Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Geospatial Information Act of 2004 which would create a Geospatial Management Office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Geospatial information is a critical component of effective planning for homeland security. My interest in homeland security geospatial information developed out of my efforts to ensure support for pre-disaster mitigation programs, such as Project Impact. Project Impact was started by FEME in 1997 to help communities become disaster-resistant by preventing damage and loss of life and property during a disaster and reducing recovery time and costs afterwards. Geospatial technologies, such as satellite imagery and aerial photography, provide data that create the maps and charts that can help prevent a disaster from occurring or lessen the impact of an unforeseeable event by equipping first responders with up-to-date information. In the event of a terrorist chemical attack, knowing which way a contaminated plume will travel can save lives. Similarly, the damage of a natural disaster, such as wildfire, can be lessened by maps that help predict which areas will be in the path of the blaze. My own State of Hawaii is vulnerable to hurricanes, torrential rains and flooding, tsunamis, droughts, earthquakes, and even wildfires. Four years ago, flooding on the islands of Hawaii and Maui caused approximately $20 million in damage to private and public facilities. In order to predict floods more accurately, local officials need current, interoperable data on water levels and surrounding infrastructure so that accurate maps predicting the flow of water can be created on demand. Accurate maps are also critical for swift and safe evacuation procedures. All levels of government are more effective and efficient when employing geospatial technology, especially in the area of homeland security. Its uses include, but are not limited to: disaster early warning and mitigation, border monitoring, criminal investigations, public health protection, and critical infrastructure oversight. In the past, geospatial information management has been done in a piecemeal fashion. Domestic geospatial data procurement and sharing is poorly coordinated and managed. According to a 2003 study by Cary and Associates, a geotechnology consulting firm, the Federal Government spends $5 billion per year on geospatial goods and technologies. This figure does not include the amount being spent by State and local agencies, which some experts estimate is two to three times that of the Federal Government. It is also estimated that at least half of the government's geospatial spending is going towards redundant activities. During a House Government Reform hearing in June 2003, Mark Forman, then the Administrator of the Office of E-Government and Information Technology, admitted that the Office of Management and Budget had no idea how much money federal agencies spend on geospatial procurement. The Administration's current solution to this problem is Geospatial One-Stop, an online portal where organizations and individuals can access geospatial information developed by Federal, State, and local agencies. While Geospatial One-Stop is a good sharing tool, it helps to reduce government redundancy only if agencies voluntarily access data from it instead of procuring the data themselves. With no one keeping a close eye on an agency's geospatial spending, there is no incentive for it to utilize this tool. The legacy agencies that make up DHS had traditionally managed their own geospatial procurement. But many of the homeland and non-homeland security missions of DHS complement each other. Sharing maps and data reduces redundancy, provides savings, and ensures better information for disaster response. Currently, the DHS Chief Information Officer (CIO) is working to break down this geospatial stove piping within the Department by naming a Geospatial Information Officer. However, there is no single office in DHS officially responsible for geospatial management, and therefore, no corresponding budget. In the present structure, the Geospatial Information Officer does not have the authority to compel the five DHS directorates to cooperate with his efforts. The entire agency should make geospatial coordination a priority. A geospatial management office needs to be created and codified within DHS. A congressionally mandated office would give the Geospatial Information Officer more authority with which to do this job. The Office of Geospatial Management has the potential to significantly increase the quality of the resources homeland security officials rely on by reducing redundancy and improving the quality of geospatial procurement. But in order to do this it needs authority and funding. This office would also serve as a mechanism for coordinating with State and local authorities. Much of the geospatial information available today is created at the state and local levels. Centralizing this information will make it more widely available to first responders and other homeland security officials. The Homeland Security Geospatial Act of 2004, will address these needs by: creating the Office of Geospatial Management under the CIO; giving this office the responsibility for managing DHS geospatial activities and coordinating with State and local officials on geospatial initiatives that pertain to homeland security; and naming the Department as member of the Geospatial One-Stop Board of Directors, which will give DHS a role in coordinating federal geospatial activities. We can improve the Department's mission of protecting America, while maximizing the funds. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Over the past 3 days, I have discussed the need to honor public servants, especially Federal workers, during Public Service Recognition Week. I thought back to last week when I participated in the nomination hearing for David Safavian, who has been nominated to serve as the Administrator for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. This position serves as the gatekeeper for the Government's contracts. Much of our discussion with Mr. Safavian centered on making sure that Federal employees have the right to protest competition decisions and that agencies have adequate funds to compete to retain work in-house. Some of the concerns expressed at our hearing stemmed from what I consider to be misguided principles set forth under the President's Management Agenda, which required agencies to implement quotas that could have resulted in the contracting out of up to one-half of all Federal work. Congress, in a bipartisan manner, voiced its opposition to this government-wide approach of contracting out quotas through provisions in the Fiscal Year 2003 Transportation, Treasury, and General Government Appropriations Act. In response to this action and others, the administration dropped this approach in favor of agency- specific plans. With the recent policy reversal of the administration on contracting quotas, I had hoped that the change would have resulted in a fairer approach to the contracting out of Federal work. Therefore, I was disappointed that a February 2004 report on competitive sourcing by the General Accounting Office, GAO, Congress's independent auditor, found that agencies have focused more on following OMB guidelines on the number of positions to compete at the expense of achieving savings and improving performance. As the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Financial Management Subcommittee and the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I understand that without adequate management structures, management information systems, and program review structures, government contracts will not realize savings for the American people. This has been proved time and again by GAO. Contract management and acquisitions have long been identified as high-risk areas. As such, we must ensure that Government contracts are awarded only to responsible parties who generate cost-savings throughout the life of contracts. To counter cost overruns and stop erroneous and improper payments, agencies need the resources to improve the speed and accuracy of contract data collection. The GAO report also noted that six out of the seven agency offices examined had only one or two employees overseeing outsourcing activities. More must be done to make certain that agencies have the people, skills, and technologies needed to oversee $230 billion in contracts. The key to achieving success requires strengthening the Federal Government's acquisition and contract management workforce. We must recognize that this corps of professionals make decisions every day affecting how hundreds of millions of Federal dollars are spent. For a number of years now, the acquisition workforce has been drastically downsized and many of those remaining are eligible to retire. Whether we are discussing quotas or the acquisition workforce, concerns about competitive outsourcing within the Federal Government are essentially about accountability. Approximately 2 million Federal employees and another 8 million private sector employees work for the Government on grants and contracts. This situation raises concerns about who is ultimately responsible for contracted work. It also draws attention to the long-term implications of competitive outsourcing, both in terms of money spent, efficiencies gained, and the retention of institutional knowledge and experienced Federal employees. As we near the end of Public Service Recognition Week, I want to thank our acquisition workforce for their efforts in managing Government contracts. I also urge my colleagues to support efforts to increase and train the acquisition workforce and implement the systems and structures needed to ensure that Government contracting is transparent, accountable, cost effective, and fair to Federal workers.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to those public servants who step forward to disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. Commonly called whistleblowers, these individuals alert Congress and the public to threats to health, waste of taxpayer money, and other information vital to running an effective and efficient government. While there are protections in place for Federal employees who disclose government wrongdoing, certain legal decisions prevent many from coming forward. To underscore the importance of whistleblowers, Time Magazine called 2002 the ``Year of the Whistleblowers'' because of the bravery of FBI Agent Colleen Rowley, who alerted Congress to serious institutional problems at the FBI, and Sherron Watkins and Cynthia Cooper, who blew the whistle on financial mismanagement at Enron and WorldCom, respectively. Today, as in 2002, it is important that during Public Service Recognition Week we acknowledge those who disclose information without assurances of protection and pledge to do what we can to provide full protection for those trusted public servants. Congress has a duty to taxpayers to make informed decisions when carrying out its legislative, appropriation, and oversight functions. Such decisions require access to timely and accurate information, and when access is restricted, we are unable to provide oversight and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. Only through a credible, functioning statute can we protect the rights of Federal workers who wish to communicate with Congress. Guaranteeing freedom from retaliation or abuse when disclosing critical information to Congress is the underpinning of the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. Congress has worked hard, and continues to work, to provide real whistleblower protection to Federal employees. Unfortunately, through a series of decisions contrary to both statutory language and congressional intent, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole appellate review for the WPA, has denied full whistleblower protections to Federal workers and harmed Congress's ability to do its job. In fact, of the 85 retaliation cases decided on the merits since 1994, the Federal circuit has ruled for the whistleblower only once. To ensure continued whistleblower protection, I introduced S. 1358, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, on June 26, 2003, with Senators Grassley, Levin, Leahy, and Durbin. Since introduction, we have been joined by Senators Dayton, Pryor, and Johnson. Our bill would strengthen protections for Federal employees who report government waste, fraud, abuse, gross mismanagement, and substantial and specific dangers to public health and safety. Congress has consistently supported the principle that Federal employees should not be subject to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing. For example, every year since 1988 Congress has included in every Transportation, Treasury, and General Government Appropriations bill an ``anti-gag'' provision which prohibits the use of Federal funds to implement nondisclosure policies that are inconsistent with several open government statutes, such as the WPA of 1989 as amended in 1994, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act of 1912, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. However, more must be done. Since we introduced our bill there have been several more public reports of Federal employees allegedly being fired or threatened with termination or other retaliation for communicating with Congress and disclosing government wrongdoing to the press. These reports include the controversy surrounding the U.S. Park Police and cost estimates for the newly enacted Medicare prescription drug program. In order to aid these and other employees and provide full protection to Federal whistleblowers, S. 1358 would codify the ``anti-gag'' provision and allow employees to bring cases seeking remedial action for retaliation before the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, an independent, quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates Federal employee appeals. In addition, our bill, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, would overturn certain Federal Circuit decisions which have denied protection to employees who made disclosures in the course of their job duties or reported initially to the wrongdoer or a coworker. S. 1358 would also suspend the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over WPA reprisal cases for 5 years, and overturn the wrongly established ``irrefragable proof'' standard imposed by the Federal circuit for whistleblowers to qualify for protection. Although much press has been given to recent whistleblower cases, it is important to remember those who have reported allegations of aircraft maintenance violations, water safety regulations, and lapses in our national security. Protecting Federal employees who blow the whistle allows us to protect taxpayers and, in recent notable instances, national security as well. That is why the WPA is often referred to as the Taxpayer Protection Act. During Public Service Recognition Week, I urge my colleagues to remember public servants who have come forward and honor them by supporting S. 1358 and strengthening protections for whistleblowers.