Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture by introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, ASPA, and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, ASAA. Thomas Jefferson described the four pillars of American prosperity as agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and navigation. Two hundred years later, our government is working to protect and defend all critical sectors of our society. But are we doing enough to protect American agriculture from either deliberate or naturally occurring disease outbreaks? Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson stated in September 2002 that the administration has not paid enough attention to protecting agriculture while Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venneman stated that agricultural biosecurity is her highest priority. What is at risk when I speak of ``agricultural security?'' Quite simply, a threat to agriculture is a threat to the Nation. My legislation will assist efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to ensure the first pillar of American prosperity. Agriculture terrorism can impact the safety of our food supply and public health. A large scale agricultural disaster, much like risks to our information and communication systems, also would undermine American economic security. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Based on the economic damage caused by the 2001 foot and mouth disease, FMD, epidemic in Great Britain, a single outbreak of FMD could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion. Every State has its own agricultural strengths and economy. My State of Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales. The agriculture sector employs, either directly or indirectly, 38,000 people in Hawaii. The State's crops range from sugarcane and pineapple to coffee and macadamia nuts. However, Hawaii also has to $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. When the additional losses in tourism and travel are considered, we can see the economic impact on Hawaii or any State from an agricultural disease emergency would be devastating. Pests and diseases are difficult to control when they are introduced accidentally. According to a National Academy of Sciences study on agricultural security, a deliberate infestation demands even more precautions and research and development. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act give Federal and State partners responsible for responding to threats against our agriculture the tools they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Moreover, my legislation amends the Homeland Security Act to give agriculture security the attention it deserves as a component of our critical infrastructure. An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Defense, Transportation, and Justice. USDA is the lead agency in responding to agricultural emergencies and has created a homeland defense council and increased border inspection and research activities. These are promising steps. I am happy to see that the USDA and FEMA are in the process of drafting a national response plan for emerging agriculture diseases. My legislation will compliment these efforts and encourage coordination and preparedness on the Federal, State, regional, and local level. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will enhance agricultural biosecurity through strengthened interagency and international coordination. The Act will establish senior level liaisons in DHS and HHS to coordinate with USDA on agriculture disease emergency management and response. My legislation also tasks DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address one of the largest risk factors in controlling the spread of a plant or animal disease--the movement of animals, plants, and people between and around farms. Agricultural disease outbreaks will continue to be rare occurrences in the United States. However, high-risk animal and plant diseases are endemic in some part of the world. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will help train American veterinarians and emergency responders, and provide much needed help overseas, through bilateral mutual aid agreements. The Act also directs the Department of Justice and USDA to take a long- overdue look at local and State laws that may impede or contradict response plans for an agricultural disease emergency. The Agricultural Security Assistance Act will assist States and communities preparing for and responding to threats to the Nation's agriculture. Rapid detection and swift response is imperative to contain the spread of any disease, and my bill will help remove delays and impediments for local and state officials responding to outbreaks. The bill directs USDA to work with each State to develop and implement response plans. My legislation establishes grant programs for communities and states to incorporate modeling and geographic information systems into planning and response activities totaling over $15 million. This funding also will help animal health professionals participate in community emergency planning activities and assist farmers and ranchers strengthen the biosecurity measures on their own property. In most cases of a suspected or actual agricultural disease outbreak, initial response will come from the impacted community and State. Federal resources, coordinated by USDA, will augment State capabilities. Federal assistance and guidance also is needed long before an outbreak occurs. My legislation will increase Federal, State, and local abilities to develop resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture by introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, ASPA, and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, ASAA. Thomas Jefferson described the four pillars of American prosperity as agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and navigation. Two hundred years later, our government is working to protect and defend all critical sectors of our society. But are we doing enough to protect American agriculture from either deliberate or naturally occurring disease outbreaks? Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson stated in September 2002 that the administration has not paid enough attention to protecting agriculture while Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venneman stated that agricultural biosecurity is her highest priority. What is at risk when I speak of ``agricultural security?'' Quite simply, a threat to agriculture is a threat to the Nation. My legislation will assist efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to ensure the first pillar of American prosperity. Agriculture terrorism can impact the safety of our food supply and public health. A large scale agricultural disaster, much like risks to our information and communication systems, also would undermine American economic security. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Based on the economic damage caused by the 2001 foot and mouth disease, FMD, epidemic in Great Britain, a single outbreak of FMD could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion. Every State has its own agricultural strengths and economy. My State of Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales. The agriculture sector employs, either directly or indirectly, 38,000 people in Hawaii. The State's crops range from sugarcane and pineapple to coffee and macadamia nuts. However, Hawaii also has to $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. When the additional losses in tourism and travel are considered, we can see the economic impact on Hawaii or any State from an agricultural disease emergency would be devastating. Pests and diseases are difficult to control when they are introduced accidentally. According to a National Academy of Sciences study on agricultural security, a deliberate infestation demands even more precautions and research and development. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act give Federal and State partners responsible for responding to threats against our agriculture the tools they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Moreover, my legislation amends the Homeland Security Act to give agriculture security the attention it deserves as a component of our critical infrastructure. An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Defense, Transportation, and Justice. USDA is the lead agency in responding to agricultural emergencies and has created a homeland defense council and increased border inspection and research activities. These are promising steps. I am happy to see that the USDA and FEMA are in the process of drafting a national response plan for emerging agriculture diseases. My legislation will compliment these efforts and encourage coordination and preparedness on the Federal, State, regional, and local level. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will enhance agricultural biosecurity through strengthened interagency and international coordination. The Act will establish senior level liaisons in DHS and HHS to coordinate with USDA on agriculture disease emergency management and response. My legislation also tasks DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address one of the largest risk factors in controlling the spread of a plant or animal disease--the movement of animals, plants, and people between and around farms. Agricultural disease outbreaks will continue to be rare occurrences in the United States. However, high-risk animal and plant diseases are endemic in some part of the world. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will help train American veterinarians and emergency responders, and provide much needed help overseas, through bilateral mutual aid agreements. The Act also directs the Department of Justice and USDA to take a long- overdue look at local and State laws that may impede or contradict response plans for an agricultural disease emergency. The Agricultural Security Assistance Act will assist States and communities preparing for and responding to threats to the Nation's agriculture. Rapid detection and swift response is imperative to contain the spread of any disease, and my bill will help remove delays and impediments for local and state officials responding to outbreaks. The bill directs USDA to work with each State to develop and implement response plans. My legislation establishes grant programs for communities and states to incorporate modeling and geographic information systems into planning and response activities totaling over $15 million. This funding also will help animal health professionals participate in community emergency planning activities and assist farmers and ranchers strengthen the biosecurity measures on their own property. In most cases of a suspected or actual agricultural disease outbreak, initial response will come from the impacted community and State. Federal resources, coordinated by USDA, will augment State capabilities. Federal assistance and guidance also is needed long before an outbreak occurs. My legislation will increase Federal, State, and local abilities to develop resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in December 2002 President Bush announced his decision to deploy a limited national missile defense system by 2004. