Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for permitting me to go before him. I ask that my amendment, which is at the desk, amendment No. 524, which is cosponsored by my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, be called up.

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to the economic education legislation which I introduced during the 106th Congress. That legislation received considerable bipartisan support from my colleagues, Senators Bayh, Breaux, Cleland, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Enzi, Hagel, Johnson, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lugar, Moynihan, Snowe, and Wellstone. With each passing day, the need for increased economic literacy becomes more and more apparent. Our nation's economy is undergoing enormous changes. When I first introduced economic education legislation, we were in the midst of unprecedented economic growth and the longest peacetime economic expansion in our nation's history. More recently, however, the stock market experienced serious volatility and the NASDAQ suffered a sharp downturn. A number of employers, especially in the technology sector, have released a substantial number of their employees. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates five times this year, the most recent cut occurring yesterday, in an effort to prevent our nation from sliding into an economic recession. Economic changes such as these highlight the importance of economic and financial literacy. I am convinced that increased education about basic economic principles such as money management, personal finance, interest rates, and inflation will assist all Americans in making informed decisions about their financial situations. Beginning this education at a young age will better equip future generations to manage their financial affairs in our rapidly and constantly fluctuating economy. It is critical that today's students learn that there are consequences for every fiscal decision they make because the fiscal habits they learn now are likely to be the habits that remain as adults. We must also assist today's students in becoming productive and well- informed citizens. Studies have shown that a lack of individual knowledge about fundamental economic principles can lead to negative effects on our national economy. Economic education, or the lack of it, has profound long-term effects on us all. In an April 6, 2001, speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan concurred with this assessment. In that speech, Chairman Greenspan articulated his belief that our nation's schools need to improve their ability to teach young people basic financial education. He also stated that this financial education should begin as early as possible. I would like to share some of the results of a national test on basic economic principles conducted by the National Council on Economic Education in 1998 and 1999, which provide further evidence of the need for increased economic education. These results are based on responses from 1010 adults and 1085 high school students. Both the students and adults alike lacked a basic understanding about the fundamental concepts of money, inflation, and scarcity of resources. One-half of the adults and two-thirds of the students tested did not know that the stock market brings people who want to buy stocks together with those who want to sell them. Thirty-five percent of the students taking the test admitted that they do not know what the effect of an increase in interest rates would be. Only a little more than half of the adults and less than a quarter of the students tested knew that a budget deficit occurs when the Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues for that year. Amid these disappointing results, the study found that 96 percent of Americans believe that basic economics should be taught in high school. Yet, few States require students to take an economics course in order to graduate, or have adopted guidelines for teaching economics in their schools, or, alarmingly, even require schools within their State to offer a course on economics to be made available. This amendment aims to increase student knowledge of, and achievement in, finance and economics by strengthening our nation's teachers' understanding of, and ability to teach economics. It provides resources to incorporate economics into K through 12 curricula. It encourages economics-related research and development, dissemination of instructional materials, and replication of best practices and programs. And it also increases private and public support for economic education partnerships between schools and local businesses. The need for economic literacy should be no different from, or less important than, reading literacy, writing aptitude, or math and science comprehension. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Corzine, for joining me in this effort to improve our nation's financial literacy. I urge all of my colleagues to support our amendment and ensure that our nation's youth are sufficiently prepared for their financial futures.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is very important to a large number of Americans. It is the issue of global climate change and the control of greenhouse gases. One of the most profound challenges we face in the 21st century is the problem of global climate change. Global climate change has the potential to cause widespread damage to large parts of our planet. An increasing body of scientific evidence indicates that human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat trapping property of these greenhouse gases is undisputed. Scientists and public policy experts are convinced that we need to address this problem. We cannot wait longer for even more scientific proof of when and how climate change will begin. One Pacific leader summarized our dilemma best when he said ``We do not have the luxury of waiting for conclusive proof of global warming. The proof, we fear, will kill us.'' Prudence dictates that we start addressing this issue immediately. Solutions may not be easy, quick, or cheap; however, if we do not address this problem soon, the costs will be much higher. President Bush's reversal of his carbon dioxide pledge is a serious blow to the efforts to control greenhouse gases. The Administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol diminishes the role of the United States in developing a suitable framework to deal with the challenge of global climate change in a cooperative manner with other countries. The United States has the scientific and technical prowess and industrial might to play a leading role in controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases. As the source of over a quarter of the planet's carbon dioxide emissions, we have a responsibility to act decisively. If we abandon our leadership role, not only will history judge us harshly, but we will also pay a dear price for our shortsightedness. I represent the state where debate over global warming began. The Mauna Loa Climate Observatory in Hawaii was the first to document a steady increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels more than 30 years ago. Since then many authoritative studies have been conducted that document increased levels of greenhouse gases. It is now widely accepted by the scientific community that human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and certain land-use practices are increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Careful measurement of those gases in the atmosphere, and analyses of ancient ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, leave no doubt that their global concentrations are increasing. Modeling studies show that emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activities are affecting the atmosphere in a predictable manner. Confidence in the ability of complex models to project future climatic conditions has increased. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometers of the atmosphere. Snow cover and ice extent have decreased. There has been widespread retreat of glaciers in the non-polar regions during the 20th century. Average global sea level has risen and ocean heat content has increased. The effects of major global climate change on the U.S. and the rest of the world will be devastating. I would like to describe the possible effects of climate change on Hawaii. As an island state with limited land mass, we are very sensitive to global climate changes. The worldwide problem of greenhouse gases threatens Hawaii. Honolulu's average temperature has increased by 4.4 degrees over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures in Hawaii could increase by three to five degrees Fahrenheit in all seasons and slightly more in the fall. Rainfall has decreased by about 20 percent over the past 90 years. Estimates for future rainfall are highly uncertain because reliable projections of El Nino do not exist. It is possible that large precipitation increases could occur in the summer and fall. The intensity of hurricanes may be affected. Expansion of the habitat of disease-carrying insects could increase the potential for diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. In Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Hilo, our major harbors, sea level has increased six to fourteen inches in the last century and is likely to rise another 17 to 24 inches by 2100. The expected rise in the sea level could cause flooding of low lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, beach erosion, saltwater contamination of drinking water, and damage to coastal roads and bridges. The shorelines of the Hawaiian Islands contain some of the world's most famous white-sand beaches. The effects of an accelerated sea level rise on the coral reef ecosystem which protects our islands are poorly understood. Higher temperatures could cause coral bleaching and the death of coral reefs. Hawaii's economy could also be hurt if the combination of higher temperatures, changes in weather, and the effects of sea level rise on beaches make Hawaii less attractive to visitors. Hawaii's diverse environment and geographic isolation have resulted in a great variety of native species found only in Hawaii. However, 70 percent of U.S. extinctions of species have occurred in Hawaii, and many species are endangered. Climate change would add another threat. People around the world are beginning to take this problem seriously. To reduce carbon dioxide output, Mexico is planning to double its geothermal power generation, placing it third behind the United States and the Philippines in the use of geothermal power. China, with 11 percent of the world's carbon dioxide output, second to the U.S., has reduced its greenhouse gas output by 17 percent between 1997 and 1999. In the U.S., municipal governments are working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In 1993, Portland, Oregon, became the first U.S. city to implement its own CO2 reduction plan. Portland has been joined by Denver and Minneapolis. In recent years, more and more multinational corporations have taken positive steps to address the problem of greenhouse gases. British