Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005.'' This legislation would enhance care and services provided through Vet Centers. Since their establishment over 25 years ago, Vet Centers have become a safe place in the community where more and more veterans and their families have turned for assistance and services. This legislation would provide resources that Vet Centers need to serve and reach out to the growing number of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans and surviving family members. The legislation would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to hire an additional 50 Global War on Terror outreach coordinators, strike the three-year authorization provision for these outreach workers, clarify that Vet Centers can provide bereavement counseling to family members including parents, and provide more funding for the Vet Center program. In February 2004, VA authorized the Vet Center program to hire 50 OEF/OIF veterans to conduct outreach to their fellow Global War on Terrorism veterans. There are still many OEF/OIF veterans in need of readjustment services, which requires more workers. This legislation would authorize the hiring of 50 additional outreach coordinators to reach this underserved population of veterans. In addition, this legislation would also repeal the three- year authorization provision placed on these positions. The number of brave servicemembers who die while defending freedom continues to rise, leaving many surviving family members in need for help. Under current law, VA has the authority to provide bereavement counseling to the immediate family. However, it is necessary to clarify that parents of a deceased servicemember qualify for this bereavement counseling and that such care could be provided at Vet Centers. This legislation would make the clarifications. A recent article in the Washington Post detailed a mother's experience after her son was killed in Iraq and how she finally felt relief at an unexpected place, a Vet Center. The article also provided information concerning the Vet Center bereavement program and discussed the need for clarification of the Vet Center bereavement care program. This article paints a clear picture of the distress that surviving family members endure as a result of the death of a beloved soldier. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be printed in the Record. As the War on Terrorism persists, the number of veterans seeking readjustment counseling and related mental health services through Vet Centers will continue to grow. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent of those returning servicemembers may need psychiatric care. For these returning servicemembers who have suffered psychological wounds, the stigma surrounding these types of wounds creates a barrier that often times prevents them from seeking the care they need. Vet Centers, which have licensed mental health professionals, provide a means to overcome this barrier because of the center's location in the community and because veteran staff members can relate to the experiences of the veterans seeking services. In 2004, Vet Centers cared for 9,597 OEF/OIF veterans and 2005 projections are that Vet Centers will see 12,656 OEF/OIF veterans. Despite increases in the number of veterans coming for care to Vet Centers, the budget for the program has remained stagnant. This legislation would authorize funding for the program from $93 million to $180 million. We must make the readjustment period for the returning service members and the surviving family members of deceased servicemembers as smooth as possible.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to re- authorize a critical program for our energy future. It is widely believed that the U.S. must diversify its energy portfolio and explore new domestic sources and technologies for energy to curb our dependence on foreign oil. As a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I know we have been assessing the potential for a variety of energy sources for the future including natural gas, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and others. This bill, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005, will reauthorize a small but important program on methane hydrate research and development, a key and abundant non-conventional source of energy. I would like to extend my appreciation to my cosponsors, Senators Murkowski and Stevens, who share my interest and determination in exploring the potential of methane hydrates for energy production. We share a common goal to see that we fully understand the prospects for this domestic energy resource. This new legislation will foster the research and development needed to expand our knowledge to better assess both the opportunities and challenges this potential energy resource presents. Our legislation provides for a higher level of scientific research and partnering between government agencies, academic institutions, and industry. The United States and the world will require substantially increased quantities of natural gas, electricity, and transportation fuels over the next 20 years. Global competition for tightening supplies of oil and natural gas with emerging economies such as China and India will drive energy prices higher, and makes it apparent that the United States needs to capitalize upon its domestic energy resources. The United States must continue to diversify and expand the Nation's access to natural gas supplies through continuing research and development efforts in technologies for tapping non-conventional natural gas supplies, such as methane hydrates. Methane hydrates were discovered in the 1960s and consist of methane gas trapped in lattice-like ice. They are found largely in ocean bottom sediments lying below 450 meters and in permafrost. There are several published estimates of the total amount of methane stored in gas hydrates worldwide. These estimates vary. However, it is widely believed that there is more energy potentially stored in methane hydrates than in all other known fossil fuel reserves, combined. The National Commission on Energy Policy's December 2004 report, Ending the Energy Stalemate--A Bipartisan Strategy To Meet America's Energy Challenges, estimated that the United States could possess one quarter of the world's supply of methane hydrates. The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas well into the 21st century. United States natural gas consumption is expected to increase from approximately 22 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to more than 32 trillion cubic feet in 2020--a projected increase of 40 percent. Natural gas is expected to take on a greater role in power generation, largely because of the increasing demand for clean fuels and the relatively low capital costs of building new natural gas-fired power equipment. The National Commission on Energy Policy reported that the United States resource base may contain up to two hundred thousand trillion cubic feet of methane, onshore in the Alaskan permafrost, and offshore on much of the Nation's deep continental shelf. If even one percent of the estimated domestic resource base proves commercially viable, it would roughly double the Nation's technically recoverable natural gas reserves, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. Given the growing demand for natural gas, the development of new, cost-effective supplies can play a major role in moderating price increases and ensuring consumer confidence in the long-term availability of reliable, affordable fuel. Today, the potential to extract commercially-relevant quantities of natural gas from hydrates is not yet viable. With no incentive to fund its own research and development, the private sector is not vigorously pursuing the research currently needed that could make methane hydrates technically and economically viable. Therefore, cooperation between the federal government and private industry remains the best effort in which the United States can explore the viability of an energy resource whose long-range possibilities might one day dramatically change the world's energy portfolio. Uncertainties exist regarding the nature of these deposits and, in particular, how best to extract the enormous quantity of natural gas they contain in an economic and environmentally sensitive manner. However, some alternatives are worse. For example, transporting natural gas from foreign gas fields to the United States by shipping it in liquid form at negative 162 degrees Celsius is an expensive undertaking and one that is attractive to terrorists. Methane hydrates, on the other hand, can be found domestically, in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and with our ally to the north, Canada. Hydrates are likely to provide commercially viable natural gas supplies by 2025. Their long term potential to meet United States energy demands for natural gas is considerable. The Methane Hydrate Research Act of 2000 invigorated methane hydrate research in the United States. The act also mandated that the National Research Council study the program initiated by the act and to make recommendations for future research and development needs. Without a doubt, the National Research Council concluded in its 2004 report, Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, that the U.S. must continue its investment in hydrates research and development because of the size of the resource. Furthermore, the report commended the program's excellent coordination and cooperation between federal agencies, industry, and academia involved in methane hydrates research. The legislation I am introducing incorporates the recommendations of the National Research Council, and improves upon the act by requiring external scientific peer reviews, strengthening the advisory panel, broadening the field work proposals to include test wells, increasing the appropriations needed to conduct the research, and emphasizing the need to promote education and training in the field of methane hydrate research and resource development. The bill also incorporates comments from the Department of Energy. Mr. President, science and technology have and will continue to help us learn more about our world, and I believe, help us solve some of our toughest problems, not only domestically but globally. These are complex and significant problems relating