Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank my colleague for her efforts today. Mr. President, I rise today to once again address the tremendous funding crisis in the VA. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his determination at this time to ensure that $1.5 billion is provided without delay. Again, I thank my colleague Senator Murray for her efforts as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. While we have consensus in both bodies of Congress that VA is facing a tremendous funding shortfall this year, we are lacking consensus on how much should be provided this year. The Senate clearly believes that $1.5 billion is needed. The House, on the other hand, has taken the administration's view that only $975 million is needed. While I am delighted that the administration has admitted that there is a shortfall, I don't believe that we can now put our faith in their estimate of what VA needs. As I said last night, judging by the supplemental sent forward by the President, VA officials are less than generous and, frankly, less than accurate. The $975 million now proposed by the administration--and carried forward by the House--falls way short of addressing all of VA's problems. Just examine one part of their estimate--their new costs associated with returning service members. VA now believes that 103,000 more veterans will be treated this year. The cost of treating this kind of patient is $5,437 a year--as documented by VA data. Yet, the administration wants to now convince Congress that, in fact, the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this amount. Again, using VA data, the cost of caring for an additional 103,000 returning veterans is $560 million and not the $273 million suggested by the administration. And other key programs such as readjustment counseling and dental care were ignored by the House in the VA supplemental. It is imperative that the Senate again send the House a message that we intend to provide adequate funds. The Senate has already spoken in a clear and bipartisan manner on this issue. Given the House's work to provide less than the full amount needed, it is clear that we have more work to do for this year. This amendment reiterates that point. The battle for next year's funding will be upon on us shortly, but we need to shore up hospital and clinic operations today. I am hopeful that we all learned a clear lesson from this experience, that talking with health care providers in VA hospitals and with the veterans service organizations is invaluable. They told us what was really going on months ago. They are continuing their call for full funding for VA now. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senators Collins and Lieberman that would provide for homeland security grant coordination and simplification. I wish to thank them both for working with me and the other Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to include a provision in their amendment that is very important to Indian Country. This amendment is based on S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, a bill that was reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee favorably and of which I am an original cosponsor. S. 21 recognizes that no State is immune to terrorist attack by requiring that each State receive at minimum .55 percent of appropriated funding. This is important to States like Hawaii that are smaller in population, but still have critical assets that need to be protected. The Collins-Lieberman amendment also ensures that Indian tribes have access to homeland security funding. With more than 50 million acres of land comprising Indian Country, which includes dams, hydroelectric facilities, nuclear power generating plants, oil and gas pipelines, transportation corridors of railroad and highway systems, and communications towers, tribal governments need to have funds to protect and respond to threats of terrorism. Although the Homeland Security Act of 2002 included tribal governments in the definition of ``local governments,'' this distinction has not guaranteed that tribal governments are consulted or involved in the protection of the United States. Nor does the act ensure that Indian Country will receive critical information regarding potential terrorist threats, and more importantly, the act does not give tribal governments the authority to detain potential terrorists who are found in Indian Country. While the amendment does not fully address the homeland security problems that some tribal governments are experiencing, it is a bipartisan compromise that at the very least will ensure that Indian tribes with critical homeland security needs will be able to apply directly to the Department of Homeland Security for risk-based homeland security grants. I am pleased that my colleagues recognize that tribes should have the same access to homeland security funding as the rest of the country. This is an important first step for Indian Country to address homeland security issues. Again, I thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their work on this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the VA health care system's funding crisis. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, for his determination to ensure that $1.5 billion is provided as soon as possible. At this point, it is widely known that VA is facing a tremendous funding shortfall this year. What we need to do now is ensure that VA gets these funds as expeditiously as possible. I am glad the administration has admitted that there is a shortfall. But I point out that VA officials have proven themselves to be an unreliable source of information. And judging by the supplemental sent forward by the President, they are less than generous, and frankly, less than accurate. The $975 million now proposed by the administration--and carried forward by the House--falls short of addressing all of VA's problems. You need only look at the administration's own estimate for new costs associated with returning service members. VA now believes that 103,000 more veterans will be treated this year. The cost of treating this kind of patient is $5,437 a year, as documented by VA data. Yet, the administration wants to now convince us that, in fact, the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this amount. Again, using VA data, the cost of caring for an additional 103,000 returning veterans is $560 million and not the $273 million suggested by the administration. Other key programs such as readjustment counseling and dental care were also not sufficiently covered by the House in the VA supplemental. It is imperative that we make sure the funds we provide now are truly sufficient, so we do not face this situation again. It is simply not right to use out-of-date equipment to treat veterans or force them to wait months for care. The Senate has already spoken in a very bipartisan manner on this issue. We are all very proud of our effort to arrive at the $1.5 billion figure previously agreed to before the July Fourth recess. Given the House's work to provide less than the full amount needed, it is clear that we have more work to do for this year. The battle for next year's funding will be upon us shortly. During the budget resolution debate in March, I offered an amendment to increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. I stood before this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But we were rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far less. Yet we are back to square one with regard to next year's funding. Then, again, during the war supplemental debate in April--while VA remained silent as they were beginning to see warning signs--we were defeated in our efforts to secure more funding for this year. Again, this was because the administration failed to be forthcoming about the struggles that VA providers and patients were facing. Hopefully, we all learned a clear lesson from this experience, that communicating with health care providers in the field and with the Veterans Service Organizations is invaluable. They told us what was really going on months ago. I know my colleagues agree that we do not want to see this scenario repeat itself yet again. We have pressed this issue, and now we have another opportunity to finally fix the problem and fulfill our promise to this Nation's veterans. At the very least, this crisis has resulted in longer waiting times for care, hiring freezes, and delayed upgrading of medical equipment and facilities, to name a few. This amendment is one way to fix the VA funding crisis. Providing $1.5 billion in supplemental funding would ensure that each region of the country can get the funds needed to pull themselves out of the current crisis. But I continue to be open to any approach that ensures the highest quality health care for our Nation's veterans. Along those lines, I appreciate the work that Senators Craig and Hutchison and our other colleagues are doing to tackle this problem. I believe we can find a solution, together. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, which would authorize demonstration project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, short-term alternatives to expensive, predatory payday loans. Payday loans are small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR). Loan flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a cycle of debt that is hard to break. Currently, there is a lack of low- cost, short-term credit product alternatives available to consumers. My legislation is intended to encourage the development of products that satisfy the current demand for small loans of a short duration, but at a fair interest rate. The payday loan business has grown rapidly in recent years, with industry revenues ballooning from $810 million in 1998 to $40 billion in 2004. A study by the investment bank, Stephens, Inc., of Little Rock, AK, estimated payday loan volume of $25 to $27 billion to 9 to 14 million U.S. households, generating between $4 and $4.3 billion in fees. According to a 2004 study conducted by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), there were an estimated 22,000 payday lender storefronts nationally. Through these storefronts, payday lenders originated an estimated $40 billion in loans and received $6 billion in finance charges. Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year. Two of three borrowers have five or more payday loans annually, and half of these borrowers have 12 or more payday loans annually. Only 33 percent of payday borrowers use four or fewer payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans five times or more. Many of these customers are lower or middle income working families who need a small amount of money for a short period of time. This becomes a financial bridge to help pay for unexpected expenses. More and more predatory lenders locate near military installations, targeting vulnerable military servicemembers and their families. The Army has gone to the extent of offering payday lenders some competition through its Army Emergency Relief (AER) initiative. AER, a private, nonprofit organization, has been working on a national program called Commanders Referral that will debut at Fort Hood, Texas, later this year. This program will offer soldiers up to two no-interest, $500 loans a year, in an attempt to undercut the aggressive tactics of payday lenders. Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Life Issues on February 16, 2005, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy testified that the payday industry ``has made it a practice to prey upon our Sailors.'' He went on to say ``it is not being dramatic to state these payday loans to our troops could be a threat to their military readiness.'' As the ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, this is an issue of grave concern to me. I am heartened to see that some federal credit unions have developed alternatives to payday loan products. The Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation, Pentagon Federal, and Langley Federal Credit Union, Langley Federal, have each introduced a payday loan alternative. Pentagon Federal offers the Asset Recovery Kit (ARK). For ARK, borrowers must agree to financial counseling, or already be receiving counseling, in order to receive a loan of up to $500. The borrower pays a $6 flat fee for the loan and no credit report is required, but financial counseling is mandatory. Langley Federal's QuickCash product features the quick turnaround of a payday loan, but at an 18 percent annual percentage rate. It does not have the financial counseling requirement of the Pentagon Federal's ARK, but is still a viable alternative to a high cost payday loan. In my home state, Windward Community Federal Credit Union, located in Kailua, Hawaii, has developed a payday loan alternative. This credit union is offering simple short-term loans, with a short approval period, at a fair interest rate. With the demonstration grants offered through my legislation, it is my hope that more credit unions, community development financial institutions and banks will develop and offer similar types of innovative credit products that can serve as alternatives to payday loans. The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. There is a demand for this type of loan, but these loans are excessively priced. My bill authorizes the Department of the Treasury to award demonstration project grants to banks, credit unions, and community development financial institutions to develop and implement a credit product subject to the APR promulgated by the National Credit Union Administration's Loan Interest Rates, which is currently capped at an APR of 18 percent. The grants would provide consumers with a lower-cost, short-term alternative to predatory payday loans. The demonstration project grants would require individuals seeking a loan through this program to pursue financial literacy and education opportunities that will help them better prepare to manage their finances. I have a letter in support of my legislation that is signed by the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Center for Responsible Lending. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation so that affordable alternatives to payday loans can be found. 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 laud this bipartisan effort to address the funding crisis in VA health care. Yesterday, the Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on VA's admission that it is more than $1 billion in the hole this year. With this announcement, we have the long overdue realization that VA hospitals and clinics are in crisis. I think one of the lessons we can all take from this is: reach out to VA nurses and doctors and reach out to the veterans service organizations. So many advocates have been bravely forthcoming about the desperate financial picture in VA over the past 6 months. I welcome the administration's admission that there is a shortfall. But I caution that VA officials are not the only source of information. By waiting for this revelation, we forced veterans to wait longer for needed care and providers to go for months with substandard medical equipment. That said, I am delighted that we now have bipartisan recognition that there truly is a problem at VA. Both sides of the aisle are now working together to improve the quality of care for our Nation's veterans. We shared with the Budget Committee what was needed for next year. This was based on early warnings from sources out in the field. And we raised the funding issue twice on the Senate floor. During the budget resolution debate in March, I offered an amendment to increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. With the support of my colleagues, I stood before this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But we were rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far less. Then, again, during the war supplemental debate in April--while VA was beginning to see signs of a problem--we were denied in our efforts to secure more funding for this year. Again, this was due to the administration's failure to acknowledge the plight that VA providers and patients were facing. I do not believe that this is a scenario my colleagues would like to repeat in the future. Waiting until VA hits rock bottom and then taking action is simply not rational. We can do better. Clearly, we have been able to force this issue, and now we do not have to wait for the administration. Let us move to fix the problem and fulfill our obligation to our veterans. Because at the very least, this crisis will result in deferred maintenance, as VA is raiding capital accounts just to make ends meet. And my colleagues familiar with the military know that deferred maintenance puts troops in danger. The same is true for veterans in need of health care. The purchase and replacement of equipment directly impacts the quality of care provided. Raiding money for capital projects means that needed VA clinics are in jeopardy. I remind my colleagues that there are more than 120 new clinics waiting to be opened. The list of jeopardized clinics includes locations in States where rural access to health care is a serious issue--such as in Maine, North Dakota, Texas, and 11 clinics in Tennessee alone. In closing, I too appreciate the work that Senators Craig and Hutchison and our other colleagues have done to tackle this problem. I believe we have found a solution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of the amendment to rectify the funding crisis for VA health care. You heard Senator Murray expound on this eloquently. This morning, the committee held a hearing on the revelation that VA is more than $1 billion in the hole for this year. With the VA's announcement, we at least now have an admission that the VA hospitals and clinics are in the red, and this is the first step in turning things around. Despite the tremendous pressure to keep quiet, VA's dedicated providers have been forthright with us about the fact that they were raiding capital accounts just to make ends meet. There seems to be some confusion about what kinds of projects will be done because of the $1- billion shortfall. We have asked for a specific list from VA and hopefully we will receive that shortly. At the very least, we are talking about deferred maintenance, and anyone who is familiar with the military knows that deferred maintenance means trouble for our troops. The same is true for a hospital or clinic. The purchase and replacement of equipment directly impacts the quality of care provided. Let there be no mistake about that. Deferring capital projects may also mean that needed clinics--and there are more than 120 clinics in the queue--will never come to fruition. My colleagues in the Senate will be familiar with this issue. Indeed, we raised the issue earlier this year on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, VA officials denied that trouble was ahead. Our amendment is a way to fix the problem. But let me say that I am open to any approach that ensures the highest quality health care for our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Securities and Exchange Commission-- SEC--has been impressively led by Chairman William Donaldson. Chairman Donaldson inherited an agency in turmoil. The previous chairman left an agency with limited effectiveness and demoralized staff. The SEC needed a vocal, imaginative, and forceful leader to restore the trust of investors. Chairman Donaldson has accomplished much during his tenure, such as reform of the mutual fund industry, the implementation of Sarbanes- Oxley, the registration of hedge funds, while improving the integrity of exchanges. He has been the friend and protector of investors. Unfortunately, this has brought him a lot of criticism. I have been impressed by his ability to fight for what he considers to be in the best interests of investors and the public. I was deeply saddened when Chairman Donaldson announced his resignation. I am concerned about the future of the Commission after his departure. In particular, I am worried about mutual fund reform. Mutual funds are of particular interest to me because they are investment vehicles that millions of middle-income Americans utilize that provide diversification and professional money management. Wealthier individuals can have their own investment managers and private bankers, or invest in hedge funds. Mutual funds are what average investors rely on for retirement, savings for children's college education, or other financial goals and dreams. I was appalled by the flagrant