Mexico, by the score of 5 to 2. Ridge Hoopii-Haslam hit a two-run homer, and Kawika Pruett added a two- run single to rally Hilo against Mexico's powerful pitching staff that allowed only three runs in the tournament. Mexico threatened in the third inning, but Kean Wong came in to pitch out of a bases loaded jam, holding Mexico to just one run. The Hilo All-Star team members are Anson Arruda, Ridge Hoopii-Haslam, Dean Hosaka, Jordan Jinbo, Chayce Kaaua, Kian Kurokawa, Rylan Malakaua, Ekolu Martins, Cody Ray Okabayashi, Kawika Pruett, Kean Wong, and Kiani Wong. Kaha Wong manages the All-Stars and Wardell ``Baba'' Lancaster and Jason Jinbo are team coaches. I am proud of Hilo's impressive wins and the humility and sportsmanship they displayed as they won with aloha. Hilo represented the State of Hawaii and the United States very well. Many family members and friends made sacrifices to support the team. I applaud these efforts and wish all the players and their families the best in future endeavors. I look forward to hearing more about the success of our players as they continue to pursue their education and baseball ambitions in the future, and I extend the same congratulations and best wishes to all players and coaches who participated in this year's Cal Ripken Baseball World Series.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park and Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site. When Congress first established the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in 1916, the intent was to preserve the integrity and peace of the park's nearly 400 square miles of volcanoes, rivers, forests, wildlife and sacred sites. In the last few decades, however, the growth of the air tourism industry has considerably interrupted the tranquility of Hawaii's National Parks. Air tourism has had an adverse impact on the ability of Native Hawaiians to practice peaceful protocols of sacred sites. The sound from aircraft activity can significantly impinge on the solemnity of sacred sites and ceremonies. Sacred sites, including the airspace of the designated locales, are an important resource for the Hawaiian people and we must do what is necessary to ensure that the value of these sites is not diminished. By prohibiting air tourism over these areas, the Hawaiian Sacred Sites Noise Reduction Act affords Natives Hawaiians, residents and visitors to our beautiful state the peace and tranquility to enjoy these sacred sites. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise with my dear friend, the Senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and several of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, to introduce a bill to pay tribute to one of this body's most loyal servants. The Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives bill honors Henry K. Giugni, our former Sergeant-at- Arms of the U.S. Senate, through the establishment of a Native Hawaiian cultural and historical digital archives. These archives will enable the sharing and perpetuation of the unique culture, collective memory, and history of the people Henry K. Giugni so dearly loved. As many of my colleagues are aware, Henry K. Giugni was a man full of life and loyalty who served our country with distinction. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at the age of 16 after the attack on Pearl Harbor. During World War II he served in combat at the battle of Guadalcanal. Following World War II, he continued to serve the State of Hawaii and our nation by working as a police officer and firefighter. After nearly a decade of service with Senator Inouye in the Hawaii territorial legislature, he came to Washington, DC, as the senior senator's Senior Executive Assistant and then Chief of Staff for more than 20 years. Mr. Giugni was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate in 1987. Henry K. Giugni also sought to tear down barriers in society. In 1965 it was Mr. Giugni who represented Senator Inouye's office, thus the people of Hawaii, in the famous 1965 Selma to Montgomery civil rights march led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Senator Inouye's Chief of Staff, Mr. Giugni served as a vital link between the Senator's office and minority groups. In 1987 he was the first person of color and the first Native Hawaiian to be appointed Sergeant-at-Arms of the United States Senate. In this influential position, he sought out capable minorities and women for promotion to ensure that our workforce reflects America. He appointed the first minority, an African American, to lead the Service Department, and was the first to assign women to the Capitol Police plainclothes unit. Being particularly concerned about people with disabilities, Henry K. Giugni enacted a major expansion of the Special Services Office, which now conducts tours of the U.S. Capitol for the blind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound, and publishes Senate maps and documents in Braille. In his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Giugni was the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. Senate and an able manager of a majority of the Senate's support services. He oversaw a budget of nearly $120 million and approximately 2,000 employees. As Sergeant-at- Arms, Mr. Giugni had the opportunity to preside over the inauguration of President George H.W. Bush as well as escort numerous dignitaries, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, and Vaclav Havel when they visited the U.S. Capitol. Establishing the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives would be a poignant and appropriate way to honor our loyal friend, colleague, and fellow American. Please allow me to explain. In Henry's passing there is a fitting analogy that can be made for the need of establishing these archives. Henry lived a life full of rich experiences and along the way he accumulated a wealth of wisdom. His memory and spirit live on but it is essential to perpetuate his wisdom and experiences so that what he learned and accomplished will not be lost to future generations. This is the primary impetus behind creating these archives. For various reasons there is a dearth of physical archives, museums, or libraries that are devoted to preserving and perpetuating the history, culture, achievements and collective narratives of indigenous peoples, including Native Hawaiians. As one generation passes, a wealth of traditional knowledge may be lost forever. Establishing these archives to perpetuate the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples such as Henry will ensure that future generations of people have access to that knowledge and, in some sense, are able to learn from the original sources themselves. The development of the Internet in managing knowledge in electronic format has enabled the most pervasive storing and sharing of information the world has ever seen. An electronic, digital archives would facilitate the sharing, preservation and perpetuation of the unique Native Hawaiian culture, language, tradition and history. These archives will be a source of enduring knowledge, accessible to all, and will contribute to the cultural, social and economic advancement of Native Hawaiians and the State of Hawaii. It will help to ensure that the children of today and tomorrow will not be deprived of the rich culture, history and collective knowledge of Native Hawaiians. These archives will help to guarantee that the experiences, wisdom and knowledge of kupuna, or grandfathers and grandmothers such as Henry K. Giugni, will not be lost to future generations. The first section of the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill authorizes a grant awarded to the