Petroleum set the goal of cutting carbon dioxide output 10 percent below its 1990 level. Four years later it is halfway there. Last October, Alcan, DuPont, and others pledged to reduce their greenhouse emissions to levels meeting or exceeding the Kyoto requirements. Polaroid, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, and others are also committed to reducing corporate greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel cells are on the verge of providing big breakthroughs in the use of clean energy. All major automobile companies are committeed to this new, clean technology. We cannot wait for further scientific proof to materialize. If we do not begin to control greenhouse gases in a reasonable time frame, we may reach the point where it may be exceedingly difficult to avoid the drastic effects of global warming. It will not take extremes of warming to lead to major impacts. We need to address the problem of global climate change, and the sooner we start on this the better off we will be. No one wants our efforts to combat carbon dioxide emissions to become an economic nightmare. An effective program to fight climate change need not involve huge increases in energy prices or draconian rules that choke industries and damage our economic well-being. We need to employ creative approaches and let American ingenuity loose. We must invest in the development of new technologies that will provide new and environmentally friendly sources of energy, newer and environmentally friendly technologies that allow use of conventional and non-conventional energy sources. We must work with other nations in a cooperative manner. A well-crafted strategy can address global climate change and maintain our preeminent economic position in the world. I urge President Bush to reconsider his position on the control of carbon dioxide. I urge the Administration to work with other countries in developing suitable and equitable approaches in solving this shared problem of control of greenhouse gases. Our positive leadership is necessary if we are to avoid the catastrophic effects of global climate change. Our world cannot afford widespread disruption of ecosystems and weather patterns that may result from unmitigated emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, May 1 is a special day in many cultures. The Celts and Saxons and others in pre-Christian Europe celebrated the first planting and the beauty of spring. These agrarian celebrations continued down through the centuries and remain today. In much of Europe, May 1 is also a labor holiday, honoring the labor workers. The first of May, however, has a unique and very special significance to the people of Hawaii. May Day is Lei Day in Hawaii. Lei Day is a nonpolitical and nonpartisan celebration. Indeed, its sole purpose is to engage in random acts of kindness and sharing, and to celebrate the Aloha spirit, that intangible, but palpable, essence which is best exemplified by the hospitality and inclusiveness exhibited by the Native Hawaiians--Hawaii's indigenous peoples--to all people of goodwill. A lei is garland of flowers joined together in a manner which can be worn. There are many different styles of lei made of numerous types of flowers. The type of flower used determines the manner in which the lei is woven. While Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian culture are properly acknowledged for giving the lei such prominence, and the lei is a sensory manifestation of the Aloha spirit, other Pacific island peoples--the Polynesians and Micronesians for example--and Southeast Asians use floral garlands to greet and honor guests. A lei symbolizes love, support, and friendship. Longstanding tradition in Hawaii has made May 1 a special day for the people of Hawaii. The Territory of Hawaii observed its first ``May Day is Lei Day'' celebration on May 1, 1928. There were many festivities and competitions that exhibited lei made of flowers from the different islands. In addition, many schools held elaborate programs throughout the islands. This tradition has continued for many years in Hawaii. In 1929, Governor Farrington signed a Lei Day proclamation urging the citizens of Hawaii to ``observe the day and honor the traditions of Hawaii-nei by wearing and displaying lei.'' Many schools celebrate this day by holding pageants where students honor the many cultures and traditions of Hawaii. Students commonly elect a May Day court, commemorating Hawaii's royal heritage, that consists of two representatives who wear flowers and colored Aloha attire representative and customary for each of the eight major islands of Hawaii. In addition, many communities hold events in honor of Lei Day, including lei making contests and concerts. This year, the Hawaii State Legislature passed a bill to officially recognize May 1 as ``Lei Day in Hawaii.'' The bill was recently signed into law by Gov. Benjamin Cayetano. Mr. President, in an effort to share the Aloha spirit across America and around the world, the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau will be sharing lei in seventeen cities today. Approximately 31,000 lei will be shared in 17 cities around the world, including here in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, Vancouver, Seoul, Sydney, Beijing, and Buenos Aires. The lei will be of three types: plumeria, tuberose, and dendrobium orchids. I am pleased that we in Washington, DC, are able to participate in this wonderful celebration of the Aloha spirit. Across Capitol Hill this morning, young people from the metropolitan area who are students of Native Hawaiian hula, language and culture are sharing a floral greeting and compilation of beautiful Hawaiian music with every Senator and Member of Congress. I encourage all of my colleagues to enjoy the fragrant and beautiful lei, listen to the music and allow yourself to be transported to Hawaii where you too will discover the cheer and camaraderie of Lei Day. The songwriter Red Hawke captured it best when he wrote: May Day is Lei Day in Hawaii, Garlands of flowers everywhere, All of the colors in the rainbow, Maidens with blossoms in their hair, Flowers that mean we should be happy, Throwing aside a load of care, Oh, May Day is Lei Day in Hawaii, May Day is happy out there. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. I am proud to be the author of the original legislation enacted in 1992 to extend eligibility for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program to National Guard and Reserve members. Tens of thousands of dedicated reservists who served for at least six years, and continue to serve or have received an honorable discharge, have been able to fulfill their dream of home ownership through this program. The participation of Guard and Reserve members not only benefits these service members, but also stabilizes the financial viability of the program since this group has had a lower default rate than most other program participants. Furthermore, the program serves as an important recruiting incentive for the National Guard and Reserve. In the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I introduced legislation which resulted in the authorization for the program being extended through September 30, 2007. While this was a step in the right direction, using the benefit for a recruiting incentive will no longer be possible since the authority expires in six years and reservists are required to serve for at least six years before they qualify for VA- guaranteed loans. In order to continue using this program as a recruiting incentive for a few more years, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority for the program through September 30, 2015. The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is an important component of a benefits package which makes Guard and Reserve service more attractive to qualified individuals. This is of particular importance during a time when the civilian sector is competing for the same pool of limited applicants, as well as when our military needs are becoming increasingly technical, demanding only the most intelligent, motivated, and competent individuals. An extension of the authority will assist the National Guard and Reserve with their recruitment efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would recognize the vital contributions of National Guard and Reserve members to our country, as well as ensure that VA-guaranteed housing loans can continue to be used as a recruiting incentive. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. I am proud to be the author of the original legislation enacted in 1992 to extend eligibility for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program to National Guard and Reserve members. Tens of thousands of dedicated reservists who served for at least six years, and continue to serve or have received an honorable discharge, have been able to fulfill their dream of home ownership through this program. The participation of Guard and Reserve members not only benefits these service members, but also stabilizes the financial viability of the program since this group has had a lower default rate than most other program participants. Furthermore, the program serves as an important recruiting incentive for the National Guard and Reserve. In the 106th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I introduced legislation which resulted in the authorization for the program being extended through September 30, 2007. While this was a step in the right direction, using the benefit for a recruiting incentive will no longer be possible since the authority expires in six years and reservists are required to serve for at least six years before they qualify for VA- guaranteed loans. In order to continue using this program as a recruiting incentive for a few more years, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Jeffords that would extend the authority for the program through September 30, 2015. The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is an important component of a benefits package which makes Guard and Reserve service more attractive to qualified individuals. This is of particular importance during a time when the civilian sector is competing for the same pool of limited applicants, as well as when our military needs are becoming increasingly technical, demanding only the most intelligent, motivated, and competent individuals. An extension of the authority will assist the National Guard and Reserve with their recruitment efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would recognize the vital contributions of National Guard and Reserve members to our country, as well as ensure that VA-guaranteed housing loans can continue to be used as a recruiting incentive. