Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to speak on my pending amendment, No. 105. Section 106 of the 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 six months of filing. The bill also requires each consumer who receives bankruptcy protection to take a credit counseling instructional course. The credit counseling instructional course requirement is intended to provide financial education to consumers who declare bankruptcy so they can attempt to avoid future financial problems. Approximately one-third of all credit counseling consumers enter a debt management plan. In exchange, creditors can agree to offer concessions to consumers to pay off as many of their debts as possible. These concessions can include a reduced interest rate on the amount they owe and the elimination of fees. However, most credit card companies have become increasingly unwilling to significantly reduce interest rates for consumers in credit counseling. A study by the National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America revealed that 5 of 13 credit card issuers increased the interest rates they offered to consumers in credit counseling between 1999 and 2003. The amendment would amend section 502(b) of the bankruptcy code to prevent unsecured creditors, primarily credit card issuers, from attempting to collect accruing interest and additional fees from consumers in credit counseling if the creditor does not have a policy of waiving interest and fees for debtors who enter a consolidated payment plan at a credit counseling agency. Since it appears that Congress will require that consumers enter credit counseling before filing for bankruptcy, we must ensure that credit counseling is truly effective and a viable alternative to bankruptcy. Credit card issuers, undermining the good intentions of consumers who enter into credit counseling, have sharply curtailed the concessions they offer to consumers in credit counseling, contributing to increased bankruptcy filings. According to a survey by VISA USA, 33 percent of consumers who failed to complete a debt management plan in credit counseling said they would have stayed on the plan if creditors had lowered interest rates or waived fees. A large body of research, conducted by such entities as the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, shows that aggressive lending practices by credit card issuers have contributed to the current high level of bankruptcies in this country. Credit card companies have an obligation to ensure that effective alternatives are readily available to the consumers they aggressively pursue. As a show of support for the effectiveness of consumer credit counseling, especially as an alternative to bankruptcy, credit card issuers should waive the amount owed 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 their debt is not easy. My amendment will help people who are struggling to repay their obligations. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment to help consumers enrolled in debt management plans to successfully repay their credits, free themselves from debt, and avoid bankruptcy. My amendment has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Consumer Action, and the National Consumer Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for my amendment be included in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills to increase the security of the Nation's agriculture and food supply: the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act. Both measures build on legislation I sponsored in the 107th and 108th Congresses. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Durbin, who cosponsored my agriculture security bills last session, for continuing his support of this legislation. The first bill, the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act, will enhance coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies responsible for food and agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will increase coordination between Federal and State, local, and tribal officials and offer financial and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and veterinarians to improve preparedness. The Nation's agriculture industry represents about 13 percent of GDP and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Yet, this critical economic sector is not receiving adequate protection from accidental or intentional contamination that would damage our economy, and, most importantly, could cost lives. Such contamination could be devastating to states such as Hawaii which generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales annually. Just last week, the President of Interpol warned that the consequences of an attack on livestock are ``substantial'' and ``relatively little'' is being done to prevent such an attack. The introduction of my bills coincides with the release of a report I requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ``Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain.'' The report reviews the current state of agriculture security in the United States and makes recommendations. While GAO reported some accomplishments, such as conducting vulnerability assessments of agricultural products, establishing the Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council, and funding two university-based Centers of Excellence to research livestock and poultry diseases, GAO found that critical vulnerabilities still exist. Even though veterinarians may be the first to spot outbreaks of diseases, Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified veterinarians are not required to demonstrate any knowledge of foreign animal diseases. This is short sighted given how easily animal diseases can travel from country to country as we have seen with the avian flu over the past few years. It is important that veterinarians, who will be our first responders in the event of an agroterrorist attack, be able to identify symptoms of a foreign disease in U.S. livestock. GAO also highlights USDA's inability to deploy vaccines within 24 hours of an animal disease outbreak as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9). According to GAO, the vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is the only animal disease vaccine that the United States stockpiles, is purchased from Britain in a concentrate form. To use the vaccine the concentrate must be sent back to Britain to be activated, which adds at least three weeks to the deployment time. According to a scenario from Dr. Tom McGinn, formerly of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, FMD would spread to 23 States five days after an initial outbreak and to 40 States after 30 days. By the time the vaccine is deployed, FMD could spread across the country. We cannot afford to wait three weeks to start vaccinating livestock. Why is the United States outsourcing this critical security function? USDA should either store ready-to-use vaccines in the U.S. or examine ways to activate the vaccines in this country. Equally troubling is that over the past 2 years, the number of agricultural inspections performed by the U.S. has declined by 3.4 million since DHS took over the border inspection responsibility from USDA. Mr. Kim Mann, a spokesman from the National Association of Agriculture Employees (NAAE), expressed similar concerns at a February 10, 2005, hearing conducted by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia (OGM). Mr. Mann testified that of the approximately 2,100 Agriculture Quarantine Inspection positions that were transferred from USDA to DHS in 2003, only about 1,300 of those positions are currently filled. According to Mr. Mann, agriculture inspectors have left DHS to return to USDA because of DHS's lack of commitment to its agriculture mission, and DHS is not filling these vacancies. I recently wrote Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson expressing my concern over these reports because agriculture inspections are crucial to the economy of Hawaii which is home to more endangered species than any other State. GAO also reported a lack of communication between DHS and states regarding the development of emergency response plans, grant guidance, and best practices. States agriculture officials were given as little as three days to provide input on the National Response Plan and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, the State Homeland Security Grant Program grant guidance puts little emphasis on agriculture as a sector eligible for assistance. In fact, agriculture only became eligible in fiscal year 04 and many states are unaware that funds can be directed towards agriculture security. In addition, State and industry officials reported that there is no mechanism to share lessons learned from exercises or real-life animal disease outbreaks. GAO further notes that shortcomings exist in DHS's Federal coordination of national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. Federal officials claim that there is confusion in interagency working groups as to which responsibility falls with whom. DHS reportedly also has been unable to coordinate agriculture security research efforts government-wide as is required by HSPD-9. While some program