Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the myth and dangers posed by the nuclear earth penetrating weapons proposed by the Bush administration. The administration suggests that new nuclear weapons could be needed to destroy a growing number of hard and deeply buried targets, HDBT. The Intelligence Community has estimated that there are over 10,000 potential HDBTs worldwide. Many of these are near the surface, serve tactical roles, and can be attacked with conventional weapons. But some hundreds of these targets have stronger concrete reenforcement, or are buried at great depths, or are in tunnels. They play a strategic role, protecting senior leaders, command and control centers, or stored weapons of mass destruction. Of particular concern are the very hardened or deeply buried HDBTs located in so-called rogue nations To attack the most deeply buried structures, the administration would like to have a nuclear weapon that could destroy a bunker some 300 meters, or about 1,000 feet, underground without causing substantial ``collateral damage.'' The administration is proposing to explore two new nuclear weapons for attacking this category of targets. The first is the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or RNEP for short. The second is a new class of low-yield nuclear warheads. These two initiatives are often confused in the press or thought to be different versions of a mini-nuke bunker-busting nuclear weapon. The two candidates being considered by the administration for modification into a RNEP, the B61 and B83 bombs, have been in the U.S. arsenal for a number of years. They are not, however, low-yield weapons. In fact, they have yields in the tens of kilotons to megaton range. Due to congressional concerns, the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill required the Department of Defense to deliver to the Armed Services Committees of both Chambers a report on the need for an RNEP before funds could be spent on the program. On March 19, 2003, the administration delivered the report. After a 30-day waiting period, the administration has said it will begin to study whether the B61 or B83 bombs can be modified into a RNEP. The administration plans to spend some $15 million on this work in fiscal year 2004, and the study could cost as much as $46 million. As for low-yield nuclear weapons, these are nuclear weapons with an explosive yield of less than 5 kilotons. Ten years ago, Congress placed a prohibition on ``research and development'' that could lead to the production of a new low-yield nuclear weapon in the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act. In the early 1990s, advocates of low-yield weapons claimed that precision strikes with such weapons could be used to attack weapons of mass destruction in third-world states that had acquired them. Congress was concerned that the development of such weapons would send the wrong message about the U.S. commitment to nonproliferation. In addition, there were fears that if such weapons were developed, the firewall between nuclear and conventional weapons would be removed. The administration now seeks to remove the prohibition on research on low-yield weapons research. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review calls for exploring new nuclear weapons ``concepts'' to be able to attack HDBTs with reduced collateral damage. According to the administration, the congressional restriction on research on low-yield nuclear weapons ``impedes this effort.'' Ignoring the policy implications of making a nuclear weapon an acceptable tool to be used like a conventional weapon, there is still the critical question of whether such a weapon could destroy a deeply buried target without massive collateral damage. Could a weapon burrow so deep that its nuclear explosion could be safely contained within the Earth? The short answer to this question is no. To be a bunker buster, the weapon design must protect the warhead and associated electronics while it tunnels into the ground. This severely limits the missile to smaller impact velocities, which, in turn, severely limits how far down it can go. In fact, limits on material strengths make 50 feet about the maximum depth to which a missile could penetrate into dry rocky soil while maintaining its integrity until the warhead detonates. The radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon detonated at a maximum depth of 50 feet could not be contained. Even a low-yield nuclear weapon of 0.1 kiloton, according to Princeton physicist Robert Nelson, must penetrate about 230 feet underground for the explosion to be fully contained. Based on the experience of U.S. underground tests at the Nevada Test Site, a 5-kiloton explosive has to be buried at least 650 feet to be fully contained. A 100-kiloton explosive must be at least 1,300 feet deep. To comprehend what would happen if a nuclear bunker-busting weapon were used, consider the damage that would result from the use of a ``low-yield'' 1-kiloton warhead. Such a weapon would be one-thirteenth the size of the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima, and of a size that may be pursued if the congressional prohibition on research on low- yield weapons is removed. At the maximum depth possible of 20 to 50 feet, a 1-kiloton warhead would eject more than 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris from a crater bigger than a football field. If such low-yield weapon were used to attack a HDBT in or near a city, it could devastate the area. There would be major collateral damage because the ejected radioactive debris would create a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area. For the shock of a nuclear explosion to reach a hardened target at 1,000 feet, a much larger warhead would be required, like the B61 and B83 bombs being considered for the RNEP. But the B61 and B83 bombs would dig a much larger crater and create a substantially larger amount of radioactive debris, causing that much more radioactive fallout and devastation. I also am concerned about the logistical problems of using nuclear weapons in a combat setting. Destroying bunkers requires knowing exactly where they are and delivering a weapon with precision and accuracy. During Operation Enduring Freedom, American Special Forces were used as spotters on the ground near the targets to provide the intelligence necessary to strike suspected al-Qaida command bunkers and weapon depots. Our Special Forces would be in great danger if on-the- ground spotting were required for nuclear bunker busters. As we have seen in our efforts to target Saddam Hussein, his bunker complexes are often located inside Baghdad. Leaders of other ``rogue states'' can be expected to construct their command and control centers inside their capital cities too. The potential for collateral damage to our troops and the public our forces are liberating are obvious. Another consideration is battlefield assessment. Some bomb damage assessment can be done from the air, but if a closer look is needed, how soon could troops be sent in to determine if the strike was successful? The answer depends on the importance we place on the safety and health of our forces. If we use the underground Nevada Test Site as one real-world example, it will be a very long time. If battle planners need assessment more quickly, or we need to recover evidence of what was contained in a bunker, then American soldiers and marines will be put at risk. This is not a theoretical consideration. We are discussing DNA testing of bodies found in Iraq to determine if they are in fact Saddam Hussein, his sons, or his closest associates. Had the administration used a nuclear weapon to destroy Saddam Hussein's command bunker, this task would be infinitely more difficult, and more dangerous. I appreciate the challenge that deeply hardened bunkers pose. I am not convinced that RNEP or low-yield nuclear weapons are the answer. Indeed, the Pentagon already has a number of conventional weapons capable of destroying hardened targets buried at 50 feet, or putting them out of action by blocking entrances and exits. Moreover, ADM James Ellis, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. STRATCOM, recently told Congress that he plans to emphasize conventional options in STRATCOM's new global strike mission in order to reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons. Research and development have improved the precision, penetrating capability, and explosive power of conventional weapons dramatically over the last decade. Further research and development on conventional weapons to attack buried and hardened targets are underway. Sometimes, the simplest solution is the correct one. We do not need a nuclear weapon to destroy a tunnel entrance or a mineshaft. The same research in material science and precision guidance that will allow a missile to aim and protect the warhead to penetrate farther should be applied to conventional bunker busters. Conventional bunker busters could meet the challenge of threatening the several hundred most hardened and deep targets in question. Conventional bunker busters would not place civilian populations or our forces at undue risk and harm, and would keep the barrier between nuclear and conventional weapons high and wide. Finally, we must keep in mind the serious international implications of the administration's pursuit of new nuclear weapons designs. Russian nuclear weapons designers have advocated new generations of more usable nuclear weapons. If the United States starts down this path, Russia will be encouraged to do the same. If Russia begins, maybe China will too. A new arms race in supposedly low-yield and ``usable'' nuclear weapons will result. If NATO forces move farther east, Russia may deploy such weapons opposite NATO forces. China may view them as usable in crisis with Taiwan. We should stop this new tactical nuclear arms race before it starts. We should not develop the RNEP. We should keep the prohibition on research on the low-yield nuclear weapons.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Mikulski in offering this amendment that addresses funding shortfalls for the Federal, State, and local first responders who are on the front lines of the war on terrorism. I am disappointed that since 9/11, the administration has failed to provide adequate funding for local governments to prepare for the possibility of new terrorist attacks. This funding is critically important to Hawaii. The Hawaii State Civil Defense estimates that a response to a weapons of mass destruction attack would challenge the State's emergency response system. As with all States, in the event of a terrorist attack, Hawaii would rely on Federal, State, and local officials. However, unlike all States but Alaska, external assistance from the U.S. mainland is not immediately available. Hawaii's geographic location makes mutual aid from mainland States or from other Pacific jurisdictions impossible. As a result, Hawaii's State Civil Defense estimates that each of the State's four counties need the capability to sustain an effective response to any weapons of mass destruction attack for up to 72 hours. Independent experts and government officials have repeatedly warned that first responders do not have sufficient resources. A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report entitled ``America--Still Unprepared, Still in Danger'' concluded that first responders are not prepared for a weapons of mass destruction attack. According to the same report, first responders lack the training and equipment to protect themselves and the public in an emergency and do not have radios that can communicate with one another. In fact, the National Fire Protection Association estimates that only one-quarter of the Nation's fire departments have equipment to communicate with State and Federal emergency officials. Our amendment takes important steps to respond to funding shortfalls by providing $4.3 billion for first responders, including $3 billion for State and local first responders.