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, detailed the limitations of the proposed system and testing procedures in an article in the Detroit News on December 29 entitled, ``Untested Missile Defense Setup Poses Risks.'' I ask unanimous consent that his entire article be placed in the Record following my statement. I would like to elaborate on some of the concerns raised by the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and discuss my concern that this system does nothing to protect my State or other parts of the United States from attack. President Bush's limited national missile defense system, first proposed by the administration in March 2001 and called ``the Alaska Option,'' consists of 5 to 10 silos/interceptor launchers in Fort Greely, AK and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, AK. At that time, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Missile Defense Agency Director Gen Ronald Kadish called the Alaska site a ``test bed'' that could be transformed into a fully operational facility easily. During an Armed Services Committee hearing in July 2001, Mr. Wolfowitz stated, ``This developmental capability could become, with very little modification, an operational capability.'' In a later statement, he added that ``it would be essentially a software change to turn it into an operational capability.'' I believe that more than modest modifications would be required. Even if the test bed was functioning and proven effective, significant changes would be needed to make it an operational system. The changes may not be technically difficult but they are very complicated when applied as a whole system. They involve many command, control, communication issues that will determine who makes the decision to fire and when and with how much information. In large and complex research and development programs, one should always be wary of anything that is described as ``just a software fix.'' In July 2001 Phil Coyle, former Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Pentagon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and defined effective deployment as the fielding of an operational system with some military utility that is effective under realistic combat conditions, against realistic threats and countermeasures, possible without adequate prior knowledge of the target cluster composition, timing, trajectory, or direction, and when operated by military personnel at all times of the day or night and in all weapons. Mr. Coyle estimated that it would take a decade, rather than 4 years, to produce an effective defense system. As Senator Levin raised in his article, no part of the limited missile defense system has been tested against realistic targets, and there are no plans to test the integrated system as a whole before it is deployed. Senator Levin correctly questions whether such a system will be even marginally effective. One could also question whether this system should be labeled a ``national'' missile defense. Given the geometry of the Cobra Dane radar, the system may be better labeled a continental missile defense. The Cobra Dane Radar on Shemya Island was built to detect Soviet missile launches. It has a fixed orientation and a narrow field of view, northwest from Shemya, towards Russia. This radar cannot see missiles launched from North Korea towards Hawaii, and will have only marginal capability for southern California. The radar cannot see the current missile defense target range between California and Hawaii. The administration is well aware of the limitations of the radar and exclusion of Hawaii in the proposed deployed system. General Kadish referred to this as ``the Hawaii problem'' during a briefing for Senator Reed and members of the Armed Services Strategic Subcommittee on July 27, 2001. At that time, General Kadish said that they were considering using an Aegis cruiser to supplement the Cobra Dane radar. Such a cruiser would have to be permanently on station to provide adequate coverage. Even with upgrades to increase the radar's field of view, the radar still will not be capable of discriminating launch characteristics or trajectory. An X band radar, such as the one now in Kwajalein, is needed. In fact, no radar in Alaska will be able to discriminate launch characteristics. The administration has not asked for funding to upgrade the existing radar or build a new one. The President characterized in December 2002 his initiative to field a missile defense system as ``modest.'' The program is less than modest. It is inadequate and expensive. The path towards an effective and efficient missile defense program is the one outlined by Senator Levin.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, which would clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This measure would extend the Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples--Native Hawaiians, by providing a process for the reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity to be recognized for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The bill we introduce today is identical to legislation that was reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during the 107th Congress. This bill does three things. First if provides a process for Federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Second, it establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government. Finally, it establishes an interagency coordinating group to be composed of representatives of federal agencies which administer programs and implement policies impacting Native Hawaiians. While Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have paralleled that of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance has not yet been extended to Native Hawaiians. This measure extends this policy to Native Hawaiians, thus furthering the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States, and providing parity in the Federal Government's interactions with American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This measure does not establish entitlements or special treatment for Native Hawaiians based on race. This measure focuses on the political relationship afforded to Native Hawaiians based on the United States' recognition of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawaii. While the United States' history with its indigenous peoples has been dismal, in recent decades, the United States has engaged in a policy of self-determination and self-governance with its indigenous peoples. Government-to-government relationships provide indigenous peoples with the opportunity to work directly with the Federal Government on policies affecting their lands, natural resources and many other aspects of their well-being. This measure does not impact program funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Federal programs for Native Hawaiian health, education, and housing are already administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. The bill I introduce today contains a provision which makes clear that this bill does not authorize new eligibility for participation in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. In fact, it clearly states that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, does not apply to the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Finally, this measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking alternatives in the international arena. This measure focuses on self- determination within the framework of Federal law and seeks to establish equality in the Federal policies extended towards American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. We introduced similar legislation during the 106th and 107th Congresses. A previous version of this legislation was passed by the House of Representatives during the 106th Congress. The legislation is widely supported by our indigenous brethren, American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature which passed two resolutions supporting a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, National Congress of American Indians, Japanese American Citizens' League, and the National Education Association. The essence of Hawaii is captured not by the physical beauty of its islands, but by the beauty of its people. Those who have lived in Hawaii have a unique demeanor and attitude which is appropriately described as the ``aloha'' spirit. The people of Hawaii demonstrate the aloha spirit through their actions--through their generosity, through their appreciation of the environment and natural resources, through their willingness to care for each other, through their genuine friendliness. The people of Hawaii share many ethnic backgrounds and cultures. This mix of culture and tradition is based on the unique history of Hawaii. The Aloha spirit is the legacy of the pride we all share in the culture and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples, the Native Hawaiians. Hawaii's State motto, ``Ua mau ke'ea `o ka `aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness,'' captures the culture of Native Hawaiians. Prior to western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society, in distinct and structured communities steeped in science. The Native Hawaiians honored their `aina, land, and environment, and therefore developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the environment formed the basis of their culture and tradition. It is from this culture and tradition that the Aloha spirit, which is demonstrated throughout Hawaii, by all of its people, has endured and flourished. Despite the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians never directly relinquished their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum. Ever since the overthrow of their government, Native Hawaiians have sought to maintain political authority within their community. The Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination recognizes and provides for this inherent right within Federal law. Throughout my service in the Congress and the Senate, I have worked to establish a proper foundation of reconciliation between the United States and Native Hawaiians to positively address longstanding issues of concern resulting from the overthrow. The legislation we introduce today to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States proceeds from our efforts to promote reconciliation. This endeavor enjoys overwhelming support from Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii. In 1978, the people of Hawaii acted to preserve Native Hawaiian culture and tradition by amending Hawaii's State constitution to establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and to give expression to the right of self-determination and self-governance at the State level for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. Starting with statehood, Hawaii endeavored to address and protect the rights and concerns of Hawaii's indigenous peoples in accordance with authority delegated under Federal policy. The constraints of this approach are evident. This bill extends the Federal policy of self-determination and self- governance to Native Hawaiians at the Federal level through a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This measure is not being introduced to circumvent the 1999 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Rice v. Cayeano. The Rice case was a voting rights case whereby the Supreme Court held that the State of Hawaii must allow all citizens of Hawaii to vote for the trustees of a quasi-State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Nothing in this legislation would alter the eligibility of the electorate who votes for the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This measure is critical to the people of Hawaii because it provides the structure necessary to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By addressing and resolving these matters, we continue our process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only within the United States, but within the State of Hawaii. The time has come for us to be able to address these deeply rooted issues in order for us to be able to move forward as one. I cannot emphasize how important this issue is for the people of Hawaii. At the state level, I will continue to work with the Hawaii State Legislature which has expressed its support for this legislation. I will also be working with Governor Linda Lingle, Hawaii's newly elected Governor, who has expressed her support for Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I look forward to continuing my discussions with officials within the Federal Government to address issues related to this bill, and I continue to welcome input from the people of Hawaii as to how we should move forward as a State, and as a community, to address longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of United States' commitment to reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step forward to honoring that commitment. I ask all my colleagues to join me in enacting this critical measure for the people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, which would clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This measure would extend the Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples--Native Hawaiians, by providing a process for the reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity to be recognized for the purposes of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The bill we introduce today is identical to legislation that was reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during the 107th Congress. This bill does three things. First if provides a process for Federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Second, it establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government. Finally, it establishes an interagency coordinating group to be composed of representatives of federal agencies which administer programs and implement policies impacting Native Hawaiians. While Federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have paralleled that of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Federal policy of self-determination and self-governance has not yet been extended to Native Hawaiians. This measure extends this policy to Native Hawaiians, thus furthering the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States, and providing parity in the Federal Government's interactions with American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. This measure does not establish entitlements or special treatment for Native Hawaiians based on race. This measure focuses on the political relationship afforded to Native Hawaiians based on the United States' recognition of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawaii. While the United States' history with its indigenous peoples has been dismal, in recent decades, the United States has engaged in a policy of self-determination and self-governance with its indigenous peoples. Government-to-government relationships provide indigenous peoples with the opportunity to work directly with the Federal Government on policies affecting their lands, natural resources and many