Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, as we contend with the threats of global terrorism and our national sorrow in the aftermath of September 11th, we must focus on the accomplishments, ideals, and spirit that make America great and look to the future with a renewed sense of resolve and hope. As we engaged in exploring the American continent in the 19th century, and the far reaches of space in the 20th century, we must welcome, in this new century, the challenge of exploring our oceans, the last uncharted frontier. Oceans make up 70 percent of the earth's surface, yet we have characterized less than ten percent of the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone. Within our EEZ, the United States has jurisdiction over more submerged lands than terrestrial lands. Newly charted research voyages and state-of-the-art underwater technology give us the tools we need to make new discoveries to aid us in better understanding this underwater world. My focus on ocean exploration is timely because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration celebrated the culmination of two voyages of discovery in Charleston, South Carolina, on October 1, 2001. The ``Deep East Expedition'' and ``Islands in the Stream'' projects represent two important steps in revitalizing our exploration of the oceans. Through these journeys, NOAA scientists and their partners are uncovering the ocean's secrets. The ``Deep East Expedition'' sailed from Maine to Georgia to investigate the diversity of deep-sea coral beds and gas hydrate communities that may contain new energy resources. On a simultaneous timetable, ``Islands in the Stream'' followed the Gulf Stream both from Belize to North Carolina. Scientists investigated ocean currents in the Gulf of Mexico, dove in submersibles examining coral reef and hard- bottom communities, and conducted acoustic surveys to characterize the ocean floor. NOAA partnered on these two projects with Woods Hole and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institutes, the National Geographic Society, numerous universities and other federal agencies, such as NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey. This summer, NOAA's flagship research vessel, the Ronald H. Brown, returned from an unparalleled journey of discovery in the undersea Astoria Canyon, beyond the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. This voyage was titled the ``Lewis and Clark Legacy Expedition'' and was intended to be an extension of that historic journey which ended at the mouth of the Columbia River almost two hundred years ago. The scientists discovered two new species of invertebrates and viewed deep- water communities never before seen, at depths of over one half mile. Using advanced sonar technology, scientists created three-dimensional views of the canyon's sea floor texture and discovered an ancient shoreline from the last ice age, over 17,000 years ago. These discoveries will help answer questions about how glaciers, earthquakes, and plate movement affect the earth's geological history and its future. Just as Thomas Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark in 1803 to gather scientific facts of the uncharted Western lands, so too must we be visionary in commissioning our best scientists to map and discover unknown reaches of the oceans. We must duplicate Jefferson's ``Corps of Discovery'' for our ocean depths. This undiscovered domain is believed to contain many times the biomass of all the rainforests and terrestrial life forms combined. Today's pioneers in ocean exploration have already embarked upon this journey. Just as explorers of the past mapped the mountain ranges and the riverways of our nation, these modern explorers have begun mapping the ranges and riverways beneath the surface of the ocean. Two weeks ago Congress heard many of these explorers, researchers and managers speak about the important role of the oceans in global climate change, weather patterns and carbon cycling, as we celebrated the first annual Congressional Oceans Day. Presenters highlighted the successes of ocean exploration and the challenges that lie ahead. Recent developments in sonar and submersible vehicles promise to accelerate discoveries in ocean depths. Multibeam sonar, emitting a wide swath, gives the exact contour of the ocean bottom, rather than extrapolating from a single beam directed below a vessel. Advanced sonar can detect temperature fluctuations to fractions of a degree. The upper few hundred feet of the oceans hold 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere, but scientists do not yet know how this may affect changes in global climate. The private sector is improving the capabilities of remotely operated vehicles and autonomous underwater vehicles. These vehicles, armed with the newest in sonar equipment, will gain better knowledge of bathymetry, resources and navigation. Two years ago, President Clinton convened an internationally renowned panel of oceanographers and charged them to develop a United States strategy for ocean exploration. In October of 2000, the Ocean Exploration Panel presented its recommendations. The panel challenged the federal government to embrace the discovery of the unknown, to dedicate a vessel for ocean exploration, and to establish an Ocean Exploration Program. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided leadership on this directive by establishing the Office of Ocean Exploration. The Bush Administration proposed $14 million for NOAA to accomplish this significant endeavor for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate Appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State provided for this amount, and it is my hope that it will be retained in conference. The panel further recommended designating a lead federal agency for ocean exploration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce has the authority, the mission, the track record, the desire, and the capabilities to provide a leadership role. For these reasons, NOAA should be recognized as the federal leader for ocean exploration. In the Senate of Hawaii, our cultural history is entwined in the history of the ocean. From fishermen to tourists, researchers to snorkelers, we integrate the oceans into our daily lives. Marine life embodies those very elements which define Hawaii. The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve, and many other federal and state marine protected areas illustrate the importance we as a community place on our marine resources. The commitment to nurture, protect, and educate people about the ocean represents the essence of malama kai, care for the sea, which is so important to the Hawaiian culture. Given the importance of the sea to our sustenance and livelihoods, it is essential that we learn about and share the responsibility to protect our ocean and coastal resources. The steep terrain of Hawaii's coastal underwater lands and its location in the Pacific Ocean make Hawaii a prime candidate from which to launch deep-sea exploration. The Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL), established by NOAA under the National Undersea Research Program and the University of Hawaii, works through private, state and federal grants to study the processes of the deep ocean. HURL's Ocean Bottom Observatory has been studying the volcanic activity of the undersea volcano, Loihi, and its effects on the global carbon cycle and tsunamis. Studying this dramatic phenomenon is critical to understanding the creation of Pacific Islands and submerged land masses that provide essential habitat for marine life. I applaud the efforts of those who continue down the unmarked path toward ocean exploration, constructing the framework for future discoveries. At this time of national resolve and sorrow, I call attention to the global challenges that we face to understand the inner space of our earth--the oceans. A true ocean odyssey under the leadership of NOAA should be developed in cooperation with the Navy, National Science Foundation, NASA, the USGS, universities and private not-for-profit organizations. Our oceans are crucial to our existence and national security; we must understand them.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to call attention to the dedicated men and women in our Federal workforce and the invaluable contributions they make to our Nation. The tragic events three weeks ago appropriately has focused our attention on new ways to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. A number of activities have been identified including communication, emergency services, and transportation. All are essential to the running of our country. However, on September 11 we were all quickly reminded of another critical infrastructure--our Federal Government and its workforce. For every essential service these attacks disrupted, we expected our government to respond quickly and effectively--and those in government did. Our Nation's recovery will be aided because of the talents and professionalism of our Federal workforce. Like us all, I was struck by the heroism of rescue workers in the moments following the events of September 11. Law enforcement officers, firefighters, and others raced into buildings to save lives. Teachers calmed children in schools and kept them safe from the surrounding horrors. Local officials executed response plans and coordinated resources. These are among the many examples we will long remember. Representatives from the Federal Government worked side by side with those brave and selfless local and State heroes. Various federal agencies responded to immediate social and community needs by providing temporary food and shelter, emergency child care, and other support services. At ground-zero, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other Federal agencies worked with State and local rescue workers. They set up emergency and coordinated disaster responses, opened communications, and provided needed medical assistance. Federal transportation agencies worked with industry to put our air, rail, and road networks back into operation. Our Federal Law Enforcement Officers and intelligence specialists spent long hours in intense investigations to track down the terrorists and their networks. More than 2,100 federal employees were deployed in disaster response teams alone, not counting the thousands of others who responded to this national crisis as a part of their normal duties. Despite the attacks, Americans were able to rely on their government. We received our mail. The Federal Government ensured the stability of our financial markets and Americans were able to count on the reliability of their banks. Our Federal workforce responded in other ways not as immediately obvious, but just as important to our country's needs. Federal employees ensured the availability of a clean blood supply and monitored the quality of our air and water. Aid was provided through the timely processing of claims for survivors of victims and financial assistance for those not covered by unemployment insurance. Special loans were made available to small businesses and residents displaced by the disaster. Despite the events of September 11, our Nation is functioning and recovering. This is due in part to the efforts of our Federal workforce whose response was immediate and thorough. The Federal workforce is this nation's backbone. Our ability to be resolute in confronting a faceless enemy is partially attributable to the strength of our backbone. We can take comfort and pride in the resilience and fortitude of our government workers.