to the impact of human activities on our environment, our heavy dependence on finite fossil fuels from sources that may not prove reliable, and limited energy supplies in the face of growing demands of expanding national economies that are increasingly intertwined in a global economic network. I believe the Federal Government must continue to foster the needed research and development in the field of methane hydrate research. Mr. President, 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 re- authorize a critical program for our energy future. It is widely believed that the U.S. must diversify its energy portfolio and explore new domestic sources and technologies for energy to curb our dependence on foreign oil. As a senior member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I know we have been assessing the potential for a variety of energy sources for the future including natural gas, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and others. This bill, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2005, will reauthorize a small but important program on methane hydrate research and development, a key and abundant non-conventional source of energy. I would like to extend my appreciation to my cosponsors, Senators Murkowski and Stevens, who share my interest and determination in exploring the potential of methane hydrates for energy production. We share a common goal to see that we fully understand the prospects for this domestic energy resource. This new legislation will foster the research and development needed to expand our knowledge to better assess both the opportunities and challenges this potential energy resource presents. Our legislation provides for a higher level of scientific research and partnering between government agencies, academic institutions, and industry. The United States and the world will require substantially increased quantities of natural gas, electricity, and transportation fuels over the next 20 years. Global competition for tightening supplies of oil and natural gas with emerging economies such as China and India will drive energy prices higher, and makes it apparent that the United States needs to capitalize upon its domestic energy resources. The United States must continue to diversify and expand the Nation's access to natural gas supplies through continuing research and development efforts in technologies for tapping non-conventional natural gas supplies, such as methane hydrates. Methane hydrates were discovered in the 1960s and consist of methane gas trapped in lattice-like ice. They are found largely in ocean bottom sediments lying below 450 meters and in permafrost. There are several published estimates of the total amount of methane stored in gas hydrates worldwide. These estimates vary. However, it is widely believed that there is more energy potentially stored in methane hydrates than in all other known fossil fuel reserves, combined. The National Commission on Energy Policy's December 2004 report, Ending the Energy Stalemate--A Bipartisan Strategy To Meet America's Energy Challenges, estimated that the United States could possess one quarter of the world's supply of methane hydrates. The United States will consume increasing volumes of natural gas well into the 21st century. United States natural gas consumption is expected to increase from approximately 22 trillion cubic feet in 2003 to more than 32 trillion cubic feet in 2020--a projected increase of 40 percent. Natural gas is expected to take on a greater role in power generation, largely because of the increasing demand for clean fuels and the relatively low capital costs of building new natural gas-fired power equipment. The National Commission on Energy Policy reported that the United States resource base may contain up to two hundred thousand trillion cubic feet of methane, onshore in the Alaskan permafrost, and offshore on much of the Nation's deep continental shelf. If even one percent of the estimated domestic resource base proves commercially viable, it would roughly double the Nation's technically recoverable natural gas reserves, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. Given the growing demand for natural gas, the development of new, cost-effective supplies can play a major role in moderating price increases and ensuring consumer confidence in the long-term availability of reliable, affordable fuel. Today, the potential to extract commercially-relevant quantities of natural gas from hydrates is not yet viable. With no incentive to fund its own research and development, the private sector is not vigorously pursuing the research currently needed that could make methane hydrates technically and economically viable. Therefore, cooperation between the federal government and private industry remains the best effort in which the United States can explore the viability of an energy resource whose long-range possibilities might one day dramatically change the world's energy portfolio. Uncertainties exist regarding the nature of these deposits and, in particular, how best to extract the enormous quantity of natural gas they contain in an economic and environmentally sensitive manner. However, some alternatives are worse. For example, transporting natural gas from foreign gas fields to the United States by shipping it in liquid form at negative 162 degrees Celsius is an expensive undertaking and one that is attractive to terrorists. Methane hydrates, on the other hand, can be found domestically, in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and with our ally to the north, Canada. Hydrates are likely to provide commercially viable natural gas supplies by 2025. Their long term potential to meet United States energy demands for natural gas is considerable. The Methane Hydrate Research Act of 2000 invigorated methane hydrate research in the United States. The act also mandated that the National Research Council study the program initiated by the act and to make recommendations for future research and development needs. Without a doubt, the National Research Council concluded in its 2004 report, Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States, that the U.S. must continue its investment in hydrates research and development because of the size of the resource. Furthermore, the report commended the program's excellent coordination and cooperation between federal agencies, industry, and academia involved in methane hydrates research. The legislation I am introducing incorporates the recommendations of the National Research Council, and improves upon the act by requiring external scientific peer reviews, strengthening the advisory panel, broadening the field work proposals to include test wells, increasing the appropriations needed to conduct the research, and emphasizing the need to promote education and training in the field of methane hydrate research and resource development. The bill also incorporates comments from the Department of Energy. Mr. President, science and technology have and will continue to help us learn more about our world, and I believe, help us solve some of our toughest problems, not only domestically but globally. These are complex and significant problems relating to the impact of human activities on our environment, our heavy dependence on finite fossil fuels from sources that may not prove reliable, and limited energy supplies in the face of growing demands of expanding national economies that are increasingly intertwined in a global economic network. I believe the Federal Government must continue to foster the needed research and development in the field of methane hydrate research. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, announced that it was moving to assume responsibility for the pensions of more than 14,000 active and retired pilots at United Airlines. Today, the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 6,400 active United pilots, is trying to negotiate an alternative to such a takeover. Mr. President, one of the reasons I am here today talking about United's pilots is that they are at risk of losing a significant amount of their pension, not just because the PBGC may be taking over their pension, but because of the age that they are mandated to retire. While I believe that Congress needs to address the issue of underfunded pension plans, I believe that it is also important for us to address an inequity with airline pilots that are mandated to retire at age 60. The bill that I introduced in the 108th Congress, and am reintroducing today, will ensure the fair treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to age 60 for pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to retire before age 65. Again, with the airline industry experiencing severe financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit pension plans. My bill will slightly alter Title IV ofthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to take into account the fact that pilots are required to retire at the age of 60, when calculating their benefits. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established to ensure that workers with defined benefit pension plans are able to receive some portion of their retirement income in cases where the employer does not have enough money to pay for all of the benefits owed. After the employer proves to the PBGC that the business is financially unable to support the plan, the PBGC takes over the plan as a trustee and ensures that the current and future retirees receive their pension benefits within the legal limits. Four of the ten largest claims in PBGC's history have been for airline pension plans. Although airline employees account for only two percent of participants historically covered by the PBGC, they have constituted approximately 17 percent of claims. For example, Eastern Airlines, Pan American, Trans World Airlines, and US Airways have terminated their pension plans and their retirees rely on the PBGC for their basic pension benefits. The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the age of 65. Herein lies the problem. Mr. President, if pilots want to work beyond the age 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my understanding that the FAA does not grant many of these waivers, and I have even heard from some pilots that the FAA has never granted these waivers. Therefore, most of the pilots, if not all, do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60. The maximum guaranteed pension at the age of 65 for plans that terminate in 2003 is $43,977.24. However, the maximum pension guarantee for a retiree is decreased to $28,585.20 if a participant retires at the age of 60. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a difficult position. With drastically reduced pensions and a prohibition on reentering the piloting profession because of age, many pilots are subjected to undue hardship. While it is my sincere hope that existing airlines will be able to maintain their pension programs and that the change this bill makes will not be needed for any additional airline pension programs, I believe that my legislation is necessary to ensure that, at the minimum, airline pilots are not unfairly penalized for their employer's ability to maintain a pension plan. My legislation ensures that pilots can obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at 60, if their pension plan is terminated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask that the text of my bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, announced that it was moving to assume responsibility for the pensions of more than 14,000 active and retired pilots at United Airlines. Today, the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 6,400 active United pilots, is trying to negotiate an alternative to such a takeover. Mr. President, one of the reasons I am here today talking about United's pilots is that they are at risk of losing a significant amount of their pension, not just because the PBGC may be taking over their pension, but because of the age that they are mandated to retire. While I believe that Congress needs to address the issue of underfunded pension plans, I believe that it is also important for us to address an inequity with airline pilots that are mandated to retire at age 60. The bill that I introduced in the 108th Congress, and am reintroducing today, will ensure the fair treatment of commercial airline pilot retirees. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act will lower the age requirement to receive the maximum pension benefits allowed by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to age 60 for pilots, who are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, to retire before age 65. Again, with the airline industry experiencing severe financial distress, we need to enact this legislation to assist pilots whose companies have been or will be unable to continue their defined benefit pension plans. My bill will slightly alter Title IV ofthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to take into account the fact that pilots are required to retire at the age of 60, when calculating their benefits. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was established to ensure that workers with defined benefit pension plans are able to receive some portion of their retirement income in cases where the employer does not have enough money to pay for all of the benefits owed. After the employer proves to the PBGC that the business is financially unable to support the plan, the PBGC takes over the plan as a trustee and ensures that the current and future retirees receive their pension benefits within the legal limits. Four of the ten largest claims in PBGC's history have been for airline pension plans. Although airline employees account for only two percent of participants historically covered by the PBGC, they have constituted approximately 17 percent of claims. For example, Eastern Airlines, Pan American, Trans World Airlines, and US Airways have terminated their pension plans and their retirees rely on the PBGC for their basic pension benefits. The FAA requires commercial aviation pilots to retire when they reach the age of 60. Pilots are therefore denied the maximum pension benefit administered by the PBGC because they are required to retire before the age of 65. Herein lies the problem. Mr. President, if pilots want to work beyond the age 60, they have to request a waiver from the FAA. It is my understanding that the FAA does not grant many of these waivers, and I have even heard from some pilots that the FAA has never granted these waivers. Therefore, most of the pilots, if not all, do not receive the maximum pension guarantee because they are forced to retire at age 60. The maximum guaranteed pension at the age of 65 for plans that terminate in 2003 is $43,977.24. However, the maximum pension guarantee for a retiree is decreased to $28,585.20 if a participant retires at the age of 60. This significant reduction in benefits puts pilots in a difficult position. With drastically reduced pensions and a prohibition on reentering the piloting profession because of age, many pilots are subjected to undue hardship. While it is my sincere hope that existing airlines will be able to maintain their pension programs and that the change this bill makes will not be needed for any additional airline pension programs, I believe that my legislation is necessary to ensure that, at the minimum, airline pilots are not unfairly penalized for their employer's ability to maintain a pension plan. My legislation ensures that pilots can obtain the maximum PBGC benefit without being unfairly penalized for having to retire at 60, if their pension plan is terminated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask that the text of my bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005, a bill to amend the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990. A reauthorization of the Matsunaga Act is badly needed. I have introduced bills in the 106th Congress, in the 107th Congress jointly with my friend Senator Harkin, and in the 108th Congress to reauthorize the essential hydrogen research and development programs in the Department of Energy. The core provisions of these bills were included in each of the omnibus energy bills, whether we were in the majority or in the minority, suggesting widespread, bipartisan agreement that we need a robust hydrogen program for the future. As a founding member of the Senate's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus, I have worked with my colleagues to draft this bill and am pleased to be an original cosponsor. The caucus has heard from a wide variety of interest groups, engineers, and scientists providing input on the potential for a ``hydrogen economy.'' The caucus, under the able coleadership of my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Graham, has actively solicited input from fuel cell producers anti councils, automobile manufacturers, oil and gas companies, utilities, university research institutes, the Department of Energy, and national associations. The recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy and the National Academy of Sciences were instrumental in developing this bill. I am more convinced than ever that we need to move now to reauthorize the Matsunaga Act and to refine and enhance the Department of Energy's responsibilities while maintaining strong oversight over the progress of the activities. We cannot delay the move to a ``hydrogen economy.'' This bill does several things that are important for the management of hydrogen programs in the Department of Energy and will help move the nation toward using hydrogen as an energy source in our daily lives. It provides greater focus for the hydrogen fuel cell technology research and development programs without losing the focus on renewable sources of hydrogen. It emphasizes factors that are critical to the development of hydrogen infrastructure and the supply of vehicles and electric power. It directs the Secretary to carry out activities to improve technology with the goal of cost reduction, particularly for hydrogen production, the supply of hydrogen, storage of hydrogen, and the end uses of hydrogen. The bill authorizes $200 million for hydrogen supply and $160 million for fuel cell technologies in fiscal year 2006. It emphasizes the importance of enhancing sources of renewable fuels and biofuels for hydrogen production, a factor that is critical to remote areas and island states such as Hawaii where we need local sources of energy. This bill is a realistic one, providing specific footpaths to the hydrogen economy domestically and internationally. The bill acknowledges that transportation and the availability of reasonably priced cars may be the first market break through for the hydrogen economy. Title II authorizes demonstration programs through the Department of Energy for fuel cell systems for mobile, portable, and stationary uses. Demonstrations are a critical component of moving a product to market. Title III of the bill, ``Transition to Market,'' succinctly states the goal of this section. Section 301 authorizes Federal procurement of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen energy systems. This provision is intended to stimulate the market by requiring the Federal Government, the largest single user of energy in the United States, to adopt hydrogen technologies as soon as practicable. Energy savings are an important part of this title. The Department is required to collect data on energy savings as a result of this program and to evaluate whether the program is achieving energy savings. Lastly, this bill provides important directions to the Secretary to address the development of safety codes and standards relating to fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen energy systems, and stationary, portable, and micro fuel cells. This provision recognizes the importance of public acceptance of hydrogen as a safe and secure energy source; and it recognizes the industry's needs for standards of safety codes and standards for hydrogen energy systems whether stationary, mobile, or portable. The bill does not require the standards to be developed ``in- house'' within the Department of Energy, but importantly authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into cooperative agreements, grants, and contracts with industry groups and with the cooperation of the Federal interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the floor amendment offered by my colleagues Senators Bingaman and Smith to strike the cuts from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, in the budget resolution. The budget resolution includes $15.2 billion in reductions in mandatory programs