staff from DHS, USDA, and Health and Human Services have engaged in preliminary discussions, there is no overall departmental coordination of policy and budget issues between the various Federal agencies. My bills address many of the concerns raised by GAO. The Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act will: increase communication and coordination between DHS and state, local, and tribal homeland security officials regarding agroterrorism; Ensure agriculture security is included in state, local, and regional emergency response plans; and establish a task force of state and local first responders that will work with DHS to identify best practices in the area of agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will: provide financial and technical assistance to states and localities for agroterrorism preparedness and response; increase international agricultural disease surveillance and inspections of imported agricultural products; require that certified veterinarians be knowledgeable in foreign animal diseases; and require that USDA study the costs and benefits of developing a more robust animal disease vaccine stockpile. The United States needs a coordinated approach in dealing with the possibility of an attack on our food supply, which could affect millions. While improvements have occurred since I first voiced my concerns over food and agriculture security in 2001, critical vulnerabilities remain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's breadbasket and support these vital pieces of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills to increase the security of the Nation's agriculture and food supply: the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act. Both measures build on legislation I sponsored in the 107th and 108th Congresses. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Durbin, who cosponsored my agriculture security bills last session, for continuing his support of this legislation. The first bill, the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act, will enhance coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies responsible for food and agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will increase coordination between Federal and State, local, and tribal officials and offer financial and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and veterinarians to improve preparedness. The Nation's agriculture industry represents about 13 percent of GDP and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Yet, this critical economic sector is not receiving adequate protection from accidental or intentional contamination that would damage our economy, and, most importantly, could cost lives. Such contamination could be devastating to states such as Hawaii which generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales annually. Just last week, the President of Interpol warned that the consequences of an attack on livestock are ``substantial'' and ``relatively little'' is being done to prevent such an attack. The introduction of my bills coincides with the release of a report I requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ``Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain.'' The report reviews the current state of agriculture security in the United States and makes recommendations. While GAO reported some accomplishments, such as conducting vulnerability assessments of agricultural products, establishing the Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council, and funding two university-based Centers of Excellence to research livestock and poultry diseases, GAO found that critical vulnerabilities still exist. Even though veterinarians may be the first to spot outbreaks of diseases, Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified veterinarians are not required to demonstrate any knowledge of foreign animal diseases. This is short sighted given how easily animal diseases can travel from country to country as we have seen with the avian flu over the past few years. It is important that veterinarians, who will be our first responders in the event of an agroterrorist attack, be able to identify symptoms of a foreign disease in U.S. livestock. GAO also highlights USDA's inability to deploy vaccines within 24 hours of an animal disease outbreak as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9). According to GAO, the vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is the only animal disease vaccine that the United States stockpiles, is purchased from Britain in a concentrate form. To use the vaccine the concentrate must be sent back to Britain to be activated, which adds at least three weeks to the deployment time. According to a scenario from Dr. Tom McGinn, formerly of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, FMD would spread to 23 States five days after an initial outbreak and to 40 States after 30 days. By the time the vaccine is deployed, FMD could spread across the country. We cannot afford to wait three weeks to start vaccinating livestock. Why is the United States outsourcing this critical security function? USDA should either store ready-to-use vaccines in the U.S. or examine ways to activate the vaccines in this country. Equally troubling is that over the past 2 years, the number of agricultural inspections performed by the U.S. has declined by 3.4 million since DHS took over the border inspection responsibility from USDA. Mr. Kim Mann, a spokesman from the National Association of Agriculture Employees (NAAE), expressed similar concerns at a February 10, 2005, hearing conducted by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia (OGM). Mr. Mann testified that of the approximately 2,100 Agriculture Quarantine Inspection positions that were transferred from USDA to DHS in 2003, only about 1,300 of those positions are currently filled. According to Mr. Mann, agriculture inspectors have left DHS to return to USDA because of DHS's lack of commitment to its agriculture mission, and DHS is not filling these vacancies. I recently wrote Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson expressing my concern over these reports because agriculture inspections are crucial to the economy of Hawaii which is home to more endangered species than any other State. GAO also reported a lack of communication between DHS and states regarding the development of emergency response plans, grant guidance, and best practices. States agriculture officials were given as little as three days to provide input on the National Response Plan and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, the State Homeland Security Grant Program grant guidance puts little emphasis on agriculture as a sector eligible for assistance. In fact, agriculture only became eligible in fiscal year 04 and many states are unaware that funds can be directed towards agriculture security. In addition, State and industry officials reported that there is no mechanism to share lessons learned from exercises or real-life animal disease outbreaks. GAO further notes that shortcomings exist in DHS's Federal coordination of national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. Federal officials claim that there is confusion in interagency working groups as to which responsibility falls with whom. DHS reportedly also has been unable to coordinate agriculture security research efforts government-wide as is required by HSPD-9. While some program staff from DHS, USDA, and Health and Human Services have engaged in preliminary discussions, there is no overall departmental coordination of policy and budget issues between the various Federal agencies. My bills address many of the concerns raised by GAO. The Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act will: increase communication and coordination between DHS and state, local, and tribal homeland security officials regarding agroterrorism; Ensure agriculture security is included in state, local, and regional emergency response plans; and establish a task force of state and local first responders that will work with DHS to identify best practices in the area of agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will: provide financial and technical assistance to states and localities for agroterrorism preparedness and response; increase international agricultural disease surveillance and inspections of imported agricultural products; require that certified veterinarians be knowledgeable in foreign animal diseases; and require that USDA study the costs and benefits of developing a more robust animal disease vaccine stockpile. The United States needs a coordinated approach in dealing with the possibility of an attack on our food supply, which could affect millions. While improvements have occurred since I first voiced my concerns over food and agriculture security in 2001, critical vulnerabilities remain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's breadbasket and support these vital pieces of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that would provide a technical correction to the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2004. Last session, the law that allowed severely disabled members of the Armed Forces to receive