Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, America is truly unique in that almost all of us are migrants or immigrants to the United States, originating in different regions--whether from Asia, from islands in the Pacific Ocean, Mexico, or valleys and mesas of the Southwest, Europe or other regions of the world. The prehistory and the contemporary history of this nation are inextricably linked to the mosaic or migrations, immigrations and existing cultures in the U.S. that has resulted in the peopling of America. Americans are all travelers from diverse areas, regions, continents and islands. We need a better understanding of this coherent and unifying theme in America. With this in mind, I am introducing legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Inouye and Senator Graham, authorizing the National Park Service to conduct a theme study on the peopling of America. An identical bill passed the Senate last Congress, and I am optimistic that the Senate will again pass this bill. The purpose of the study is to provide a basis for identifying, interpreting and preserving sites related to the migration, immigration and settling of America. The peopling of America is the story of our nation's population and how we came to be the diverse set of people that we are today. The peopling of America will acknowledge the contributions and trials of the first peoples who settled the North American continent, the Pacific Islands, and the lands that later became the United States of America. The peopling of America has continued as Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, and English laid claim to lands and opened the floodgates of European migration and the involuntary migration of Africans to the Americas. This was just the beginning. America has been growing and changing ever since. It is critical that we document and include the growth and change in the United States as groups of people move across external and internal boundaries that make up our nation. By understanding all our contributions, the strength within all cultures, and the diffusion of cultural ways through the United States, we will be a better nation. The strength of American culture is in our diversity and rests on a comprehensive understanding of the peopling of America. The theme study I am proposing will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to identify regions, areas, trails, districts and cultures that illustrate and commemorate key events in the migration, immigration and settlement of the population of the United States, and which can provide a basis for the preservation and interpretation of the peopling of America. It includes preservation and education strategies to capture elements of our national culture and history such as immigration, migration, ethnicity, family, gender, health, neighborhood, and community. In addition, the study will make recommendations regarding National Historic Landmark designations and National Register of Historic Places nominations, as appropriate. The study will also facilitate the development of cooperative programs with education institutions, public history organizations, state and local governments, and groups knowledgeable about the peopling of America. We are entering a new millennium with hope and opportunity. It is incumbent on us to reflect on the extent to which the energy and wealth of the United States depends on our population diversity. Looking back, we understand that our history, and our very national character, is defined by the grand, entangled movements of people to America and across the American landscape--through original residency, European colonization, forced migrations, economic migrations, or politically- motivated immigration--that has given rise to the rich interactions that make the American character and experience unique. I would venture to say that no other nation has the heterogeneous patchwork of migration and movement around the country that is found and that makes us the American Nation. We embody the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other places and shores, as well as the new traditions and cultures that we adopted or created anew upon arrival. Whether we are the original inhabitants of the rich Pacific Northwest, settled in the rangelands and agrarian West, the industrialized Northeast, the small towns of the Midwest, or the genteel cities of the South, our forebears inevitably contributed their background and created new relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is comprehensible only through the stories of our various constituent cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by encounters with other cultures. All Americans are travelers. All cultures have creation stories and histories that place us here from somewhere. Whether we came to this land as native peoples. English colonists, Africans who were brought in slavery, Filipinos who came to work in Hawaii's cane fields, Mexican ranchers, or Chinese merchants, the process by which our nation was peopled transformed us from strangers from different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. It is essential for us to understand this process, not only to understand who and where we are, but also to help us understand who we wish to be and where we should be headed as a nation. As the caretaker of some of our most important cultural and historical resources, from Ellis Island to San Juan Island, from Chaco Canyon to Kennesaw Mountain, the National Park Service is in a unique position to conduct a study that can offer guidance on this fundamental subject. Currently we have only one focal point in the national park system that celebrates the peopling of America with significance. Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty National Monument. Ellis Island welcomed over 12 million immigrants between 1892 and 1954, an overwhelming majority of whom crossed the Atlantic from Europe. Ellis Island celebrates these immigrant experiences through their museum, historic buildings, and memorial wall. Immensely popular as it is, Ellis Island is focused on Atlantic immigration and thus reflects the experience only of those groups (primarily Eastern and Southern Europeans) who were processed at the island during its active period, 1892-1954. Not all immigrants and their descendants can identify with Ellis Island. Tens of millions of other immigrants traveled to our great country through other ports of entry and in different periods of our Nation's history and prehistory. Ellis Island tells only part of the American story. There are other chapters, just as compelling, that must be told. On the West Coast, Angel Island Immigration Station, tucked in San Francisco Bay, was open from 1910 to 1940 and processed hundreds of thousands of Pacific Rim immigrants through its portals. An estimated 175,000 Chinese immigrants and more than 20,000 Japanese made the long Pacific passage to the United States. Their experiences are a West Coast mirror of the Ellis Island experience. But the migration story on the West Coast is much longer and broader than Angel Island. Many earlier migrants to the West Coast contributed to the rich history of California, including the original resident Native Americans, Spanish explorers, Mexican ranchers, Russian colonists, American migrants from the Eastern states who came overland or around the Horn, German and Irish military recruits, Chinese railroad laborers, Portuguese and Italian farmers, and many other groups. The diversity and experience of these groups reflects the diversity and experience of all immigrants who entered the United States via the Western states, including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. The study we propose is consistent with the agency's latest official thematic framework which establishes the subject of human population movement and change--or ``peopling places''--as a primary thematic category for study and interpretation. The framework, which serves as a general guideline for interpretation, was revised in 1996 in response to a Congressional mandate--Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990, Public Law 101-628, Sec. 1209--that the full diversity of American history and prehistory be expressed in the National Park Service's identification and interpretation of historic and prehistoric properties. In conclusion, we believe that this bill will shed light on the unique blend of pluralism and unity that characterizes our national polity. With its responsibility for cultural and historical parks, the Park Service plays a unique role in enhancing our understanding of the peopling of America and thus of a fuller comprehension of our relationships with each other--past, present, and future. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, America is truly unique in that almost all of us are migrants or immigrants to the United States, originating in different regions--whether from Asia, from islands in the Pacific Ocean, Mexico, or valleys and mesas of the Southwest, Europe or other regions of the world. The prehistory and the contemporary history of this nation are inextricably linked to the mosaic or migrations, immigrations and existing cultures in the U.S. that has resulted in the peopling of America. Americans are all travelers from diverse areas, regions, continents and islands. We need a better understanding of this coherent and unifying theme in America. With this in mind, I am introducing legislation, along with my colleagues Senator Inouye and Senator Graham, authorizing the National Park Service to conduct a theme study on the peopling of America. An identical bill passed the Senate last Congress, and I am optimistic that the Senate will again pass this bill. The purpose of the study is to provide a basis for identifying, interpreting and preserving sites related to the migration, immigration and settling of America. The peopling of America is the story of our nation's population and how we came to be the diverse set of people that we are today. The peopling of America will acknowledge the contributions and trials of the first peoples who settled the North American continent, the Pacific Islands, and the lands that later became the United States of America. The peopling of America has continued as Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, and English laid claim to lands and opened the floodgates of European migration and the involuntary migration of Africans to the Americas. This was just the beginning. America has been growing and changing ever since. It is critical that we document and include the growth and change in the United States as groups of people move across external and internal boundaries that make up our nation. By understanding all our contributions, the strength within all cultures, and the diffusion of cultural ways through the United States, we will be a better nation. The strength of American culture is in our diversity and rests on a comprehensive understanding of the peopling of America. The theme study I am proposing will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to identify regions, areas, trails, districts and cultures that illustrate and commemorate key events in the migration, immigration and settlement of the population of the United States, and which can provide a basis for the preservation and interpretation of the peopling of America. It includes preservation and education strategies to capture elements of our national culture and history such as immigration, migration, ethnicity, family, gender, health, neighborhood, and community. In addition, the study will make recommendations regarding National Historic Landmark designations and National Register of Historic Places nominations, as appropriate. The study will also facilitate the development of cooperative programs with education institutions, public history organizations, state and local governments, and groups knowledgeable about the peopling of America. We are entering a new millennium with hope and opportunity. It is incumbent on us to reflect on the extent to which the energy and wealth of the United States depends on our population diversity. Looking back, we understand that our history, and our very national character, is defined by the grand, entangled movements of people to America and across the American landscape--through original residency, European colonization, forced migrations, economic migrations, or politically- motivated immigration--that has given rise to the rich interactions that make the American character and experience unique. I would venture to say that no other nation has the heterogeneous patchwork of migration and movement around the country that is found and that makes us the American Nation. We embody the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other