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and Missouri, Mr. Bond, as an original cosponsor of the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Protection Act of 2001. As our Nation grieves for the victims and honors the rescuers, the American people stand with President Bush and support his assurance that our response to this terrible event and our pursuit of justice will be ``calm and resolute.'' The challenge and responsibility we all share in the aftermath of September 11 is to return to work, carry on with business, bolster our economy, and restore public confidence in the freedom of movement which we enjoy. We have already begun to repair the damage, enhance airline security, strengthen our national security, and fight terrorism. We have acted to support the airline industry in this difficult time. Now, legislation is needed to support small businesses as they face increasing challenges. It has been twenty-three days since the disaster and millions of workers and small businesses nationwide in a variety of industries have felt the economic aftershock of these events. Hawaii's hospitality industry has been hit particularly hard by the significant decrease in business and leisure travelers who are staying close to home. Airlines are having to adjust to the reduced number of travelers, while hotels are dealing with low occupancy rates due to the cancellation or postponement of planned trips to Hawaii. Since the airports reopened, domestic visitor arrivals in Hawaii have decreased by 31 percent compared to the same time period last year. Comparing international arrivals during the period from September 15-25 for 2000 and 2001, reveals a 65 percent decrease in visitors. Restaurants, hospitality services, shopping centers, and other tourism-related businesses are also being affected by the lack of visitors. The Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations reports that unemployment claims for the week of September 17 were double the weekly average. It is estimated that 80 percent of these claims are tourism related. Hawaii is not alone in experiencing a downturn in tourist and business travel. Popular visitor destinations across the country, including Washington, DC, Florida, and Las Vegas have also endured sharp drops in visitors. The losses to airlines, hotels, restaurants, and other small businesses are already in the billions of dollars. The economic repercussions extend to all fifty states, as the economic decline impacts the lives of millions of people. While I am confident that Hawaii's and our Nation's tourism industry can withstand this downturn in the economy, action is necessary to help preserve existing jobs and support the economy during this difficult time. Further job reductions will have significant spillover effects on the economy. The legislation is aimed at alleviating the economic strain on small businesses by providing crucial access to credit. By expanding the application eligibility of the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan programs to event-based instead of location-based criteria, many more struggling companies in all 50 states will be able to obtain the assistance they need. For example, small companies which provide hospitality or travel services would be eligible. Many others in a wide range of industries would be permitted to apply for assistance. The measure would also create incentives for small businesses to utilize the non-disaster relief loan programs. The incentives would encourage wary individuals and companies to borrow and lend to establish and expand small businesses in the current economic environment. I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts and Missouri for introducing this legislation and ask my colleagues to join in supporting this essential measure to assist small businesses in the aftermath of the heinous attacks of September 11.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and Missouri, Mr. Bond, as an original cosponsor of the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Protection Act of 2001. As our Nation grieves for the victims and honors the rescuers, the American people stand with President Bush and support his assurance that our response to this terrible event and our pursuit of justice will be ``calm and resolute.'' The challenge and responsibility we all share in the aftermath of September 11 is to return to work, carry on with business, bolster our economy, and restore public confidence in the freedom of movement which we enjoy. We have already begun to repair the damage, enhance airline security, strengthen our national security, and fight terrorism. We have acted to support the airline industry in this difficult time. Now, legislation is needed to support small businesses as they face increasing challenges. It has been twenty-three days since the disaster and millions of workers and small businesses nationwide in a variety of industries have felt the economic aftershock of these events. Hawaii's hospitality industry has been hit particularly hard by the significant decrease in business and leisure travelers who are staying close to home. Airlines are having to adjust to the reduced number of travelers, while hotels are dealing with low occupancy rates due to the cancellation or postponement of planned trips to Hawaii. Since the airports reopened, domestic visitor arrivals in Hawaii have decreased by 31 percent compared to the same time period last year. Comparing international arrivals during the period from September 15-25 for 2000 and 2001, reveals a 65 percent decrease in visitors. Restaurants, hospitality services, shopping centers, and other tourism-related businesses are also being affected by the lack of visitors. The Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations reports that unemployment claims for the week of September 17 were double the weekly average. It is estimated that 80 percent of these claims are tourism related. Hawaii is not alone in experiencing a downturn in tourist and business travel. Popular visitor destinations across the country, including Washington, DC, Florida, and Las Vegas have also endured sharp drops in visitors. The losses to airlines, hotels, restaurants, and other small businesses are already in the billions of dollars. The economic repercussions extend to all fifty states, as the economic decline impacts the lives of millions of people. While I am confident that Hawaii's and our Nation's tourism industry can withstand this downturn in the economy, action is necessary to help preserve existing jobs and support the economy during this difficult time. Further job reductions will have significant spillover effects on the economy. The legislation is aimed at alleviating the economic strain on small businesses by providing crucial access to credit. By expanding the application eligibility of the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan programs to event-based instead of location-based criteria, many more struggling companies in all 50 states will be able to obtain the assistance they need. For example, small companies which provide hospitality or travel services would be eligible. Many others in a wide range of industries would be permitted to apply for assistance. The measure would also create incentives for small businesses to utilize the non-disaster relief loan programs. The incentives would encourage wary individuals and companies to borrow and lend to establish and expand small businesses in the current economic environment. I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts and Missouri for introducing this legislation and ask my colleagues to join in supporting this essential measure to assist small businesses in the aftermath of the heinous attacks of September 11.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Armed Services Committee actions on the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill. I also commend the chairman, Mr. Levin, and ranking member, Mr. Warner, for their part in leading the committee, as well as guiding the committee, in their efforts to bring about a bill that will give confidence to the people of our country. My friend and partner, Senator Inhofe, and I have worked closely to ensure that the Readiness Subcommittee's actions support the full committee's five goals for this bill. As Chairman Levin has described, these goals are: One, to continue improvements in the quality of life; two, to sustain readiness; three, to encourage transformation; four, to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to meet nontraditional threats; and five, to increase the efficiency of Department of Defense operations. Our subcommittee worked together to make contributions in all five areas, and these actions are reflected in the bill we present to you today. In the area of improving quality of life, the bill takes strong steps to improve the facilities in which our military personnel work and the housing in which they and their families live. This bill supports the $10.0 billion administration request for military construction and family housing for fiscal year 2002, which is a 10-percent increase over fiscal year 2001 levels. This funding will, according to Department of Defense calculations, reduce the current 192-year replacement cycle for military facilities to 101 years. While this is a significant improvement, this figure is still nearly double the standard of approximately 57 years accepted in the private sector. The bill invests an additional $451 million from savings and efficiencies achieved elsewhere in the budget to make further improvements in military facilities, including projects to enhance mission performance, build additional unaccompanied housing and family housing, purchase key tracts of land at military installations to prevent future encroachment problems, and adequately fund legally binding cleanup requirements at facilities closed by previous base closure rounds. The bill also includes an increase of $40.0 million for personal gear for military members to improve their safety and comfort in the field. The committee's second theme was one that I and the whole committee care deeply about: sustaining the readiness of our Armed Forces. This bill supports the funding increases contained in the administration's budget request to more accurately reflect the increased use of spare parts and the higher prices for spare parts associated with older weapons systems. In addition to the requested increases, the bill provides almost $100 million in additional funding for maintenance work on surface ships and other Marine Corps and Navy equipment. These funds will increase the availability of equipment to units and allow them to spend more time training. The bill also supports the budget request for an increase of seven percent in real terms for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization over fiscal year 2001 levels. I believe that these additional funds will provide critical improvements to service members' places of work, allowing for greater productivity and increased job satisfaction. I also believe that further advances in sustainment, restoration and equipment maintenance are possible, in particular by increasing attention to corrosion prevention technologies and products. As I know from the military facilities in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific, maintaining military equipment and facilities in wet, salty, and hot environments is a significant challenge. I believe progress can be made on this critical issue that will both improve the service life of our property and the lives of our service members who have to maintain this property. This bill includes a $7.4 million increase for anti-corrosion product testing and treatments, and directs the Department of Defense to coordinate anti-corrosion research and testing across the military services. The bill also supports small increases in a limited number of ammunition programs to reduce training and war reserve shortfalls and enhance troop safety. The committee's third goal was encouraging transformation. This bill includes small increases to support necessary training for the Army's new Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), a critical step in the Army's transformation to a lighter, more rapidly-deployable force. Other actions taken by the