Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal Protection Act, a bill to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and euthanasia of non-ambulatory, downed, livestock unable to stand or walk unassisted. Farm animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines that are too severely distressed and sick to move without assistance are often not handled humanely. Due to the extra effort and cost to individually feed and water non-ambulatory livestock, these animals routinely endure very poor conditions. In most cases, the level of suffering of downed animals is so severe that the most humane solution is to euthanize them as soon as possible. It is important to note that non-ambulatory livestock comprise a tiny fraction, less than one percent, of all animals at stockyards. The humane euthanasia of non-ambulatory livestock would also protect human health. Many of the downed animals that survive in the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption. A large majority of these non- ambulatory animals are contaminated with fecal matter, the main cause of Salmonella. U.S. citizen groups, such as the Parents of Sickened Children, have called for improved regulations to stop sickness and death from preventable diseases like Salmonella. I commend responsible and conscientious livestock organizations and producers such as the United Stockyards Corporation, the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals. However, the need for stronger legislation to ensure that non- ambulatory animals do not enter our food chain is evident, particularly with the recent discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE, in Canada. The Downed Animal Protection Act will remove the incentive for sending non-ambulatory livestock to stockyards, thereby reducing the risk that these animals will be processed for human consumption and discouraging their inhumane treatment at farms and ranches. My bill will complement the industry's current efforts to address this problem and make the issue of downed animals a priority. My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby removing any unfair advantage that might result from different standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors regularly visit stockyards and slaughter facilities to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant. As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals while also helping to ensure that our food supply remains safe. I encourage 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 Downed Animal Protection Act, a bill to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and euthanasia of non-ambulatory, downed, livestock unable to stand or walk unassisted. Farm animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines that are too severely distressed and sick to move without assistance are often not handled humanely. Due to the extra effort and cost to individually feed and water non-ambulatory livestock, these animals routinely endure very poor conditions. In most cases, the level of suffering of downed animals is so severe that the most humane solution is to euthanize them as soon as possible. It is important to note that non-ambulatory livestock comprise a tiny fraction, less than one percent, of all animals at stockyards. The humane euthanasia of non-ambulatory livestock would also protect human health. Many of the downed animals that survive in the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption. A large majority of these non- ambulatory animals are contaminated with fecal matter, the main cause of Salmonella. U.S. citizen groups, such as the Parents of Sickened Children, have called for improved regulations to stop sickness and death from preventable diseases like Salmonella. I commend responsible and conscientious livestock organizations and producers such as the United Stockyards Corporation, the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals. However, the need for stronger legislation to ensure that non- ambulatory animals do not enter our food chain is evident, particularly with the recent discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE, in Canada. The Downed Animal Protection Act will remove the incentive for sending non-ambulatory livestock to stockyards, thereby reducing the risk that these animals will be processed for human consumption and discouraging their inhumane treatment at farms and ranches. My bill will complement the industry's current efforts to address this problem and make the issue of downed animals a priority. My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby removing any unfair advantage that might result from different standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors regularly visit stockyards and slaughter facilities to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant. As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals while also helping to ensure that our food supply remains safe. I encourage 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. Today I rise to introduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act with Senators Levin, Leahy, Durbin, and Dayton to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. These amendments are necessary to protect Federal employees from retaliation and protect the American people from government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act builds on the foundation laid in the 107th Congress with S. 995 and S. 3070, the latter of which was favorably reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee last year. The bill also incorporates recommendations received during a hearing I chaired on similar legislation in 2001. Last year, Time magazine honored Sherron Watkins, Colleen Rowley, and Cynthia Cooper as its ``persons of the year.'' These brave women are whistleblowers--Colleen Rowley is the Minneapolis FBI agent who penned the memo on the FBI headquarter's handling of the Zacarias Mousssoui case. In 2002, Ms. Rowley and the two other women went public with disclosures of mismanagement and wrongdoing within their workplaces. They captured the nation's attention and earned our respect in their roles as whistleblowers. Congress encourages Federal employees like Ms. Rowley to come forward with information of threats to public safety and health through the WPA, which has been amended twice in order to shore up congressional intent. Once again, Congress must act to guarantee protections from retaliation for Federal whistleblowers. First and foremost, our bill would codify the repeated and unequivocal statements of congressional intent that Federal employees are to be protected when making ``any disclosure'' evidencing violations of law, gross mismanagement, or a gross waste of funds. The bill would also clarify the test that must be met to prove that a Federal employee reasonably believed that his or her disclosure was evidence of wrongdoing. Despite the clear language of the WPA that an employee is protected from disclosing information he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, ruled in 1999 that the reasonableness review must begin with the presumption that public officers perform their duties in good faith and that this presumption stands unless there is ``irrefragable proof'' to the contrary. By definition, irrefragable means impossible to refute. To address this unreasonable burden placed on whistleblowers, our bill would replace the ``irrefragable proof'' standard with ``substantial evidence.'' The bill would provide some method of relief for those whistleblowers who face retaliation by having their security clearance removed. According to former Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan, removal of a security clearance in this manner is a way of camouflaging retaliation. To address this issue, the bill would make it a prohibited personnel practice for a manager to suspend, revoke or take other action with respect to an employee's security clearance in retaliation for whistleblowing and allow the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, to review the action. Under an expedited review process, the MSPB may issue declaratory and other appropriate relief, but may not direct the President to restore a security clearance. MSPB and subsequent Congressional review of the agency's action provides sound oversight for this process without encroaching upon the President's authority in the national security arena. The measure would also provide independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC. Under current law, OSC has no authority to request MSPB to reconsider its decision or to seek review of a MSPB decision by the Federal Circuit. The limitation undermines both OSC's ability to protect whistleblowers and the integrity of the WPA. As such, our bill would provide OSC authority to appear in any civil action brought in connection with the WPA and obtain review of any MSPB order where OSC determines MSPB erred and the case will impact the enforcement of the WPA. The bill would also help protect the integrity of the Act by removing sole jurisdiction of such cases from the Federal Circuit and provide for review of whistleblower cases in the same manner that is afforded in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cases. This review system is designed to address holdings by the Federal Circuit which have repeatedly ignored congressional intent. Enactment