specially adapted housing grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), while still on active duty, was inadvertently repealed. This was an oversight that occurred when the law was changed that authorized the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing for veterans whose disability is the result of the loss, or loss of use, of both upper arms above the elbow. Currently, only veterans are statutorily eligible for adapted housing grants. Congress originally intended eligibility for both disabled veterans and servicemembers, as was the case before the change in law last Session. The correcting language in my bill would again provide the adapted housing benefit to disabled servicemembers in need of accommodations as they return to their homes. The adapted housing benefit is essential for providing an adequate standard of living for our disabled servicemembers. The benefit provides necessary modifications to servicemembers' homes to accommodate their disabilities. I ask that we continue to make every effort to ensure that those servicemembers who have sacrificed to defend Freedom receive the benefits that they deserve. We owe it to these great men and women to pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that would provide a technical correction to the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2004. Last session, the law that allowed severely disabled members of the Armed Forces to receive specially adapted housing grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), while still on active duty, was inadvertently repealed. This was an oversight that occurred when the law was changed that authorized the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing for veterans whose disability is the result of the loss, or loss of use, of both upper arms above the elbow. Currently, only veterans are statutorily eligible for adapted housing grants. Congress originally intended eligibility for both disabled veterans and servicemembers, as was the case before the change in law last Session. The correcting language in my bill would again provide the adapted housing benefit to disabled servicemembers in need of accommodations as they return to their homes. The adapted housing benefit is essential for providing an adequate standard of living for our disabled servicemembers. The benefit provides necessary modifications to servicemembers' homes to accommodate their disabilities. I ask that we continue to make every effort to ensure that those servicemembers who have sacrificed to defend Freedom receive the benefits that they deserve. We owe it to these great men and women to pass this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss how fortunate we are as a nation to have a highly-skilled veteran population able to lend their talents to the workforce. I am very pleased to report that many employers in the defense industry are actively recruiting this Nation's veterans. A recent Washington Post article entitled ``A Few Good Recruits'' highlights the benefits of the defense industry hiring veterans. Companies hiring veterans get highly skilled workers with a deep understanding of the service. But the reward of hiring veterans is not to be limited to the defense industry. Veterans have skills that make them assets in a variety of occupations. Leadership, integrity, and teamwork--all of which the military teaches--are universal qualities for every industry. I encourage the private sector to consider this in the future when hiring. Veterans possess the skills needed in public service and I encourage officials at all levels of government to recruit veterans. Our veterans bravely defended our freedoms during their service and it is a great strength of this Nation that after military service is over, our veterans enter the workforce with skills to succeed. It is my hope that both public and private sector employers will take full advantage of this. I ask unanimous consent that the article from Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 105.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank our visiting chaplain, the Rev. Kenneth L. Harrington, for giving the opening prayer this morning, and Chaplain Black who joined me to make this possible. Rev. Ken Harrington is the popular and beloved, respected and well- credentialed pastor of Hope United Church of Christ in Alexandria, my church away from home. Ken is a graduate of the State University of New York, Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC, and the Seminary of Drew University in New Jersey. Hope Church has been my church away from home for three decades. It was my good fortune to be invited to the church many years ago by my late and cherished friend, Mahina Bailey, and his dear wife, Linda. Mahina was a Hawaiian born in Hawaii, who spent his adult life here. Over the years, I have gone to many services at Hope and have always been uplifted by the sermons, and since 2000, by the inspiring sermons delivered by Reverend Harrington. Hope Church is a family-friendly church, dedicated to teaching the values of tolerance and inclusivity. You can actually see this reflected on the diverse faces of its congregation, the result no doubt of the sincerity of its message of inclusivity. The diversity of its congregation is so much like mine at home. Together with inspirational sermons come seeds for thought to be thought through and digested, and practiced in daily life. Foremost among these thoughts, in my mind, is how we can make this a better world for all of us. I think this is particularly true for Members of Congress in whom a great trust has been placed by our constituents. As we go through on a daily basis to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, and have succeeded for the most part but been frustrated at times on issues so dear and right in our hearts, it is good to open our daily session with a prayer and have the spiritual support and guidance of a divine being, to each from his or her own faith. To end on a lighter note with a ray of optimism for the passage of bills that are near and dear to our hearts, let me say that with all the seriousness that the mission of a church involves, intertwined in its spiritual voyage are social programs. One of Hope's most popular social events is its annual luau, complete with Hawaiian food and entertainment. An oversold event every year where congregants and friends thank the Lord for his bounty. Reverend Harrington, thank you for being here this morning and thank you for your stewardship of Hope United Church of Christ.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, S. 256 includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide additional information about the consequences of making minimum payments. However, this provision fails to provide the detailed information for consumers on their billing statement that our amendment would provide. Our amendment will make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only minimum payments on their credit cards. If this amendment is adopted, the personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts on their billing statements will help them make informed choices about payments they choose to make toward reducing their outstanding debts. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will empower consumers by providing them with details and personalized information to assist them in making better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This amendment makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices, such as making only minimum payments, and provides opportunities to locate assistance to better manage their credit card debt. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Durbin, Leahy, Sarbanes, and Lincoln, for their support.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which was unanimously reported out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year with strong bipartisan support. I am joined again in this effort by Senator Collins, chairman of the committee, whose focus on this issue and willingness to work with me in developing this legislation demonstrates how important it is to ensure that Federal employees are protected when they disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. I am pleased to be joined by our committee's ranking member, Senator Lieberman. Once again, I am proud to have the support of Senator Charles Grassley and Senator Carl Levin, both of whom are longstanding advocates of Federal whistleblowers. My colleagues from Iowa and Michigan championed the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act and have supported my legislation since 2001. Their support, along with the strong bipartisan support of Senators Leahy, Voinovich, Coleman, Durbin, Dayton, Pryor, Johnson, Lautenberg, and Carper demonstrates the importance of this good government legislation. Our legislation will strengthen the protections given to Federal whistleblowers and encourage employees to come forward to disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. Providing meaningful protection to whistleblowers fosters an environment that promotes the disclosure of government wrongdoing and mismanagement that may adversely affect