other aspects of their well-being. This measure does not impact program funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Federal programs for Native Hawaiian health, education, and housing are already administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. The bill I introduce today contains a provision which makes clear that this bill does not authorize new eligibility for participation in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. In fact, it clearly states that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, does not apply to the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Finally, this measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking alternatives in the international arena. This measure focuses on self- determination within the framework of Federal law and seeks to establish equality in the Federal policies extended towards American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. We introduced similar legislation during the 106th and 107th Congresses. A previous version of this legislation was passed by the House of Representatives during the 106th Congress. The legislation is widely supported by our indigenous brethren, American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature which passed two resolutions supporting a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, National Congress of American Indians, Japanese American Citizens' League, and the National Education Association. The essence of Hawaii is captured not by the physical beauty of its islands, but by the beauty of its people. Those who have lived in Hawaii have a unique demeanor and attitude which is appropriately described as the ``aloha'' spirit. The people of Hawaii demonstrate the aloha spirit through their actions--through their generosity, through their appreciation of the environment and natural resources, through their willingness to care for each other, through their genuine friendliness. The people of Hawaii share many ethnic backgrounds and cultures. This mix of culture and tradition is based on the unique history of Hawaii. The Aloha spirit is the legacy of the pride we all share in the culture and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples, the Native Hawaiians. Hawaii's State motto, ``Ua mau ke'ea `o ka `aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness,'' captures the culture of Native Hawaiians. Prior to western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society, in distinct and structured communities steeped in science. The Native Hawaiians honored their `aina, land, and environment, and therefore developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the environment formed the basis of their culture and tradition. It is from this culture and tradition that the Aloha spirit, which is demonstrated throughout Hawaii, by all of its people, has endured and flourished. Despite the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians never directly relinquished their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum. Ever since the overthrow of their government, Native Hawaiians have sought to maintain political authority within their community. The Federal policy of self-governance and self- determination recognizes and provides for this inherent right within Federal law. Throughout my service in the Congress and the Senate, I have worked to establish a proper foundation of reconciliation between the United States and Native Hawaiians to positively address longstanding issues of concern resulting from the overthrow. The legislation we introduce today to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States proceeds from our efforts to promote reconciliation. This endeavor enjoys overwhelming support from Native Hawaiians and all the people of Hawaii. In 1978, the people of Hawaii acted to preserve Native Hawaiian culture and tradition by amending Hawaii's State constitution to establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and to give expression to the right of self-determination and self-governance at the State level for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. Starting with statehood, Hawaii endeavored to address and protect the rights and concerns of Hawaii's indigenous peoples in accordance with authority delegated under Federal policy. The constraints of this approach are evident. This bill extends the Federal policy of self-determination and self- governance to Native Hawaiians at the Federal level through a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This measure is not being introduced to circumvent the 1999 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Rice v. Cayeano. The Rice case was a voting rights case whereby the Supreme Court held that the State of Hawaii must allow all citizens of Hawaii to vote for the trustees of a quasi-State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Nothing in this legislation would alter the eligibility of the electorate who votes for the Board of Trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This measure is critical to the people of Hawaii because it provides the structure necessary to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By addressing and resolving these matters, we continue our process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only within the United States, but within the State of Hawaii. The time has come for us to be able to address these deeply rooted issues in order for us to be able to move forward as one. I cannot emphasize how important this issue is for the people of Hawaii. At the state level, I will continue to work with the Hawaii State Legislature which has expressed its support for this legislation. I will also be working with Governor Linda Lingle, Hawaii's newly elected Governor, who has expressed her support for Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. I look forward to continuing my discussions with officials within the Federal Government to address issues related to this bill, and I continue to welcome input from the people of Hawaii as to how we should move forward as a State, and as a community, to address longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. We have an established record of United States' commitment to reconciliation with Native Hawaiians. This legislation is another step forward to honoring that commitment. I ask all my colleagues to join me in enacting this critical measure for the people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit, along with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Corzine, Johnson, Sarbanes, Schumer, and Stabenow, a resolution designating April of this year as Financial Literacy for Youth Month. This resolution seeks to honor the many activities that take place across the country every April, which recognize the importance of increased financial and economic literacy for all Americans, particularly our children. As detailed in the resolution, more Americans are using a greater proportion of their income to pay down their debt. In 2002, home foreclosures were the highest rate in 30 years. Consumer bankruptcies in 2001 reached an all-time high in more than a decade, and filings did not slacken in 2002. Personal savings as a percentage of GDP have decreased from 7.5 percent in the early '80s to 2.4 percent last year. Unfortunately, the modern economy is extremely complex and many parents are often unable to teach their children about money management. According to the Jump$tart Coalition, only 26 percent of 13- to 21- year-olds reported that their parents actively taught them how to manage money. As noted by the Treasury Department, nearly 40 million Americans are ``unbanked,'' which means that they do not have a formal relationship with a mainstream financial institution. The unbanked are unable to take advantage of saving and borrowing opportunities offered by banks and credit unions. Unbanked individuals are susceptible to being taken advantage of by check cashers, payday lenders, and refund anticipation loan providers. Personal financial education can empower the unbanked to participate in and benefit from services of mainstream financial service providers. While various financial institutions, non-profit organizations, and consumer groups are trying to educate Americans about their finances, we are still not doing enough. I was disturbed to see the results of a 2002 study by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy showing that high school seniors knew even less about credit cards, retirement funds, insurance, and other personal finance fundamentals, than did seniors five years ago. Perhaps this is why almost half of college students with credit cards have been assessed fees for late payment. In addition, the 2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study reported that nearly three-quarters of the college students owned a credit card in their own name. Of these students, 45 percent carried a credit card debt balance of $3,066. I was further troubled to see a 2002 survey by the National Council on Economic Education showing a decrease in the number of states that include personal finance in their education standards for grades K- through-12. At a time when we should be emphasizing the importance of financial literacy, school-based efforts in this area are actually being de- emphasized. This is why it is imperative for us to designate a month to serve as the focus for increasing awareness about the need for financial literacy. It is also important to encourage innovative, interactive, and quality events with long-lasting impact that will bring the point home to our children about the importance of financial literacy. I would like to commend those individuals, many of whom are members of the Jump$tart Coalition, for the activities that they already sponsor to increase the level of financial literacy in our country. For example, the American Bankers Association Education Foundation sponsors National Teach Children to Save Day, which involves thousands of bankers visiting classrooms nationwide to help students in K- through-12 with their ``financial ABC's.'' NASDAQ Stock Market Educational Foundation and the National Council on Economic Education recognize 25 teachers for their innovative approaches to economic education. Last year during Financial Literacy for Youth Month, Junior Achievement paired up with The Goldman Sachs Foundation to create Internet-driven instructional strategies and hands-on, interactive instructional techniques to teach students and parents about everyday personal financial decisions and investment strategies. Credit unions across the nation have engaged in a variety of activities, including financial management classes and the distribution of literature, to increase the financial literacy of youth and their parents. There are many, many other activities that take place during this month, and I congratulate organizations sponsoring them for keeping the needs of America's youth close at heart. A strong show of support from this body and the Administration for Financial Literacy for Youth Month will go a long way toward ensuring that our students will benefit from an increased level of financial literacy through similar activities in 2003. Many parents fail to speak to their children about credit and debt management or ways to live within limited resources, likely because they did not receive education in these matters themselves. My colleagues and I will work to address the myriad financial and economic literacy needs of these individuals and families. However, we must emphasize the importance of helping those who are children now. Those who are still going through their formative years of schooling. Those who can learn and put into practice good personal financial management skills and lifelong habits that will stay with them, throughout their lives. Perhaps then, these students will grow into adults who will avoid skyrocketing levels of debt, the pitfalls that could cause them to file bankruptcy, or being taken advantage of by unscrupulous or opportunistic lenders. Perhaps then, they will be able to pass along similar wisdom to their children at an even earlier age, and better equip their children with the tools necessary to become responsible workers, heads of households, investors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, and citizens. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues on this sad and solemn afternoon to honor the lives of our brave astronaut heroes: the seven crew members of the Space Shuttle Columbia who were lost Saturday morning on their return from a 16-day scientific mission in outer space. As we honor the memory of the Columbia crew, Shuttle Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Commander Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon, I send my heartfelt sympathy to their families and loved ones. This is a national and international tragedy that has brought people and nations around the globe together in grief and remembrance. The men and women onboard the Columbia epitomized the best and brightest our country has to offer, and the participation of other nations in the shuttle program illustrates the collaboration and interconnection between America and other nations in the peaceful exploration of space and progress of scientific inquiry. The Columbia crew, like most of the men and women in our space program, came to NASA as successful and respected leaders from their respective professions. As scientists, doctors, surgeons, aviators, and military officers, they sought to share their expertise in the service of our Nation and mankind. In the decades since Sputnik and John Glenn's orbital mission of the earth in the Friendship 7, people around the world have been fascinated with possibilities of space exploration. The shuttle program opened the reality of space exploration to astronauts from many nations and caught the interest of young people around the world. Colonel Ramon, Israel's first astronaut and one of his nation's premier air force pilots, captured the imagination of the Israeli people. His participation in the shuttle program stirred a great sense of pride and hope in a nation that has endured so much conflict and violence over the past two years. Dr. Kalpana Chawla, the first Indian- born woman to go into space, is a national heroine in India and a great inspiration to young people in both that land of her birth and her adopted home, especially young women and girls who saw Dr. Chawla as a role model for the possibilities and opportunities available to them. As we mourn the loss of these brave individuals, men and women who willingly assumed the risk of space travel in their dedication to science and the expansion of human knowledge to new frontiers, we are reminded of the human spirit for exploration and discovery. Indeed, the quintessential trait of the American national character is the sense of adventure and curiosity that led pioneers and homesteaders westward, impelled men and women in Europe and Asia to emigrate to a new, vast, and unknown Nation with only the promise of opportunity and prosperity, and embraced President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon. America has been peopled by men and women driven by this spirit, and it is a quality we greatly admire and respect in our leaders and fellow citizens. The crew of the Columbia fully understood that there are many dangers associated with space flight, but looked beyond them while seeking to bring forth wisdom and reason from the vast unknown through space exploration and research. The crew understood that the experiments they were conducting on a wide array of medical and scientific subjects held the promise of major scientific advancements and benefit to mankind. In the coming weeks and months, we must investigate what caused this tragedy and ensure that manned space flight is safe for our men and women who dedicate their lives to space exploration. As we scour the earth for answers to this tragedy, we must not lose sight of the heavens, or allow our fascination with exploring, discovering, or dreaming to wane. For by reaffirming our resolve to explore the wonders and mysteries of the universe, we honor the memory of the Columbia's crew, and the memory of all those astronauts who lost their lives in our Nation's endeavor to understand outer space. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum calls be equally divided; in addition, I ask unanimous consent that the previous quorum calls be equally divided.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park Addition Act of 2003. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I hope that it will receive quick approval again in the 108th Congress. The legislation provides for a small adjustment of the Park's boundaries to permit the purchase of permanent facilities for Park administrative purposes and to provide visitors with a modest interpretive center that will help them understand the cultural and historical treasures of the Park. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is located along the beautiful Kona coast on the island of Hawaii. It was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962 and was established as a National Historical Park in 1978. The Park was created to preserve, interpret, and perpetuate traditional Native Hawaiian culture. The ocean makes up over half of this 1,160-acre Park, and the boundaries include the culturally significant Kaloko and `Aimakapa fishponds and `Ai`opio fish trap. There are also several heiau, or Native Hawaiian religious sites, found in the Park. In 2001, 54,000 people visited Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, and the number of visitors continues to increase. In 2002, 70,000 people visited the Park, an increase of 16,000 visitors. We need a facility there that offers administrative personnel the space and the resources they need to carry out their management functions, and provides visitors with the opportunity to learn about this important part of Hawaii. Rather than erecting a new building and disturbing the resources within Park boundaries, the better option is to locate the facilities nearby on an already-developed parcel. The bill provides a simple, cost-effective solution to the important problems of growing visitorship and the need to provide adequate stewardship of cultural resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in Hawaii to make this possible. 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 Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park Addition Act of 2003. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I hope that it will receive quick approval again in the 108th Congress. The legislation provides for a small adjustment of the Park's boundaries to permit the purchase of permanent facilities for Park administrative purposes and to provide visitors with a modest interpretive center that will help them understand the cultural and historical treasures of the Park. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is located along the beautiful Kona coast on the island of Hawaii. It was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962 and was established as a National Historical Park in 1978. The Park was created to preserve, interpret, and perpetuate traditional Native Hawaiian culture. The ocean makes up over half of this 1,160-acre Park, and the boundaries include the culturally significant Kaloko and `Aimakapa fishponds and `Ai`opio fish trap. There are also several heiau, or Native Hawaiian religious sites, found in the Park. In 2001, 54,000 people visited Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, and the number of visitors continues to increase. In 2002, 70,000 people visited the Park, an increase of 16,000 visitors. We need a facility there that offers administrative personnel the space and the resources they need to carry out their management functions, and provides visitors with the opportunity to learn about this important part of Hawaii. Rather than erecting a new building and disturbing the resources within Park boundaries, the better option is to locate the facilities nearby on an already-developed parcel. The bill provides a simple, cost-effective solution to the important problems of growing visitorship and the need to provide adequate stewardship of cultural resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in Hawaii to make this possible. 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 support and cosponsor Senator Mikulski's amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill. Our amendment would prevent funds appropriated by this bill from being used to impose privatization quotas on Federal agencies. This amendment would promote sensible procurement policies by eliminating the need to contract out Federal work just to meet subjective targets. Decisions to contract out Federal work, which would reduce the Federal workforce, should never be based on political objectives. This amendment is an important step towards preventing contracting decisions based on arbitrary quotas. Under proposed regulations governing privatization, up to 850,000 Federal employee jobs will be reviewed for privatization. At minimum, the administration intends to open up at least 425,000 Federal jobs to competition by the end of 2004. The decision to do so is not based on data or hard science. How did the administration choose that number? I want my colleagues to know that there is no evidence that outsourcing such a sizeable number of Federal jobs so quickly will achieve any cost savings at all. The proposed revisions to A-76, the regulations governing the contracting of Federal work, support outsourcing quotas by forcing agencies to outsource jobs without first holding public- private competitions, regardless of whether the move to privatization saves the Government any money. Arbitrary quotas serve no purpose, and they place Federal workers in the unenviable position of never knowing whether their job will be eliminated. Even if employees were to understand the regulations governing Federal contracting, they would be competing in a system that is skewed toward private-sector bidders. Moreover, Federal managers are ill-prepared and undertrained to deal with large-scale outsourcing of government work. Federal employees are being forced to compete for jobs they already hold with very little, if any, training or guidance on how to enter the Federal contracting process and successfully compete with seasoned bidders. The past performance of Federal employees will not be taken into account when analyzing whether a Government contract should be awarded. However, a great value will be placed on the past performance of a private contractor. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am committed to an efficient, effective, and responsive Federal Government. However, as we look for ways to achieve this, we must ensure that contracting objectives are fair to our Federal workforce and result in cost savings. I do not believe that these goals are mutually exclusive. I will continue to work toward ensuring that Federal procurement policies are fair to Federal workers and cost-effective. The Mikulski amendment achieves this end, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the 107th Congress nears its conclusion, I rise to join my colleagues in remembering our beloved colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Wellstone family, Paul's staff, and the people of Minnesota. We are all saddened by the tragic deaths of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, their daughter, Marcia Wellstone Markuson, and the Wellstone staffers and pilots. America will sorely miss Paul Wellstone and his passionate advocacy on behalf of those in our communities and our country who too often feel that no one in Washington hears their voice. Paul Wellstone was their voice, he was their champion, driven by his unwavering conviction that government can and should be a force for good in people's lives. Paul was a caring, persistent, and passionate advocate for veterans, children, the mentally ill, and working families. He was committed to ensuring that all Americans had the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families, and that wherever possible, government act as a positive instrument to advance opportunity and equality for all Americans in education, job training, access to health care, and the availability of quality health care. He was driven by his commitment to civil rights and equal justice. Whether speaking on the Senate floor or to a workers' rally, retracing Robert F. Kennedy's tour of America's poorest communities, or visiting veterans hospitalized in Minnesota, Paul lived his convictions and values. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Paul Wellstone on an issue, there was never any doubt about his integrity, the passion and commitment he brought to his work, and the deep pride he felt in serving the people of Minnesota in the Senate. Paul and I were both first elected to the Senate in November 1990. I had been appointed to the Senate a few months earlier, but we were both the new kids on the block. From the outset, with his incandescent personality, exacting integrity, commitment to the values he espoused and the ability to speak passionately and eloquently about the issues he cared so deeply about Paul distinguished himself as an exceptional Senator and an extraordinary human being. Over the course of his tenure in the Senate, Paul became a dear friend. Because of the chronic discomfort he experienced as a consequence of his lifetime love of the sport of wrestling, he was interested in my experiences with hip replacement surgery. At the start of the 107th Congress, our offices were next to one another. His boundless energy, enthusiasm, and good spirits were always welcome and brightened the day for everyone he greeted on his way to and from his office. I remember one conversation on a long bus ride back from a Democratic retreat in Pennsylvania. My eldest son, Danny, had joined Millie and me for the weekend, and he struck up a quick friendship with Paul and Sheila. Over the course of ride back to Washington, we discussed philosophy and politics, the upcoming midterm elections, destiny, and the power of living in consonance with your values and beliefs. I listened as Paul and my son agreed on the importance of living life to the fullest and living every day as if it is your last. That day stays with me because that is precisely the way Paul Wellstone lived his life. He celebrated life. He loved his job and his constituents. He adored Sheila and his children and grandchildren. He always made the time to greet, talk to, or offer words of encouragement to everyone he encountered as he went about his day. To me, this is Paul's greatest legacy, the lives he touched, the people he inspired, the spirits he lifted with his message of hope and justice. Paul had hoped to visit Hawaii after the November election and had spoken to my son Danny about bringing his entire family for some well- deserved rest and relaxation. Paul and Sheila never had the opportunity to visit Hawaii with their children and grandchildren as we talked about, but they truly lived aloha. For aloha is love. And love is the spirit that brings people together in harmony. In its true sense, aloha has to be transmitted to others, especially to each other, and aloha really is in the giving, not the taking. When you give, you are sharing aloha. This is how Paul and Sheila Wellstone lived their lives and it is why we in the Senate family miss Paul and Sheila terribly. I want to bid Paul and Sheila Wellstone a fond aloha. May God bless them and the Wellstone family. Na Iehowa 'oe e ho'omaika'i mai, a e malama mai--The Lord bless you and keep you.