of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act will strengthen the rights and protections afforded to Federal whistleblowers and encourage the disclosure of information vital to an effective government. Congress should act quickly to assure whistleblowers that disclosing illegal activities within their agencies will not be met with retaliation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in protecting the dedicated Federal employees who come forward to disclose wrongdoing to help the American people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act with Senators Levin, Leahy, Durbin, and Dayton to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. These amendments are necessary to protect Federal employees from retaliation and protect the American people from government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act builds on the foundation laid in the 107th Congress with S. 995 and S. 3070, the latter of which was favorably reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee last year. The bill also incorporates recommendations received during a hearing I chaired on similar legislation in 2001. Last year, Time magazine honored Sherron Watkins, Colleen Rowley, and Cynthia Cooper as its ``persons of the year.'' These brave women are whistleblowers--Colleen Rowley is the Minneapolis FBI agent who penned the memo on the FBI headquarter's handling of the Zacarias Mousssoui case. In 2002, Ms. Rowley and the two other women went public with disclosures of mismanagement and wrongdoing within their workplaces. They captured the nation's attention and earned our respect in their roles as whistleblowers. Congress encourages Federal employees like Ms. Rowley to come forward with information of threats to public safety and health through the WPA, which has been amended twice in order to shore up congressional intent. Once again, Congress must act to guarantee protections from retaliation for Federal whistleblowers. First and foremost, our bill would codify the repeated and unequivocal statements of congressional intent that Federal employees are to be protected when making ``any disclosure'' evidencing violations of law, gross mismanagement, or a gross waste of funds. The bill would also clarify the test that must be met to prove that a Federal employee reasonably believed that his or her disclosure was evidence of wrongdoing. Despite the clear language of the WPA that an employee is protected from disclosing information he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over whistleblower cases, ruled in 1999 that the reasonableness review must begin with the presumption that public officers perform their duties in good faith and that this presumption stands unless there is ``irrefragable proof'' to the contrary. By definition, irrefragable means impossible to refute. To address this unreasonable burden placed on whistleblowers, our bill would replace the ``irrefragable proof'' standard with ``substantial evidence.'' The bill would provide some method of relief for those whistleblowers who face retaliation by having their security clearance removed. According to former Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan, removal of a security clearance in this manner is a way of camouflaging retaliation. To address this issue, the bill would make it a prohibited personnel practice for a manager to suspend, revoke or take other action with respect to an employee's security clearance in retaliation for whistleblowing and allow the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, to review the action. Under an expedited review process, the MSPB may issue declaratory and other appropriate relief, but may not direct the President to restore a security clearance. MSPB and subsequent Congressional review of the agency's action provides sound oversight for this process without encroaching upon the President's authority in the national security arena. The measure would also provide independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC. Under current law, OSC has no authority to request MSPB to reconsider its decision or to seek review of a MSPB decision by the Federal Circuit. The limitation undermines both OSC's ability to protect whistleblowers and the integrity of the WPA. As such, our bill would provide OSC authority to appear in any civil action brought in connection with the WPA and obtain review of any MSPB order where OSC determines MSPB erred and the case will impact the enforcement of the WPA. The bill would also help protect the integrity of the Act by removing sole jurisdiction of such cases from the Federal Circuit and provide for review of whistleblower cases in the same manner that is afforded in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cases. This review system is designed to address holdings by the Federal Circuit which have repeatedly ignored congressional intent. Enactment of the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act will strengthen the rights and protections afforded to Federal whistleblowers and encourage the disclosure of information vital to an effective government. Congress should act quickly to assure whistleblowers that disclosing illegal activities within their agencies will not be met with retaliation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in protecting the dedicated Federal employees who come forward to disclose wrongdoing to help the American people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which calls upon the Federal Government to actively pursue a unified approach to strengthen our national policy on aquaculture. The United States has allowed its seafood trade deficit to reach $7 billion by importing over 60 percent of its seafood products from foreign countries, a distressing statistic. My resolution calls for immediate action by local, State, and Federal agencies to cooperatively reduce this seafood trade deficit. The United States must step forward to meet the growing consumer demand for seafood products that are sustainable, economically viable, environmentally feasible, and culturally acceptable. In order to adequately address the seafood trade deficit, we must promote aquaculture by committing to a five fold increase in U.S. aquaculture production by the year 2025. As early as 1878, Congress supported the managed production of fish in the wake of a decrease in marine fisheries off the Atlantic Coast. Almost 100 years later, our Nation made important strides to encourage U.S. aquaculture by enacting the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to coordinate all appropriate Federal programs and policies involving aquaculture. Even though the National Aquaculture Act was reauthorized by P.L. 107-171 until the year 2007, the legislation still falls short of its goal to ensure coordination and promote a strong aquaculture industry. Producers need improved guidance to clarify and simplify regulations pertaining to siting and environmental issues, particularly for the timely development of aquaculture in offshore waters. The level of funding for research and development has been very, very low and tangible incentives for marine aquaculture have been lacking compared to those of the agriculture and fishing industries. Therefore, a new, unified Federal policy promoting aquaculture is vitally needed to transform U.S. aquaculture into a major industry. The current trends in aquaculture both worldwide and in the United States necessitate prompt action by the Federal Government. The contribution of aquaculture to global supplies of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks is growing by 9.21 percent annually. But aquaculture industries in china, India, Japan, Thailand, and Indonesia have greatly surpassed the United States due in part to less expensive labor, lower property values, and weaker environmental regulations. In fact, the total value of aquaculture production is approximately $61 billion worldwide; of this, the $0.5 billion U.S. aquaculture industry is far outpaced by nations that have a 1 to 28 billion dollar value. Although U.S. aquaculture has been considered a minor industry over the years, it is rapidly becoming one of the fastest-growing industries and has vast, vast potential. The U.S. has two choices. We can either stand by and watch our seafood trade deficit grow larger than $7 billion or we can seize this opportunity to promote a strong U.S. aquaculture industry to produce healthier foods and economic benefits for our citizens. U.S. aquaculture development can meet the growing consumer demand for quality seafood products and, at the same time, relieve the pressure on overfished stocks. More than one billion people currently derive at least 20 percent of their animal protein from fish, and studies have predicted that this demand for seafood will only increase over time. Meanwhile, half of the world's main fish stocks are fully exploited or producing catches that have reached their maximum sustainable limits. A strong U.S. aquaculture industry will result in a net contribution to worldwide food availability, economic growth, and improved living standards. In Hawaii, we are at the forefront of U.S. aquaculture through supportive research and production efforts for marine aquaculture. Hawaii first harvested offshore aquaculture products from sea cages in 1999 and the State awarded its first commercial lease for offshore aquaculture in State waters in the year 2001. The aquaculture technologies developed in Hawaii with high environmental standards can help lead the world in economically and environmentally sound aquaculture practices. The U.S. needs to invest in our aquaculture industry today. This resolution recognizes the importance of aquaculture and calls for a coherent national approach to provide appropriate guidance for a sustainable aquaculture industry in different regions of the United States. This coherent, comprehensive strategy will contribute to worldwide food availability while providing much-needed economic growth within the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Barbara Peichel, my legislative fellow, be allowed floor privileges during the remainder of today's session.