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye which would clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This measure would extend the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples, Native Hawaiians, thereby establishing parity in federal policies towards Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives and American Indians. The bill we introduce today is a modified version of legislation we introduced on January 22, 2001. This modified version improves upon our efforts to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Federal policy towards Native Hawaiians has closely paralleled that of our indigenous brothers and sisters, the Alaska Natives and American Indians. This bill provides a process for federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This bill does three things. First it provides a process for federal recognition of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Second, it establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the Federal government. Finally, it establishes an interagency coordinating group to be composed of representatives of federal agencies which administer programs and implement policies impacting Native Hawaiians. This measure does not establish entitlements or special treatment for Native Hawaiians based on race. This measure focuses on the political relationship afforded to Native Hawaiians based on the United States' recognition of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous peoples of Hawaii. As we all know, the United States' history with its indigenous peoples has been dismal. In recent decades, however, the United States has engaged in a policy of self-determination and self- governance with its indigenous peoples. Government-to-government relationships provide indigenous peoples with the opportunity to work directly with the federal government on policies affecting their lands, natural resources and many other aspects of their well-being. While federal policies towards Native Hawaiians have paralleled that of Native American Indians and Alaska Natives, the federal policy of self- determination and self-governance, has not yet been extended to Native Hawaiians. This measure extends this policy to Native Hawaiians, thus furthering the process of reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This measure does not impact program funding for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Federal programs for Native Hawaiian health, education and housing are already administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing the Urban Development. The bill I introduce today contains a provision which makes clear that this bill does not authorize eligibility for participation in any programs and services provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bill does not authorize gaming in Hawaii. In fact, it clearly states that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, does not apply to the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Hawaii is one of two states in the Union which criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. Therefore, I want to make clear that this bill would not authorize the Native Hawaiian governing entity to conduct any type of gaming in Hawaii. Finally, this measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking alternatives in the international arena. This measure focuses on self- determination within the framework of federal law and seeks to establish equality in the federal policies extended towards American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. We introduced similar legislation during the 106th Congress. While the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate failed to consider it prior to the adjournment of the 106th Congress. The legislation was widely supported by our indigenous brethren, American Indians and Alaska Natives. It was also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature which passed a resolution supporting a government-to- government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar resolutions were passed by the Japanese American Citizens' League and the National Education Association. Mr. President, when most people think of Hawaii, they think of paradise. I agree, it is paradise. However, the essence of Hawaii is captured not by the physical beauty of its islands, but by the beauty of its people. Those who have lived in Hawaii have a unique demeanor and attitude which is appropriately described as the ``Aloha'' spirit. The people of Hawaii demonstrate the Aloha spirit through their actions--through their generosity, through their appreciation of the environment and natural resources, through their willingness to care for each other, through their genuine friendliness. The people of Hawaii share many ethnic backgrounds and cultures. This mix of culture and tradition is based on the unique history of Hawaii. The Aloha spirit is generated from the pride we all share in the culture and tradition of Hawaii's indigenous, native peoples, the Native Hawaiians. Hawaii's state motto, ``Ua mau ke'ea `o ka `aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness,'' captures the culture of Native Hawaiians. Prior to western contact, Native Hawaiians lived in an advanced society, in distinct and structured communities steeped in science. The Native Hawaiians honored their aina, land, and environment, and therefore developed methods of irrigation, agriculture, aquaculture, navigation, medicine, fishing and other forms of subsistence whereby the land and sea were efficiently used without waste or damage. Respect for the environment formed the basis of their culture and tradition. It is from this culture and tradition that the Aloha spirit, which is demonstrated throughout Hawaii, by all of its people, has endured and flourished. In 1978, the people of Hawaii acted to preserve Native Hawaiian culture and tradition by amending Hawaii's state constitution to establish the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to give expression to the right of self-determination and self-governance at the state level for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. Starting with statehood, Hawaii endeavored to address and protect the rights and concerns of Hawaii's indigenous peoples in accordance with authority delegated under federal policy. The constraints of this approach are evident. This bill extends the federal policy of self-determination and self- governance to Native Hawaiians at the federal level through a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This measure is not being introduced to circumvent the 1999 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Rice v. Cayetano. The Rice case was a voting rights case whereby the Supreme Court held that the State of Hawaii must allow all citizens of Hawaii to vote for the Board of Trustees of a quasi-state agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was established by citizens of the State of Hawaii as part of the 1978 State of Hawaii Constitutional Convention. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs administers programs and services for Native Hawaiians. The State constitution provided for nine trustees who were Native Hawaiian to be elected by Native Hawaiians. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rice v. Cayetano, the elections were not only open to all citizens in the State of Hawaii, but non-Hawaiians were deemed eligible to serve on the Board of Trustees. Whereas the Rice case dealt with voting rights and the State of Hawaii, the measure we introduce today addresses the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance and does not involve the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. This measure is critical to the people of Hawaii as it begins a process to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By addressing and resolving these matters, we begin a process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only within the United States, but within the State of Hawaii. The time has come for us to be able to address these deeply rooted issues in order for us to be able to move forward as one. I cannot emphasize how important this measure is for the people of Hawaii. While Hawaii will always be known for its physical beauty, its true essence is in its people. The time has come to provide Hawaii's indigenous peoples with the opportunity to engage in a government-to- government relationship with the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this critical measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, to reinstate FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program, Project Impact. Established in 1997, Project Impact assists communities in identifying risks and vulnerabilities, developing programs to lessen risks, and involving the public and private sectors in the process. With over 250 community Project Impact partners nationwide and more than 2,500 business partners, Project Impact is the only Federal program that provides funds for pre-disaster mitigation. In Hawaii, all four of the state's counties are Project Impact partners. For example, Maui County is using Project Impact to review community mitigation plans in regions that are more isolated than others to reduce disruptions during and after disasters. The County of Kauai is using funds to assist with retrofitting and hardening public structures to protect them from damaging hurricanes, and the state's most populous area, the City and County of Honolulu, is working on an aggressive public education and awareness program, developing a mitigation strategy to include a risk-vulnerability assessment, hardening and retrofitting essential facilities, and flood control measures. My distinguished colleague from Washington described how Seattle has benefited from its partnership with Project Impact. I was interested that 6 months before the city's massive earthquake, Mayor Paul Schell said, ``Seattle Project Impact helps us realize we are not powerless against the threat of earthquakes. This public-private partnership is a stellar example of how local communities can work together to become disaster resistant.'' Ironically, the President's budget, which was released on the same day as the Seattle earthquake, proposed to terminate Project Impact from FEMA's fiscal year 2002 budget because the program ``has not proven effective.'' I would like to take a moment to discuss the effectiveness of this program. My first action was to ask OMB Director Mitchell Daniels and FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh how they reached their decision to eliminate this successful program. During Director Allbaugh's confirmation hearing, he said that, with respect to the importance of disaster mitigation, ``taking my lead from Congress' enactment of the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, I plan to focus on implementing pre- disaster mitigation programs that encourage the building of disaster resistant communities. FEMA has made solid progress in this area, but more can be done to limit the human and financial toll of disasters.'' We must assume that the ``solid progress'' in pre-disaster mitigation refers to Project Impact since it is the only pre-disaster mitigation program funded by FEMA. Eliminating its funding will not meet the goal of doing more to ``focus on implementing pre-disaster mitigation programs'' and ``limit the human and financial toll of disasters.'' Director Daniels recently replied to my earlier letter. He expressed strong support for Project Impact but surprisingly indicated that funding would be eliminated. Instead he suggested that