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the administration's proposed changes to the A-76 process, and its impact on the Federal workforce and accountability in contracting decisions. The OMB draft rules issued last week raise serious questions over the transparency of Federal procurement policies and their effect on Federal workers. True competition must be fair to Federal employees, be cost-effective, and promote financial transparency and public accountability. The proposed regulations to A-76 do not represent fair competition. The regulations would place Federal workers at a severe disadvantage by implementing a competition process where Federal jobs may be eliminated at any time, even before a competition is completed. The process would place greater emphasis on a contractor's past performance but would fail to account for the past performance of in-house employees. The OMB proposal could threaten cost-effective procurement policies. Under the draft rules, subjective notions of ``best value'' would replace objective cost-savings in driving decisions for whether Federal work would be performed in-house or by the private sector. Government procurement should be based on sound analysis giving the greatest weight to cost savings. Decisions to contract out Federal jobs, which are based on projections and expectations of performance, risk squandering limited public resources on contractor promises to deliver more work than is needed, at a higher cost to the public. We must ensure that any changes to A-76 are fair. The OMB proposal would require agencies to complete competitions within a 12-month timeframe. If a Federal agency was unable to finish a competition in this time, OMB could simply out-source Federal jobs to a contractor without competition. Moreover, the draft regulations would support the administration's arbitrary targets for contracting out Federal jobs, which I oppose because these targets artificially impose goals for contracting out. The proposal would also expand the types of Federal jobs that would be subject to public-private competitions, such as supervisory positions. According to OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the majority of public-private competitions under the proposed rules would be based on the current lowest cost standard. There would be a pilot project to test the ``best value'' standard on information technology jobs. However, the use of the ``best value'' standard approach is controversial and subjective. I would hope that this would be limited to a genuine pilot project and would allow for a careful, objective review of the results. There are important steps we can take now to improve financial transparency and accountability in Federal contracting while strengthening fairness in public-private competitions. In June of this year, I was pleased to work with Senator Kennedy to improve financial transparency and cost-savings in contracting policies at the Department of Defense. Our amendment to the DoD authorization bill failed by only one vote. Our amendment would have required cost savings before decisions were made to contract out Government functions. It would have improved financial transparency by establishing measures for the true cost and size of the DoD contractor workforce. Our proposal would have promoted equity in public-private competitions by ensuring that Federal employees had the opportunity to compete for existing and new DoD work and that DoD competed an equitable number of contractor and civilian jobs. As chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Federal Services Subcommittee and Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I look forward to ensuring that Federal contracting policies are conducted in a manner that achieves the best return on the dollar and is fair to our Federal workforce. It is my intention to work with my colleagues in the 108th Congress to pursue these goals.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the administration's proposed changes to the A-76 process, and its impact on the Federal workforce and accountability in contracting decisions. The OMB draft rules issued last week raise serious questions over the transparency of Federal procurement policies and their effect on Federal workers. True competition must be fair to Federal employees, be cost-effective, and promote financial transparency and public accountability. The proposed regulations to A-76 do not represent fair competition. The regulations would place Federal workers at a severe disadvantage by implementing a competition process where Federal jobs may be eliminated at any time, even before a competition is completed. The process would place greater emphasis on a contractor's past performance but would fail to account for the past performance of in-house employees. The OMB proposal could threaten cost-effective procurement policies. Under the draft rules, subjective notions of ``best value'' would replace objective cost-savings in driving decisions for whether Federal work would be performed in-house or by the private sector. Government procurement should be based on sound analysis giving the greatest weight to cost savings. Decisions to contract out Federal jobs, which are based on projections and expectations of performance, risk squandering limited public resources on contractor promises to deliver more work than is needed, at a higher cost to the public. We must ensure that any changes to A-76 are fair. The OMB proposal would require agencies to complete competitions within a 12-month timeframe. If a Federal agency was unable to finish a competition in this time, OMB could simply out-source Federal jobs to a contractor without competition. Moreover, the draft regulations would support the administration's arbitrary targets for contracting out Federal jobs, which I oppose because these targets artificially impose goals for contracting out. The proposal would also expand the types of Federal jobs that would be subject to public-private competitions, such as supervisory positions. According to OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the majority of public-private competitions under the proposed rules would be based on the current lowest cost standard. There would be a pilot project to test the ``best value'' standard on information technology jobs. However, the use of the ``best value'' standard approach is controversial and subjective. I would hope that this would be limited to a genuine pilot project and would allow for a careful, objective review of the results. There are important steps we can take now to improve financial transparency and accountability in Federal contracting while strengthening fairness in public-private competitions. In June of this year, I was pleased to work with Senator Kennedy to improve financial transparency and cost-savings in contracting policies at the Department of Defense. Our amendment to the DoD authorization bill failed by only one vote. Our amendment would have required cost savings before decisions were made to contract out Government functions. It would have improved financial transparency by establishing measures for the true cost and size of the DoD contractor workforce. Our proposal would have promoted equity in public-private competitions by ensuring that Federal employees had the opportunity to compete for existing and new DoD work and that DoD competed an equitable number of contractor and civilian jobs. As chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Federal Services Subcommittee and Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I look forward to ensuring that Federal contracting policies are conducted in a manner that achieves the best return on the dollar and is fair to our Federal workforce. It is my intention to work with my colleagues in the 108th Congress to pursue these goals.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a core factor in America's leadership and strength in the new century: aerospace. The aerospace industry dominates the telecommunication and transportation world, while military aerospace expertise has defended the Nation and served as the eyes and ears of our forces overseas. Congress established an Aerospace Commission last year to study the state of the American aerospace industry in the global economy and national security and to assess the importance of the domestic aerospace industry for the future security of the Nation. It is appropriate that the Aerospace Commission released its report on the future of the aerospace industry this Monday during the final debate on homeland security, an area only beginning to appreciate what aerospace can offer. The Aerospace Commission reviewed the range of military, civil, and commercial aspects of aviation and space and studied the key components of the aerospace community--government, industry, labor, and academia. The Commission benefited from the broad range of expertise and experience among its Commissioners, including former Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, former Defense Under Secretary John Hamre, and Director of the Hayden Planetarium Dr. Neil Tyson. The Commission offered several recommendations to correct the weakening of the aerospace sector. Each recommendation addressed a different critical factor that is showing signs of fatigue. I would like to discuss the Commission's recommendations relating to the aerospace workforce and education. The aerospace industry, like many of our high-tech sectors, has a workforce crisis. According to the Commission report, our Nation has lost over 600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs in the past 13 years. These job losses, first due to reduced spending in defense, then due to acquisitions and mergers of aerospace companies, and later to foreign competition in the commercial aerospace market, represent a significant loss of skill and expertise. Many of the talented people who remain are approaching retirement. How will industry and the Government restore the aerospace workforce and make aerospace a field that attracts new and qualified talent? Unfortunately, even the Aerospace Commission could not arrive at any short-term solutions to this problem. The solution will only come from the Government's and the private sector's long-term attention and commitment. The Commission stressed that a long-term solution must begin with improved math and science education across the entire education range, from kindergarten to graduate school. Many of the Commission's recommendations in this regard mirror my own work on science and math education and the federal workforce. The Commission found that scholarship and internship programs to encourage more students to study and work in math, science, and engineering are vital if the aerospace community is to have a pool of scientifically and technologically trained applicants. The Commission stressed that Congress needs to renew its focus on national aerospace needs and priorities. Indeed, some of the Commission's recommendations are unconventional and will require the Senate's attention and deliberation to determine if they are the best solution. The Commission's nine recommendations were: Given the real and evolving challenges that confront our Nation, Government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in the national aerospace sector. The Commission recommends that the United States pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce, and exploration. The Commission concludes that superior mobility afforded by air transportation is a huge national asset and competitive advantage for the United States. The Commission recommends transforming the U.S. air transportation system as a national priority. Specifically, the Commission recommends rapid deployment of a new, highly automated air traffic management system that is robust enough to efficiently, safely, and securely accommodate an evolving variety and growing number of aerospace vehicles and civil and military operations. The Commission concludes