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last week, 70 members of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service and Senior Level and Scientific and Professional employees received the Nation's highest civil service award for their leadership accomplishments and long-term contributions to their country. I believe it is fitting to honor these men and women during Public Service Recognition Week, which began yesterday, May 3, 2004. As noted by the Office of Personnel Management, ``Winners of this prestigious award are strong leaders, professionals, and scientists who achieve results and consistently demonstrate strength, integrity, industry, and a relentless commitment to excellence in public service.'' To me, these awards serve as a reminder that the federal civil service is made up of individuals who have chosen to work for the federal government and their betterment of their fellow citizens. This year marks the first time that Senior Level and Scientific and Professional executives joined those in the Senior Executive Service in receiving awards. The winners, who were honored at a dinner sponsored by the Senior Executives Association Professional Development League last week, have saved the Federal Government over $187 billion according to SEA President Carol A. Bonosaro. At last week's dinner, Ms. Bonosaro detailed notable achievements of the award recipients: including leading a deployment to Kosovo to gather evidence of war crimes in support of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; managing 15 nutrition assistance programs--with $40 billion in apropriations--which reach 50 million Americans annually; serving as a Space Shuttle astronaut pilot and commander; directing the prosecution of international cartels with fines totaling more than $42 billion and the convictions of corporate executives from the U.S. and twelve foreign countries; and serving as the scientific leader of a $2 billion telescope mission, to be launched in 2010, with the objective of seeing the first light in the universe released after the Big Bang. There are two categories of rank awards; distinguished and meritorious awards. For both awards, winners are chosen through a rigorous selection process which includes nomination by their agency heads, evaluation by boards of private citizens, and approval by the President. Distinguished rank award recipients receive a lump-sum payment of 35 percent of their base pay. Meritorious rank award recipients receive 20 percent of base pay. At a time when many young people are questioning the value of public service, I urge them to explore the exciting and challenging employment opportunities with the federal government, as well as the benefits of serving their nation. As the Presidential Rank Awards demonstrated, the government values those who seek public service. Mr. President, I ask that the names and agencies of the 2003 Presidential Rank Award winners be printed in the Record. The information follows. 2003 Presidential Rank Awards for Distinguished Senior Professionals department of commerce Susan Solomon department of defense Office of the Secretary of Defense John A. Casciotti Department of the Air Force Robert Q. Fugate Department of the Army Walter Bryzik Department of the Navy Frances S. Ligler national aeronautics and space administration John Mather 2003 Presidential Rank Awards for Distinguished Executives department of agriculture Antoinette A. Betschart George A. Braley department of commerce Scott B. Gudes Timothy Hauser Rolland A. Schmitten department of defense Office of the Secretary of Defense Jeanne B. Fites Michael L. Ioffredo Pravin C. Jain Jeffrey A. Jones Cheryl Joan Roby Diana G. Tabler Department of the Air Force Vincent J. Russo J. Daniel Stewart Department of the Army James L. Flinn, III Joel B. Hudson Anthony A. LaPlaca Michael A. Parker Department of the Navy William M. Balderson Bobby R. Junker department of education Thomas P. Skelly Steven Y. Winnick department of energy James F. Decker Patricia M. Dehmer department of health and human services William Beldon Joseph R. Carter Dennis J. Duquette Evelyn White department of homeland security Donald K. Shruhan department of housing and urban development Floyd O. May department of the interior Willie R. Taylor department of justice James M. Griffin Bruce C. Swartz department of labor Shelby S. Hallmark department of state Jonathan B. Schwartz department of treasury John M. Dalrymple Donald V. Hammond Sarah H. Ingram Kenneth R. Papaj Robert E. Wenzel department of veterans affairs James F. Farsetta Thomas Lastowka Laura J. Miller environmental protection agency William G. Laxton national aeronautics and space administration Frederick D. Gregory Tom Luedtke Vicki A. Novak John J. Talone nuclear regulatory commission Samuel J. Collins Hubert J. Miller office of management and budget Richard P. Emery office of personnel management Doris L. Hausser Nancy H. Kichak Ronald P. Sanders social security administration William E. Gray Linda S. McMahon

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today marks the beginning of Public Service Recognition Week, which has been celebrated annually since 1985. It is a time in which we honor the hundreds of thousands of public servants who perform the essential services that Americans depend on every day. This year marks the 20th anniversary of this event, and I thank my colleagues for their support in passing, under unanimous consent, legislation I introduced to commend public servants for their dedication and continued service to the Nation during Public Service Recognition Week. The resolution, which was cosponsored by the leadership of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Collins, Lieberman, Fitzgerald, Durbin, Voinovich, Levin, and Coleman, as well as Senator Murray, the ranking member of the Transportation, Treasury, and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, was introduced on April 8, 2004. Public Service Recognition Week provides us with an opportunity to acknowledge the work that public servants perform and their commitment to community and country. The work they do affects all of us. Public servants include teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civilian defense workers, postal employees, food inspectors, law enforcement officers, firemen, social workers, crossing guards, and road engineers. These men and women are the backbone of what makes America great. They deserve our respect and gratitude; and yet for too long, public servants have not been given the recognition they deserve. We must do all we can to foster a better understanding of public service among all Americans and promote public service as an option for young people. As a former educator, I believe it is time to call on a new generation of Americans to consider public service, which is why I am pleased that some schools are now requiring a period of public service in order to graduate. The Federal Government should be viewed as an employer of choice, not as a safe harbor in times of economic weakness. But to attract, retain, and train the best and the brightest, Federal agencies must have adequate funding for Federal employee incentive programs, such as the repayment of student loans. I call on my colleagues to ensure that Congress plays an active role in supporting the Federal workforce. Eliminating funding for these programs does not benefit Federal employees or the ultimate end user: the American taxpayer. In closing, I wish to pay particular attention to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and the civilian employees who support military missions. All are key to the security and defense of our Nation. From the war against terrorism to the ongoing conflict in Iraq, our military and civilian support staff show courage in the face of adversity. As with the country's Armed Forces, Federal employees are ready, willing, and able to make the world safe. As we begin Public Service Recognition Week, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting our Nation's public servants and thanking them for the jobs they do.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers. Under the AWA, Class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some Class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions. As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a Class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents during this week-long search. The investigation of this facility is ongoing, and an indictment is pending. The complaint being investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleges that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It is also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. The undercover investigation of this facility has revealed that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and also revealed a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries. Inadequate veterinary care is one of the worst violations of the AWA committed against these animals. The expense for quality veterinary care is one that irresponsible Class B dealers do not wish to incur, and animals often die as a result of their untreated injuries or diseases. This was one of the violations uncovered by the investigation, and often resulted from another violation of the AWA that requires compatible grouping of animals. Vicious or diseased animals were not separated from the general population and posed a risk to all of the animals housed with them. In addition, this particular dealer also provided inadequate housing facilities that exposed the animals to injury from sharp wires. Fecal waste was allowed to accumulate in the housing facility, and often dead dogs were left where they fell in cages with other living animals. Food receptacles were found to be contaminated with moldy and rotten food, and potable water was not readily available to the animals. All of these are direct violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In addition to neglect, these animals often suffer abuse at the hands of dealers. Evidence of gross cruelty is being uncovered while the USDA continues to investigate this case. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of Class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. My legislation would not be a burden on research facilities because only two percent of the approximately 2,051 Class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some Class B dealers. My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed Class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from Class B dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. 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 the Pet Safety and Protection Act. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of some unethical animal dealers. Under the AWA, Class B animal dealers are defined as individuals whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, some Class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these animals were found living under inhumane conditions. As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to investigate a Class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by Federal agents during this week-long search. The investigation of this facility is ongoing, and an indictment is pending. The complaint being investigated by the USDA against the dealer alleges that the respondents' veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and signed health certificates. It is also alleged that the dealer failed to provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the animals on the premises. The undercover investigation of this facility has revealed that its proprietors were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility were stolen, and also revealed a list of over 50 ``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the animals from yards, and house burglaries. Inadequate veterinary care is one of the worst violations of the AWA committed against these animals. The expense for quality veterinary care is one that irresponsible Class B dealers do not wish to incur, and animals often die as a result of their untreated injuries or diseases. This was one of the violations uncovered by the investigation, and often resulted from another violation of the AWA that requires compatible grouping of animals. Vicious or diseased animals were not separated from the general population and posed a risk to all of the animals housed with them. In addition, this particular dealer also provided inadequate housing facilities that exposed the animals to injury from sharp wires. Fecal waste was allowed to accumulate in the housing facility, and often dead dogs were left where they fell in cages with other living animals. Food receptacles were found to be contaminated with moldy and rotten food, and potable water was not readily available to the animals. All of these are direct violations of the Animal Welfare Act. In addition to neglect, these animals often suffer abuse at the hands of dealers. Evidence of gross cruelty is being uncovered while the USDA continues to investigate this case. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the AWA by prohibiting the use of Class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. My legislation would not be a burden on research facilities because only two percent of the approximately 2,051 Class B dealers in the United States currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some Class B dealers. My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals include USDA-licensed Class A dealers, breeders, and research facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from Class B dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers, as well as the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, due to a previous obligation, I was unable to vote on the conference report to H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004. If I had been present, I would have voted in support of the conference report. I appreciate the work done on this conference report by my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Gregg, McConnell, Baucus, and Kennedy. As others have mentioned before, this legislation is very important to many businesses and their employees suffering from the recent economic downturn and in need of pension relief that the act will provide. While the act will help millions of employees who are covered under this measure, I am concerned that approximately 9.7 million Americans who belong to multi-employer pension plans, many of them in the construction industry, who are facing the same problems as employees covered by other pension plans, will not be receiving this relief. In January, when the Senate overwhelmingly passed H.R. 3108, we agreed that our pension laws should affect not just single-employer plans but also multi-employer plans. We thought including multi-employers was fair and just. Unfortunately, in conference, there were some that agreed with the Bush administration that multi-employer plans should only receive partial relief. Some would say that the relief will be four percent, others will say it is even less than that. All I know is that millions of hardworking Americans, who report to work just as any other employee, will not receive this relief. However, with the April 15 deadline where many employers were facing an inflated contribution to their pension plans and the administration's threat of a veto if the final bill included multi- employer relief, I could not penalize approximately 35 million Americans who are covered by single-employer defined benefit plans. The low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates and the unpredictable stock market have adversely affected many companies that contribute to these defined benefit plans. Again, while I believe these conditions affected not just single-employer plans, but also multi-employer plans, I could not jeopardize the 35 million Americans who could have lost their pensions if this important legislation were not enacted into law.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to join my good friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, in reintroducing the Homeland Security Education Act. Our legislation would improve science, math, and foreign language education in the United States by offering incentives for students to study these subjects and provide much needed funding to elementary, secondary, and post secondary institutions to improve educational programs in these critical subject areas. As my colleagues know, the demand for individuals with technical and language expertise is growing. In 2001 the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded that America's need for many skilled people in science, math, computer science, and engineering is not being met. If we do not address this problem, America's position as a global leader would be challenged. With the acceleration of the internationalization of science and technology activities, assets, and capabilities, U.S. advantages in many critical fields are shrinking and may be eclipsed in the years ahead. While science, math, and engineering skills are especially critical for the defense and homeland security industries, expertise in these fields is also critical to the United States' success in the global economy. America's ability to lead depends particularly on the depth and breadth of its scientific and technical communities. Our education system must produce significantly more scientists and engineers to meet demand and maintain our global leadership in science and technology. We need to develop more qualified math and science teachers and provide educational incentives to encourage students to pursue careers in these fields. However, there will not be enough qualified workers to perform new technology jobs including those jobs critical to maintaining national security. It is more important than ever that we prepare the children of today with the skills necessary to succeed tomorrow. Also critical for success in today's world is proficiency in foreign languages. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, placed renewed emphasis on the need for individuals possessing critical language skills. Shortly after the terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller made a public plea requesting speakers of Arabic and Farsi to translate intelligence documents, left untranslated due to the lack of foreign language speakers. The investigations surrounding the attacks underscore how critical foreign language proficiency is to our national security. The joint Congressional Intelligence Committee inquiry into the terrorist attacks found that prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared to handle the challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter-terrorism intelligence it had collected. Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of language specialists and language- qualified field officers, and a readiness level of only 30 percent in the most critical languages used by terrorists. These backlogs still exist. Our foreign language needs have grown significantly over the past decade with increasing globalization and a changing security environment. Foreign language skills are needed to support traditional diplomatic efforts and public diplomacy programs, military and peacekeeping missions, intelligence collection, counter-terrorism efforts, and international trade. Unfortunately, the United States faces a critical shortage of language proficient professionals government-wide. According to the General Accounting Office, agencies have shortages in translators and interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions. Our national security would be enhanced if our law enforcement officers, intelligence officers, scientists, military personnel, and other federal employees could decipher and interpret information from foreign sources, as well as interact with foreign nationals. America needs people who are fluent in local languages and who understand foreign cultures. The stability and economic vitality of the United States and our national security depend on American citizens who are knowledgeable about the world. We need civil servants, area experts, diplomats, business people, educators, and other public servants with the ability to communicate at an advanced level in foreign languages and understand the cultures of the people with whom they interact. The good news is that there has been a recent jump in enrollment in foreign language courses at the university level, according to the Modern Language Association. A total of 1.4 million students enrolled in foreign language classes in the Fall of 2003. This is a 17.9 percent jump since 1998 and represents the highest foreign language enrollment ever. At the same time, many foreign language programs at the elementary school level have suffered deep cuts. Many school districts are responding to funding shortages by reducing or eliminating their foreign language programs. In some districts, French and German programs have been cut to save Spanish programs, while less commonly taught languages, such as Russian and Japanese, are being phased out altogether. Although my own state of Hawaii leads the nation in cutting edge foreign language immersion programs for elementary school students and is one of the top nine states in the nation in the percentage of public primary schools offering foreign language immersion programs, more must be done. Experts tell us we should develop long-term relationships with people from every walk of life all across the world, whether or not the languages they speak are considered ``critical'' at the time. Experts also tell us that an ongoing commitment to maintaining these relationships and language expertise helps prevent crises from occurring and provides diplomatic and language resources when needed. They are right. We cannot afford to seek out foreign language skills after a terrorist attack occurs. The failures of communication and understanding have already done their damage. We must provide an ongoing commitment to language education and encourage knowledge of foreign languages and cultures. In 2001, my good friend and former colleague, the late Senator Paul Simon said, ``In every national crisis, our nation has lamented its foreign language shortfalls. But then the crisis goes away, and we return to business as usual. One of the messages of September 11 is that business as usual is no longer an acceptable option.'' Senator Durbin and I are reintroducing this important legislation today in order to reaffirm our ongoing commitment to foreign language and science education. In addition to the legislation we are introducing today, I have also introduced, with Senator Durbin and several of our colleagues, S. 589, the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act, to address these skill shortfalls in the federal government. The Senate passed S. 589 in November, and the bill is pending before the House. However, we must now ensure that we not only provide incentives to recruit individuals with these skills, but also ensure that there is a talented applicant pool from which to recruit. This new bill, the Homeland Security Education Act, will do just that. The Homeland Security Education Act would provide incentives for students to obtain degrees in science, math, and foreign languages by offering to repay the interest on their student loans. Our legislation would also strengthen science and math instruction in elementary and secondary schools and promote foreign language education at all levels of study by encouraging greater training of foreign language teachers and the development of more rigorous foreign language education. These measures could have a significant impact on strengthening our nation's expertise in areas critical to national security. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and improve our science, math, and foreign language education programs.