Readiness Subcommittee to improve efficiency should also result in savings in both the current and future budgets, savings that can be redirected to the necessary process of transforming our armed forces. The committee's fourth priority was to improve the Department of Defense's capability to meet non-traditional threats, the importance of which was made painfully and sorrowfully clear to us all last week. Many of my colleagues will speak forcefully on this issue, and I share their sentiments of outrage and extreme sadness as we cope with this horrendous attack. The committee looks forward to bringing further recommendations to our colleagues on this critical issue in the near future. Until this occurs, the bill before us will provide funding for the requested improvements to bases and installations that will increase the safety of our forces at home and abroad. The fifth theme of our bill this year was to improve the efficiency of DOD programs and operations. This is a goal the committee shares with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and we look forward to working with him closely to make further progress on this in the future. The bill presented here today takes important steps to help us along the path. In the area of acquisition reform, the bill includes a number of provisions to improve the acquisition of equipment and services. One provision would require the Department to set up a management structure, management information system, and program review structure for the Department's contracts for services. A related provision would establish savings goals for services contracts and goals that would be achieved through the application of best commercial practices, including competition, performance-based contracting, and spending analyses. Another provision strengthens requirements for competition for multiple-award contracts to purchase products and services, and would require approval for sole-source awards. The bill also includes provisions enabling DOD to shorten the acquisition cycle for weapons systems by codifying a technological maturity requirement for key technologies to be incorporated into new systems. Other provisions of the bill address acquisition workforce issues and aim to ensure that the defense components have sufficient staff to manage requirements in a cost effective manner. I was impressed by the work of the Acquisition 2005 Task Force's recent report, ``Shaping the Civilian Acquisition Work Force of the Future.'' I intend to confer with the Task Force to further define the extent of the problem. As the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services as well as the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, the issues raised by the Task Force are of great interest to me. This bill also takes steps to improve financial management within DOD. Specifically, it includes a provision that would refocus comptroller and auditor resources on addressing systemic problems in DOD financial systems rather than wasting resources on reviews of financial statements. Another provision codifies the Department's Senior Financial Management Oversight Council and financial feeder systems compliance process to provide top-level guidance in addressing financial management problems. Though the committee finished its work just days prior to last week's terrible attacks in New York and at the Pentagon, I believe that the bill we produced is just as relevant today as it was then. This bill lays a firm foundation to fortify our armed forces, takes many important actions to sustain and improve their readiness in both the short- and the long-term, and represents a product which I commend to my colleagues. I urge your support for this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the growing problem of piracy at sea. The days of Blackbeard and Captain Kidd may be gone, but pirates are still with us. In February 2001 the International Maritime Bureau, IMB, of the International Chamber of Commerce reported that piracy attacks jumped 57 percent from 1999 to 2000. The IMB reported a total of 469 attacks on ships either at sea, at anchor, or in port. Today's pirates prowl the sea in speedboats, armed with automatic weapons, satellite phones, and global positioning devices. They are often backed by organized crime syndicates, making use of forged registration documents and bills of lading to offload hijacked cargo. Rarely are hijacked ships recovered or pirates arrested. We should be concerned with this because U.S. trade and national security depend upon maritime transportation. Ninety percent of the world's cargo is carried over the seas. In addition to its role in foreign commerce, our Nation's merchant shipping fleet provides vital national security sealift in the event of war or other crisis. Crews and cargo are coming under increasing attack from pirates. Through violence or the threat of force, pirates are boarding vessels and looting cargo. Last year, there were 72 reported deaths of mariners and 99 injuries due to pirate attacks. Maritime crime, in general, can take many forms including low-level assaults, thefts, armed robbery, organized hijacking, environmental crimes, and smuggling of humans or contraband. Criminals use violence or the threat of violence to target seafarers, cargo, and ships. Attacks may occur while at dock, in territorial waters, or on the high seas. Piracy can result in immediate loss of life and property and may present a threat to navigational safety. Under international law, piracy is defined as theft or other illegal acts of violence committed on the high seas for private gain by the crew of a private ship against another ship, or the persons or property on board. The phrase ``on the high seas'' is a legal term of art. It is any area not within the territorial sea, or sovereignty, of another state. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a state's territorial sea extends 12 nautical miles from its coastline. Piracy on the high seas is considered a crime against all nations. Accordingly, under international law every state has the right to seize pirate ships on the high seas and arrest pirates who are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state which carried out the arrest. The true scope of the piracy problem, however, is not known. Despite numerous press reports, current sea piracy statistics are incomplete. There is no consensus among reporting organizations on what constitutes a reportable piracy attack. Although the definition under international law requires that the attack occur on the high seas, some organizations include attacks at port. In addition, it appears that instances of piracy among noncommercial vessels such as yachts and regional fishermen may be significantly underreported. Although the risk of attack on U.S. flag ships is not significant, piracy is a problem for our trading partners in Asia. The nations of this region account for more than $435 billion in trade with the U.S., more than any other region in the world. Approximately 98 percent of this commerce moves by sea. The Malacca Straits, separating the Malay Peninsula with the island of Sumata, is one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. Surrounded by the nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, it is the shortest route between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Asian allies, dependent on oil imports from the Arabian Gulf, rely upon ships passing safely through the straits. It also happens to be a pirate hot spot. The piracy problem in Southeast Asia has resulted in several regional responses. In July 2000 Indonesia set up a special court to try piracy cases. In November 2000 the Japanese sent a coast guard vessel to India and Malaysia to participate in joint exercises. In January 2001 Malaysia launched an operation to reduce piracy in the Malacca Straits in cooperation with Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. In June 2001 the Japanese Coast Guard announced that it is planning to send patrol boats to the region periodically to participate in joint training exercises. The U.S. has also responded to this issue through the U.S. Coast Guard, USCG. The Coast Guard's Deepwater Program is responsible for conducting operations 50 miles or more out to sea. The Coast Guard is leveraging its maritime law enforcement expertise by providing training to foreign maritime law enforcement agencies to combat sea piracy. For example, in June 2001 the USCG led a cooperation afloat readiness and training, CARAT, exercise on maritime law enforcement techniques with the Royal Thai Navy. CARAT is an annual series of bilateral exercises between the American military and that of several Asian nations including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brunei. Although well-suited for this mission the Coast Guard is currently ill- equipped. It is in the process of modernizing its aging fleet to carry out more deepwater missions. The current plan calls for the replacement of approximately 100 cutters and more than 200 aircraft in the Deepwater Program. The rise in the number and seriousness of pirate attacks has drawn the attention of the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, IMO. The IMO encourages cooperation among governments in the area of regulations and standards concerning maritime safety. Since 1998, the IMO has sponsored a series of seminars around the world to study the piracy problem and heighten awareness. At a June 2001 meeting the IMO renewed its call for all governments and industry to intensify their efforts to eradicate sea piracy and encouraged regional agreements supported by appropriate national piracy laws and adequate enforcement and prosecutorial capabilities. The IMO also approved a draft resolution for submission to the U.N. General Assembly session in November 2001. As the Bush administration reviews its policy on the issue of sea piracy, I strongly encourage consideration of the following points: (1) We need better statistics on pirate attacks to assess the national security risks. More detailed reporting and analysis is needed to determine the appropriate response to this problem. (2) The U.S. should commend those nations in the region that are attempting to police the waters within their jurisdiction and reduce the number of pirate attacks. (3) The U.S. should encourage further regional cooperation, such as the recent agreement between Japan and Southeast Asian nations regarding joint training exercises. (4) Finally, the U.S. should continue to support the actions of the United Nations in addressing the issue of sea piracy. This would include determining the scope of the problem, whether regional actions are adequate, whether further legislation is needed in some countries, and how the U.N. can be of assistance in drafting these new laws and encouraging more effective enforcement capabilities. Modern-day piracy must be stopped, and the United States can and should be an active partner in the fight against pirate attacks.