University of Hawaii's Academy for Creative Media for the establishment, maintenance and update of the archives which are to be located at the University of Hawaii. These funds shall be used to enable a statewide archival effort which will include the acquisition of a secure, web-accessible repository that will house significant Native Hawaiian historical and cultural information. This information may include oral histories, collective narratives, photographs, video files, journals, creative works and even documentation of practices and customs such as hula and music. The funds will enable this important effort by assisting in the purchasing of equipment, hiring of personnel, creating space for the collection and transfer of media, housing the archives, and creating this in-depth database. The second section of this bill authorizes the use of these grant funds for several different educational activities, many of which are intended to magnify the effect and resourcefulness of these archives and benefit the student populations who will likely access the archives the most. This includes the development of educational materials from the content of the archives that can be used in educating indigenous students such as Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and Native American Indians. These materials are meant to enhance the education of all students, even students from non- native backgrounds. This also includes developing outreach initiatives to introduce the archives to elementary and secondary schools as well as enabling schools to access the archives through obtaining computer equipment. Grant funds can also be used to enable access to a college education to students who otherwise cannot independently afford such an education through scholarship awards. Additionally, funds can be used to address the problem of cultural incongruence in teaching, an issue that impedes effective learning in our Nation's classrooms. Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated urban centers, from my state of Hawaii to areas on the Eastern seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can muddy the effective transmission of knowledge. Many of us, especially those from rural, indigenous, or ethnic minority backgrounds including Henry Giugni, have experienced this problem as we have worked our way through the education system. This bill also seeks to improve student achievement by addressing cultural incongruence between teachers and the student population by providing professional development training to teachers to enable them to teach in a culturally congruent way. Finally, as financial illiteracy is a growing problem especially among college age youth who are exposed to a variety of financial products, funds can be used to increase the economic and financial literacy of college students through the propagation of proven best practices that have resulted in positive behavioral change in regards to improved debt and credit management and economic decision making. Such activities can help to ensure that students stay in school, graduate in a better financial position, and remain disciplined in effectively managing their finances throughout their working and retirement years. Henry K. Giugni served amongst us with distinction and honor. I am very grateful to have known him. I encourage all of my colleagues to perpetuate his memory by supporting the Henry Kuualoha Giugni Memorial Archives bill. These archives are the most fitting way we can honor and remember our friend and dear public servant, Henry Kuualoha Giugni. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on August 18, 2006, I will have the honor and privilege to commemorate the 47th anniversary of the admission of Hawaii to the United States by dedicating the building housing the Kapalama Post Office in honor of the late U.S. Senator Hiram L. Fong. It is fitting that on Admissions Day, the State of Hawaii commemorates the life of one of its strongest advocates for statehood--Senator Fong--by dedicating the postal facility at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, which stands near Senator Fong's boyhood home in Kalihi. Like so many of us with immigrant parents, Senator Fong will be remembered not only for his many accomplishments but also for his humble beginnings. As one of 11 children born to parents from China, he graduated with honors from the University of Hawaii in 1930, and continued his education at Harvard University where he received a law degree 5 years later. In 1959, when Hawaii achieved statehood, he was elected to fill one of two seats in the U.S. Senate where he served from 1959 until January 2, 1977. Senator Fong was this Nation's first U.S. Senator of Asian ancestry. He served as the ranking Republican on what was then the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which is why I am so glad we are marking his life's work by dedicating this post office in his memory. I knew Hiram Fong, and I found him to be a man of great integrity. He was a compassionate advocate for civil rights and workers' rights, and throughout his 20 years of service in Congress, Senator Fong personified the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. He was instrumental in enacting landmark civil rights legislation; reforming U.S. immigration laws to end discrimination against Asian immigrants; improving job training programs for workers; and fighting for equal pay for women. The people of Hawaii were truly fortunate to have been represented by Hiram Fong. This son of Hawaii passed away on August 18, 2004, at the age of 97, followed by his wife Ellyn on March 25 of this year. Hiram and Ellyn are survived by 4 children, Hiram, Jr., Rodney, Marvin, and Mari-Ellen; 10 grandchildren; and 2 great-grandchildren. As we remember our good friend, Hiram Fong, on this Admissions Day, I ask my Senate colleagues and the people of Hawaii to pause for a moment to remember all he did on behalf of the Nation and his beloved Aloha State. Mr. President, as the former chairman of the Senate Postal Subcommittee, I was proud to introduce the legislation designating the Kapalama Post Office in memory of my friend, Senator Hiram Fong. The Senate passed my bill, S. 2089, by unanimous consent on March 3 of this year; the House of Representatives took action on March 7; and on March 20, the President signed the bill, which is now Public Law 109-203.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit commercial air tour operations over Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park and Pu`ukohola Heiau National Historic Site. When Congress first established the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park in 1916, the intent was to preserve the integrity and peace of the park's nearly 400 square miles of volcanoes, rivers, forests, wildlife and sacred sites. In the last few decades, however, the growth of the air tourism industry has considerably interrupted the tranquility of Hawaii's National Parks. Air tourism has had an adverse impact on the ability of Native Hawaiians to practice peaceful protocols of sacred sites. The sound from aircraft activity can significantly impinge on the solemnity of sacred sites and ceremonies. Sacred sites, including the airspace of the designated locales, are an important resource for the Hawaiian people and we must do what is necessary to ensure that the value of these sites is not diminished. By prohibiting air tourism over these areas, the Hawaiian Sacred Sites Noise Reduction Act affords Natives Hawaiians, residents and visitors to our beautiful state the peace and tranquility to enjoy these sacred sites. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.