Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the current state of the economy. Too many working Americans are confronted with difficult financial situations due to the slowdown in the economy. I continue to believe in economic education and financial literacy as a major part of the solution for people to improve their unique situations. However, such efforts cannot truly succeed without sound fiscal policies to keep our economy strong. Many American families are having difficulties making ends meet. Over two million jobs have been lost since January 2001. The unemployment rate for September was 5.6 percent, an increase from the 3.9 percent unemployment rate in September and October of 2000. Home foreclosures are occurring at the fastest rate in thirty years and others are falling behind on their payments. Health care costs have increased rapidly. As a result, many are paying substantially more for their insurance coverage. Rising prescription drug costs have made it costly to obtain necessary medication, particularly for seniors. I agree with the Majority Leader in his prescription for the sick economy. Unemployment insurance must be extended to help those who are still struggling to find work in these tough economic times. An estimated 1.5 million people exhausted their Federal extended unemployment benefits by the end of September. The total for the end of the year is expected to rise to 2.2 million individuals. The minimum wage needs to be increased. Since establishing the minimum wage requirement in 1938, we have had only 19 increases in the minimum wage. The latest occurred in September 1997. The earnings of average Americans have grown little, and the overall distribution of income has become increasingly unequal. The real value of the minimum wage has fallen by 11 percent since the last increase. Currently, a minimum wage employee working full time earns about $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. We need to increase the minimum wage to help those millions of Americans earning the minimum wage who are rapidly becoming a permanent underclass in our society. The savings of Americans have been ravaged in the last few years. The reduction in the value of retirement accounts is particularly troubling because Americans will have a harder time achieving the goal of a comfortable retirement. Over $210 billion in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans was lost in 2001. Individual Retirement Accounts lost over $230 billion in 2001. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and other criminally managed companies have shaken the markets after the accounting scandals and disclosure of corporate misdeeds. We need the Securities and Exchange Commission to be aggressive in its pursuit of fraud and corporate malfeasance. Without trust, our markets and economy cannot effectively function. The Sarbanes corporate accountability legislation that passed this summer will help provide additional safeguards for investors. With the recent addition of the new Securities and Exchange Commissioners, I look forward to the development of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. It is my hope that the organization will become a friend and advocate for the investor--not the accounting industry. The corporate accountability bill must be strongly enforced. In addition, pension protection legislation needs to be enacted to empower workers to make it easier for them to sell company stock and to make their investments more secure. It is troubling that revenues have declined when there are so many domestic and defense needs. The 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut, which was enacted in June 2001, has contributed to a rapid surge in the size of the Federal budget deficit. The FY 2002 budget deficit is now estimated to be $157 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office's monthly budget review. Gone are the years of budget surpluses. Although some of this can be attributed to necessary spending for national security in the wake of September 11, 2001, we cannot ignore the overall impact of last year's tax cut package. We must reexamine the tax cuts that have yet to take effect. The tax cuts were enacted at a time when the economy appeared stronger, there was a Federal budget surplus, and the tragic events of September 11 had not yet occurred. Now, fiscal responsibility requires all options to be on the table, such as postponing or canceling specific upper income tax cuts. I know that some of my colleagues share my concerns, and I look forward to working with them on this issue. The American people will pay a large price for the tax cuts that generally are for the wealthiest Americans. When fully implemented, the tax cuts will give more tax breaks to the top one percent of taxpayers than to the combined total of the bottom 80 percent. It will be extremely difficult to pay down the public debt, which at the end of FY 2002 was estimated to be $3.6 trillion. It also will be difficult to provide a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, and to adequately fund education and other vital programs and services. Unfortunately, there are those who want to further compound our fiscal crisis by making the tax cuts permanent. Responsible fiscal policy is needed, or possible adverse effects, such as increasing interest rates, may further weaken the economy. Prior to the enactment of the tax cuts, the public debt was expected to be eliminated by 2009. This is no longer true. Future generations of taxpayers will be stuck paying the bill for these current tax cuts, and the picture would look even worse if the cuts are made permanent. As a former classroom teacher and principal, I would like to say another word about education, which is one of the most important responsibilities we have regarding our children and our nation's future. The No Child Left Behind Act became law in January of this year. This sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act places before our schools dramatic mandates that they improve student performance or face tough consequences. The FY 2003 budget request, rather than including the funding needed to properly implement changes in the Act, requested the smallest increase in education spending in seven years. Furthermore, the budget request included education cuts of $1.76 billion, which would eliminate 40 programs and cut an additional 16. I am thankful to my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee for restoring much of this funding. Going forward, we must continue to use fiscal restraint, but we must balance this with the need to invest in critical priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues on initiatives to encourage job growth, provide assistance for workers who have lost their jobs, and help alleviate the economic strain that has impacted most Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to add their energies to these efforts.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Federal Government's commitment to disaster mitigation and helping communities minimize the impact of natural and man-made hazards. Currently, the Senate is locked in a debate on how to help State and local officials prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. Homeland security will benefit from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, years of experience because disaster mitigation and terrorism preparedness have the same goal, helping people prepare for the worst. FEMA's two multi-hazard mitigation programs, the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP, and the pre-disaster Project Impact program, are aimed at helping States and communities identify and address natural hazard risks they deem most significant. In March 2001 the administration proposed the elimination of all pre- disaster mitigation funding because Project Impact was ``ineffective.'' After learning that there had been no formal review of the effectiveness of this or any multi-hazard mitigation program, I requested that GAO review FEMA's disaster mitigation efforts. I am happy to announce the release of this comprehensive and timely report. The parameters of this study have changed in the past year. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent and prudent focus on homeland security, the Nation began noticing the relationship of pre-disaster mitigation programs to proposed new preparedness efforts for homeland security. I asked GAO to expand its study to include an assessment of how the increased emphasis on preventing and preparing for terrorism events is affecting natural hazard mitigation. In March 2002 the administration proposed to change fundamentally FEMA's disaster mitigation strategy again by eliminating the HMGP. Currently, HMGP funding is issued to States after a presidentially declared disaster as a percentage of total Federal assistance, a process deemed ineffective and not cost-efficient by the administration. The administration instead is seeking to fund all mitigation through an expanded Project Impact-like program on a nationally competitive grant basis. The administration believes that such a program will ensure that mitigation funding remains stable from year to year and that the most cost-beneficial projects receive funding. At that time, I asked GAO to include this latest proposal. GAO interviewed hazard mitigation officials from 24 states to get their perspectives on current FEMA programs and the administration's proposals. The States range from large population States, such as Florida and Illinois, to smaller States, such as Nebraska and Utah. GAO purposely selected both small and large States, containing urban and rural communities, that have received both small and large amounts of mitigation funding. Despite geographic differences, emergency management officials view FEMA's mitigation programs as successful and effective. Emergency management officials described how, in addition to traditional ``brick and mortar'' programs, such as retrofitting buildings and relocating properties, mitigation effects can be intangible. Mitigation includes outreach activities, such as increasing public awareness and support for mitigation, building public-private partnerships to pool mitigation resources, and ever-important planning and risk assessment. We must listen to these officials, the end-users of mitigation programs, when determining program success or failure. These dedicated men and women have many concerns over the administration's proposal. They worry that FEMA will lose the window of opportunity that exists after a disaster strikes if HMGP funds are not included in Federal assistance. This is when public and community interest in mitigating against future disasters is highest. They worry that a competitive grant system might exclude some States entirely from mitigation funding. GAO also interviewed FEMA officials. FEMA headquarters and regional office personnel identified several challenges in implementing a national competitive grant program. Chief among them is establishing a process for comparing the costs and benefits of projects. Emergency managers around the country share FEMA's concerns that the outreach and planning activities they feel are so important will be curtailed because of the difficulty associated with assigning cost-benefit to such programs. This issue will have ramifications in homeland security when the new Department of Homeland Security is told to determine the cost-benefit of terrorism preparedness efforts. I was heartened to learn that FEMA is working to ensure and strengthen natural hazard mitigation, response, and recovery efforts while attending to homeland security needs. FEMA officials are identifying and correcting redundancies in reporting, planning, training, and other activities across mitigation and preparedness programs. FEMA mitigation experts are working to identify terrorism mitigation activities that are also ``all hazard'' and address natural hazard mitigation priorities. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, passed by Congress 2 years ago, emphasized involvement by all States, funding for planning activities, and increased post-disaster mitigation funding for States willing to undertake enhanced mitigation efforts. FEMA has taken our directive to heart and is implementing multi-hazard mitigation programs in coordination and cooperation with State and local officials. While a focus on obtaining the most cost-effective program is well intended, I share the concerns of the emergency management community and FEMA personnel that assigning a dollar amount to the benefit of doing mitigation, or the cost of not doing it, is a difficult and ill-defined task. I share their doubts that consolidating the HMGP and Project Impact programs will make disaster mitigation more effective or successful. After reviewing the GAO report, FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh wrote to GAO, `` I appreciate your support of my strongly held belief that funding and support of both pre- and post-disaster mitigation programs are critical to FEMA's success in leading the nation to reduce disaster losses.'' I agree with Director Allbaugh. We must continue to to support pre-disaster mitigation as an investment for the future. I commend GAO on their insightful report, and I thank JayEtta Hecker and her team at GAO for their work.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. I do so with two cardinal prerequisites: first, that all possible means be exhausted short of war to enforce United Nations resolutions concerning Iraq and, second, that any attack against Iraq take place as part of an international coalition. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Before the United States wages war against Iraq, President Bush and the Congress owe it to the young Americans who face death or injury in that conflict to ensure that every effort has been made to obtain our ends without endangering them. Every ounce of preparation must be taken to ensure a swift and efficient outcome should war become necessary. As another President, Herbert Hoover, once said, ``Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.'' The burden is on our leaders to justify why young men and women need to risk their future now. Defense analysts suggest that anywhere from 100,000 to 400,000 troops will be necessary for an attack. There are already approximately 75,000 Reservists and National Guard troops on active duty, and even more may be needed to deal with the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan while not degrading military missions elsewhere in the world. An occupation force in Iraq might require at least 75,000 troops plus a civilian counterpart to the military presence. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the war will cost between $6 billion to $9 billion a month on top of an initial deployment cost of $9 billion to $13 billion and that an occupation force would cost $1 billion to $4 billion per month. Remember in the first Persian Gulf War, it was our allies who paid for the war. The cost of the war this time will be borne largely by the American treasury, unless we are supported by an international coalition. With a battered economy, it will be difficult to fund two wars at once for an indefinite period of time. Already our funds are stretched. The head of the U.S. Special Operations Command has indicated that he requires an additional $23 billion over the next 5 years to maintain his global responsibilities. The need to justify such a course of action is particularly critical in the case of Iraq as President Bush is advocating a preemptive strike against a potential threat to the American homeland. Traditionally, America has never sought war by striking first nor has America eagerly sought foreign entanglements. This would be a preemptive war and one in which we could have few allies. Not since the Spanish-American War would the United States be fighting a war so far from our borders with so few friends. As we consider this war, we must also consider the implications of what we are doing. Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator who oppresses his people, attacks his neighbors, and is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, Syria's Bashar al- Asad, and others, all pose threats or have posed threats to American interests. All are known for their human rights abuses. American troops stand eye to eye with North Korean troops on the DMZ. Libyan agents blew up an American commercial aircraft; Iran has imprisoned American diplomats; and Syria has supported terrorist groups who have attacked and murdered Americans. All have or are developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Some of these countries may already have nuclear weapons. Some have attacked--directly or indirectly through support for terrorist groups--their neighbors. In the case of Iran, recent reports indicate that it is sheltering and assisting al-Qaida leaders. In the case of other countries, we are working diligently, through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, to constrain their efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. However, in regard to Iraq, the President argues that Saddam poses a unique threat. His argument is convincing concerning the extent of devastation that Saddam has wreaked on his own people and his neighbors. He is truly, as the President notes, a ``homicidal dictator,'' but he is not the only dictator addicted to developing weapons of mass destruction. Nor is the policy solely a choice between invading Iraq or standing hopelessly by while Saddam becomes ever stronger. Since the Persian Gulf War, we and our allies have worked to make Saddam weaker and, according to all reports, including that of our own military, Saddam's military capability is much less now than it was in 1991. Congressional testimony, reports by the intelligence community and outside analysts, state that Iraq's WMD capability is much less now than it was before the Gulf War. A recent CIA public report states that Iraq's chemical weapons capability ``is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war . . . '' Although it is probable that Iraq's biological weapons program is more advanced than it was before the war, its delivery capability, according to the respected London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, ``appears limited.'' I agree that we must neutralize Iraq's WMD threat. The question is how to do that most effectively while minimizing the loss in American lives. The argument that an inspection system cannot guarantee the elimination of Iraq's WMD program is certainly true but misses the point. There are few absolutes in this world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld insists that we need American troops on the ground, rummaging through every Iraqi nook and cranny for evidence of WMD. Even with our troops doing so, there would be no guarantee that every item would be uncovered or how long it would take. We are still finding traces of chemical weapons left over from World War I in the backyards of homes in Washington, D.C. Nor have our troops in Afghanistan, despite heroic efforts, been able to eradicate every al-Qaida operative. But what aggressive inspections can do is destabilize the Iraqi WMD program, keep it bottled up, frustrate efforts at gaining new technologies and additional supplies, and force Iraqi technicians to hide and keep moving constantly. It will not be disarmament, but, if implemented effectively, it will be dismemberment of the Iraqi WMD program, splitting it in parts and preventing it from becoming whole. A new inspection regime has to be very aggressive, receive considerable support from the United States and its allies, have a fixed set of dates for marking compliance, and be backed by the threat of war. Iraq's record of evading inspections is well documented. Benchmarks for compliance will remove wiggle room for countries who argue for a softening of sanctions provisions. Putting in place an aggressive new inspection regime is not an insubstantial achievement, and it does not undermine necessary preparations to develop an effective war-fighting strategy and strengthen international backing for a conflict. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration tell us that time is not on our side. But we must make the time to ensure that we minimize American casualties. Time is not on Saddam Hussein's side either. Our patience has been exhausted and a new U.N. resolution must be firm in its deadlines. Some in the Administration believe Saddam's hold on those responsible for guarding him is so tenuous that in the event of an attack, they will turn on him and overthrow him. The current discussion about Iraq has obscured the successes of American policy toward Iraq. A recent Congressional Research Service report by its distinguished Middle East expert, Kenneth Katzman, observes, the United States ``has largely succeeded in preventing Iraq from reemerging as an immediate strategic threat to the region.'' A British Government intelligence report notes that the ``success of U.N. restrictions means the development of new longer-range missiles is likely to be a slow process.'' If war becomes inevitable because Iraq refuses to give inspectors the liberty they need to perform their mission, then the United States must have an effective military strategy for fighting a war. Great uncertainty surrounds the President's post-war strategy. Remember the day the war ends, Iraq becomes our responsibility, our problem. The United States lacks strategic planning for a post-conflict situation. Retired General George Joulwan recently said that the U.S. needs ``to organize for the peace'' and design now a strategy with ``clear goals, milestones, objectives.'' General Joulwan argues we did not have such a plan for Bosnia and we are late to develop one in Afghanistan. Our objectives in Iraq have not yet been made clear: is it our goal to occupy Baghdad and if so, for how long? A rush to battle without a strategy to win the peace is folly. General Hoar observed that ``there has been scant discussion about what will take place after a successful military campaign against Iraq. The term ``regime change'' does not adequately describe the concept of what we expect to achieve as a result of a military campaign in Iraq. One would ask the question, ``Are we willing to spend the time and treasure to rebuild Iraq and its institution after fighting, if we go it alone during a military campaign? Who will provide the troops, the policemen, the economists, the politicians, the judicial advisors to start Iraq on the road to democracy? Or are we going to turn the country over to another thug, who swears fealty to the United States?'' As General Shalikashvili stated in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, ``we were very fortunate in Afghanistan that in fact a government, interim government, emerged that seemed to have a modicum of support from its people. . . . We should not count on being lucky twice.'' Nor can we count on Iraq's oil funding reconstruction if wellheads are blown up as they were by retreating Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Experts indicate that American troops will need to remain inside Iraq for many years in order to ensure stability. Iraq will require extensive economic assistance. As the current situation in Afghanistan indicates, the process of restoring viability to a nation--nation- building--after years of repression is a difficult one and made more difficult by the inability of other nations to sustain their support in the effort. Violent attacks are on the increase in Afghanistan. Afghan officials have received only about half of the $1.8 billion in aid promised last January. A study by the Army's Center of Military History has concluded that we would need to commit 300,000 peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan and 100,000 in Iraq if we are to have an impact comparable to that which we had in reconstructing Japan and Germany after the war. The consequences of a long-term American occupation of Iraq needs to be carefully weighed. Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has observed, ``there has been a `deafening silence' from the Administration about how Iraq will be run after Hussein.'' Historically, the United States has had a poor record in the Middle East. We supported Iraq in its war against Iran. Nor does eliminating Saddam necessarily mean that the Iraqi people will welcome American occupiers or that they will have democratic leaders to govern. Secretary Rumsfeld asserts that he trusts the Iraqi people will be inspired to form a new government. But can we be assured that it would be a democratic government or a democratic government that is pro- American? Can we be assured that the new regime will be committed to getting rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, especially as Iraq's traditional adversary, Iran, has an even more advanced program of weapons of mass destruction? Even though our military forces may be equipped to fight a war in Iraq and a war on terrorism in Afghanistan, there is a significant price to be paid. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, noted that certain unique units, such as intelligence platforms, command and control assets, and Special Operations Forces would need to be prioritized if the war on terrorism expanded. Richard Solomon, former Assistant Secretary of State in the first Bush Administration, refers to the ``danger of over-stretch'' in which the United States assets are deployed in multiple nation-building enterprises and are not able to respond if another crisis erupts. All of these concerns point to the importance of international support as a critical ingredient of both our war-fighting and our peace-making strategy. Without the imprimatur of the international community, the President's war will be seen as a private vendetta by the United States. The President was right to frame his speech at the United Nations in the context of restoring credibility to the United Nations through enforcement of its resolutions. This is the essential context of this conflict but it can be validated as such only if the international community joins it. Regional support will provide an allied force with the forward basing needed to mount a large-scale attack. Right now no country in the region contiguous to Iraq is volunteering to host American troops in a war. International support will help dampen hostility toward the United States by the peoples of the region and help build support among the Iraqi people. International support for the post-war, peace-making phase of the operation will reduce the American military's footprint and decrease the need for American financial resources. Secretary Rumsfeld has testified that the United Nations or an international coalition will run Iraq after Saddam. For that to be the case, the United Nations or some ad hoc international coalition will have to be formed before the war. The President also must ensure our troops are properly prepared. Recently, the Pentagon's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Chemical and Biological Defense stated that American troops are not ``fully equipped and prepared'' against a bio-chem attack. Decontamination shelters are reported to be in short supply as is the decontaminant foam used to clean up following an attack. The General Accounting Office recently testified that 250,000 defective protective suits against a chemical or biological attack cannot be located and may remain in current Pentagon inventories. We must take the threat of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack very seriously. According to the British Government's White Paper on Iraq, Iraq chemical weapons caused over 20,000 casualties in the Iran- Iraq War. Iraq used sprayers, bombs, artillery rockets, and artillery shells to deliver these weapons. Thousands of rockets and artillery shells filled with chemical weapons remain hidden in Iraq's arsenal. Haste makes waste, affirms the adage, and in this case, haste means a waste of American lives. We may have an all-volunteer force but they are not mercenaries; they are citizen-soldiers and we owe it to each and every one of them and their families to proceed carefully when endangering their lives. Preparation is not the same as procrastination. Constituent opinion in my home state is running strongly against any authorization of the use of force against Iraq. The President and his Administration need to make a clear and compelling case to the American people and to our allies abroad as to why this confrontation is necessary now. For that reason, Mr. President, I support efforts to frame a multilateral approach to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I support action by the United Nations in the form of a resolution calling for unconditional and unfettered inspections in Iraq. Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the President must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution passed last night in the other body, along with my colleagues Senators Inouye, Kennedy, and others, which continues our tribute to Congresswoman Pasty Takemoto Mink in the wake of her untimely passing on September 28, 2002. The resolution honors a remarkable woman and her accomplishments for equal opportunity and education by renaming after her a provision in law commonly known as Title IX that consists of few words but has had incomprehensible and tremendous positive impact on the lives of countless numbers of girls and women in our country. With our combined action, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 will now be known as the Pasty Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. As we honor our colleague, we can also recount some of the milestones in the 30-year history of Title IX and the efforts to establish standards of equal opportunity of women. The progress we as a Nation have made in 30 years has been remarkable, and we have Patsy and a few of her visionary colleagues to thank for the equal opportunities our children enjoy today. In 1970, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor held the first Congressional hearings on sex discrimination in education. At those hearings, Patsy made the following statement, ``Discrimination against women in education is one of the most insidious forms of prejudice extant in our nation. Few people realize the extent to which our society is denied full use of our human resources because of this type of discrimination. Most large colleges and universities in the United States routinely impose quotas by sex on the admission of students. Fewer women are admitted than men, and those few women allowed to pursue higher education must have attained exceptional intellectual standing to win admission.'' She went on to state, ``Our nation can no longer afford this system which demoralizes and demeans half of the population and deprives them of the means to participate fully in our society as equal citizens. Lacking the contribution which women are capable of making to human betterment, our nation is the loser so long as this discrimination is allowed to continue.'' In April, 1972, Congresswoman Mink introduced the Women's Education Act of 1972. On the day of introduction, on the floor of the other body, she said, ``We need the input of every individual to continue the progress we enjoy. All persons, regardless of their sex, must have enough opportunities open so that they can contribute as much to their lives and this society as they can.'' She further noted that, ``it is essential to the existence of our country that sincere and realistic attention to there realignment of our attitudes and educational priorities be made. I suggest that education is the first place to start in a reexamination of our national goals.'' On June 23, 1972, Congresswoman Mink, working with Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon and others on the then Education and Labor Committee, saw their efforts on an important education package come top fruition as the Education Amendments of 1972 were signed into law. Title IX was included in that package. Final regulations for Title IX were issued on June 4, 1975. On June 17, 1997, President Clinton announced that he issued an executive memo directing all appropriate federal agencies to review their Title IX obligation and report their findings within 90 days to the Attorney General. In all, although the reach of Title IX has been felt the most in the athletics arena, the landmark statutes about gender roles in our society and helped to correct inequalities in areas such as educational attainment by women, educator pay, and the wide range of extracurricular activities enjoyed by female students of all ages. Much of this would not have been possible, were it not for the immense vision and determination of Patsy Mink. Last Friday, I attended a most fitting and moving memorial service for Patsy in Honolulu, Hawaii. I joined the senior Senator from Hawaii and many dignitaries from the other body, as well as many of Hawaii's other distinguished elected officials and thousands of Hawaii residents, in attendance to pay tribute to Patsy Mink. Among the eloquent speakers, University of Hawaii Assistant Athletics Director Marilyn Moniz-Kahoohanohano called herself, ``a living example of Mrs. Mink's vision of quality for women.'' Marilyn recounted how she had just graduated from high school after the passage of Title IX, and the University of Hawaii formed the Rainbow Wahine athletic teams. She recalled, with joy, how she and her team placed second for the national volleyball title and took pictures with Patsy on the steps of the Capitol. Marilyn's powerful words on Friday range true for many female athletes in Hawaii and around the country, as she said, ``Because of you, we can play the game.'' I urge the Senate to act quickly on this resolution to honor the groundbreaking efforts of Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink on behalf of countless girls and women of America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise once again to point out problems with the amendment offered by Senators Gramm and Miller which would take away the rights of Federal workers. Last week I spoke of the need to provide full whistleblower protection to employees in the new Department of Homeland Security, and how the Gramm-Miller amendment fails to provide such protection despite claims to the contrary. While the substantive rights are maintained for whistleblowers, the methods to enforce such rights are not part of the amendment. And despite claims made by the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, yesterday that veterans' preference would be protected, the Gramm-Miller amendment fails to fully protect veterans in the new Department. It appears that my colleagues believe that by maintaining the merit system principles, the new Department will protect our Federal employees from retaliation for blowing the whistle and from violations of veterans' preference requirements. However, simply following the merit principles will not fully protect the Federal workers who protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We must provide a neutral third- party method to enforce such rights. The Gramm-Miller amendment fails to do this. Currently, Federal employees, 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. Whistleblowers who allege that they have been subject to a prohibited personnel practice may go through the Office of Special Counsel and to the MSPB for corrective action. In addition, whistleblowers can bring allegations of retaliation through the union grievance procedure. The Gramm-Miller substitute amendment would block both routes for redress. Under Gramm-Miller, the Department of Homeland Security could waive any and all due process appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Instead, the due process procedures in current law would be replaced with an internal department appeals process. By allowing the agency, rather than an independent third party, to determine whether the agency violated veterans' preference or other employee protection laws, we will have removed the impartiality of the process. However, under the Lieberman substitute, as well as the Nelson- Chafee-Breaux amendment, veterans' rights are not compromised. The appeals to the MSPB under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 77 may not be waived. In addition, Chapter 71 of Title 5 which relates to Labor-Management Relations, may not be waived. This allows veterans and whistleblowers who are in collective bargaining units to exercise their right to use a negotiated grievance process to challenge violations of veterans' preference requirements or the Whistleblower Protection Act. Under the Gramm-Miller substitute, the new Department could waive the labor- management statutory requirements in Title 5. As such, grievance rights and union representation could quickly disappear. Quite simply, under the Gramm-Miller substitute, veterans may still have veterans' preference rights, but they will have no way to seek redress for any violation of those rights. We have a proud history of protecting the rights of veterans and federal workers who protect this country. Whether they are whistleblowers or veterans, these Federal employees serve their Nation well. We need to support those who are willing to serve their Government.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 30 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to offer a few words in tribute to a distinguished colleague and dear friend, Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink, who passed away Saturday afternoon in Honolulu, HI. I am deeply saddened by the passing of my friend and colleague, Patsy Mink, and I join our Congressional delegation, and the people of Hawaii and the Nation in extending heartfelt sympathy to John and Wendy Mink, her husband and daughter, Eugene Takemoto, her brother, and all of Patsy's extended family and her loyal staff in Washington and Hawaii. I feel a tremendous sense of loss at the untimely death of Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink. Her passing leaves a void in the House of Representatives, the Hawaii congressional delegation, and the political life of our Nation. It is difficult to put her spirit into words, but those that come immediately to mind as fitting characterizations of the woman we honor today include courageous, forthright, tenacious, gutsy, outspoken, bold, meticulous, and determined. She was my friend, a dedicated public servant for Hawaii, a strong pillar in our state's delegation, and an advocate for those in America who feel scared, small, alone, mistreated, neglected or forgotten. Patsy was a petite woman with a powerful voice and a peerless reputation as a champion for equal opportunity, civil rights, and education. She was a courageous and tenacious leader whose lifetime of public service made Hawaii a better place. Her leadership in health, education, child welfare, and social services will endure and continue to benefit Hawaii's people and all Americans. In the course of her life, Patsy was a pioneer, a trailblazer for women, workers, minorities, the poor, and the powerless. In the history of Hawaii and our Nation in the 20th century, Patsy Mink is one of the giants whose vision of hope and passion for justice led Hawaii to statehood and whose efforts broke down barriers and opened doors to opportunity for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or religion. Her passing silences a dynamic voice, but her many accomplishments, her unimpeachable integrity, and passion for justice stand as an incredible legacy to a magnificent woman. I commend to my colleagues and all those interested in Patsy's remarkable life, a biography by Esther Arinaga and Rene Ojiri included in a book titled Called from Within: Early Women Lawyers of Hawaii, edited by Mari Matsuda. I wish to recap some of her brilliant life and career for the Record. Born on December 6, 1927, in Paia, Maui, Patsy was independent and ambitious from the start. As an illustration, one family story recalls that she insisted at age four on beginning school a year early. She was driven throughout her young life, and was elected student body president at Maui High School. She graduated as valedictorian in 1944, a year marked by global strife and war. Patsy's childhood curiosity about medicine led her to study zoology and chemistry at the University of Hawaii. After graduating in 1948, she applied to medical school, only to be rejected along with other bright young women aspiring to be doctors, in a time when women made up only 2 to 3 percent of an entering class. Another factor daunting her efforts was the return of our war veterans and a resulting boom in applications for graduate and postgraduate programs. Although discouraged, Patsy took wise counsel from a mentor and applied to law schools. She gained admission to the University of Chicago. It was during her years of law studies that she would meet and marry John Mink, a respected hydrologist and geologist, her loyal campaign advisor, and her lifelong companion. It was in Chicago that they would have their daughter, Wendy, a professor at Smith College. Returning to Hawaii, Patsy gained admission to the Hawaii bar in 1953, but only after a successful challenge of a statute that required a woman to take the residency status of her husband, who was a native Pennsylvanian. Such an action represented only one of several challenges to sexism that she would undertake during her professional career. In being admitted to the bar, she also logged one of many firsts by becoming the first Japanese American woman to do so in Hawaii. In the 1950s, Patsy began to take a serious interest in politics and make her mark on the Democratic Party by helping to build the party and draw many young people into its ranks. Patsy's first step into public elected office in the territorial legislature in 1956 awoke for Hawaii and the world a powerful voice that would only gain strength in its impact and not be silenced until the new millennium. From that moment forward, Patsy's professional and political record would run as if by perpetual motion. The momentous year of 1959 brought Statehood for Hawaii, and by then, Patsy had easily won election to the territorial Senate. Leading up to Statehood, while the legislature worked on landmark issues that would lend shape to Hawaii's new society, Patsy authored an ``equal pay for equal work'' law and scrutinized the Department of Education toward improving education for Hawaii's children--a cause close to my heart, as one who previously served as a teacher and principal in Hawaii's schools. In 1965, Patsy brought her views to the national stage when she became the first woman of color elected to the United States House of Representatives to represent Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District--a seat I was proud to hold for almost 14 years, before I entered the Senate. Patsy was articulate about the causes she tenaciously shepherded. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's fireside chats, heard years ago on Maui by a young Patsy, had provided her with a foundation of ideals and rhetoric from which she would draw upon for many years in her political career. During her first tenure in Congress, Patsy served her various constituencies, both in Hawaii and around this Nation, with a strong commitment to wide-ranging domestic issues, including education, the environment, child care, open Government, workers' rights, and equal opportunity. She introduced the first Early Childhood Education Act, authored the Women's Education Equity Act, supported strip mining regulation, and became an early critic of the Vietnam War. In 1971, she entered the Oregon Democratic Presidential primary. Her candidacy reflected her determined independence and frustration with Government cutbacks in social services spending and the ongoing war. In 1971, in connection with planned underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island in the Aleutian chain, she filed suit with 32 other Members of Congress to compel disclosure of reports under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. She took issue with alleged Presidential authority to exempt certain information from FOIA and withhold it from judicial or legislative review. In the final outcome, in what had been described by Patsy as a sort of Waterloo of the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Congress could legislate new disclosure guidelines to permit judicial review of the President's actions. In the end, the case gained tremendous historical significance when the U.S. Supreme Court cited it as precedent for the release of the Watergate tapes. In perhaps her farthest-reaching accomplishment, Patsy co-authored title IX of the Higher Education Act Amendments, which prohibits gender discrimination by educational institutions receiving Federal funds. The landmark provision was enacted in 1972 and has since, in its 30 years of existence, introduced equality in college sports and contributed greatly to the rise in women's athletics. An unsuccessful Senate bid ended her first set of years in Federal office in 1977, but it did not quiet her political involvement or public service. Indeed, in 1990 she returned to the House. In the interim, she assumed the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Ocean and International, Environmental, and Scientific Affairs, where she helped to strengthen environmental policies, particularly with regard to protection of whales, toxic chemical disposal and ocean mining. In 1980, she took the helm as the first woman president of the Americans for Democratic Action. Two years later, she returned to elected office in Hawaii by taking the gavel as chairperson of the Honolulu City Council. She twice ran unsuccessfully for other office, this time for Governor and mayor of Honolulu, then triumphed in 1990 in a special election for the remainder of my term in the other body, at the passing of our beloved colleague, Spark Matsunaga. Since 1990, she continued in characteristic style, advocating and articulating the ideals that she had espoused during her first terms in the other body. I remember Patsy marching up the Capitol steps with vigor, alongside her other female colleagues, to show her support for Anita Hill in 1991. I was pleased to work with Patsy, the distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Dan Inouye, the honorable Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta, and my other colleagues in the establishment of a Congressional caucus to address the needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in 1994. I recall her leadership in 1996 on a successful boycott of a joint session speech by French President Jacques Chirac, in protest of French nuclear testing in the Pacific, much in line with our shared commitment to championing the disenfranchised peoples of the Pacific in our respective bodies. As we hope to complete action on a welfare reauthorization bill in this session, I remember Patsy's steadfast efforts before the passage of the 1996 welfare reform law in keeping us mindful about the possible effects of social policy changes on children. She had continued the battle cry with the current welfare reauthorization and ensured that the voices of the smallest and most vulnerable were heard. Patsy was one of the last Members of the 107th Congress who served in the historic 89th Congress that passed much of the landmark Great Society legislation. Patsy's lifelong efforts to open educational access to countless Americans and ensure them the best educational opportunities were the achievements that brought her the greatest satisfaction. ``Anything for the children,'' was Patsy's guiding conviction. I believe we shared the same view about education that this crucial area is where we can do the most good for the most people. A great spirit has come and gone before us. Patsy's vigor and courage to tackle difficult issues in the wide realm of social policy will be sorely missed. There are fewer trails for women and minorities to blaze, thanks to Patsy's determination and spirit. Indeed, her trailblazing efforts will not end with her death, for the things she put into place will continue to benefit the lives of countless individuals, in our lifetime and for generations to come, in ways that may not ever be truly appreciated. We are enjoined to carry forth the mission that my dear colleague pursued during her remarkable career. With great sadness, we bid a final farewell and aloha pumehana to a fearless and remarkable lady, the most honorable Patsy Takemoto Mink. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. Madam President. I rise to address the amendment offered by Senators Gramm and Miller as it relates to whistleblower protections. Contrary to press accounts, the Gramm-Miller amendment, as well as the House- passed bill and the President's initial bill, do nothing--do nothing-- to protect whistleblowers. As Congress debates the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, we must remember the role that whistleblowers play in protecting this great Nation. We commend the courage of FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on the serious institutional problems at the FBI which impacted the agency's ability to effectively investigate and prevent terrorism. We commend Federal Border Patrol Agents Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, who risked their careers by alerting Congress to Border Patrol and INS policies that compromised the security of our borders. Their actions alerted us to flaws in the current system and allow us to fix such problems in order to have a more secure Nation. Because whistleblowers play such an important role in protecting our country, we must do our part to protect them from retaliation for disclosing Government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Lieberman substitute is the only amendment before us that provides real whistleblower protection. During the Committee on Governmental Affairs hearings on the creation of the proposed Homeland Security Department, I asked Governor Tom Ridge about whistleblower protections for Federal employees in the Department of Homeland Security. He said that all employees in the new Department would have whistleblower protections because the bill would require the new personnel system to be grounded in the public employment principles of merit and fitness. However, requiring that a human resources system be grounded in the public employment principles does not equate to whistleblower protection. Congress has worked hard, and continues to work, to provide real whistleblower protection to Federal employees. Claiming that whistleblower protection will be provided based on such principles does nothing to assure Federal employees of their rights and protections or assure Congress that their bipartisan efforts on behalf of whistleblowers would not be frustrated. Adding to my concern over the lack of protections afforded to employees in the new Department, H.R. 5005 and the amendment offered by Senators Gramm and Miller fail to provide the same level of whistleblower protection that Federal employees have in most Federal agencies. Although the House bill and the Gramm-Miller amendment allegedly maintain whistleblower protections and other merit system principles for employees of the new Department, both allow the Secretary to waive due process procedures and the remedies an employee needs to assert those rights. The Gramm-Miller amendment bars the Secretary from waiving the applicability of several chapters of title 5 covering a variety of civil service issues. The list of nonwaivable chapters conspicuously fails to include protections against unwarranted disciplinary actions and performance appraisals, access to third party investigations by the Office of Special Counsel, or independent hearings at the Merit Systems Protection Board. Those agencies provide vital third party review and transparent enforcement for whistleblower and other merit system rights. When Federal employees allege that they have been subject to a prohibited personnel practice, including violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, OSC has authority to receive and investigate such allegations. If the special counsel finds reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred and corrective action is required, she must report the determination to the MSPB, the affected agency, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. If the agency fails to act to correct the prohibited personnel practice, the special counsel may petition the MSPB for corrective action. Since these procedures are not specifically included in H.R. 5005, it is doubtful that the protections afforded to other employees are available to Homeland Security employees. In 1995, Congress gave wide latitude to the Federal Aviation Administration to create its own personnel system. Although this system was to afford whistleblower protections, the Justice Department found that Congress incorporated only selected provisions of title 5 into the FAA personnel management system, thus leaving OSC without authority to investigate or otherwise pursue cases of whistleblower retaliation alleged by FAA employees. The reasoning of the Justice Department is supported by Supreme Court precedent, which states that: [w]here Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied. Moreover, Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that if its intention is to exempt certain entities generally from title 5, but to apply the substantive whistleblower protections and all the ancillary enforcement procedures, it knows how to do so unambiguously. For example, when Congress applied only selected provisions of title 5 to the Panama Canal Commission, it provided for application of the whistleblower protection provisions as follows: Section 2302(b)(8) (relating to whistleblower protection) and all provisions of Title 5 relating to the administration or enforcement or any other aspect thereof, as identified in regulations prescribed by the Commission in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management. It is fair to conclude that whistleblowers in the new Department do not have the same protections as other employees in the Federal Government due to the absence of any similar reference to the whistleblower protection enforcement provisions of title 5 in the House bill or in the Gramm-Miller amendment. The Lieberman substitute, however, maintains all of the title 5 protections for whistleblowers to ensure that they have the needed protection to come forward and alert us to serious problems in the Federal Government that can hamper our efforts to secure our homeland. It also ensures the continuation of union representation which allows third party arbitration for whistleblowers. The Lieberman substitute also contains two provisions, sponsored by myself and Senator Levin, which enhance the protections afforded to Federal employees. The Akaka-Levin provisions grandfather the whistleblower rights of employees transferred into the new Department and provide full whistleblower protections for TSA baggage screeners. Whistleblower protections for TSA employees had unanimous bipartisan support from the Governmental Affairs Committee and the provision mirrors the language of S. 2686 which was introduced by Senator Grassley. Despite such widespread support, the Gramm-Miller ``compromise'' amendment does not include this bipartisan protection for whistleblowers. Under the terms of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that we passed last year, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security has the authority to employ, terminate, and fix the conditions of employment for the Federal screening workforce while the rest of the employees of the Transportation Security Agency are governed by the personnel system established by the Federal Aviation Administration. While the FAA personnel system now provides full whistleblower protection to employees, TSA security screeners are denied such protection. In May, TSA and OSC reached an agreement to provide limited whistleblower protection to TSA baggage screeners. Under this nonstatutory agreement, security screeners were not afforded appeal rights. However, the right to appeal to an independent third party is a necessary part of providing real whistleblower protection. Such protection is necessary to ensure that screeners feel secure in coming forward with information of government waste, fraud, and actions that are dangerous to public health and safety. Recognizing the need for full whistleblower rights, Congress resolved to provide OSC enforcement authority and full whistleblower rights to FAA employees in 2000. I urge my colleagues to once again protect our Federal whisleblowers by providing full and explicit whistleblower protection to employees in the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gramm-Miller amendment and support the Lieberman substitute.