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in clarifying the portrayal of the military contributions of three island nations with which the United States has a unique political relationship referred to as free association: the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI, Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and Palau. Last week an article in The Washington Post entitled ``White House Notebook: Many Willing, But Few Are Able'' referenced the military contributions of the Freely Associated States, FAS, in a droll and flippant manner. Regrettably, this poorly researched attempt at wit missed its mark. I want to set the record straight. The Compact of Free Association between the United States and these strategic Pacific island nations serves our national security interests in the Pacific region by providing the U.S. strategic denial in the region. While title I of the Compact of Free Association recognizes that the peoples of the FSM and RMI are self- governing and retain authority over their internal affairs, it mandates consultation with the United States on any defense and security matters. In addition, FAS citizens may volunteer in the U.S. Armed Forces, and FAS citizens who reside in the U.S. under the compact's provisions are subject to our Selective Service laws, and in the event of the return of conscription, could be drafted for military duty. There are hundreds of FAS citizens currently serving in the U.S. military, including a number of soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division and 3rd Infantry Division, Mechanized, currently deployed to Kuwait and Iraq in support of our military efforts. FAS citizens have served in the U.S. military for decades, and have participated in combat in every major U.S. engagement since the Korean war. Given the small populations of the island nations, almost every citizen has a relative or friend currently serving in the U.S. military, including FSM President Leo Falcam, whose son is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. I have worked with FAS citizens for a number of years. I have visited these islands and have worked with my colleagues to successfully accomplish the goals of the Compact of Free Association. I applaud the patriotism of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, as well as their families, who are volunteering to defend our great Nation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to inform my colleagues of the passing of a great leader in the Pacific Islands, Gov. Tauese Pita Fiti Sunia, who died on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, en route to Honolulu from Apia, Samoa. Governor Sunia was a dear friend and Millie and I join the people of Samoa, Hawaii's Samoan community, and Samoans throughout the United States in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his wife Fagaoalii Satele Sunia, as well as his family, including his 10 children, and many grandchildren. Governor Sunia was an educator. He earned a master's degree in educational administration from the University of Hawaii, and spent many years as a teacher, educational television instructor, and administrator. Governor Sunia also served as vice president of the American Samoa Community College and territorial director of Education. One of his top priorities was to make sure that every child in Samoa was computer literate, and he worked hard towards his goal of ensuring that every school in American Samoa had a computer room with Internet access. I had the pleasure of meeting and visiting with Governor Sunia on a number of occasions during his visits to Washington, DC, and Honolulu, and during my visits to American Samoa. He was an immensely engaging and congenial man, and our official meetings frequently departed from the agenda to discussions of Polynesian history, anthropology, and the Native Hawaiian and Samoan cultures. In 1997, Senator Frank Murkowski, who was chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I visited American Samoa. We met with Governor Sunia and heard about his efforts to bring economic development and opportunities to Samoa. We were able to exchange ideas and assist him at the Federal level to bolster the local economy. Whether the issue was economic development, local agriculture, or educational opportunities for Samoan youth, Governor Sunia worked hard on behalf of the people of American Samoa. He understood the importance of balancing the preservation of culture with maximizing opportunities for American Samoa in today's global economy. Governor Sunia was well respected not only in American Samoa, but in the Pacific Basin. He was also a man with a strong and abiding faith. He was deacon, vice chairman, and chairman of the Congregational Christian Church in American Samoa, and worked for both the spiritual and temporal well-being of the Samoan people. He cared deeply for all Pacific islanders, and we will all truly miss him. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and my colleagues Senator Lieberman, Senator Kyl, Senator Reid, Senator Bayh, and Senator Inouye, in introducing legislation that affirms the priority and importance of hydrogen programs in Federal research and development initiatives and charts a course of action toward the ``hydrogen economy.'' The legislation reauthorizes the hydrogen programs in the Department of Energy and strengthens the Federal interagency effort to promote hydrogen research and development programs. It establishes a new program to demonstrate hydrogen technologies and their integration with fuel cells at Federal, State, and local government facilities. Growing numbers of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House have indicated their interest in and commitment to promoting a hydrogen economy for the future. This commitment comes from a substantial legacy in the House and the Senate. This bill carries the names of two former Congressmen--the late George E. Brown, Jr., and Robert S. Walker--to honor their formidable and dedicated advocacy of hydrogen as a fuel source. In the Senate, my predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga, created the first formal hydrogen research program in this country, designed to accelerate development of a domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source. He introduced legislation in 1982 and his perseverance led to the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, enacted in 1990 shortly after his death. When I succeeded Spark in the Senate, I took up the cause of hydrogen and continue to believe that it is one of our best hopes for independence from fossil fuels. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, which followed the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, expanded the research, development, and demonstration program. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. It has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. More recently in the 107th Congress, I have worked closely with Senator Harkin and my colleagues on the Energy Committee to reauthorize the Hydrogen Future Act. We were able to include it in the Energy Policy Act of 2002, the comprehensive energy policy bill considered by the Senate during the spring of 2002. While the Senate and House were unable to come to agreement on the omnibus bill itself, progress was made on the research and development provisions, including hydrogen. I am pleased that many of my colleagues have begun to recognize the potential of hydrogen as a clean source of energy. I expect the numbers will only increase. You may well ask, ``Why do we need the Hydrogen Future Act of 2003 when we have the President's initiatives for hydrogen?'' Because we need to reauthorize the underlying Federal framework for the direction of and investment in hydrogen research and development. The authorization for the program expired at the end of calendar year 2001. While I share the President's enthusiasm for hydrogen, I believe we must provide a robust legislative foundation for research and development involving hydrogen--for fuel cells, for demonstration projects at Government facilities, stationary and mobile projects, and near- and short-term goals, as well as long-term goals. The Hydrogen Future Act of 2003 reauthorizes and improves this strong foundation. I like to call my bill a ``workhorse'' bill. It is not fancy, but we need it and it gets the job done. The bill highlights hydrogen's potential as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy. It emphasizes the need for strong partnerships between the Federal Government, industry, and academia; and it underscores the importance of hydrogen research. The bill also encourages private sector investment and cost sharing for the development of hydrogen as an energy source. These basic steps will move hydrogen closer to being a fuel we can rely on in many different aspects of our lives. In these days of soaring energy prices, oil cartels, air pollution, global climate change and greenhouse gases, hydrogen is a dazzling alternative. We can have a zero-pollution fuel. It can be produced domestically, ending our dependence on foreign oil. The question is not whether there will be a hydrogen age but when. Hydrogen as a fuel can help us resolve our energy problems and satisfy much of the world's energy needs. I am convinced that sometime in the 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate change and energy security will help bring about the penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both the transportation and electricity sectors. I realize that fossil fuels are and will continue to be a significant long-term transitional resource as we move toward renewables. I am optimistic, however, that in my lifetime I will be able to see hospitals, homes, military bases and cars running on locally-produced sources of hydrogen. Clearly, this is a long-term vision for hydrogen energy as a renewable resource. Progress on hydrogen technology is being made, and challenges and barriers are being surmounted, at an accelerating pace on a global scale. According to the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, Toyota and Honda will sell or lease fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. and Japan this year. Ford Motor Company is now showing its new hydrogen powered prototype, the Ford Model U. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. General Motors recently unveiled a stationary, hydrogen-powered generator that could be used to provide energy for homes and businesses. Transit bus demonstrations are underway in the U.S. and Europe. The Nation's capital city, Washington, DC, is one of the cities participating in the project. We are all familiar with Iceland's far-sighted bid to become the world's first hydrogen-based economy. It has already made great strides in using renewable resources for its heating and electricity needs. The Nation is committed to transforming its remaining fossil fuel-based transportation sector, and its economically important fishing fleet, to hydrogen power. Iceland will have no need to import oil. Now there is a revolutionary thought! Closer to home, I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking the lead in ushering in the hydrogen era. The State has identified hydrogen-based renewable fuels, and the jobs it can create, as a high priority, high-tech opportunity that can jump-start and diversify our economy. The cost of electricity and gasoline in Hawaii are important incentives for finding cheaper, home-grown power. The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute of the University of Hawaii concluded that large-scale hydrogen use for transportation can be competitive this decade. I am particularly pleased with the public-private partnership between the University of Hawaii's Natural Energy Institute, the Naval Research Laboratory, United Technologies Fuel Cells, and Hawaiian Electric Company. In January 2002, the Institute announced a partnership with the Department of Defense to establish a hydrogen fuel cell test facility in Honolulu. The facility will house up to eight state-of-the art fuel cell test stands and related operations supporting fuel cell development. The Institute has made Hawaii a leader in the development and testing of advanced fuel cell systems and fuels processing. In California, the State's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The city of Richmond, CA, opened the area's first hydrogen fueling station in October, 2002. The hydrogen fueling station looks like a gasoline pump, and can supply the daily fueling needs of a small fleet of vehicles at a fueling rate of one to two minutes per vehicle. These are important initiatives and illustrate the value of public-private partnerships along the pathway to a different energy source that requires an entirely different infrastructure. Despite the progress, problems and challenges remain. First, hydrogen production costs from fossil and renewable energy sources remain high. Second, attractive low-cost storage technologies are not available. Third, the infrastructure is inadequate. We need to address these challenges and barriers if we are to enjoy the benefits of an efficient and environmentally friendly energy sources. An aggressive research and development program can help us overcome these challenges by reducing production costs from fossil and renewable sources, advancing storage technologies, and addressing safety concerns with efforts in establishing codes and standards. Our Nation needs a sustained and focused research, development, and demonstration program to make hydrogen a viable source of energy. The strategy should focus on mid-term and long-term goals. We must support development of technologies that enable distributed electric- generation fuel cell systems and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for transportation applications. For the long term, we should look to hydrogen technologies that enhance renewable systems and offer us the promise of clean, abundant fuels. The current Hydrogen Program, administered by the Department of Energy, supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safe and cost- effective manner. Some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. The most promising include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, and reversible Proton Exchange Membrane, PEM, fuel cell systems. Other projects lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. These activities need continued support if the Nation is to enjoy the benefits of a clean energy source. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. The Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, are involved in the program. The DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers- of-excellence have been established at the University of Miami and the University of Hawaii. U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. Cooperation between government, industry, universities, and the national laboratories is key to the successful development and commercialization of new and environmentally friendly energy technologies. Today we are introducing legislation that reauthorizes and expands the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. It highlights the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and industry, and modifies the current cost-sharing requirements to enable more participation in research projects by small companies. It adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities to expedite wider application of these technologies. The bill includes language to encourage international activities where appropriate in the DOE programs, both because of the need to develop world markets for our products and to encourage international development on a sustainable path. The legislation clarifies the composition of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel that oversees the program for DOE and enhances inter- agency and inter-governmental cooperation in the hydrogen program. The legislation we are introducing today authorizes $300 million over the next five years for research and development for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed-generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. The bill also authorizes $135 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at governmental facilities. This provision will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use, and lead to the development of hydrogen-based operating experience acceptable to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting this bill, we will be ushering in a new era of non- polluting energy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and my colleagues Senator Lieberman, Senator Kyl, Senator Reid, Senator Bayh, and Senator Inouye, in introducing legislation that affirms the priority and importance of hydrogen programs in Federal research and development initiatives and charts a course of action toward the ``hydrogen economy.'' The legislation reauthorizes the hydrogen programs in the Department of Energy and strengthens the Federal interagency effort to promote hydrogen research and development programs. It establishes a new program to demonstrate hydrogen technologies and their integration with fuel cells at Federal, State, and local government facilities. Growing numbers of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House have indicated their interest in and commitment to promoting a hydrogen economy for the future. This commitment comes from a substantial legacy in the House and the Senate. This bill carries the names of two former Congressmen--the late George E. Brown, Jr., and Robert S. Walker--to honor their formidable and dedicated advocacy of hydrogen as a fuel source. In the Senate, my predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga, created the first formal hydrogen research program in this country, designed to accelerate development of a domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source. He introduced legislation in 1982 and his perseverance led to the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, enacted in 1990 shortly after his death. When I succeeded Spark in the Senate, I took up the cause of hydrogen and continue to believe that it is one of our best hopes for independence from fossil fuels. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, which followed the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, expanded the research, development, and demonstration program. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. It has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. More recently in the 107th Congress, I have worked closely with Senator Harkin and my colleagues on the Energy Committee to reauthorize the Hydrogen Future Act. We were able to include it in the Energy Policy Act of 2002, the comprehensive energy policy bill considered by the Senate during the spring of 2002. While the Senate and House were unable to come to agreement on the omnibus bill itself, progress was made on the research and development provisions, including hydrogen. I am pleased that many of my colleagues have begun to recognize the potential of hydrogen as a clean source of energy. I expect the numbers will only increase. You may well ask, ``Why do we need the Hydrogen Future Act of 2003 when we have the President's initiatives for hydrogen?'' Because we need to reauthorize the underlying Federal framework for the direction of and investment in hydrogen research and development. The authorization for the program expired at the end of calendar year 2001. While I share the President's enthusiasm for hydrogen, I believe we must provide a robust legislative foundation for research and development involving hydrogen--for fuel cells, for demonstration projects at Government facilities, stationary and mobile projects, and near- and short-term goals, as well as long-term goals. The Hydrogen Future Act of 2003 reauthorizes and improves this strong foundation. I like to call my bill a ``workhorse'' bill. It is not fancy, but we need it and it gets the job done. The bill highlights hydrogen's potential as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy. It emphasizes the need for strong partnerships between the Federal Government, industry, and academia; and it underscores the importance of hydrogen research. The bill also encourages private sector investment and cost sharing for the development of hydrogen as an energy source. These basic steps will move hydrogen closer to being a fuel we can rely on in many different aspects of our lives. In these days of soaring energy prices, oil cartels, air pollution, global climate change and greenhouse gases, hydrogen is a dazzling alternative. We can have a zero-pollution fuel. It can be produced domestically, ending our dependence on foreign oil. The question is not whether there will be a hydrogen age but when. Hydrogen as a fuel can help us resolve our energy problems and satisfy much of the world's energy needs. I am convinced that sometime in the 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate change and energy security will help bring about the penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both the transportation and electricity sectors. I realize that fossil fuels are and will continue to be a significant long-term transitional resource as we move toward renewables. I am optimistic, however, that in my lifetime I will be able to see hospitals, homes, military bases and cars running on locally-produced sources of hydrogen. Clearly, this is a long-term vision for hydrogen energy as a renewable resource. Progress on hydrogen technology is being made, and challenges and barriers are being surmounted, at an accelerating pace on a global scale. According to the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, Toyota and Honda will sell or lease fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. and Japan this year. Ford Motor Company is now showing its new hydrogen powered prototype, the Ford Model U. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. General Motors recently unveiled a stationary, hydrogen-powered generator that could be used to provide energy for homes and businesses. Transit bus demonstrations are underway in the U.S. and Europe. The Nation's capital city, Washington, DC, is one of the cities participating in the project. We are all familiar with Iceland's far-sighted bid to become the world's first hydrogen-based economy. It has already made great strides in using renewable resources for its heating and electricity needs. The Nation is committed to transforming its remaining fossil fuel-based transportation sector, and its economically important fishing fleet, to hydrogen power. Iceland will have no need to import oil. Now there is a revolutionary thought! Closer to home, I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking the lead in ushering in the hydrogen era. The State has identified hydrogen-based renewable fuels, and the jobs it can create, as a high priority, high-tech opportunity that can jump-start and diversify our economy. The cost of electricity and gasoline in Hawaii are important incentives for finding cheaper, home-grown power. The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute of the University of Hawaii concluded that large-scale hydrogen use for transportation can be competitive this decade. I am particularly pleased with the public-private partnership between the University of Hawaii's Natural Energy Institute, the Naval Research Laboratory, United Technologies Fuel Cells, and Hawaiian Electric Company. In January 2002, the Institute announced a partnership with the Department of Defense to establish a hydrogen fuel cell test facility in Honolulu. The facility will house up to eight state-of-the art fuel cell test stands and related operations supporting fuel cell development. The Institute has made Hawaii a leader in the development and testing of advanced fuel cell systems and fuels processing. In California, the State's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles. The city of Richmond, CA, opened the area's first hydrogen fueling station in October, 2002. The hydrogen fueling station looks like a gasoline pump, and can supply the daily fueling needs of a small fleet of vehicles at a fueling rate of one to two minutes per vehicle. These are important initiatives and illustrate the value of public-private partnerships along the pathway to a different energy source that requires an entirely different infrastructure. Despite the progress, problems and challenges remain. First, hydrogen production costs from fossil and renewable energy sources remain high. Second, attractive low-cost storage technologies are not available. Third, the infrastructure is inadequate. We need to address these challenges and barriers if we are to enjoy the benefits of an efficient and environmentally friendly energy sources. An aggressive research and development program can help us overcome these challenges by reducing production costs from fossil and renewable sources, advancing storage technologies, and addressing safety concerns with efforts in establishing codes and standards. Our Nation needs a sustained and focused research, development, and demonstration program to make hydrogen a viable source of energy. The strategy should focus on mid-term and long-term goals. We must support development of technologies that enable distributed electric- generation fuel cell systems and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for transportation applications. For the long term, we should look to hydrogen technologies that enhance renewable systems and offer us the promise of clean, abundant fuels. The current Hydrogen Program, administered by the Department of Energy, supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safe and cost- effective manner. Some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. The most promising include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, and reversible Proton Exchange Membrane, PEM, fuel cell systems. Other projects lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. These activities need continued support if the Nation is to enjoy the benefits of a clean energy source. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. The Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, are involved in the program. The DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers- of-excellence have been established at the University of Miami and the University of Hawaii. U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. Cooperation between government, industry, universities, and the national laboratories is key to the successful development and commercialization of new and environmentally friendly energy technologies. Today we are introducing legislation that reauthorizes and expands the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. It highlights the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and industry, and modifies the current cost-sharing requirements to enable more participation in research projects by small companies. It adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities to expedite wider application of these technologies. The bill includes language to encourage international activities where appropriate in the DOE programs, both because of the need to develop world markets for our products and to encourage international development on a sustainable path. The legislation clarifies the composition of the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel that oversees the program for DOE and enhances inter- agency and inter-governmental cooperation in the hydrogen program. The legislation we are introducing today authorizes $300 million over the next five years for research and development for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed-generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. The bill also authorizes $135 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at governmental facilities. This provision will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use, and lead to the development of hydrogen-based operating experience acceptable to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting this bill, we will be ushering in a new era of non- polluting energy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2003, which Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership on this important issue. The legislation that my colleague from New Mexico and I are introducing would provide the Department of the Treasury with the authority to regulate income tax refund anticipation loans, RALs, and prohibit excessive fees. The bill would also provide additional opportunities for low-income taxpayers to receive assistance with tax preparation and filing their taxes and thus, we are seeking to meet taxpayers' needs for assistance while attempting to discourage a predatory practice. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001, the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, was responsible for elevating nearly four million people above the poverty line. This credit has helped and continues to help low-income individuals and families to meet their food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education needs. However, while this tax relief is benefitting families who need it most, the EITC's impact is being unnecessarily limited. Earned Income Tax Credit benefits intended for working families are increasingly being diminished by often exorbitant tax preparation fees and the growing use of high-interest refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple-digit interest rates. In 1999, according to a report published by the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.75 billion intended to assist low-income families went to commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans. Although tax preparation services are useful, when combined with refund anticipation loans and other fees, these services are overpriced. The report further stated that 39 percent of taxpayers who earned the EITC received their refund through a refund anticipation loan, while only four percent of those who did not receive the EITC purchased a refund anticipation loan. Clearly, RALs were heavily marketed to a specific population of taxpayer. Forty-seven percent of all EITC dollars were distributed to recipients through these loans. In my state of Hawaii, in the Honolulu metropolitan statistical area, 27.7 percent of all EITC dollars were associated with refund anticipation loans. These loans take money away from the day-to-day, kitchen-table needs of the low- income families. Furthermore, refund anticipation loans carry interest rates that range from 97.4 percent to more than 2,000 percent. The interest rates and fees charged on these products are not justified for the short length of time that these loans cover. The typical rapid refund loan length is two weeks. These loans carry even less risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program allows the Internal Revenue Service to inform the lender if the applicant for a refund loan has any outstanding Federal debts. The risk is further reduced because loan issuers share information about outstanding delinquencies that refund anticipation loan applicants owe and are able to collect debts for each other. This bill would terminate the Debt Indicator program. In 1995, the use of the Debt Indicator was suspended because of massive fraud in e- filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the Debt Indicator was reinstated in 1999. Remarks from H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni upon the reinstatement of the program state that the Debt Indicator ``is good news for many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund through Refund Anticipation Loans. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower fees for this service.'' However, according to a study conducted by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center, that has not been the case for at least one of the major tax preparers. H & R Block and Household Bank's fees dropped for a year after the Debt Indicator was reinstated. The fees rose significantly from 2000 to 2001, which increased H & R Block's revenue from RALs by 49 percent. Per RAL revenue rose by 43.9 percent while RAL sales volume increased by only 2.7 percent. The expected outcome that RAL prices would go down as a result of the reinstatement of the indicator has not occurred. The use of the Debt Indicator should again be stopped. Another important provision in the bill is authorization language for a grant program to link tax preparation services with the establishment of a bank account. There are still approximately four million EITC recipients that are classified as unbanked, and lack a formal relationship with a financial institution. It has been estimated that 45 percent of EITC recipients pay for check cashing services. These check cashing services reduce EITC benefits by $130 million. Having a bank account allows individuals not only to receive their tax refund check faster than waiting for a paper check, but also does not impose the excessive fees that check cashing services and refund anticipation loan providers assess. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and lower cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services found at mainstream financial institutions. This grant program builds upon the First Accounts initiative which has funded pilot projects that have coupled tax preparation services with the establishment of bank accounts. An example of such a project is the partnership that has been established among The Center for Law & Human Services, Accounting Aid Society, ShoreBank, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of America that is taking place in Chicago and Detroit. More of these programs are necessary to provide much needed tax preparation assistance and to encourage the use of mainstream financial services. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2003, which Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership on this important issue. The legislation that my colleague from New Mexico and I are introducing would provide the Department of the Treasury with the authority to regulate income tax refund anticipation loans, RALs, and prohibit excessive fees. The bill would also provide additional opportunities for low-income taxpayers to receive assistance with tax preparation and filing their taxes and thus, we are seeking to meet taxpayers' needs for assistance while attempting to discourage a predatory practice. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001, the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, was responsible for elevating nearly four million people above the poverty line. This credit has helped and continues to help low-income individuals and families to meet their food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education needs. However, while this tax relief is benefitting families who need it most, the EITC's impact is being unnecessarily limited. Earned Income Tax Credit benefits intended for working families are increasingly being diminished by often exorbitant tax preparation fees and the growing use of high-interest refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple-digit interest rates. In 1999, according to a report published by the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.75 billion intended to assist low-income families went to commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans. Although tax preparation services are useful, when combined with refund anticipation loans and other fees, these services are overpriced. The report further stated that 39 percent of taxpayers who earned the EITC received their refund through a refund anticipation loan, while only four percent of those who did not receive the EITC purchased a refund anticipation loan. Clearly, RALs were heavily marketed to a specific population of taxpayer. Forty-seven percent of all EITC dollars were distributed to recipients through these loans. In my state of Hawaii, in the Honolulu metropolitan statistical area, 27.7 percent of all EITC dollars were associated with refund anticipation loans. These loans take money away from the day-to-day, kitchen-table needs of the low- income families. Furthermore, refund anticipation loans carry interest rates that range from 97.4 percent to more than 2,000 percent. The interest rates and fees charged on these products are not justified for the short length of time that these loans cover. The typical rapid refund loan length is two weeks. These loans carry even less risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program allows the Internal Revenue Service to inform the lender if the applicant for a refund loan has any outstanding Federal debts. The risk is further reduced because loan issuers share information about outstanding delinquencies that refund anticipation loan applicants owe and are able to collect debts for each other. This bill would terminate the Debt Indicator program. In 1995, the use of the Debt Indicator was suspended because of massive fraud in e- filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the Debt Indicator was reinstated in 1999. Remarks from H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni upon the reinstatement of the program state that the Debt Indicator ``is good news for many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund through Refund Anticipation Loans. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower fees for this service.'' However, according to a study conducted by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center, that has not been the case for at least one of the major tax preparers. H & R Block and Household Bank's fees dropped for a year after the Debt Indicator was reinstated. The fees rose significantly from 2000 to 2001, which increased H & R Block's revenue from RALs by 49 percent. Per RAL revenue rose by 43.9 percent while RAL sales volume increased by only 2.7 percent. The expected outcome that RAL prices would go down as a result of the reinstatement of the indicator has not occurred. The use of the Debt Indicator should again be stopped. Another important provision in the bill is authorization language for a grant program to link tax preparation services with the establishment of a bank account. There are still approximately four million EITC recipients that are classified as unbanked, and lack a formal relationship with a financial institution. It has been estimated that 45 percent of EITC recipients pay for check cashing services. These check cashing services reduce EITC benefits by $130 million. Having a bank account allows individuals not only to receive their tax refund check faster than waiting for a paper check, but also does not impose the excessive fees that check cashing services and refund anticipation loan providers assess. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and lower cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services found at mainstream financial institutions. This grant program builds upon the First Accounts initiative which has funded pilot projects that have coupled tax preparation services with the establishment of bank accounts. An example of such a project is the partnership that has been established among The Center for Law & Human Services, Accounting Aid Society, ShoreBank, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of America that is taking place in Chicago and Detroit. More of these programs are necessary to provide much needed tax preparation assistance and to encourage the use of mainstream financial services. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disagreement with the priorities set forth in the budget resolution we have been debating, and support for the amendments offered by my colleagues from South Carolina and New York, Senators Hollings and Schumer. With our Nation at war, we must do all we can to support our troops, ensure that our homeland is secure, and continue our emphasis on significant domestic priorities, such as education and health care. This is why I believe it would be unwise to enact further tax cuts that would pit these priorities against each other for limited Federal dollars and lead us further down the path to fiscal irresponsibility. We have commenced military operations against an enemy who has defied efforts at international diplomacy. Without a doubt, these efforts will come at substantial cost which is not reflected in this budget. Proponents must rely on budget tactics to show that we can allow additional tax cuts to be passed. I would like to associate my comments with those of my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, who rightfully attempted to enforce patriotic pause on this very point. This budget repudiates our commitment to fight the evil of terrorism within our own borders. It fails to adequately fund homeland security, which is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by my friend from New York, Senator Schumer, who has requested that $88 billion be provided over 11 years for urgent homeland security needs, including immediate funding for those on the home front--first responders, firefighters, port, border and transportation security. I also applaud the provisions for bioterrorism preparedness and threat and critical infrastructure assessment. At a time when threats to U.S. civilians within our borders are very real, we must not abandon, for the sake of tax cuts, our resolve to ensure the peace of mind of families at home and individuals in their workplaces--many who are praying for loved ones fighting in our armed services abroad. This resolution calls for tax cuts that will do nothing to stimulate the economy, but would worsen the progressivity of the Tax Code. It would also rob our most important investment of required resources, and that is the investment in the education of America's children. We should be sending the message to our children that we will do all we can to give them the knowledge and tools to be able to meet future challenges that will face this country, when we in this body are long gone. Instead, if we pass additional tax cuts, we are saying that we will place political gain over a solid start in life for young Americans. This is why I voted for the amendment proposed by my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, along with others, that would have provided an $8.9 billion increase in education funding, as well as $8.9 billion for deficit reduction out of funding designated for tax cuts. This funding increase sought to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. We only began to fulfill some of the promises we made in passing this sweeping education reform law through the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. We cannot let this investment waver in fiscal year 2004. Finally, I oppose efforts to decrease Federal revenues sorely needed to ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries have access to the comprehensive prescription drug program that they deserve. Far too many seniors are currently unable to afford the costs of the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. Seniors must be able to obtain meaningful prescription drug coverage through the traditional Medicare Program. I supported the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, Senators Bob Graham, Dorgan, and Stabenow, which would have made sure that a Medicare prescription drug benefit is adequately funded, by increasing the Medicare reserve fund by approximately $220 billion. The amendment would also have guaranteed that participants in traditional Medicare receive the same prescription drug benefit as beneficiaries that enroll in private Medicare health plans. The funding should be included in the budget resolution to adequately protect our Nation's seniors against the increasing costs of prescription drugs instead of to accommodate additional tax cuts. The Graham-Dorgan-Stabenow amendment would have reduced the size of the tax cuts in the budget resolution by approximately $400 billion and provided a clear choice between additional tax cuts or a meaningful prescription drug benefit. The time has come to face our fiscal responsibilities honestly. Tax cuts are not the answer at this point in our Nation's history. I join with Senator Hollings and other colleagues in opposition to the passage of additional tax cuts that would steal much needed revenues at a time of great need. I owe it to the people of Hawaii and we owe it to the people of America.