the American public. If Federal employees fear reprisal for blowing the whistle, we fail to protect the whistleblower, taxpayers, and, in notable instances, national security and our public health. The most recent example is the disclosure by Dr. David Graham of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, who exposed problems at the FDA regarding the safety of new pharmaceuticals. By revealing the threat posed to public health and the safety of pharmaceuticals currently on the market, as well as the organizational structure of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, and CDER's internal conflict of interest in evaluating the safety of drugs both pre- and post- marketing, Dr. Graham risked his career to report hazards to our public health. As a direct result of Dr. Graham's decision to speak publicly, Americans are now more aware of the potential risks of various pharmaceuticals and government leaders are seeking ways to increase transparency of the oversight of new medications. Two weeks ago, the FDA announced the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board to monitor the safety of prescription and over-the-counter drugs on the market more effectively. This new board is aimed at eliminating the conflict of interest found under the current CDER structure as disclosed by Dr. Graham. Other examples of whistle blowers who uncovered government mismanagement and threats to public safety include: Ms. Colleen Rowley who disclosed institutional problems at the Federal Bureau of Investigation prior to 2001 which affected national security, Mr. Richard Foster, who sought to disclose the actual cost of pending Medicare legislation to Congress, and Border Patrol Agents Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, who revealed security lapses at our northern border immediately after September 11, 2001. In spite of the positive changes resulting from their disclosures, we are concerned that the very public struggles these individuals have endured after alerting Americans to waste, fraud, abuse, and security and health violations in the Federal Government may discourage others from coming forward. The root of these struggles lies in part with problems with the current legal structure and interpretation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. As a result of recent court decisions, legitimate whistleblowers have been denied adequate protection from retaliatory I practices. In fact, Federal whistleblowers have prevailed on the merits of their claims before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower appeals, only once since 1994. To address these issues, our legislation would clarify congressional intent regarding the scope of protection provided to whistleblowers; provide for an independent determination as to whether a whistleblower was retaliated against by the revocation of his or her security clearance; establish a pilot program to suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' monopoly on Federal employee whistleblower cases for a period of five years; and provide the Office of Special Counsel, which is charged with representing the interests of Federal whistleblowers, the authority to file amicus briefs with federal courts in support of whistleblowers. Several of the provisions in the legislation reflect our efforts to address concerns raised by the Justice Department. While the Department still has objections to the intent of the legislation, partially because of its role in representing the interests of the alleged retaliatory agencies, I will continue to work with the Department. I am optimistic that we can reach an agreement on this good government measure in the near future. Congress has a duty to provide strong and meaningful protections for Federal whistleblowers. Only when Federal employees are confident that they will not face retaliation will they feel comfortable coming forward to disclose information that can be used to improve government operations, our national security, and the health of our citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this goal a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, which was unanimously reported out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year with strong bipartisan support. I am joined again in this effort by Senator Collins, chairman of the committee, whose focus on this issue and willingness to work with me in developing this legislation demonstrates how important it is to ensure that Federal employees are protected when they disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. I am pleased to be joined by our committee's ranking member, Senator Lieberman. Once again, I am proud to have the support of Senator Charles Grassley and Senator Carl Levin, both of whom are longstanding advocates of Federal whistleblowers. My colleagues from Iowa and Michigan championed the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act and have supported my legislation since 2001. Their support, along with the strong bipartisan support of Senators Leahy, Voinovich, Coleman, Durbin, Dayton, Pryor, Johnson, Lautenberg, and Carper demonstrates the importance of this good government legislation. Our legislation will strengthen the protections given to Federal whistleblowers and encourage employees to come forward to disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. Providing meaningful protection to whistleblowers fosters an environment that promotes the disclosure of government wrongdoing and mismanagement that may adversely affect the American public. If Federal employees fear reprisal for blowing the whistle, we fail to protect the whistleblower, taxpayers, and, in notable instances, national security and our public health. The most recent example is the disclosure by Dr. David Graham of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, who exposed problems at the FDA regarding the safety of new pharmaceuticals. By revealing the threat posed to public health and the safety of pharmaceuticals currently on the market, as well as the organizational structure of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, and CDER's internal conflict of interest in evaluating the safety of drugs both pre- and post- marketing, Dr. Graham risked his career to report hazards to our public health. As a direct result of Dr. Graham's decision to speak publicly, Americans are now more aware of the potential risks of various pharmaceuticals and government leaders are seeking ways to increase transparency of the oversight of new medications. Two weeks ago, the FDA announced the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board to monitor the safety of prescription and over-the-counter drugs on the market more effectively. This new board is aimed at eliminating the conflict of interest found under the current CDER structure as disclosed by Dr. Graham. Other examples of whistle blowers who uncovered government mismanagement and threats to public safety include: Ms. Colleen Rowley who disclosed institutional problems at the Federal Bureau of Investigation prior to 2001 which affected national security, Mr. Richard Foster, who sought to disclose the actual cost of pending Medicare legislation to Congress, and Border Patrol Agents Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, who revealed security lapses at our northern border immediately after September 11, 2001. In spite of the positive changes resulting from their disclosures, we are concerned that the very public struggles these individuals have endured after alerting Americans to waste, fraud, abuse, and security and health violations in the Federal Government may discourage others from coming forward. The root of these struggles lies in part with problems with the current legal structure and interpretation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. As a result of recent court decisions, legitimate whistleblowers have been denied adequate protection from retaliatory I practices. In fact, Federal whistleblowers have prevailed on the merits of their claims before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over Federal employee whistleblower appeals, only once since 1994. To address these issues, our legislation would clarify congressional intent regarding the scope of protection provided to whistleblowers; provide for an independent determination as to whether a whistleblower was retaliated against by the revocation of his or her security clearance; establish a pilot program to suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' monopoly on Federal employee whistleblower cases for a period of five years; and provide the Office of Special Counsel, which is charged with representing the interests of Federal whistleblowers, the authority to file amicus briefs with federal courts in support of whistleblowers. Several of the provisions in the legislation reflect our efforts to address concerns raised by the Justice Department. While the Department still has objections to the intent of the legislation, partially because of its role in representing the interests of the alleged retaliatory agencies, I will continue to work with the Department. I am optimistic that we can reach an agreement on this good government measure in the near future. Congress has a duty to provide strong and meaningful protections for Federal whistleblowers. Only when Federal employees are confident that they will not face retaliation will they feel comfortable coming forward to disclose information that can be used to improve government operations, our national security, and the health of our citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this goal a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 15, which I will offer to S. 256. I thank Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Sarbanes for working with me on this legislation, the Credit Card Minimum Payment Warning Act, and for cosponsoring the amendment. Mr. President, during all of 1980, only 287,570 consumers filed for bankruptcy. As consumer debt burdens have ballooned, the number of bankruptcies have increased significantly. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level. The growth in use of credit cards can partially explain this surge. 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. We must make consumers more aware of the long-term effects of their financial decisions, particularly in managing their credit card debt, so that they can avoid financial pitfalls that may lead to bankruptcy. While it is relatively easy to obtain credit, not enough is done to ensure that credit is properly managed. Currently, credit card statements fail to include vital information that would allow individuals to make fully informed financial decisions. Additional disclosure is needed to ensure that individuals completely understand the implications of their credit card use and the costs of only making the minimum payments as required by credit card companies. S. 256 includes a requirement that credit card issuers provide additional information about the consequences of making minimum payments. However, this provision fails to provide the detailed information for consumers on their billing statement that our amendment would provide. Section 1301 of the bankruptcy bill would allow credit card issuers a choice of disclosures that they must provide on the monthly billing statement. The first option included in the bankruptcy bill would require a ``Minimum Payment Warning'' stating that it would take 88 months to pay off a balance of $1,000 for bank card holders or 24 months to pay off a balance of $300 for retail card holders. It would require a toll-free number to be established that would provide an estimate of the time it would take to pay off the customer's balance. The Federal Reserve Board would be required to establish a table that would estimate approximate number of months it would take to pay off a variety of account balances. There is a second option that the legislation permits. The credit card issuer could provide a general minimum payment warning and provide a toll-free number that consumers could call for the actual number of months to repay the balance. Both of these options are inadequate. They do not require the issuers to provide their customers with the total amount they would pay in interest and principal if they chose to pay off their balance at the minimum payment rate. The minimum payment warning included in the first option underestimates the costs of paying a balance off at the minimum payment. Since the average household with debt carries a balance has approximately $10,000 to $12,000 in total revolving debt, a warning based on a much smaller balance, $1,000 or under in this case, will not be helpful. If a family has a credit card debt of $10,000, and the interest rate is a modest 12.4 percent, it would take more than 10\1/2\ years to pay off the balance while making minimum monthly payments of 4 percent. 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. Our amendment will make it very clear what costs consumers will incur if they make only the minimum payments on their credit cards. If this amendment is adopted, the personalized information they will receive for each of their accounts will help them to make informed choices about the payments that they choose to make towards reducing their outstanding debt. This amendment requires a minimum payment warning notification on monthly statements stating that making the minimum payment will increase the amount of interest that will be paid and extend the amount of time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The amendment also requires companies to inform consumers of how many years and months it will take to repay their entire balance if they make only the minimum payments. In addition, the total cost in interest and principal, if the consumer pays only the minimum payment, would have to be disclosed. These provisions will make individuals much more aware of the true costs of their credit card debts. The amendment also requires that credit card companies provide useful information so that people can develop strategies to free themselves of credit card debt. Consumers would have to be provided with the amount they need to pay to eliminate their outstanding balance within 36 months. Finally, our amendment would require that creditors establish a toll- free number so that consumers can access trustworthy credit counselors. In order to ensure that consumers are referred from the toll-free number to only trustworthy organizations, the agencies for referral would have to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board as having met comprehensive quality standards. These standards are necessary because certain credit counseling agencies have abused their nonprofit, tax-exempt status and have taken advantage of people seeking assistance in managing their debts. Many people believe, sometimes mistakenly, that they can place blind trust in nonprofit organizations and that their fees will be lower than those of other credit counseling organizations. Too many individuals may not realize that the credit counseling industry does not deserve the trust that consumers often place in it. Our credit card minimum payment warning legislation has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Consumer Action. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will empower consumers by providing them with detailed personalized information to assist them in making better informed choices about their credit card use and repayment. This amendment makes clear the adverse consequences of uninformed choices, such as making only minimum payments, and provides opportunities to locate assistance to better manage their credit card debts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 15.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce comprehensive legislation aimed at addressing the issue of economic and financial illiteracy on college campuses. I am referring to the worrisome problems of skyrocketing debt levels, low rates of saving, and the proliferation of unchecked predatory practices by unscrupulous financial institutions among young adults who hold our country's future in their hands. Entitled the College LIFE or College Literacy In Finance and Economics Act, this bill has the support of Senators Sarbanes and Corzine. I thank my colleagues from Maryland and New Jersey for joining me as original cosponsors of this measure. I also thank Senator Enzi, the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for working with me on financial literacy as it affects all constituencies, including college students. The problem we are working to address with the College LIFE Act is simple. Our college students are many of America's best and the brightest and will go on to become leaders--in business, education, politics, the military, the community--any area you can name. I find it wonderful that many young people are fulfilling their dreams of higher education in numbers that I did not imagine when I was in college. In fact, as reported by the Census Bureau, college enrollment was estimated at 15.9 million for the current school year, compared to 5.7 million in 1965 when the Higher Education Act was enacted. However, I am gravely concerned, both as a member of this body and particularly as a grandparent and great-grandparent, that our young people are entering college without proper direction or good skills for money management or economic decisionmaking. As we work on increasing access to higher education, we must give students access to tools needed to make sound economic and financial decisions once they are on campus; however, the lack of personal finance and economics standards or implementation of existing standards in elementary and secondary education in a number of States results in many students arriving at college with little understanding of economic concepts like supply and demand or benefits versus costs, or personal finance concepts such as household money management or the importance of maintaining good credit history. Without this basic understanding, college students are not effectively evaluating credit alternatives, managing their debt, and preparing for long-term financial goals, such as saving for a home or retirement. Imagine life from the point of view of a college student. A young adult leaves his home and travels many miles--thousands of miles in the case