that are part of Function 550, which is limited to health programs. Medicaid and SCHIP are the only mandatory programs in this category that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. The reductions in Medicaid included in the budget resolution will lead to further cuts in coverage and benefits for people in need. They will prevent individuals from being able to access health care, which will increase the burden on our public health system. In Hawaii, Medicaid and QUEST, Hawaii's program that provides health coverage through managed care plans for eligible lower income residents, provided essential health services to nearly 190,000 people in 2002. For those in rural Hawaii, particularly the elderly, Medicaid provides access to health care that they might otherwise have to go without. The Medicaid cuts will further erode the ability of hospitals, clinics, physicians, and other medical providers to meet the health care needs of our communities. These very same health care providers already are confronted with inadequate reimbursements, rising costs, and an increasing demand to provide care for the uninsured. Without doubt, the Medicaid reductions in the Senate budget plan would adversely affect health care coverage for low-income, uninsured Americans. Medicaid programs are demanding a larger share of state spending than they have in recent years. Reducing the Federal commitment to Medicaid will push additional costs to the States and increase the number of people who are uninsured or under-insured. Contributing to the obstacles in delivering quality health care to those who need it the most are the critical losses that a majority of states will see in their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP. The FMAP formula is designed to pay a higher FMAP to states with lower per capita income relative to the national average. According to the Federal Funds Information for States in its report, Fiscal year 2006 FMAP projections, 30 States are projected to experience cuts in their FMAP. This aggregate FMAP cut translates into an $850 million reduction in FY 2006 Medicaid grants to the impacted states. The five states facing the largest FMAP decreases include Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Hawaii faces a projected FMAP decline of 0.7 percent for FY 2006, which translates to a loss of $655,000 that could be used to provide health care to the citizens of my state. While it may seem like a small decline compared to larger, more prosperous states, let me assure you that the loss will be felt. In a June 2004 report by the Families USA organization, nearly one out of three people under the age of 65 went without health insurance for all or part of the 2-year period from 2002-2003 in Hawaii. More alarming is the statistic that nearly 82 percent of uninsured people in Hawaii are members of working families. The report went on to make the distinction that 61 percent of families in Hawaii, at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, were uninsured. In 2005, it is estimated that the Hawaii Medicaid program will spend just over $929 million. Of this, the Federal Government will contribute nearly $544 million. A substantial portion of Hawaii's health care industry relies on Medicaid spending. In 2002, Medicaid payments infused Hawaii's hospital system with more than $106 million. In addition, Medicaid is the primary payer for 70 percent of Hawaii's certified nursing facility residents. Any cut in Medicaid funding will have a profound effect on the economic viability of Hawaii's health care system and its ability to care for people in need. Medicaid costs for States have soared in recent years, driven by rising health-care costs, an aging population that relies largely on Medicaid to pay for nursing homes, and a recession that sent more people to state-supported health care. Medicaid reform needs to have a reform discussion that is not driven by an arbitrary budget number. While I support improving the health care delivery system for all citizens of our country, the need for unique legislation to satisfy an essential, fundamental need is indicative of the flaws in the current Medicaid system and an issue that the commission proposed by this amendment can address. Medicaid needs more funding, not less. Escalating costs, the increase in the number of uninsured, FMAP cuts, and the clawback provision in the 2003 Medicare drug benefit legislation only serve to put more pressure on state budgets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore dollars available to provide essential Medicaid coverage to our country's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution designating April 2005, as Financial Literacy Month. As in previous years, this is a bipartisan effort, and I thank several of my colleagues for standing with me in advancing financial and economic literacy for our citizens. We must raise public awareness about the importance of financial education in the U.S. and the serious consequences that may be associated with a lack of understanding about personal finances. Efforts to combat financial illiteracy are taking place in our school systems, across communities, in the business and banking sectors, and in Federal, State, and local government agencies, and I commend everyone in those areas for what they are doing. For example, the School District of Philadelphia, PA, has implemented a financial literacy and financial independence curriculum for all grades. Hundreds of high school seniors in South Dakota will be getting a course in credit cards before they head off to college or start their first job. The National Black Caucus of States Institute recently launched a new financial literacy campaign to promote savings within the African American community in support of the expansion of financial education for African Americans. In my home State, the Hawaii Council on Economic Education continues to accomplish much in increasing the awareness of economic and financial literacy and pooling resources to combat economic and financial illiteracy. Entities like the HCEE are being assisted in their efforts for K through 12 education by funding through the Excellence in Economic Education Act. At the Federal Government level, I continue to work closely with the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, and Office of Financial Education in the Department of the Treasury, as they continue to develop a national strategy and work to improve and expand economic and financial literacy tools and resources to people in this country. Furthermore in education, a 2004 survey of States by the National Council on Economic Education found that 49 States include economics, and 38 States include personal finance, in their elementary and secondary education standards. This is an increase from 48 States and 31 States, respectively, in 2002. In addition, a 2004 study by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy found an increase since 1997 in high school seniors' scores on an exam about credit cards, retirement funds, insurance, and other personal finance basics. While progress needs to be recognized, much more needs to be done. Although the NCEE survey found that more States have standards in place, only 26 States measure progress in economic education and 9 States in personal finance education through testing. And for the Jump$tart study, 65 percent of students still earned failing grades. These figures do not bode well for the first National Assessment of Educational Progress in economics, which will have several questions based in personal finance and will be conducted in 2006. There are other signs that we can do even more in economic and financial literacy. Credit is readily and abundantly available in the form of many different products with a multitude of features. Marketing campaigns by financial institutions, finance companies, and other credit extending businesses are aggressively pursuing consumers and marketing available credit as the answer to instant gratification, to take that dream vacation, to buy that plasma television, or satisfy some other indulgence, without fully understanding the financial ramifications of their actions. These successful marketing initiatives have led to unprecedented levels of borrowing. In addition, marketing campaigns are in place to promote the use of credit cards for small ticket, everyday items. Last year, Americans charged more than $35 billion in purchases of less than $10, up from $23.7 billion in 2003. Credit or debit card sales of transactions of $5 or less grew from $10.8 billion in 2003 to $13.5 billion in 2004. According to the Federal Reserve, consumer debt levels have more than doubled in the last 10 years. A U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America analysis of Federal Reserve data indicates that the average household with debt carries approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt. Debt payments eat up more and more disposable income, while certain members of the financial industry encourage the use of more and more debt. Through financial literacy efforts, consumers are becoming aware of the pitfalls associated with excessive leverage and enter into debt relationships understanding the impact of additional debt on their current and future financial position. However, we must do more to enhance our efforts in this area. Current statistics confirm that consumer debt remains more popular than ever. The present level of consumer debt, coupled with the lack of consumer savings, is indicative of the need to continue to support financial literacy in this country in an effort to get people to better understand the ramifications of their financial decisions. Part of the problem is that many people do not understand fully how consumer debt can overtake them. According to the Federal Reserve, as of year end 2004, there was over $2.1 trillion in consumer credit and $10.1 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. Consumer credit increased 4.5 percent from its 2003 level. Of the total outstanding consumer debt, approximately $791 billion is revolving debt. Meanwhile, consumers paid out $24 billion in credit card fees last year, an 18 percent increase from 2003. Compounding the debt pressures consumers are facing is the fact that they have cashed out an estimated $480 billion in home equity during the refinancing boom of 2001-2004. According