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the many individuals who have died in defense of our great Nation. Next week we will all return to our States to join our constituents in honoring those who gave their lives to ensure that we enjoy the principles of liberty and justice as Americans. One of my constituents, Mr. Keith Haugen, has written a song entitled ``Walking Through the Memories, A Requiem to the Fallen.'' Mr. Haugen served in the U.S. Army and has been honored by a number of organizations for songs he has written to honor military members and veterans. Mr. Haugen will perform this song on Memorial Day at the National Memorial of the Pacific. I have reviewed the lyrics to this melody and have Mr. Haugen's permission to share them with my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of these lyrics in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Lautenberg-Jeffords amendment to establish minimum criteria for whether an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan or INRMP for a military installation provides sufficient protection for endangered species to make a critical habitat designation unnecessary. As I have previously stated, I commend the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for the manner in which he handled this difficult issue. We had two very good hearings to address the Department's proposal. I am particularly appreciative that the provision in this bill takes a case-by-case approach to the Endangered Species Act instead of providing the blanket exemption sought in the administration proposal. I believe the provision fall short, however, of codifying the existing case-by-case approach. During the Committee's consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment which would have codified the case-by-case approach by including minimum criteria for INRMPs on military lands. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated. I am pleased to join Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords in this amendment which, I believe, provides the necessary criteria to be included in INRMPs for military lands in order for the Secretary of the Interior to determine that the designation of critical habitat is unnecessary. As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I remain committed to the readiness of our military through proper training. We have heard from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that our Armed Forces are more ready today than they have been before. Our military has found ways to comply with applicable laws by working with neighboring communities, state and local officials. I firmly believe that this approach provides the Department of Defense with the necessary tools and assurances it needs to conduct training activities without unnecessarily undermining environmental provisions. I urge my colleague to support this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill to strike section 3131 and to keep the prohibition on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Let me explain to you and my colleagues why I am supporting this amendment. In 1993, Congress placed a prohibition on research and development that could lead to the production of new low-yield nuclear weapons that would have an explosive yield of less than 5 kilotons. I am informed that this administration has sought to eliminate this prohibition. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review calls for exploring new nuclear weapons ``concepts'' to be able to attack hard and buried targets in so-called rogue nations with reduced collateral damage. According to the administration, the restriction on research on low- yield nuclear weapons impedes this effort. But the existing law gives nuclear weapons laboratories sufficient room to explore new nuclear weapons concepts. Adequate research is permitted but not production. However, the fiscal year 2004 authorization bill follows the administration's request and repeals the 1993 prohibition. Yet the development and production of low-yield nuclear weapons would create many problems. As I noted in my statement to the Senate on April 11, 2003, although the administration is looking to reduce collateral damage from a nuclear explosion, low-yield weapons could still cause widespread devastation if used, threatening civilian populations and U.S. forces. We already have several conventional weapons that can be used to destroy or incapacitate buried bunkers. Rather than pursuing new nuclear weapons, we could devote additional resources to improving the ability of our conventional forces to render deeply buried targets inoperable. Developing the new low-yield nuclear weapons could also encourage a new arms race in tactical nuclear weapons and setback U.S. nonproliferation efforts. There is already some evidence of a new action-reaction arms race cycle starting. Just last Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Russian Duma in his annual address that Russia is working on a new generation of nuclear weapons. Russian military experts were quoted as saying that President Putin was probably referring to new low-yield nuclear weapons like those proposed by the administration. Last month, Secretary of State Colin Powell sent a message to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee conference in Geneva in which he said the United States ``remains firmly committed to its obligations under the NPT.'' Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf outlines the steps the United States had taken to fulfill its article VI obligations to the conference. But he expressed very strong worries that the NPT regime was being weakened by nonnuclear countries covertly pursuing nuclear weapons programs. The majority of the signatories to the NPT treaty agreed to its indefinite extension in 1995 on the assumption the nuclear weapons powers would continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals and ratify a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The administration's pursuit of new nuclear weapons makes it harder to convince the world to crack down on possible NPT violators. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. We should act to stop the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and prevent the start of a new mini-nuke arms race. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Carol Madonna, my legislative fellow, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. As ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I have greatly enjoyed working with the new subcommittee chairman, Senator Ensign, and I especially appreciate the efforts that the Senator from Nevada has made to work through some of this year's very difficult issues in a balanced and fair manner. The readiness subcommittee is responsible for two areas that have the potential to be extremely controversial, and I believe both have been handled well. First, we spent a fair amount of time in our committee reviewing Department of Defense outsourcing policies. I continue to be troubled by the administration's insistence on outsourcing quotas, arbitrary timelines for conducting public-private competitions, and the use of direct conversions in place of competitive processes. Nonetheless, I support the provision in the bill which would authorize a pilot program under which the Department of Defense could test a new approach to public-private competition. The provision would also require that any deadlines for public-private competitions conducted by the Department of Defense be based on the resources actually available to the department of conduct such competitions. I believe that this provision strikes an appropriate balance. Second, our subcommittee held two hearings on environmental issues impacting military training and readiness. The administration has offered a series of legislative proposals to exempt the Department of Defense from some of our most important environmental statutes. I believe that these proposals go much farther than is needed to address the legitimate concerns of the military, and could do some real harm to the environment. The bill includes one provision on these issues, which would exempt military lands from critical habitat designation if those lands are covered by an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, or INRMP. I am disappointed that the majority of the committee rejected my amendment to this provision, which would have established a more workable and precise test for the adequacy of INRMPs to address endangered species. Nonetheless, I appreciate the thoughtful manner in which Senator Ensign considered this issue and attempted to address my concerns. While I do not support the provision that was