abuses of trust among mutual fund companies that were discovered by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and the SEC in 2003. Ordinary investors were being harmed due to the greed of brokers, mutual fund companies, and institutional and large investors. In November 2003, I introduced S. 1822, the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2003. I introduced legislation to bring about structural reform to the mutual fund industry, increase disclosures in order to provide useful and relevant information to mutual fund investors, and restore trust among investors. Several key provisions of the legislation were the requirements that mutual fund chairman and 75 percent of board members be independent. The transgressions brought to light made it clear that the boards of mutual fund companies are not providing sufficient oversight. To be more effective, the boards must be strengthened and made to be more independent. Independent directors must have a dominant presence on the board to ensure that investors' interests are the paramount priority. I applauded the efforts of the SEC to adopt proposals that will improve the governance of mutual funds and that mirrored provisions from my legislation. Again, Chairman Donaldson and the majority of the commissioners have made great attempts to address the widespread abuse of investors by the mutual fund industry. The independence requirements are an important part of the Commission's response that will ultimately lead to improved governance, better protect shareholders from possible abuse, and improve the transparency of fees. The SEC requirements for an independent chairman for mutual fund boards and an increase in the percentage of independent directors to 75 percent are significant steps towards ensuring that independent directors are better able to protect shareholders' interests. I believe that the Commission must go forward with the independence rule and address the concerns raised by the Federal appeals court. Several of my colleagues have written to the Commission saying that the reissuance of the rule would be inappropriate. I respectfully disagree. It is not out of the ordinary for outgoing agency leaders to move rules forward prior to their departure. The uncertainy of the future of the independence rule for the mutual fund industry and of the outcome of the confirmation process, require that action be taken on the rule as soon as possible. On May 16, I reintroduced a modified version of my original bill, S. 1037, to further strengthen the independence of boards, make investors more aware of the true costs of their mutual funds, and prevent several key reforms from being rolled back. Legislation is needed to ensure that the increased independence rule is applied universally among mutual funds, not just those that rely on exemptive rules. I look forward to meeting with Representative Cox to discuss mutual fund regulation, prior to consideration of his nomination by the Senate. It is my hope that Representative Cox will be as aggressive in protecting investors as Chairman Donaldson has been. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to enact mutual fund reform legislation. I support the efforts to move the mutual fund independence requirements forward and appreciate all of the hard work of Chairman Donaldson and the SEC staff on this important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman. Climate change is a topic that is very important to Hawaii, Pacific islands, and coastal States in general. I have served on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources since I joined the Senate in 1990. The committee has held hearings on global change almost every year since then, regardless of which party held the majority. It has become clear that an omnibus energy bill must address the production of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most prominent greenhouse gases, because 98 percent of carbon dioxide emissions are energy related. For more than 20 years, the National Research Council, the International Panel on Climate Change, and Federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Energy, have been investigating climate change to broaden the scope of our understanding of the interactions of the oceans and the atmosphere, and the modeling of terrestrial and coastal impacts of climate change. Fifteen years ago, scientists were uncertain about the effects of global warming. Today, nearly 95 percent of scientists say that global warming is a certainty. Most recently, the national academies of science of 11 nations joined together in a joint science academies statement on the need for a global response to climate change. Among the prestigious scientific bodies signing the statement was our Nation's National Academy of Sciences, the Chinese and Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Science Council of Japan. The signatories urged all Nations to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. I believe that the relatively small cost of taking action now is a much wiser course of action than forcing States and counties to bear the costs of severe hurricanes and typhoons, and replacement of bridges, roads, seawalls and port and harbor infrastructure. In my part of the world climate change will result in a phenomenon that strikes fear in the hearts of many island communities. This phenomenon is sea level rise. Sea level rise, storm surge, shoreline degradation, saltwater intrusion into wells, and increasing flooding will impose very high costs on island and coastal communities, but these costs, which are real and are happening already, are not being addressed. I would like to describe some disturbing recent information that relates to sea level rise. Scientists at the 2004 Climate Variability and Predictability program, also known as CLIVAR, under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme, have offered evidence that global warming could result in a melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet much more rapidly than expected. The World Climate Research Programme is an international group of renown scientists that focuses on describing and understanding variability and change of the physical climate system on time scales from months to centuries and beyond. The research has important implications for islands and low-lying areas and communities worldwide, from Native communities in Alaska along the shores of the Bering Sea, to the Pacific nations of low-lying atolls, to the bayous of Louisiana and the delta regions in Bangladesh. Using the latest satellite and paleoclimate data from ice cores of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the world's largest ice sheet, studies indicate that the last time the ice sheet melted entirely was when the temperature was only three degrees Celsius higher than it is today. At first this puzzled scientists because it didn't seem that such a modest temperature rise could melt so much ice. However, recent expeditions have revealed large pools of standing water which feed enormous cracks in the ice sheet, over a mile deep. Scientists believe the water falls down the cracks all the way to the bottom of the ice sheet and could easily enable the glacier to slide more rapidly into the sea. They believe the ice sheet could break up at a much lower temperature than previously thought. Current projections for warming due to greenhouse gases indicate that our temperature could rise three degrees Celsius in less than 100 years, almost guaranteeing the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Complete melting of the ice sheet would result in a 6 meter, or about 18-foot, sea level rise, inundating many coastal cities and causing small islands to disappear. The effects are expected to be felt in high latitude regions earlier than others. In 2004, the Senate had field hearings in Alaska where Native villages are experiencing the effects of sea level rise. Continental ice sheets, or their disappearance, are driving sea level change. It is time to connect the dots with respect to global warming. I am particularly concerned for islands in the Pacific. There are changes in our islands that can only be explained by global phenomena such as the buildup of carbon dioxide. Globally, sea level has increased 6 to 14 inches in the last century and it is likely to rise another 17 to 25 inches by 2100. This would be a 1- to 2-foot rise. You can imagine what this might mean to port operators, shoreline property owners, tourists and residents who use Hawaii's beautiful beaches, and to island nations and territories in the Pacific whose highest elevation is between three and 100 meters above sea level. A typhoon or hurricane would be devastating to communities on these islands, not to mention the low-lying coastal wetlands of the continental United States. I am alarmed by changes in Hawaii. The sandy beaches of Oahu and Maui are eroding. In addition, we have lost a small atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is an archipelago of atolls, shoals, and coral reefs that are a 2-day boat trip or 4-hour plane flight from Honolulu. They are known to be one of the most pristine atoll and coral reef ecosystems left in the world and are currently in protected status as a marine reserve. Whale-Skate Island at French Frigate Shoals was an island with vegetation and thousands of seabirds nesting on it. It was a nesting area for sea turtles, and many Hawaiian Monk seals pupped there, according to a wildlife biologist who wrote her thesis on French Frigate Shoals. Today, it is all water except for one-tenth of an acre. The 17 acres of habitat for Monk seal pups, nesting birds and turtles that has been there since the turn of the century, is virtually gone. Although atolls and shoals can lose their land area from seasonal storms and erosion, this one is almost entirely gone and has been ``downgraded'' from an island to a ``part-time sand spit.'' Similar fates face communities located on low-lying Pacific islands. The residents of the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu are considering relocation from their homes. Rising sea level has turned their wells salty and filled their crop-growing agricultural areas with sea water. The impacts of even a relatively small sea level rise on Pacific nations and atolls, some with maximum elevations which are less than ten feet above sea level, can be severe. In the Pacific, cultural activities are interwoven with the conservation of the environment. These traditions in the past allowed the survival of dense populations on small land areas. Today, the global issue of climate change extends beyond our borders and threatens the livelihoods of these nations. Climate change is an important challenge and high priority for immediate action in the Pacific. We must take a first, cautious step to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. If we fail to address the issue of climate change now, the U.S. may have to face catastrophic and expensive consequences. A relatively small investment today is far wiser than spending vast amounts in the future to replace destroyed homes and infrastructure, restore altered ecosystems, and reinvest in collapsed agricultural and fisheries industries. Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology conducted a study that analyzed the proposed costs of the Lieberman-McCain amendment and estimated the cost to be less than $20 per household per year. The Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy, estimates the loss in consumption to be around $40 to $50 per household per year in 2010. The analysis also shows that the impact on real gross domestic product to be minimal, that is, not changing it from the baseline reference. The European Union EU has adopted a mandatory cap and trade program with a carbon dioxide reduction target of eight percent by the year 2012. The compliance costs of the EU greenhouse gas reduction program are expected to total less than 0.1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. The EU predicts a minimal effect on their economic growth even under a rigorous approach. The United States has the technological capabilities and intellectual resources to lead the world in an effort to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for recognizing the importance of climate change and taking the lead on legislation to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the 108th Congress and this Congress. I also greatly respect the amendment developed by the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, in cooperation with the National Commission on Energy Policy. Both of these amendments demonstrate to the Nation and the international community our serious commitment to move on carbon emissions. It is clear that piecemeal, voluntary approaches have failed to reduce the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Now is the time to send a strong message that the U.S. is serious about the impacts of climate change. A policy of inaction on climate change is not acceptable and will cost the United States more than preventive policies. I firmly believe that we can have economic growth while protecting coastal communities in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Louisiana, and other low-lying, vulnerable, coastal areas. It is time to reduce carbon emissions. For the last 5 years, we have debated how to do it using market mechanisms, through trading systems that capture the value of allowances, credits, or permits, and generate revenue through auctions. Many industries have already accepted this challenge and most, including utility giant American Electric Power Company, according to a 2004 Business Week article, have seen cost savings and business benefits. The Pew Foundation for Global Climate Change reports that most industries have been able to meet their self- imposed goals through efficiencies alone, without requiring heavy capital investment. This is an opportunity to unleash the talent of businesses, engineers, and the Nation's entrepreneurial spirit to create efficiencies in fuel processing and to develop carbon-limited fuels. The time to act on carbon dioxide is now. The McCain-Lieberman amendment is a step forward and a symbol of the Nation's commitment to the world to reduce our carbon emissions. The amendment uses markets to determine how to manage specific emission reductions, a positive combination of bipartisan policy principles to establish a mechanism that will benefit the nations around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 147 the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. My colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, for whom I have great respect, has inserted several documents written by outside sources into the Congressional Record over the past months, criticizing my legislation as a racebased measure. I vehemently disagree with his characterization of my bill as race-based. We will be debating S. 147 on the floor of the Senate in a few weeks and, at that time, we will have a full opportunity to talk about the legislation, which extends the Federal policy of selfgovernance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians, Hawaii's indigenous peoples, thereby establishing parity in Federal policy toward American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. S. 147 is widely supported in Hawaii. Governor Linda Lingle has testified twice in 4 years in support of this bill. The Hawaii State Legislature has passed resolutions in support of Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians in 2000, 2001, and 2005. Resolutions in support have also been passed by the Alaska Federation of Natives and National Congress of American Indians. Finally, a substantial number of my constituents, Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians support this bill. In 1993, P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, was enacted into law. The Act provides an apology to Native Hawaiians for the participation of U.S. agents in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 and sets up a process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States. My colleague from Arizona has submitted multiple articles criticizing the Apology Resolution and purporting to justify one of the most painful experiences in Hawaii's history, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. I have worked on this bill for the past 6 years with the rest of my colleagues in Hawaii's Congressional delegation. This bill is a step in the right direction for all people of Hawaii because it provides a structured process that will allow us to finally resolve many of the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow. It is disturbing that opponents to the bill rely so heavily on mischaracterizations of the legislation to advocate their position. I stand by Hawaii's history as enacted in P.L. 103-150. The facts as cited are well-documented by historians. It greatly saddens me that the opponents to my bill feel the need to rewrite Hawaii's history, as painful as it is for those of us who have lived it, in order to advocate their position on S. 147. It is one thing to oppose my bill. It is quite another, however, to trivialize the history of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Levin, in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005 (the ICOM Act), which will strengthen the interoperability of first responder communications across the country. Since September 11, Federal, State, and local authorities have grappled with the challenge of achieving interoperable communications for emergency response personnel. This should not be a difficult task since the necessary technology exists. But as with many public policy challenges, achieving interoperability comes down to organization and funding. The 9-11 Commission found that the inability of first responders to communicate at the three September 11 crash sites demonstrated ``that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains a important problem.'' In my home State of Hawaii, for example, first responders are unable to communicate by radio over 25 percent of the Island of Hawaii because of inadequate infrastructure and diverse geography. The Commission recommended that federal funding of local interoperability programs be given a high priority. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated it would cost $40 billion to modernize communications equipment for the Nation's 2.5 million public safety first responders. In 2003, an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations recommended investing $6.8 billion over five years to ensure dependable, interoperable first responder communications, a need which they describe as ``so central to any kind of terrorist attack response.'' However, funding alone will not solve this urgent problem. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that DHS leadership is critical to utilizing effectively interoperability technologies. In an April 2005 report, ``Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires,'' GAO stated that even if two neighboring jurisdictions have the funding to purchase an interconnection device, such as an audio switch, organizational challenges remain. GAO stated, ``To effectively employ the device, they must also jointly decide how to share its cost, ownership, and management; agree on the operating procedures for when and how to deploy it; and train individuals to configure, maintain, and use it.'' Achieving such planning and coordination will require federal leadership. According to GAO, the federal government has increased interoperability planning and coordination efforts in recent years. However the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), which is run out of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in DHS, has made limited progress in achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels of government. The ICOM Act will increase federal coordination and provide dedicated funding for interoperability. Our bill will increase the resources and authority of the OIC, which was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Specifically, the OIC will be tasked with creating a national strategy and national architecture, facilitating the creation of regional task forces, and conducting pilot programs to evaluate new technology concepts. The OIC will be responsible not only for short-term solutions, but also for simultaneously pursuing a long-term interoperability strategy, something that has been lacking from Federal efforts to date. The ICOM Act will also create an interoperability grant