of Hawaii students attending mainland colleges--to the campus that holds his hopes and dreams. Perhaps he is not being mindful of how much money he needs for textbooks, school supplies, or student fees. He visits the campus bookstore and walks out with a bag that includes a preapproved credit card application, which he immediately completes and sends. Months later, he has joined other credit card-holding college students who, on average, have credit card balances above $3,000. Sophomore year rolls around and, instead of conferring with his parents about the details of his renewal FAFSA for student financial aid or master promissory note, he is saddled with another $20,000 loan. According to the Census Bureau, average college tuition, room, and board have increased to $29,119 for a four-year private institution and to $9,953 for a four-year public institution. The same scenario repeats itself in junior and senior year. Finally, after completing all coursework, he graduates, finds an entry-level job, and realizes that, after servicing his debt, he has little left to spend on basics such as food, transportation, and rent, much less career clothing or a new briefcase. His lack of knowledge about how to properly use credit has led him to anxiety-causing financial missteps. With appropriate financial and economic literacy, he may have known what debt load to anticipate and made wiser financing and spending decisions while in school. Instead, she may be on the road to true financial trouble. 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 and has nine credit cards. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level, which is almost half of the number of college diplomas expected to be conferred this year at 2.5 million. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board reports that Americans currently pay more than 13 percent of after-tax income to service their debts. We must ensure that our youth make the right decisions to follow a better financial path. This is especially in light of a report cited by Dan Iannicola, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Education, at a House hearing last Congress, noting that youths spent more than $172 billion in a recent year, and figures from MarketResearch.com noting that typical 8- to 14-year-olds spend--from allowances, jobs, and gifts--nearly $1,300 a year or $25 a week. The College LIFE Act represents a comprehensive approach to assist upcoming generations of Americans. It proposes four new grant programs that provide resources to encourage experimentation with delivery systems--innovative methods used in or out of the classroom to increase college students' financial literacy. Another grant would allow higher education institutions to share best practices about or create personal finance courses where none exist. A third grant would assist efforts that are looking at the best ways to integrate personal finance and economic education into basic educational subjects, which is especially important as schools are facing challenges under the No Child Left Behind Act and are tempted to focus on subjects being tested for Adequate Yearly Progress. The final grant would train teachers and high school counselors toward increasing financial and economic literacy in grades K-12 so that our college students are prepared when they arrive at college campuses. The bill also proposes a pilot program for five higher education institutions to encourage students to take a personal finance course and participate in preventive annual credit counseling, working in conjunction with State or local public, private, and nonprofit entities selected by the local education agency or the school, and measuring the effectiveness of efforts in any behavioral changes that may result. It promotes greater collaboration with and support from Federal agencies in the form of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission. Finally, the measure emphasizes the importance of personal finance and economic education and counseling by authorizing these activities as allowable uses in existing Higher Education Act programs, such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and Title III and Title V Serving Institutions. Furthermore, I intend the reach of this bill to be beyond the traditional college student. Our returning college students are a vital part of society--many who are already community leaders and breadwinners for their families who have already gained valuable work experience that they may use as they learn a new field or continue their undergraduate study in the pursuit of a graduate or doctoral degree. In addition, older adults who are entering higher education for the first time can also be lauded for their enterprising spirit in wanting to better their lives by earning an associates or bachelors degree. I anticipate that the assistance provided through the College LIFE Act will work to provided needed help to many of these students as well. I am looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to have the College LIFE Act passed or included in the upcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization. I encourage my colleagues' support for this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce comprehensive legislation aimed at addressing the issue of economic and financial illiteracy on college campuses. I am referring to the worrisome problems of skyrocketing debt levels, low rates of saving, and the proliferation of unchecked predatory practices by unscrupulous financial institutions among young adults who hold our country's future in their hands. Entitled the College LIFE or College Literacy In Finance and Economics Act, this bill has the support of Senators Sarbanes and Corzine. I thank my colleagues from Maryland and New Jersey for joining me as original cosponsors of this measure. I also thank Senator Enzi, the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for working with me on financial literacy as it affects all constituencies, including college students. The problem we are working to address with the College LIFE Act is simple. Our college students are many of America's best and the brightest and will go on to become leaders--in business, education, politics, the military, the community--any area you can name. I find it wonderful that many young people are fulfilling their dreams of higher education in numbers that I did not imagine when I was in college. In fact, as reported by the Census Bureau, college enrollment was estimated at 15.9 million for the current school year, compared to 5.7 million in 1965 when the Higher Education Act was enacted. However, I am gravely concerned, both as a member of this body and particularly as a grandparent and great-grandparent, that our young people are entering college without proper direction or good skills for money management or economic decisionmaking. As we work on increasing access to higher education, we must give students access to tools needed to make sound economic and financial decisions once they are on campus; however, the lack of personal finance and economics standards or implementation of existing standards in elementary and secondary education in a number of States results in many students arriving at college with little understanding of economic concepts like supply and demand or benefits versus costs, or personal finance concepts such as household money management or the importance of maintaining good credit history. Without this basic understanding, college students are not effectively evaluating credit alternatives, managing their debt, and preparing for long-term financial goals, such as saving for a home or retirement. Imagine life from the point of view of a college student. A young adult leaves his home and travels many miles--thousands of miles in the case of Hawaii students attending mainland colleges--to the campus that holds his hopes and dreams. Perhaps he is not being mindful of how much money he needs for textbooks, school supplies, or student fees. He visits the campus bookstore and walks out with a bag that includes a preapproved credit card application, which he immediately completes and sends. Months later, he has joined other credit card-holding college students who, on average, have credit card balances above $3,000. Sophomore year rolls around and, instead of conferring with his parents about the details of his renewal FAFSA for student financial aid or master promissory note, he is saddled with another $20,000 loan. According to the Census Bureau, average college tuition, room, and board have increased to $29,119 for a four-year private institution and to $9,953 for a four-year public institution. The same scenario repeats itself in junior and senior year. Finally, after completing all coursework, he graduates, finds an entry-level job, and realizes that, after servicing his debt, he has little left to spend on basics such as food, transportation, and rent, much less career clothing or a new briefcase. His lack of knowledge about how to properly use credit has led him to anxiety-causing financial missteps. With appropriate financial and economic literacy, he may have known what debt load to anticipate and made wiser financing and spending decisions while in school. Instead, she may be on the road to true financial trouble. 