to Freddie Mac, in hard- dollar terms, American homeowners converted $41 billion in real estate equity into spendable cash in the third quarter of 2004 alone. According to the Federal Reserve, as of June 30, 2004, Americans owed $766.2 billion on home equity loans and lines of credit, more than twice as much as in 1998. Lenders have reduced settlement fees and streamlined the closing process for loans dramatically, increasing the consumer friendliness and speed at which loans are originated. The days of using your home as a nest egg for life changing events, such as job loss, medical emergencies or divorce, are over. The home has become a catch all financing option, while increasing individual consumers' debt burdens. Meanwhile, consumer savings is at one of the lowest levels in history, 0.2 percent. The combination of increasing debt burdens and marginal savings in America has created a catalyst for bankruptcy. Through November 2004, nearly 1.9 million individuals filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., modestly below last year's record level, but at a level that continues to merit concern. In considering that statistic, it is important to remember that this number consists of affected individuals. When you add in non-filing spouses and children, the number of people impacted by bankruptcy can more than double. In reviewing these numbers, I believe it is readily apparent that increased financial literacy is needed to offset unchecked consumer exuberance and aggressive marketing practices. Beyond the statistics I just quoted, financial illiteracy is creating roadblocks to achieving part of the American dream, home ownership. Fannie Mae's 2003 National Housing Survey found that a significant roadblock to home ownership is lacking accurate information about the homebuying process. For the unhoused to become housed, a banking or financial relationship is part of the process. However, for the nation as a whole, approximately 10 percent of individual households remain ``unbanked.'' The unbanked are those who forego a relationship with a financial institution. By not participating in the financial mainstream, the unbanked miss out on the convenience, security, efficiency, and wealth-building opportunities that financial institutions offer. I think we can all agree that wealth-building and saving for the future are vital to the future economic success of the U.S. Extending financial literacy initiatives to all, from the unbanked, to students, to debt-burdened adults, is in all of our best interests. We must be committed to providing people of all ages with the financial skills and insight to help them achieve financial independence and to make good choices when spending money and taking on additional debt. Prevention remains key, and education lies at the heart of prevention. I think my colleagues would agree that as society moves more and more toward an ``ownership society'' with the advent of health savings accounts and private accounts as currently proposed in the President's Social Security reform plan, the need for improving the financial literacy of this country is now, and the delivery and content of these literacy and economic programs needs to broaden and expand to all Americans, no matter the age. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to join me in commemorating efforts to forward financial and economic literacy in this country by recognizing April 2005 as Financial Literacy Month. But more than that, I hope that each of my colleagues becomes a champion of economic and financial literacy education so that all citizens in this country are prepared to contribute and participate in our evolving asset ownership society. I once again thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for cosponsoring this resolution, and I urge the support of our other colleagues as well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005, a bill to amend the Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990. A reauthorization of the Matsunaga Act is badly needed. I have introduced bills in the 106th Congress, in the 107th Congress jointly with my friend Senator Harkin, and in the 108th Congress to reauthorize the essential hydrogen research and development programs in the Department of Energy. The core provisions of these bills were included in each of the omnibus energy bills, whether we were in the majority or in the minority, suggesting widespread, bipartisan agreement that we need a robust hydrogen program for the future. As a founding member of the Senate's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus, I have worked with my colleagues to draft this bill and am pleased to be an original cosponsor. The caucus has heard from a wide variety of interest groups, engineers, and scientists providing input on the potential for a ``hydrogen economy.'' The caucus, under the able coleadership of my colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Graham, has actively solicited input from fuel cell producers anti councils, automobile manufacturers, oil and gas companies, utilities, university research institutes, the Department of Energy, and national associations. The recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy and the National Academy of Sciences were instrumental in developing this bill. I am more convinced than ever that we need to move now to reauthorize the Matsunaga Act and to refine and enhance the Department of Energy's responsibilities while maintaining strong oversight over the progress of the activities. We cannot delay the move to a ``hydrogen economy.'' This bill does several things that are important for the management of hydrogen programs in the Department of Energy and will help move the nation toward using hydrogen as an energy source in our daily lives. It provides greater focus for the hydrogen fuel cell technology research and development programs without losing the focus on renewable sources of hydrogen. It emphasizes factors that are critical to the development of hydrogen infrastructure and the supply of vehicles and electric power. It directs the Secretary to carry out activities to improve technology with the goal of cost reduction, particularly for hydrogen production, the supply of hydrogen, storage of hydrogen, and the end uses of hydrogen. The bill authorizes $200 million for hydrogen supply and $160 million for fuel cell technologies in fiscal year 2006. It emphasizes the importance of enhancing sources of renewable fuels and biofuels for hydrogen production, a factor that is critical to remote areas and island states such as Hawaii where we need local sources of energy. This bill is a realistic one, providing specific footpaths to the hydrogen economy domestically and internationally. The bill acknowledges that transportation and the availability of reasonably priced cars may be the first market break through for the hydrogen economy. Title II authorizes demonstration programs through the Department of Energy for fuel cell systems for mobile, portable, and stationary uses. Demonstrations are a critical component of moving a product to market. Title III of the bill, ``Transition to Market,'' succinctly states the goal of this section. Section 301 authorizes Federal procurement of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen energy systems. This provision is intended to stimulate the market by requiring the Federal Government, the largest single user of energy in the United States, to adopt hydrogen technologies as soon as practicable. Energy savings are an important part of this title. The Department is required to collect data on energy savings as a result of this program and to evaluate whether the program is achieving energy savings. Lastly, this bill provides important directions to the Secretary to address the development of safety codes and standards relating to fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen energy systems, and stationary, portable, and micro fuel cells. This provision recognizes the importance of public acceptance of hydrogen as a safe and secure energy source; and it recognizes the industry's needs for standards of safety codes and standards for hydrogen energy systems whether stationary, mobile, or portable. The bill does not require the standards to be developed ``in- house'' within the Department of Energy, but importantly authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into cooperative agreements, grants, and contracts with industry groups and with the cooperation of the Federal interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a program very important to the children and families of Hawaii, as well as those who reside in other parts of the United States, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. This program provides funding through a competitive grant process to fund ``centers that provide extended learning opportunities for students and related services to their families.'' The afterschool hours, those from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., are a venturesome time for the youth of our country. Many school age children are unsupervised during these 3 risky hours. Many of them lack constructive activities such as sports or other school or community sponsored programs. Those who lack such activities become vulnerable to mischief or even danger whether they are the victim of a crime or the perpetrator. Whether they are considering the use of tobacco, alcohol or drugs, or doing a myriad of other activities detrimental to their well-being, they would be better served in supervised afterschool activities, the kind of activities supported by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. According to FightCrime, an organization of law enforcement professionals representing all 50 states, ``Being unsupervised after school doubles the risk that 8th graders will smoke, drink alcohol or use drugs.'' They also report a study in Hawaii which noted an 84- percent drop in criminal convictions among school-aged males involved in quality afterschool programs funded by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Afterschool programs can provide a critical link to positive growth for many of these students. The academic support and socialization provided by them will help many at-risk youth. These programs can provide that extra bit of help to enable children to succeed, in academics, and in life. This is what we are talking about, and this is just what this program provides. The President's own evaluation system, the PART analysis, says that this program gets ``high scores for purpose, planning and management.'' This program was part of the President's signature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, and is authorized at $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2006. Sadly, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget funds afterschool programs at the level-funded amount of $0.999 billion, less than 45 percent of its authorized level. In my own State of Hawaii, this underfunding results in more than 8,800 school-age children not being able to take advantage of programs to help with their education, character development or physical fitness, nor provide programs to ensure a safe environment during the afterschool hours. The Dodd amendment to S. Con. Res. 18 attempts to address this funding shortfall. I am glad to be a cosponsor, and I thank him and the other members of the Afterschool Caucus, of which I am a part, for the leadership in trying to restore funding for this essential program.