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, no words can ever convey our regrets, our sadness, our shock, our loss from the great tragedy of September 11, 2001. The newness of the century, of a millennium, has been tarnished forever by the blood of innocent victims shed by anonymous assassins, terrorists whose only motivation is an evil hatred. All our prayers are with the victims and their families and friends. When the final list of casualties is known, I am certain that every state, and perhaps every nation in the world, will have been touched by this calamity. Our prayers will be with them forever. We will remember each and everyone as long as we live and then our descendants will remember them too. It will be their memories that guide us in the difficult days ahead. Their deaths have reminded us of our common humanity, that what we share is greater than what separates us, and that the fabric of beliefs which makes us Americans is strong enough to resist any cowardly act by terrorists. Where one American falls, another will stand. Each of us shine as a beacon of our shared beliefs in freedom, liberty and justice. In the dawn after this dark day we will all shine. Those who expect us to be weakened will be sadly mistaken. Those who think Americans are soft and fearful will be astonished by our strength and determination. I was a young man when Pearl Harbor was attacked. I witnessed the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese torpedo and bomber planes from my dormitory in the hills above Pearl Harbor. Then we knew our enemy and he thought our will could be shattered by one frightful day of disaster. Instead our enemies in Europe and the Pacific learned that where we had been broken, we healed and became stronger. Today we begin to become stronger. We begin by mourning our dead brothers and sisters. We begin by comforting the survivors. And as we pick up the bricks and the steel and sweep away the glass and dust, we begin to identify our enemies and design the strategy for defeating them. There will be no place that our enemies can hide, no sanctuary for them to cower in. We will seek them out and justice will be done. It will be a long process but it will be thorough. We have come brutally to understand that terrorism is an evil beyond our borders that still threatens our homeland. We have come to understand that our enemies want to extinguish the light of freedom which shines from America. We have come to understand that the only way to resist the darkness of hatred is to spread that beacon of light even farther from our shores. From this battle we hope will come not just a stronger, safer America, but a better, more secure, freer world. May God bless America.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to address a subject on which I recently chaired a hearing in the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services concerning what the Federal Government is doing to better prepare our communities for an act of bioterrorism. Mr. Bruce Baughman, the Director of Readiness and Planning for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, testified on terrorism programs, the newly established Office of National Preparedness, and FEMA's plans to enact a nationally coordinated plan for terrorism preparedness. Dr. Scott Lillibridge, the first Special Assistant to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, for National Security and Emergency Management, discussed the current and future bioterrorism preparedness and response programs within HHS. They were followed by two expert witnesses, whose testimony and experience were very helpful in laying out what the country should be doing, on a national, State, and local level, to respond to bioterrorism. Dr. Tara O'Toole, of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, discussed the nature of the threat and the challenges facing response efforts. As she aptly noted, ``nothing in the realm of natural catastrophes or man-made disasters rivals the complex response problems that would follow a bioweapon attack against civilian populations.'' Dr. Dan Hanfling, a physician in the Emergency Department at Inova Fairfax Hospital, and an active member in regional disaster response planning, shared his views on the ability of local emergency rooms to respond to biological agents. He explained how, with emergency room overcrowding and ambulance diversions, emergency departments and hospitals are operating in a `disaster mode' from day to day. Throughout the hearing, I heard three recurring concerns that must be addressed to prepare properly for bioterrorism. First, the medical and hospital community is not engaged fully in bioterrorism planning. Second, the partnerships between medical and public health professionals are not as strong as they need to be. And, third, hospitals must have the resources to develop surge capabilities. All three will require long-term efforts to correct these problems. However, I believe that we can make considerable progress with some simple measures that can be implemented quickly. First, we need to improve awareness of the threat among the medical community, thereby increasing engagement with physicians and hospitals. Dr. O'Toole suggested Congressional support for curriculum development for medical and nursing schools. Such support would require funding for the development of biological weapon and emerging infectious disease curricula, which could be shared to educate, train, and retrain medical professionals. Second, FEMA must ensure that our medical and hospital communities have a place at the table in the planning and implementing of bioterrorism programs. Both Dr. Hanfling and Dr. O'Toole emphasized the necessity of involving the public health and medical communities in response planning for all acts of terrorism. The medical community is always called upon for assistance in disasters by traditional first responders. For acts of bioterrorism, they become the first responders. This will require funding to provide physicians, nurses, and hospital administrators the resources and time to attend meetings, training sessions, and planning activities. Third, we can also enhance the surveillance and monitoring capabilities of the local and state public health departments. This is crucial in order to detect outbreaks as early as possible. One step in accomplishing this would be to include veterinarians in current monitoring and surveillance networks. Dr. Lillibridge and Dr. O'Toole agreed that the veterinary community can offer many things to the bioterrorism effort. For example, most physicians do not have clinical experience with likely bioterrorist agents, such as plague, anthrax, and small pox. However, many veterinarians have field experience with anthrax and plague. Veterinarians could also help in detecting unusual biological events because many emerging diseases, such as West Nile Virus, appear in animals long before humans. Dr. Lillibridge said HHS is considering some options to actively engage the animal health community. I would suggest creating a senior level position within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention responsible for communicating and coordinating with the veterinary associations, local and State animal health officials, and practicing and research veterinarians on a routine basis. I hope that HHS will act quickly in determining the best course of action. These three actions can help move bioterrorism response forward. Will they solve all the problems we face? No. But with Congressional leadership, FEMA's coordination, and HHS's implementation, we should be able to improve awareness and engagement by the medical and hospital community. We can also expand partnerships between the medical, public health, and veterinary communities. These are small steps to tackling a problem which, at times, may seem daunting and overwhelming. Our bioterrorism preparedness effort will be helped by developing new activities and communicating with other interested parties. I look forward to working with the different stakeholders in their efforts to prepare our communities for a possible act of bioterrorism.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, a few short blocks from this Chamber and in the shadow of the Capitol, hundreds of people gathered to celebrate the formal opening of the National Japanese American Memorial honoring the loyalty and courage of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. As a World War II veteran and a native of Hawaii, I am well- acquainted with the exceptional contributions of Japanese Americans to the war effort, both at home and abroad. The battlefield exploits of the 442nd, 100th, and the MIS immediately come to mind. Less known but equally deserving of recognition are the sacrifices of the civilian nisei on the homefront, who continued to support the war effort while enduring the prejudice of fellow citizens as well as the wholesale violation of their civil rights by the U.S. Government. This new memorial honors the valor and sacrifice of the hundreds of brave men who fought and died for their country, and it also speaks to the faith and perseverance of 120,000 Japanese Americans and nationals, who solely on the basis of race, regardless of citizenship or loyalty, without proof or justification, were denied their civil rights in what history will record as one of our Nation's most shameful acts. This memorial commemorates these events in our Nation's history. It will remind us of the consequences of allowing hysteria and racial prejudice to override constitutional rights, and, I hope, that we teach this lesson to our children to avoid a repetition of our mistakes. I congratulate the National Japanese American Memorial Foundation for the tremendous effort that went into organizing and building the Memorial to Patriotism. Thousands of Americans from around the country donated funds to build the memorial. Over 2,000 Hawaii residents contributed approximately $1 million to this worthy project. The completed memorial is both inspiration and educational. First and foremost, the memorial honors the memory of those who gave their lives in defense of our freedom and liberty and remembers all those who were dislocated or interned from 1942 to 1945. In addition, the memorial draws on a few striking elements to cause one to meditate on the wartime experiences of Japanese Americans. The crane sculpture by Nina Akamu, a Hawaii-born artist, speaks to the prejudice and injustice confronted by Japanese Americans, and in a larger context speaks to the resiliency of the human spirit over adversity. The bell created by Paul Matisse encourages reflection, its toll marking the struggle and sacrifice of Japanese Americans in our Nation's history and reminding us of our shared responsibility to defend the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. I would also like to congratulate our friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and my friend, Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, a former Member of Congress, for their leadership in gaining Congressional authorization for the memorial and their support for the work of the National Japanese American Memorial Foundation. Today's formal opening of this Memorial to Patriotism by the National Japanese American Memorial Foundation in the Nation's capital is a timely and necessary endeavor, for it reminds us and future generations of Americans that courage, honor, and loyalty transcend race, culture, and ethnicity.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye and myself, I rise to submit a Senate Concurrent Resolution concerning the forthcoming tenth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, APPF, that will take place in Honolulu in January 2002. The Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum consists of 27 countries of which the United States is one of the original founders. Our former colleague, Senator Bill Roth, was one of the leaders of this organization which was created as a parliamentary counterpart to the heads of state meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, organization. The first meeting was held in Singapore in 1991, and, earlier this year, Chile sponsored the ninth annual meeting. Next year, for the first time, the annual meeting will be hosted by the United States in Hawaii. The Center for Cultural and Technical Exchange Between East and West, better known as the East West Center, will provide the Secretariat for the meeting which is expected to attract approximately 270 parliamentarians from countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Mongolia, the Philippines, and New Zealand. Discussions and debates are frank and open. The meetings provide an opportunity for legislators in these countries to hear and exchange views on a diversity of topics including human rights, security, law, the economy, and the environment. I invite my colleagues to attend next year's early January meeting in Hawaii. It is an occasion to meet with leaders on both sides of the Pacific for frank discussions and to experience as well the spirit of Aloha.