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Postmasters Equity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to have Senators Collins, Daschle, Jeffords, Inouye, Mikulski, and Sarbanes join me as original cosponsors. Our bill modifies legislation I offered in the 107th Congress. That bill, S. 177, the Postmasters Fairness Act, enjoyed the bipartisan support of 49 members of the U.S. Senate. Its House companion bill, H.R. 250, had 291 cosponsors. The measure I introduce today differs from its predecessor in that it provides postmasters the option of fact finding rather than binding arbitration if the postmasters management associations and the Postal Service are unable to reach agreement on specific issues. Fact finding would allow for an unbiased review of the issues in dispute and the issuance of non-binding recommendations. The measure would also define the term postmaster for the first time. Extending the option of fact finding to postmasters will enable them to take a more active and constructive role in managing their individual post offices and discussing compensation issues with the Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created a consultative process for postmasters and other non-union postal employees to negotiate pay and benefits. However, under the current system, postmasters have seen an erosion of their role in improving the quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local post offices. This has been particularly true for postmasters responsible for small and medium sized post offices where they serve as front line managers. These circumstances are among factors contributing to the decline in the number of postmasters since the reorganization of the Postal Service over three decades ago. At the present time, postmasters lack recourse when consultation fails, and my bill extends to our Nation's postmasters what is currently enjoyed by postal supervisors. While postal supervisors have the same consultation process as postmasters, the supervisors also have fact finding, which provides them with greater ability to negotiate with USPS management. The Postal Service estimates that each day seven million customers transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of the mail, six days a week, and the Postal Service does not disappoint us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our communities. In fact, many of our towns and cities have developed around a post office where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal government. Our Nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they help fuel the infrastructure that continues to boost the performance ratings of the Postal Service. Postmasters have enabled us to communicate with one another since the dawn of this great republic. I urge my colleagues to join me in showing their support for our Nation's postmasters by cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Postmasters Equity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to have Senators Collins, Daschle, Jeffords, Inouye, Mikulski, and Sarbanes join me as original cosponsors. Our bill modifies legislation I offered in the 107th Congress. That bill, S. 177, the Postmasters Fairness Act, enjoyed the bipartisan support of 49 members of the U.S. Senate. Its House companion bill, H.R. 250, had 291 cosponsors. The measure I introduce today differs from its predecessor in that it provides postmasters the option of fact finding rather than binding arbitration if the postmasters management associations and the Postal Service are unable to reach agreement on specific issues. Fact finding would allow for an unbiased review of the issues in dispute and the issuance of non-binding recommendations. The measure would also define the term postmaster for the first time. Extending the option of fact finding to postmasters will enable them to take a more active and constructive role in managing their individual post offices and discussing compensation issues with the Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created a consultative process for postmasters and other non-union postal employees to negotiate pay and benefits. However, under the current system, postmasters have seen an erosion of their role in improving the quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local post offices. This has been particularly true for postmasters responsible for small and medium sized post offices where they serve as front line managers. These circumstances are among factors contributing to the decline in the number of postmasters since the reorganization of the Postal Service over three decades ago. At the present time, postmasters lack recourse when consultation fails, and my bill extends to our Nation's postmasters what is currently enjoyed by postal supervisors. While postal supervisors have the same consultation process as postmasters, the supervisors also have fact finding, which provides them with greater ability to negotiate with USPS management. The Postal Service estimates that each day seven million customers transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of the mail, six days a week, and the Postal Service does not disappoint us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our communities. In fact, many of our towns and cities have developed around a post office where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal government. Our Nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they help fuel the infrastructure that continues to boost the performance ratings of the Postal Service. Postmasters have enabled us to communicate with one another since the dawn of this great republic. I urge my colleagues to join me in showing their support for our Nation's postmasters by cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns that we are not as prepared as we should be for the consequences of a war with Iraq. I have complete confidence in the ability of our armed services to defeat Iraq. We have a superb military which is, without a doubt, the most effective and most professional fighting force ever fielded in the history of mankind. We can all be proud of our dedicated military men and women. It is their dedication and willingness to risk their lives in the service of their country that places a special responsibility on our shoulders. Our responsibility is to ensure that their service is not expended in the vain pursuit of ill-defined objectives and that our national security is truly enhanced. In my capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I meet with many of our field commanders. Prior to our debate last session on H.J. Res. 114 concerning war with Iraq, I met with one of our senior commanders just returned from the war against terrorism. He told me ``keep asking the hard questions'' about the consequences of committing American troops to a war on Iraq. I have heeded his advice, and it is the reason I stand today to discuss the consequences of war on Iraq. I am concerned that we are not sufficiently prepared either materially or psychologically for a protracted occupation of Iraqi territory, nor are we sufficiently well prepared domestically for possible terrorist attacks on American soil. My constituents ask me why the President has chosen to fight Iraq at this time or what his objective is in so doing. I do not have a good answer for them because the President has yet to provide one. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has resisted and ignored over the past 12 years United Nations resolutions calling for Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has oppressed the Iraqi people and carried out terrible attacks against the Kurds and Shia tribes of Southern Iraq. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has paid only grudging lipservice to recent efforts by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC, to discover and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, none of those issues justifies going to war now if we are unprepared for the consequences of war and if we do not have a clear exit strategy for getting out of Iraq. It would be far better to take the time to ensure that we are prepared for both the consequences at home and abroad before sending our superb military into combat in a distant land. The reasons for war have increased in number and difficulty as we build up our forces in the gulf. At first, the President asserted that war was to end Saddam Hussein's program for developing weapons of mass destruction. More recently, the President has added that our objective is to ``help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.'' The President argues for war because he believes that ``success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.'' Mission creep is already occurring, and the mission has not begun. In February testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, retired General Anthony C. Zinni asked, ``do we want to transform Iraq or just transition it out from under the unacceptable regime [. . . .]'' and he added, ``defining the problem, however, is only half the task. The other half deals with how you solve the problem. I have not seen a lot of specifics in this area.'' The mission of an American occupation to establish a democratic Iraq is well-meaning but difficult to implement. Indeed, as I read testimony and speeches by administration officials, I am struck by how many new objectives are being added to our mission: for example, establish the rule of law and an independent judiciary; create a free enterprise system; end weapons of mass destruction programs; make an American ally; create a bulwark against terrorism; forge a secular and democratic state; reform the educational system; and develop a free press. These are extremely ambitious programs for a country that has little, if any, historical experience and no recent experiences in any of these conditions. Perhaps we should be bringing democracy to our allies in the region. A well-defined objective is crucial for a mission's success. Will the objective be a discrete military mission: seek and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or an open-ended goal to bring democracy to a country that has no experience in democracy? The administration now indicates that both goals are intertwined: to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction we must create a democracy in Iraq. Perhaps that is the case. But the opposite is also possible: a democratic Iraq responsive to the will of the Iraqi people, continuing to share borders with countries traditionally hostile to Iraq--including Iran which we have learned this week is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons--may feel compelled to restart its weapons of mass destruction program out of self-preservation. Let us be clear: we can take weapons away from Iraqi leaders but we cannot erase the knowledge of how to make those weapons from the minds of Iraqi scientists. That capability will always remain. Weapons scientists and engineers will not unlearn what they have learned. To make another Iraqi WMD program impossible, we need to develop solid support for an international regime with enforcement mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them. Unfortunately, the President's rush to war is undermining the very international consensus we need to forge to prevent proliferation. International cooperation is essential both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, it is essential for our goal of ending the threat from Iraq. A stable international coalition is the basis for managing any future crisis. In the long term, it is essential to prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction. The administration insists that all it needs is a ``coalition of the willing'' to go to war. That may be true for war, but will there be a coalition to pay the costs of an indefinite occupation of Iraq? Without international support, the United States will pay the direct cost for our military presence and reconstruction. Our struggling economy will also pay an indirect cost adding to our sky-high deficit. Already it looks more like a coalition for war of the compensated than a coalition of the willing. I believe we are not ready for the cost of such an occupation both in terms of money and our military. When the British conquered Iraq in 1917, the British military commander, Lieutenant General Sir Stanley Maude, said ``our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators.'' When