a new National Emergency Reserve fund would be used for disaster mitigation although the President's proposed budget blueprint makes clear that the reserve's funds are ``limited to expenditures that are sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent.'' His letter, which I ask unanimous consent be entered into the Record along with the description of the President's National Emergency Reserve fund, deepens my concern that this program's functions will not be funded. Consequently, there will be no funding for disaster mitigation programs in the President's budget. I also was interested to learn that there has been no formal review by the General Accounting Office of the effectiveness of this program, either by itself or with respect to the other mitigation programs in FEMA. A March 2000 FEMA Inspector General report outlined some of the management difficulties Project Impact faced as a new and rapidly expanding program. The IG found several areas lacking or in need of reform, and the agency addressed each issue. Moreover, the report stated that many of the benefits derived from Project Impact could not be quantified, which is a never-ending burden of mitigation and prevention programs: a positive outcome results in a smaller effect, or none at all. Supporters of the President's proposed budget cut may say that all we have heard is anecdotal evidence in support of Project Impact. However, I say that we have not heard any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, against the program. We must consider qualitative results and benefits, such as public awareness, education and greater community-industry cooperation, when determining its effectiveness. These are very important to a community that hopes to sustain disaster preparedness measures long after the initial seed money is spent. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to reinstate the $25 million for Project Impact. With so many of our communities, especially smaller cities and towns, participating in this important program, I believe we must first determine its effectiveness before voting for its elimination. I am asking GAO to provide Congress with a detailed assessment of the program so that we may determined its effectiveness.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. Ralph Cossa, President of the Pacific Forum CSIS, which is based in Honolulu, recently published an insightful analysis in the International Herald Tribune entitled ``Spy Plane Poses Test That Beijing Risks Flunking.'' I will ask unanimous consent that his article be printed in the Record following my remarks, and I urge my colleagues and Chinese officials to read carefully his article. A recent colleague of Mr. Cossa's at CSIS, James Kelly, has been nominated by President Bush to be the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific. The Center for Strategic and International Studies' pacific Forum has a long history of both monitoring and working to improve relations between the United States and China. For this reason especially, Mr. Cossa's analysis of the current crisis in American-Chinese relations is particularly disturbing. As Mr. Cossa points out, ``Beijing's automatic reaction to any mishap is to quickly incite anti-American sentiments. This is contrary to China's stated desire to develop improved relations with Washington.'' He makes the point that some in China in the past have accused the United States of a ``Cold War mentality'' but that today it is China ``that is demonstrating such a mindset in the way it has reacted to this accident.'' Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed regret for the death of the Chinese pilot and has made suggestions to the Chinese on how to resolve the current crisis and prevent further such incidents. Now it is time for China to respond with similar magnanimous gestures by releasing our air men and women and returning our aircraft. Any further delay may damage American-Chinese relations in an irreparable way. I ask unanimous consent that the analysis to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the only way to resolve the current crisis in American-Chinese relations is the prompt and safe return of the 24 American airmen now being detained by the Chinese military on Hainan Island and by the swift return of the U.S. Navy's plane. Only after their return can we begin to discuss other issues with China over this and other incidents affecting our relations. I am deeply disturbed by the delay in allowing American embassy personnel to meet with our service personnel, and I am concerned about press reports that they are being detained in separate areas. I understand our bilateral consular agreement requires the Chinese to provide full access to American citizens within four days but nothing precludes them from giving such access sooner. Indeed our consular agreement with China requires consular access to all American citizens within 48 hours of receipt of official notification of their detention. As Chinese officials issued statements concerning their detention on April 1, China may already be in violation of its consular agreement with us. The fact that American consular officials are already present on Hainan Island and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding our plane's emergency landing on Hainan provide the Chinese authorities with an opportunity to demonstrate their good will. Press reports that Chinese personnel have entered our plane and removed equipment are also deeply disturbing. Under international law, the plane enjoys sovereign immune status as the incident took place in international air space and the plane should not have been entered or tampered with. There is no doubt about the location of the incident as even the Chinese Foreign Ministry press spokesman, Mr. Zhu Bang Zao, acknowledged that it took place 104 kilometers, or 65 miles, at sea. This incident is the most recent in a series of serious episodes in American-Chinese relations since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. When the Chinese embassy was mistakenly bombed in Belgrade, we moved quickly to assume responsibility and to make appropriate amends. I hope that the Chinese are now willing to take similar steps to defuse the situation and restore the trust necessary between two great nations. It behooves both countries to exercise restraint and respect for each other. The first step towards resolution is for China to release our detained personnel and equipment. Perhaps they do not realize how profoundly affected Americans are by the perception that their fellow citizens are being mistreated or misused as tools of political propaganda. The seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo by North Korea and the takeover of the American Embassy in Iran, as examples, remain sores in the American psyche. We deeply resent the mistreatment of Americans for simply being Americans doing their duty under the protection of international law and agreements. We can also understand China's concern over the loss of its pilot and plane. We regret their loss but prolonging this crisis can benefit neither country nor lead to a reconciliation between us. A first step needs to be taken. I hope the leaders of our two countries do so soon by opening a direct dialogue. May God bless our servicemen and women who are now suffering this time of trial. Our thoughts and prayers are with them constantly.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2001. Senator Bob Smith joins me in sponsoring this bill that will close a serious loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to stop the mistreatment of animals and to prevent the unintentional sale of family pets for laboratory experiments. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the Animal Welfare Act and the enforcement efforts of the Department of Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners with reliable protection against the actions of some unethical dealers. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. There are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats. ``Random source'' dealers are USDA licensed Class B dealers that provide animals for research. Many of these animals are family pets, acquired by so-called ``bunchers'' who sometimes resort to theft and deception as they collect animals to sell them to Class B dealers. ``Bunchers,'' posing as someone interested in adopting a dog or cat, usually respond to advertisements such as ``free pet to a good home,'' and trick animal owners into giving them their pets. Some random source dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a time in squalid conditions, providing them with little food or water. The mistreated animals often pass through several hands and across state lines before they are eventually sold by a random source dealer to a research laboratory. While I am not suggesting that laboratories intentionally seek out stolen or fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the fact remains that many of these animals end up in research laboratories, and little is being done to stop it. It is clear to most observers, including animal welfare organizations around the country, that this problem persists because of random source animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, the Pet Safety and Protection Act preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders, municipal pounds that choose to release dogs and cats for research purposes, legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research, and private and federal facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to the high fees charged by random source animal dealers. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from random source dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers. To combat any future violation of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet Safety and Protection Act increases the penalties under the Act to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. As I stated before, this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers. The history of disregard for the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act by some animal dealers makes the Pet Safety and Protection Act necessary and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2001. Senator Bob Smith joins me in sponsoring this bill that will close a serious loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to stop the mistreatment of animals and to prevent the unintentional sale of family pets for laboratory experiments. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the Animal Welfare Act and the enforcement efforts of the Department of Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners with reliable protection against the actions of some unethical dealers. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. There are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats. ``Random source'' dealers are USDA licensed Class B dealers that provide animals for research. Many of these animals are family pets, acquired by so-called ``bunchers'' who sometimes resort to theft and deception as they collect animals to sell them to Class B dealers. ``Bunchers,'' posing as someone interested in adopting a dog or cat, usually respond to advertisements such as ``free pet to a good home,'' and trick animal owners into giving them their pets. Some random source dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a time in squalid conditions, providing them with little food or water. The mistreated animals often pass through several hands and across state lines before they are eventually sold by a random source dealer to a research laboratory. While I am not suggesting that laboratories intentionally seek out stolen or fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the fact remains that many of these animals end up in research laboratories, and little is being done to stop it. It is clear to most observers, including animal welfare organizations around the country, that this problem persists because of random source animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, the Pet Safety and Protection Act preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders, municipal pounds that choose to release dogs and cats for research purposes, legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research, and private and federal facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to the high fees charged by random source animal dealers. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from random source dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers. To combat any future violation of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet Safety and Protection Act increases the penalties under the Act to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. As I stated before, this bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but will end the fraudulent practices of some Class B dealers. The history of disregard for the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act by some animal dealers makes the Pet Safety and Protection Act necessary and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution condemning the destruction of pre-Islamic statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime. A similar resolution has been introduced in the House of Representatives. This resolution expresses the grave concern of the Congress over the recent destruction of religious treasures in Afghanistan by the Taliban and over the treatment of the Afghani people by their Taliban rulers. Afghanistan is home to a rich cultural heritage, steeped in Buddhist history and ancient artifacts. More than 1,500 years ago, a pair of Buddha statues, each standing over 100 feet tall, was carved out of a mountainside in Bamiyan. Since their creation, these statues have been visited by many people. they were both religious and cultural treasures--they become one of the most important models for the depiction elsewhere of Buddha. Significant relics such as these should have been preserved for the edification and enlightenment of future generations. Islam and Buddhism have peacefully coexisted in Afghanistan for more than 1,000 years. Two years ago, Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban regime, called for the preservation of Buddhist cultural heritage in Afghanistan. The Islamic faith supports religious tolerance and coexistence, evidenced in the Qur'anic verse ``Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.'' In spite of this edict, several times within the last year the leaders of the Taliban regime have ordered the military to disfigure these and other Buddhist statues. On February 26, 2001, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar ordered the utter destruction of these irreplaceable cultural treasures, along with all other pre-Islamic statues in the nation, calling them ``shrines of infidels.'' Mohammed Omar claimed that statues of the human form are in contradiction with Shari'ah and the tenets of Islam. Shari'ah refers to the laws and way of life prescribed by Allah in the Qur'an, and dictates ideology of faith, behavior, manners, and practical daily life. Destruction of the statues clearly contradicts a basic tenet of the Islamic faith which is tolerance. The the recent destruction of Buddhist statuary is the latest action by the Taliban demonstrating an open disregard for international opinion and basic norms of human behavior which include respect for individuals and their beliefs. Tales of horrific human rights violations continue to be told. Confirmed reports tell of men, imprisoned for political reasons, being held in windowless cells without food and hung by their legs while being beaten with cables. In January of this year, Taliban troops massacred several hundred Hazaras, members of a Muslim ethnic group in the Bamiyan province. This was just the latest in a series of such slaughters. Such executions are not uncommon. The regime has a history of showing support for terrorist groups and violating human rights. Women are a frequent target of abuse. Facing the threat of public beatings, women cannot leave their homes unless accompanied by a male relative and are forbidden from participating in activities in which they may interact with men. For this reason, women were banned from work and school under the Taliban, although some were allowed to work on projects sponsored by foreign charities until that right was revoked last summer. This further restriction of women under the Taliban is exacerbated by the increasing occurrence of the rape and abduction of Afghani women. The State Department recently reported that the Taliban sold women from the Shomali plains areas to Pakistan and the Arab Gulf states. The State Department in its human rights reports also describes the risk of rape and abduction and tells of young women forced to marry local commanders who kidnap them. This is a sad situation with no apparent end. Afghanistan appears to be a bottomless pit of human misery, a misery afflicted by the few on the many. Afghanistan has suffered its share of human and natural disasters. While prolonged civil war continues to wreak havoc among the population, agricultural productivity has been reduced by the worst drought in 30 years. This setback reduced crop yields by 50 percent and resulted in a 80 percent loss of livestock, affecting half the population. But the Taliban government has demonstrated greater interest in opium production than in growing food for their starving people. They seem to want history to remember them as the destroyers of both the Afghani people and Afghanistan's heritage. I urge my colleagues' support for this resolution, denouncing the actions of the Taliban regime in destroying a vital part of the history of humankind and of their treatment of the Afghnani people.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I too wish to express my appreciation to Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes for their willingness to work with the Committee on Governmental Affairs to provide a new compensation system for employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission. I also wish to thank Senator Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for his interest in this matter. The Federal Government has a serious problem in attracting, motivating, and retaining its workforce, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs is no stranger to working with the Office of Personnel Management and Federal agencies in this regard. The Gramm/ Thompson amendment will provide the SEC the flexibility it needs in personnel matters but also will ensure that basic employee statutory protections such as leave, health insurance and non-discrimination still apply.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) for introducing this very important legislation that will help to protect and preserve the radio spectrum necessary to ensure the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Act of 2001 is a bipartisan effort to secure the amateur radio spectrum as the telecommunications industry continues to change. Amateur radio operators, more commonly known as ``hams,'' have been around as long as radio itself, and a few pioneers in amateur radio provided valuable insight into the current communications system that we know today. While many people may look at amateur radio operators as radio enthusiasts with a fun hobby, I would like to remind everyone that they also provide a valuable service to communities all over the world. Mr. President, the Amateur Radio Service was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to utilize amateur radio operators to provide backup emergency communications. These operators set up and operate organized communications networks locally for governmental and emergency officials. While television and radio broadcast stations are the more common methods of providing emergency information to the public, these stations may not be in service for weeks after such disasters as tornados and hurricanes. Instead, this valuable emergency service usually is provided by the Amateur Radio Service. Through several networks that are decentralized, with many transceivers and antennas, amateur radio operators are able to transmit safety and health conditions in times of disasters. In the State of Hawaii, the sole source of information in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Iniki, which hit the island of Kauai on September 11, 1992, was from amateur radio operators. The devastation to the island was immense; one out of five of the island's power and telephone poles were down, power, cable television, and phone lines were out, cellular phone, microwave dishes, two-way radio antenna boosters, television station translators, and radio station transmitters were damaged. Kauai Electric Company was inoperable and 100 percent of its customers were without power. While the company did have a disaster plan, no one fathomed that a storm would have such a devastating effect. Fortunately, amateur radio operators on Kauai were able to keep state officials informed about the island's condition. Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I are here today because the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to conduct spectrum auctions as a means to increase revenue. While these auctions may not immediately take away from the Amateur Radio Service, there is nothing to prevent the FCC from selling off portions of the spectrum currently utilized by amateur radio operators. Mr. President, this bill will protect the Amateur Radio Service by requiring the FCC to provide the Service with equivalent spectrum if it reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will ensure that the valuable service provided by amateur radio operators will continue. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Crapo in this bipartisan effort to protect the Amateur Radio Service and ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) for introducing this very important legislation that will help to protect and preserve the radio spectrum necessary to ensure the continuation of the Amateur Radio Service. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Act of 2001 is a bipartisan effort to secure the amateur radio spectrum as the telecommunications industry continues to change. Amateur radio operators, more commonly known as ``hams,'' have been around as long as radio itself, and a few pioneers in amateur radio provided valuable insight into the current communications system that we know today. While many people may look at amateur radio operators as radio enthusiasts with a fun hobby, I would like to remind everyone that they also provide a valuable service to communities all over the world. Mr. President, the Amateur Radio Service was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to utilize amateur radio operators to provide backup emergency communications. These operators set up and operate organized communications networks locally for governmental and emergency officials. While television and radio broadcast stations are the more common methods of providing emergency information to the public, these stations may not be in service for weeks after such disasters as tornados and hurricanes. Instead, this valuable emergency service usually is provided by the Amateur Radio Service. Through several networks that are decentralized, with many transceivers and antennas, amateur radio operators are able to transmit safety and health conditions in times of disasters. In the State of Hawaii, the sole source of information in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Iniki, which hit the island of Kauai on September 11, 1992, was from amateur radio operators. The devastation to the island was immense; one out of five of the island's power and telephone poles were down, power, cable television, and phone lines were out, cellular phone, microwave dishes, two-way radio antenna boosters, television station translators, and radio station transmitters were damaged. Kauai Electric Company was inoperable and 100 percent of its customers were without power. While the company did have a disaster plan, no one fathomed that a storm would have such a devastating effect. Fortunately, amateur radio operators on Kauai were able to keep state officials informed about the island's condition. Mr. President, Senator Crapo and I are here today because the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to conduct spectrum auctions as a means to increase revenue. While these auctions may not immediately take away from the Amateur Radio Service, there is nothing to prevent the FCC from selling off portions of the spectrum currently utilized by amateur radio operators. Mr. President, this bill will protect the Amateur Radio Service by requiring the FCC to provide the Service with equivalent spectrum if it reallocates and auctions any of the Service's current spectrum. The Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act of 2001 will ensure that the valuable service provided by amateur radio operators will continue. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Crapo in this bipartisan effort to protect the Amateur Radio Service and ask my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment over the decision announced this week by Commerce Secretary Donald Evans to release raw census data without adjustment for the undercount of an estimated three million Americans. By law, the Census Bureau is required to provide census figures to the States for the purpose of redistricting by April 1, 2001; a deadline that is nearly four weeks away. Only last week, I joined with 47 of my Senate colleagues in a letter to Secretary Evans urging him to delay a decision to release the 2000 census figures until after the Commerce Department's self-imposed March 5, 2001, deadline to allow the appropriate Senate Committees an opportunity to hold hearings. My intent in signing the letter was not to delay the statutory deadline, but rather to request that there be Congressional input. I was interested that the President, in his first budget proposal, said, ``our Nation has a long and honorable commitment to assisting individuals, families, and communities who have not fully shared in America's prosperity.'' I believe this is true, which is why failing to count all Americans has serious consequences for State, local, and Federal Government. There are approximately 1,327 Federal domestic assistance programs that use population data in some way. The breadth of the programs affected that touch families and businesses throughout the nation clearly spells out the need to ensure that all Americans are counted. Federal and State funds for schools, employment services, housing assistance, road construction, day care facilities, hospitals, emergency services, programs for seniors, and much more are distributed based on census figures. The use of raw census data, without adjustment for the differential undercount, will result in the unfair distribution of Federal funds. A March 1, 2001 memorandum to Secretary Evans from the acting director of the Census Bureau recommended using unadjusted census data for redistricting purposes. According to the memo, ``The primary reason for arriving at this conclusion is the apparent inconsistency in population growth over the decade as estimated by the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, ACE, and demographic analysis. These differences cannot be resolved in the time available for the Committee's work.'' In other words, the Executive Steering Committee for ACE Policy ran out of time and could not determine whether the uncorrected data is more accurate than corrected data. As a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I provide legislative support and oversight over the decennial census and the Census Bureau. Moreover, as a Senator from Hawaii, I knew that the percentage of people undercounted in my state during the 1990 Census, 1.9 percent, was higher than the national average. The largest component of my state's undercount by race was projected to be Asians and Pacific Islanders. I was so concerned that Hawaii would once again have a higher than average undercount that, last March, I held a forum in Hawaii on issues facing Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders related to the 2000 Census. I urged Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders to participate in the 2000 Census in order to ensure accurate data and statistics especially since this information directly impacts our lives for the next ten years. I call upon the Secretary to make available to the public the detailed information that the Census Bureau has compiled to date, including over-counts and undercounts. Again, I am disappointed with the Administration's decision in this matter.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to again address the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Project Impact Program. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal stated that the Project Impact disaster preparedness campaign ``has not proven effective.'' I am looking into the issue of effectiveness. A White House spokesperson, recently citing a FEMA Inspector General report, said that 64 percent of the money awarded by Project Impact had not been spent by communities 2 years after receiving it. This statement is a bit misleading. True, nearly 2 years after they were designated as Project Impact partners, seven pilot communities had not spent 64 percent of their grant funds. But the report also goes into detail as to why this was the situation. In many cases, while FEMA funds came quickly, communities needed additional time to mobilize and begin their mitigation programs. These communities were not fully prepared, administratively or programmatically, to accept the grants. Some communities had identified and scheduled multiple mitigation projects, only to realize later that they did not have the staff or resources to carry out more than one project at a time. While FEMA agreed that communities should spend their grants in a more timely manner, FEMA was concerned about taking steps that would undermine the planning process at local levels by placing more focus on expenditures, or infringe upon local budget cycles and negate community efforts to obtain additional funding. In response to these concerns, FEMA now requires communities to align Project Impact funding with local projects initiated within 18 months of funding. The Inspector General concurred with FEMA's action. To deal with management issues, the Inspector General recommended that FEMA provide technical assistance to new communities on federal grant management. In response, FEMA has expanded opportunities for technical assistance through availability of regional staff, the Project Impact ``How-To-Get-Started'' course, and FEMA's Web site. The Inspector General also recommended improved accounting and reporting by the communities and FEMA to keep records current and accessible. FEMA agreed, implemented new procedures, and the Inspector General was satisfied with their response. Here is a successful example of the Federal Government returning money and power to local governments. The IG report recognizes the significant amount of effort already performed by communities and the active involvement with communities that FEMA spends before mitigation projects are accepted and approved. It also recognizes that attitudinal and behavioral changes are occurring in communities through collaboration and increasing public awareness and education about disaster mitigation efforts. It states that while the benefits derived from such efforts can not be quantified, they are very important to a community that hopes to sustain disaster preparedness measures, long after the initial seed money is gone. Perhaps these very important, but inherently unquantifiable activities are what the President's spokesman is referring to when he suggests programs such as ``scout camps, training Boy Scouts in Delaware, sponsoring a safety fair and those kinds of things'' were not worthwhile and demonstrated that the program was ineffective? Which scout activities should not have been sponsored? The community service project in Pascagoula, MI in which local Boy Scouts were instrumental in developing a database of all commercial and residential structures in the 100-year floodplain? Or the Boy Scouts in Eden, NY who helped clean up debris in creeks that are prone to flooding as part of the community flood mitigation plan? Or the Ouachita Parish, LA Girl Scouts who sponsored a disaster safety fair. Perhaps the Boy Scouts in Culebra, PR, who performed an intensive door-to-door mitigation- oriented public awareness campaign, did not deserve training? The last recommendation in the report was for FEMA to realign resources to better manage the growing number of Project Impact communities. FEMA responded by creating a new position in each region to augment Project Impact staffing needs to deal with the growing number of Project Impact communities and business partners due to the program's popularity and success. Project Impact is not perfect. Certainly there are areas that could be improved and ways in which it could be made more efficient. FEMA's Inspector General identified several such areas. Through communication and cooperation, FEMA is addressing these issues. In no part of the report does the Inspector General suggest that the program be canceled. On the contrary, many of its recommendations are to help FEMA deal with how the program is growing so that it can continue its successes and improve upon its accomplishments. The 50th State is vulnerable to a host of natural disasters, and Hawaii's state and local officials know that disaster mitigation is the best way to lessen the impact of catastrophic damage and loss of life. I was interested that when asked about the proposed elimination of Project Impact, the Honorable Harry Kim, mayor of the County of Hawaii and formerly the county's director of civil defense for 24 years, said, ``If it were not for mitigation efforts, we would never stay ahead of the game. I hope those in authority will talk to local officials because I would be surprised if anyone would support eliminating Project Impact. The growing pains of any project should not be the cause of cancellation.'' I agree with Mayor Kim. I urge the President to take another look at Project Impact, which is the only federal program that requires heavy community involvement to meet FEMA's goal of reducing the loss of life and property by protecting the nation from all types of hazards.