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to address the threat of bioterrorism to our Nation's security. President Bush has asked Vice President Cheney to ``oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.'' He also asked Joseph Allbaugh, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to create an Office of National Preparedness to implement a national effort. On May 9, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Department of Justice is the lead agency and in sole command of an incident while in the crisis management phase, even if consequence management activities, such as casualty care and evacuation, are occurring at the same time. Clearly, FEMA and the Department of Justice need to work together to shoulder the burden of responding to a large scale event. What is unclear, however, is how the Department of Justice will know that its crisis management skills are needed during a bioterrorism event. When will a growing cluster of disease be recognized as a terrorist attack? How do we differentiate between a few individuals with the flu and a flu-like epidemic perpetrated by terrorists? When will it be called a crisis? When will the FBI or Justice be called in to handle the newly declared ``crisis?'' In the case of a bioterrorist attack, the response will most likely be the same as if it was a naturally occurring epidemic. The key question is not ``how to respond to an attack'' but ``are we prepared to respond to any unusual biological event?'' What would happen if a bioterrorist attack occurred today? It would not be preceded by a large explosion. Rather, over the course of a few days or a couple of weeks, people would start to get sick. They would go to hospitals, doctor's offices, and clinics. Hopefully, a physician in one hospital would notice similarities between two or three cases and contact the local public health officials. Maybe another physician would do the same and maybe, finally, the Center for Disease Control would be notified. So, the first responders would not be a Federal agency. Across the country, local law enforcement, fire, HAZ MAT and emergency medical personnel are doing a tremendous job preparing and training for terrorist attacks, and I commend their efforts. But, in the scenario I described, they would not be our first line of defense. Instead, the first responders for a biological event would be the physicians and nurses in our local hospitals and emergency rooms. We need to ensure that hospitals and medical professionals are prepared to deal with this threat. This is not the case today. This past November, emergency medical specialists, health care providers, hospital administrators, and bioweapon experts met at the Second National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to BioTerrorism. A representative of the American Hospital Association, Dr. James Bentley, spoke about the challenges hospitals are confronting and stated that ``we have driven over the past twenty years to reduce flexibility and safeguards.'' Flexibility and safeguards are exactly what is needed by a hospital to go from ``normal'' to ``surge'' operations. Surge operations do not require the extreme scenario of thousands of casualties from a bioweapon. Dr. Thom Mayer, chief of the emergency department at Inova Fairfax Hospital, was quoted in the Washington Post, on April 22, 2001, stating that 20 or 30 extra patients can throw an emergency department into full crisis mode. Dr. J.B. Orenstein, an emergency room physician, in a recent Washington Post op-ed, wrote about the ``State of Emergency'' the dedicated men and women working in our hospitals and clinics are already facing without the added worry of bioterrorism. Until a year ago, hospitals dealt with surges for only a few days or a week a year during the winter flu, cold and icy sidewalk season. Now, mini-surges occur in the spring, summer and fall due to decreasing numbers of emergency rooms, beds available in any hospital, and qualified nurses. On May 9, 2001, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine convened a special meeting in Atlanta to discuss ``The Unraveling Safety Net.'' Are we, with all the planning and funding the Federal Government has done over the past few years to address terrorism, providing sufficient help for hospitals to prepare for bioevents? As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, I am concerned that we are not addressing a fundamental problem. Would a biological event be a national security/law enforcement incident with public health concerns, or would it be a public health crisis with a law enforcement component? I hope that the effort led by Vice President Cheney will address specifically this question and that the unique problems biological weapons present are not overlooked by any national plan to counter terrorism. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Dr. Orenstein's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Inouye to introduce legislation that is important for the people of Hawaii, for the National Park Service, and for the nation as a whole. I am offering legislation that would allow expansion of the boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park on the island of Hawaii by 238 acres. These lands are adjacent to and contiguous with the park's current boundaries. Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park preserves a site with great significance for Native Hawaiians, students of history, archaeologists, and the people of Hawaii in general. It is nestled along the coast of the island of Hawaii where, up until the early 19th century, Hawaiians who broke kapu or one of the ancient laws against the gods could avoid certain death by fleeing to this place of refuge or ``pu`uhonua.'' The offender would be absolved by a priest and freed to leave. Defeated warriors and non-combatants could also find refuge here during times of battle. The grounds just outside the wall that encloses the pu`uhonua were home to several generations of powerful chiefs. The 182-acre park was established in 1961 and includes the pu`uhonua and a complex of archeological areas including temple platforms, royal fishponds, holua (sledding tracks), and coastal village sites. The Haloe o Keawe temple and several other structures have been reconstructed to provide visitors an understanding of life during the early days of the royal families. The park, on the famed Kona coast of the Big Island of Hawaii, is appreciated by Native Hawaiians and the general public as a place where the story and history of native culture are interpreted for all Americans. It is worth mentioning that the National Park Service oversees 384 units across the nation, including national parks, battlefields, military parks, memorials, monuments and historic trails. Of these nearly 400 sites, there are only a handful of national historic parks that celebrate interpretations of contemporary native cultures. I am pleased that two of these parks, Pu`uhonua o Honaunau and Kaloko-Honokohau, are in Hawaii on the Big Island. I invite you all to visit us for a truly remarkable immersion in Hawaiian cultural history, something very close to my heart. The proposed expansion has national significance from an archaeological and historical perspective. The archeological resources are very important. They illustrate that the Ki`ilae village complex, with its numerous sites and features, represents one of the most complete assemblages of the coastal component of the ancient Kona field system. This system was not just an agricultural system utilized by the early Kona chiefs, it was a complex economic system that supported a dense population. Archaeological records have shown that this system allowed the Kona chiefs to become very powerful for a period of at least 200 years and most likely supported the growth and development of Kamehameha the Great's army and thereby contributed to his rise to power in the Hawaiian Islands. The cultural landscape here includes not only residential features, but also religious, agricultural and ceremonial sites. The unusually high number of heiau is believed to be an indication of the importance of this area to the Hawaiian ruling class. Mr. President, the expansion of the park has widespread support from local communities and county officials. There is a long history of study and analysis of expansion possibilities for the park. The 1977 Master Plan for the Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park originally proposed boundary expansions in four contiguous areas. Following the original master plan, in 1992 the National Park Service conducted a feasibility study for protecting adjacent lands through boundary expansions. Then in August of last year, given the notification of the recent land transaction between the McCandless Ranch and a private development corporation, the NPS prepared a special report on the proposed park expansion to include the Ki`ilae village parcel. The Service held three well-attended community meetings on the Big Island, with enthusiastic support for the expansion. The 238-acre expansion authorized by this bill is the preferred option of the NPS, although additional acres could potentially be acquired. The Ki`ilae village property meets the criterion of national significance for historical and archaeological areas. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is providing funds for the appraisal of the property, and has indicated an interest in helping facilitate the expansion of the park. The TPL financial assistance is a departure from their normal business practice, and they made the decision to commit the funds in recognition of the unique conservation values that this property presents for the National Park Service. I submit for the Record a letter from Mayor Harry Kim of the County of Hawaii which shows the depth of public support and appreciation for the expansion, particularly from the Hawaiian community. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Harkin, Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my colleagues Senators Bayh, Domenici, Jeffords, Kyl, Lieberman, Reid, and my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, in introducing legislation that will accelerate the ongoing efforts for the development of a fuel for the future--hydrogen. Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. In these days of soaring energy prices, oil cartels, air pollution, global climate change and greenhouse gases, hydrogen is a dazzling alternative. We can have a zero-pollution fuel. It can be produced domestically, ending our dependence on foreign oil. The question is not whether there will be a hydrogen age but when. Hydrogen as a fuel can help us resolve our energy problems and satisfy much of the world's energy needs. I am convinced that sometimes in the 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate change and energy security will help bring about penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both the transportation and electricity sectors. I have a long-term vision for hydrogen energy as a renewable resource. Progress is being made and challenges and barriers are being surmounted at an accelerating pace on a global scale. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. Transit bus demonstration programs are underway in both the United States and Europe. Major automobile companies are poised to deploy fuel cell passenger cars within the next few years. All these activities involve government and private sector cooperation. Industry is moving ahead with fuel cell developments at a rapid pace. Many companies are forming partnerships to bring new technologies to the marketplace. Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and Ballard have formed a partnership and pledged $1.5 billion for commercialization of automotive fuel cells. Edison Development Company, General Electric, SoCal Gas, and Plug Power have agreements to commercialize residential fuel cells. National governments are turning to hydrogen as the fuel of the future. Iceland is making a strong bid to become the world's first hydrogen-based economy. According to its plans, hydrogen-powered cars and buses will transport people in Reykjavik, the country's capital within ten years. If all goes well there will be no need for oil in Iceland. Closer to home, I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking the lead in ushering in the hydrogen era. Our State Legislature is advancing bills that would authorize the formation of a public- private sector partnership for promoting hydrogen as an energy source. The partnership would involve the State, Counties, Federal Government, utilities, and private companies. The partnership would be charged with developing plans to promote investment in hydrogen infrastructure, begin pilot plants to produce hydrogen from geothermal and other sources on Oahu, study how to move hydrogen to other islands, and study how wind and other methods could be used to produce hydrogen. In California, the state's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles. These are very important initiatives. They may be small steps, but for the hydrogen future they are important steps forward. My predecessor in the Senate, Senator Spark Matsunaga was one of the first to focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as the legislation became known, was designed to accelerate development of domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source in sufficient quantities to reduce the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels. As a result of Senator Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy has been conducting research that will advance technologies for cost- effective production, storage, and utilization of hydrogen. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, which followed the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, expanded the research, development, and demonstration program under the original Act. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. It enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. Today we are introducing legislation that reauthorizes and amends the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. It highlights the potential of hydrogen as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy, the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and industry, and it encourages private sector investment and cost sharing in the development of hydrogen as an energy source. It adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities to expedite wider application of these technologies. The bill we are introducing today supports the recommendations of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST. In its report issued in November 1997, PCAST proposed a substantial increase in Federal spending for applied energy technology R&D, with the largest share going to energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The PCAST report, ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century,'' acknowledged and supported advances in a wide range of both hydrogen- producing and hydrogen-using technologies. The current Hydrogen Program, administered by the Department of Energy, supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safe and cost- effective manner. Some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. The most promising include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, and reversible PEM fuel cell systems. Other projects lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. These activities need continued support if the nation is to enjoy the benefits of a clean energy source. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory are involved in the program. The DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers-of-excellence have been established at the University of Miami and the University of Hawaii. U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. Cooperation between government, industry, universities, and the national laboratories is key to the successful development and commercialization of new and environmentally friendly energy technologies. The legislation we are introducing today authorizes $350 million over the next five years for research and development for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed-generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. The bill also authorizes $150 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. This provision will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use, and lead to the development of hydrogen-based operating experience acceptance to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting this bill, we will be ushering in a new era of non- polluting energy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Inouye to introduce legislation that is important for the people of Hawaii, for the National Park Service, and for the nation as a whole. I am offering legislation that would allow expansion of the boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park on the island of Hawaii by 238 acres. These lands are adjacent to and contiguous with the park's current boundaries. Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park preserves a site with great significance for Native Hawaiians, students of history, archaeologists, and the people of Hawaii in general. It is nestled along the coast of the island of Hawaii where, up until the early 19th century, Hawaiians who broke kapu or one of the ancient laws against the gods could avoid certain death by fleeing to this place of refuge or ``pu`uhonua.'' The offender would be absolved by a priest and freed to leave. Defeated warriors and non-combatants could also find refuge here during times of battle. The grounds just outside the wall that encloses the pu`uhonua were home to several generations of powerful chiefs. The 182-acre park was established in 1961 and includes the pu`uhonua and a complex of archeological areas including temple platforms, royal fishponds, holua (sledding tracks), and coastal village sites. The Haloe o Keawe temple and several other structures have been reconstructed to provide visitors an understanding of life during the early days of the royal families. The park, on the famed Kona coast of the Big Island of Hawaii, is appreciated by Native Hawaiians and the general public as a place where the story and history of native culture are interpreted for all Americans. It is worth mentioning that the National Park Service oversees 384 units across the nation, including national parks, battlefields, military parks, memorials, monuments and historic trails. Of these nearly 400 sites, there are only a handful of national historic parks that celebrate interpretations of contemporary native cultures. I am pleased that two of these parks, Pu`uhonua o Honaunau and Kaloko-Honokohau, are in Hawaii on the Big Island. I invite you all to visit us for a truly remarkable immersion in Hawaiian cultural history, something very close to my heart. The proposed expansion has national significance from an archaeological and historical perspective. The archeological resources are very important. They illustrate that the Ki`ilae village complex, with its numerous sites and features, represents one of the most complete assemblages of the coastal component of the ancient Kona field system. This system was not just an agricultural system utilized by the early Kona chiefs, it was a complex economic system that supported a dense population. Archaeological records have shown that this system allowed the Kona chiefs to become very powerful for a period of at least 200 years and most likely supported the growth and development of Kamehameha the Great's army and thereby contributed to his rise to power in the Hawaiian Islands. The cultural landscape here includes not only residential features, but also religious, agricultural and ceremonial sites. The unusually high number of heiau is believed to be an indication of the importance of this area to the Hawaiian ruling class. Mr. President, the expansion of the park has widespread support from local communities and county officials. There is a long history of study and analysis of expansion possibilities for the park. The 1977 Master Plan for the Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park originally proposed boundary expansions in four contiguous areas. Following the original master plan, in 1992 the National Park Service conducted a feasibility study for protecting adjacent lands through boundary expansions. Then in August of last year, given the notification of the recent land transaction between the McCandless Ranch and a private development corporation, the NPS prepared a special report on the proposed park expansion to include the Ki`ilae village parcel. The Service held three well-attended community meetings on the Big Island, with enthusiastic support for the expansion. The 238-acre expansion authorized by this bill is the preferred option of the NPS, although additional acres could potentially be acquired. The Ki`ilae village property meets the criterion of national significance for historical and archaeological areas. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is providing funds for the appraisal of the property, and has indicated an interest in helping facilitate the expansion of the park. The TPL financial assistance is a departure from their normal business practice, and they made the decision to commit the funds in recognition of the unique conservation values that this property presents for the National Park Service. I submit for the Record a letter from Mayor Harry Kim of the County of Hawaii which shows the depth of public support and appreciation for the expansion, particularly from the Hawaiian community. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Harkin, Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my colleagues Senators Bayh, Domenici, Jeffords, Kyl, Lieberman, Reid, and my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, in introducing legislation that will accelerate the ongoing efforts for the development of a fuel for the future--hydrogen. Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. In these days of soaring energy prices, oil cartels, air pollution, global climate change and greenhouse gases, hydrogen is a dazzling alternative. We can have a zero-pollution fuel. It can be produced domestically, ending our dependence on foreign oil. The question is not whether there will be a hydrogen age but when. Hydrogen as a fuel can help us resolve our energy problems and satisfy much of the world's energy needs. I am convinced that sometimes in the 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate change and energy security will help bring about penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both the transportation and electricity sectors. I have a long-term vision for hydrogen energy as a renewable resource. Progress is being made and challenges and barriers are being surmounted at an accelerating pace on a global scale. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. Transit bus demonstration programs are underway in both the United States and Europe. Major automobile companies are poised to deploy fuel cell passenger cars within the next few years. All these activities involve government and private sector cooperation. Industry is moving ahead with fuel cell developments at a rapid pace. Many companies are forming partnerships to bring new technologies to the marketplace. Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, and Ballard have formed a partnership and pledged $1.5 billion for commercialization of automotive fuel cells. Edison Development Company, General Electric, SoCal Gas, and Plug Power have agreements to commercialize residential fuel cells. National governments are turning to hydrogen as the fuel of the future. Iceland is making a strong bid to become the world's first hydrogen-based economy. According to its plans, hydrogen-powered cars and buses will transport people in Reykjavik, the country's capital within ten years. If all goes well there will be no need for oil in Iceland. Closer to home, I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking the lead in ushering in the hydrogen era. Our State Legislature is advancing bills that would authorize the formation of a public- private sector partnership for promoting hydrogen as an energy source. The partnership would involve the State, Counties, Federal Government, utilities, and private companies. The partnership would be charged with developing plans to promote investment in hydrogen infrastructure, begin pilot plants to produce hydrogen from geothermal and other sources on Oahu, study how to move hydrogen to other islands, and study how wind and other methods could be used to produce hydrogen. In California, the state's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen-powered vehicles. These are very important initiatives. They may be small steps, but for the hydrogen future they are important steps forward. My predecessor in the Senate, Senator Spark Matsunaga was one of the first to focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as the legislation became known, was designed to accelerate development of domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source in sufficient quantities to reduce the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels. As a result of Senator Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy has been conducting research that will advance technologies for cost- effective production, storage, and utilization of hydrogen. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, which followed the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, expanded the research, development, and demonstration program under the original Act. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. It enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. Today we are introducing legislation that reauthorizes and amends the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. It highlights the potential of hydrogen as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy, the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and industry, and it encourages private sector investment and cost sharing in the development of hydrogen as an energy source. It adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities to expedite wider application of these technologies. The bill we are introducing today supports the recommendations of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, PCAST. In its report issued in November 1997, PCAST proposed a substantial increase in Federal spending for applied energy technology R&D, with the largest share going to energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The PCAST report, ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century,'' acknowledged and supported advances in a wide range of both hydrogen- producing and hydrogen-using technologies. The current Hydrogen Program, administered by the Department of Energy, supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safe and cost- effective manner. Some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. The most promising include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, and reversible PEM fuel cell systems. Other projects lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. These activities need continued support if the nation is to enjoy the benefits of a clean energy source. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory are involved in the program. The DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers-of-excellence have been established at the University of Miami and the University of Hawaii. U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. Cooperation between government, industry, universities, and the national laboratories is key to the successful development and commercialization of new and environmentally friendly energy technologies. The legislation we are introducing today authorizes $350 million over the next five years for research and development for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed-generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. The bill also authorizes $150 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. This provision will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use, and lead to the development of hydrogen-based operating experience acceptance to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting this bill, we will be ushering in a new era of non- polluting energy. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, that will strengthen protections for federal employees who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse. I am proud to be joined by Senators Levin and Grassley, two of the Senate's leaders in protecting employees from retaliatory actions. The Senators from Michigan and Iowa were the primary sponsors of the original 1989 Act, as well as the 1994 amendments, both of which were passed unanimously by Congress. One of the basic obligations of public service is to disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. The WPA was intended to protect federal employees, those often closest to wrongdoing, from workplace retaliation as a result of making such disclosures. The right of federal employees to be free from workplace retaliation, however, has been diminished by a pattern of court rulings that have narrowly defined who qualifies as a whistleblower under the WPA, and what statements are considered protected disclosures. These rulings are inconsistent with congressional intent. There is little incentive for federal employees to come forward because doing so could put their careers at substantial risk. The bill we introduce today will restore congressional intent regarding who is entitled to relief under the WPA, and what disclosures are protected. In addition, it codifies certain anti-gag rules, extends independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, and ends the sole jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whistleblower cases. In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, CSRA, Congress included statutory whistleblower rights for ``a'' disclosure evidencing a reasonable belief of specified misconduct, with certain listed statutory exceptions--classified or other information whose release was specifically barred by other statutes. Unexpectedly, the court and administrative agencies created several loopholes that limited employee protections. With the WPA, Congress closed these loopholes by changing protection of ``a'' disclosure to ``any'' disclosure meeting the law's standards. However, in both formal and informal interpretations of the Act, loopholes continued to proliferate. Congress strengthened its scope and protections by passing 1994 amendments to the WPA. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the 1994 amendments refuted prior interpretations by the Federal Circuit and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, as well as subsequent enforcement action by the Office of Special Counsel that there were exceptions to ``any.'' The Committee report concluded, ``The plain language of the Whistleblower Protection Act extends to retaliation for `any disclosure,' regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made.'' Since the 1994 amendments, both OSC and MSPB generally have honored congressional boundaries. However, the Federal Circuit continues to disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an employee's job duties. In order to protect the statute's foundation that ``any'' lawful disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, our bill codifies the repeated and unconditional statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It amends sections 2302(b)(8)(A) and 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., to cover any disclosure of information ``without restriction to time, place, form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of'' any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in section 2302(b)(8). The bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has passed annually since 1988 as part of the appropriations process. It bans agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. Gag orders imposed as a precondition for employment and resolution of disputes, as well as general agency policies barring employees from communicating directly with Congress or the public, are a prior restraint that not only has a severe chilling effect, but strikes at the heart of this body's ability to perform its oversight duties. Congress repeatedly has reaffirmed its intent that employees should not be forced to sign agreements that supercede an employee's rights under good government statutes. Moreover, Congress unanimously has supported the concept that federal employees should not be subject to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing nor suffer retaliation for speaking out. The measure also provides the Special Counsel with greater litigating authority for merit system principles that the office is responsible to protect. Under current law, the OSC plays a central role as public prosecutor in cases before the MSPB, but cannot choose to defend the merit system in court. Our legislation recognizes that providing the Special Counsel this authority to seek such review, in precedential cases, is crucial to ensuring the promotion of the public interests furthered by these statutes. Lastly, the bill would end the Federal Circuit's monopoly over whistleblower cases by allowing appeals to be filed in the Federal Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. This restores normal judicial review, and provides employees in states such as my home state of Hawaii, the option of a more convenient forum, rather than necessitating a 10,000 mile round trip from Hawaii to Washington, D.C. This bill will begin the needed dialogue to guarantee that any disclosures within the boundaries of the statutory language are protected. As the Chairman of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I plan to hold a hearing on the Whistleblower Protection Act and the amendments we are proposing today. Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort. Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed unanimous bicameral support, and I am pleased that Representatives Morella and Gilman will introduce identical legislation in the House of Representatives in the near future. I also wish to note that our bill enjoys the strong support of the Government Accountability Project and the National Whistleblower Center, and I commend both of these organizations for their efforts in protecting the public interest and promoting government accountability by defending whistleblowers. I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to ensure that the congressional intent embodied in the Whistleblower Protection Act is codified and that the law is not weakened further. I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of our bill from the National Whistleblower Center and the Government Accountability Project and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, that will strengthen protections for federal employees who disclose waste, fraud, and abuse. I am proud to be joined by Senators Levin and Grassley, two of the Senate's leaders in protecting employees from retaliatory actions. The Senators from Michigan and Iowa were the primary sponsors of the original 1989 Act, as well as the 1994 amendments, both of which were passed unanimously by Congress. One of the basic obligations of public service is to disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities. The WPA was intended to protect federal employees, those often closest to wrongdoing, from workplace retaliation as a result of making such disclosures. The right of federal employees to be free from workplace retaliation, however, has been diminished by a pattern of court rulings that have narrowly defined who qualifies as a whistleblower under the WPA, and what statements are considered protected disclosures. These rulings are inconsistent with congressional intent. There is little incentive for federal employees to come forward because doing so could put their careers at substantial risk. The bill we introduce today will restore congressional intent regarding who is entitled to relief under the WPA, and what disclosures are protected. In addition, it codifies certain anti-gag rules, extends independent litigating authority to the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, and ends the sole jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over whistleblower cases. In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, CSRA, Congress included statutory whistleblower rights for ``a'' disclosure evidencing a reasonable belief of specified misconduct, with certain listed statutory exceptions--classified or other information whose release was specifically barred by other statutes. Unexpectedly, the court and administrative agencies created several loopholes that limited employee protections. With the WPA, Congress closed these loopholes by changing protection of ``a'' disclosure to ``any'' disclosure meeting the law's standards. However, in both formal and informal interpretations of the Act, loopholes continued to proliferate. Congress strengthened its scope and protections by passing 1994 amendments to the WPA. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the 1994 amendments refuted prior interpretations by the Federal Circuit and the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, as well as subsequent enforcement action by the Office of Special Counsel that there were exceptions to ``any.'' The Committee report concluded, ``The plain language of the Whistleblower Protection Act extends to retaliation for `any disclosure,' regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made.'' Since the 1994 amendments, both OSC and MSPB generally have honored congressional boundaries. However, the Federal Circuit continues to disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures such as those made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers, or as part of an employee's job duties. In order to protect the statute's foundation that ``any'' lawful disclosure that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, our bill codifies the repeated and unconditional statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It amends sections 2302(b)(8)(A) and 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., to cover any disclosure of information ``without restriction to time, place, form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of'' any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in section 2302(b)(8). The bill also codifies an ``anti-gag'' provision that Congress has passed annually since 1988 as part of the appropriations process. It bans agencies from implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form or agreement that does not contain specified language preserving open government statutes such as the WPA, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. Gag orders imposed as a precondition for employment and resolution of disputes, as well as general agency policies barring employees from communicating directly with Congress or the public, are a prior restraint that not only has a severe chilling effect, but strikes at the heart of this body's ability to perform its oversight duties. Congress repeatedly has reaffirmed its intent that employees should not be forced to sign agreements that supercede an employee's rights under good government statutes. Moreover, Congress unanimously has supported the concept that federal employees should not be subject to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing nor suffer retaliation for speaking out. The measure also provides the Special Counsel with greater litigating authority for merit system principles that the office is responsible to protect. Under current law, the OSC plays a central role as public prosecutor in cases before the MSPB, but cannot choose to defend the merit system in court. Our legislation recognizes that providing the Special Counsel this authority to seek such review, in precedential cases, is crucial to ensuring the promotion of the public interests furthered by these statutes. Lastly, the bill would end the Federal Circuit's monopoly over whistleblower cases by allowing appeals to be filed in the Federal Circuit or the circuit in which the petitioner resides. This restores normal judicial review, and provides employees in states such as my home state of Hawaii, the option of a more convenient forum, rather than necessitating a 10,000 mile round trip from Hawaii to Washington, D.C. This bill will begin the needed dialogue to guarantee that any disclosures within the boundaries of the statutory language are protected. As the Chairman of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I plan to hold a hearing on the Whistleblower Protection Act and the amendments we are proposing today. Protection of Federal whistleblowers is a bipartisan effort. Enactment of the original bill in 1989 and the 1994 amendments enjoyed unanimous bicameral support, and I am pleased that Representatives Morella and Gilman will introduce identical legislation in the House of Representatives in the near future. I also wish to note that our bill enjoys the strong support of the Government Accountability Project and the National Whistleblower Center, and I commend both of these organizations for their efforts in protecting the public interest and promoting government accountability by defending whistleblowers. I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to ensure that the congressional intent embodied in the Whistleblower Protection Act is codified and that the law is not weakened further. I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of our bill from the National Whistleblower Center and the Government Accountability Project and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last week the General Accounting Office, GAO, released a report I requested entitled ``Human Capital: The Role of Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution.'' The report studies the use of Federal ombudsman offices as an informal alternative to existing and more conventional processes to deal with personnel conflicts inside Federal agencies. I know that traditional formal dispute resolution processes have long been criticized. To address these concerns, the Federal Government promotes and encourages alternative methods including the use of ombudsmen. This has resulted in the greater use of alternative dispute resolution, ADR, practices, both because of legislation, specifically the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, ADRA, and because of a desire to resolve workplaces conflicts quickly to the mutual benefit of both the employee and the agency. I wish to point out that ombudsmen are not themselves an alternative means of dispute resolution, but rather a neutral practitioner of dispute resolution practices, including ADR techniques, to handle complaints. I support strong workplace protections to protect Federal employees from arbitrary agency actions and prohibited personnel practices. Ombudsmen provide another way to ensure a more rapid conclusion to workplace problems. These offices may also provide another tool in assisting agencies in attracting, retaining, and motivating their workforces. In fact, this report concludes that ``ombudsman offices can offer a useful option for agencies to consider in developing their overall human capital management policies and practices.'' Another plus is that these offices focus on identifying systemic issues and developing conflict prevention strategies. The GAO identified 22 workplace ombudsman offices in 10 agencies. Their ``best practices'' report focuses for illustrative purposes on offices within three agencies: The National Institutes of Health, NIH, the International Broadcasting Bureau, IBB, and the U.S. Secret Service. NIH has one of the most developed ombudsman offices, which was established in 1997, and now has four full time ombudsman. The IBB office began as a part-time position in 1988, and now has two full-time officials. The Secret Service's office, started in 1987, employs one full-time staff member and nine collateral-duty people serving the Secret Service's field offices. These ombudsmen are high-level managers with broad authority to deal with almost any workplace issue, including answering questions about agency policies, cutting through ``red tape,'' counseling employees and coaching them on how to manage situations, handling accusations about employment discrimination, and workplace safety issues. Ombudsmen are a resource for Federal workers with workplace issues; an office which they can consult that is independent, neutral, and provides confidentiality. The 1990 ADRA authorizes the use of ombudsman offices but does not define or set standards for an ombudsman. The Act, as amended in 1996, established the Interagency ADR Working Group. There is also a Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen. The NIH, IBB, and Secret Service ombudsmen who participated in the GAO report are involved with both these and outside organizations. Some of the non-Federal Government organizations have published or drafted standards of practice for ombudsmen. These standards focus on the core principals of independence, neutrality, and confidentiality, which requires a commitment from the highest levels within an agency. This commitment is the guiding force in the success of the three offices studied by the GAO. In addition to support from senior management, an ombudsman office must work closely with unions representing Federal workers. The General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority has issued guidance concerning the establishment of ADR programs and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. It is essential that ombudsmen do not come in conflict with the role of unions in protecting worker rights. From the case studies examined by the GAO, there appeared to be good relations between ombudsmen and unions in the agencies where employees are represented by unions. As agencies consider this and other alternatives to traditional dispute resolution, there must be assurances that employees' rights are maintained throughout the process of implementing these practices. I recommend this General Accounting Office report to my colleagues, and I commend Anthony P. Lofaro of the GAO for his contribution to this report, along with Stephen Altman and Katherine Brentzel. It provides excellent background and a best practices blueprint for Federal agencies as they consider employing ombudsman to assist their employees.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 407. I ask that it be called up.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical change to section 4118 of S. 1, and would allow organizations that primarily serve Native Hawaiians to compete for grants under this section. The current language in the bill requires the Governor to recognize the Native Hawaiian institution as a condition for consideration for the grant. This amendment would remove this requirement, thereby streamlining this process and allowing more organizations to apply for these grants. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, with respect to my previously agreed upon amendment No. 407, I ask unanimous consent that the instruction line conform to the Jeffords substitute amendment.