program and authorize $3.3 billion over five years for the program. Recognizing that achieving interoperability is crucial to every State's emergency response capabilities, the bill gives each State a baseline amount of .55 percent of the funding. The ICOM Act also requires the Secretary to look to at the unique geographic barriers in each State which may impede interoperability when awarding grants. This is key to States like Hawaii that may require additional transmitter towers and other types of equipment to overcome the obstacles that come with being a mountainous or island State. Last year, I joined Senators Lieberman and Collins in introducing S. 2701, the Homeland Security Interagency and Interjurisdictional Information Sharing Act of 2004. Many of the provisions in S. 2701 were incorporated into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. However, there still continue to be problems in terms of leadership and funding in federal interoperability policy. I ask my colleagues to not wait another year to begin to fill this hole. I urge support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Levin, in introducing the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005 (the ICOM Act), which will strengthen the interoperability of first responder communications across the country. Since September 11, Federal, State, and local authorities have grappled with the challenge of achieving interoperable communications for emergency response personnel. This should not be a difficult task since the necessary technology exists. But as with many public policy challenges, achieving interoperability comes down to organization and funding. The 9-11 Commission found that the inability of first responders to communicate at the three September 11 crash sites demonstrated ``that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains a important problem.'' In my home State of Hawaii, for example, first responders are unable to communicate by radio over 25 percent of the Island of Hawaii because of inadequate infrastructure and diverse geography. The Commission recommended that federal funding of local interoperability programs be given a high priority. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated it would cost $40 billion to modernize communications equipment for the Nation's 2.5 million public safety first responders. In 2003, an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations recommended investing $6.8 billion over five years to ensure dependable, interoperable first responder communications, a need which they describe as ``so central to any kind of terrorist attack response.'' However, funding alone will not solve this urgent problem. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that DHS leadership is critical to utilizing effectively interoperability technologies. In an April 2005 report, ``Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires,'' GAO stated that even if two neighboring jurisdictions have the funding to purchase an interconnection device, such as an audio switch, organizational challenges remain. GAO stated, ``To effectively employ the device, they must also jointly decide how to share its cost, ownership, and management; agree on the operating procedures for when and how to deploy it; and train individuals to configure, maintain, and use it.'' Achieving such planning and coordination will require federal leadership. According to GAO, the federal government has increased interoperability planning and coordination efforts in recent years. However the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), which is run out of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in DHS, has made limited progress in achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels of government. The ICOM Act will increase federal coordination and provide dedicated funding for interoperability. Our bill will increase the resources and authority of the OIC, which was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Specifically, the OIC will be tasked with creating a national strategy and national architecture, facilitating the creation of regional task forces, and conducting pilot programs to evaluate new technology concepts. The OIC will be responsible not only for short-term solutions, but also for simultaneously pursuing a long-term interoperability strategy, something that has been lacking from Federal efforts to date. The ICOM Act will also create an interoperability grant program and authorize $3.3 billion over five years for the program. Recognizing that achieving interoperability is crucial to every State's emergency response capabilities, the bill gives each State a baseline amount of .55 percent of the funding. The ICOM Act also requires the Secretary to look to at the unique geographic barriers in each State which may impede interoperability when awarding grants. This is key to States like Hawaii that may require additional transmitter towers and other types of equipment to overcome the obstacles that come with being a mountainous or island State. Last year, I joined Senators Lieberman and Collins in introducing S. 2701, the Homeland Security Interagency and Interjurisdictional Information Sharing Act of 2004. Many of the provisions in S. 2701 were incorporated into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. However, there still continue to be problems in terms of leadership and funding in federal interoperability policy. I ask my colleagues to not wait another year to begin to fill this hole. I urge support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to recognize the achievements of several individuals from Hawaii who have excelled in an area of great interest to me, the area of economic education. First is Lance Suzuki, a teacher at Maryknoll High School in Hawaii. For his AP Economics class he developed a new and very innovative piece of curriculum, a novel approach to involve the students in learning economics. This lesson is called ``What Does 2 Trillion Dollars Buy?'' where students participate in learning the political side of the economy as well as how the federal budget is developed and approved by the Congress. For this lesson, he was recognized by the NASDAQ Stock Market Educational Foundation, Inc. and the National Council on Economic Education as the Grand Winner of their 2005 National Teaching Award. Economic education is very important to our nation. Commercial marketing continues to target younger audiences--not just teenagers, but young children--to become consumers and in some cases provides them with easy access to lines of credit. We must ensure that our students have the necessary tools for sound financial decision making. Lance Suzuki's curriculum achieves this important goal. Not only will his students and school benefit, but all of us will gain from the innovative efforts of Lance Suzuki. I am proud that a teacher in my home State of Hawaii has been recognized with this prestigious award for expanding economic education. I also wish to congratulate a group from Iolani School. They are students Justin Van Etten, Lara Malins, Tyler Mizumoto and Reed Ayabe, and their coach, Col. Richard Rankin. These four students along with team member Steve Schowalter, who was unable to attend the competition, comprise the top Iolani School Economics Team. On May 23, 2005, they won the 2005 National Economics Challenge, a competition that started out with 34,000 teams nationwide. The future of our country depends on our students, and I am pleased to know that Hawaii is turning out such successful young people. I earnestly congratulate them for their achievement. I have been very active in working to address economic and financial illiteracy in the United States. I have introduced legislation including the Mutual Fund Transparency Act, the College Literacy in Financial Education Act and the enacted Excellence in Economic Education Act. We must strive for better economic and financial literacy, which, in turn, will result in stronger families, better- functioning markets, and a more secure future for our nation. It is a critical time for citizens to be literate in economic issues. More than ever, the need for leadership in the classroom is foremost and the involvement of students is paramount. Lance Suzuki and the Iolani Economics Team are role models for our country and I am proud to extend my sincere congratulations and appreciation for their hard work.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with a profound sense of optimism and appreciation. We have not enacted a comprehensive energy bill since 1992. Many programs need reauthorization and many need revision. Programs and demonstrations must be updated to today's and tomorrow's energy parameters. I have long said that the Nation needs a comprehensive blueprint for an energy policy that will take us in advanced directions, away from dependence on declining reserves of fossil fuel and foreign sources of oil. We need a policy which will reconcile growth and energy conservation in our transportation, manufacturing, utility, and consumer sectors across the Nation. We need to bring down the high costs of electricity and gasoline for the country, particularly in my State of Hawaii, and pursue greater energy independence from petroleum products. S. 10, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, provides the best opportunity that I have seen in years. As a senior member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am familiar with cutting-edge technologies and approaches to generating energy. I was closely involved in crafting several parts of this energy bill--legislation that contains three bills that I have introduced, and a hydrogen title that was crafted with the leadership of Senators Dorgan, Graham, and myself as members of the Senate Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus. I have contributed to comprehensive energy bills in 2002 and in 2003. I wish to thank both Senators from New Mexico for their leadership and hard work in bridging many regional differences in this comprehensive bill, while still keeping in mind the overall vision for an energy bill. The Energy Committee, under the leadership of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, held a series of structured hearings that were informational briefings from a broad spectrum of industry, environmental groups, non-profits, and small businesses. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman are to be commended for keeping an open mind about the potential for new energy sources and a balance of renewable and fossil fuels, science and research and development. In sum, this is a balanced energy bill. The energy policies that we address in this legislation cover a vast range of authorities and a patchwork of unruly regional alliances. This translates to an enormous challenge, and I appreciate Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman's hard work and the work of their staffs. I want to compliment them on crafting an energy bill that will help the Nation as well as States with special ``off-grid'' energy needs such as Alaska, my state of Hawaii, and insular territories and commonwealths. I support this bill and voted for it in our Committee. The bill is well-balanced between renewable energy production, energy efficiency provisions, oil and gas technologies, electricity provisions, and alternate and visionary sources of energy such as hydrogen. The bill invests in the Nation's Research and Development for energy technologies, something that we must continue doing to remain leaders in the world, as global demand for energy increases. The last title of the bill, Title Fourteen, provides much-needed incentives for innovative technologies, through loan guarantees for new energy facilities and projects. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of title VIII, the Hydrogen title. I am an original cosponsor of S. 665, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005, and worked with Senators Dorgan, Graham, and other members of the Hydrogen Caucus to craft this bill, which is included in S. 10. The bill reauthorizes and amends the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990, which has been the basic authority for Federal hydrogen programs for the last 20 years. Reauthorization of the Matsunaga Act is badly needed and I have been working toward that goal for several years. The bill provides for robust R&D for hydrogen fuel cells. It includes a provision to enhance sources of renewable fuels and biofuels for hydrogen production among its R&D priorities, which is very important for isolated areas such as Pacific islands and rural areas across the Nation. In addition to the R&D section, the bill includes hydrogen fuel cell demonstration programs for vehicles and for national parks, remote island areas, and on Indian tribal land. The bill authorizes system demonstrations, including distributed energy systems that incorporate renewable hydrogen production and off-grid electricity production. In other words, the bill includes a broad range of hydrogen energy applications that will reach out to rural communities and lower income families, hospitals, military facilities--not solely vehicle applications and infrastructure. It recognizes the importance of developing hydrogen from renewable sources and demonstration projects for stationary and distributed energy systems in remote areas and islands. I am pleased that the bill contains my request for an energy study in Hawaii. I thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman for including my bill, S. 436, the Hawaii Energy Study bill. Hawaii is uniquely dependent on crude oil for its energy sources. Before we invest in a different energy mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the dynamics between fuels, generating electricity, and the consequences of the directions we choose. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to assess the short- and long-term prospects of oil supply disruptions and price volatility and their impacts on Hawaii, and to assess the economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of Hawaii. In Hawaii, the costs of gasoline, electricity, and jet fuel are intertwined in an intricate relationship, because they all come from the same feedstock, and changes in the use of one can potentially drive consumer prices up or down. Although we approved an ethanol title yesterday, I would like to add a few words on the topic of the ethanol mandate. First, I would like to extend my appreciation to Senators Talent and Johnson, and their staff, who have shown great leadership in working with committee members to understand the challenges that States face with a Federal ethanol mandate. I am particularly sensitive to States' needs with respect to renewable fuels and renewable energy. In Hawaii and other remote areas we lack the ability to produce ethanol. We would like to have that ability to free us from importing ethanol and the rising price of crude oil. Hawaii has had the highest gasoline prices in the Nation over the last 10 years. We also have a State mandate to use ethanol, enacted last year and due to go into effect in spring of 2006. Our State ethanol mandate is driven by the desire to increase the use of biomass, increase the renewable content in our transportation fuels, and decrease the imports of crude oil to Hawaii. These are all good goals. Our sugar interests and ethanol producers are struggling to put facilities into place to produce ethanol because we need to meet our State mandate. This is why Senator Inouye and I greatly appreciate the inclusion of cellulosic and sugar cane-to-ethanol provisions in this bill. The demonstration provisions will greatly assist us in reaching our ethanol goals in the State. We also need a loan guarantee program to help our producers. The loan guarantee program in the amendment we adopted is more restrictive than the one approved and reported by the Energy Committee. Hawaii's ethanol facilities are projected to produce between 7 and 15 million gallons of ethanol and the market in Hawaii is about 45 million gallons. Hawaii has an independent market and a State requirement for ethanol. Our plants will be smaller than in other States and would greatly benefit from a loan guarantee program for smaller producers. This is very important to my State and I look forward to working with my colleagues to further address this issue in conference. In other titles of the Energy bill, I am pleased that title VI, Nuclear Matters, includes provisions of a bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 979, to require the Department of Energy to provide for a facility for the safe storage of greater-than-class-C radioactive waste. Radioactive sealed sources, which can be used to create a ``dirty bomb,'' are all around us and pose a great risk. The administration must take action to ensure the control and safe disposal of those sources. The energy bill also includes S. 711, a bill I introduced with Senator Murkowski to reauthorize the methane hydrates program at the Department of Energy. Hydrates are important--the U.S. has enormous hydrate resources, perhaps as much as a quarter of the world's gas hydrates. As increased demand draws down natural gas reserves, we must look to additional sources, such as hydrates, for the future. The bill includes a robust methane hydrates program that includes the recommendations of the National Research Council's study on the program and future of methane hydrates. We still have much work ahead of us. The bill does not include fuel economy standards which significantly increase the fuel efficiency of automobiles and are a vital component of a comprehensive energy policy. The American people want to spend less money on gasoline, be less dependent on foreign oil, address the issue of climate change, and breathe cleaner air. Strong fuel economy standards help provide some solutions. Also the bill does not address the growing emissions of carbon dioxide, which are radically changing the world around us. I am hopeful we will address these matters on the floor and I look forward to the debate. Again, I appreciate and commend my colleagues Senators Domenici and Bingaman on the bipartisan nature of this bill and the process by which it was developed. amendment no. 794

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the birthday of the United States Army. The Army celebrates 230 years of service to our great Nation on June 14. On this momentous occasion, I ask that we all pause to pay tribute to the fine men and women of the Army who have served both around the world and at home during the U.S. Army's distinguished history. During the history of the U.S. Army, the battlefield location has changed and the warfighting technology has changed, but the spirit of the men and women of the U.S. Army has remained as consistent as the cause that they fight for--to protect, defend, and promote freedom at home and abroad. The selfless service given by each and every member of the U.S. Army is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Contractor Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Human Trafficking Offenses Act of 2005, which builds upon bipartisan efforts to combat the abhorrent practice of human trafficking. Human trafficking is unfortunately among the fastest growing international criminal activities. According to the U.S. State Department's 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report, 600,000 to 800,000 victims are transported across international borders each year. These victims often come from the world's most vulnerable populations and regions affected by wars or humanitarian disasters. With the promise of well-paying jobs, victims are often enticed to foreign countries, where upon arrival, their passports or travel papers are confiscated, and they are forced, many times beaten, until they agree to work without pay or serve as prostitutes. The perpetrators of human trafficking are typically motivated by profits derived from the use of forced labor or commercial sex exploitation. Because one of the common motivations of trafficking is forced prostitution: 80 percent of the victims are women and 50 percent of the victims are children. In 2001, awareness of human trafficking grew in London during a murder investigation where the victim was a small African boy. While trying to determine the identity of the victim, investigators discovered that, in London alone, 300 African children between the ages of 4 and 7 could not be accounted for. That staggering statistic provides an insight into the pervasiveness of child trafficking and