the British departed Baghdad in the 1930s, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis observed, ``my own prediction is that they will all fly at each other's throats and that there will be a bad slump in the administration which will continue until someone strong enough to dominate the country emerges, or alternatively, until we have to step in and intervene.'' We should heed history before we attempt to make a future. The danger is that the war will end in a few weeks while crisis endures for a long time. Just recently, the administration announced a $900 million contract for postwar Iraqi reconstruction. This is just a small down payment on what people in and outside the Government estimate may amount to over $100 billion, not including the cost of maintaining a long-term American troop presence in Iraq. A military presence will cost additional billions and tie down American forces, affecting training, rotation cycles, and recruitment of our entire military. The cost will be borne largely by the American taxpayer unlike the first gulf war which saw Saudi Arabia and Germany contribute 44 percent of the operation. Some suggest that Iraqi oil exports will pay for the occupation force and reconstruction efforts. But a recent study by the Council of Foreign Relations warns not to expect such a ``bonanza.'' The Iraqi oil industry is estimated to need $5 billion in investment and 3 years just to return to pre-1990 production levels, and Iraq is already carrying an external debt burden of $300 billion. If, as some experts predict, our forces confront ethnic, tribal, and religious in-fighting and are besieged by terrorist attacks emboldened by pan-Islamic hostility to the American occupation, we may need a much larger force than the current 45,000 to 75,000 under review by the Pentagon. No doubt, as in the first gulf war, there will be score settling among Iraqis with vigilante justice and possibly open warfare. Many are predicting that Kurdish refugees expelled in 1968 from their homes in Kirkuk will pour back into this center of Iraqi oil wealth, bringing with them the possibility of war with Turkey seeking to protect Turkmen minority interests. The Pentagon is reported to be planning on a 2-year military occupation of Iraq under a military governor that may be expanded to 5 years. Ironically, one of the first things this governor general will have to do is to rebuild the Iraqi military with professional training and new weapons. Time magazine reports that the Pentagon has ``only a rudimentary plan for rehabilitating the bulk of the [Iraqi] Army.'' But it is clear that we cannot demobilize over 400,000 Iraqi troops without adding to the problems in the civilian sector. We are just beginning to plan for all these postwar problems. On February 11, 2003, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith announced that the President ``has directed his administration to begin planning now'' for reconstruction and testified that the administration was still ``conceptualizing'' peace. Now is too late for a war that may start this month. The Defense Department's Office of Reconstruction was opened only on January 20, 2003. Time magazine reported on March 2 that ``at this late hour, the Administration is not very ready for the peace.'' As Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman warned in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on February 7, 2003, ``we are rushing planning efforts without making adequate efforts to make up for our lack of knowledge. As a result, planners both outside and inside the U.S. government may end in doing more harm than good. . . .'' President Bush has stated that ``we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' I appreciate his candor, but I am deeply disturbed by such an open-ended commitment to deploying American troops. We may wear out our welcome long before we have accomplished the democratic transformation of the Middle East envisioned by the President. I am also concerned over the lack of preparation at home for the possibility of terrorist attacks. Even the President is dissatisfied with the counterterrorism budget passed for this fiscal year. I am dissatisfied that we have not done more during the past 2 years. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs International Security Subcommittee, I began holding hearings on our preparedness against terrorist attacks in July 2001. I have continued to press for reform of our national and local preparedness. I agree with the President that the budget for this fiscal year was too small. We have done too little to defend ourselves against attack. I am disturbed by the letter from FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley to FBI Director Robert Mueller indicating that the FBI would not be able to ``stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq.'' Last month the FBI issued a warning that ``lone extremists represent an ongoing terrorist threat in the United States.'' Certainly, steps have been taken to improve our law enforcement capability, but I believe much more needs to be done before we are as prepared as we should be. The President acknowledged as much when he announced in his State of the Union Address his intent to create by May 1 a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center. This Center is at least 3 years away from being fully staffed according to administration plans. In other areas we are also behind. The Transportation Security Administration has just begun to assess the vulnerabilities of American airports to terrorist attack, especially from shoulder-launched missiles--that task force was set up after the deadly November 28 attack against an Israeli airline in Kenya. The President's plan to immunize 500,000 health care workers against smallpox in 30 days has only inoculated 4,200 and is draining money and personnel from other programs in State and local public health departments. Many State and local law enforcement officials have yet to receive federal security clearances so that they can receive information about potential terrorist attacks. Our emergency health care system is already stressed to the breaking point as hundreds of emergency departments have been closed due to budgetary constraints even as the number of patient visits has increased. Few of the respirators operated by local firefighters and other first responder rescue teams were found to be effective against poison gas. Many reservists in our first responder units have been called to active military duty, depleting critical services at home. The list of problems is endless. The ability to solve these problems is limited by time and by money. The bottom line is that we have a lot to do and a long way to go before we are as ready at home for war as we are for waging war far away. If war does come, both in Iraq and here at home, we will all support our troops and do the best we can to confront the problems here. I believe that the security of all Americans would be better served by taking the time to be better prepared. Allowing United Nations inspectors to do their work in Iraq will deplete the number of weapons Saddam Hussein might aim at our troops--already 46 Al Samoud missiles have been destroyed--and build international support for resolving the Iraq crisis. We will have not only a coalition of the willing but a coalition of the strong. If we pursue our current path, we will have a war lacking in many things essential to achieving complete success. It will be a war without broad international support, without sufficient planning for postconflict reconstruction and stability, without a definite exit time and strategy, and without a firm pricetag. Moreover, it will be a war with serious ramifications for our long-term readiness capabilities for homeland security and for managing other crises.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin, Allen and Voinovich to reintroduce the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. This is similar to legislation Senator Durbin, Senator Thompson, and I introduced in the 107th Congress. Like S. 1800, this bill is designed to strengthen the Federal Government's recruitment and retention efforts in the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign language where there is a growing absence of qualified personnel. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, FBI Director Mueller made a plea on national television for speakers of Arabic and Farsi to help the FBI and national security agencies translate documents that were in our possession but which were left untranslated due to a shortage of employees with proficiency in those languages. The General Accounting Office has reported that agencies have shortages in translators and interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions. The Federal Government also lacks personnel with scientific and engineering skills. On February 25, 2003, William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, noted that the supply of talented engineers in government is not keeping pace with growing demand. A recent poll found that a mere 24 percent of job seekers believe that the best engineering job opportunities are in the Federal Government compared to 52 percent for the private sector. In another example, a 1999 report of the National Research Council found significant science and technology weaknesses throughout the Department of State. These shortfalls have real consequences that hamper our ability to monitor exports of military-sensitive technology and preventing proliferation of biological warfare expertise from the former Soviet Union. Now more than ever, we must make sure we have the right people with the right skills in the right place. On January 9, 2003, the Washington Post reported that six major agencies moving into the Department of Homeland Security could lose roughly a quarter to one-half of their employees to retirement over the next five years. The data shows that about twice as many employees at these six agencies will be eligible to retire by the end of 2008 than are currently eligible. According to the data, the following percentages of employees will be eligible to retire: 59 percent at the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 54 percent of the Coast Guard; 46 percent of the U.S. Customs Service; 44 percent of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 32 percent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and 22 percent of the Secret Service. An alarming 26,363 employees out of 67,166 in the six agencies would be eligible to retire in 2008. Unfortunately, the numbers for other Federal agencies are not any better. We need programs to recruit personnel with the skills necessary to protect our country. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will do just that. Today, agencies are forced to decide between funding programs and investing in their workforce. This is a no-win situation and has prevented many agencies from fully utilizing the Federal student loan repayment program which is intended to be a powerful recruitment and retention tool. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act expands the existing student loan repayment program by authorizing funds for key national security agencies. The Act establishes a separate fund to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to repay student loans for employees in national security positions who pledge to serve in the government for a minimum of three years. In addition, our legislation would establish a National Security Service Board to oversee and implement the new National Security Fellowship Program and the National Security Service Corps. The National Security Fellowship Program is designed to fund graduate education for selected students learning skills critical to national security who agree to enter federal service on the completion of their degree. Current employees would not be neglected. Twenty percent of fellowship slots would be reserved for Federal employees to enhance their education and training. In addition, more training opportunities would be provided to current federal employees through the National Security Service Corps. This program is designed to provide opportunities for mid-level federal employees in agencies with national security responsibilities to serve in rotational assignments to build experience and widen perspectives within the national security community. Last March I chaired a hearing in the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this bill. Witnesses commented on the additional benefits this legislation could have on the ability of government recruitment and retention efforts. My former colleague, Representative Lee Hamilton, now the Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, noted that, ``Enactment of these proposals would encourage more people to enter national security positions by easing the financial sacrifices often associated with graduate study and with government service.'' The creation of the Department of Homeland Security once again raised concerns over the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in national security positions. To address these needs, Senator Voinovich and I successfully added an amendment to the Homeland Security Act to help alleviate problems associated with the workforce crisis facing the Federal Government. However, we must focus our efforts on recruiting and retaining employees with the technical and language skills the federal government needs the most. This legislation helps fill the holes in our recruitment and retention efforts. As the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded in 2001, `` . . . the maintenance of American power in the world depends upon the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels . . . The U.S. faces a broader range of national security challenges today, requiring policy analysts and intelligence personnel with expertise in more countries, regions, and issues.'' The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Government has the tools to put the right people with the right skills in the right place to protect our great Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin, Allen and Voinovich to reintroduce the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. This is similar to legislation Senator Durbin, Senator Thompson, and I introduced in the 107th Congress. Like S. 1800, this bill is designed to strengthen the Federal Government's recruitment and retention efforts in the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign language where there is a growing absence of qualified personnel. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, FBI Director Mueller made a plea on national television for speakers of Arabic and Farsi to help the FBI and national security agencies translate documents that were in our possession but which were left untranslated due to a shortage of employees with proficiency in those languages. The General Accounting Office has reported that agencies have shortages in translators and interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions. The Federal Government also lacks personnel with scientific and engineering skills. On February 25, 2003, William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, noted that the supply of talented engineers in government is not keeping pace with growing demand. A recent poll found that a mere 24 percent of job seekers believe that the best engineering job opportunities are in the Federal Government compared to 52 percent for the private sector. In another example, a 1999 report of the National Research Council found significant science and technology weaknesses throughout the Department of State. These shortfalls have real consequences that hamper our ability to monitor exports of military-sensitive technology and preventing proliferation of biological warfare expertise from the former Soviet Union. Now more than ever, we must make sure we have the right people with the right skills in the right place. On January 9, 2003, the Washington Post reported that six major agencies moving into the Department of Homeland Security could lose roughly a quarter to one-half of their employees to retirement over the next five years. The data shows that about twice as many employees at these six agencies will be eligible to retire by the end of 2008 than are currently eligible. According to the data, the following percentages of employees will be eligible to retire: 59 percent at the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 54 percent of the Coast Guard; 46 percent of the U.S. Customs Service; 44 percent of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 32 percent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and 22 percent of the Secret Service. An alarming 26,363 employees out of 67,166 in the six agencies would be eligible to retire in 2008. Unfortunately, the numbers for other Federal agencies are not any better. We need programs to recruit personnel with the skills necessary to protect our country. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will do just that. Today, agencies are forced to decide between funding programs and investing in their workforce. This is a no-win situation and has prevented many agencies from fully utilizing the Federal student loan repayment program which is intended to be a powerful recruitment and retention tool. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act expands the existing student loan repayment program by authorizing funds for key national security agencies. The Act establishes a separate fund to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to repay student loans for employees in national security positions who pledge to serve in the government for a minimum of three years. In addition, our legislation would establish a National Security Service Board to oversee and implement the new National Security Fellowship Program and the National Security Service Corps. The National Security Fellowship Program is designed to fund graduate education for selected students learning skills critical to national security who agree to enter federal service on the completion of their degree. Current employees would not be neglected. Twenty percent of fellowship slots would be reserved for Federal employees to enhance their education and training. In addition, more training opportunities would be provided to current federal employees through the National Security Service Corps. This program is designed to provide opportunities for mid-level federal employees in agencies with national security responsibilities to serve in rotational assignments to build experience and widen perspectives within the national security community. Last March I chaired a hearing in the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this bill. Witnesses commented on the additional benefits this legislation could have on the ability of government recruitment and retention efforts. My former colleague, Representative Lee Hamilton, now the Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, noted that, ``Enactment of these proposals would encourage more people to enter national security positions by easing the financial sacrifices often associated with graduate study and with government service.'' The creation of the Department of Homeland Security once again raised concerns over the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in national security positions. To address these needs, Senator Voinovich and I successfully added an amendment to the Homeland Security Act to help alleviate problems associated with the workforce crisis facing the Federal Government. However, we must focus our efforts on recruiting and retaining employees with the technical and language skills the federal government needs the most. This legislation helps fill the holes in our recruitment and retention efforts. As the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded in 2001, `` . . . the maintenance of American power in the world depends upon the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels . . . The U.S. faces a broader range of national security challenges today, requiring policy analysts and intelligence personnel with expertise in more countries, regions, and issues.'' The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will meet this challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Government has the tools to put the right people with the right skills in the right place to protect our great Nation. 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 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. I am pleased to have Senators Baucus, Campbell, Durbin, Feinstein, Leahy, and Roberts join me as original cosponsors on this significant legislation. This bill was reported favorably by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and approved by unanimous consent during the 107th Congress. I plan to work closely with my colleagues to enact this bill during the 108th Congress. In 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy existed regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and emphasized Congress's concerns that lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. In response, seven Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution released a report in May 2000 entitled ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' This assessment outlined governing principles for the management of fossils on Federal lands. The report recommended that penalties for fossil theft be strengthened and that Federal fossil collections be preserved and available for research and public education. The interagency group also stated that fossils on Federal lands are rare and a part of America's heritage and that effective stewardship requires accurate information and inventories. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies these principles, and provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States. It affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting, but protects vertebrate fossils found on Federal lands under a system of permits. I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted. This bill covers paleontological remains--fossils on Federal lands only. As we look toward the future, public access to fossil resources will take on a new meaning as digital images of fossils become available worldwide. The National Museum of Natural History, one of the premier Smithsonian museums, already has an online catalogue of 9 million specimens, some of which include digital images. Museums will be able to provide global access for researchers, collectors, and educators to study fossil collections through online catalogs and images. Many scientists in developing countries currently lack vital information about fossils because they cannot afford travel costs to museums. This digital advance will truly make fossils a global resource for the public. Discoveries in paleontology are made more frequently than we realize. They shape how we learn about the world around us. In January of this year, Nature reported that Chinese scientists at Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology discovered several four- winged dinosaur fossils. This discovery is providing us with critical insight into the phenomenon of flight. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would create a legacy of scientific knowledge for future generations. The protections offered in this Act are not new. Federal land management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. Attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as has been provided for archeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are difficult to prosecute, and they are too valuable to the education of our children not to ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I have an amendment I send to the desk.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, this amendment is the result of several hearings I chaired in the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security and Proliferation on the importance of Nunn- Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance to national security. The collapse of the Soviet Union left stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials vulnerable to theft and diversion. The Nunn-Lugar legislative initiative of 1991 established several threat reduction programs in the Departments of Defense and Energy to help dismantle weapons of mass destruction or improve their security. These programs, along with others in the State Department, are critical to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the diversion of material to terrorists. U.S. nonproliferation activities have accomplished a great deal. With American assistance, all nuclear weapons have been removed from Ukraine, Kazakstan, and Belarus. Our nonproliferation programs also prevent the recruitment by terrorists or other countries of WMD scientists and engineers. The CTR and other nonproliferation programs are making progress but face a new set of responsibilities in light of the Moscow Treaty. The Russian Federation intends to reduce and destroy various weapons systems with U.S. assistance under the CTR and other nonproliferation programs. I strongly support language in the Moscow Treaty that directs the President to ``submit to Congress . . . a report and recommendations on how United States Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance to the Russian Federation can best contribute to enabling the Russian Federation to implement the Treaty efficiently. . . .'' In November 2001, President Bush and President Putin met to discuss historic cuts to the nuclear stockpiles in the U.S. and in Russia. This discussion led to the Moscow Treaty before us today. After the first day of that summit, President Bush remarked that: [o]ur highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction . . . we will strengthen our efforts to cut off every possible source of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons material and expertise. The CTR and other nonproliferation programs are the primary means we have to prevent weapons, weapon-usable materials, and expertise in the Russian Federation from falling into the hands of terrorists. Secretary of State Powell said, in testimony before the Senate, that the CTR program will be used to ``make warhead storage facilities more secure. Such U.S. assistance will also increase the security of the Russian warheads made excess as provided in the Moscow Treaty.'' The goals of the CTR and other nonproliferation programs are vital to national security. Getting there will be difficult. We must provide these programs with the funding necessary to accomplish their important and challenging task. I have joined my friend and colleague, Senator Lugar, in supporting adequate funding and high-level administration support for these programs for years. For this reason, my amendment would ensure funding estimates are included in this annual report on CTR contributions to Russian implementation of the Moscow Treaty. It is important that Congress know how the CTR and nonproliferation programs can be used to help the Russian Federation with its treaty obligations. It is equally important for Congress to know what these programs require to realize their full potential for enhancing security. Amendment No. 254, Withdrawn Madam President, I have had discussions with the distinguished chairman concerning my amendment. He has given me assurances that the intent of my amendment will be covered in the report mentioned in condition 1 and other reports already required by Congress. For this reason, I withdraw my amendment, and Senator Lugar and I will enter into a colloquy on this issue.