Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. I thank Chairman Sarbanes for his leadership and the Banking Committee's staff for their efforts which have resulted in a measure which is fair, realistic, and protects investors. The steady disclosure of accounting scandals and corporate misdeeds underscores the need for legislation to protect investors and to restore public trust in the accounting industry and financial markets. Chairman Sarbanes has been the leading voice for reform. Our Banking Committee held ten hearings on accounting and investor protection issues in February and March. These hearings produced extremely valuable information from which S. 2673 was developed. Public confidence has been shaken by the incidences of fraud and misrepresentations revealed in the financial statements of companies. Enron, Xerox, and WorldCom are just a few examples of corporations which have misled investors with their financial statements. Since 1997, there have been almost 1,000 restatements of earnings by companies. Investors have suffered substantial financial losses and are unsure of the validity of the audits of public companies. There is a lingering fear that there will be additional revelations of corporate fraud or misrepresentation. This has already harmed investor confidence and could continue to have an adverse impact on the financial markets. I support this bill because it takes the appropriate steps to help restore public trust in the accounting industry and financial markets. S. 2673 would create an independent Public Accounting Oversight Board to provide effective oversight over those in the accounting industry responsible for auditing public companies. Previous attempts at regulation have been complex and ineffective. As the numerous auditing failures demonstrate, there is a need for an independent Board with authority to adopt and enforce auditing, quality control, ethics, and independence standards for auditors. The legislation also requires additional corporate governance procedures to make Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers more directly responsible for the quality of financial reporting made to investors. After the numerous misstatements and corporate abuses that have occurred, this is a necessary step to ensure that corporate executives are held accountable for the financial statements of their companies. A particularly important provision in the bill would require that CEOs and CFOs forfeit bonuses, incentive- based compensation, and profits from stock sales if accounting restatements result from material noncompliance with SEC financial reporting requirements. Rules to limit and disclose conflicts of interests for stock analysts are included in the legislation. There is a concern that firms pressure their analysts to provide favorable reports on current or potential investment banking clients. This provision would provide protection to those individual investors who often depend on analysts for making investment decisions without being aware of the potential conflicts of interest that the analysts may have with companies whose stock they evaluate. The Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act also authorizes additional appropriations for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to provide the resources necessary to protect investors. According to the General Accounting Office, approximately 250 positions were vacant last year because the Commission was unable to attract qualified candidates. Additional funding is needed to attract and retain qualified employees. S. 2673 would authorize appropriations of $776 million for the Commission, which is much greater than President Bush's original budget request of $467 million. I am pleased that the President is moving closer to supporting the dollar amount included in the bill. I also want to thank Chairman Sarbanes for including an amendment in the bill which I have worked closely with the Committee staff in developing. The amendment would require the General Accounting Office, GAO, to conduct a study of the factors that have led to consolidation in the accounting industry and the impact that this has had on the securities markets. Since 1989, the Big 8 accounting firms have narrowed down to the Big 5 and may soon become the Final 4. This study is necessary to evaluate the impact that consolidation has had on quality of audit services, audit costs, auditor independence, or other problems for businesses. In addition, the study is necessary to determine what can be done to increase competition among accounting firms and whether federal or state regulations impede competition. I am pleased that the Senate has worked in a strong bipartisan fashion to strengthen this bill. Extremely valuable amendments have been added to the original committee bill. In particular, the Leahy and Biden amendments strengthen penalties for corporate fraud. These two amendments will help provide much needed additional protection for investors and retirement plan participants. I encourage my colleagues to support the Public Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 to restore public trust in the accounting industry and the financial markets.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. Vertebrate fossils are rare and valuable natural resources that are threatened by a growing commercial market which is being supplied, in part, by the illegal collection of fossil specimens. This Act establishes a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing paleontological resources found on Federal lands. It provides uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that currently exist, and it ensures that the public will have educational and scientific access to this part of their geological and biological past. I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted. This bill covers paleontological remains, fossils on Federal lands only. Fossils are the remains, imprints and traces of once-living organisms preserved in the earth's crust. Fossils of vertebrates are the remains of animals with a backbone or spinal column, such as dinosaur bones, sabertooth tiger teeth, or imprints of bear paws and mammoth tusks. The fossil record is our only evidence that life existed on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Fossils show us that dinosaurs evolved about 220 million years ago, and that four-legged creatures first walked on land about 350 million years ago. Fossils tell us how the physical earth has changed over time, how the climate has warmed and cooled, and how the mountains have been lifted up from the ocean depths. Fossils can also explain how living things have responded to changing conditions, such as why mass extinctions of species have occurred at certain times in our planet's history. In 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy exists regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and our concern was that the lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. In response, seven Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution released a report in May 2000 entitled, ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' The report presented seven governing principles for the management of fossils on Federal lands. These principles are that fossils on Federal lands are rare and a part of America's heritage; that effective stewardship requires accurate information and inventories; that penalties for fossil theft should be strengthened; and that Federal fossil collections should be preserved and available for research and public education. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies these principles, and provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States. It affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting, but protects vertebrate fossils under a system of permits. You might wonder why such a bill is needed. Who would want to take these fossils, and what would a person do with them? Let me give you an example. On September 24, 2000, four individuals at Badlands National Park in South Dakota collected 1,700 fossil specimens that represented a variety of different types of animals. This area was scheduled for a scientific survey in July 2002, but because these four individuals removed the fossils from their context, scientists could no longer ascertain the position of the fossils in the layers of rock, and the scientific and educational value of the fossils was destroyed. So what happened to these individuals? To be honest, not much. Each one of the four was fined between $250 and $1,000 for the theft of 1,700 pieces of our paleontological history. You might think the fines were a lot of money until you realize how much fossils are worth. Trade in fossils is big business. With the popularity of paleontology programs on the Discovery Channel and movies like Jurassic Park, people are starting their own collections at home, and corporations are buying fossils as investments, similar to the purchase of works of art. For example, the complete skeleton of a T-Rex was recently sold for $8.6 million at auction to the Field Museum of Chicago. Paleontological resources can be sold on the market for a hefty price, and they are being stolen from public lands without regard to science and education. Even worse is the fact that the people who steal fossils aren't being held responsible for their actions and there is no incentive to stop the theft in the future. Less than one percent of organisms become fossils, and they are the key to understanding evolutionary patterns and processes. We need to protect these resources before it's too late. The protections I offer in this Act are not new. Federal land management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. Attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. We in Congress have not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our nation, as we did for archeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are impossible to defend in court, and they are too valuable to the education of our children to not ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we in Congress fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act to protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil record for the benefit of our citizens. Vertebrate fossils are rare and valuable natural resources that are threatened by a growing commercial market which is being supplied, in part, by the illegal collection of fossil specimens. This Act establishes a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing paleontological resources found on Federal lands. It provides uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that currently exist, and it ensures that the public will have educational and scientific access to this part of their geological and biological past. I would like to emphasize that this bill in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Rehabilitation Act. They are exempted. This bill covers paleontological remains, fossils on Federal lands only. Fossils are the remains, imprints and traces of once-living organisms preserved in the earth's crust. Fossils of vertebrates are the remains of animals with a backbone or spinal column, such as dinosaur bones, sabertooth tiger teeth, or imprints of bear paws and mammoth tusks. The fossil record is our only evidence that life existed on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Fossils show us that dinosaurs evolved about 220 million years ago, and that four-legged creatures first walked on land about 350 million years ago. Fossils tell us how the physical earth has changed over time, how the climate has warmed and cooled, and how the mountains have been lifted up from the ocean depths. Fossils can also explain how living things have responded to changing conditions, such as why mass extinctions of species have occurred at certain times in our planet's history. In 1999, Congress requested that the Secretary of the Interior review and report on the Federal policy concerning paleontological resources on Federal lands. In its request, Congress noted that no unified Federal policy exists regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, and our concern was that the lack of appropriate standards would lead to the deterioration or loss of fossils, which are valuable scientific resources. In response, seven Federal agencies and the Smithsonian Institution released a report in May 2000 entitled, ``Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands.'' The report presented seven governing principles for the management of fossils on Federal lands. These principles are that fossils on Federal lands are rare and a part of America's heritage; that effective stewardship requires accurate information and inventories; that penalties for fossil theft should be strengthened; and that Federal fossil collections should be preserved and available for research and public education. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act embodies these principles, and provides the paleontological equivalent of protections found in the Archeological Resources Preservation Act. The bill finds that fossil resources on Federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the heritage of the United States. It affirms that reasonable access to fossil resources should be provided for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. The bill acknowledges the value of amateur collecting, but protects vertebrate fossils under a system of permits. You might wonder why such a bill is needed. Who would want to take these fossils, and what would a person do with them? Let me give you an example. On September 24, 2000, four individuals at Badlands National Park in South Dakota collected 1,700 fossil specimens that represented a variety of different types of animals. This area was scheduled for a scientific survey in July 2002, but because these four individuals removed the fossils from their context, scientists could no longer ascertain the position of the fossils in the layers of rock, and the scientific and educational value of the fossils was destroyed. So what happened to these individuals? To be honest, not much. Each one of the four was fined between $250 and $1,000 for the theft of 1,700 pieces of our paleontological history. You might think the fines were a lot of money until you realize how much fossils are worth. Trade in fossils is big business. With the popularity of paleontology programs on the Discovery Channel and movies like Jurassic Park, people are starting their own collections at home, and corporations are buying fossils as investments, similar to the purchase of works of art. For example, the complete skeleton of a T-Rex was recently sold for $8.6 million at auction to the Field Museum of Chicago. Paleontological resources can be sold on the market for a hefty price, and they are being stolen from public lands without regard to science and education. Even worse is the fact that the people who steal fossils aren't being held responsible for their actions and there is no incentive to stop the theft in the future. Less than one percent of organisms become fossils, and they are the key to understanding evolutionary patterns and processes. We need to protect these resources before it's too late. The protections I offer in this Act are not new. Federal land management agencies have individual regulations prohibiting theft of government property. However, the reality is that U.S. Attorneys are reluctant to prosecute cases involving fossil theft because they are difficult. We in Congress have not provided a clear statute stating the value of paleontological resources to our nation, as we did for archeological resources. Fossils are too valuable to be left within the general theft provisions that are impossible to defend in court, and they are too valuable to the education of our children to not ensure public access. We need to work together to make sure that we in Congress fulfill our responsibility as stewards of public lands, and as protectors of our nation's natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 87, the Yucca Mountain resolution, to approve the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Since the advent of nuclear power nearly 50 years ago, we have been concerned about the problem of waste generated by the production of electricity. Today we are considering a decisive step towards a solution to the dilemma of high-level nuclear waste as mandated by the act. But the path forward is not risk-free. There are problems associated with the siting. The General Accounting Office has raised serious questions regarding the seismology, stability of the repository, and long-term effects of heat, water and chemical processes in and around the waste containers. I am concerned about dangers posed by transporting thousands of tons, and thousands of shipments, of high-level nuclear waste through 43 States. Each truck could potentially carry more long-lived radioactivity than released at Hiroshima. I am sympathetic to those States that face the risk of transportation-related accidents or terrorist attacks. Because of our experience in the Pacific with nuclear testing and resulting exposure to radioactivity, I urge caution when dealing with long-lived radioactive material. We have similar transport problems on the world's sea lanes. Last week, Japan returned a shipment of mixed plutonium-uranium oxide fuel, MOX, to the United Kingdom because it was sent to Japan with falsified safety data and without proper safety checks. The safety and security of nuclear waste, whether transported on the highways or the high seas, should be of great concern to Americans. During my tenure in the Senate, I have closely monitored the safety and security of shipments of MOX from Europe to Japan for nuclear power purposes. On numerous occasions I have voiced concerns with transportation plans and associated security measures for the shipments of nuclear material in the Pacific. Recent warnings and alarm over the threat of procurement and use of nuclear materials for crude explosive devices known as ``dirty bombs'' heightens the need to be vigilant and careful in the transport of nuclear material. I am not convinced that the plan proposed by the administration has addressed all of these risks. Clearly, we can't walk away from the nuclear waste dilemma, and the nation must address this intractable problem. We need a scientific rather than a political solution. In a new approach, Congress should not pre-select a site but provide a process that leads to a scientifically sound solution. I will oppose the motion to proceed, as I am not convinced that this is the best path forward.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I rise in support of the Levin second degree to Senator Warner's amendment restoring $814 million either to the President's missile defense request or to combating terrorism. Senator Levin's amendment clarifies what we know to be true, that the need to address the scourge of terrorism is urgent and is the top priority of our Nation. I want to mention that I do have some concerns about Senator Warner's amendment. I am not aware of the committee receiving any information from the administration that the suggested savings from inflation might in fact be realized. I sincerely hope that we are not just talking about ``funny money,'' and that we could be sure that the funds are there before we start talking about how to spend them. The Levin amendment makes clear that, while both missile defense and efforts to defeat terrorism are important, our priorities are obvious. Let me be clear, I do understand the need to defend our country against missile attack. I believe that all of us here in this chamber would do everything in our power to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected against vicious attacks from those who would do us harm, including those who would launch those attacks with missiles. However, I believe that the reductions taken in this bill to the President's fiscal year 03 budget request for the missile defense program are judicious and based on sound reasoning. I support a missile defense effort that is sensible, thoroughly tested, and progresses in a rational manner. I believe that the $6.8 billion included in this bill provides ample funding for reasonable missile defense efforts. I also believe that there are many immediate threats that we know all too well. The horror of September 11 is seared forever in our minds and shows what these terrorists are capable of. If additional funds become available, I believe we have no choice but to direct them to actions we can take immediately to help us win the war on terror. As chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I am acutely aware of the costs incurred by the Department of Defense as we continue to send our military men and women around the globe to hunt down terrorists. Even beyond the supplemental appropriations which may be provided this year and funds for the war already included in this bill, the military services still have war-related needs that are not being met. When we began consideration of the fiscal year 2003 budget, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps provided us with a prioritized list of those needs that remain unfunded. For those who may not have had a chance to review those lists, let me note just a few examples. Over the last few years, we have suffered repeated attacks on U.S. embassies overseas, on the USS Cole, and on Khobar Towers. These attacks make clear that terrorists will strike U.S. assets all over the world, and that we have been engaged in this war for longer than we realized. September 11 showed us that we can no longer assume we are safe within our own borders, and that they will try to attack us here at home as well. We are a trusting nation, and, after the earlier attacks, had expected to improve the security of our military installations over time. The atrocities of September 11 made it clear that time may be a luxury we no longer have. If in fact these inflation savings are real, one of the key areas where the money could go is for anti-terrorism and force protection improvements to our bases and installations. The Service Chiefs agree--the Army, Navy and Air Force included $863 million for improved security for our installations in their list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. The second item on the Air Force's list was $491 million to improve physical security systems at its bases, to enhance its detection capabilities with night vision devices and thermal imagers, to strengthen its facilities to minimize the impact of possible explosions, and to improve security measures at nuclear security storage areas. The Navy's list included an