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 and has nine credit cards. From January through September of 2004, approximately 1.2 million consumers filed for bankruptcy, keeping pace with last year's record level, which is almost half of the number of college diplomas expected to be conferred this year at 2.5 million. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board reports that Americans currently pay more than 13 percent of after-tax income to service their debts. We must ensure that our youth make the right decisions to follow a better financial path. This is especially in light of a report cited by Dan Iannicola, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Education, at a House hearing last Congress, noting that youths spent more than $172 billion in a recent year, and figures from MarketResearch.com noting that typical 8- to 14-year-olds spend--from allowances, jobs, and gifts--nearly $1,300 a year or $25 a week. The College LIFE Act represents a comprehensive approach to assist upcoming generations of Americans. It proposes four new grant programs that provide resources to encourage experimentation with delivery systems--innovative methods used in or out of the classroom to increase college students' financial literacy. Another grant would allow higher education institutions to share best practices about or create personal finance courses where none exist. A third grant would assist efforts that are looking at the best ways to integrate personal finance and economic education into basic educational subjects, which is especially important as schools are facing challenges under the No Child Left Behind Act and are tempted to focus on subjects being tested for Adequate Yearly Progress. The final grant would train teachers and high school counselors toward increasing financial and economic literacy in grades K-12 so that our college students are prepared when they arrive at college campuses. The bill also proposes a pilot program for five higher education institutions to encourage students to take a personal finance course and participate in preventive annual credit counseling, working in conjunction with State or local public, private, and nonprofit entities selected by the local education agency or the school, and measuring the effectiveness of efforts in any behavioral changes that may result. It promotes greater collaboration with and support from Federal agencies in the form of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission. Finally, the measure emphasizes the importance of personal finance and economic education and counseling by authorizing these activities as allowable uses in existing Higher Education Act programs, such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and Title III and Title V Serving Institutions. Furthermore, I intend the reach of this bill to be beyond the traditional college student. Our returning college students are a vital part of society--many who are already community leaders and breadwinners for their families who have already gained valuable work experience that they may use as they learn a new field or continue their undergraduate study in the pursuit of a graduate or doctoral degree. In addition, older adults who are entering higher education for the first time can also be lauded for their enterprising spirit in wanting to better their lives by earning an associates or bachelors degree. I anticipate that the assistance provided through the College LIFE Act will work to provided needed help to many of these students as well. I am looking forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to have the College LIFE Act passed or included in the upcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization. I encourage my colleagues' support for this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in the shadow of crude oil prices that have reached nearly $50 per barrel, and with the specter of higher gasoline prices forecast by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help Hawaii and potentially other insular areas grapple with the difficult choices ahead with respect to energy independence. 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. It also directs the Secretary to assess the economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of Hawaii. Hawaii uses crude oil to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet fuel. Changing the mix of these products will have significant economic implications for Hawaii. We need to have a clear picture of the impacts of going down these roads to a different energy mix. In addition, the study would address the technical and economic feasibility of increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources and the use of liquified natural gas, LNG, for generating electricity and other needs. 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 could potentially drive consumer prices up or down. We need to know the implications of increasing the percentage of renewable sources of energy or switching to LNG, and whether these choices will leave us enough residual fuel for our transportation system and jets. Finally, the bill calls for an analysis of the feasibility of production and use of hydrogen from renewable resources on an island-by-island basis, an energy source I have championed for a long time. Hawaii is heavily dependent on imported oil. About 90 percent of the State's energy needs for residents and visitors is produced by refining and burning crude oil. We import 28 percent of our oil from Alaska, but 72 percent comes from foreign sources including Indonesia, China, Papua New Guinea, and Vietnam. We use 26 percent of the oil for generating electricity. Being an island State, marine transportation between the islands is very important. Air transport for residents of Hawaii, as well as for our tourism industry, is critical. For many high school athletic and academic teams to compete in intramural activities, it means getting on planes to go to another island. Many families live on multiple islands. We use 32 percent of the oil for air transportation, and 23 percent for ground and marine transportation. My State's dependence on oil poses potential risks to Hawaii from sudden price increases or supply disruptions as were experienced several times in the last five years alone. Hawaii uses its energy very efficiently. Our per capita energy use is well below the national average. In part, this is due to the fact that Hawaii is blessed with comfortable climate and short driving distances. Nonetheless, we have been paying some of the highest prices in the Nation for our energy. We continue to have the highest gasoline prices in the country. For a long time our electricity rates also have been the highest in the country. Consistent high energy prices affect the economic vitality of the State. Before we invest in a different energy mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the relations between fuels and the consequences of the directions we choose. Our State has been proactive in seeking energy solutions. The State of Hawaii has income tax credits for the installation of solar, photovoltaic, and wind energy. Hawaii has the largest solar water heating program in the Nation. Governor Linda Lingle has called for a 20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020. Last year we obtained about 7 percent of electricity sales from renewable sources, compared with a national average of about 2 percent. The Hawaiian Electric Company, HECO, Hawaii's largest utility, announced in January 2003 the formation of a new subsidiary that will invest in renewable energy projects for Hawaii. The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, a deliberative body of over 40 community leaders and energy stakeholders, met many times over a period of a year and developed an energy vision for Hawaii through the year 2030. Its report, ``Hawaii at the Crossroads; A Long-Term Energy Strategy,'' identifies strategic principles for Hawaii's future, including diversifying the sources of imported energy and beginning the transition to a long-term hydrogen economy. Mr. President, energy security includes supply security, price security, and economic security. Supply security means ensuring that energy is available despite market disruptions elsewhere. Price security means that energy consumers are protected against price fluctuations and chronically high prices. Economic security results from both of the above. Hawaii is dependent on oil for both transportation and electricity in ways that are without parallel in continental States. Hawaii also has an abundance of renewable energy resources. It is the intent of this bill to assess these challenges and opportunities, and to help us develop a suitable roadmap for Hawaii's energy future. This bill will help Hawaii identify the challenges and decision points along the way to energy security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes on the Veterans' Administration.