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank my friend, the Senior Senator from Indiana, for this opportunity to discuss with him the Cooperative Threat Reduction and other non-proliferation programs and their importance to effective implementation of the Moscow Treaty. I have chaired several hearings in the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, and undertaken several studies, on the importance of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction. Because of this work it was my intent today to offer an amendment to the Moscow Treaty to expand the report on Cooperative Threat Reduction and non-proliferation programs contained in the recommended resolution of ratification by including funding requirements. As my colleague knows, the collapse of the Soviet Union left stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials vulnerable to theft and diversion. The Senate and the Nation have benefited from the Senior Senator's leadership in the Nunn-Lugar legislative initiative of 1991 that established threat reduction programs in the Departments of Defense and Energy to help dismantle weapons of mass destruction or improve their security. These programs, along with others in the State Department, are critical to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the diversion of material to terrorists. My amendment would amend Condition One in the Resolution of Ratification so that the annual report on non-proliferation programs includes two important pieces of information. First, the report would include an estimate of funding levels necessary for the CTR and other non-proliferation programs relevant to the Treaty to ensure that nuclear weapons, materials, technology, and expertise in the Russian Federation are secure from theft and diversion. Second, the report would include a description of any initiatives proposed by the President for the CTR or other non-proliferation programs that will improve the implementation or effectiveness of the Treaty. I understand through my conversation with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that, while he appreciates my concerns and reasons behind my amendment, it should not be included in the resolution before us. U.S. non-proliferation activities have accomplished a great deal. With American assistance, all nuclear weapons have been removed from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Our non-proliferation programs also prevent the recruitment by terrorists or other countries of WMD scientists and engineers.

Mr. AKAKA. I strongly support this language. The Committee Report on the Moscow Treaty states that this report will include ``the role of Cooperative Threat Reduction and nonproliferation assistance.'' Am I correct in my interpretation that the annual report will include the contribution of both the Department of Defense CTR program and other programs that are relevant to Treaty implementation and security and accounting of nuclear weapons and materials?

Mr. AKAKA. That is good to hear. I have joined with my friend in advocating for adequate funding and high-level administration support for these non-proliferation programs for years. For this reason, I was considering offering an amendment to include funding estimates needed to assist Russia meet its obligations under the Moscow Treaty. It is important that Congress know how the CTR and non-proliferation programs can be used to help the Russian Federation with its Treaty obligations and how best to fund these programs to meet Treaty obligations. Does my colleague believe it would be useful if such information was provided to Congress?

Mr. AKAKA. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you in defining the amount and extent of information we need to adequately fund and support these important programs. I also understand your desire to keep paperwork and reporting requirements to a minimum for the small but hardworking staff of the CTR program. Accurate and timely reporting of this information is crucial for proper congressional oversight of these programs. It is my hope that the administration understands my concerns. In November 2001 President Bush remarked that ``[o]ur highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction . . . we will strengthen our efforts to cut off every possible source of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons material and expertise.'' I know my friend shares my respect for the CTR and other non-proliferation programs that are the primary means we have to prevent weapons, weapons-usable materials, and expertise in the Russian Federation from falling into the hands of terrorists. The goals of the CTR and other non-proliferation programs are vital to national security. Getting there will be difficult. I know that by working together we can provide these programs with the funding necessary to accomplish their important and challenging task.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. I am pleased to have Senators Baucus, Campbell, Durbin, Feinstein, Leahy, and Roberts join me as original cosponsors on this significant legislation. This bill was reported favorably by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and approved by unanimous consent during the 107th Congress. I plan to work closely with my colleagues to enact this bill during the 108th Congress. In 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy existed regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and emphasized Congress's concerns that lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. In response, seven Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution released a report in May 2000 entitled ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' This assessment outlined governing principles for the management of fossils on Federal lands. The report recommended that penalties for fossil theft be strengthened and that Federal fossil collections be preserved and available for research and public education. The interagency group also stated that fossils on Federal lands are rare and a part of America's heritage and that effective stewardship requires accurate information and inventories. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies these principles, and provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States. It affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting, but protects vertebrate fossils found on Federal lands under a system of permits. I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted. This bill covers paleontological remains--fossils on Federal lands only. As we look toward the future, public access to fossil resources will take on a new meaning as digital images of fossils become available worldwide. The National Museum of Natural History, one of the premier Smithsonian museums, already has an online catalogue of 9 million specimens, some of which include digital images. Museums will be able to provide global access for researchers, collectors, and educators to study fossil collections through online catalogs and images. Many scientists in developing countries currently lack vital information about fossils because they cannot afford travel costs to museums. This digital advance will truly make fossils a global resource for the public. Discoveries in paleontology are made more frequently than we realize. They shape how we learn about the world around us. In January of this year, Nature reported that Chinese scientists at Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology discovered several four- winged dinosaur fossils. This discovery is providing us with critical insight into the phenomenon of flight. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act would create a legacy of scientific knowledge for future generations. The protections offered in this Act are not new. Federal land management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. Attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. Congress has not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our Nation, as has been provided for archeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are difficult to prosecute, and they are too valuable to the education of our children not to ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our Nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I acknowledge my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who is in the Chamber. Today the Senate is engaged in an important and historic debate on the Moscow Treaty. President Bush and President Putin signed the Moscow Treaty on May 24, 2002, to limit strategic offensive nuclear weapons. Unlike arms control treaties of the past, this treaty does not include definitions of terms, counting rules, elimination procedures, or monitoring and verification provisions--all conditions considered in the past as essential to an effective agreement. As President Reagan once said, ``trust but verify.'' The administration believes that the lack of these features is an asset and indicative of a new age in American-Russian relations. In the words of President Bush, it is time that the United States ``complete the work of changing our relationship from one based on nuclear balance of terror to one based on common responsibilities and common interests.'' The treaty reflects American and Russian intent to reduce strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 to 2,200 by December 31, 2012. Each party is free to define for itself its ``strategic nuclear warheads'' and to determine how to reduce them. The treaty does not provide for the destruction of warheads or delivery systems. Nor does it place any restrictions on either party's force structure over the next ten years. Both sides can keep warheads for testing, spare parts, and possible redeployment. The administration plans to meet treaty requirements by moving an undefined number of warheads to a reserved force, some to storage, and dismantling others. The Russians will make similar force structure changes. Russia intends to continue to reduce weapon platforms and warhead levels and dismantle weapon systems with U.S. assistance under the important Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. However, the Moscow Treaty leaves many issues unresolved and many questions unanswered. For example, Article I of the treaty specifies that each party shall ``determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms.'' The United States has defined this to be ``operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads,'' and has defined operationally deployed to mean ``reentry vehicles on intercontinental ballistic missiles in their launchers, reentry vehicles on submarine-launched ballistic missiles in their launchers onboard submarines, and nuclear armaments loaded on heavy bombers or stored in weapons storage areas of heavy bomber bases.'' Congress will have to wait to see how many warheads are destroyed and stored. Likewise, we will have to wait to see how Russia defines ``strategic offensive arms.'' Russia may move to redeploy multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. Article II of the treaty states that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, will remain in force. During the signing of the Joint Declaration, Presidents Bush and Putin stated that the provisions of START ``will provide the foundation for providing confidence, transparency, and predictability in further strategic offensive reductions.'' But START expires in 2009. If START is not extended, we do not know how the parties will provide confidence and transparency between 2009 and 2012. Article III of the treaty establishes a Bilateral Implementation Commission but does not establish guidelines, procedures, or even responsibilities of the Commission. We do not know if the Commission will focus on monitoring and verification of agreed reductions. When President Bush signed the Moscow Treaty nearly a year ago, he assured the American people that he would continue to work on a separate political declaration that would create a strategic framework for the United States and Russia. This document was to be broader in scope and would address other security and arms control issues aside from strategic reduction, including non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, anti-terrorism, and missile defenses. We have yet to receive that document. We need a better vision and a better strategy of how to make America safer and more secure from attack with weapons of mass destruction. I fear that the President is moving us toward a world of greater insecurity besieged by fears of nuclear weapons proliferation. Today's Washington Post indicates that the administration is willing to accept a North Korea with nuclear weapons. This is astounding, and, if true, threatens stability in northeast Asia. In addition, the administration has sought funding for new battlefield nuclear weapons that are more ``useable.'' Until now, U.S. non-proliferation policy has been based on reducing the number of nuclear weapons states, controlling the spread of nuclear weapons technology, and eliminating nuclear weapons. We need to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and establish with the rest of the world a system that deters both countries and terrorist groups from gaining access to these dangerous technologies. The resolution intended to be introduced by Senator Daschle and others, which I am proud to cosponsor, lays out the type of comprehensive non-proliferation policy that we need to make the world a safer place for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I urge the administration to adopt its recommendations. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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