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate two University of Hawaii (UH) student athletes, Kim Willoughby and Michael Kuebler, for their outstanding athletic achievements. Kim is an outside hitter for the UH Wahine Rainbow volleyball team and Michael is a guard for the UH Men's basketball team. Both athletes are seniors and have had highly decorated and successful careers while participating in the UH athletic program. Fans are quick to recognize Kim's presence on the court as she is best known for her powerful and precise play. During her first season with the Wahine Rainbows, Kim earned the title of Western Athletic Conference, WAC, cofreshman averaging 3.14 kills and 3.02 digs per game. As a sophomore, Kim earned WAC player of the year, All-West region team, American Volleyball Coaches Association, AVCA, and Volleyball Magazine All-American first team honors. That season Kim surpassed conference and school records as she led the Nation with 850 kills and 7.20 kills per game. Kim captured the AVCA player of the week title twice and the WAC player of the week four times that same year. In her junior year, Kim earned the WAC player of the year honor for a second time. In her last 2 years on the squad, Kim ranked second in the Nation in kills per game and was again awarded the AVCA All-American first team titles. In 2003, Kim acquired AVCA's National player of the year as well as was named to the College Sports Television All-American team. Kim set the Wahine Rainbow record with 2,598 career kills, the sixth highest in the history of NCAA Division I women's volleyball. As a transfer student from Clackamas Community College in Oregon, Michael joined the Rainbow Warriors and started the final 28 games of the 2002-2003 season. Michael's impressive play earned him Academic All-WAC newcomer team and All-Junior and Community College transfer team honors. During his senior season, Michael was voted to the All-WAC first team and earlier in the year tied the team's record for consecutive games with at least one three pointer. Michael not only led the team in scoring, but he also led the conference with 91 three pointers. This past March, the Rainbow Warriors concluded their season with a 21-to-12 record and finished one game short of the National Invitation Tournament, NIT, ``final four.'' During that last NIT match against Michigan, Michael scored a team high of 19 points, earned a career high of 8 assists, and increased his UH single season 3-point record to 97. I am also impressed with his priorities of balancing an athletic career while also building a strong academic foundation. Michael's off court accomplishments include holding a 3.67 grade point average as a business marketing major and being the first Rainbow Warrior to make the College Sports Information Director's Association Academic All-American first team. The sports fans of Hawaii and I have enjoyed watching Kim Willoughby and Michael Kuebler compete and develop as athletes. I thank them both for their contributions to their respective sports and continuing the tradition of excellence long withstanding at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. As both of them bid the UH campus farewell this season, I wish the both of them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am proud to announce that the class from Kahuku High School of Kahuku, HI, will represent the State of Hawaii at the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. These Hawaii students will join the more than 1,200 students from across the country that will visit Washington, DC, to take part in the We the People national competition to be held during the first week of May. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won Hawaii's statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and is an extensive educational program developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 3-day competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress and provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. I would like to recognize the following 25 Kahuku students that will be representing the State of Hawaii: Samuel Braden, Chelsey Bunker, Stacia Colton, Brian Craycroft, Tusi Esera, Lacey Golonka, Evelyn Griffin, Reis Harney, Celesta Hubner, Jeremy James, Natalie Kamauoha, Jennifer Kamiya, Azura Iversen-Keahi, Tiffany Lee, Brook McArthur, Donna Ramos, Leilani Relator, Alicia Reidy, Aaron Rillamas, Jordan Williams, Austin Spring, Ian Tapu, Alexandra Thompson, Rachel Tolleson, and Seini Unga. I would especially like to thank their teacher, Ms. Sandra Cashman, for once again seizing this opportunity to empower and educate students about the significance of the American institutions of constitutional democracy. I am confident that the students will step up to the challenges presented in this competition and they will give a stellar performance. As one who formerly taught at Kahuku High School, I take a special pride in these students' accomplishments. I know that it is because of school and parental support, dedication, and commitment that these students were empowered and encouraged to excel in this arena. I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their achievement. These students have no doubt made everyone in their school, their families, and their friends proud of what they have achieved. We should all be proud that they are learning and advocating the fundamental ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. Let the students' enthusiasm and active participation in shaping their understanding of government serve as a model for all citizens to follow.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the war on terrorism and the situation in Iraq on the 1-year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I had the honor and privilege of traveling to Iraq and Afghanistan over the recent recess to visit our troops. I had the similar honor of visiting them in the medical center at Ramstein, Germany. I report to my colleagues the troops with whom I met were in good spirits. They are, of course, eager to return home to their loved ones, but they are also proud of the work they are doing to stabilize Iraq and assist the Iraqi people in building a democratic state. I was proud of them, proud of the leadership of our military, and proud of all the troops there. As a veteran of World War II, I was proud to see in the troops the same dedication to duty, mission, and country I remember so well from my own comrades in arms. In Ramstein, I was impressed with the wonderful support our wounded were receiving from the medical staff, and I was equally impressed with the eagerness our wounded expressed to return to the sides of their comrades. In that eagerness to rejoin their units, they shared a bond with all their past brothers in uniform. In Iraq, I visited the newly deployed Stryker brigade in Mosul. This unit is demonstrating in the field for the first time a powerful new capability. But it has also been given the difficult objective of patrolling a large area. They are still waiting for Iraqi forces to be trained and adequately equipped to supplement their effort. Clearly, one reason why the security situation still remains so tenuous is the failure to train and field sufficient Iraqi security forces. But the apparent ambush of two American civilians recently by Iraqi police indicates even some of the newly deployed security forces cannot be trusted. According to the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, we are only about 30,000 short of the approximately 236,000 security forces planned for Iraq. This may be so in terms of absolute numbers, but it is not a reflection of how well equipped they are, how well trained they are, and how well led they are. For example, the CPA carries about 60,000 police on payroll, but only 2,300 of those have been fully qualified. Prior to the war, the Iraqi police had a well-deserved reputation for being corrupt. Reports continue to indicate this remains a problem and, as I mentioned, there are indications the security forces have been infiltrated by terrorists. At the same time, many of the honest policemen are being targeted by terrorists. On Tuesday, 11 were killed in an ambush. So one should view numbers with a healthy skepticism and focus on quality. I also had the opportunity to visit Balad, about 25 miles north of Baghdad. This will become the future center of air operations in Iraq, and we are now preparing a major airbase to service American troops for the next 3 to 5 years. Elsewhere, there is the intent to move American troops out of Baghdad and consolidate forces in fewer installations on the periphery, thus reducing the visibility of the American footprint. This is going to be a very delicate maneuver. Reducing the American presence in Baghdad has to be balanced by an increase in the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces inside the city. We could run the risk of having that city of about 6 million become an even safer haven for terrorists while we hunker down in bases on the outskirts. It also means we are planning for an extended stay in Iraq. While the administration indicates 33 countries are now contributing troops to Iraq, the bulk of the troops is American, and unless there is a change in strategy by the administration or a change in attitude by the international community, those troops for the foreseeable future will remain largely American. Will there be American troops in Iraq by the time of the next Presidential election in 2008? Right now the answer is yes. I was able to visit Kabul as well. So much attention and money have been focused on Iraq that I believe Afghanistan has been neglected to the detriment of our goal of defeating the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. One example: in Iraq we hope to field an army of 27 battalions in 12 months at a cost of $1.8 billion, while in Afghanistan we hope to field an army of 15 battalions in 26 months at a cost of $569 million. Yet, in Iraq, there is a military infrastructure of garrisons, facilities, and a history of a national army that Afghanistan lacks. There are huge cultural barriers to overcome in linguistics and ethnicity that make Iraq look homogenous in comparison. Our military is doing a great job in trying to stand up an army in Afghanistan, but it is an enormous job, and so far the international community is not providing sufficient resources either to rebuild the country or create a sustainable and professional security force. Afghanistan has an even greater problem in the lack of a civic administrative infrastructure. Without the creation of a strong local and central government, we run the risk of creating a well trained army that the government cannot pay for or sustain, further increasing the risk that the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists could return to power. We need to give more attention and make a greater commitment to Afghanistan. In Kosovo, for example, 25 times more money was pledged on a per capita basis than to Afghanistan and 50 times more troops per capita were sent. Afghanistan needs an estimated $20 billion in assistance over the next 5 years but so far only $7 billion has been pledged and even less received. I worry that, 2 years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan has become the forgotten war even as al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban remnants continue to make it their sanctuary and regroup their forces. I opposed going to war in Iraq when we did. I did not think that the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction was imminent, nor did I think we had taken sufficient time to prepare for the consequences of a prolonged occupation of Iraq. I was concerned that starting another conflict before we had squashed the al-Qaida terrorist threat in Afghanistan would disperse our forces and expose us to even more terrorist problems. To be successful in both, with the least cost to the United States in terms of lives and resources, required an international coalition and consensus along the lines of the one created in the first gulf war. We have yet to achieve that either in Afghanistan, where there is international support but insufficient resources, or in Iraq where the bulk of resources and personnel are being provided by the United States. We need to rebuild support for American foreign policy both abroad and at home. A recent Pew Foundation poll indicates that the U.S. image abroad remains negative in most nations. This cannot be good. For Americans to be secure, we need to be respected, and, as both Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, we cannot go it alone unless American citizens want to bear the full burden of sacrifice. We need international support. This does not mean sacrificing American interests to foreign interests, but it means working with other nations to gain a consensus in support of our objectives. In many we are one. At home, too, we need to rebuild bipartisan support for American foreign policy. This has been lost in the last few years. Healthy debate requires a willingness to listen to arguments and to accept those that are valid in order to develop a consensus on American foreign policy. This ability has been lost. Earlier this week, our former colleague, Bill Cohen, spoke before the 9/11 Commission. He talked about ``the kind of poisonous atmosphere that existed then that continues today,'' referring to the questioning of President Clinton's motives when he launched attacks against al- Qaida in Afghanistan and Sudan. Constructive criticism of strategy and oversight of its implementation are essential tools in sharpening the tip of our policy weapons. But they need to take place in an atmosphere where such debate is not just another arrow in the quiver of partisan politics. I pray that one of the successes of the 9/11 Commission and other discussions in this very political year will be a determination to restore comity in foreign policy. My recent travels in Iraq and Afghanistan have convinced me that, if we are to succeed in either country, we need to be prepared to remain in both countries for a long time, and we need to be prepared for additional sacrifices in terms of lives and financial resources. To accept that burden, there has to be a consensus in foreign policy. To bear that burden will require a determination to establish international support for our policies. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, It is with great pride that I rise to recognize Natasha Kai of Kahuku, HI, for her extraordinary athletic achievements. As a forward for the University of Hawaii Rainbow Wahine soccer team, Natasha was recently named to the 2004 Women's Under 21 National Soccer team. This achievement marks the first time any female athlete from the State of Hawaii has acquired a position on this prestigious, nationally recognized team. After attending two training camps within the last month, Natasha competed amongst 40 of the country's top female athletes to earn a coveted spot on the national team. The national team is currently in China and competing in a tournament with the hopes of making it to the 2004 Nordic Cup, the premier tournament to be held in Iceland later this summer. A few days ago, the national team secured its first exhibition match win triumphing over the Shanghai SVA team. Natasha made her international debut during that match and scored the first goal within the first three minutes of play. The national team is off to a successful start and has two more exhibition matches before they return home. I am doubly proud that Natasha hails from Kahuku High School, which is one of the schools where I first entered the classroom as a teacher. As a multi-talented athlete at Kahuku, Natasha received four varsity letters each in soccer and track, as well as two in volleyball, and one each in basketball and cross country. Natasha was a two-time Oahu Interscholastic Association (OIA) All-Star soccer player, as well as a 2001 All-State player of the year. During her senior season, she led the Red Raider soccer team to a OIA division title win, a first for the school. Natasha earned State track and field honors in the 110 meter hurdles, high jump, and long jump, and was the two-time record holder and State champion in the 300 meter hurdles. In 2001, as a volleyball player she was voted to the OIA-East first team. Basketball accomplishments include being named to the OIA First-team and State Second-team that same year. In addition to her success on the field, Natasha also excelled in the classroom and was an honor student. As one of the most highly recruited female athletes in the State, Natasha decided to stay and pursue her athletic endeavors at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. As a forward on the soccer field, Natasha is known for her explosive speed and skill when evading defenders and scoring goals. During her freshman year with the UH Wahine Rainbow soccer team, she started 16 of the 17 games she appeared in and broke eight school records. Natasha was named the 2002 Western Athletic Conference (WAC) freshman of the year and WAC player of the year, and captured all-WAC first team honors. As a 2002 UH Scholar athlete, she was also selected for the Soccer Buzz freshman All-West region first team and All-American third team. The freshman scored two hat tricks against Tulsa and Boise State during conference play and was named WAC Offensive Player of the Week three times. Last season as a sophomore, Natasha led the Nation in scoring with 29 goals and again received her second WAC player of the year and All-American honors. With the help of this skilled athlete, UH won a record 13 matches and secured its first conference title in 2003. The athletic accolades of Natasha speak volumes of her character, love of the sport of soccer, and dedication to the game. I am confident that all the people of Hawaii, particularly her family and friends, take great pride in her great accomplishments. I wish Natasha and her teammates the best of luck while competing in the tournament and a safe journey home. Win or lose, I extend the support of the country and especially the support of all Hawaii. I thank Natasha for serving as a role model and for reminding us all that through hard work and determination, even what seems like a distant dream can be realized.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to the Administration's aggressive outsourcing agenda which I believe comes at too high a cost to Federal workers and to Government accountability and cost-effectiveness. My concerns are confirmed by a February 2004 General Accounting Office, GAO, report entitled, ``Competitive Sourcing: Greater Emphasis Needed on Increasing Efficiency and Improving Performance,'' GAO-04-367. I highly recommend this report to my colleagues. The GAO reviewed the Federal outsourcing agenda at seven agencies: the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Interior, Agriculture, Education, and Veteran's Affairs. These agencies contain 84 percent of Federal jobs eligible for outsourcing. The administration has identified 304,800 Federal jobs for outsourcing at the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Interior alone, which represent nearly 42 percent of the total workforce of these agencies. GAO found that the examined Federal agencies are focusing more on implementing Office of Management and Budget, OMB, mandates on the number of competitions at the expense of cost-efficiency. In 2001, the administration had established the goal of privatizing up to 50 percent of federal jobs. However on July 23, 2003, the OMB's Administrator for Procurement Policy, Angela Styles, testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee that contracting quotas would be terminated and replaced by agency-specific plans. This shift in policy came after repeated criticisms from both sides of the aisle in the Senate and the House of Representatives. For example, the FY03 Transportation, Treasury, and General Government Appropriations Act severely restricted the use of contracting quotas as a result of strong bipartisan opposition. There are important steps we can take now to improve the cost- effectiveness and fairness of public-private competitions. As ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Financial Management Subcommittee and the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I am working to improve the financial transparency and cost-savings of Federal outsourcing policies. Federal contracts should be required to generate at least 10 percent savings over agency costs. The Federal Procurement Data System, FPDS, reports that the Federal Government spent approximately $250 billion on Federal contracts in 2002. The Senate passed FY04 Omnibus Appropriations Act would have required a minimum of 10 percent cost-savings before Federal jobs are contracted out. Unfortunately, this measure was stripped from the FY04 Omnibus Appropriation Act. The GAO report reaffirms the need for a minimum cost-savings in Federal procurement policies. By law, the Department of Defense, DOD, is required to achieve cost-savings before jobs are contracted out. DOD is the largest buyer of contracted services and according to recent FPDS data spent over $164 billion in 2002. We can also improve fairness in public-private competitions. Before decisions are made to contract out Federal work, agencies need the personnel, funding, and technology to ensure that the work is performed in a timely and cost-effective manner. We cannot expect Federal employees to oversee billions of dollars of contracts without these resources, which is why I was disappointed to learn that GAO found that six out of the seven agency offices examined had only one or two employees overseeing outsourcing activities. Moreover, we should level the playing field so that Federal workers have the right to appeal the loss of a competition just as contractors do today. Fair competition must ensure that affected employees have proper appeals and protest rights. Unlike Federal employees, Federal contractors have the right to protest OMB Circular A-76 decisions before the GAO. I am disappointed that the FY04 Omnibus Appropriation Act stripped a provision that would have provided Federal workers the same appeal rights as contractors. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure that Federal procurement policies offer the best return on the dollar and are fair to Federal workers. The results of this GAO review reaffirms that there is more work to be done in this area.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, to address shortfalls in homeland security funding in the President's FY05 Budget Request. As a cosponsor, I believe this amendment would go a long way to ensuring that our homeland security is not shortchanged. I am disappointed that the President's budget request cuts taxes for the wealthy at the expense of funding homeland security programs. Our amendment would restore $2.5 billion in proposed budget cuts and includes an additional $7 billion to strengthen existing programs. It would also reduce the deficit by offsetting spending with tax cut reductions for those earning more than $1 million a year. Our amendment takes an important step to prepare our first responders by restoring $1 billion for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides first responders critical funding for emergency planning, training, and equipment. This program is crucial for all States, especially States like Hawaii with smaller populations, since a portion of this funding is evenly distributed among all States. Our amendment also takes important steps to ensure that homeland security funding is allocated where it is needed most. It provides $1 billion in much needed funding to address first responder shortfalls for interoperable communications equipment and $600 million for hospitals and public health agencies to respond to emergencies. I am equally disappointed that the President's budget request fails to address the serious funding gaps for port security. In fact, the American Association of Port Authorities has expressed great concern that the President's FY05 budget contains no Federal funds to meet port security requirements. The amendment takes important steps to secure our ports and our economy by providing $1 billion for port and container security and Coast Guard modernization. This funding is critical to Hawaii, where 98 percent of imported goods are transported by sea. This is not just a matter of security for Hawaii or coastal States, but the security of our Nation. According to a Council on Foreign Relations Homeland Security Task Force report entitled, ``America--Still Unprepared, Still in Danger,'' if our Nation's ports suffered a weapons of mass destruction attack, ``the response right now would be to shut the [entire] system down at an enormous cost to the economies of the United States and its trade partners.'' The Task Force report estimates that if American ports were to be closed to containerized cargo for longer than three to four weeks, global shipping container trade would grind to a halt. Our amendment also includes $500 million for aviation security, which would provide for systems to screen air cargo and passengers for explosives. This is an important step towards ensuring adequate funding for security devices needed to detect dangerous material and to prevent a potential crisis. We must ensure that our homeland security is not shortchanged. This is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this important amendment offered by Senator Tom Daschle. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, of which I am a member, has held hearings on the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request for Indian programs. We have heard from Indian country about the inadequate funding provided for many programs in Indian country. We have heard that American Indians and Alaska Natives have a life expectancy six years less than that of the rest of the United States population, with rates of cardiovascular disease being twice as high for native peoples. Native people die at a rate 500 percent higher than other Americans from tuberculosis and 390 percent higher from diabetes. With the technological advancements that we have made in these areas, most of these illnesses could be prevented if basic health care were available. Unfortunately, the President's budget provides $2.1 billion for IHS clinical services, leaving a shortfall of over 60 percent for fiscal year 2005. The time is now and we must provide Indian country with the ability to ensure that native peoples are given access to essential health care services. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I thank my dear friend, Senator Daschle, for offering this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to support an amendment offered by my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Finance Committee. His amendment seeks to right wrongs perpetuated against low-income families in the budget resolution before us. As he has explained, the pending resolution seeks to make room for further tax cuts by instructing the Finance Committee to make ill-advised cuts of $21.6 billion from Medicaid and the earned-income tax credit, EITC. I am already concerned about the reconciliation instructions in the resolution that would further reduce federal revenues by $80.6 billion for tax cut extensions that we cannot afford. We have felt in the current fiscal year the negative effects of these tax cuts on important domestic programs starved for resources, while we continue to put essential support toward our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. I strongly support our men and women in the military who are fighting to preserve our security, and we must not erode further resources from them or the people they are protecting at home by extending tax breaks or making them permanent. Although fully offset relief to lower income families through measures such as the refundable child credit are seductive assumptions under this instruction, I understand that further assumptions in the resolution would allow an earlier repeal of the estate tax in 2009 instead of 2010 and permanency in other areas such as the dividends and capital gains rate structures at a cost of $22.7 billion. Now is simply not the time for such measures. With due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, while we are seeing small promising signs in the economy, my colleagues seem willing to deny the ability of lower income families to help drive economic recovery by raising their taxes. The resolution would partly fund tax cut extensions and permanency on the backs of the working poor with attacks on Medicaid and the earned-income tax credit, EITC. These are simply mean-spirited actions against working families in this country. The budget resolution would increase the number of underinsured and uninsured in this country by cutting more than $11 billion from Medicaid. The impact that this would have on already strained state Medicaid programs and the individuals who rely on this important safety net