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Alaska's indigenous peoples, the Alaska natives. I will oppose the Cantwell amendment. My position is based on my experiences in Alaska when I visited the village of Kaktovik in 1995 and spoke to the Inupiat peoples who greatly desire this opportunity for economic self- determination. My position is not new--I have remained firm in the position for the last 10 years. In developing this position I have met with individuals and organizations who have advocated on both sides of this issue. For me, this vote is not a vote just about preservation of the environment versus development. It is a vote about the self- determination of an indigenous people and their homeland. The Inupiat, who live within the boundaries of the coastal plain, are a people with strong cultural values, and are deeply in touch with their environment and everything that lives there. It is the Inupiat who have been the caretakers of the Arctic region for thousands of years. To some of my colleagues, the debate about ANWR is about energy. To others, it is about the environment. To me, ANWR is really about whether or not the indigenous people who are directly impacted have a voice about the use of their lands. The Inupiat know every mile, every curve in the landscape of the coastal plain, and every animal that must survive there, for their own survival depends on this. They have the greatest incentive of anyone to preserve their environment, including the plants and animals that live on the coastal plain, in order to maintain their way of life. They too depend on the caribou and they have participated in the protection of the caribou while monitoring and working with the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay. Their experience has demonstrated that a careful balance is possible, and that preservation and development are not mutually exclusive. My colleagues, I do not live on the coastal plain. For that reason, I trust the wisdom and knowledge of those who have lived and cared for the land there for many, many generations. I will vote to provide the Inupiat with the opportunity to provide for themselves and their future generations. They have spoken and have been steadfast in their position for many, many years. I am confident that they will protect their homeland and utilize its resources with the native values that have served them well since time began. Their position is supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 110,000 Alaska natives, and the native village of Kaktovic. This has not been an easy decision for me given the fact that this is one of the few times that I am not voting with the majority of my colleagues in my party. As much as I would like to vote with my colleagues, I must remain true to myself and my values. For me, this is an issue about economic self-determination. This is an issue about allowing those who have lived on the coastal plain and cared for the coastal plain for many, many generations, to do what they believe is right with their lands.

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes of time to make this statement about my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, the budget resolution fails veterans. It is that simple. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues who joined me in offering this veterans health care amendment to add $2.85 billion for VA health care. Let me say that I agree with the President on the overall amount needed for VA health care. But we differ in where to get the funding. And I must say, I enjoy working with my friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Craig, and we both feel this committee needs more funding than it has. We are offering different amendments to try to reach that funding. The President asks veterans to shoulder the burden with a higher copay for medications and a new user fee for middle-income veterans. I disagree. I am pleased that the Budget Committee summary rejected the President's proposals. As my colleagues pointed out last night, unfortunately, funds have not yet been included to compensate. How did we arrive at this amount of $2.8 billion? The answer is that it comes directly from the administration's own estimates. VA needs $1.4 billion just to cover inflation. The level in the budget resolution before us does not even come close to covering that amount. And VA requires funding to absorb new patient workload. The budget resolution before us doesn't contain funding for this. We also need to reverse the President's decision to cutoff enrollment to middle-income veterans. To date, 200,000 veterans have been turned away--10 percent of whom live in Nevada, Louisiana, and Texas. Our amendment provides the money to make the system truly accessible. It is just wrong to differentiate between veterans entitled to care. It is dangerous to say that some veterans deserve more than other veterans. This sends the message that serving during peacetime is not as important as going to war, or being drafted to serve is not as noble as volunteering to serve. Everyone who has served in our Armed Forces has contributed to our national security and to protecting the principles on which our Nation is founded. Needless to say, the budget resolution before us does not maintain open access for all veterans. The other side of the aisle has offered an amendment, as well. In doing so, we at least are hearing for the first time an acknowledgment that the President's budget and the budget resolution before us do not go far enough. Unfortunately, neither do the amendments that are being offered. The amendment on the other side adds $410 million for VA care. This is simply not enough to avoid the drug copay increase and the user fee for middle-income veterans. And it is not enough to avoid the President's cuts to nursing home beds. And the Ensign amendment will not help the 21,000 veterans who were turned away for care in Nevada, Louisiana, and Texas. All told, the Ensign amendment is nearly $2.5 billion short of what is needed. The amendment on the other side can be considered a gesture. And since the Ensign amendment takes the money from global health accounts, it is a gesture that will likely hurt worldwide AIDS programs and other humanitarian assistance. The President saw the value in this global health account and chose to increase spending for it. The Ensign amendment cuts funding for this account. Instead my amendment closes corporate tax loopholes rather than cutting funding for needed programs. I would also like to say a word about the record when it comes to veterans funding. The Bush administration and my colleagues in the majority have stated that veterans funding has increased 47 percent during this President's tenure. While funding has increased, it has been based on the efforts by Congress in supporting amendments such as the one I am offering. The simple fact is that the administration has requested less than half of the new funding made available to veterans during its tenure. Congress, by approving amendments to increase VA funding, has added another 39 percent of funding. Even with a 47 percent increase since FY 2001, this is an average annual increase of less than 10 percent to accommodate high medical care inflation and high annual growth in patients. It is a fact that per patient resources have increased by about 13 percent while the number of patients has increased by 25 percent since FY 2001. That means that the growth in the number of patients is almost twice the amount of growth in resources. These facts underscore the need to support my amendment. We have an opportunity to fund the veterans health care system--to protect veterans from waiting times for appointments, from harsh new fees, and from cuts in long-term care. Let us go more than half-way to meet veterans' needs. Let us do the right thing. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in voting to provide the funds necessary to care for our veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 149, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the budget resolution fails veterans. It is just that simple. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues who joined me in offering this veterans' health care amendment, which adds $2.85 billion for VA health care. While I largely agree with the President on the overall amount needed for VA health care, I take issue with how he chooses to fund the system. The administration's approach is to ask veterans to pay more for their care via increased copayments for medications and a new user fee for middle-income veterans. Our approach, instead, asks for appropriated dollars. Real money for real veterans' health care needs. I remain unclear about whether sufficient funding was included to compensate for these proposals. Our amendment would add $2.85 billion to the resolution. How was this amount derived? I stress that nearly all of these amounts come directly from the President's own budget. According to the administration's own numbers, VA needs $1.4 billion just to cover medical care inflation and automatic salary adjustments for health care workers. The level in the budget resolution before us does not even come close to covering that amount. Additionally, VA requires funding to absorb new patient workload, from new veterans returning home from both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom and from older veterans who are just now turning to VA. The amendment also provides funds to allow for modest increases in mental health and prosthetics. Again, these numbers follow those sent forward by the President. While it is broadly acknowledged that VA could do much more in these areas and others, we recognize that the budget climate is tight. Mental health and prosthetics must receive at least modest increases if we are to truly fulfill the promises we made to these men and women when they were sent to war. The only new cost that was not included in the President's budget-- and therefore the budget resolution--is funding to allow middle-income veterans to enroll with VA for care. In January of 2003, the President cut-off enrollment to middle-income veterans. To date, 200,000 veterans have been turned away. This amendment provides the money to make the system accessible to all who have served. It is simply wrong to exclude any men and women who have served our country from VA services, especially at a time of war. While some of my colleagues will argue that the President's budget is a good one for VA, I would like to share some of the comments of the veterans service organizations. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, with its 2.4 million members, say that: it is clear that the proper funding of veterans health care is not an Administration priority. The Disabled American Veterans has characterized this budget--and therefore the budget resolution--as: one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans programs in recent memory. Similarly, my colleagues will argue that the President has done more for VA health care than any President in recent memory. I would clarify, however, that Congress, through this amendment process, which has increased veterans health care spending year after year. Mr. President, I implore you and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the great need that exists for veterans' health care. I will take time later to discuss more of this.

Mr. AKAKA. How much time do I have?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about the fact that VA has so much money that they expect to carry-over nearly $500 million to next year, as Senator Murray said. I urge all my colleagues to touch base with the veterans at home and find out if the VA is really swimming in money. VA's health networks are already experiencing shortfalls. Let me share some more specifics. The Boise facility is facing a $1.8 million deficit. This facility, like so many others, has a hiring freeze. The facility has seen a workload increase over 7% for FY 05, but there will be staff reductions. And at present there is no money for staff education. Veterans in need of treatment for PTSD or addiction treatment will have one less place to go due to the VA budget. The Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program at the Chillicothe VA hospital is being shut down. Thirty nursing home beds at the VA hospital in Manchester, NH, will not be opening. VA officials expect to save $1.3 million by not opening these beds. As my good friend, Senator Collins, has pointed out, the hospital in Togus has a projected $14 million deficit. This Maine facility has a hiring freeze and cannot replace equipment. At the Louisville, KY, hospital veterans undergoing a cystoscopy must lie on a broken table during the procedure. It's been almost a year that this medical table has been broken--but the VA can't replace it because they have no money. The facility's only endoscope is broken, and the facility cannot afford a back-up. Also at the Louisville, VA, elective surgeries have been cancelled because of lack of staff due to funding. So, again, the administration--the same administration putting forward the budget--is holding back $450 million. Perhaps they are holding onto this money because they know that the coming year may be horribly tight if the President's budget is made a reality. But the VA facilities which are serving veterans need more funding. During the Clinton years, the Clinton administration, a Democratic administration, proposed actual cuts in a veterans budget. In 1998 and 1999, they proposed those cuts. What did Congress do? Did it accept the budget? Of course it did not. It said: No, Mr. President, you may propose, but we will dispose. And we did. And we plussed up those budgets dramatically. Not once in the past 4 years has the Bush administration proposed cuts in veterans budgets. They proposed substantial increases. Once again, Congress came along and said: Mr. President, we don't think those are quite adequate. And we plussed them up. In the course of the last 4 years, we have seen relatively dramatic increases in veterans budgets. Are they necessary? You bet they are necessary. Here is a perfect example of the medical care budget. From 2001 to 2005, we went from $21 billion to nearly $30 billion. What did we get in return? More veterans being served. And we now have what is being called the finest health care delivery system in the United States. This Congress ought to be darn proud of it. And we are. That is what we are going to sustain in the budget this Congress will adopt this week. What did we do in other benefit areas? We did in the general mandatory areas exactly the same kind of thing. We looked at the budget in 2001. It was $25.7 billion. By 2005, it was $37.1 billion. Necessary? You bet it was necessary. As a result of that, we were able to expand the capacity of the Veterans' Administration to serve veterans. And that is what we are about. So that has resulted in the greatest increase in veterans spending in the history of this country, to serve a truly needy and necessary population. We have had a 43- percent increase over 4 years, better than a 10-percent increase. My colleague from Washington said: Yes, but numbers increased. You bet they did. They went in the area of enrollment from 4.9 million to over 7.7 million, and all during that time the quality of health care went up. We served those in need. We served those in the right categories. And, most importantly, we increased the timeliness of the service to the veterans. As a result of that, we also produced quality care. Well, I have to tell you that when the President proposed his budget, there were areas of it I was not satisfied with. Some of my colleagues were not satisfied with it. The ranking member was not satisfied with it. And we proposed to make some changes. We are going to see an amendment offered in a few moments that makes those changes, an amendment offered by Senator Ensign, myself, Senator Vitter, and Senator Hutchison that will add another $410 million of budget resolution to the health care services. When that is done--the committee has already added more than that-- for the 2005 budget we will have moved that well beyond its area. We will have seen an increase of 3.7 percent. An additional $1.2 billion will be provided, and it will be a tremendous amount for incentives in funding. There will be no reconciliation order. That is new money. That is real money in the Veterans' Administration. We do not raise taxes. We do not raise taxes on working veterans such as our Democrat colleagues do to serve veterans. We believe the budget pie is big enough to reach in and pull out another $1.2 billion to meet the necessary services we are about to do. My colleagues are going to go into greater detail in a few moments to do so. But what is important about it? We said no to enrollment fees. We said no to copayments as they relate to prescription drugs. We did not think those were necessary at this time. Most importantly, the Veterans Committee, after hearing from all of those service organizations, as my colleagues have mentioned, recognized not only the need of current day veterans, but coming out of Iraq there is a whole new class of veterans. And they, too, have to be served. They are injured and impaired in unique ways, and they will have to have health care and service, in some instances, for the rest of their lives from this Government and this country which recognizes the kind of services they did and have continued to perform. So not only no copays for prescription drugs, and no enrollment fees, we have done something else. There is another layer of service out there to veterans that oftentimes we do not talk about. It is because it is not as visible. But home in our States it is visible; that is, the State veterans homes where the State government and the Federal Government share. This year it was proposed that we reduce the per diem payment at the Federal level. In my State of Idaho and across the Nation we would have found truly needy veterans without the kind of care that we think is necessary, and we said: No, Mr. President, we don't think at this time we ought to be doing that. Yes, budgets are tight. Yes, you proposed reasonable increases in a variety of areas. But what is most important is that we serve the veterans we are serving today, we add to the enrollment when we can, and we make darn sure we are doing the right things for those veterans coming home. Our veterans homes across the Nation provide over 20,000 beds. In my State it is 268. It is important in my State and across the Nation that we plus those up where we can and recognize the true need. There are a good many other areas I could cover that are included in the President's budget. The President recognized the unique need for prosthetic care and as a result added $100 million to it, focusing on the truly injured veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We recognize that and recognize that portion of the budget and add to it to strengthen it. So a lot of work has been done. My colleagues on the other side, I am sad to say, would suggest there is never enough. This is a tight budget year. We all recognize that, but we ought not try to cut the budget on the backs of the veterans. And we are not doing that. A plus-up of $1.2 billion without reconciliation orders in this budget is a significant increase, one we can all be proud of, one that services our veterans, as it should, and services those who are in true need today. Mr. President, can I ask how much time remains?