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on November 14, 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its final ergonomics program standard. This program will spare 460,000 workers from painful injuries and save approximately $9.1 billion each year. This new standard took effect on January 16, 2001, and will be phased-in over four years. While OSHA has issued its final ergonomics program standard and this new standard has taken effect, some of my colleagues are still trying to eliminate this rule. They may claim that it is unwise to issue such a standard because it is based on unsound science and has been rushed through the regulatory process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. President, I am here today to remind my colleagues that OSHA worked on developing ergonomic standards for over 10 years. It is not something new. It has been around since world War II, where the designers of our small plane cockpits took into consideration the placement of cockpit controls for our pilots. We, in Congress, must not forget our commitment to America's workers. We must reduce the numbers of injuries suffered by our workers. We cannot continue to look the other way when each year more than 600,000 workers suffer serious injuries, such as back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, and tendinitis, as a result of ergonomic hazards. In 1999, in the State of Hawaii, more than 4,400 private sector workers suffered serious injuries from ergonomic hazards at work. Another 700 workers in the public sector suffered such injuries. These injuries are a major problem not only in Hawaii, but across the nation. It affects truck drivers and assembly line workers, along with nurses and computer users. Every sector of the economy is affected by this problem. The impact can be devastating for workers who suffer from these injuries. This Resolution of Disapproval is not the right approach. It would bar OSHA from issuing safeguards to protect workers from the nation's biggest job safety problem. I remind my colleagues that there are normal regulatory procedures that can be utilized if the Administration has concerns over the existing program standards. The Resolution of Disapproval is not necessary. American families cannot afford the repeal of this long awaited regulation. More importantly, American workers cannot afford losing this important worker protection. Injuries that result from ergonomic hazards are serious, disabling, and costly. Carpal tunnel syndrome results in workers losing more time from their jobs than any other type of injury. It is estimated that these injuries account for an estimated $20 billion annually in workers compensation payments. Many of these injuries and illnesses can be prevented by allowing this standard to be fully implemented. In fact, some employers across the country have already taken action and put in place workplace ergonomics programs to prevent injuries. However, two-thirds of employers still do not have adequate ergonomic programs in place. We have an opportunity to prevent 460,000 injuries a year and save $9 billion in workers' compensation and related costs by voting against this resolution. This resolution is unnecessary and unwarranted. Congress should remember and honor the commitment made to the nation's workforce when it established OSHA in 1970 and vote against the Resolution of Disapproval.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I was dismayed and confused to learn that the President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal would eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, initiative, Project Impact. I draw my colleagues' attention to this nationwide program that works with cities and counties to help reduce the destructive effects of natural disasters because so many of their citizens have benefitted from these successful partnerships. The very first Project Impact designated community was Deerfield Beach, FL, which joined in 1997 in response to the devastating effects of hurricanes. Another pilot community, Seattle, WA, uses Project Impact funds to ensure an earthquake-resistant community by retrofitting school buildings and bridges, identifying zones of vulnerability, training homeowners, and reinforcing hundreds of Seattle-area homes. Seattle formed neighborhood disaster teams and brought in local businesses to help. It is important to note that Project Impact is a major reason why damage to Seattle during yesterday's earthquake was minimal. Only last April, Seattle held its eighth ``Disaster Saturday'' at a school that had been retrofitted with non-structural seismic retrofits as part of the city's ``Project Impact's School Retrofit'' program. I share Senator Murray's appreciation for FEMA's work, as well as her concern over the proposed cancellation of this important disaster mitigation program. Since its inception in 1997, nearly 250 community partners and 2,500 business partners across the country have joined with Project Impact. In my own State of Hawaii, all four counties are community partners to Project Impact. The 50th State is vulnerable to risks from hurricanes, torrential rains and flooding, tsunamis, droughts, earthquakes, and even wildland fires. Urban areas like Houston, TX and Tulsa, OK, as well as rural communities, like Fremont County, WY, largely rural area of about 38,000 residents, and Virginia's Central Shenandoah Valley Planning District, have joined. Kenai Peninsula Borough and Soldotna, AK are educating their citizens about mitigation measures that can be taken to prevent damage from earthquakes, wildfires and floods. The city of Buffalo, which lies on a major fault, has joined Project Impact to help with earthquake mitigation, as well damage from snow storms and floods. A few months ago, North Carolina was named the Outstanding Disaster-Resistant State in recognition for all the work that has been done in communities across the State. In Colorado, a $150,000 grant to a coalition in San Luis Valley was leverage into a $268,000 Emergency Preparedness Fund. Other Colorado communities that have benefitted include Fort Collins, Delta and Clear Creek, Morgan and El Paso counties. In Elgin, IL, Project Impact helped start a pilot program to mitigate the effects of tornadoes. Project Impact's full title is ``Project Impact: Building Disaster- resistant Communities.'' The initiative works by empowering communities to fashion hazard mitigation responses to local concerns and needs. FEMA helps communities carry out a detailed risk assessment and create disaster resistant strategies. Communities turn these strategies into policy by revising local building and land use codes and passing bond issues to construct prevention measures that will impact the entire community. Project Impact operates on three simple principles: preventive action must be decided at local levels, private sector participation is vital, and long-term efforts and investments in prevention measures are essential. Project Impact takes resources from a Federal agency and gives it to the communities, helping them to become stronger and self- reliant. Since its inception, Project Impact partners have revamped their local emergency management plans, elevated flood prone properties, developed mobile demonstration models for hazard resistant construction techniques and upgraded storm water drainage systems. In addition, Project Impact communities are encouraged to exchange ideas with each other. As former FEMA director James Lee Witt stated, ``. . . participants know that Project Impact empowers them to save lives, protect property, protect their economies, livelihoods and save their citizens from the heartache of disaster.'' Everything that I hear about Project Impact points to its successes. NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Humane Society have all become Project Impact signatories in the past few months. Although the President's budget proposal states that Project Impact has not been effective, it is unclear how that conclusion was reached. We should not eliminate a program without reviewing its successes or failures. In order to evaluate Project Impact, I am requesting that the General Accounting Office review the program and measure its performance. It is only right that there be an audit of this program, which so many communities believe is an important government partnership, before eliminating its funding. FEMA estimates that for every dollar spent on disaster mitigation, two dollars are saved in disaster response and recovery. I sincerely hope that the Project Impact communities will not be left without any Federal assistance for disaster mitigation. Roger Faris, a Seattle homeowner who thanked Project Impact for his home surviving Wednesday's earthquake without damage, said, ``This is one of these non-partisan success programs that should have been expanded, not shut off.