additional $263 million for improvements to Navy installations. These funds would be spent strengthening the gates at various naval stations and shipyards, fencing off installations and airfields so that intruders would face some obstacle before just walking on to military property, establishing emergency operations centers, and installing better lighting to deter and improve detection of possible incursions. The remaining $110 million would go to fund the Army's unmet force protection needs, number eight on General Shinseki's list of priorities. This includes installing fencing, more robust gates and barriers, and improving lighting for active, guard and reserve posts. There are other key war-related needs as well. When the Department developed the budget for the coming fiscal year about 2 years ago, DOD obviously did not know that we would be at war. Therefore, the budget included assumptions about fuel prices that were based on normal training and deployments needs, and about where that fuel would be purchased. The global war effort has changed the reality underlying those assumptions. For example, the Defense Logistics Agency, which is responsible for providing fuel to all of the military services, has had to deploy its personnel to areas in and around Afghanistan to make fuel purchases. Moving fuel to and from areas that do not have adequate infrastructure and where there is little competition has proven extremely expensive. In its latest estimates, the General Accounting Office, which monitors fuel prices, projects that DOD will face a fuel- related shortfall of $1.5 billion by the end of the next fiscal year. If these funds are not restored, DOD will be forced to reallocate funds from other sources so that the military continues to have adequate fuel supplies. This is an immediate need, made worse by the war, where any potential savings could easily be redirected. The Service Chiefs included other priorities on their list of unfunded needs that also deserve consideration. For example, the Air Force needs an additional $92 million to purchase protective equipment, chemical senors, medical treatment materials, and training for the teams that respond to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons attacks. Improving security at the sites where the Army stores chemical weapons would cost an additional $103 million. The Marine Corps needs an additional $39 million for ammunition, and the Army's ammunition shortfalls total over $500 million more. These bullets would be used to support deployed troops and to train the soldiers and Marines who will replace them in future operations. The Navy, whose ships have been out on surge deployments since the September 11 attacks, needs an additional $164 million to maintain the fleet so that it can continue to support future operations. These are just a few examples of the costs of this war that remain unfunded because of resource constraints. If savings materialize in the mid-session review, I believe they are better spent on programs that our forces need right now. They need better protection on the installations where they live and work. They need more ammunition, and they need enough fuel to chase terrorists down wherever they are hiding. This budget provides for an adequate missile defense. Senator Levin's amendment ensures that funds are used where they are needed most urgently. We know where those needs are, because the Nation's top military leaders have told us. We need these funds to fight the scourge of terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Levin's amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to urge the passage of two bills vital to our Nation's ability to combat terrorism, S. 1799, the Homeland Security Education Act, and S. 1800, the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. These bills are designed to assist our nation's national security agencies in recruiting individuals fluent in crucial foreign languages and skilled in other areas of critical concern. I fear that the lack of foreign language-speaking employees has contributed to one of the worst security lapses in the history of our great Nation. The information that has surfaced in recent weeks about our intelligence agencies' inability to articulate a complete intelligence picture in the weeks and months preceding September 11 underscores the need for language-proficient professionals throughout Federal agencies to decipher and interpret information from foreign sources, as well as interact with foreign nationals. In the article by Katherine McIntire Peters from the May 1, 2002, Government Executive Magazine, entitled ``Lost in Translation,'' she demonstrates explicitly how a critical shortage of Federal employees with foreign language skills is hurting national security. According to the article, the Army has a 44-percent shortfall in translators and interpreters in five critical languages, including Arabic, Korean, Persian-Farsi, Mandarin-Chinese, and Russian; the Department of State lacks 26 percent of its calculated need in authorized translator and interpreter positions, and the FBI has a 13-percent deficiency in the staffing of similar positions. With such a startling lack of workers with proficient foreign language skills throughout the Federal Government, enacting S. 1799 and S. 1800 is essential for our national security. The 107th Congress must act now to alleviate these grave deficiencies to recruit personnel possessing vital skills. To do this, we must promote the pursuit of language skills at all levels of education. S. 1799 strengthens national security by assisting in the expansion and the improvement of primary through graduate-level foreign language programs. This bill gives a boost to the foreign language programs taught in our Nation's schools by promoting concentrated and effective language study and by providing intensive professional development for teachers. Language study from a very early age will open students' minds to the opportunities and benefits of learning foreign languages. These benefits, combined with an across-the-board strengthening in science and engineering programs, will ensure an educated and competitive citizenry while providing a qualified applicant pool for national security positions. S. 1800 provides incentives for accomplished university students to enter governmental service. The bill provides an enhanced loan repayment program for students with degrees in areas of critical importance and also provides fellowships to graduate students with expertise in similarly sensitive areas. These incentives will result in the recruitment of the highly-trained, dynamic young individuals our Nation needs to assist in the war against terrorism. Our security organizations will benefit tremendously from an influx of proficient foreign language speakers. In addition to increasing the number of security personnel entering the Federal service with language proficiency, the legislation encourages current employees to improve their language ability and to hone other skills. We must provide training to improve foreign language skills of our present Federal workers and invest in the next generation of employees to ensure a dedicated and capable workforce that will contribute to our national security. The legislation I and the other sponsors have proposed would accomplish this. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1799 and S. 1800. I ask unanimous consent that the Government Executive Magazine article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for the time. Mr. President. I rise in support of an amendment to the DOD authorization bill that takes important steps to enhance cost- effectiveness and accountability in Government. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Kennedy to offer this amendment to improve financial transparency and cost savings in procurement policies. This amendment will promote sensible procurement policies by requiring cost savings before decisions are made to outsource Government functions. The requirement that the government show a 10- percent cost savings prior to outsourcing has been a part of the commercial activities analysis for many years and is considered standard practice. I tried to codify the 10-percent cost-saving provision last year in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. I was met, however, with opposition because the Commercial Activities Panel had not yet completed its review. I am happy to report that the Commercial Activities panel completed its review last month and I am renewing my efforts, with my colleagues, to codify the 10-percent cost-savings provision. It is important to note that the amendment includes a provision which allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the cost-savings requirement if national security interests are compelling. This amendment would promote public-private competition by ensuring that federal employees have the opportunity to compete for existing and new DOD work. It strengthens fairness in public-private competitions by ensuring that DOD competes an equitable number of contractor and civilian jobs. It also improves government transparency by establishing measures to track the true cost and size of the DOD contractor workforce. The amendment offers wide discretion to the Department by creating a number of exemptions from the requirements of public-private competition. The amendment gives the Department the authority to waive public-private competition requirements when national security requires such action. The passage of this amendment would lead to smarter and more efficient procurement policy for the Federal Government. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I will continue to work to ensure DOD procurement policies are conducted in a manner that achieves the best return on the dollar. This amendment takes important steps toward this goal. I yield back my time, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we consider proposals for creating a Department of Homeland Security to protect our Nation's borders and critical infrastructure, we must not forget the 170,000 federal employees who will staff this new agency. This new department should not be used as a vehicle to advance broad changes to existing laws that would erode the rights and benefits now accorded to these federal workers. Nor should personnel decisions related to the agency be done in secret. Congress, along with employee unions and management associations, must be a part of the creation of the new department and any changes to title 5. The President's proposal for the homeland security department calls for enhanced management flexibilities in hiring, compensation, and workforce management. The challenges that such flexibilities would address are not new, and despite the belief that drastic personnel changes are needed, we should not forget that today's federal government faces many of the same workforce challenges as in the past. Real solutions for civil service reform require strong leadership from the top down and a commitment to the federal merit system and the employees it protects. Some 25 years ago, the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 responded to the same issues confronting our government today. Much like today, there were serious concerns that government red tape hindered managers from effectively recruiting, developing, retaining, and