that the Nation will have to be a space-faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century and that America must exploit and explore space to assure national security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery. The Commission recommends that the United States create a space imperative and a partnership between NASA, DOD, and industry to develop aerospace technologies, especially in the areas of propulsion and power. The Commission concludes that aerospace capabilities and the supporting defense industrial base are fundamental to U.S. economic and national security. The Commission recommends that the Nation adopt a policy that invigorates and sustains the aerospace industrial base. Specifically, the Commission recommends new procurement policies to include prototyping and spiral development to allow the continuous exercise of design and production skills; removing barriers to defense procurement of commercial products and services; and stable funding for core capabilities. The Commission concludes that the Government needs to create an environment that fosters innovation in the U.S. aerospace industry. The Commission recommends that the Federal Government establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace by creating a Government-wide management structure. This would include a White House policy coordinating council, and aerospace management office in OMB, and a joint committee in Congress. The Commission concludes that U.S. aerospace companies must have access to global consumers, suppliers, and partners in order to achieve economies of scale in production needed to integrate that technology into their products and services. The Commission recommends that U.S. and multilateral regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement of products and capital across international borders on a fully competitive basis, and establish a level playing field for U.S. industry in the global market place. This would include substantial overhaul of U.S. export control regulation and efforts by the U.S. Government to neutralize foreign government market intervention in areas such as subsidies, tax policy, export financing and standards. The Commission recommends a new business model for the aerospace sector, designed to promote a healthy and growing U.S. aerospace industry. This model is driven by increased and sustained Government investment and the adoption of innovative Government and industry policies that stimulate the flow of capital into new and established public and private companies. The Commission recommends the Nation immediately reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of, a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce. This would include efforts by the administration and Congress to create an interagency task force that develops a national strategy on the aerospace workforce to attract public attention to the importance and opportunities within the aerospace industry; establish lifelong learning as key elements of education reform; and make long-term investment in education and training with major emphasis in math and science. The Commission concludes that Government policies must be proactive and sustain public investments in long-term research and RDT&E infrastructure to get new breakthroughs in aerospace capabilities. The Commission recommends that the Federal Government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system. I was one of the first members of the House Space Caucus and understand the importance aerospace plays in our economy, security, and education. The Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, which I chair, released a report last year detailing how Federal civilian agencies use data collected by satellites and planes to carry out their missions. My own State of Hawaii is at the forefront of using aerospace technology and research to help Hawaii's fragile ecosystem and agriculture. I hope that my colleagues will take note of the information and recommendations in the Aerospace Commission report so that we can work together to sustain and strengthen our aerospace community. To quote the report, ``It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to preserve the balance of our leadership today and ensure our continued leadership tomorrow.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a core factor in America's leadership and strength in the new century: aerospace. The aerospace industry dominates the telecommunication and transportation world, while military aerospace expertise has defended the Nation and served as the eyes and ears of our forces overseas. Congress established an Aerospace Commission last year to study the state of the American aerospace industry in the global economy and national security and to assess the importance of the domestic aerospace industry for the future security of the Nation. It is appropriate that the Aerospace Commission released its report on the future of the aerospace industry this Monday during the final debate on homeland security, an area only beginning to appreciate what aerospace can offer. The Aerospace Commission reviewed the range of military, civil, and commercial aspects of aviation and space and studied the key components of the aerospace community--government, industry, labor, and academia. The Commission benefited from the broad range of expertise and experience among its Commissioners, including former Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, former Defense Under Secretary John Hamre, and Director of the Hayden Planetarium Dr. Neil Tyson. The Commission offered several recommendations to correct the weakening of the aerospace sector. Each recommendation addressed a different critical factor that is showing signs of fatigue. I would like to discuss the Commission's recommendations relating to the aerospace workforce and education. The aerospace industry, like many of our high-tech sectors, has a workforce crisis. According to the Commission report, our Nation has lost over 600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs in the past 13 years. These job losses, first due to reduced spending in defense, then due to acquisitions and mergers of aerospace companies, and later to foreign competition in the commercial aerospace market, represent a significant loss of skill and expertise. Many of the talented people who remain are approaching retirement. How will industry and the Government restore the aerospace workforce and make aerospace a field that attracts new and qualified talent? Unfortunately, even the Aerospace Commission could not arrive at any short-term solutions to this problem. The solution will only come from the Government's and the private sector's long-term attention and commitment. The Commission stressed that a long-term solution must begin with improved math and science education across the entire education range, from kindergarten to graduate school. Many of the Commission's recommendations in this regard mirror my own work on science and math education and the federal workforce. The Commission found that scholarship and internship programs to encourage more students to study and work in math, science, and engineering are vital if the aerospace community is to have a pool of scientifically and technologically trained applicants. The Commission stressed that Congress needs to renew its focus on national aerospace needs and priorities. Indeed, some of the Commission's recommendations are unconventional and will require the Senate's attention and deliberation to determine if they are the best solution. The Commission's nine recommendations were: Given the real and evolving challenges that confront our Nation, Government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in the national aerospace sector. The Commission recommends that the United States pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce, and exploration. The Commission concludes that superior mobility afforded by air transportation is a huge national asset and competitive advantage for the United States. The Commission recommends transforming the U.S. air transportation system as a national priority. Specifically, the Commission recommends rapid deployment of a new, highly automated air traffic management system that is robust enough to efficiently, safely, and securely accommodate an evolving variety and growing number of aerospace vehicles and civil and military operations. The Commission concludes that the Nation will have to be a space-faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century and that America must exploit and explore space to assure national security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery. The Commission recommends that the United States create a space imperative and a partnership between NASA, DOD, and industry to develop aerospace technologies, especially in the areas of propulsion and power. The Commission concludes that aerospace capabilities and the supporting defense industrial base are fundamental to U.S. economic and national security. The Commission recommends that the Nation adopt a policy that invigorates and sustains the aerospace industrial base. Specifically, the Commission recommends new procurement policies to include prototyping and spiral development to allow the continuous exercise of design and production skills; removing barriers to defense procurement of commercial products and services; and stable funding for core capabilities. The Commission concludes that the Government needs to create an environment that fosters innovation in the U.S. aerospace industry. The Commission recommends that the Federal Government establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace by creating a Government-wide management structure. This would include a White House policy coordinating council, and aerospace management office in OMB, and a joint committee in Congress. The Commission concludes that U.S. aerospace companies must have access to global consumers, suppliers, and partners in order to achieve economies of scale in production needed to integrate that technology into their products and services. The Commission recommends that U.S. and multilateral regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement of products and capital across international borders on a fully competitive basis, and establish a level playing field for U.S. industry in the global market place. This would include substantial overhaul of U.S. export control regulation and efforts by the U.S. Government to neutralize foreign government market intervention in areas such as subsidies, tax policy, export financing and standards. The Commission recommends a new business model for the aerospace sector, designed to promote a healthy and growing U.S. aerospace industry. This model is driven by increased and sustained Government investment and the adoption of innovative Government and industry policies that stimulate the flow of capital into new and established public and private companies. The Commission recommends the Nation immediately reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of, a scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce. This would include efforts by the administration and Congress to create an interagency task force that develops a national strategy on the aerospace workforce to attract public attention to the importance and opportunities within the aerospace industry; establish lifelong learning as key elements of education reform; and make long-term investment in education and training with major emphasis in math and science. The Commission concludes that Government policies must be proactive and sustain public investments in long-term research and RDT&E infrastructure to get new breakthroughs in aerospace capabilities. The Commission recommends that the Federal Government significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security, enables breakthrough capabilities, and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system. I was one of the first members of the House Space Caucus and understand the importance aerospace plays in our economy, security, and education. The Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, which I chair, released a report last year detailing how Federal civilian agencies use data collected by satellites and planes to carry out their missions. My own State of Hawaii is at the forefront of using aerospace technology and research to help Hawaii's fragile ecosystem and agriculture. I hope that my colleagues will take note of the information and recommendations in the Aerospace Commission report so that we can work together to sustain and strengthen our aerospace community. To quote the report, ``It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to preserve the balance of our leadership today and ensure our continued leadership tomorrow.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to reclaim 5 minutes of my time that I yielded to Senator Byrd.