included in the bill, I believe that it is a significant improvement over the administration's proposal. I also have some reservations about the reductions that we have taken in the operation and maintenance accounts, especially in the working capital funds. I am particularly concerned about the changes we have made within the Air Force working capital fund--as I understand it, the transfer of funds included in the markup package may actually create shortfalls of spare parts and harm readiness. I obviously hope that this does not come to pass, and I hope that we may be able to reverse some of these reductions as the bill progresses. As always, this bill continues to support military construction and family housing needs that are so critical to quality of life for our service men and women. I believe that the package we have before us today is a positive step toward this goal. I am concerned, however, that our actions with respect to overseas facilities in particular may be out of step with ongoing initiatives by the Department of Defense. The reductions in this bill, which go beyond those that the department itself recently proposed, undermine planned efficiencies that would improve both quality of life and training for Army forces who will remain in Germany. Currently, the department and the combatant commanders are working closely to create a comprehensive, integrated presence and basing strategy and to identify a new set of military construction requirements for the next decade. Moving forward, we must ensure that our decisions regarding military construction overseas support these future requirements so that we continue to support our servicemen and women to the best of our abilities. Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have before us makes some positive steps toward improving the readiness of our Armed Forces, and I commend it to my colleagues. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize our country's diverse Asian American and Pacific Islander, AAPI, population and commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. I add my voice to those in the AAPI community recognizing and celebrating the unique contributions of this diverse community by submitting a resolution similar to that submitted in the other body by fellow members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. It was more than 10 years ago when my friend and former colleague, Congressman Frank Horton of New York, took the important step of introducing and working to pass a bill to designate each May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, in perpetuity. His bill eventually became Public Law 102-450 on October 23, 1992. This was a single, important step to demonstrate the support of the Congress for a community that has always been a vital part of our Nation's heritage. Historians note that the first Asians or Pacific Islanders to set foot on the continental United States were Filipinos manning Spanish galleons that sought to explore the new land in the 1500s. Filipino sailors later, in the 1700s, founded the first AAPI communities in the Louisiana bayous, using names such as Manila Village and Bayou Cholas. The first Japanese arrived on May 7, 1843, and others in 1869 attempted to establish the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Colony, in order to grow mulberries, tangerines, grapes, and tea. Chinese adventurers joined other gold-seekers in northern California in the 1800s, establishing the now-famous Chinatown in San Francisco in the 1850s, and working toward the establishment of the first transcontinental railroad--marked by Golden Spike Day, May 10, 1869. Of course, before all of this took place, the indigenous peoples most known to me, the Native Hawaiians, established a vibrant society, living and working the lands from roughly the 1200s on what was to become the 50th State in our precious Union. Prior to western contact, the Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society steeped in science. The many other peoples in what is known now as the collective AAPI community have their own fascinating stories to tell about their first adventures and long heritage in America. Advancing through history to come to the present, the AAPI community has grown so much from our years of ``firsts'' that it now numbers about 13.5 million--12.5 million Asians and almost one million Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders. Together, AAPIs make up roughly 4.7 percent of the population. Even with this growth in overall size, we have remained inclusive of our various cultures and celebrated the positives among our differences as well as lauded our similarities. Indeed, my colleagues can certainly describe their favorite Korean, Thai, or Indian restaurants, or strive to distinguish one of our many languages from another, while acknowledging the major significance we collectively assign to educational access and attainment, service to the communities we live in, and deep-rooted family values. It is also prudent to note that AAPIs together continue to strive toward eliminating civil injustice and increasing our political involvement and participation in government, while looking to care for individuals in our community who deny the stereotype of AAPIs as a ``model minority''--those who are not faring as well as others and continue to live below the poverty level or fail to reach their full potential in school or in the workforce. It is not only for AAPIs but for all of us in this great country that I firmly believe that our individual identification and knowledge of our cultures of origin strengthen us when we come together as Americans. It is out of our many, glorious parts that we come together to make one shining whole. Thus, the celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month truly is about all of us. I urge my colleagues to support me in this resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act of 2003. I am pleased that the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman, is a cosponsor of this important legislation. Our bill will address the efforts made by the Department of Energy, DOE, to recover and dispose of thousands of domestic Greater-than-Class-C, GTCC, radiological sources. These have the highest radiation levels and, in general, pose the greatest concern in terms of being used in a so-called ``dirty bomb.'' Since September 11, we have faced the possibility that a terrorist could use a dirty bomb in an attack in the United States. A dirty bomb combines conventional explosives with highly radioactive materials. When exploded, it would disperse the radioactive materials, reducing the impact from radiation. But, if set off in the downtown of a major city, it could still contaminate a wide area with radiation, cause death and destruction due to the explosion, and panic and substantial economic damage could result. It is not surprising that the Department of Homeland Security has chosen as one of its training scenarios a simulated ``dirty bomb'' attack on an American city. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told an International Atomic Energy Agency conference in March, ``Radioactive sources can be found all over the world, and terrorist are seeking to acquire them.'' CIA Director George Tenet told Congress in February that he was concerned about Al Qaeda's attempts to build a dirty bomb. He said, ``construction of such a device is well within Al Qaeda capabilities-- if it can obtain the radiological material.'' Radiological sources are used widely in industry, agriculture, medicine, and research. Appropriately, Secretary Abraham has made it priority for the Department of Energy to help other countries secure their radiological sources. But as the United States works internationally to secure dangerous radiological sources, we also must be sure our own house is in order. As chairman of the International Security Subcommittee of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, I held hearings in the fall of 2001 that covered the threat posed by dirty bombs. I also requested that GAO examine U.S. efforts to secure radioactive sources within the United States. GAO recently finished their inquiry, and I am sorry to report that GAO found our house is not in order. Many of you may have seen the report on NBC Nightly News last night that featured GAO's investigation. GAO's report shows that not only the former Soviet Union, but also the United States does not keep track of or account for its radioactive sources in a reliable manner. There is not a precise count of GTCC sources in the United States. Some quarter to half a million are estimated to exist. Some 24,000 new GTCC sources are being produced each year. A central issue is what is being done with unwanted radioactive devices. We don't have an accurate account of unwanted devices in this country, and the program for recovering and securing them is proceeding too slowly. In 1985, Congress authorized DOE to provide a facility for disposing of GTCC waste, including GTCC sealed radiological sources that were no longer wanted by their owners. GAO found that after 18 years, DOE still has not developed a facility for storing GTCC wastes. DOE assumes a facility for receiving GTCC sealed sources will be available by FY 2007. But DOE has not taken serious steps to insure this facility will be built. Instead, DOES has an interim program for collecting and holding unwanted