managing federal employees. Similar to current proposals, the CSRA focused on enhancing the accountability of the federal workforce, while it increased management flexibilities and streamlined hiring and firing procedures. The act made it easier for managers to address employee performance. The act also established the principles of openness and procedural justice that define the civil service today. It created the Merit System Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel to protect the rights of federal employees. The Federal Labor Relations Authority was created to oversee labor-management practices. The act provided a statutory basis for the collective bargaining rights of federal workers. It prohibited reprisals against employees who expose government fraud, waste and abuse. The Federal Government was strengthened as an employer as a result of the CSRA. Today, the federal civil service merit principles serve as a model for equal employment practices to both the private sector and foreign governments. With nearly half of the current Federal workforce eligible for retirement in the next 5 years, we must take care that we do not create an atmosphere where the Federal Government becomes the ``employer of last resort.'' Those in the Federal workforce demonstrate strong accountability and loyalty every day--not just to their employer--but to their country. On September 11, the Federal workforce responded with courage, dedication, and sacrifice, reminding us that we are all soldiers in the war against terrorism. As chairman of the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I will work to ensure that the rights of federal employees are preserved and accountability is maintained. These rights do not pose a threat to our national security and should never be used as a litmus-test for the patriotism of the Federal workforce.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for his passion in dealing with the issues before the committee. I thank him for his support and cooperation throughout our markup. It is truly an honor to work with Senator Inhofe as we both seek to advance the readiness of our Armed Forces. I also thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner. They both worked tirelessly to meet our committee actions. They provided great wisdom and guidance during our deliberations. I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 and to highlight some of the major actions taken by the Readiness Subcommittee in this year's bill. This year, the committee had five goals: No. 1, continue improvements in compensation and quality of life; No. 2, sustain readiness; No. 3, improve the efficiency of Department of Defense operations; No. 4, improve the Department of Defense's capability to meet non- traditional threats; and, No. 5, promote transformation. Our subcommittee focused on the first three of these goals. To improve quality of life, the Readiness Subcommittee recommended an increase of over $800 million to improve the buildings where servicemembers live and work, including a net increase of $640 million in new construction. We also provided an increase of $21 million for personal gear for military members to improve their safety and comfort in the field. To sustain readiness, the subcommittee made a number of recommendations that are included in the bill. First and foremost, the bill protects the $10 billion the President requested for operating costs of the ongoing war on terrorism, and has authorized the appropriation of these contingency funds once the President submits a request for specific uses for these funds to Congress. The subcommittee also developed an initiative to enhance training opportunities for our Armed Forces to ensure they can make the most effective use of existing training assets. To do this, we established a fund that would allow the Department of Defense to purchase land, or easements on land, that would protect training ranges. We also provided $126 million for improvements to those ranges, including better targeting capabilities and infrastructure improvements. To help to address longer term readiness challenges, the bill includes an increase of $95.0 million for maintenance of ships and other Navy assets, and $138.6 million to maintain highly stressed aircraft. And, we continue our efforts from last year to enhance the Department of Defense's coordination of anti-corrosion programs. Studies estimate that corrosion costs the Department up to $20 billion annually, and that corrosion continues to be a serious maintenance challenge and manpower drain. We therefore recommended that DOD designate a senior official to oversee anti-corrosion plans and policies, and added almost $30 million to fund those efforts and other anti-corrosion testing, research, and product applications. To improve DOD management, the subcommittee recommended a number of provisions to expand DOD's authority to acquire major weapon systems more efficiently. With respect to services contracts, we built on last year's legislation requiring improved management of the $50 billion DOD spends annually on services by establishing specific goals for the use of competitive contracts and performance-based contracting. These goals should help ensure that the Department of Defense meets contract services savings goals through specific management improvements rather than through program reductions. The bill also requires DOD to develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture, and addresses recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and travel cards by military and civilian personnel. I believe this bill strongly supports the readiness of our forces, both now and in the future. As the chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, I commend it to my colleagues. amendment no. 3899 Mr. President, I also rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Levin, and to join my other colleagues in supporting it, because it provides the Army with the opportunity to fully analyze options to provide organic indirect fire support. I am concerned by the manner in which the Department of Defense has handled the decision to terminate the Crusader program because it is apparent to me that the Army's views were not appropriately considered in this decision. I have long supported the Army's efforts to transform itself into a lighter, more lethal force to meet the threats of the 21st century. I believe the Army is making considerable progress in its efforts and trust in the positions that have been advocated for the type of technology and weapons necessary to sustain both the legacy force and the objective force. My friend, Senator Inhofe, has made a good statement on this issue and I certainly support him. In most situations, I consider the Secretary of Defense to be the expert on the needs of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces. I rely on his advice and direction for what the Department needs to execute its mission of preserving our national security. A lot of my trust in his expertise and the recommendations of his staff is based on my belief that he relies upon those in the Department, both uniformed and civilian, to determine what is best for the Department of Defense. I am having a very difficult time with this issue because it seems apparent to me that the Army is not being heard on this issue. It is disturbing to consider that decisions on Army modernization and transformation are apparently being made without timely input from the Army. I believe it is imperative for the Army to be provided with the necessary time to complete its study of the full range of options available to provide organic indirect fire support. For this reason, I support Senator Levin's amendment. Mr. President, the full committee and our subcommittee have worked hard on drafting this bill. It is a bill that our country needs. I ask that my colleagues support it. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise with pleasure today to commend the National Association of Letter Carriers, NALC for their unprecedented commitment to answering the call of reducing hunger in the United States. Over 30 million Americans go hungry everyday. In the summer months, the problem is particularly acute because the demand for emergency food is high and donations are at their lowest yearly point. However, on May 11, almost 62.7 million pounds of food was collected in the 10th Annual ``Stamp Out Hunger'' food drive as a result of the dedication of NALC members. Through a combined effort by the Priority Mail division of the U.S. Postal Service and the Campbell Soup Company, postcards promoting the food drive were delivered to over 100 million postal customers in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Then, on May 11, in addition to their daily postal duties, letter carriers volunteered to pick up donations, sort through them, and deliver the contributions to local community food banks. About 1,500 local NALC branches throughout the U.S. were involved in the drive. Others involved in the success of the nation's largest one-day effort to combat hunger were Saturn-UAW Union partnership Initiative, local United Ways, the AFL-CIO, and Family Circle creator and cartoonist Bill Keane. The Campbell Soup Company donated one million pounds of canned goods. The National Association of Letter Carriers is the union of city delivery carriers employed by the U.S. Postal Service which has a long tradition of participating in community service. The NALC ``Stamp Out Hunger'' food drive is just one example of the members' generosity and commitment to the communities that they serve. It is fitting that we applaud the sense of community displayed by the members of the NALC, who like their fellow postal workers, have demonstrated their dedication and pride in carrying out their daily jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the National Association of Letter Carriers, their sponsors, and the millions of Americans who donated food on May 11. Their geneorsity will help ease the plight of hunger for millions for men, women, and children in the United States.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in commemoration of the birthday of Hawaii's first monarch, King Kamehameha I. More than two centuries since his birth, Kamehameha is a legendary, indeed, mythical figure renown worldwide for his bravery and martial brilliance. He commands the respect of Hawaii's people for his wise and just leadership, and his accomplishments continue to influence and govern Hawaii today. Historically, Kamehameha is notable because of his brilliance as a military strategist and political leader. Kamehameha adapted Western innovation, weaponry, and science to gain a decisive advantage in his drive to unify the Hawaiian Islands. For Native Hawaiians and the people of Hawaii, Kamehameha is beloved for his concern and attention to the well-being of his subjects and for his commitment to do what was just and right for the people. Kamehameha's wisdom, even more than his strength, stature, and daring, is his greatest and most enduring legacy for Hawaii's indigenous peoples--the Native Hawaiians, the people of Hawaii, and all students of history. Mamalohoe, the Law of the Splintered Paddle, is the most prominent example of Kamehameha as a wise and just leader. Mamalahoe is Hawaii's first Bill of Rights protecting the common people from assault, and it is still part of our State's constitution. One hundred and ninety years ago, in the summer of 1812, Kamehameha returned to the Kona Coast. Having unified the islands and established peace and stability, Kamehameha worked to build prosperity for his people by increasing agricultural production and foreign trade. The first observance of a day honoring King Kamehameha was proclaimed by King Kamehameha V on June 11, 1872, in the Kingdom of Hawaii. It remains an annual holiday in the State of Hawaii. This year marks the 130th anniversary of the only holiday in the United States created to honor a once-reigning monarch in the only state that was once a kingdom, the State of Hawaii.