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park Addition Act of 2002. This bill provides for the adjustment of Park boundaries to permit the development of permanent Park operational facilities for administrative purposes and to provide the public with a visitor's center and interpretative facilities. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is located along the 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 1160-acre Park, and the boundaries include the culturally significant Kaloko and `Aimakapa fishponds and `Ai`opio fish trap. There are also several heiau, or Hawaiian religious sites, found in the Park. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is currently leasing office space outside the Park to carry out its necessary administrative, interpretive, resource management and maintenance functions. This office space is woefully inadequate. The amount of visitor parking available is limited to four spaces, and its location presents a challenge for visitor access. The National Park Service has considered the possibility of constructing new operational facilities within the Park boundaries. However, such action would be inconsistent with current National Park Service management policies because of its adverse impacts on Park resources and values. Building within the boundary of Kaloko-Honokohau Park would intrude on the Park's historic setting and has the potential to harm the fishponds, which are considered to be some of the Park's most valuable resources. Acquiring an additional two parcels of land adjacent to the Park makes sense. An existing two-story building will provide an easy and inexpensive retrofit for use as Park headquarters. The building has never been occupied, and contains offices, lab and storage areas, as well as a reception lobby that would be ideal to host visitor orientation and interpretive programs. The building has the capacity for artifact storage that meets curatorial standards for historical and archaeological items. More than 90 percent of the two acres remains undeveloped, thereby providing enough space for visitor parking and future Park operations. It is important to note that no additional staffing would be required to support the proposed expansion. Last year, 54,000 people visited Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. We need a facility there that offers administrative personnel the resources they need to carry out their management functions, and visitors the opportunity to learn about this important part of Hawaiian history. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Park Service 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 2002. This bill provides for the adjustment of Park boundaries to permit the development of permanent Park operational facilities for administrative purposes and to provide the public with a visitor's center and interpretative facilities. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is located along the 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 1160-acre Park, and the boundaries include the culturally significant Kaloko and `Aimakapa fishponds and `Ai`opio fish trap. There are also several heiau, or Hawaiian religious sites, found in the Park. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is currently leasing office space outside the Park to carry out its necessary administrative, interpretive, resource management and maintenance functions. This office space is woefully inadequate. The amount of visitor parking available is limited to four spaces, and its location presents a challenge for visitor access. The National Park Service has considered the possibility of constructing new operational facilities within the Park boundaries. However, such action would be inconsistent with current National Park Service management policies because of its adverse impacts on Park resources and values. Building within the boundary of Kaloko-Honokohau Park would intrude on the Park's historic setting and has the potential to harm the fishponds, which are considered to be some of the Park's most valuable resources. Acquiring an additional two parcels of land adjacent to the Park makes sense. An existing two-story building will provide an easy and inexpensive retrofit for use as Park headquarters. The building has never been occupied, and contains offices, lab and storage areas, as well as a reception lobby that would be ideal to host visitor orientation and interpretive programs. The building has the capacity for artifact storage that meets curatorial standards for historical and archaeological items. More than 90 percent of the two acres remains undeveloped, thereby providing enough space for visitor parking and future Park operations. It is important to note that no additional staffing would be required to support the proposed expansion. Last year, 54,000 people visited Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. We need a facility there that offers administrative personnel the resources they need to carry out their management functions, and visitors the opportunity to learn about this important part of Hawaiian history. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Park Service 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 join my colleagues in congratulating the senior Senator from South Carolina, our esteemed colleague and a legendary public servant, as we honor his service to America and his beloved constituents in South Carolina. When the 107th Congress adjourns sine die later this year, it will end another chapter in the life and legendary public service of Senator Thurmond. For almost 48 years, Strom Thurmond has been an important person in the life of the Senate. Indeed, December 24, 2002, will mark the 48th anniversary of Senator Thurmond arrival in the Senate after his election as a write-in candidate, a feat that itself is historic and unprecedented. December 5, 2002, also marks another marvelous milestone, Senator Thurmond's 100th birthday. In considering these truly remarkable events, it is humbling to recall that Senator Thurmond's service in the Senate is longer than the period of time that Hawaii has been a State. It is even more remarkable to consider Senator Thurmond's accomplishments outside of the Senate: attorney, state legislator, judge, decorated World War II hero and participant in the D-day landing, Governor of South Carolina, husband, and father. I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Thurmond during the 12 years I have been in the Senate, the last quarter of his remarkable tenure, and we serve together on the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees. As Chairman Emeritus of both Committees, Senator Thurmond has earned a well-deserved reputation as a determined and powerful advocate for our Nation's men and women in uniform and our veterans. His commitment to improve services, benefits, and quality of life for servicemembers and veterans, and their families, is unwavering. On a personal note, our former colleague, Senator Bob Dole, Majority Leader Daschle, and others have spoken about emulating Senator Thurmond's diet and exercise regimen as a way of enjoying similar longevity. I would like to share with my colleagues one of Senator Thurmond's dietary secrets: he has a fondness for Hawaiian macadamia nuts. I can think of no better testimonial for the health benefits of macadamia nuts then the gentleman from South Carolina! I thank our leaders for scheduling this time for the Senate to honor the remarkable life and times of a great American patriot and a gentleman of the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the current flexibilities available to agencies in the Federal Government and urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this bill. The President has called for flexibility to manage the workforce. I agree and have said repeatedly that we must have the right people with the right skills in the right places. I have long been a proponent of providing agencies with tools they need to better manage their workforce. I agree with the President that agencies need flexibilities to carry out agency missions. However, according to David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, agencies currently have many of the flexibilities they need. Current law allows managers to remove a Federal employee from his post and suspend him immediately without pay if the head of the agency finds that action necessary in the interests of national security, 5 USC 7532; Swiftly reassign Federal employees to fight terrorism and reassign Federal employees to similarly graded positions or detail them from other agencies or within the Department and the employees who refuse reassignments or details may be terminated, 5 CFR part 335; Retrain, reassign and reshape their workforce; Choose whether to fill a vacant position from the outside or the inside, eliminate positions due to changes in programs, lack of funding, reduction in workload, reorganizations, privatization, ``divestiture,,'' or contracting out; establish personnel ceilings, or decide to re-employ a returning worker; determine the job or jobs to be eliminated in the context of a reduction in force, and unilaterally reassign employees to vacant positions in the agency; Have additional management rights including: promotions; adverse actions, suspensions for 14 days or less; suspension for more than 14 days; removals; demotions, reductions in grade or pay; permit the return of a career appointee from the Senior Executive Service, SES to the GS or another pay system; the power to reassign, transfer, and detail or fire of a career SES employee; determine the substance of a position description, its performance standards of an employee's position, and award, or not award, performance payments; Decide whether employees have earned pay increases known as ``step'' increases, based upon performance, and are able to grant employees additional financial ``incentive awards'' such as performance-based cash awards, special act or service awards, and quality step increases; and Decide whether to award recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses worth up to 25% of base salary. In addition, the Lieberman substitute provides additional flexibilities Governmentwide. The Voinovich-Akaka amendment, which was included in the Lieberman substitute unanimously by the Governmental Affairs Committee, allows agencies to hire candidates directly and bypass the current requirements under Title 5 once OPM has determined that there is a severe shortage of candidates for the position. This provision allows agencies to streamline its staffing procedures by authorizing use of an alternative method for selecting new employees instead of the traditional rule of three. This will make the Government more competitive with the private sector by improving the Federal hiring process. Under the new system, the agency may divide applicants into two or more quality categories based on merit and select any candidate from the highest category while maintaining veterans hiring preference. The amendment provides Governmentwide authority for Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments and Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, two provisions currently in place in limited situations. The expansion of this authority would give agencies the flexibility required to reorganize the workforce should an agency need to undergo substantial delayering, transfer of functions, or other substantial workforce reshaping. The provision would allow agencies to reduce high-grade, managerial, or supervisory positions, correct skill imbalances, and reduce operating costs without the loss of full time positions. To address the impending human capital crisis, the government will need to retain Federal employees with institutional knowledge. To assist in this effort, the amendment increases the cap on the total annual compensation of senior executive, administrative law judges, officers of the court, and other senior level positions to allow career executives to receive performance awards and other authorized payments. The Akaka-Voinovich amendments also helps ensure that we have a world-class Federal workforce and can retain talented Federal employees who wish to continue their education. This provision reduces restrictions on providing academic degree training to Federal employees and requires agencies to facilitate online academic degree training. As a result of the current flexibilities and those provided in the Lieberman substitute, it is curious why the President continues to demand additional flexibilities. As I have previously stated, studies indicate that the flexibilities at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have not provided the intended results and employee morale is very low. With such uncertainty in additional flexibilities and the great importance of this new agency, I question the need for such a broad grant of power. I believe the existing flexibilities and the Voinovich-Akaka provisions provide agencies the tools that they need to manage effectively their workforce. I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman substitute and vote for cloture. Cloture Motion