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, over the past 10 years, VA has made tremendous strides in its delivery of health care. In fact, VA's quality of care currently surpasses that of the private sector, according to several notable studies. Though VA has been able to provide high-quality care despite less than generous budgets, we cannot count on that holding true. Indeed, if the administration's proposed cuts for VA care come to fruition, VA will no doubt begin to lose its footing. The President's budget offers a very modest increase for VA care--one that does not even cover medical inflation. Veterans groups are united in saying that the proposed budget is not sufficient. The Disabled American Veterans has called the Administration's budget, ``one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets in recent memory.'' The Paralyzed Veterans of America says that this budget shortchanges America's ``sick and disabled veterans.'' The President's budget calls on VA to save some $600 million by squeezing efficiencies out of the system. I have been to VA hospitals and clinics, and I can tell my colleagues that $600 million worth of efficiencies are not possible without cutting staff and services, the very services that have made VA care excellent. As many of my colleagues know, VA already obtains some of the best prices on pharmaceuticals. VA's costs are far below retail prices--in some cases 55 percent of average prices. It is unfortunate that the administration does not believe that Medicare's costs would be lowered if the Government could negotiate with drugmakers. VA has proven that it works. My point is that there really are not any more efficiencies to be gleaned from VA drug purchasing. I will be working to increase the VA health care budget--to move from the realm of miserly to what is truly needed to care for all veterans. In the meantime, we should focus now on the tremendous advances VA has made and do our best to maintain VA care at the highest levels. One of these studies, done by RAND Corporation, found that VA outpaces private health care systems in delivering care to patients. Among its findings, RAND found that VA patients were more likely to receive recommended health services than those in a national sample of patients using a private provider. It also concluded that VA patients received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Additionally, an article---which I highly command to my colleagues-- in Washington Monthly titled ``The Best Care Anywhere'' explained at length how, in just 10 years, VA hospitals went from less than excellent care to the pinnacle of quality health care. Fostering the change is the focus on new technology to reduce medical errors. Such computer systems allow clinicians to electronically pull up all medical records for any patient. Doctors are able to enter their orders into a computer system that immediately checks that order against the patient's records. If the software then detects a dangerous combination of medicines or a patient's allergy to the newly prescribed drug, a red flag goes up on screen. The technology also reminds doctors to prescribe appropriate care for veterans after they have been discharged from the hospital, and it keeps track of which patients are due for follow-up services. VA has made several other important strides in recent years, steps that have been crucial to VA's assent to the top of the medical care field. Until the mid-1990s, VA was considered by most to be in crisis. Starting in 1996, however, Congress forced VA to focus on primary care and outpatient services. This change, known as eligibility reform, led to improvement in care at VA. I am proud that we made those changes. Veterans are coming to VA like never before. Rather than closing the doors--as the President is proposing--let us welcome all veterans into the system. As ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I will work to ensure that VA continues to be a leader in health care by fighting for additional funding. We must all work to guarantee that all of our Nation's veterans get the care they so greatly deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the RAND study be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in the shadow of crude oil prices that have reached nearly $50 per barrel, and with the specter of higher gasoline prices forecast by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help Hawaii and potentially other insular areas grapple with the difficult choices ahead with respect to energy independence. 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. It also directs the Secretary to assess the economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of Hawaii. Hawaii uses crude oil to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet fuel. Changing the mix of these products will have significant economic implications for Hawaii. We need to have a clear picture of the impacts of going down these roads to a different energy mix. In addition, the study would address the technical and economic feasibility of increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources and the use of liquified natural gas, LNG, for generating electricity and other needs. 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 could potentially drive consumer prices up or down. We need to know the implications of increasing the percentage of renewable sources of energy or switching to LNG, and whether these choices will leave us enough residual fuel for our transportation system and jets. Finally, the bill calls for an analysis of the feasibility of production and use of hydrogen from renewable resources on an island-by-island basis, an energy source I have championed for a long time. Hawaii is heavily dependent on imported oil. About 90 percent of the State's energy needs for residents and visitors is produced by refining and burning crude oil. We import 28 percent of our oil from Alaska, but 72 percent comes from foreign sources including Indonesia, China, Papua New Guinea, and Vietnam. We use 26 percent of the oil for generating electricity. Being an island State, marine transportation between the islands is very important. Air transport for residents of Hawaii, as well as for our tourism industry, is critical. For many high school athletic and academic teams to compete in intramural activities, it means getting on planes to go to another island. Many families live on multiple islands. We use 32 percent of the oil for air transportation, and 23 percent for ground and marine transportation. My State's dependence on oil poses potential risks to Hawaii from sudden price increases or supply disruptions as were experienced several times in the last five years alone. Hawaii uses its energy very efficiently. Our per capita energy use is well below the national average. In part, this is due to the fact that Hawaii is blessed with comfortable climate and short driving distances. Nonetheless, we have been paying some of the highest prices in the Nation for our energy. We continue to have the highest gasoline prices in the country. For a long time our electricity rates also have been the highest in the country. Consistent high energy prices affect the economic vitality of the State. Before we invest in a different energy mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the relations between fuels and the consequences of the directions we choose. Our State has been proactive in seeking energy solutions. The State of Hawaii has income tax credits for the installation of solar, photovoltaic, and wind energy. Hawaii has the largest solar water heating program in the Nation. Governor Linda Lingle has called for a 20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020. Last year we obtained about 7 percent of electricity sales from renewable sources, compared with a national average of about 2 percent. The Hawaiian Electric Company, HECO, Hawaii's largest utility, announced in January 2003 the formation of a new subsidiary that will invest in renewable energy projects for Hawaii. The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, a deliberative body of over 40 community leaders and energy stakeholders, met many times over a period of a year and developed an energy vision for Hawaii through the year 2030. Its report, ``Hawaii at the Crossroads; A Long-Term Energy Strategy,'' identifies strategic principles for Hawaii's future, including diversifying the sources of imported energy and beginning the transition to a long-term hydrogen economy. Mr. President, energy security includes supply security, price security, and economic security. Supply security means ensuring that energy is available despite market disruptions elsewhere. Price security means that energy consumers are protected against price fluctuations and chronically high prices. Economic security results from both of the above. Hawaii is dependent on oil for both transportation and electricity in ways that are without parallel in continental States. Hawaii also has an abundance of renewable energy resources. It is the intent of this bill to assess these challenges and opportunities, and to help us develop a suitable roadmap for Hawaii's energy future. This bill will help Hawaii identify the challenges and decision points along the way to energy security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.