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the exceptional men and women of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, a premiere Federal law enforcement agency and protector of the U.S. mail. Founded by Benjamin Franklin, the Nation's first postmaster general, it is one of the oldest Federal law enforcement agencies. The Postal Inspection Service has a long, proud, and successful history of enforcing laws against those who would use the Nation's postal system to defraud, endanger, or otherwise harm the American people. America has long entrusted her secrets and commerce to the Postal Service. Dedicated postal workers have delivered untold love letters from sweethearts, care packages from home, financial instruments from bankers, and mail-order parcels from merchants. Preserving this trust is the Postal Inspection Service. In days past, Postal Inspectors protected colonial America's post offices from theft and embezzlement and protected the American people from mail fraud swindles following the Civil War. Postal Inspectors solved the last known stagecoach robbery in the United States in 1916 and protected the transfer of the Nation's $15.5 billion gold reserve from New York to Fort Knox in 1934. Postal Inspectors organized the massive military mail system during World War II and protected the priceless Hope Diamond when it was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution in 1958. In recent years, Postal Inspectors have conducted major investigations from Wall Street insider trading to child pornography to international art fraud. The Postal Inspection Service was one of three Federal law enforcement agencies assigned to the Unabomber task force. As a testament to their reputation and professionalism, postal inspectors were selected by former Senator John Danforth to serve as the primary investigators looking into the confrontation at Waco, TX. In 1996, Postal Inspectors served on the Federal task force investigating the shootout at Ruby Ridge, ID. In addition to its expertise as a Federal law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service serves as the security arm of the U.S. Postal Service. When natural disasters or civil disorders occur, postal inspectors and postal police officers are among the first to respond, protecting the U.S. mail, postal workers, and property. Immediately following these emergencies, the Postal Inspection Service works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to re-establish basic Government mail service, and safeguards delivery of the tons of private relief and aid that is often sent through the U.S. mail. The Service continues to work to preserve America's confidence in the U.S. mail, even as the Internet assumes a prominent role in our society. Just as it has adapted from stagecoach robberies to Wall Street insider trading schemes, the Postal Inspection Service has now set its sights on Internet fraudsters and cyber-criminals who use the U.S. mail as part of their schemes. It is appropriate that the Service is currently giving significant prevention and investigative attention to the issue of identity theft where thieves steal other's identifying information--name, address, date of birth, Social Security number and mother's maiden name--to take over the victim's financial accounts. Today, there are approximately 2,000 postal inspectors stationed throughout the United States responsible for enforcing more than 200 Federal criminal statutes. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I have the privilege of providing legislative support and oversight of this distinguished department. I am continually impressed with the quality and breadth of service they provide the American public. In addition to a large cadre of postal inspectors, the Postal Inspection Service includes uniformed postal police officers, forensic specialists, and a host of other professional and technical employees. I thank the men and women of the Postal Inspection Service, and recognize them in this special way for their outstanding dedication and service to the country.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and how it fits into an integrated national non- proliferation policy. We all agree that proliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad thing. Slowing or halting new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, or keeping current nuclear states from developing new, more powerful weapons is not a Democrat or Republican--it is a necessity. It also is not a new idea. Since the end of World War II, every president has worked on ways to reduce other countries' access to nuclear weapons and their reasons for trying to acquire them. By mutual security alliances and numerous international agreements, we have succeeded in slowing the development of nuclear weapons. But, the game has changed. A number of smaller states may see nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, as the only way to counter the unparalleled superiority of American conventional military power. Therefore, the United States has more reason than ever to lead global efforts to stop proliferation. A national non-proliferation program needs to include diplomatic, economic, scientific and military tools, all honed and accessible for particular proliferation problems. One such tool should be the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. It is time for a responsible, calm reconsideration of the CTBT. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Shalikashvili's recent report addresses many of the questions and concerns raised in objection to the CTBT. I urge any of my colleagues who have not had a chance to read his report to do so. General Shalikashvili states that the CTBT ``. . . is a very important part of global non-proliferation efforts and is compatible with keeping a safe, reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent . . . an objective and thorough net assessment shows convincingly that U.S. interests, as well as those of friends and allies, will be served by the Treaty's entry into force.'' The CTBT does not mean an end to the threat of nuclear war or nuclear terrorism or nuclear proliferation. It is, however, a step in the right direction of containing these threats. Of course there are risks, but they exist with or without the CTBT. These risks can be better managed with the treaty than without it. An integrated and comprehensive non- proliferation strategy is required, of which the CTBT is a crucial part. In his report, General Shalikashvili outlines recommendations to make such a strategy. Is the CTBT verifiable? With or without the CTBT, we will always need reliable information about nuclear testing activity. The CTBT gives us new sources of information and creates greater political clout for uncovering and addressing suspected violations. There is more to the verification regime than the International Monitoring System, which by itself will be an impressive network of 321 stations and 16 laboratories. There are also stations and satellites owned and operated by governments, research institutions, universities, and commercial companies. A report by the Independent Commission on the Verifiability of the CTBT concludes that when all the resources are put into place, they will be able to detect, locate and identify all relevant events. Monitoring and verification will involve a complex and constantly evolving network, which any potential violator will have to confront. A treaty evader would need to muffle the seismic signal, ensure that no signature particles or gas escape the cavity, as well as avoid the creation of surface evidence, such as a crater. And, all test preparations, such a making a cavity or buying materials, would have to be done without causing suspicion. Only the United States and the former Soviet Union have ever been able to carry off such a test. How likely could an emerging nuclear weapon state do so? Some have argued that advancing technology would make hiding such a test easier, but that assumes all monitoring and detection technology will stand still. New technologies and the expansion of a global monitoring regime will make it more difficult to conceal such tests. What about the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapon stockpile? General Shalikashvili, former Secretary of Defense Cohen, former Secretary of Energy Richardson, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Strategic Command, the directors of the three nuclear weapon laboratories, and numerous experts agree that the nation's nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable and that nuclear testing is not needed at this time. In the Armed Services Committee Department of Energy oversight hearing last week, Secretary of Energy Abraham stated ``. . . that the results of the most recent process, which was just completed in January, enjoys the full confidence of the lab directors and the certification that just took place by my predecessor and the immediate past Secretary of Defense, another one of our former colleagues, is one that I have high confidence in.'' The United States has no alternative to the Stockpile Stewardship Program unless we want to return to the level of nuclear testing prior to the testing moratorium. The annual certification process provides a clear, candid and careful assessment of each nuclear weapon type in the stockpile. I am especially concerned about recent news reports that President Bush wants to cut back funds for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. During the presidential campaign, President Bush stated that, while he was in favor of the nuclear weapon testing moratorium, he was opposed to CTBT ratification because it ``is not enforceable'' and it would ``stop us from ensuring the safety and reliability of our nation's deterrent, should the need arise.'' For the Stockpile Stewardship Program to work, it must have both sufficient funds and a strong commitment from the Congress and Administration. I do not believe that the American public wants to see resumed nuclear weapon testing, nor do they want any other country to do so. We all agree that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is one of the greatest national security threats we face. The CTBT establishes an international norm against nuclear testing while preserving the undisputed U.S. advantage in nuclear weapon technology. It reduces the likelihood that significant new threats will arise from proliferating nations while enhancing the already formidable U.S. monitoring capability. Finally, it strengthens our ability to persuade other nations to respect the obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime. We need to examine all the risks in a careful and deliberate manner, just as General Shalikashvili has done. Two days before the Senate's October 1999 vote against ratification of the CTBT, 62 of our colleagues sent a bipartisan letter to their respective leaders requesting that consideration of the Treaty be postponed until the next Congress. It is now sixteen months later. Let us work together to discuss how, not if, the U.S. should lead global efforts to deal with nuclear proliferation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I express my sincerest sympathies to the families of those who have lost loved ones in two unrelated incidents the U.S. military in Hawaii during the past week. On Friday afternoon, the U.S.S. Greeneville collided with the Ehime Maru, a Japanese fishing vessel. I join President Bush in expressing my regret to the people of Japan for this tragedy. My heart goes out to the families of the nine people who are still missing following this incident. On Monday evening, two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters crashed during a training exercise at the Kahuku Military Training Area, resulting in six deaths. My thoughts and prayers are with the families and units who are mourning the loss of their loved ones. I also wish a speedy recovery to those soldiers who are recovering from injuries sustained in this accident. I am certain that the investigations into these incidents will be thorough and comprehensive. But my purpose today is not to question why these incidents occurred, but to express the genuine sadness and concern that I share with the people of Hawaii and the rest of the nation over these two unfortunate episodes.

Mr. AKAKA

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