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to commend my chairman, Senator Lieberman, for his outstanding work and his extraordinary leadership in the committee, and to mention that it was after Senator Lieberman began his initiative to create such a Department that it began to pick up, not only in the Senate but with the administration, too. He has crafted, I believe, a strong piece of legislation for the Department of Homeland Security. This evening I rise to express my strong support for Senator Lieberman's substitute. I have strong respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia but I will vote against his amendment. Senator Lieberman has done a great service to his country by holding hearings and debating extensively the structure of a Department of Homeland Security. Without his determined effort, the President might never have conceded the need for such a department. As Senator Thompson has noted, the Governmental Affairs Committee debated in great deal the structure of such a department. Numerous changes were made to the President's proposal which have substantially improved it. I rise to discuss the flexibilities available at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. My colleagues have criticized the legislation before us for not providing the same flexibilities available to the FAA and the IRS. The most important factor in the personnel systems at these two agencies is the involvement of federal employee unions. In April 1996, at Congressional direction, FAA was allowed to develop its own personnel and compensation systems, to give the agency more flexibility because of its daily interaction with the fast-paced and rapidly-growing aviation industry. The Secretary of Transportation argued strongly that the agency needed flexibility to pay people what the job required and to move them where the work was needed, without the restrictions of standard government personnel procedures. While the FAA was given wide authority to develop their personnel system, the FAA still must negotiate with its federal employee unions in developing and making changes to the personnel management system. The FAA system contains provisions protecting a large portion of the rights of federal workers. These include whistleblower protections, including the provisions for investigation and enforcement; veterans' preference; anti-discrimination; compensation for work injury; retirement, unemployment compensation, and insurance coverage; and review of employee matters by the Merit Systems Protection Board. In addition, employees subject to major adverse personnel actions may contest the action through any contractual grievance procedure. And because the FAA is not subject to federal pay rate regulations, the federal employee unions are allowed to bargain over wages at the FAA as they do in the private sector. Such bargaining rights are not provided in the President's original Homeland Security bill or the House passed bill. In fact, both bills would allow even current collective bargaining rights to be waived. Despite this praise of FAA flexibility, just last year, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee concluded that FAA's personnel reform has been a failure. At that time, the most recent FAA employee attitude survey showed severe levels of employee dissatisfaction, even as compensation levels rose to make DOT the highest-paid cabinet level agency in the Federal Government. Fewer than one in ten employees felt that personnel reform had been successful at eliminating bureaucracy or helping accomplish FAA's mission. Fewer than one in five felt the agency rewards creativity and innovation--even though personnel reform allows the agency great flexibility in this area. A review of staffing at air traffic control facilities indicates that reform has not been used to place employees where they are needed. These findings were supported by an independent study conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration, which found that FAA hasn't met many of the key goals of personnel reform. In addition, the House Committee believed that Congress should carefully review the effects of personnel reform leading up to reauthorization of AIR 21 in fiscal year 2004 to gauge whether the experiment should be continued. According to the GAO, the decentralized personnel structure that resulted from FAA's reform has caused moral problems, communication gaps and inconsistencies in technical advice and leadership within FAA organizations, and insufficient understanding throughout the workforce about the intent of reforms. As a result of these problems, FAA lacks a broad base of support and accountability for reform initiatives among employees below the highest management levels. More recently, TSA, which uses the FAA's pay banding system, has caused great concern with the high salaries given to federal law enforcement officers that are higher than those currently earned at other federal agencies. Such a system has contributed to the loss of law enforcement officers at the Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service. The IRS was granted additional flexibilities to address its unique workforce as well. The IRS personnel flexibilities include: critical pay authority; enhanced recruitment, retention, and relocation authority; enhanced authority for performance awards to senior executives; and exceptions to Title 5 rules in filling Senior Executive Service positions which are reserved for career employees. Additional flexibilities are granted to the IRS which can only be applied to union represented employees subject to a written agreement between the union and the IRS. This includes streamlined demonstration project authority; variations to the performance appraisal and awards sections of Title 5; variations from Title 5 pay and classification systems for pay banding; and variations from Title 5 hiring rules. However, the IRS' progress on reform seems welcome to all but those who work inside the agency. In response to the agency's 2001 employee climate survey, 42 percent of employees said the organizational changes have had a negative effect on them, compared with 24 percent who reported positive effects and 34 percent who reported no effect. Such dissatisfaction does nothing to help retain employees when the federal government is facing a human capital crisis. While there has been an increase in customer satisfaction with the IRS, the widespread personnel reshuffling has yet to guarantee that the IRS is matching its workforce to its workload appropriately. Over the past four years, the backlog of taxpayer requests for compromise settlements with the IRS on the amount of back taxes they owe tripled, even though the staff devoted to the backlog has doubled. A General Accounting Office review found that putting staff on the compromise program may be hurting other collection programs. The large percentage of bad information given to taxpayers by IRS employees also shows that the right people with the right skills are not in place in customer service jobs--though the IRS is retraining customer service representatives to improve accuracy. As we are debating the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security, we must make sure that providing new flexibilities does not compromise the mission of the agency. In providing the agency with the tools to effectively manage their workforce, we must make sure that agencies have a strategy in place to meet their missions and keep employees satisfied. If our dedicated workers do not feel valuable to the agency, the mission will fail. Without sufficient union participation and civil service protections, our homeland will not be secure. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I cosponsor the Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act of 2002, introduced by my colleague, Senator Corzine. I thank Senator Corzine and Representative Luis Gutierrez for their leadership on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for conducting a hearing on the issue of remittances. Immigrants nationwide often send a portion of their hard-earned wages to relatives and their communities abroad. Remittances can be used to improve the standard of living of recipients by increasing access to health care and education. Unfortunately, people who send remittances are often unaware of the fees and exchange rates used in the transaction that reduce the amount of money received by their family members. In many cases, fees for sending remittances can be ten to twenty percent of the value of the transaction. In addition to the fees, the exchange rate used in the transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate. The exchange rate used in the transaction is typically not disclosed to customers. Consumers cannot afford to be uneducated regarding financial service options and fees placed on their transactions. This legislation is needed to provide the necessary information to consumers so that they may make informed decisions about sending money. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act would ensure that each customer is fully informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in the transaction. If consumers are provided additional information about the transaction costs involved with sending money, they may be more likely to utilize banks and credit unions which often can provide lower cost remittances. If unbanked immigrants use the remittance services offered by banks and credit unions, they may be more likely to open up an account. Many immigrants are unbanked and lack a relationship with a mainstream financial services provider. The unbanked are more likely to use check-cashing services which charge an average fee of over nine percent. They are also more likely to utilize the services provided by pay-day and predatory lenders. The unbanked miss the opportunities for saving and borrowing at mainstream financial institutions. This legislation is particularly important to my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is home to significant numbers of recent immigrants from many nations, including the Philippines. The Philippines is one of the largest destinations for remittances from the United States. The gross value of remittances to the Philippines is $3.7 billion and a large portion of that amount comes from people in Hawaii. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this much needed legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I cosponsor the Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act of 2002, introduced by my colleague, Senator Corzine. I thank Senator Corzine and Representative Luis Gutierrez for their leadership on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for conducting a hearing on the issue of remittances. Immigrants nationwide often send a portion of their hard-earned wages to relatives and their communities abroad. Remittances can be used to improve the standard of living of recipients by increasing access to health care and education. Unfortunately, people who send remittances are often unaware of the fees and exchange rates used in the transaction that reduce the amount of money received by their family members. In many cases, fees for sending remittances can be ten to twenty percent of the value of the transaction. In addition to the fees, the exchange rate used in the transaction can be significantly lower than the market rate. The exchange rate used in the transaction is typically not disclosed to customers. Consumers cannot afford to be uneducated regarding financial service options and fees placed on their transactions. This legislation is needed to provide the necessary information to consumers so that they may make informed decisions about sending money. The Wire Transfer Fairness and Disclosure Act would ensure that each customer is fully informed of all of the fees and the exchange rates used in the transaction. If consumers are provided additional information about the transaction costs involved with sending money, they may be more likely to utilize banks and credit unions which often can provide lower cost remittances. If unbanked immigrants use the remittance services offered by banks and credit unions, they may be more likely to open up an account. Many immigrants are unbanked and lack a relationship with a mainstream financial services provider. The unbanked are more likely to use check-cashing services which charge an average fee of over nine percent. They are also more likely to utilize the services provided by pay-day and predatory lenders. The unbanked miss the opportunities for saving and borrowing at mainstream financial institutions. This legislation is particularly important to my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is home to significant numbers of recent immigrants from many nations, including the Philippines. The Philippines is one of the largest destinations for remittances from the United States. The gross value of remittances to the Philippines is $3.7 billion and a large portion of that amount comes from people in Hawaii. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this much needed legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce legislation reauthorizing the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. These two agencies safeguard the merit system principles and protect Federal employees who step forward to disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Office of Special Counsel protects Federal employees and applicants from reprisal for whistleblowing and other prohibited personnel practices. OSC serves as a safe and secure channel for Federal workers who wish to disclose violations of law, gross mismanagement or waste of funds, abuse of authority, and a specific danger to the public health and safety. In addition, OSC enforces and provides advisory opinions regarding the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activities of Federal employees. It also protects the rights of Federal employee, military veterans and reservists under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. The Merit Systems Protection Board monitors the Federal Government's merit-based system of employment by hearing and deciding appeals from Federal employees regarding job removal and other major personnel actions. The Board also decides other types of civil service cases, reviews regulations of the Office of Personnel Management, and conducts studies of the merit systems. Together, OSC and MSPB act as stalwarts of justice for the dedicated men and women who serve the public. In addition to reauthorizing these two important agencies, my bill would restore congressional intent regarding who is entitled to relief under the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. On several occasions, Congress has had to revisit the WPA to close loopholes in the law. Congress has been forced to specify that ``any'' disclosure truly means ``any'' disclosure. This is regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made. Since Congress amended the WPA in 1994, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over the WPA, has continued to disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an employee's job duties. In order to protect the statute's foundation that `any' lawful disclosure that an employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, language in this bill codifies the repeated and unconditional statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It specifically covers any disclosure of information without restriction to time, place, form, motive, or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is evidence of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified. The bill also addresses another burden created by the Federal Circuit not found in the Whistleblower Protection Act. In interpreting the meaning of `reasonable belief,' the Federal Circuit held that the reasonableness of the whistleblower's belief that the government violated the law or engaged in gross mismanagement must first begin with a presumption that public officers performed their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law. However, this presumption can only be overcome by ``irrefragable proof'' to the contrary. The irrefragable standard is impossible to overcome and has a chilling effect on those who would disclose government wrongdoing. As such, this new provision states that any presumption that a public officer has performed their duties in good faith must be overcome by substantial evidence. My bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has passed annually since 1988 as part of its appropriations process. The yearly appropriations language bars agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. Moreover, Congress unanimously has supported the concept that Federal employees should not be subject to restraint nor suffer retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing. Now more than ever, Federal employees must feel comfortable coming forward with information concerning violations of law or actions that could cause substantial harm to public safety. We must support the brave men and women who come forward to report wrongdoing. We must ensure that such acts of bravery are not rewarded with retaliation. Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort. Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed unanimous bicameral and bipartisan support. More recently, Senators Levin and Grassley joined me in introducing S. 995, which makes many of the same amendments to the WPA as this bill. I urge my colleagues to join with me in clarifying the WPA and supporting the reauthorization of two very important agencies. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce legislation reauthorizing the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. These two agencies safeguard the merit system principles and protect Federal employees who step forward to disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Office of Special Counsel protects Federal employees and applicants from reprisal for whistleblowing and other prohibited personnel practices. OSC serves as a safe and secure channel for Federal workers who wish to disclose violations of law, gross mismanagement or waste of funds, abuse of authority, and a specific danger to the public health and safety. In addition, OSC enforces and provides advisory opinions regarding the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activities of Federal employees. It also protects the rights of Federal employee, military veterans and reservists under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. The Merit Systems Protection Board monitors the Federal Government's merit-based system of employment by hearing and deciding appeals from Federal employees regarding job removal and other major personnel actions. The Board also decides other types of civil service cases, reviews regulations of the Office of Personnel Management, and conducts studies of the merit systems. Together, OSC and MSPB act as stalwarts of justice for the dedicated men and women who serve the public. In addition to reauthorizing these two important agencies, my bill would restore congressional intent regarding who is entitled to relief under the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA. On several occasions, Congress has had to revisit the WPA to close loopholes in the law. Congress has been forced to specify that ``any'' disclosure truly means ``any'' disclosure. This is regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made. Since Congress amended the WPA in 1994, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over the WPA, has continued to disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an employee's job duties. In order to protect the statute's foundation that `any' lawful disclosure that an employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, language in this bill codifies the repeated and unconditional statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It specifically covers any disclosure of information without restriction to time, place, form, motive, or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is evidence of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified. The bill also addresses another burden created by the Federal Circuit not found in the Whistleblower Protection Act. In interpreting the meaning of `reasonable belief,' the Federal Circuit held that the reasonableness of the whistleblower's belief that the government violated the law or engaged in gross mismanagement must first begin with a presumption that public officers performed their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law. However, this presumption can only be overcome by ``irrefragable proof'' to the contrary. The irrefragable standard is impossible to overcome and has a chilling effect on those who would disclose government wrongdoing. As such, this new provision states that any presumption that a public officer has performed their duties in good faith must be overcome by substantial evidence. My bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has passed annually since 1988 as part of its appropriations process. The yearly appropriations language bars agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. Moreover, Congress unanimously has supported the concept that Federal employees should not be subject to restraint nor suffer retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing. Now more than ever, Federal employees must feel comfortable coming forward with information concerning violations of law or actions that could cause substantial harm to public safety. We must support the brave men and women who come forward to report wrongdoing. We must ensure that such acts of bravery are not rewarded with retaliation. Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort. Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed unanimous bicameral and bipartisan support. More recently, Senators Levin and Grassley joined me in introducing S. 995, which makes many of the same amendments to the WPA as this bill. I urge my colleagues to join with me in clarifying the WPA and supporting the reauthorization of two very important agencies. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation with the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, which amends the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's judicial structure by ensuring that it is a unified and co-equal branch of the Government of Guam. The Organic Act establishes the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam. This legislation would simply include Guam's judicial branch in the Organic Act. Similar legislation, H.R. 521, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood of Guam. The Bush Administration has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521. The Congressional Budget Office also estimated that the legislation would have no impact on the federal budget. For those of us who have followed and worked on territorial issues for a long time, we do our best to balance the role of Congress when overriding federal interests are involved with the concerns expressed by territorial leaders and the general public. In this case, the establishment of an independent judicial branch on Guam is an overriding federal interest and is broadly supported by the people of Guam. This bill is supported by General Ben Blaz, former Guam Delegate to Congress, Guam Governor Carl Guiterrez, Justice Philip Carbullido, Acting Chief Justice of Guam's Supreme Court, the Guam Bar Association, Guam's legal community, the National Conference of Chief Justices, and the Guam Pacific Daily News. I believe that today's legislation is necessary to ensure the integrity and independence of Guam's judicial system as co-equal with the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation with the senior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, which amends the Organic Act of Guam to clarify Guam's judicial structure by ensuring that it is a unified and co-equal branch of the Government of Guam. The Organic Act establishes the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam. This legislation would simply include Guam's judicial branch in the Organic Act. Similar legislation, H.R. 521, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood of Guam. The Bush Administration has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 521. The Congressional Budget Office also estimated that the legislation would have no impact on the federal budget. For those of us who have followed and worked on territorial issues for a long time, we do our best to balance the role of Congress when overriding federal interests are involved with the concerns expressed by territorial leaders and the general public. In this case, the establishment of an independent judicial branch on Guam is an overriding federal interest and is broadly supported by the people of Guam. This bill is supported by General Ben Blaz, former Guam Delegate to Congress, Guam Governor Carl Guiterrez, Justice Philip Carbullido, Acting Chief Justice of Guam's Supreme Court, the Guam Bar Association, Guam's legal community, the National Conference of Chief Justices, and the Guam Pacific Daily News. I believe that today's legislation is necessary to ensure the integrity and independence of Guam's judicial system as co-equal with the executive and legislative branches of the Government of Guam. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Graham- Miller-Kennedy amendment that would establish a guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit for all seniors. Approximately 19 million seniors in the United States have little or no prescription drug coverage. Prescription drugs are the largest out- of-pocket health care cost for seniors. Many who cannot afford drug coverage often do not take the drugs their doctors prescribe, and one in eight senior citizens is sometimes forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. While numerous seniors live on modest fixed incomes, prescription drug costs have increased by more than 10 percent a year since 1995. Medicare needs a voluntary prescription drug benefit so seniors have the same protection against the high cost of prescription drugs as they have for hospital care. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy amendment is the most comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit proposed in the Senate thus far. It provides coverage to all seniors regardless of their health or income. In Hawaii, 159,000 senior citizens and disabled Medicare beneficiaries would be eligible for coverage under the Outpatient Prescription Drug Act, 41,000 low-income seniors in Hawaii would qualify for additional assistance under the plan. Affordable premiums and copayments are key components of the Graham- Miller-Kennedy plan. For example, if a senior spends $4,000 on prescription drugs, she would reach the catastrophic limit and all additional drug expenses would be covered under this proposal. Seniors will not lose their current employer retirement coverage and will not have to rely on the public benefits provided by the plan. There also would not be a asset test required for participation in the Graham- Miller-Kennedy program. The competing amendment proposed by the Senator from Iowa is well intended, but the Grassley amendment would not provide adequate coverage for seniors. The Grassley amendment would result in 26,000 seniors in Hawaii losing their existing retirement coverage, 47,000 seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries in Hawaii would fall into the benefit hole and would have to continue paying premiums and paying higher drug costs while not receiving any benefits. The Grassley amendment would also include a means test to qualify for additional assistance that would prevent seniors with assets greater than $4,000 from qualifying for additional assistance. Today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to provide seniors with the missing piece of health care coverage that is urgently needed. We must ensure that all seniors are provided with an affordable and comprehensive prescription drug benefit for all seniors. I urge my colleagues to support the plan which does this, the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Peter Dees and Brett Freedman, congressional fellows in my subcommittee office, throughout the duration of my comments on the introduction of the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 2767 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Agriculture is vital to the health and well-being of citizens in Hawaii and every State of the Union. Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales, and agriculture directly or indirectly employs 38,000 people who provide Hawaiian agricultural products to domestic and foreign markets, especially to our trading partners in Canada and Japan. While Hawaii's agricultural economy was once dominated by sugarcane and pineapple, Hawaiian exports now include specialty exotic fruits, coffee macadamia nuts, vegetables, flowers, and nursery products. Virtually all of these crops are vulnerable to pests and diseases that are difficult to control when they are accidentally introduced to the islands. I am no stranger to the need to protect American agriculture from the menace of alien pests and diseases. Throughout my tenure on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I was proud to support important U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, programs such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. APHIS serves as an agricultural disease watchdog at our borders and around our farms and plays a vital role in preventing the introduction of agricultural pests and diseases to Hawaii. As a Member of the Senate, my appreciation of these programs continues. A single outbreak of a highly contagious livestock illness such as foot and mouth disease, FMD, could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion. The 2001 FMD outbreak in Great Britain cost over $7 billion. In 2000, the Banana Bunchy Top Virus threatened the Island of Hawaii's $10 million banana industry. More recently, the state has seen an outbreak of the Papaya Ringspot Virus, which threatens a commodity that earned $16 million in 2000. An outbreak of FMD in Hawaii would threaten a $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. These figures do not take into account the indirect effects on Hawaii's economy if harsh restrictions were placed on travel in rural areas. During the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom, such travel restrictions were imposed to stop the spread of the disease. The cost to businesses directly affected by tourism was nearly as high as the cost to agriculture and the food chain. Clearly, the potential for disruption of our food supply and our economy would be devastating. My concerns are not unique to Hawaii. We must protect all of American agriculture, which is why I am introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act of 2002. Federal agencies today are not as well prepared as they should be to respond to an agricultural disease emergency. My bill provides the USDA with the resource and the response mechanisms to protect American farmers, ranchers, and consumers from agroterrorism. An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Transportation, DOT, and Justice, DOJ. This measure would give the USDA the needed authority and resources to cooperate and coordinate efforts with other federal agencies that have a stake in a rapid and effective response to agricultural disease events. My legislation improves the government's preparedness and response to outbreaks of foreign and emerging agricultural diseases by: Improving coordination between USDA and FEMA on preparedness and mitigation planning for agricultural disease emergencies; improving coordination between the USDA and the DOJ to review whether state and local laws might impede the rapid and effective implementation of emergency response measures; improving coordination between the USDA, and EPA, and regional and local disaster preparedness officials, to consider the potential environmental impacts of agricultural emergency response measures; establishing a public health liaison within the HHS to coordinate emergency response efforts with the USDA and the animal health and emergency management communities; and establishing clear guidelines for the DOT and USDA to enforce restrictions on interstate transportation in the event of an agricultural disease outbreak. The National Research Council report ``Making the Nation Safer: the Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism,'' released in June, mirrors several other key provisions in my legislation. It calls for: Stronger ties to the intelligence community to identify specific threats to American agriculture; increased laboratory capacity for rapidly processing large volumes of clinical samples; development of rapid and sensitive disease diagnostic tools; development of improved livestock vaccines; the use of statisticians and computer models to understand the transmission of agricultural diseases during outbreaks; addressing environmental concerns for the disposal of contaminated crops and livestock; methods and standards for decontaminating areas where agricultural disease outbreaks occur; and communication and public awareness campaigns about the importance of research for protecting American agriculture. My legislation complements P.L. 107-188, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which was signed into law on June 12, by increasing the USDA's ability to develop the resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil. By enacting this bill, we can help safeguard American consumers and American agriculture against threats to our food supply and economy. The money and effort spent on protection from agroterrorism should be viewed as a general investment against the routine threats of disease agents and pests that infest crops and livestock. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Agriculture is vital to the health and well-being of citizens in Hawaii and every State of the Union. Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales, and agriculture directly or indirectly employs 38,000 people who provide Hawaiian agricultural products to domestic and foreign markets, especially to our trading partners in Canada and Japan. While Hawaii's agricultural economy was once dominated by sugarcane and pineapple, Hawaiian exports now include specialty exotic fruits, coffee macadamia nuts, vegetables, flowers, and nursery products. Virtually all of these crops are vulnerable to pests and diseases that are difficult to control when they are accidentally introduced to the islands. I am no stranger to the need to protect American agriculture from the menace of alien pests and diseases. Throughout my tenure on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I was proud to support important U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, programs such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. APHIS serves as an agricultural disease watchdog at our borders and around our farms and plays a vital role in preventing the introduction of agricultural pests and diseases to Hawaii. As a Member of the Senate, my appreciation of these programs continues. A single outbreak of a highly contagious livestock illness such as foot and mouth disease, FMD, could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion. The 2001 FMD outbreak in Great Britain cost over $7 billion. In 2000, the Banana Bunchy Top Virus threatened the Island of Hawaii's $10 million banana industry. More recently, the state has seen an outbreak of the Papaya Ringspot Virus, which threatens a commodity that earned $16 million in 2000. An outbreak of FMD in Hawaii would threaten a $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. These figures do not take into account the indirect effects on Hawaii's economy if harsh restrictions were placed on travel in rural areas. During the 2001 outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom, such travel restrictions were imposed to stop the spread of the disease. The cost to businesses directly affected by tourism was nearly as high as the cost to agriculture and the food chain. Clearly, the potential for disruption of our food supply and our economy would be devastating. My concerns are not unique to Hawaii. We must protect all of American agriculture, which is why I am introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act of 2002. Federal agencies today are not as well prepared as they should be to respond to an agricultural disease emergency. My bill provides the USDA with the resource and the response mechanisms to protect American farmers, ranchers, and consumers from agroterrorism. An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Transportation, DOT, and Justice, DOJ. This measure would give the USDA the needed authority and resources to cooperate and coordinate efforts with other federal agencies that have a stake in a rapid and effective response to agricultural disease events. My legislation improves the government's preparedness and response to outbreaks of foreign and emerging agricultural diseases by: Improving coordination between USDA and FEMA on preparedness and mitigation planning for agricultural disease emergencies; improving coordination between the USDA and the DOJ to review whether state and local laws might impede the rapid and effective implementation of emergency response measures; improving coordination between the USDA, and EPA, and regional and local disaster preparedness officials, to consider the potential environmental impacts of agricultural emergency response measures; establishing a public health liaison within the HHS to coordinate emergency response efforts with the USDA and the animal health and emergency management communities; and establishing clear guidelines for the DOT and USDA to enforce restrictions on interstate transportation in the event of an agricultural disease outbreak. The National Research Council report ``Making the Nation Safer: the Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism,'' released in June, mirrors several other key provisions in my legislation. It calls for: Stronger ties to the intelligence community to identify specific threats to American agriculture; increased laboratory capacity for rapidly processing large volumes of clinical samples; development of rapid and sensitive disease diagnostic tools; development of improved livestock vaccines; the use of statisticians and computer models to understand the transmission of agricultural diseases during outbreaks; addressing environmental concerns for the disposal of contaminated crops and livestock; methods and standards for decontaminating areas where agricultural disease outbreaks occur; and communication and public awareness campaigns about the importance of research for protecting American agriculture. My legislation complements P.L. 107-188, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which was signed into law on June 12, by increasing the USDA's ability to develop the resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil. By enacting this bill, we can help safeguard American consumers and American agriculture against threats to our food supply and economy. The money and effort spent on protection from agroterrorism should be viewed as a general investment against the routine threats of disease agents and pests that infest crops and livestock. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Mr. Rick Clifton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I commend our Majority Leader, the Deputy Majority Leader, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the progress made on judicial nominations during the 107th Congress. Hawaii has waited a number of years for Senate confirmation of a Hawaii resident for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 1995, I introduced legislation to require representation on the court from each State within the jurisdiction of the court. We have waited many years for this opportunity. I am pleased that Hawaii will finally have a Justice on the Ninth Circuit. Rick Clifton has had a distinguished legal career. The Hawaii State Bar Association found him to be highly qualified for this position. A graduate of Princeton University, he received his juris doctorate from Yale Law School in 1975. Mr. Clifton has practiced law in Hawaii since 1975 and has been a partner with the law firm of Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright in Honolulu, HI, since 1982. He has extensive legal experience in civil litigation, primarily business and commercial litigation. I believe he will be an asset to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and urge my colleagues to support his nomination. The confirmation of Mr. Clifton will help to alleviate hardships confronting the Ninth Circuit brought about by four long-term vacancies on the Court. A number of these vacancies date back over five years, spanning a period where the previous Senate majority refused to act on these judicial emergencies despite President Clinton's nominations of several well-qualified individuals supported by their home-state Senators and local legal communities. I congratulate and commend Chairman Leahy for his leadership in working to confirm qualified nominees to the Federal bench and rectify the doubling in circuit court vacancies that occurred between 1995 and 2001. In this instance, the Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on Mr. Clifton's nomination less than 60 days after his file and paperwork were completed. As both Chairman and Ranking Member, Senator Leahy has worked with Senator Inouye and me to fill the Hawaii seat on the Ninth Circuit. I appreciate his commitment to ensure that every State is represented on our Courts of Appeals. As the Chairman recently noted, Mr. Clifton's confirmation concludes a long and regrettable saga in confirming a qualified nominee from Hawaii. In 1999, the President nominated James Duffy of Hawaii to the Ninth Circuit. He was selected after an exhaustive screening process, following an admirable effort by the White House to consult widely with political, legal, and community leaders in Hawaii. Mr. Duffy was endorsed as ``the best of the best'' by the Hawaii State Bar Association. Despite his sterling reputation, the nomination languished for 791 days in the Judiciary Committee without ever receiving a hearing. Mr. Duffy is one of the well-qualified and talented men and women nominated by the President to the Ninth Circuit and other Courts of Appeals, individuals with bipartisan and home-state support whose nominations were never acted on by the Senate. I mention this unfortunate chapter not to air past grievances, but to underscore the challenges facing the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Majority Leader in bringing nominations before the Senate for action. In an exceptionally evenhanded manner, they have worked to overcome the partisanship and stalling practices that precipitated many of the judicial emergencies and vacancies some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have recently come to this floor to decry. Today's confirmation vote for Mr. Clifton's nomination attests to the fairness that the Majority Leader and Senator from Vermont have restored to the judicial confirmation process in the past year. I thank them for their support.