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Byrd to the pending legislation concerning homeland security. I voted earlier against invoking cloture on this legislation because in part I disagreed with many of the amendments which were added at the last moment by the House to this bill. The amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman would correct many problems in this House bill, although not all. There is much about the underlying bill which still needs to be corrected. I laid out earlier my concerns. Today however, I want to address the House's legislative ``add-ons'' that should be stripped from this bill. I think it is clear what the house has done in the midnight hour of this Congress. The House leadership has taken a moving train--legislation for a Department of Homeland Security--and attached gilded carriages for their special friends to travel on this legislative express. What has been added does not enhance the security of the American people. It enriches a select few companies and special individuals, and very special people. One provision is clearly meant to earmark a new university-based homeland security research center program for Texas A&M University, avoiding an open and competitive award process. All of us have universities, distinguished centers of higher learning in our states, all of which would welcome the opportunity to make their case for this funding. but under this bill, they will not get that chance. However, if the Daschle amendment passes, other colleges and universities would be permitted to demonstrate their competence to be a center for homeland security research, including Texas A&M. Another provision in this legislation would limit liability to companies producing homeland security technologies. The main intent of this provision is to eliminate the ability of Americans to obtain compensation should they be harmed by any of these technologies. The provision is open-ended. It does not define how anti-terrorism technologies will be identified. Under the liability provision sections, the Secretary has the discretion to designate which technologies will benefit from this additional protection from liability. This section is not about stimulating the development of new technologies to protect us. It is about finding new ways to protect companies from legal liability. Indeed one section of this bill is labeled ``Litigation Management.'' That says it all. The subparagraphs, almost too small to be noticed, undermine the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, and the public's right to know the make-up, meeting schedules, and findings of federal commissions, committees, councils, and task forces. These groups are chartered by the President, Congress, and agency heads to give independent advice and recommendations on substantial policy issues and technological problems. Congress enacted FACA in 1972 to address concerns of committees being redundant, having inadequate oversight, using secretive operations, and not representing public interest. FACA requires that the advice provided by such committees be objective and responsive to public concerns. Committee meetings are required to be open and properly noticed, with specific exceptions. The House bill would give the Secretary of Homeland Security a blanket exemption from FACA requirements once the Secretary notices the creation of a committee and its intent. One wonders why the House Leadership wants to overturn sunshine rules. What do they want to hide? This is a very serious matter. What sort of oversight will these committees have? Who will serve on them? Will all interests be represented? How will we confirm that the public interests have been met? To allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to set up advisory committees that are free from the balanced regulations of FACA is to retreat back to a time when special interests groups ran roughshod over the public's interest and recommended one sided-views without appropriate oversight. The original Lieberman substitute, and the original Gramm-Miller amendment, were based upon provisions that were debated and discussed within the Governmental Affairs Committee through hearings and business meetings. The bill before us today has several provisions that have not had that treatment and will directly benefit the airline and rail companies and other special interests. The Governmental Affairs Committee spent weeks and months studying, debating, and drafting legislation on homeland security. In contrast, this bill was not written in committee and some parts of the bill before us today have had only special interest input. That is not the best way to ensure public safety and national security. I yield my time, 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.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Maryland for yielding to me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my hour under cloture be yielded to Senator Byrd.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the critical distinctions between the legislation as reported out by the Governmental Affairs Committee and the House passed bill, creating a Department of Homeland Security. I think it is wise to proceed cautiously when creating a mega- Department of Homeland Security which would encompass approximately 22 agencies and involve about 170,000 employees. We all recognize that we face new threats, and we all recognize the need to better coordinate efforts to protect Americans from these threats. However, it is also critically important, as the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia has repeatedly noted, to consider carefully what is being proposed to ensure that any legislation enhances our security and does not detract from it. William Safire describes in Thursday's New York Times how the House proposed Homeland Security Act will create a computerized dossier on the private life of every American citizen. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Safire's prescient column entitled, ``You Are a Suspect''. His arguments are one reason why we should proceed cautiously to creating a Department of Homeland Security. The President compares the reorganization of agencies within the federal government into a new Department of Homeland Security to the creation of the Department of Defense after World War II. But the two departments that were combined to create the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy, had the same primary mission, to defend the United States. They had similar cultures and management priorities. This is not true of the proposed new Department of Homeland Security. Many of the agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have varying missions, priorities and cultures. Any far-reaching change to the structure of the federal government demands thorough and open discussion. Senator Lieberman has done a great service to his country by holding hearings and debating extensively the structure of such a department. But there needs to be further debate and amendment to the proposal offered by the Republicans. Let me make a dozen points as to why the legislation reported out by our Governmental Affairs Committee, which was subjected to numerous public hearings, represents an improvement over legislation passed by the House last night and why the House proposal, supported by the President, is seriously flawed. First, the House proposal raises serious concerns about the collection, use, and dissemination of private information, the issue addressed by Mr. Safire. It gives the Secretary broad access to information relating to investigations and places restrictions on the authority of the inspector general to conduct inquiries into the new department's operations. Our committee substitute corrected this oversight by creating both a strong Civil Rights Officer and a strong Chief Privacy Officer. The privacy officer would assist the Department with the development and implementation of policies and procedures to ensure that privacy considerations and safeguards are incorporated and implemented in programs and activities, and that information is handled in a manner that minimizes the risks of harm to individuals from inappropriate disclosure. Such officers are necessary to protect Americans from encroachments on their civil liberties. The committee-reported legislation created a powerful civil rights officer, ensuring compliance with all civil rights laws, coordinating with the administration, assisting in the development and implementation of civil rights policies, and reporting to the Inspector General on matters warranting further investigation. In contrast, the new bill just passed by the House would only require the Civil Rights Officer to review and assess alleged abuses and report to Congress. In the House bill the Secretary appoints the officer and in the Governmental Affairs committee-reported bill the President appoints and the Senate confirms the officer, ensuring greater accountability. The Committee alternative worked to ensure that civil rights were not violated in the first instance. The threat of a ``Big Brother'' new department cannot be overemphasized. With the President proposing programs like the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, Operation TIPS, a national program to encourage volunteers to report suspect activities to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense's new ``Total Information Awareness,'' we need strong protections against violations of Americans' privacy and civil rights. The first defense of our freedom comes from a system with checks and balances. The House proposal, supported by the President, does not contain sufficient checks and balances. Second, under the first House-passed bill and the President's original proposal, whistleblowers were not protected. Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, appeal rights as well as Office of Special Counsel, OSC, enforcement were not included. I am pleased to say that under the proposal before us today, whistleblowers retain most of their rights. However, the bill does not go far enough. Due to the waiver of collective bargaining rights, third-party arbitration may not be protected for those federal employees who are union members and blow the whistle. Third party arbitration is an effective way to resolve whistle blower cases due to the hostile decisions of the Federal Circuit. Third, the administration proposal transfers the Transportation Security Agency, TSA, into the new department. Baggage screeners are our first line of defense against terrorism on our airlines, and they need to have the same protections as our border patrol agents, INS employees, and custom inspectors so that they can come forward to disclose risks to our public health and safety. The committee's bill, as a result of an amendment offered by Senator Levin and myself, gave full whistleblower rights to baggage screeners and their supervisors and to contract screeners. This is something that the House proposal fails to do. Fourth, the new administration-supported bill gives minimal assurances that non-homeland security functions in the 22 agencies to be absorbed in the new Department will be preserved and not eliminated or diminished. The committee's amendment, which I offered with Senator Carper, required that all non-homeland security functions of each agency be identified, along with the resources needed to preserve these functions, and the additional changes needed to ensure that non- homeland security functions would not be diminished. The new proposal drops this critical reporting requirement. In fact, the new bill removes all reports to Congress which would allow Congress to monitor closely the creation of the new department and to ensure vital non- homeland security functions are preserved. Fifth, the committee-reported bill provided critical management guidance to the development of an effective homeland security mission. Agencies need specific guidance on how to achieve success. There are over 40 federal agencies with homeland security missions--some to be within the new department but others to remain outside. For many, homeland security is a new responsibility that must be added to existing missions. Agencies will need to rationalize their new homeland security missions with their existing responsibilities. The committee's amendment provided for a process for ensuring that this occurs. The House proposal does not. Sixth, the House-passed bill creates a new Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection with two subordinate directorates, including one for intelligence which is given extraordinary access to sensitive information, both domestic and foreign. Under the House formulation as supported by the President, the new Secretary can trump the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence. The new directorate will duplicate work already being performed by the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center. Furthermore, Section 202 of the President's bill requires all agencies to provide all information to the new Department, including information which might pertain to intelligence sources and methods, without the Secretary even having to request that information. This gives this new office unprecedented access with few checks and balances, suggesting that the new office may have the capability to intrude to an extraordinary extent into the private lives of individual American citizens. These are very worrisome developments. The new formulation risks endangering our individual, as well as our national, security. Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin and I had worked out an amendment which was contained in the committee bill. This amendment should have been accepted by the President. I am deeply troubled concerning the administration's new mission for the Department's intelligence directorate. Seventh, the latest proposal does not address the serious shortcomings across the Federal Government in communicating security threats to the public. The American people are confused and frustrated by threat advisories without direction and repeated statements by the administration that future terrorist attacks are inevitable. The committee bill ensured that the Secretary of the new Department worked with state and local officials to develop more effective alert systems, more useful warnings, and improved communication with the public and private sector. In short, the Governmental Affairs Committee's legislation would have empowered the American people to play a role in the war on terrorism. Eighth, this new proposal transfers the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security. However, many potential agriculture terrorism diseases, such as anthrax, are not studied at Plum Island. Rather than pulling off one piece of the Department of Agriculture's much needed and underappreciated laboratory network, the Governmental Affairs Committee alternative left Plum Island where it was and instead ensured coordination and consultation between the Department of Homeland Security and Agriculture on bioterrorism research priorities. Ninth, the House proposal does not address serious shortfalls in emergency preparedness and response capabilities for agricultural terrorism. The Lieberman alternative acknowledged the importance of agriculture to our national economy and the dangers that an infectious animal or plant disease could pose to human health, rural America, and our Nation's economy. A large scale agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require rapid and coordinated efforts by the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense, and Justice, and local and State emergency managers. The committee's amendment ensured that agricultural health diseases were considered in security assessments and that the animal health and agriculture communities would be included in planning, training, and response activities. Tenth, in the name of flexibility, the President's initial proposal waived all of the provisions of title 5 leaving federal employees without protection from discrimination or whistleblower retaliations. The House proposal maintains most of title 5; however, it allows for the waiver of provisions affecting collective bargaining rights and appeal rights. One of the key factors to the so-called success of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, and the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, two agencies that have managerial flexibilities, is the strong role federal labor unions play in the shaping of the personnel system and in resolving employee disputes through third-party arbitration. This third-party arbitration is even more critical since cases involving coercion to participate in political activity, violations of veterans preference rights, giving unlawful preference or advantage to any employee, or other prohibited personnel practices can no longer be appealed to an independent body such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. The personnel system at the FAA removed MSPB appeal rights in 1996 only to have them reinstated by Congress in 2000 at the urging of Federal employees and managers. While the merit system principles are designed to ensure that Federal employment is efficient, fair, open to all, and free from political interference, the civil service rules of title 5, reinforced by collective bargaining rights, provide the framework for implementing and enforcing merit principles. Without such laws in place, the principles we all strive for cannot be reached. The Governmental Affairs Committee's reported bill preserved all of title 5, protected collective bargaining rights, and provided additional flexibilities governmentwide. Some 25 years ago, the Civil Service Reform Act, CSRA, of 1978 responded to the same issues confronting our Government today. The act established the principles of openness and procedural justice that define the civil service today. It created the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel to protect the rights of Federal employees. The Federal Labor Relations Authority was created to oversee labor-management practices. The act provided a statutory basis for the collective bargaining rights of Federal workers. It prohibited reprisals against employees who expose government fraud, waste and abuse. Those in the Federal workforce demonstrate their loyalty and dedication not just to their employer but to their country every day. On September 11, the Federal workforce responded with courage, dedication, and sacrifice. Why is the President repaying their sacrifice by undermining their rights and our civil service by proposing these changes? Eleventh, the House legislation fails to protect veterans by allowing the waiver of chapter 77 of title 5 relating to appeals. This would make veterans go to an agency management-operated process to challenge anti- veteran personnel actions by the same agency management. Under current law, veterans who believe that they have been denied a position or have been subject to a ``designer'' Reduction-In-Force, RIF, action in violation of veterans' preference requirements can challenge such wrongful actions through the Merit Systems Protection Board or through a union grievance procedure. This will no longer be possible under the House bill. The Committee's bill would have preserved MSPB review of veterans' preference complaints. Ironically, as we are in the midst of a war on terrorism and have authorized a war against Iraq, the Administration is weakening veterans' preference rights. This is fundamentally wrong. Twelfth, the House proposal and the Governmental Affairs Committee- reported bill include provisions protecting the confidential sharing of critical infrastructure information. With cyber attacks on the rise, government and industry leaders have been seeking a way to facilitate the sharing of information related to cyber vulnerabilities and attacks. Sharing such information is important because 85 percent of the Nation's infrastructure is controlled by private utility, telecommunications, or other similar companies. Despite the need to facilitate information sharing, I question the extent to which such information will be protected and the impact of such protections on environmental and public health laws. In general, the owners and operators of critical infrastructure are concerned about the type and scope of information they are being asked to submit to the government. This data deals with vulnerabilities, incidents, and remedies which, if made available to business competitors or to the general public, could compromise their competitive position, expose them to liability, disclose sensitive information to terrorists and others who might wish to disrupt the function of their infrastructure, or harm their public relations. However, current law provides adequate protection to the private sector for disclosing this type of information to the Federal Government. Nonetheless, industry has expressed its concern over non- binding case law that could be overturned. As such, the Governmental Affairs Committee bill provided a narrow exception to the Freedom of Information Act which closely follows current law. This provision was designed to facilitate the sharing of information with the Federal Government, while at the same time providing citizens with necessary information on public health and environmental issues. The Committee bill was careful not to provide an inadvertent safe harbor for those who violate Federal health and safety statutes. For these reasons, I believe that the Governmental Affairs Committee's legislation offered a more effective approach to guarding homeland security than the proposal advocated by the President who recently stated that ``our job--our government's greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. ``I agree with the President, but I do not agree that by voting for the President's flawed proposal we will be adequately protecting the American people.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I thank my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for his support and cooperation. It is truly an honor to work with him as we both seek to advance the readiness of our armed forces. I also commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their tireless efforts during a challenging conference. As the chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, I want to highlight a few provisions in the conference report which enhance the readiness of the men and women in our armed forces. The bill protects the $10 billion the President requested for operating costs of the ongoing war on terrorism. Fully funding this request reinforces our country's commitment to continuing the war on terrorism, and it also means that in so doing we will not have to rob funds from the operation and maintenance accounts needed to fund all of our other critical ongoing defense activities such as training and maintenance. Conferees also took actions to ensure that our forces can continue to make the most prudent use of existing training assets. To do this, we authorized exemption of the Department of Defense from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when training events result in incidental takings, but required DOD to take appropriate actions to avoid any unnecessary takings. We also authorized the Department of Defense to enter into partnerships to purchase land, or easements on land, that would protect training ranges, and provided $7.2 million for improvements to those ranges. While the conferees believed that this change to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was necessary to protect readiness in light of recent court actions, the conferees did not believe the administration made the case that the exemptions it sought from the Endangered Species Act for the Department of Defense were warranted. I continue to believe that when the Department's training needs for land, sea and air space conflict with other needs in our society, whether it is protecting the environment or accommodating the surrounding civilian populations, our focus should be first and foremost on ensuring that all parties involved work together in a spirit of cooperation. To help to address longer term readiness challenges, the conferees, continued our efforts from last year to enhance the Department of Defense's coordination of anti-corrosion programs. Studies estimate that corrosion costs the Department up to $20 billion annually, and that corrosion continues to be a serious maintenance challenge and manpower drain. We therefore recommended that DOD designate a senior official to oversee anti-corrosion plans and policies, and added over $10 million to fund those efforts and other anti-corrosion testing, research, and product applications. In an effort to continue efforts to improve the quality of life, conferees authorized the requested increases to improve the buildings where servicemembers live and work, and added an additional $740 million in military construction funding, which will be enough to maintain the level of investment in our facilities at last year's level. Included in this amount is over $700 million in funding specifically dedicated to enhancing the security of our installations. To improve DOD management, the bill includes a number of provisions to expand DOD's authority to acquire major weapon systems more efficiently. With respect to services contracts, we built on last year's legislation requiring improved management of the $50 billion DOD spends annually on services by establishing specific goals for the use of competitive contracts and performance-based contracting. These goals should help ensure that the Department of Defense achieves contract services savings through specific management improvements rather than through program reductions. The conference report also requires DOD to develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture, and addresses recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and travel cards by certain military and civilian personnel. I also want to mention an issue of significant importance to the people of Hawaii--the cleanup of the island of Kahoolawe. I commend the Navy and the State of Hawaii for working to resolve a number of challenges. I am pleased about the Navy's commitment to continue clearance efforts until November 11, 2003, and its continued efforts to meet the intent and goals of the memorandum of agreement between the Navy and the State of Hawaii signed in 1994. While I am disappointed that the conference report does not include the provisions passed by the Senate with respect to concurrent receipt, I believe the conference report strongly supports the readiness of our forces, both now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.