would be devastating. States continue to face crisis situations with respect to their budgets. We all know that Medicaid makes up a tremendous portion of state budgets, and drastic cuts by states to balance their budgets have swelled the rolls of those without insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that state cuts over the past 2 years have shut between 1.2 million and 1.6 million people out of the Medicaid Program. Additionally, 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. The uninsured delay seeking medical treatment, which is likely to lead to more significant and costly problems later on than if they had sought earlier, preventative treatment or had access to proper disease management. These cuts will also further erode the ability of the hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers in our communities to meet the health care needs of the community. Our health care providers who already are confronted with inadequate reimbursements, rising costs, and an increasing demand to provide care for the uninsured. A tremendous $11 billion cut would far exacerbate this problem and perhaps hold tragic consequences for welfare recipients only beginning to rebuild their way to self-sufficiency. The resolution before us would also strike $3 billion from the EITC-- a refundable credit that helps lower income individuals and families to meet essential needs--food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education. The Census Bureau notes that the credit lifted nearly 4 million people above the poverty line in 2001. This year, families can expect an average refund of $2,067, which can mean a stay of eviction, transportation to a decent paying job for the year, or food in children's bellies. The EITC can mean the equivalent of a $2 an hour raise in the salary for working mothers and fathers. I would like to present a visual image of just which families are reached by the EITC. As you can see in the chart behind me, courtesy of the Brookings Institution, higher concentrations of EITC recipients are in the dark orange at more than 40 percent, with the percentage decreasing as the colors move to yellow, then blue. We can see how effectively the EITC reaches families and communities in large cities and all across the rural South. Highest concentrations of EITC recipients as a percentage of total filers in a state can be found in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas. Finally, an analysis of delegations by state clearly shows that the EITC should remain a bipartisan issue. The 18 States that have two Senators from my side of the aisle have 15.2 percent of all EITC earners, while the 19 States with two Senators from the other side of the aisle have an even greater percentage of recipients at 17.2 percent of all EITC filers. All total, EITC assistance of almost $36 billion is lifting our communities representing meaningful relief for millions of EITC earners, whose numbers grew by 8 percent between tax years 2000 and 2002 due to the economic downturn and longer-term unemployment trends. Mr. President, in closing, we should not be attempting to produce savings for ill-timed tax cuts by denying such assistance to those in our states who most need it. Without the Medicaid program and the EITC, many families will go without health services and fundamental, everyday priorities. The Baucus amendment seeks to ensure that the working poor will have access to the healthcare that they and their children need, and the financial assistance that will provide for their essential expenses. I have sent to my colleagues in the Senate a copy of the statement of the low-wage workers. I have also sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to each office on the earned-income tax credit map we have shown. I hope all of my colleagues will look at the EITC predicament and support the Baucus amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am in support of this resolution designating April, 2004, as Financial Literacy Month, and asking the President to issue a proclamation calling on the Federal Government, States, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, and the American people to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities. I thank Senators Allen, Sarbanes, Corzine, Santorum, Kohl, Thomas, Johnson, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Lautenberg, Murray, Landrieu, Durbin, Inouye, and Crapo for standing with me in advancing financial and economic literacy for our entire citizenry. Last year, the Senate designated April, 2003, as Financial Literacy for Youth Month by adopting my resolution, S.Res. 48, to highlight the need for increased financial and economic literacy and education in our country. Since then, there has been wider recognition that we need to broaden the spotlight to include problems resulting from pervasive financial illiteracy among adults of all ages as well, no matter in which region of the country they live, in which sector of the economy they work, or for which side of the aisle they vote. All of us know at least one person in our lives who has suffered the sometimes tragic and often unavoidable results of not knowing how to create and stick to a budget, not understanding the merits of maintaining good credit history, or not having the analytical skills to make decisions based on factors in the economy. We are witness to the cumulative results of these individual decisions. Consumer debt rose at a greater rate than was expected in 2003, increasing to nearly $2 trillion in September, 2003, as noted by the Federal Reserve. The rate of foreclosures for FHA loans was the highest ever recorded in the third quarter of 2003, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey. The Congressional Research Service reports that the percentage of income used for household debt payments, including mortgages, credit cards, and student loans, rose to the highest level in more than a decade in 2001 and remained above 13 percent in 2003. Also, that personal savings as a percentage of personal income decreased from 7.5 percent in the early 1980s to 2.3 percent in the first three-quarters of 2003. As reported in the Associated Press, personal bankruptcies nearly doubled in the past decade, including more than 1.6 million people who filed for personal bankruptcy in fiscal year 2003. And a final sign of our times, despite technological advances that make it even more convenient and less costly to manage our money through accounts at banks and credit unions, Fannie Mae reports that between 25 million and 56 million adults are `unbanked', or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. All of this tells me that we cannot overlook our adult population and their need for financial literacy and education. Even so, prevention remains key, and education lies at the heart of prevention. We must continue to work in our schools to convey important and practical lessons personal finance and economics, so that our students may leave secondary and postsecondary, and even elementary education, with age-appropriate tools and skills that they may continue to hone throughout their lives. In addition to learning and practicing the essential basics in reading, writing, and arithmetic, they should understand how they can do their part toward helping their families stick to the budget constructed on the kitchen table, saving toward their college tuition, or helping to identify future opportunities that will benefit everyone in their families in the long run. As an example, the Hawaii Council on Economic Education, with assistance from the Securities Education Division within the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, is sponsoring the Hawaii Stock Market Simulation, which is an interactive tool to help students learn about how the U.S. financial market system works. By gaining an understanding of the securities markets, students in third grade through twelfth grade can learn about the importance of saving and investing to help provide a sound economic and financial base for their own future. Student teams invest a hypothetical $100,000 in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds and compete statewide. Last year, I met with some of the winning teams who, in the short 10-week period, raised the value of their portfolio to as much as $130,273.49--an amount accomplished by a team from Kalani High School. In the Fall 2003 competition, a team from Keaau High School achieved a portfolio value of $129,930.42. Even in the elementary division in the most recent competition, a team from Moanalua Middle School invested successfully for a portfolio of $117,877,73. This is just one example of the types of competitions held around the country that gets kids excited in investing and saving while cautioning them about speculation, pulling their parents and other family members into the exercise, and give them the tools to analyze their own personal finance decisions, well into their adult years. Support for economic and financial literacy efforts in our schools is a worthwhile investment for our country to make in our future generations. I am highlighting this point in this resolution, as well as working to provide more resources through the Excellence in Economic Education Act for K-12 education--rather than terminating this program as President George W. Bush recommended in his fiscal year 2005 budget, and working with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, to strengthen this investment in our students in colleges and universities through our bill, S. 1968, the Financial Literacy in Higher Education Act. And once again, economic and financial literacy must reach adults in this country, particularly to help those who are heads of households, workers, and business owners plan for short- and long-term investment, savings, and retirement, as well as avoid the grasp of predatory lenders that peddle products such as high-interest Refund Anticipation Loans, high-cost remittances, payday lending, and abusive financial marketing practices. I call to the attention of my colleagues the establishment of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, and look forward to its development of a national strategy that will coordinate Federal efforts in financial and economic literacy. I also recognize the efforts of organizations such as the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, the National Council on Economic Education, and others on the forefront of this movement for their parallel endeavors. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in commemorating all of these efforts to forward financial and economic literacy in this country by recognizing April 2004 as Financial Literacy Month, and I urge that they support this resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, public service is a long and honored tradition in the United States. Through the dedicated commitment and tireless service of our Nation's Federal workforce, our country is safer and more secure than ever. I wish to take this opportunity to honor one such person, Daniel L. Mihalko, who since January 28, 1978, has served as a postal inspector in the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. After serving as a postal inspector for the past 26 years of his 31- year career with the Postal Service, Inspector Mihalko retired on March 2, 2004. Inspector Mihalko was known to many in congress as their contact with the Postal Inspection Service in his capacity as the inspector in charge of congressional and public affairs. He was also known to the American public as the face of the Inspection Service when discussing issues such as the anthrax attacks through the U.S. mail in 2001 or pipe bombs in midwestern mailboxes. He professionally represented the Inspection Service in television appearances ranging from shows such as ``60 Minutes'' and ``Larry King Live'' to all the major television networks. In addition to Inspector Mihalko's service as spokesman for the Postal Inspection Service, he was the guiding force behind several high-profile publicity campaigns: Project kNOw Fraud, National Fraud Against Seniors, and Awareness and Operation: Identity Crisis-- important educational programs directed at increasing consumer awareness of mail fraud and deceptive mailing practices. His official appearances added to public confidence in the mail, and it is fitting that upon Inspector Mihalko's retirement from the Postal Inspection Service, we take a moment to recognize the Federal agency he promoted so well. The United States Postal Inspection Service protects the integrity of our Nation's postal system and is one of the country's oldest law enforcement agencies. Founded in 1772 by the first Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin, the Postal Inspection Service is the primary law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service. Initially the Inspection Service helped regulate and audit postal functions, but in 1830, these functions were expanded and its auditors became special agents. By the late 1800s, special agents were renamed postal inspectors, and, in 1916, solved the last known stage-coach robbery in the United States. The modern Postal Inspection Service enforces more than 200 Federal laws relating to the U.S. mail, including identify fraud, mail bombs, child pornography, controlled substances, counterfeit stamps, money laundering, robbery, and mail theft. Because of overlapping jurisdictions, postal inspectors work closely with U.S. Attorneys, other law enforcement agencies, and local prosecutors to investigate postal cases and prepare them for court. Inspectors are aided in their work through five regional forensic