places and shores, as well as the new traditions and cultures that we adopted or created anew upon arrival. Whether we are the original inhabitants of the rich Pacific Northwest, settled in the rangelands and agrarian West, the industrialized Northeast, the small towns of the Midwest, or the genteel cities of the South, our forebears inevitably contributed their background and created new relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is comprehensible only through the stories of our various constituent cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by encounters with other cultures. All Americans are travelers. All cultures have creation stories and histories that place us here from somewhere. Whether we came to this land as native peoples. English colonists, Africans who were brought in slavery, Filipinos who came to work in Hawaii's cane fields, Mexican ranchers, or Chinese merchants, the process by which our nation was peopled transformed us from strangers from different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. It is essential for us to understand this process, not only to understand who and where we are, but also to help us understand who we wish to be and where we should be headed as a nation. As the caretaker of some of our most important cultural and historical resources, from Ellis Island to San Juan Island, from Chaco Canyon to Kennesaw Mountain, the National Park Service is in a unique position to conduct a study that can offer guidance on this fundamental subject. Currently we have only one focal point in the national park system that celebrates the peopling of America with significance. Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty National Monument. Ellis Island welcomed over 12 million immigrants between 1892 and 1954, an overwhelming majority of whom crossed the Atlantic from Europe. Ellis Island celebrates these immigrant experiences through their museum, historic buildings, and memorial wall. Immensely popular as it is, Ellis Island is focused on Atlantic immigration and thus reflects the experience only of those groups (primarily Eastern and Southern Europeans) who were processed at the island during its active period, 1892-1954. Not all immigrants and their descendants can identify with Ellis Island. Tens of millions of other immigrants traveled to our great country through other ports of entry and in different periods of our Nation's history and prehistory. Ellis Island tells only part of the American story. There are other chapters, just as compelling, that must be told. On the West Coast, Angel Island Immigration Station, tucked in San Francisco Bay, was open from 1910 to 1940 and processed hundreds of thousands of Pacific Rim immigrants through its portals. An estimated 175,000 Chinese immigrants and more than 20,000 Japanese made the long Pacific passage to the United States. Their experiences are a West Coast mirror of the Ellis Island experience. But the migration story on the West Coast is much longer and broader than Angel Island. Many earlier migrants to the West Coast contributed to the rich history of California, including the original resident Native Americans, Spanish explorers, Mexican ranchers, Russian colonists, American migrants from the Eastern states who came overland or around the Horn, German and Irish military recruits, Chinese railroad laborers, Portuguese and Italian farmers, and many other groups. The diversity and experience of these groups reflects the diversity and experience of all immigrants who entered the United States via the Western states, including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. The study we propose is consistent with the agency's latest official thematic framework which establishes the subject of human population movement and change--or ``peopling places''--as a primary thematic category for study and interpretation. The framework, which serves as a general guideline for interpretation, was revised in 1996 in response to a Congressional mandate--Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990, Public Law 101-628, Sec. 1209--that the full diversity of American history and prehistory be expressed in the National Park Service's identification and interpretation of historic and prehistoric properties. In conclusion, we believe that this bill will shed light on the unique blend of pluralism and unity that characterizes our national polity. With its responsibility for cultural and historical parks, the Park Service plays a unique role in enhancing our understanding of the peopling of America and thus of a fuller comprehension of our relationships with each other--past, present, and future. I urge my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Downed Animal Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals at stockyards. Senators Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Robert Torricelli, Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, Bob Smith, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have joined me in sponsoring this bill. The legislation will prohibit the sale or transfer of downed animals unless they have been humanely euthanized. Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic assistance. Many of these downed animals that survive the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption. These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia. It is important to note that downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less than one-tenth of one percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their sale or transfer would cause no economic hardship. While I commend the major livestock organizations such as the United Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, along with responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the country, for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, this lamentable problem still exists. Not only is this suffering inhumane and unnecessary, it is eroding public confidence in the industry. The Downed Animal Protection Act will prompt stockyards to refuse crippled and distressed animals, and will make the prevention of downed animals a priority for the livestock industry. The bill will complement and reinforce the industry's effort to address this problem by encouraging better care of animals at farms and ranches. The bill will remove the incentive for sending downed animals to