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an excellent exhibit that opened last week at the Smithsonian Institution's Arts and Industries Building, entitled, ``Kaho'olawe; Rebirth of a Sacred Hawaiian Island.'' The exhibit chronicles the rich history of the island of Kaho'olawe from its mythical beginnings to current efforts towards its protection and revitalization. The exhibit is a project of the Bishop Museum Native Hawaiian Culture and Arts Program, and is sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Community Development Pacific, and Protect Kaho'olawe `Ohana/Fund. I was deeply moved by the exhibit and its eloquent reflection of the Hawaiian value of ``aloha aina,'' which means love for the land, which serves as a foundation for the culture of Hawaii's indigenous peoples; the Native Hawaiians. The profound appreciation for Hawaiian culture and its values is reflected in Hawaii's state motto, 'Ua mau ke'ea `o ka `aina `i ka pono, ``the life of the land is perpetuated in its righteousness.'' The exhibition celebrates Hawaii's culture and people in telling the story of Kaho'olawe. Ancient chants--plaintive and poetic oral histories of Hawaii--along with archaeological evidence indicate that Kaho'olawe was inhabited by Native Hawaiians who fished and farmed in coastal and upland settlements scattered across the island. In ancient times, the island was referred to as Kanaloa for the god of the ocean and the foundations of the earth. From 1941 to 1994, Kaho'olawe and its surrounding waters were under the control of the United States Navy. Both the island and the waters of Kaho'olawe were used as a live-fire training range. In 1990, President George Bush directed the Department of Defense to cease using the island of Kaho'olawe as a training range. In 1993, Congress enacted legislation that recognized the cultural significance of Kaho'olawe, required its return to the State of Hawaii, and directed the Navy to conduct unexploded ordnance cleanup and environmental restoration in partnership with the State of Hawaii. Congress authorized Federal funding through 2003 for the cleanup of Kaho'olawe. We continue to work with the Navy to ensure that this funding is utilized for maximum cleanup of the island before access is turned over to the State of Hawaii in late 2003. The restoration of Kaho'olawe is more than the cleanup of ordnance. Native Hawaiians also referred to Kaho'olawe as ``Ko Hema Lamalama,'' the Southern Beacon, in reference to the island's use as a navigational aid, or shining beacon, for long-distance voyagers returning to Hawaii. For many Hawaiians, the vision of a fully restored Kaho'olawe serves as a guiding light to the revitalization of Native Hawaiian culture. I encourage all of my colleagues and their staff to visit this exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution's Arts and Industries Building. I always welcome the opportunity to share the true essence of Hawaii with my colleagues and our fellow citizens on the U.S. mainland. We have the honor and privilege of showing you a bit of Hawaii in Washington, DC, until September 2, 2002, and I invite you to share in this wonderful experience. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a very serious problem that burdens not only the State of Hawaii, but also the entire country--the problem of exotic and invasive species. Invasive species are plants, animals, and microbes which are transported from their native environments, and in the absence of natural predators and competitors, proliferate and permanently alter their new ``home.'' Invasive species are potentially one of the largest economic and environmental threats in this century, costing the U.S. an estimated $100 billion each year and wreaking havoc with the nation's biodiversity. With the rise of global commerce, invasive species have found it easier to find their way to new lands. They arrive in nearly every possible way, including by vessels in ballast water to our ports, and by planes via cargo, military and commercial shipments of plants and food. Upon arrival, they can have devastating impacts on water quality, agriculture, health, and especially the environment and the economy. Nowhere is this situation more evident than in Hawaii. Hawaii has suffered the highest rate of species extinction in the United States, and in fact, one of the highest rates of extinction anywhere in the world. The Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources estimates that before the arrival of humans, new species became established in Hawaii once every 70,000 years. Currently, Hawaii becomes home to over 20 new species per year. The Federal interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force estimates that Hawaii alone has 4,465 nonindigenous species. It is a problem of unbelievable magnitude. I would like to bring your attention to a few species in particular. Many may have read the recent Washington Post article on the coqui. This small frog is less than two inches long and is beloved in its native home of Puerto Rico. But in Hawaii, we have no native frogs. In fact, we have no native reptiles or terrestrial amphibians, no native snakes, iguanas, toads, or even salamanders. In short, our ecosystems are not prepared to take on the coqui; there are no natural predators, such as snakes. Therefore, the impact of the coqui is immense. These nocturnal frogs, which make beautiful sounds individually, cause quite an uproar when singing in a chorus. Each one can produce a call at 90 decibels. However, at one site on the island of Hawaii, the coqui population is estimated at over 8,000 frogs an acre. It would sound as if 8,000 lawn mowers were running at once. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented 260 infested sites on the Big Island, 40 sites on Maui, 20 on Oahu, and two on Kauai. Our tourism industries, especially our hotels which are world-renowned for the promise of restful tranquility, are already feeling the impact. The coqui consume an average of 46,000 prey items per night per acre. This puts tremendous predation pressure on Hawaii's native arthropods, and provides intense competition for Hawaii's native forest birds, many of which are insect-eating as well as threatened or endangered species. The frogs also serve as an additional food source for non-native rats and mongoose. Increased populations of rats and mongoose then prey on the already impacted forest birds, which intensifies the effects on native ecosystems and disrupts their delicate balance. The brown tree snake is another example of an invasive species with tremendous potential for affecting Hawaii. This snake was introduced to Guam in World War II probably as a stowaway in ship cargo. It eats any animal smaller than itself, and is responsible for the extinction of twelve native bird species on Guam. Up to 13,000 snakes per square mile may occur in some forested areas of Guam. A brown tree snake can enter a home, and its venom is life threatening to infants. In fact, one out of every thousand visits to the emergency room in Guam is due to snakebites. It has caused more than 1,200 electric power outages since 1980, some island-wide and lasting several days. Approximately every third day there is a snake- caused power outage somewhere on Guam. The outages cost Guam an estimated $1--$4 million each year. Research and control of brown tree snakes in Guam cost over $4 million per year. Now the brown tree snake is poised to invade Hawaii, other Pacific Islands, and even the U.S. mainland. The snake has already reached Hawaii several times as a stowaway on flights from Guam. If the brown tree snake is accidentally introduced, Hawaii will suffer the same fate as Guam. On Guam, you no longer hear the sweet melody of a songbird because they have all been consumed by the brown tree snake. Development of long-term screening measures at airports to prevent this introduction would cost an estimated $2.5 million annually over several years. While this may seem costly, the potential economic impact caused by the brown tree snake would be devastating in comparison. Miconia is a large, leafy tree that was introduced to Hawaii in 1959. It was brought intentionally as an ornamental plant; miconia has a beautiful, deep rich purple color on the underside of its leaves. However, despite its benign appearance, it is an aggressive invader of native and disturbed forests, growing into dense stands that block light to smaller native plants. Miconia has also contributed to erosion and landslides because of its shallow root system. It blossoms four times a year, sending out millions of seeds each time, and the seed pods remain viable for up to eight years. Miconia is just one example of a noxious weed that is a major threat to native Hawaiian plants. All across the country, invasive alien weeds fuel grass and forest fires, accelerate soil erosion, and consume critical water resources. The lost productivity of rangelands due to weeds has been estimated at $3.6 to $4.5 billion annually. Over 100 million acres of land are infested with weeds, and the infestation is expanding by 10 million acres per year. On Federal lands alone, the rate of infestation is 4,600 acres per day. Noxious weeds destroy or alter natural habitats, damage waterways and power lines, and depress property values. Some are even toxic. In Hawaii, Federal, State, and local agencies have joined the universities and local communities to support efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. The University of Hawaii, Hawaii's Department of Agriculture and State Department of Land and Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as smaller, island-specific citizen groups coordinate efforts to research, track and control the coqui. In the case of the miconia, students and volunteers have to hack through a jungle to reach the trees, suffering through mosquito bites and the thorny underbrush. The State employs helicopters to spot plants in places that may have been missed, and volunteers in some cases drop off 100-foot cliffs to destroy these invaders. Now it is time to do our part in Congress to support these efforts at the Federal level. I have joined 19 of my colleagues in signing a letter circulated by my friend, the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, in support of funding for the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. This Act provides for ballast water management to prevent the introduction and spread of non-indigenous species into the waters of the United States, provides for a comprehensive program to control the brown tree snake, and provides for invasive aquatic plant management. In 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112. The executive order mandates federal agencies to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful alien species, and coordinate their actions with other federal agencies. The goal of the executive order is to minimize the negative economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. We must act to turn these goals into reality. Funding for the battle against invasive species crosscuts almost every Federal agency, including the U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and Department of Commerce. Each agency has been taking an active role against invasive species. This is a challenge that must be appreciated and fought on all fronts, and the agencies need increased funding in this budget-conscious year. I urge my colleagues to support funding for the effective implementation of Executive Order 13112, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, and for Federal and State agencies' efforts across the United States in the struggle against invasive and exotic species. Until these efforts are fully funded, we do not stand a chance against these destructive invaders. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Seema Balwani, a congressional fellow in my office, during today's session.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Yes, I certainly yield to my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern with the tuna provision in the Andean Trade Preferences Expansion Act (ATPEA) portion of the Trade Act of 2002. The purpose of ATPEA is to encourage economic opportunities other than drug production and trade in Andean nations. Previously, canned tuna has not been included in the list of items given preferential tariff treatment. The provision included in the Trade Act would authorize the President to extend duty- free treatment to a specified level of imports of canned tuna from Andean nations. The Philippines, an important ally in the war on terrorism, is likely to be harmed economically by the unintended consequences of this action. The canneries and most of the tuna fishing fleet of the Philippines are based on the island of Mindanao. The tuna industry directly accounts for 45,000 jobs on Mindanao and approximately 105,000 people are employed in supporting industries. These jobs are being risked by the Andean Trade Preferences Act. It is also important to note that the Abu Sayyaf, which is believed to be linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network, operates in the Mindanao region. The Abu Sayyaf organization has been responsible for kidnappings, executions, and bombings. U.S. Armed Forces are assisting the Philippines in combating the terrorist group. Providing preferential tariff treatment to tuna from Andean nations has the possibility of destabilizing a region in which we have U.S. troops involved in anti-terrorism operations. It is my hope that the conferees can effectively address this important national security issue and prevent economic disruption in a region where a war on terrorism is being fought. The tuna tariffs reveal a need for enhanced coordination of trade preferences. A thoughtful strategy of balancing trade preferences must be developed to prevent future policy inconsistencies in the future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I wish to address some of the issues raised by the White House's revelations last week that President Bush had been briefed on August 6 on Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and on plans by al-Qaida to hijack airplanes. I understand that there was no advance knowledge that al-Qaida was planning to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. I understand that there was no advance warning that this was to take place on September 11. I believe the President when he states that had he known that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were going to be attacked on September 11 by hijacked planes, he would have taken immediate action. Likewise, I believe none of my Democratic colleagues have suggested otherwise. I am certain that the President would have acted swiftly and effectively to prevent those attacks. In retrospect there are numerous actions which I am certain both the administration and the Congress wished we had taken when the Director of Central Intelligence first warned the President about terrorist attacks in the United States. An inquiry into what was done and what went wrong are legitimate questions which should be answered by the administration, and I hope will be. But rather than concentrating on the past, I would like to focus my remarks on what now needs to be done to prevent future attacks. I do not agree with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's recent conclusion that it is inevitable that terrorists will gain access to weapons of mass destruction and will use them. Our policy should be designed to deter terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction in the first place. If we have the right strategy and implement it effectively, then the eventuality Secretary Rumsfeld assumes will not take place. The administration is demanding that all agencies and departments produce performance plans and strategies to ensure that they are meeting their missions and using their budgets effectively. The Congress should be allowed to ask if the administration is managing homeland security effectively and meeting its mission. Three factors that can be used in judging success are transparency, public benefit, and leadership. Transparency refers to how the administration communicates with the public and policymakers. Is the administration sharing information effectively? Is the information easily found and understandable? The confusion surrounding the anthrax exposures and the spate of recent terrorist warnings indicate that it is failing. Public benefit refers to how clearly the administration establishes the cause and effect relationship between its actions and the general good. Do people feel safer in the aftermath of the administration's efforts? Is it clear that the administration's actions will result in a safer and more secure society? Vice President Cheney's remarks on Sunday that the question is ``when'' not ``if'' a terrorist will attack the United States suggests that the administration has not met its most basic mission of homeland security and the war on terrorism. Leadership is a broad term. Partly, it refers to using past and current information for future decisions. Leadership also refers to admitting when mistakes were made and identifying where failures occurred. Have we learned from past mistakes and are the lessons being used? Do the administration's actions inspire confidence in their ability to enhance our lives? The administration is right when it suggests that the Congress received many of the same warnings that it did in the months leading up to September 11. But it is the White House and executive branch agencies which have the responsibility and the capability of ensuring an adequate response to those warnings. One of the first hearings I held after becoming chairman of the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee was a hearing on July 23, 2001, on ``FEMA's Role in Managing a Bioterrorist Attack and the Impact of Public Health Concerns on Bioterrorism Preparedness.'' Since that hearing, we have come some distance in improving our capability but we still have a long way to go. For example, the administration needs to implement a long-term homeland security strategy that matches the threats we face. The Office of Homeland Security is still a work in progress. When my colleagues suggest that the head of that office should be Senate confirmable, they are right. Governor Ridge is well-meaning but lacks the authority or the instruments to effect sufficient coordination and implementation by a diverse set of Federal agencies all charged with overseeing different aspects of homeland security. That is why I support S. 2425, introduced by Senator Lieberman, to establish a Department of National Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism. I am pleased to note that the Committee on Governmental Affairs reported favorably the bill this week. I call on the administration to do the following: Carefully evaluate how agencies are structured to respond to terrorism. Eliminate fragmentation to achieve cohesive government operations. Reorganization alone will not fix communication problems. Ensure that Federal agencies have the information they need and know what to do to protect against terrorism. Government organizations must have the proper internal structure and resources to identify, share, and act upon information swiftly. Direct Federal agencies on what a ``high state of alert'' means and what agencies need to do to respond. Organizations lose the ability to respond if the agencies remain on a prolonged state of high alert. There needs to be clearer communication of a relatively lower state of alert so that agencies can respond more effectively. Agencies need to have accurate information so that they may ``stand down'' in periods of relative calm. The administration needs to clarify the proper role of the military in homeland defense responses before a massive attack requires its extensive involvement. Federal agencies should know what ``success'' means and have an idea of what the agencies need to accomplish to make progress. The most effective way to respond to terrorist attacks is to prevent them from happening. The only way to do this is through intelligence and coordination. This was the real failure prior to 9-11 and it continues to be a problem today. Communication and intelligence sharing between Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community are dysfunctional. Local and State leaders are crying out for some way to share information and intelligence. These are enormous challenges but these are critical times. I fear the atmosphere in Washington is still one of ``business-as-usual,'' and I am concerned that the administration is reluctant to make the changes which are needed in as timely fashion as is required if we are going to be better prepared for the ``perhaps more devastating attack'' which Vice President Cheney predicted would next come, or if we are going to avoid the type of attack by a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction as imagined by Secretary Rumsfeld.