crime labs strategically located throughout the United States which support field office operations. As the former chairman of the Senate Postal Subcommittee, I have had the privilege of supporting this distinguished Department and have had to postal inspectors/attorneys as detailees on my staff. Inspector Mihalko is a fine example of the men and women who make up the Postal Inspection Service, and I wish Mr. Mihalko and his family well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I wish to join my colleagues in offering my congratulations to my friend and colleague, Hawaii's senior Senator and statesman, Dan Inouye, as he marks his 15,036th day of service in the Senate and becomes the fifth longest serving Senator in the history of our Republic. I am proud to serve alongside a true patriot and American hero, and to offer a few words recognizing his many contributions and commitment to public service. The people of Hawaii and our great Nation appreciate the leadership and direction he has provided, leadership which has bettered and strengthened our country. The scope of his contributions is matched only by his continued strong and effective leadership on behalf of our State, on behalf of our men and women in uniform, on behalf of Native Americans, and on so many other matters, in the Senate. I am certain I speak for all the people of Hawaii when I say thank you, Dan Inouye, son of Hawaii, for over four decades of exemplary service and commitment to our State and our Nation. We are very proud of our senior Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the urgent need to prepare America against an attack on our agriculture. The Nation's agriculture industry is crucial to our prosperity. Yet it does not receive the protection it needs. Our food supply system is vulnerable to accidental or intentional contamination that would damage our economy, and, most importantly, could cost lives. There is no need to question whether animal-borne diseases can actually threaten the United States. Look to last December's mad cow disease outbreak: only one cow was found to be infected, and yet the U.S. beef industry was thrown into a tailspin from which it still has not recovered. As a result: American cattle prices fell by 20 percent; some predict beef exports will fall by 90 percent from 2003 to 2004; and more than 40 foreign countries have instituted bans on American beef, most of which will not be lifted in the near future. This fallout resulted from the infection of only two cows. In the beginning of February, a version of the avian influenza, a disease sweeping through Southeast Asian poultry that has killed at least 22 people to date, was discovered on two Delaware chicken farms. It also surfaced in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and a far more contagious strain was later reported in Texas. While the two strains found in these States carry no know risk to humans, this discovery illustrates how easily an animal-borne disease can break out in the United States. Only four farms and one live chicken market have tested positive for the disease. Yet this discovery resulted in the slaughter of over 92,000 chickens in the U.S. to date and a ban on American poultry exports in a number of Asian countries and the European Union. We should learn two things from these recent outbreaks: No. 1, the cost to the agriculture community for even a small outbreak is high, and, No. 2, we must be prepared for the unexpected. While the emergence of mad cow and the avian flu in American agriculture has been detrimental, it has not come close to causing the amount of damage a larger outbreak could create. Imagine if either of these diseases spread across the Nation instead of being contained to just a few farms. Or worse, imagine if the strain of the avian flu that is currently claiming human lives in Asia was found in the United States. In these scenarios, the outbreak would have been far more difficult to contain and much more costly to our Nation. A 1994 Department of Agriculture study said that if a foreign animal disease became entrenched in the United States, it would cost the agriculture industry at least $5.4 billion. A 2002 report by the National Defense University predicted that this figure would be three to fives times greater today. On a smaller scale, an outbreak that only penetrated 10 farms could have as much as a $2 billion economic impact. Earlier this month, the President released Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9, HSPD-9, aimed at addressing many of these concerns. HSPD-9 is a great first step. It signals the administration is aware of the vulnerability in our agriculture sector and considers this to be a homeland security priority. Under HSPD-9, the President directed the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the execution of a number of much needed security measures, including the following: Develop surveillance and monitoring systems for animal and plant disease and the food supply that provide early detection of poisonous agents; develop nationwide laboratory networks for food, veterinary, and plant health that ensures communication and coordination between related facilities; and develop a National Veterinary Stockpile that contains enough vaccine and antiviral products to respond to the most damaging animal diseases. But the President's initiative does not go far enough because it fails to address a number of serious shortcomings with the current governmental response to agriculture security, such as: Lack of communication between Federal agencies; insufficient coordination with, and funding for, State and local officials; inadequate international collaboration; and the impeding nature of some State and local laws to effective response plans. To address these many concerns, I introduced two bills, S. 427, the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, and S. 430, the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, to increase the coordination in confronting the threat to America's agriculture industry and provide the needed resources. My legislation provides for more targeted State and local funding and a better-coordinated Federal system. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act would assist States and communities in responding to threats to the agriculture industry by authorizing funds for: Animal health professionals to participate in community emergency planning activities to assist farmers in strengthening their defenses against a terrorist threat; a biosecurity grant program for farmers and ranchers to provide needed funding to better secure their properties; and the use of sophisticated remote sensing and computer modeling approaches to agricultural diseases. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act would enable better interagency coordination within the Federal Government by: Establishing senior level liaisons in the Departments of Homeland Security, DHS, and Health and Human Services to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and all other relevant agencies on agricultural disease emergency management and response; requiring DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address the risks associated with transporting animals, plants, and people between and around farms; requiring the Attorney General to conduct a review of relevant Federal, State, and local laws to determine if they facilitate or impede agricultural security; and directing the State Department to enter into mutual assistance agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the share of resources and knowledge of foreign animal diseases. Over 30 Federal agencies have jurisdiction over some part of the response process in the event of a breach of agricultural security. In a report on the United State's preparedness for responding to animal- borne diseases issued in August 2003, Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded to raise the profile of public health issues, stated that, ``The U.S. is left with a myriad of bureaucratic jurisdictions that respond to various aspects of the diseases, with little coordination and no clear plan for communicating with the public about the health threats posed by animal-borne diseases.'' Protecting America's agriculture and its citizens requires Federal agencies to know who is responsible for what portion of the prevention and response to an attack on our agriculture. State and local officials, and the communities they serve, are the front lines of defense for American agriculture. Without adequate resources, both in terms of funding and advice, these defenses will fail. While the presidential directive mandates the creation of a coordinated response plan that would include Federal, State, and local partners, it falls short of supplying the State and local officials with the necessary funding and guidance to better protect their jurisdiction. Surprisingly, the administration proposes huge cuts in fiscal year 2005 to homeland security grants for the States. We have witnessed the impact a small, unintentional outbreak of mad cow disease had on our country. We cannot wait for a far more damaging and widespread attack on our agriculture system. While I commend the President's initiative in this area, further action is needed. I urge my colleagues to support this overdue legislation to protect America's breadbasket.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment program, which is commonly known as premium support, from operating in Hawaii. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 included the creation of premium support demonstration programs in select metropolitan statistical areas starting in 2010. In these demonstration programs, seniors would be provided with a defined contribution payment for Medicare Part B rather than a defined benefit. Seniors would receive a set minimum payment to be used towards enrolling in either traditional fee-for-service Medicare or a managed care plan. Seniors that choose options that are more expensive than the defined premium would have to pay the difference themselves. Many of the older and less healthier seniors stay in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare rather than enrolling in Medicare managed care programs. The defined contribution premium will likely not be able to cover the entire cost of their fee-for-service premium. So, they may not be able to afford to stay in the traditional Medicare program and will be forced to enroll in lowest-cost health maintenance organization, HMO, or preferred provider organization, PPO, in their community. Seniors deserve to have their right to choose whether to remain in traditional Medicare or enroll in a managed care program based on their health care needs and not be forced into managed care programs because they are not able to pay the increased premium required for traditional Medicare. Now, seniors across the country pay the same premium for Medicare Part B services. After the implementation of the premium support demonstration programs, this will not be the case. Not only are there likely to be wide variations in Medicare Part B premium rates for beneficiaries across the country, but there will even be differences among seniors within the same State. This is unjust. Seniors that receive the same benefits should be paying the same premium in an entitlement program such as Medicare. Proponents of the premium support plan believe that this will help control Medicare costs and save money. However, this proposal will only work if more of the costs are shifted to seniors who will have to pay higher premiums or have their benefits reduced. It is my hope that these demonstration projects are never implemented in any state. My legislation would ensure that the residents of Hawaii are protected from having this demonstration program impair their Medicare Part B choices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues have also introduced legislation to protect seniors in their states from the premium support demonstration projects. 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 legislation to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment program, which is commonly known as premium support, from operating in Hawaii. The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 included the creation of premium support demonstration programs in select metropolitan statistical areas starting in 2010. In these demonstration programs, seniors would be provided with a defined contribution payment for Medicare Part B rather than a defined benefit. Seniors would receive a set minimum payment to be used towards enrolling in either traditional fee-for-service Medicare or a managed care plan. Seniors that choose options that are more expensive than the defined premium would have to pay the difference themselves. Many of the older and less healthier seniors stay in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare rather than enrolling in Medicare managed care programs. The defined contribution premium will likely not be able to cover the entire cost of their fee-for-service premium. So, they may not be able to afford to stay in the traditional Medicare program and will be forced to enroll in lowest-cost health maintenance organization, HMO, or preferred provider organization, PPO, in their community. Seniors deserve to have their right to choose whether to remain in traditional Medicare or enroll in a managed care program based on their health care needs and not be forced into managed care programs because they are not able to pay the increased premium required for traditional Medicare. Now, seniors across the country pay the same premium for Medicare Part B services. After the implementation of the premium support demonstration programs, this will not be the case. Not only are there likely to be wide variations in Medicare Part B premium rates for beneficiaries across the country, but there will even be differences among seniors within the same State. This is unjust. Seniors that receive the same benefits should be paying the same premium in an entitlement program such as Medicare. Proponents of the premium support plan believe that this will help control Medicare costs and save money. However, this proposal will only work if more of the costs are shifted to seniors who will have to pay higher premiums or have their benefits reduced. It is my hope that these demonstration projects are never implemented in any state. My legislation would ensure that the residents of Hawaii are protected from having this demonstration program impair their Medicare Part B choices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues have also introduced legislation to protect seniors in their states from the premium support demonstration projects. 