radiological sources. In 1999, DOE created an Off-site Source Recovery Project, or OSR, in the Office of Environmental Management for these purposes. The OSR Project has recovered about 5,3000 sealed sources. Another 4,400 sources, held by 328 different owners across the United States, are known to be in need of recovery. DOE estimates a further 4,600 sources will need to be recovered by 2010, when the OSR Project is scheduled to end because the permanent storage facility should be operating. Thousands more sources, however, will need to be recovered outside the OSR project once a depository opens. Every State in the Union has radioactive sources that need to be recovered, according to the GAO report. States with more than a 100 sources to be recovered include Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Texas. Another 25 States have between 10 and 100 sources to be recovered. The GAO report notes that many of these are small sources with small amounts of radiation but hundreds are larger sources with large amounts of radioactivity. Alarmingly, the question of dirty bombs aside, there are almost two nuclear bombs worth of unwanted plutonium-239 sources that DOE cannot recover because they lack storage space. GAO reports that universities that have this material want to give it up, but cannot, because the DOE does not have the space to store them. We are concerned that the program to recover, secure, and store GTCC radiological sources is not receiving the priority it deserves. The disposal of thousands of radiological sources must be addressed. But DOE will not be prepared to dispose of these sources permanently in the next seven years because DOE has not identified the type of facility or provided a cost estimate and time- line for its construction. This bill will address these concerns. To insure the permanent disposal program gets the attention it needs within DOE, our legislation requires DOE to designate a responsibility entity within DOE to develop a facility for disposal of GTCC wastes. It also requires the DOE to report to Congress on the current situation and future plans for the disposal of GTCC radioactive waste. After the completion of this report, the DOE must submit to Congress a report on the cost and schedule to complete an environment impact statement and record of decision on a permanent disposal facility for GTCC radioactive wastes. Finally, before the year is out, DOE must deliver to Congress a plan to provide for the short-term recovery of the GTCC radioactive waste until a permanent facility is available. I am also concerned that the short-term Offsite Source Recovery Project may lack the funding required to ensure that all designated radiological sources are safety and securely recovered in a timely manner. The program apparently will be funded adequately through the end of FY04. The FY02 emergency supplemental budget provided ten millions dollars, and the President requested about two millions dollars in his FY04 budget proposal. But I caution Congress to keep an eye on this program to guarantee sufficient funds are requested in the FY05 budget when it is submitted to Congress next year. Thousands of sealed sources await disposal, some requiring security measures greater than those in place at current storage sites. 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 asking the federal government for help. 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. As Secretary Abraham has said, due to worries about terrorists acquiring dirty bombs, the DOE now is working to secure radiological sources overseas. I support these efforts. The bill Senator Bingaman and I have introduced will give radiological sources and waste on American soil the same consideration. Collecting and securing these sources was once a matter of public safety. It is now a national security concern that deserves the attention of Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the team of students from Kahuku High and Intermediate School of Kahuku, HI, on logging yet another bright performance for their school at the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' national competition recently held here in our Nation's Capital. The team traveled over 5,000 miles to represent Hawaii in this competition, and won the Unit 3 award, ``How the Values and Principles Embodied in the Constitution Shaped American Institutions and Practices,'' for the second consecutive year. On behalf of the people of Hawaii, I am proud to congratulate the Kahuku team. As my colleagues are familiar, the We the People competition, administered by the Center for Civic Education, is a comprehensive program that assists students in understanding the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The academic competition simulates a congressional hearing where students, acting as expert witnesses, testify before a panel of prominent professionals from across the country to demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional issues. The program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an appreciation of the significance of our Constitution and its place in history and our lives today. As a former teacher, it heartens me to see our young people taking interest in learning about the sacred document which we in this Chamber work to uphold and defend, every day. It is only through the understanding of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we are able to perpetuate the democratic foundation upon which this great Nation was built. I applaud all students who participate in this competition for their hard work and dedication to civic education. We might well have future Senators and Members of Congress who are encouraged to enter public service because of their experiences in the We the People competition. I am pleased to enter the names of the Kahuku team members for the record: Adriana Alghussein, Daniel Allen, Dexter Bacon, Nicole Cameron, Ariane Cameros, Li Shieh Chen, Anthony Ching, William Ellis, Brooke Jones, Shantel Kaululaau, April Kekaula, Helene Keys, Malia Love, Leilani Miller, Andrew Savini, Jessica Schiaretti, Kristen Sickler, Bethany Smith, Ericka Staples, and Elizabeth Torres. I also take this opportunity to recognize their teacher Sandra Cashman, State Coordinator Lyla Berg, and District Coordinator Sharon Kaohi for all of their contributions in helping the Kahuku team prepare for the national competition. Again, I congratulate the students and the faculty of Kahuku High and Intermediate School for their outstanding achievements. I am pleased to note that a team from this school has represented Hawaii in 9 of the past 11 national competitions. I join the people of Hawaii in expressing my pride in their impressive achievement.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Act of 2003. I am pleased that the Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman, is a cosponsor of this important legislation. Our bill will address the efforts made by the Department of Energy, DOE, to recover and dispose of thousands of domestic Greater-than-Class-C, GTCC, radiological sources. These have the highest radiation levels and, in general, pose the greatest concern in terms of being used in a so-called ``dirty bomb.'' Since September 11, we have faced the possibility that a terrorist could use a dirty bomb in an attack in the United States. A dirty bomb combines conventional explosives with highly radioactive materials. When exploded, it would disperse the radioactive materials, reducing the impact from radiation. But, if set off in the downtown of a major city, it could still contaminate a wide area with radiation, cause death and destruction due to the explosion, and panic and substantial economic damage could result. It is not surprising that the Department of Homeland Security has chosen as one of its training scenarios a simulated ``dirty bomb'' attack on an American city. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told an International Atomic Energy Agency conference in March, ``Radioactive sources can be found all over the world, and terrorist are seeking to acquire them.'' CIA Director George Tenet told Congress in February that he was concerned about Al Qaeda's attempts to build a dirty bomb. He said, ``construction of such a device is well within Al Qaeda capabilities-- if it can obtain the radiological material.'' Radiological sources are used widely in industry, agriculture, medicine, and research. Appropriately, Secretary Abraham has made it priority for the Department of Energy to help other countries secure their radiological sources. But as the United States works internationally to secure dangerous radiological sources, we also must be sure our own house is in order. As chairman of the International Security Subcommittee of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, I held hearings in the fall of 2001 that covered the threat posed by dirty bombs. I also requested that GAO examine U.S. efforts to secure radioactive sources within the United States. GAO recently finished their inquiry, and I am sorry to report that GAO found our house is not in order. Many of you may have seen the report on NBC Nightly News last night that featured GAO's investigation. GAO's report shows that not only the former Soviet Union, but also the United States does not keep track of or account for its radioactive sources in a reliable manner. There is not a precise count of GTCC sources in the