demonstrates that it can occur in all countries, including the most affluent. This issue has long been a concern of mine. Nearly 6 years ago, I learned of a human trafficking ring that enslaved foreign workers and smuggled them to the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. The workers were forced to work in factories or serve as prostitutes. Senators Frank Murkowski, Jeff Bingaman, and I introduced S. 1052 to tighten immigration law in the CNMI to prevent future human trafficking rings. Although our bill passed the Senate, it was not taken up in the House. Unfortunately, that was only one of numerous human trafficking conspiracies discovered within the United States. The State Department estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 human trafficking victims are brought into our country every year. We cannot address this issue without recognizing the efforts of my friend and departed colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who through his leadership, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386, was enacted. This law first established our Nation's commitment to the prosecution of traffickers and the protection of victims of trafficking. Since 2000, and the passage of this Act, there has been a surge in government activity relating to the prevention and prosecution of human trafficking offenses. In 2003 alone, there were approximately 3,000 convictions of human traffickers worldwide. We have learned a great deal more about the conditions under which members of a population are likely to become victims of trafficking. Those who are displaced from their homes or suffering from poverty are much more likely to become victims of trafficking. Unfortunately, military forces and organizations charged with protecting and providing for vulnerable populations have, at times, actually encouraged the trafficking of humans. There have been instances in the Congo and in Bosnia where increased demand for prostitution and forced labor caused by foreign peacekeeping troops and humanitarian aid workers accelerated the exploitation of already vulnerable populations. There have even been reports where contractors, working on behalf of the United States Government, have contributed to, and even participated in, the trafficking of humans abroad. Nothing is more contrary to the freedoms we cherish than the trafficking of humans, which is why I introduce today the Federal Contractor Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Human Trafficking Offenses Act. My bill closes a loophole in U.S. criminal law. Under current law, Federal contractors who engage in human trafficking offenses abroad are subject to prosecution in the United States only if ``employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces.'' The bill closes this loophole by permitting the prosecution of Federal contractors of ``any executive agency.'' I believe all U.S. contractors should be treated the same, and all should be held to the same standards. A paycheck from the United States should never be used to purchase a human life. I wish to point out that this legislation respects the sovereignty of foreign governments to prosecute these crimes locally. If a prosecution has occurred or is pending by the foreign government, U.S. authorities are precluded from prosecuting except upon approval of the U.S. Attorney General. Rather, my measure authorizes the prosecution of a U.S. contractor who engages in human trafficking abroad but flees the foreign country to avoid prosecution. This happened, according to at least one report, where an employee of a Federal contractor in Bosnia bought a woman to serve as a sex slave. This individual fled the country after local authorities discovered the crime, and he returned to the U.S. to avoid prosecution. My bill would empower U.S. prosecutors to bring such an individual to justice. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Contractor Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Human Trafficking Offenses Act of 2005, which builds upon bipartisan efforts to combat the abhorrent practice of human trafficking. Human trafficking is unfortunately among the fastest growing international criminal activities. According to the U.S. State Department's 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report, 600,000 to 800,000 victims are transported across international borders each year. These victims often come from the world's most vulnerable populations and regions affected by wars or humanitarian disasters. With the promise of well-paying jobs, victims are often enticed to foreign countries, where upon arrival, their passports or travel papers are confiscated, and they are forced, many times beaten, until they agree to work without pay or serve as prostitutes. The perpetrators of human trafficking are typically motivated by profits derived from the use of forced labor or commercial sex exploitation. Because one of the common motivations of trafficking is forced prostitution: 80 percent of the victims are women and 50 percent of the victims are children. In 2001, awareness of human trafficking grew in London during a murder investigation where the victim was a small African boy. While trying to determine the identity of the victim, investigators discovered that, in London alone, 300 African children between the ages of 4 and 7 could not be accounted for. That staggering statistic provides an insight into the pervasiveness of child trafficking and demonstrates that it can occur in all countries, including the most affluent. This issue has long been a concern of mine. Nearly 6 years ago, I learned of a human trafficking ring that enslaved foreign workers and smuggled them to the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. The workers were forced to work in factories or serve as prostitutes. Senators Frank Murkowski, Jeff Bingaman, and I introduced S. 1052 to tighten immigration law in the CNMI to prevent future human trafficking rings. Although our bill passed the Senate, it was not taken up in the House. Unfortunately, that was only one of numerous human trafficking conspiracies discovered within the United States. The State Department estimates that 14,500 to 17,500 human trafficking victims are brought into our country every year. We cannot address this issue without recognizing the efforts of my friend and departed colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, who through his leadership, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386, was enacted. This law first established our Nation's commitment to the prosecution of traffickers and the protection of victims of trafficking. Since 2000, and the passage of this Act, there has been a surge in government activity relating to the prevention and prosecution of human trafficking offenses. In 2003 alone, there were approximately 3,000 convictions of human traffickers worldwide. We have learned a great deal more about the conditions under which members of a population are likely to become victims of trafficking. Those who are displaced from their homes or suffering from poverty are much more likely to become victims of trafficking. Unfortunately, military forces and organizations charged with protecting and providing for vulnerable populations have, at times, actually encouraged the trafficking of humans. There have been instances in the Congo and in Bosnia where increased demand for prostitution and forced labor caused by foreign peacekeeping troops and humanitarian aid workers accelerated the exploitation of already vulnerable populations. There have even been reports where contractors, working on behalf of the United States Government, have contributed to, and even participated in, the trafficking of humans abroad. Nothing is more contrary to the freedoms we cherish than the trafficking of humans, which is why I introduce today the Federal Contractor Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Human Trafficking Offenses Act. My bill closes a loophole in U.S. criminal law. Under current law, Federal contractors who engage in human trafficking offenses abroad are subject to prosecution in the United States only if ``employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces.'' The bill closes this loophole by permitting the prosecution of Federal contractors of ``any executive agency.'' I believe all U.S. contractors should be treated the same, and all should be held to the same standards. A paycheck from the United States should never be used to purchase a human life. I wish to point out that this legislation respects the sovereignty of foreign governments to prosecute these crimes locally. If a prosecution has occurred or is pending by the foreign government, U.S. authorities are precluded from prosecuting except upon approval of the U.S. Attorney General. Rather, my measure authorizes the prosecution of a U.S. contractor who engages in human trafficking abroad but flees the foreign country to avoid prosecution. This happened, according to at least one report, where an employee of a Federal contractor in Bosnia bought a woman to serve as a sex slave. This individual fled the country after local authorities discovered the crime, and he returned to the U.S. to avoid prosecution. My bill would empower U.S. prosecutors to bring such an individual to justice. Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii have so bravely earned. Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and its population continues to grow each year. As such, the number of veterans seeking VA health care has grown. However, the level of services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed to keep pace. Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home to Hawaii from the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women receive adequate care. It is equally critical that today's veterans receive needed long- term care and mental health care. My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program. That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu. Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while receiving the care they need. Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date. This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as entitled to quality health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care, whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic. At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community-- particularly with regard to mental health care. However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints. Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past few years have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not a new one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these specialized programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because of their smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required VA to retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels in place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually report as to the status of its compliance with this requirement. Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs. This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification services. Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of mental health more readily available to DoD providers. We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are at the heart of VA's mission. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care, whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic. At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community-- particularly with regard to mental health care. However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints. Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past few years have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not a new one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these specialized programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because of their smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required VA to retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels in place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually report as to the status of its compliance with this requirement. Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs. This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification services. Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of mental health more readily available to DoD providers. We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are at the heart of VA's mission. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii have so bravely earned. Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and its population continues to grow each year. As such, the number of veterans seeking VA health care has grown. However, the level of services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed to keep pace. Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home to Hawaii from the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women receive adequate care. It is equally critical that today's veterans receive needed long- term care and mental health care. My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program. That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu. Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while receiving the care they need. Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date. This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as entitled to quality health care. 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 introduce a bill to reauthorize the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission, an advisory group to Kalaupapa National Historical Park. The park was established by statute in 1980, P.L. 96-565, to provide for the preservation of the nationally and internationally significant resources of the Kalaupapa settlement on the island of Molokai in the State of Hawaii--the residents, culture, history, and natural resources. The purpose of the park is to provide a well-maintained community in which the Kalaupapa Hansen's disease patients are guaranteed that they may remain at Kalaupapa as long as they wish, and to protect the current lifestyle of these patients and their individual privacy. The Act provides that the preservation and interpretation of the settlement be managed and performed by patients and Native Hawaiians to the extent practical. Section 108 of the enacting legislation establishes the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission consisting of 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior for terms of five years. Seven of the members are patients or former patients elected by the patient community. Four members are appointed from recommendations made by the Governor of Hawaii, and at least one of these is Native Hawaiian. The appointments are not compensated. The Advisory Commission is an important body providing input and advice to the Secretary of the Interior on policy concerning visitation to the park and other matters. It is remarkable that 25 years have passed since enactment of the bill establishing the park and Commission; and at the end of the 2005 calendar year, the Advisory Commission expires. It is important to continue the work of the Commission, which is to provide a voice for the patients and residents to be heard on matters concerning their home. I and my cosponsor Senator Inouye urge favorable consideration of this legislation in a timely fashion, so that the Commission can continue its business and advisory functions. 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 introduce a bill to reauthorize the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission, an advisory group to Kalaupapa National Historical Park. The park was established by statute in 1980, P.L. 96-565, to provide for the preservation of the nationally and internationally significant resources of the Kalaupapa settlement on the island of Molokai in the State of Hawaii--the residents, culture, history, and natural resources. The purpose of the park is to provide a well-maintained community in which the Kalaupapa Hansen's disease patients are guaranteed that they may remain at Kalaupapa as long as they wish, and to protect the current lifestyle of these patients and their individual privacy. The Act provides that the preservation and interpretation of the settlement be managed and performed by patients and Native Hawaiians to the extent practical. Section 108 of the enacting legislation establishes the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission consisting of 11 members, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior for terms of five years. Seven of the members are patients or former patients elected by the patient community. Four members are appointed from recommendations made by the Governor of Hawaii, and at least one of these is Native Hawaiian. The appointments are not compensated. The Advisory Commission is an important body providing input and advice to the Secretary of the Interior on policy concerning visitation to the park and other matters. It is remarkable that 25 years have passed since enactment of the bill establishing the park and Commission; and at the end of the 2005 calendar year, the Advisory Commission expires. It is important to continue the work of the Commission, which is to provide a voice for the patients and residents to be heard on matters concerning their home. I and my cosponsor Senator Inouye urge favorable consideration of this legislation in a timely fashion, so that the Commission can continue its business and advisory functions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the significance of Memorial Day and to remember the Americans it commemorates. In just a few days, we will come together as a Nation to pay tribute to the courageous men and women who fought and died for our country. Too often we take for granted the freedoms we, as Americans, enjoy, too often we forget those who gave their lives to secure this liberty. America has honored its fallen soldiers with a Memorial Day, sometimes called Decoration Day, since the Civil War. Though we are grateful to these heroes each and every day, it was recognized that we should set aside 1 day in particular, the last Monday in May, to be especially mindful of the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who paid the ultimate price for their fellow citizens. During a time when we continue to lose more of our friends, family and neighbors in combat overseas, I am especially mindful of the sacrifices made by our men and women in the military. I served in World War II, and I have seen firsthand the bravery and selflessness that is a common thread in our military personnel. Though I was lucky enough to return home, not a day passes when I do not think of my comrades who were not as fortunate, and I am eternally grateful to them. On this earnest occasion, I would like to draw attention to what we can do for those veteran soldiers still with us so that we do not disrespect the sacrifices made by those we have lost. We must provide full funding for veterans' health care. Every year the President sends forward his budget proposal to Congress, and every year we go through the same struggle to get VA health care the money it needs to adequately serve its veteran patients. We must change the way funds are allocated so that all of our veterans are guaranteed the care they so clearly deserve. I want the 115,000 veterans who choose to make Hawaii their home to be assured that they will receive the services they have earned. The nearly 18,000 veterans who avail themselves of VA health care on Oahu, the Big Island, Kauai, and Maui should not have to worry if resources for doctors and nurses will materialize next year. The reservists and guardsmen who are deployed for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also must receive the care they need upon their return. And the fact that a whole population of veterans is denied care because VA does not have adequate funding is shameful. Memorial Day is a day of both sorrow and joy. We mourn those we have lost in battle, and we celebrate the freedoms we currently enjoy thanks to those brave individuals. As we gather together over the long weekend to celebrate this important holiday, let us make sure to take a moment to remember and thank those who lost their lives in order to secure our futures. Then, for the rest of our tenure in Congress, let us not waiver from the commitments made to these brave men and women in terms of programs, services and benefits.