stockyards in the hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals and would encourage greater care during loading and transport. By eliminating this incentive, animals with impaired mobility will receive better treatment in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated. In addition, the bill will also discourage improper breeding practices that account for most downed animals. My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors of the Packers and Stockyard Administration regularly visit stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant. As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals at stockyards and I encourage 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, today I am reintroducing the Downed Animal Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals at stockyards. Senators Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Robert Torricelli, Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, Bob Smith, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer have joined me in sponsoring this bill. The legislation will prohibit the sale or transfer of downed animals unless they have been humanely euthanized. Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic assistance. Many of these downed animals that survive the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption. These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia. It is important to note that downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less than one-tenth of one percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their sale or transfer would cause no economic hardship. While I commend the major livestock organizations such as the United Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, along with responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the country, for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals, this lamentable problem still exists. Not only is this suffering inhumane and unnecessary, it is eroding public confidence in the industry. The Downed Animal Protection Act will prompt stockyards to refuse crippled and distressed animals, and will make the prevention of downed animals a priority for the livestock industry. The bill will complement and reinforce the industry's effort to address this problem by encouraging better care of animals at farms and ranches. The bill will remove the incentive for sending downed animals to stockyards in the hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals and would encourage greater care during loading and transport. By eliminating this incentive, animals with impaired mobility will receive better treatment in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated. In addition, the bill will also discourage improper breeding practices that account for most downed animals. My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors of the Packers and Stockyard Administration regularly visit stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant. As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals at stockyards and I encourage 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 to introduce a bill which permanently authorizes the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. In 1992, I authored a bill that established a pilot program to assist Native American veterans who reside on trust lands. This pilot program, administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, provides direct loans to Native American veterans to build or purchase homes on trust lands. Previously, Native American veterans who resided on trust lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. This disgraceful treatment of Native American veterans was finally corrected when Congress established the Native American Direct Home Loan Program. Despite the challenges of creating a program that addresses the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 59 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations continue with other tribes. Since the program's inception, 233 Native American veterans have been able to achieve home ownership, and none of the loans approved by the VA have been foreclosed. Unfortunately, the authority to issue new loans under this successful program will end on December 31, 2001. This would be devastating to a number of Native American veterans who would like to participate in this program. Native American veterans who reside on trust lands should be afforded the same benefits available to other veterans. Without this program, it would be incredibly difficult for Native Americans living on trust lands to obtain home loan financing. Permanent authorization of this program will ensure that Native American veterans are provided equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which permanently authorizes the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. In 1992, I authored a bill that established a pilot program to assist Native American veterans who reside on trust lands. This pilot program, administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, provides direct loans to Native American veterans to build or purchase homes on trust lands. Previously, Native American veterans who resided on trust lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. This disgraceful treatment of Native American veterans was finally corrected when Congress established the Native American Direct Home Loan Program. Despite the challenges of creating a program that addresses the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 59 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations continue with other tribes. Since the program's inception, 233 Native American veterans have been able to achieve home ownership, and none of the loans approved by the VA have been foreclosed. Unfortunately, the authority to issue new loans under this successful program will end on December 31, 2001. This would be devastating to a number of Native American veterans who would like to participate in this program. Native American veterans who reside on trust lands should be afforded the same benefits available to other veterans. Without this program, it would be incredibly difficult for Native Americans living on trust lands to obtain home loan financing. Permanent authorization of this program will ensure that Native American veterans are provided equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague, Senator