United States. Some quarter to half a million are estimated to exist. Some 24,000 new GTCC sources are being produced each year. A central issue is what is being done with unwanted radioactive devices. We don't have an accurate account of unwanted devices in this country, and the program for recovering and securing them is proceeding too slowly. In 1985, Congress authorized DOE to provide a facility for disposing of GTCC waste, including GTCC sealed radiological sources that were no longer wanted by their owners. GAO found that after 18 years, DOE still has not developed a facility for storing GTCC wastes. DOE assumes a facility for receiving GTCC sealed sources will be available by FY 2007. But DOE has not taken serious steps to insure this facility will be built. Instead, DOES has an interim program for collecting and holding unwanted radiological sources. In 1999, DOE created an Off-site Source Recovery Project, or OSR, in the Office of Environmental Management for these purposes. The OSR Project has recovered about 5,3000 sealed sources. Another 4,400 sources, held by 328 different owners across the United States, are known to be in need of recovery. DOE estimates a further 4,600 sources will need to be recovered by 2010, when the OSR Project is scheduled to end because the permanent storage facility should be operating. Thousands more sources, however, will need to be recovered outside the OSR project once a depository opens. Every State in the Union has radioactive sources that need to be recovered, according to the GAO report. States with more than a 100 sources to be recovered include Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Texas. Another 25 States have between 10 and 100 sources to be recovered. The GAO report notes that many of these are small sources with small amounts of radiation but hundreds are larger sources with large amounts of radioactivity. Alarmingly, the question of dirty bombs aside, there are almost two nuclear bombs worth of unwanted plutonium-239 sources that DOE cannot recover because they lack storage space. GAO reports that universities that have this material want to give it up, but cannot, because the DOE does not have the space to store them. We are concerned that the program to recover, secure, and store GTCC radiological sources is not receiving the priority it deserves. The disposal of thousands of radiological sources must be addressed. But DOE will not be prepared to dispose of these sources permanently in the next seven years because DOE has not identified the type of facility or provided a cost estimate and time- line for its construction. This bill will address these concerns. To insure the permanent disposal program gets the attention it needs within DOE, our legislation requires DOE to designate a responsibility entity within DOE to develop a facility for disposal of GTCC wastes. It also requires the DOE to report to Congress on the current situation and future plans for the disposal of GTCC radioactive waste. After the completion of this report, the DOE must submit to Congress a report on the cost and schedule to complete an environment impact statement and record of decision on a permanent disposal facility for GTCC radioactive wastes. Finally, before the year is out, DOE must deliver to Congress a plan to provide for the short-term recovery of the GTCC radioactive waste until a permanent facility is available. I am also concerned that the short-term Offsite Source Recovery Project may lack the funding required to ensure that all designated radiological sources are safety and securely recovered in a timely manner. The program apparently will be funded adequately through the end of FY04. The FY02 emergency supplemental budget provided ten millions dollars, and the President requested about two millions dollars in his FY04 budget proposal. But I caution Congress to keep an eye on this program to guarantee sufficient funds are requested in the FY05 budget when it is submitted to Congress next year. Thousands of sealed sources await disposal, some requiring security measures greater than those in place at current storage sites. 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 asking the federal government for help. 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. As Secretary Abraham has said, due to worries about terrorists acquiring dirty bombs, the DOE now is working to secure radiological sources overseas. I support these efforts. The bill Senator Bingaman and I have introduced will give radiological sources and waste on American soil the same consideration. Collecting and securing these sources was once a matter of public safety. It is now a national security concern that deserves the attention of Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to pay tribute to the hard- working men and women who dedicate their lives to public service. Whether it is on the Federal, State, or local level, public servants perform essential functions that Americans rely on every day. For this reason, it is a privilege to submit a resolution to honor these employees for Public Service Recognition Week. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by Senators Fitzgerald, Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Durbin, Coleman, and Levin. Public Service Recognition Week takes place the week of May 5, 2003. Since 1985, the first week in May showcases the talented men and women who serve America as Federal, State and local government employees. Throughout the Nation and around the world, public employees use the week to educate their fellow citizens how government serves them, and how government services make life better for all of us. For example, public servants help the Nation recover from natural disasters and terrorist attacks; fight crime and fire; deliver the mail; teach our children; provide local transportation; protect the environment; fight disease and promote better health; improve the quality and safety of water and food; and defend our freedom. Since September 11, 2001, public servants at the Federal, State, and local level worked around the clock to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce our vulnerability to future attacks in addition to carrying out their other job related responsibilities. Such dedication and hard work deserve our recognition. I would like to pay particular attention to the men and women who serve in our armed forces, and the civilian employees who support their missions. These employees are key to the security and defense of our Nation. From the war against terrorism to Operation Iraqi Freedom, our military and civilian support staff show courage in the face of adversity. They too are ready, willing, and able to make this a safer world. While Public Service Recognition Week represents an opportunity for us to honor and celebrate the commitment of individuals who serve the needs of the Nation as government and municipal employees, it is also a time to call on a new generation of Americans to consider public service. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government is facing a crisis in its recruitment and retention efforts. The problem is so critical that the General Accounting Office, GAO, has placed the so- called `human capital crisis' on its High Risk List. According to the GAO, nearly 50 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible to retire by 2005. Although no one knows how many will actually retire, this situation poses serious challenges for succession planning in addition to mission performance. Public Service Recognition Week provides an opportunity for individuals to gain a deeper understanding of the exciting and challenging work in the Federal Government and career opportunities available. I invite my colleagues to honor the patriotic commitment to public service that our Federal employees exemplify and to join in the Federal Government's annual celebration. During the week there will be an extensive exhibit on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., showcasing many of our Federal agencies and branches of the military, as well as highlighting the services these agencies provide. In addition to the Mall exhibits, I encourage my colleagues to recognize Federal employees in their states, as well as State and local government employees, to let them know how much their work is appreciated.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize three important water reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii. In addition, this bill increases the amount authorized for the Federal share of the activities under P.L. 106-566, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 was an important first step in addressing Hawaii's irrigation and water delivery systems. It allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii. It also instructed the Bureau to identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-agricultural purposes. In addition, the Act included Hawaii in the Bureau of Reclamation's wastewater reclamation program and extended drought relief programs to Hawaii. While this was an important beginning, more needs to be done, particularly since the Honolulu Board of Water Supply predicts that even with improved conservation methods, the island of Oahu will run out of potable water by 2018. This means that the use rate exceeds the recharge rate and Oahu residents and visitors will be ``mining'' for water. Even more disconcerting is the fact that Oahu will run out of fresh water by 2018. It is vitally important for the State of Hawaii to begin working on water reclamation projects. This legislation authorizes three water reclamation projects. The first project, in Honolulu, will provide reliable potable water through resource diversification to meet existing and future demands, particularly in the Ewa area of Oahu where water demands are outpacing the availability of drinking water. The second project, in North Kona, will address the issue of effluent being discharged into a temporary disposal sump from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The third project, in Lahaina, will reduce the use of potable water by extending the County of Maui's main recycled water pipeline. The legislation also authorizes an additional $1.7 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete its study of Hawaii's irrigation and water delivery systems. This is a challenging task as the Bureau is reviewing the water systems in the State. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is vital to the people of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize three important water reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii. In addition, this bill increases the amount authorized for the Federal share of the activities under P.L. 106-566, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 was an important first step in addressing Hawaii's irrigation and water delivery systems. It allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii. It also instructed the Bureau to identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non-agricultural purposes. In addition, the Act included Hawaii in the Bureau of Reclamation's wastewater reclamation program and extended drought relief programs to Hawaii. While this was an important beginning, more needs to be done, particularly since the Honolulu Board of Water Supply predicts that even with improved conservation methods, the island of Oahu will run out of potable water by 2018. This means that the use rate exceeds the recharge rate and Oahu residents and visitors will be ``mining'' for water. Even more disconcerting is the fact that Oahu will run out of fresh water by 2018. It is vitally important for the State of Hawaii to begin working on water reclamation projects. This legislation authorizes three water reclamation projects. The first project, in Honolulu, will provide reliable potable water through resource diversification to meet existing and future demands, particularly in the Ewa area of Oahu where water demands are outpacing the availability of drinking water. The second project, in North Kona, will address the issue of effluent being discharged into a temporary disposal sump from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The third project, in Lahaina, will reduce the use of potable water by extending the County of Maui's main recycled water pipeline. The legislation also authorizes an additional $1.7 million for the Bureau of Reclamation to complete its study of Hawaii's irrigation and water delivery systems. This is a challenging task as the Bureau is reviewing the water systems in the State. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is vital to the people of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to preserve important non-homeland security missions in the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper, and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, in this effort to guarantee the fulfillment of non-homeland security functions Americans rely on daily. Many of these non-homeland security functions are especially important to the State of Hawaii. The Coast Guard provides essential search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and protection of our coastline. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service protects the State's fragile ecosystem from invasive species. The Federal Emergency Management Agency assists municipalities in reducing the destructive effects of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tidal waves. To preserve these vital functions, the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003'' would require the Department of Homeland Security to identify and report to Congress on the resources, personnel, and capabilities used to perform non-homeland security functions, as well as the management strategy needed to carry out these missions. The measure would require the Department to include information on the performance of these functions in its annual performance report. Our legislation also calls for a General Accounting Office, GAO, evaluation of the performance of essential non-homeland security missions. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security created additional management challenges and has fueled growing concerns that the performance of core, non-homeland security functions will slip through the cracks. Just last week, the GAO testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the Coast Guard has experienced a substantial decline in the amount of time spent on core missions. Moreover, GAO found that the Coast Guard lacks the resources to reverse this trend. Coast Guard Commandant Thomas H. Collins is quoted as saying that his agency has more business than it has resources and is challenged like never before to do all that America wants it to do. These same concerns extend to the entire Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration services provides asylum for refugees and helps immigrants become American citizens. The Customs Service protects and monitors foreign trade so essential for a healthy American economy. And the Secret Service protects and monitors against identity theft, counterfeiting, and other financial crimes. In fact, the General Accounting Office has added the transformation of and implementation of the Department to the GAO High Risk list, partially as the result of existing management challenges to fulfill non-homeland security missions. The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not come at the expense of these essential missions. Agencies should strike the proper balance between new homeland security responsibilities and their critical non-homeland security missions. Enhancing traditional missions also enhances domestic security which depends on sound management strategies that ensure adequate resources and personnel. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003.'' Our bill takes important steps to ensure that Americans will not see a decline in non-homeland security services as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to preserve important non-homeland security missions in the Department of Homeland Security. I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper, and the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, in this effort to guarantee the fulfillment of non-homeland security functions Americans rely on daily. Many of these non-homeland security functions are especially important to the State of Hawaii. The Coast Guard provides essential search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and protection of our coastline. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service protects the State's fragile ecosystem from invasive species. The Federal Emergency Management Agency assists municipalities in reducing the destructive effects of natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and tidal waves. To preserve these vital functions, the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003'' would require the Department of Homeland Security to identify and report to Congress on the resources, personnel, and capabilities used to perform non-homeland security functions, as well as the management strategy needed to carry out these missions. The measure would require the Department to include information on the performance of these functions in its annual performance report. Our legislation also calls for a General Accounting Office, GAO, evaluation of the performance of essential non-homeland security missions. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security created additional management challenges and has fueled growing concerns that the performance of core, non-homeland security functions will slip through the cracks. Just last week, the GAO testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the Coast Guard has experienced a substantial decline in the amount of time spent on core missions. Moreover, GAO found that the Coast Guard lacks the resources to reverse this trend. Coast Guard Commandant Thomas H. Collins is quoted as saying that his agency has more business than it has resources and is challenged like never before to do all that America wants it to do. These same concerns extend to the entire Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration services provides asylum for refugees and helps immigrants become American citizens. The Customs Service protects and monitors foreign trade so essential for a healthy American economy. And the Secret Service protects and monitors against identity theft, counterfeiting, and other financial crimes. In fact, the General Accounting Office has added the transformation of and implementation of the Department to the GAO High Risk list, partially as the result of existing management challenges to fulfill non-homeland security missions. The cost of creating a Department of Homeland Security should not come at the expense of these essential missions. Agencies should strike the proper balance between new homeland security responsibilities and their critical non-homeland security missions. Enhancing traditional missions also enhances domestic security which depends on sound management strategies that ensure adequate resources and personnel. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003.'' Our bill takes important steps to ensure that Americans will not see a decline in non-homeland security services as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring the memory of our dear friend and colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Millie and I extend our deepest condolences and prayers to his wife Elizabeth and the Moynihan family. History will remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan as one of the most prescient American voices on public policy and international relations issues for the second half of the 20th Century. As a professor, author, adviser to four Presidents, Ambassador to India, and Ambassador to the United Nations, he had a rich and distinguished career, and a tremendous impact on our Nation's public policy and foreign relations, prior to his election to the Senate. In the Senate, Pat Moynihan's illustrious service to his country and to his constituents in New York for four terms in the world's greatest deliberative body gave greater truth to that appellation. Many of my colleagues have spoken of Senator Moynihan's intellect, the encyclopedic width and breadth of his knowledge on an incredible range of public policy issues--history, architecture, culture, and philosophy, to name a few. He used the power of his intellect, along with great wit and dogged persistence, to fashion a record of accomplishments in the Senate that stands as a testament to his commitment to the preservation of the family and the welfare of children and the poor, his staunch and principled opposition to communism and totalitarianism, his dedication to civil rights, the Constitution, and the rules and traditions of the Senate, and his passion for historic preservation and architectural distinction. As chairman and ranking member of several Senate committees, and frequently, as a clarion on the Senate floor, Pat Moynihan helped shape transportation policy, international trade, intelligence matters, foreign policy, and economic and fiscal affairs that strengthened our Nation and our communities. For his myriad achievements, I don't think Senator Moynihan has received the credit he deserves for his role in shaping and shepherding through the Senate President Clinton's deficit reduction and economic plan in 1993. I remember that in the midst of all the responsibilities and pressures he faced as chairman of the Finance Committee, he responded to my request to discuss a few tax issues of particular importance to Hawaii by inviting me to his office for a cordial and illuminating discussion on an array of subjects. Pat Moynihan was always generous with his time and his wisdom. He served his country and the people of New York with elan, style, and grace. He will always be remembered as the gentleman from New York. We mourn for his passing from this life, but we and future generations will continue to find inspiration, guidance, and courage in the splendid legacy of public service bequeathed the Nation by this brilliant statesman and patriot.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture. Agroterrorism is a real and continuing concern. When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge last month raised the threat advisory level to high, he launched Operation Liberty Shield to increase security and readiness in the United States. One part of Operation Liberty Shield involved taking additional steps to guarantee our food security. The government started to inspect imported food more carefully. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, alerted the food and agricultural community to give greater care in monitoring feedlots, stockyards, processing plants, import and storage areas. An ongoing outbreak of avian influenza in the Netherlands is an example of the type of crisis we might face, and the coordination that may be needed, if a terrorist launched an attack on our agriculture. More than 9 million of the estimated 100 million chickens in the Netherlands were slaughtered to prevent the disease spreading since the outbreak began in late February. Some 800 farms in the eastern Netherlands were affected. Dutch exports of fowl and poultry products were stopped. The cost so far to farmers and the government is an estimated $108 million. The Dutch Government took a number of strong steps to contain the disease. The Dutch Army was called up to help. Some 100 troops joined more than 400 police and customs officers to enforce a quarantine around the epicenter of the outbreak and to keep the disease from spreading to nearby Germany and Belgium. A ban on movements of live chickens and eggs within the country was imposed in early April. This led to some inconvenience to consumers since the supply of eggs in grocery stores was limited. A coordinated attack by terrorists on some of our leading chicken producing states, for example, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama and North Carolina, with an impact equivalent to the natural outbreak in the Netherlands would have serious consequences. Egg and chicken production in the United States is a $20 billion plus a year industry. Another $10 billion is spent on processing and getting the chicken and eggs to market. We export more than a billion dollars of chicken products a year. Some 30,000 farm families are involved in raising chickens. Three hundred thousand people work in processing and transporting chickens for market. On any given day there are some 1.5 billion chickens sitting in chicken coops in the United States. Over a hundred million birds might have to be slaughtered. If there was a ban on shipment of chickens and eggs, not only would chicken producers suffer, so would related industries. The trucking industry, food processing industry, food retailers, and those involved in exporting chicken products abroad would all feel the impact. Billions of dollars in losses could result. The impact on farm families and employment could be substantial. Of course, my concern about agroterrorism is not limited to the poultry industry. Agriculture and related industries, such as food processing, manufacturing, and transportation, account for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. The deliberate and coordinated spread of livestock or crop diseases could have a devastating effect on our nation. USDA is the lead authority in responding to agricultural emergencies. It has taken several steps to improve our ability to counter a terrorist attack upon our nation's agriculture. USDA has created a homeland defense council and increased border inspection and research activities. USDA's overall activities, and actions in support of Operation Liberty, are commendable. But we need to do more to prepare ourselves. Responding to an agroterrorist attack will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, and other federal agencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Defense, Transportation, and Justice will all have a role to play. In addition, these agencies must coordinate with states, localities and farmers and ranchers. In February, I introduced the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, S. 427, and the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, S. 430. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage additional and improved coordination and preparedness on the federal, state, regional, and local level. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act, S. 427, will assist States and communities preparing for and responding to threats to the Nation's agriculture. My bill aims to improve our detection and response capabilities so they are rapid and swift enough to contain the spread of a disease. S. 427 directs USDA to work with each State to develop and implement response plans. The legislation establishes grant programs for communities and States to incorporate modeling and geographic information systems into planning and response activities. This funding also will help animal health professionals participate in community emergency planning activities and assist farmers and ranchers in strengthening the biosecurity measures on their own property. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, S. 430, will enhance agricultural biosecurity by strengthening interagency and international coordination. The Act will establish senior level liaisons in DHS and HHS to coordinate with USDA on agricultural disease emergency management and response. This bill will task DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address one of the largest risk factors in controlling the spread of a plant or animal disease: the movement of animals, plants, and people between and around farms. Although our ability to respond to an agroterrorism attack is improving, there is still much more that could and should be done. The bills I have introduced will take the necessary steps to further enhance the actions already taken to improve agricultural security in the United States. I look forward to the Senate's support for these important bills.