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to give strong support to H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. The Nation is looking to Congress to provide the building blocks to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism. H.R. 3448 takes several good steps to coordinate and strengthen Federal programs and help states and communities prepare for bioterrorism and other public health crises. As an original cosponsor of the Senate companion bill, I am proud to support the final product. The work that the bill managers and their staff have done in preparing this important legislation is to be commended. H.R. 3448 provides $1.1 billion in funding for grants to state and local governments to prepare response plans, buy equipment, and train health care workers for bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, and an additional $520 million for community hospitals. The Act authorizes funding and establishes safety procedures for scientists to use pathogens for vaccine and disease research. H.R. 3448 builds up many of the Nation's resources that have been weakened from years of neglect and also addresses several new concerns. Early detection of a biological threat is critical in minimizing the number of people exposed to an agent and the extent that the agent or disease will spread. New tools capable of detecting small quantities of infectious agents in food, water, air and other vectors are needed. For this reason, I introduced S. 1560, the Biological Agent-Environmental Detection Act of 2001. I am pleased to see provisions of my bill included in H.R. 3448, especially the authorization of funding to improve testing, verification, and calibrating of new detection and surveillance techniques and tools. Scientists and engineers in our universities and national labs are conducting exciting research on air and water monitoring and developing satellite-based remote sensing technologies to identify weather patterns that contribute to the spread of infectious disease and biological or chemical attacks. I am convinced that these men and women can develop robust, effective, and accurate detection methods. Creating a critical line of defense against bioterrorism must involve health care professionals. Through hearings and discussions with health care providers and bioterrorism experts, it is clear that our doctors and nurses are not trained to recognize or respond to bioterrorism. For this reason, Senator Rockefeller and I introduced S. 1561, Strengthening Bioterrorism Preparedness Through Expanded National Disaster Medical System Training Programs. I am pleased that H.R. 3448 includes our proposal to use the existing emergency communication infrastructure, disaster training program, and community partnerships within the nation's 163 Veterans Affairs hospitals to train VA and Department of Defense staff and local health care providers in recognizing and treating victims of biological weapons. This is but one way in which the Department of Veterans Affairs serves the nation in bioterrorism preparedness and public health. The $133 million dedicated to VA will expand these efforts and is well deserved. Congress has not forgotten the role our local and community hospitals will play in such a crisis. We also are working to give our medical professionals, public health officials, and emergency managers the earliest possible warning of pending outbreaks. The problems we face with bioterrorism are not new, nor are they related solely to bioterrorism. Our hospitals lack the capacity to handle even a handful of extra patients during flu season, let alone hundreds of people seeking critical care during an intentional epidemic. Passing the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act is only the first step in making America safer. Now we can provide the hard working men and women in public service, academia, and private industry with the resources needed to continue protecting this country from bioterrorism.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, every year during the month of May, our National comes together, in appreciation and celebration of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and their unique and varied history and contributions to our country. In fact, this May is the 10th Anniversary of the enactment of Public Law 102-450, which officially extended what was known as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week to the entire month of May of every year. Although celebration of Asian American and Pacific Islander cultures and histories has become a large part of Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, this time was designated primarily to focus on learning more about Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and their history. Too few of us know in any great detail the stories of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. This is discouraging because Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are such a vibrant addition to the mosaic that is America. For instance, few realize that the first Filipino community in the U.S. was established in the Louisiana bayou around 1763. Not many of us know that the Bing cherry, a popular product of the Pacific Northwest, was developed by a Chinese American horticulturist named Ah Bing. And in Florida, another Chinese American, named Lue Gim Gong, developed an orange which was resistant to frost, a boon to the Florida agricultural industry. Hawaii's Duke Kahanamoku was a five-time Olympic medal winner and is recognized internationally as the father of modern surfing. Duke Kahanamoku holds a unique place in surfing history and his Olympic feats are legendary over 80 years since their achievement. One of the most amazing advances in medicine, organ transplantation, exists today largely because of a Japanese American, Dr. Paul Terasaki, who helped develop a test to determine the compatibility of a donated organ and its intended recipient. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, have made names for themselves in the fields of music, acting, fashion, athletics, academia, medicine, science, literature, cuisine, and many more. Immigrants from Asia and the Pacific have contributed so much to the rich American tapestry. Given their longtime presence here on our shores, there can be no denying that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are an integral part of the fabric of America. Aside from being an enriching and valuable addition to America, Asian American and Pacific Islanders are also one of the most diverse and fastest growing segments of our population. The Asian American and Pacific Islander community is made up of more than 36 distinct subpopulations with differing cultures, religions, traditions, and beliefs, speaking more than 100 different languages. U.S. Census figures show that the Asian American and Pacific Islander population grew at a rate about five times that of the national rate between 1990 and 2000. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders now make up 4.2 percent of the U.S. population, around 11.9 million people strong. The Asian American and Pacific Islander population grew by 72 percent in a single decade. While my home state of Hawaii is probably most closely identified as having a large Asian American and Pacific Islander population, it is interesting to note that in the decade between the last two decennial censuses the Asian American and Pacific Islander population in Las Vegas, Nevada, increased 286 percent, in Atlanta, Georgia, there was a 200 percent increase, in Austin/San-Marcos, Texas, an increase of 175 percent, in Denver/Boulder/Greeley, Colorado a 115 percent increase, and in Detroit/Ann Arbor/Flint, Michigan, a 111 percent increase. Hopefully these figures will begin to dispel the notion that Asian American and Pacific Islander growth is strictly a West Coast or Eastern Seaboard phenomenon. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are also key players in our nation's fight against terrorism and efforts to improve homeland security. For instance, my good friend and former colleague, Secretary of transportation Norman Y. Mineta, is working to keep our nation's roads and skies safe. His life story is truly amazing. Interned as a young boy during World War II by his own government, he grew up to be a public servant who has devoted his life to public service on behalf of our country. From his days as a local California politician, to his service in the U.S. House of Representatives, his formation of the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, his Chairmanship of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, his tenure as Secretary of Commerce, and now as Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta has broken down barriers and served his constituents and our nation with integrity and distinction. As Chief of Staff, United States Army, General Eric K. Shinseki has distinguished himself as a leader of outstanding courage and impeccable integrity. The people of Hawaii are immensely proud of Ric Shinseki, a son of Kauai who has risen to the top post in the Army. Considered an enemy alien at birth, he is the first Asian American to wear four stars. General Shinseki's illustrious career speaks to his commitment and valor and represents the promise and greatness of America. In every way, General Shinseki exemplifies what is best about our nation and the men and women sworn to defend it. I have mentioned some of the little known, yet positive, history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, but before I conclude my remarks today, I want to highlight some less positive history, which is also little known. Our Nation has not always welcomed Asians and Pacific Islanders with open arms and sadly the treatment many immigrant groups received was truly shameful. I am speaking of events such as the internment of nearly 120,000 aliens and Americans of Japanese ancestry via Executive Order 9066 during World War II; the Immigration Act of 1924 which led to an almost complete halt of immigration from Asia; the exclusion of the Chinese laborers who built the transcontinental railroad from the famous photo of the driving of the golden spike at Promontory Point, ``whitewashing'' history of their important contribution; and the Chinese Exclusion Act, first enacted in 1882 and not repealed until 1943. Most recently, of course, we have the unfortunate acts of xenophobic and anti-Muslim violence perpetrated in the days and weeks after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on our Nation where many of the victims were actually Asian Americans. Regrettably, ignorance and prejudice continue to adversely impact Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders as they go about their daily lives. Last year, Representative David Wu from Oregon was denied entry to the Department of Energy on official business solely because of his national origin. Hawaii's Governor, Ben Cayetano, a Filipino America, was recently asked for his passport when checking into a hotel in Nevada. These high profile incidents underscore the indignities, insults, and discrimination that Americans of Asian or Pacific Islander descent encounter on a daily basis because some people feel they do not ``look American.'' There is an adage that says, ``Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lessons afterwards.'' My hope, as the 2002 Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month comes to close, is that we, as a Nation, having been through these tests, have truly learned a lesson. The theme of this year's Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month is Unity in Freedom. The simplicity of this theme belies its profoundness. Only by having the freedom to celebrate our individual diversity can we truly come together as one Nation. If you go through your pockets or purses and take out any coin minted in the United States, you will see the motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''--from many, one. This motto first appeared on our coinage back in 1795. I see ``Unity in Freedom'' as a continuation of our Nation's lengthy and grand tradition of respecting an encouraging individual rights while simultaneously acknowledging that the key to our success as a country comes from our ability to lay our individual differences aside to work together for a common goal.