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 express my concern that the threat posed by the detonation of a ``dirty bomb'' has not been adequately addressed. Controlling access to the radioactive materials needed to fabricate such a weapon remains a challenge today, just as it did in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Security improvements have been slow to come. Dirty bombs continue to threaten the people and the economy of the United States. Radioactive sealed sources are all around us. They are used widely in medicine, research, industry, and agriculture. Some of these sources are more risky than others, and Congress must take action to ensure the control and safe disposal of those sources that pose the greatest risk. These sources, known as ``greater-than-Class-C'' sealed sources, are of major concern because of their potential for use in the fabrication of a dirty bomb. To address this risk, I introduced S. 1045, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act of 2003, this past May. My bill addresses the efforts made by the Department of Energy, DOE, to recover and dispose of thousands of domestic greater-than-Class-C radiological sources. This measure was developed after three different U.S. General Accounting Office reports I requested showed that the efforts being made by DOE and other Federal agencies to control and dispose of these radioactive sources, both domestically and internationally, have not gone far enough. Provisions of S. 1045 were included in H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, but as debate over the energy bill continues, radioactive sources remain a threat to our country. Over the holidays, there was a serious concern about the possible detonation of a dirty bomb at one of the large open-air New Year's Eve celebrations around the country. The DOE took serious and prudent action to detect possible terrorist activities and thankfully this situation did not end in tragedy. However, next time we may not be so lucky. The lack of a safe, secure, and permanent disposal site for unwanted radioactive sealed sources places our country at risk. Thousands of sealed sources await disposal, some requiring security measures greater than those in place at current storage facilities. The problem posed by these sources will not go away by itself. Universities and industry do not have the means or facilities to secure these materials and are seeking Federal Government assistance. In my own State, the University of Hawaii is currently seeking the assistance of the DOE to remove large unwanted radioactive sources, belonging to DOE, that are no longer useful for their research. While DOE is working on a solution, the sources remain in Hawaii awaiting disposal. My bill would require the DOE to fulfill their statutory obligation to develop a disposal facility for all of these sources, in consultation with Congress, and would also require that DOE explore Federal and non- Federal alternative disposal options to make sure that the best disposal method is chosen. However, my concern over radioactive material does not end here. I will continue my work to improve Federal oversight of radioactive sources and devices. Just a few weeks ago in New Jersey, a gauge containing radioactive material was damaged, and its radioactive material is still missing. Creating a disposal facility for this class of radioactive waste is only the beginning of getting this problem under control. We need to improve the licensing and tracking of these widely used sources and devices, so that they will not fall into the wrong hands. When the United States began non-proliferation efforts in the former Soviet Union, one of the first jobs was to begin consolidating nuclear weapons and fissile materials in secure facilities to await disposal or destruction. Due to worries about terrorists acquiring dirty bombs, the DOE is now working to secure radiological sources in many countries oversees. I support these efforts. A theft this month of cesium-137 in China re-emphasizes the need to work with other countries to collect and dispose of unwanted radiological materials. The cesium, stolen by scrap metal thieves, ended up being melted by a steel mill. The mill is now contaminated and will have to undergo expensive clean-up efforts. While this type of incident is less likely to happen in the U.S., we must learn from this, and take steps to protect our nation from these materials. We should take the lead in helping other nations secure their radioactive material, for the good of us all. The bill that I introduced and which is cosponsored by Senators Bingaman and Landrieu, will give radiological sources and waste on American soil a safe and secure, permanent disposal facility. Before September 11, 2001, collecting and securing these sources was a matter of public safety, now it is a national security concern that demands the attention of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Act of 2003, to ensure that our nation is better protected from the dangers of dirty bombs.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the conference report to the Omnibus appropriations bill that the Senate has been considering. Without question, we have a duty to ensure the continuing operations of our Government, and the package before us would enable this for a majority of the agencies and programs of the U.S. Government. I thank the appropriators on both sides of the aisle, including the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for their efforts in crafting this massive funding package, and particularly for their agreement on several provisions significant to the people of Hawaii that will meet urgent needs in transportation, education, agriculture, and juvenile justice. For example, funds included for the Juvenile Justice Information System will significantly enhance efforts by law enforcement officials and child-serving agencies in Hawaii to address the root causes of juvenile criminal behavior. This promises to have a tremendous impact on Hawaii's efforts to address juvenile crime. I am also pleased that this package includes $1.5 million to initiate programs under the Excellence in Economic Education Act, to increase financial and economic literacy in our country. I also am a strong proponent of the $100 million in funding for the Mentoring and Mentoring Children of Prisoners programs, to ensure that young people in Hawaii and the Nation have access to the support, guidance, and assistance they need to help them through life's difficult and varied situations. These are a couple of the many initiatives that I feel very strongly about and worked on with my colleagues during the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process. However, on balance, the flaws in this Omnibus package overshadow its favorable provisions. It is important to remember that we are here to serve in the best interest of our Nation. While differences in philosophy will always exist, as Members of Congress, we still have an obligation to work together, to look beyond those differences and find solutions. I do not believe that the Omnibus contains solutions that best serve all who live in our great Nation. For example, as the ranking member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Financial Management Subcommittee, and the Armed Services Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, I object to the elimination of two key measures from the Senate-passed Transportation-Treasury-General Government appropriations bill that would have improved fairness and cost-efficiency in Federal contracting. The Omnibus deletes a provision which would promote equity by granting Federal workers the same rights as private contractors to appeal decisions to contract out Government jobs. The Omnibus also strikes a requirement for minimal cost savings before decisions are made to contract out Federal work. To ensure accountability and transparency, Government contracting policies must achieve the best return on the dollar and be fair to Federal workers. These two goals are complementary. The measure before us today fails to ensure diversity of our airwaves and deprives millions of workers of their right to overtime pay. In both cases, the other body and the Senate were in agreement on how to rectify these matters. However, the conferees, in working with the administration, determined that there should be a limit on the Federal Communications Commission's ability to grant licenses to only those stations that reach more than 39 percent instead of 35 percent of a market. In addition, the package before us will allow the U.S. Department of Labor to continue working on and finalizing its proposed rule to modernize and redefine exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which many employees have said will take away their right to be fairly compensated for work performed above their normal work schedule. The majority in Congress rejected the DOL proposal and urged the leadership to maintain the Senate approved provision that would have prohibited the DOL from using funds to promulgate or implement its proposed rule. The conference report fails not only in the case of worker's rights and consumer rights, but also in consumer safety. During consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Agriculture from using any funds to approve for human consumption any meat products from downed animals. This amendment was agreed to in the Senate. While the other body defeated a similar amendment offered by Representative Gary Ackerman of New York, many of his colleagues later indicated that they were unable to vote that day and would have supported his amendment. The support would have been enough to accept the amendment. It is unfortunate that Congress, in earlier legislative vehicles, and the conferees in this package, chose not to be proactive in protecting our food supply. For more than 12 years, I have been working to address this matter, and my amendment was the most recent example of that. While the USDA is making some strides to now address mad cow disease in cattle, we need to codify their efforts and expand the ban to all downer livestock that may pose a risk to human health, the importance of which was highlighted recently with the discovery of a diseased downer cow in the Pacific northwest. Related to the Commerce Department, the provisions funding ocean exploration activities, marine aquaculture development, and coral reef research are disappointing. At the proposed levels, our country will not be able to promote an economically viable and environmentally feasible aquaculture industry to address the $7 billion seafood trade deficit. Activities exploring the deep ocean, one of the last scientific frontiers on Earth, need to be a greater priority in order for us to properly manage and protect these fragile marine communities. I am also concerned that an estimated 25 percent of the world's coral reefs have been lost and at least 30 percent are threatened by human activities. Funding levels in this conference report are insufficient to support research and monitoring activities for coral reefs, one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars in marine services for our country and is certainly very important for Hawaii. Although important education priorities are provided for, this conference report continues to fall short on major programs, particularly those that help disadvantaged and special education students. Public schools in every State are struggling to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. However, budget shortfalls at the State level resulting from a fragile economy have restricted the resources available to our classrooms. Our failure to fully fund the Federal commitment Congress made when it enacted the No Child Left Behind Act further strains the situation and sets even more schools up for ``failure'' and more teachers unable to become ``highly qualified.'' The same goes for the commitment that we made even earlier in our history to fund the Federal portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It may have been many years since I led a classroom as a teacher or a school as its principal, but I remember the support that we needed to ensure that all of our children receive a top-notch education. Everything that I have recounted here--sentiments echoed by several of my colleagues--leads me to conclude that I am unable to support the package before us, in its current form. I urge the appropriators in both bodies of Congress to improve this package so that it can be something that all of us can support.