Inouye. This measure is of significant importance to the people of Hawaii, particularly to the indigenous peoples of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians. This measure clarifies the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States by extending the federal policy of self-determination and self- governance to Native Hawaiians. The United States has declared a special responsibility for the welfare of the native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians. Congress has recognized Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii and has passed over 150 statutes addressing the conditions of Native Hawaiians. The measure that we are introducing today extends the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Native Hawaiians by authorizing a process of reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States. This measure establishes parity in federal policies towards American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States has been a topic of discussion in Hawaii for many, many years. A significant portion of the discussion has centered around the history of Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the role of the United States in that history. In 1993, Congress passed Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution, which extended an apology on behalf of the United States to Native Hawaiians for the United States' role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Apology Resolution also expressed the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians. Mr. President, I am pleased to inform you that the reconciliation process is ongoing. The reconciliation process is an incremental process of dialogue between Native Hawaiians and the United States to address a number of longstanding issues arising out of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I look forward to working with the Bush Administration as we continue this important process. On October 23, 2000, a joint report was issued by the Departments of the Interior and Justice on the reconciliation process. The report was based on public consultations held in Hawaii in December 1999 between officials from the Interior and Justice Departments and Native Hawaiians. The report recommends that Native Hawaiians have self- determination over their own affairs within the framework of federal law, as do Native American tribes. The measure we are introducing today, Mr. President is consistent with this recommendation. This measure does not create a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The political relationship has existed since Hawaii's inception as a territory. Rather, the measure we introduce today clarifies the existing political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the United States. This measure authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. The measure authorizes Native Hawaiians to resolve many issues in developing the organic governing documents, including the issue of membership or citizenship in the reorganized government. This bill also establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues. The office would serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States during the reconciliation process and would provide assistance during the process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government. Federal programs currently administered with other federal agencies would remain with those agencies. An identical version of the measure was introduced during the 106th Congress. The House of Representatives passed the measure with bipartisan support. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported the measure favorably. Unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the measure prior to the adjournment of the last Congress. Mr. President, I would like to clarify some misconceptions regarding this important measure. First, 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 State constitution was amended to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as a means to give expression to the right of self- determination and self-governance for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs administers programs and services for Native Hawaiians. The State constitution provided for 9 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 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 and Urban Development. In addition, this measure has strong support from indigenous peoples within the United States. The National Congress of American Indians and Alaska Federation of Natives have both passed resolutions in support of a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Japanese American Citizens' League and the National Education Association. The measure is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature, which passed a resolution supporting a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. This measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking alternatives in the international arena. Instead, 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. This measure is critical to the people in Hawaii because it begins a process to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By 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. These issues are deeply rooted in the history of Hawaii. The time has come for us to begin to resolve these differences in order to be able to move forward together as one. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize enough how significant this measure is for the State of Hawaii. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this critical measure for the State of Hawaii and indigenous peoples in the United States. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague, Senator Inouye. This measure is of significant importance to the people of Hawaii, particularly to the indigenous peoples of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians. This measure clarifies the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States by extending the federal policy of self-determination and self- governance to Native Hawaiians. The United States has declared a special responsibility for the welfare of the native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians. Congress has recognized Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii and has passed over 150 statutes addressing the conditions of Native Hawaiians. The measure that we are introducing today extends the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance to Native Hawaiians by authorizing a process of reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States. This measure establishes parity in federal policies towards American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States has been a topic of discussion in Hawaii for many, many years. A significant portion of the discussion has centered around the history of Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the role of the United States in that history. In 1993, Congress passed Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution, which extended an apology on behalf of the United States to Native Hawaiians for the United States' role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Apology Resolution also expressed the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians. Mr. President, I am pleased to inform you that the reconciliation process is ongoing. The reconciliation process is an incremental process of dialogue between Native Hawaiians and the United States to address a number of longstanding issues arising out of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I look forward to working with the Bush Administration as we continue this important process. On October 23, 2000, a joint report was issued by the Departments of the Interior and Justice on the reconciliation process. The report was based on public consultations held in Hawaii in December 1999 between officials from the Interior and Justice Departments and Native Hawaiians. The report recommends that Native Hawaiians have self- determination over their own affairs within the framework of federal law, as do Native American tribes. The measure we are introducing today, Mr. President is consistent with this recommendation. This measure does not create a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. The political relationship has existed since Hawaii's inception as a territory. Rather, the measure we introduce today clarifies the existing political relationship between Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the United States. This measure authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. The measure authorizes Native Hawaiians to resolve many issues in developing the organic governing documents, including the issue of membership or citizenship in the reorganized government. This bill also establishes an office within the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues. The office would serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States during the reconciliation process and would provide assistance during the process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government. Federal programs currently administered with other federal agencies would remain with those agencies. An identical version of the measure was introduced during the 106th Congress. The House of Representatives passed the measure with bipartisan support. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported the measure favorably. Unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the measure prior to the adjournment of the last Congress. Mr. President, I would like to clarify some misconceptions regarding this important measure. First, 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 State constitution was amended to create the Office of Hawaiian Affairs as a means to give expression to the right of self- determination and self-governance for Hawaii's indigenous peoples, Native Hawaiians. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs administers programs and services for Native Hawaiians. The State constitution provided for 9 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 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 and Urban Development. In addition, this measure has strong support from indigenous peoples within the United States. The National Congress of American Indians and Alaska Federation of Natives have both passed resolutions in support of a government-to-government relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Similar resolutions have been passed by the Japanese American Citizens' League and the National Education Association. The measure is also supported by the Hawaii State Legislature, which passed a resolution supporting a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. This measure does not preclude Native Hawaiians from seeking alternatives in the international arena. Instead, 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. This measure is critical to the people in Hawaii because it begins a process to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. By 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. These issues are deeply rooted in the history of Hawaii. The time has come for us to begin to resolve these differences in order to be able to move forward together as one. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize enough how significant this measure is for the State of Hawaii. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this critical measure for the State of Hawaii and indigenous peoples in the United States. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the work of scientists around the country who are involved in guiding the federal government in issues relating to science and technology. As the ranking Democrat on the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I know the importance of these men and women who support our nation's ability to make informed science policy decisions. Throughout this Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee has held extensive hearings on the challenges facing the federal government to ensure adequate staffing levels in the face of aggressive competition from the private sector for skilled employees. A common theme of these hearings is the shortage of information technology employees, and the federal government is taking steps to fill the critical gaps in IT personnel through enhanced recruitment, retention, and training programs. The Office of Personnel Management recently announced new pay schedules for some levels of IT employees, and a new scholarship program will offer financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in exchange for a two-year commitment to work for the