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a legislative fellow in my office, Al Bird, be allowed floor privileges for consideration of this resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for an important education amendment proposed by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to S. Con. Res. 18, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. Education is the key to our future. The continued economic growth and future prosperity of the United States depends on the quality of our educational system. But the President's fiscal year 2006 budget falls short of that goal, and this resolution does nothing to remedy this failure. It is the first budget in over a decade to cut funding for education. Much of the cuts are directed towards new and unproven initiatives at the expense of programs that almost everyone in the education community supports. We must do everything we can to ensure that children in this country get the best education available. This budget resolution, like the President's budget, aims to eliminate 48 effectual education programs for student success: programs that prepare students to enter the workforce, such as adult education, programs that help students to prepare for and thrive in college such as TRIO programs, Ppograms that improve teacher skills such as the Teacher Quality Enhancement program, programs that prepare children to begin school such as Even Start, and programs that work to improve schools such as Comprehensive School Reform. S. Con. Res. 18 includes nothing to assure funding for these and other education programs. One of the programs that the Bingaman amendment is working to restore is the Excellence in Economic Education Act. This program was included in the No Child Left Behind Act and works to promote economic and financial literacy in grades K through 12. There is a tremendous opportunity to instill in individuals the knowledge and skills that they need to make good decisions throughout their lives during their years in elementary and secondary education. This is particularly important as our students grow up in a world where we face more and more complex decisions related to managing limited resources and preparing financially for the future. The majority of the EEE's funding, after being competitively granted to a national organization, provides funds to State and local partnerships for teacher training, assistance to school districts desiring to incorporate economics and personal finance into curricula, and evaluations of the impact of economic and financial literacy education on students, related research, and school-based student activities. In Hawaii, a subgrant from the program is funding the development of a pre- and post-test assessment tool that will allow the Hawaii Council on Economic Education to measure the effectiveness of its teacher training courses and workshops. Another subgrant helped to fund a calendar poster contest on basic economics concepts conducted among elementary school students in Hawaii. A final EEE subgrant is focusing on enriching curriculum through economics. One of the wonderful things about some of the projects funded by the EEE is that they are shared best practices, meaning that teachers and schools do not have to reinvent the wheel in the ways they convey economics and personal finance education. Entities across the country received much-needed resources for economic and financial literacy through the EEE's first competitive subgranting process in the year 2004. Although the results of the act's first-year grants have not yet been compiled for evaluation, the program needs a chance to work before it is arbitrarily terminated. I am pleased that the Bingaman amendment will work to give the program this chance. The cost for this and other programs included in the Bingaman amendment will be $4.8 billion. However, this amendment is more than offset by various tax loophole closures and other reduction measures. Not only is this amendment revenue neutral, but it provides for fiscally responsible deficit reduction. Educating our children and reducing the budget deficit are both vital endeavors, and the Bingaman amendment does both. Mr. President, as I said at the start of my statement, this budget resolution is a false promise. It underfunds education and shortchanges our future. It deprives our schoolchildren of needed programs and opportunities. It underfunds some, and cancels others outright. But we cannot afford to shortchange our schools. We cannot afford to shortchange our students. We cannot afford to shortchange our communities. And we cannot afford to shortchange our future. Again, I commend my colleague, Senator Bingaman, for offering this important amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask for 10 minutes to speak on my amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the bankruptcy legislation. The financial services industry has become increasingly complex with new technology, products, and services. However, this dated legislation has not had significant changes made to it since the 107th Congress. Predatory lending has surged since the initial development of this bankruptcy legislation. In the early 1990s, there were fewer than 200 payday lenders nationwide. Now, there are more than 20,000. Payday lenders made 100 million loans in 2003. These loans represent more than $40 billion. Most alarmingly, according to the Consumer Federation of America, interest rates on these loans begin at 390 percent. Yet, Congress has failed to act to prevent the exploitation of working families that are short on cash due to unexpected medical expenses or other needs. I am afraid that the passage of this legislation will further reduce the risk for predatory lenders, and as a result, they will aggressively market their products even more. We must act to protect consumers from these unscrupulous lenders. I remain committed to restricting all forms of predatory lending, including payday loans, and to providing consumers with alternative affordable short-term loans. Access to credit has increased significantly and household debt has skyrocketed as a result. Revolving debt, mostly compromised of credit card debt, has risen from $54 billion in January 1980 to more than $780 billion in November 2004. A U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America analysis of Federal Reserve data indicates that the average household with debt carries approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt. This legislation tightens the grip that creditors have on consumers, but it fails to restrict the aggressive marketing practices of credit card companies. In addition, this bankruptcy bill fails to provide adequate, timely, and meaningful disclosures for consumers. As we make it more difficult for consumers to discharge their debts in bankruptcy, we have a responsibility to provide additional information so that consumers can make better informed decisions. S. 256 includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide a generic warning about the consequences of only making the minimum payment. This provision fails to provide the detailed information for consumers on their billing statements that my amendment would have provided. My amendment would have given consumers the detailed personalized information necessary for them to make better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. It would have required companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it would take to repay their entire balance and the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer makes only the minimum payment. The amendment would also have required consumers to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, my amendment would have required that creditors establish a toll-free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. I appreciate the willingness of the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, to continue to work with me on this very important consumer awareness issue. I also proposed an amendment that would have required credit card companies to make concessions to individuals in debt management plans so that credit counseling could be a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Unfortunately, that amendment was also defeated. I fear that this bill will end up significantly harming families that have suffered financially due to illnesses, the loss of a job, or the death of a loved one. I supported other reasonable amendments intended to protect low-income families, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations from this overly restrictive legislation. However, these amendments also failed. Instead of making improvements to the legislation, an old, outdated bill has been approved by the Senate. It is low-income working families that will be hardest hit by this anti-consumer legislation. After passage of this legislation, we will need to take additional steps to prevent further exploitation of consumers by unscrupulous lenders and to improve relevant and useful information about credit to consumers. I will continue to fight to protect working families from predatory lenders and overly aggressive creditors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the bankruptcy bill does not allow consumers to declare personal bankruptcy, in either chapter 7 or chapter 13, unless they receive a briefing from an approved nonprofit credit counseling agency within 6 months of filing for bankruptcy. About one-third of all credit counseling consumers enter into a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors can agree to offer concessions to consumers to pay off as many of their debts as possible. However, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. My amendment would prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in credit counseling. As a show of support for the effectiveness of sound consumer credit counseling, especially as an alternative to bankruptcy, credit card issuers should waive the amount owned in interest and fees for consumers who enter a consolidated payment plan. Successful completion of a debt management plan benefits both creditors and consumers. For many consumers, paying off debt is not easy, and my amendment seeks to help these struggling individuals. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their creditors, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask for the yeas and nays.