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on May 10, 2002, our Nation celebrated Foreign Affairs Day, which honors the dedication and accomplishments of the men and women in the Foreign Service, the Civil Service, and as Foreign Service Nationals. It is also a day to remember those who have died in the line of duty. We know that international problems can quickly become problems at home. American diplomats and their staff are on the front lines addressing these problems before they reach our shores, and these Federal employees are just as critical to our national security as modern weaponry and soldiers. Just as members of our armed services risk their lives everyday in defense of freedom, civilians in the Federal foreign affairs workforce stand with the military on the front lines of the war on terrorism. Those in the Civil Service and Foreign Service have protected America's interests overseas and the freedoms we enjoy at home since the earliest years of our Republic. Many have worked in perilous environments. The first to die was a diplomat in 1780, traveling to his duty post. The attacks on Civil Service and Foreign Service personnel have risen in recent years. This month, 13 new names were added to the American Foreign Service Association Memorial honoring Foreign Service, Civil Service, and Foreign Service National employees who lost their lives in the line of duty or under heroic or inspirational circumstances. Among those heroes is a U.S. embassy employee who was killed with her daughter this year in a terrorist bombing during church services in Pakistan. As of today, a total of 209 men and women have lost their lives serving the United States as employees of the Civil Service and the Foreign Service. Although not a member of the Foreign Service, a civilian Central Intelligence Agency case officer was among the first Americans to lose his life in Afghanistan in our Nation's fight against terrorism since September 11th. Foreign Affairs Day reminds us all of the heroic dedication and sacrifices from people in the Foreign Service and Civil Service. They serve their country abroad using their talent and skills to defend freedom at home. Their service contributes enormously to our national security. As their personal safety is sacrificed for our freedom, we should always remember that they are the first line of defense in protecting the light of freedom which shines from America.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide health care coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, to individuals enrolled in a health care plan administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Cochran in this endeavor. In the 1980s, a number of Federal banking-related agencies--including OPIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Farm Credit Administration--established separate health insurance plans outside the FEHBP. The agencies were able to offer enhanced benefits at significantly lower costs because of the demographics of their workforce. However, increasing health care costs, an aging workforce, and an overall reduction in the Federal workforce has made it economically impractical for these agencies to maintain their separate programs. As a result, all of these agencies, except OPIC, discontinued their separate programs through legislation and transferred their employees to the FEHBP. Legislative action is needed because current law requires that Federal employees participate in a FEHBP plan for the 5 years prior to retirement in order to retain coverage after retirement. OPIC established its separate program in 1982 and discontinued offering the plan to new employees on January 1, 1995. There are 21 retirees and 18 near-retirees who would be affected by the change. Due to the large costs involved in covering retirees in the FEHBP, OPIC would be required to pay the employees health benefits fund for the benefits provided by this legislation. OPIC has agreed to pay this amount from its existing appropriated resources. It is estimated that OPIC will save approximately $300,000 per year in premiums when the transfer occurs. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide health care coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, to individuals enrolled in a health care plan administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend Senator Cochran in this endeavor. In the 1980s, a number of Federal banking-related agencies--including OPIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Farm Credit Administration--established separate health insurance plans outside the FEHBP. The agencies were able to offer enhanced benefits at significantly lower costs because of the demographics of their workforce. However, increasing health care costs, an aging workforce, and an overall reduction in the Federal workforce has made it economically impractical for these agencies to maintain their separate programs. As a result, all of these agencies, except OPIC, discontinued their separate programs through legislation and transferred their employees to the FEHBP. Legislative action is needed because current law requires that Federal employees participate in a FEHBP plan for the 5 years prior to retirement in order to retain coverage after retirement. OPIC established its separate program in 1982 and discontinued offering the plan to new employees on January 1, 1995. There are 21 retirees and 18 near-retirees who would be affected by the change. Due to the large costs involved in covering retirees in the FEHBP, OPIC would be required to pay the employees health benefits fund for the benefits provided by this legislation. OPIC has agreed to pay this amount from its existing appropriated resources. It is estimated that OPIC will save approximately $300,000 per year in premiums when the transfer occurs. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, in congratulating the University of Hawaii's Warrior Volleyball team, the 2002 NCAA National Champions. The Warriors captured the title by beating top-ranked Pepperdine University in four games Saturday evening in State College, Pennsylvania. The national championship is the first for any men's athletic program at the University of Hawaii in over 30 years of NCAA Division I competition. Hawaii finished its championship season with a 24-8 record, and out- hit and out-blocked a Pepperdine team that had beaten the Warriors in their three previous meetings this season. Saturday's victory also marked the 200th win for Warrior coach Mike Wilton in his ten-year tenure at Hawaii. Sports fans in Hawaii love the men's and women's volleyball teams at the University of Hawaii. Hawaii has led the nation in attendance for seven consecutive seasons. This season the Warriors drew 89,387 fans for 16 home matches, an average of 5,587 per match, breaking the record set last year. It is not unusual for almost 8,000 fans to pack the Stan Sheriff Center on the UH-Manoa campus for a contest against a conference rival. When you factor in the fact that all home matches are televised, you get an appreciation of the popularity of Hawaii's volleyball program. The 2002 Volleyball National Champions are an extraordinary team. They are also an international team. Three-time All-American and Final Four MVP Costas Theocharidis is from Greece; Team captain Eyal Zimet is from Israel; senior All-American Dejan Miladinovic is from Serbia. Along with Hawaii's best prep players, men from Canada, the mainland U.S., Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Guam, are a part of the 2002 Hawaii Warrior's championship team this season. It is a credit to the players, coaches, trainers and staff, that outstanding teamwork, years of hard work and conditioning, and dedication to the sport they love, have earned them the national championship. The multinational 2002 champions are splendid representatives and ambassadors for Hawaii. Hawaii is a multicultural State, where no race or ethnicity has a majority. Our Culture reflects the rich mosaic of Native Hawaiian, Asian, and Western cultures and traditions which are shared, celebrated, and appreciated by Hawaii's people and visitors to the islands. Immigrants from nations around the world have shared their rich cultures and traditions, which in combination with the indigenous Hawaiian culture, have created a special and wonderful place for residents and visitors alike. So it is with great pride and appreciation that I join my colleague from Hawaii and the people of Hawaii in honoring the 2002 National Champion University of Hawaii Warrior Volleyball team by offering a resolution commending their championship season. I ask unanimous consent that a roster of Warrior Volleyball players, coaches, and staff be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, it is with pleasure that I support a resolution commending public servants, especially our federal workforce, for their dedication and continued service to the nation during Public Service Recognition Week, which began yesterday and runs through May 12, 2002. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by Senators Cochran, Durbin, Levin, Lieberman, Voinovich, Collins, and Thompson. As my colleagues know, public service is a long and honored tradition in the United States. Today, more than ever, our nation is faced with challenges that affect not only our way of life, but also the security of our country. Although we are still grappling with these changes, there has been one steady and true beacon of hope and inspiration through this uncertainty--our federal workforce. Their dedication, commitment, and tireless service have contributed greatly to the country's recovery from the tragic events of September 11th and the anthrax attacks through the U.S. Mail. Public Service Recognition Week represents an opportunity for us to honor and celebrate the commitment of individuals who serve the needs of the nation through work at all levels of government. Public Service Recognition Week is also a time to call on a new generation to consider public service. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I am pleased that there is renewed interest in working for the federal government. This trend is particularly heartening given that 50 percent of our federal workforce will be eligible to retire in the next five years. I also wish to point out that every federal agency has a role in ensuring that our nation is protected and that it prospers, not just those agencies and federal employees that are directly fighting the war on terrorism. I invite my colleagues to honor the patriotic commitment to public service that our federal employees exemplify and to join in the federal government's annual celebration. From May 9-12, 2002, there will be an extensive exhibit on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., showcasing many of our federal agencies and branches of the military, as well as highlighting the services these agencies provide. In addition to the Mall exhibits, I encourage my colleagues to recognize federal employees, as well as state and local government employees within their states, to let them know how much their work is appreciated. Our resolution details the tremendous contributions that our public servants make to their country and communities. I am very proud of the men and women who serve our country, both in and out of uniform. I urge my fellow members to use next week to thank our federal employees for their enthusiasm and selfless dedication to public service.