government in information security. The program was authorized by the FY01 Defense Authorization bill. However, in the rush to ensure adequate IT and computer information security staffing levels, we should not forget the need to make certain that the federal government continues to attract physical and natural scientists. The November 24, 2000 issue of Science discusses the difficulties and rewards facing scientists who enter public service. These ``civic scientists'' are employed at all levels of government, as well as serving on federal advisory panels and review groups. Their activities play a critical role in making decisions for funding priorities, new initiatives, and regulatory actions that depend increasingly on scientific expertise. The scientific community and the federal government have a mutually beneficial relationship, which is nurtured through programs that bring scientists into policy staff positions, both as career employees and as temporary staff. I know my colleagues are well acquainted with the Sea Grant Fellowship program that offers an educational experience to graduate students in marine or aquatic studies to work in a congressional, executive branch, or association office. Nor are we strangers to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellowship program that introduces over 100 scientists and engineers from diverse fields to executive and legislative policy positions for one to two years. These fellowship programs provide unique opportunities to scientists and serve as an introduction to working for the federal government. In addition, many professional science and engineering societies are addressing the importance of these programs to science and the value of the scientists who choose to take on these roles. The scientific community is changing its view of those who work in science policy as digressing from ``real science'' to instead seeing it as a respectable career path. These programs and others put scientists into staff roles at the federal level and create politically informed citizen- scientists. Besides bringing scientific expertise and professional service into federal offices for a year or more, these programs provide scientists with a deeper understanding of policy making and the government. It is expected when these ``civic scientists" return to their universities, laboratories, and companies that they will share their experiences and understanding with others and encourage their colleagues to become involved. The activities taken by citizen-scientists, both as part of formal fellowship programs, and as employees, advisors, consultants, and individual voters, demonstrate the importance their work plays in our society. I will continue to seek increased opportunities for science fellows and scientific advisors to explore opportunities in federal policymaking, and I ask that the text of the ``Science'' article be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From Science Magazine, Nov. 24, 2000] Staffing Science Policy-Making (By Daryl Chubin and Jane Maienschein) There are repeated calls for scientists worldwide to become involved in guiding government decisions concerning science. In the United States, science policy-making positions span the gamut from political appointees (through a melange of advisory panels, review groups, and professional associations) to consultants, all of whom provide commentary--solicited and unsolicited--on budgets, programs, and current science and technology issues. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy, has called for ``civic scientists'' to enter public service as staff in support of informed science policy-making. Given the daily decisions affecting the directions and applications of science, the more staff members who understand science the better. Otherwise, valuable time is wasted and risks are taken in making uninformed decisions about funding priorities, new initiatives, and regulatory actions that increasingly depend on considered scientific judgments. One way to add scientific value to decision-making is to bring scientists into staff positions, either within a policy career path or as a temporary assignment. The question is how to attract more scientists to take up this public service and how to prepare them to contribute? Overcoming the underlying problem of conflicting core values in the scientific and policy cultures presents a challenge. Working individually within a laboratory hierarchy, scientists are rewarded for originality and ownership of ideas. Even in collaborative projects, the leaders typically receive the credit. Despite periodic calls for rewarding departments, multidisciplinary teams, and broader collaborations, an individualistic ethic prevails. Researchers seek credit, and the community practices individual accountability for performance. Priority of discovery, authorship, and invention all circle around the traditional proprietary nature of scientific knowledge. Scientists who move from the laboratory into public service, and from the foreground into the background, will experience culture shock. An outstanding speech or position paper on which the scientist's name does not appear replaces an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Ego must fade from view; instead, satisfaction comes from being part of the process and seeing it work. This requires learning to speak for someone else, in someone else's voice, to someone else's credit. Why should any self-respecting scientist want to do this? Because there is more at stake than acclaim by one's professional community. There is a larger public and national interest. Beyond altruism, staff work allows another expression of the competitive values of science. In a high-stakes high-tempo environment, scientists can make a difference by drawing on their research and pedagogical skills while mastering new ones. Many have done so admirably, but we need more scientists who are willing to help staff science policy- making. In the United States, a number of programs exist to provide orientation and on-the-job training for scientists willing to enter this public role. For example, Research!America connects scientists in all federal legislative districts with representatives there. The Ecological Society of America is cultivating a cohort of Aldo Leopold Fellows. The Congressional Fellows program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science introduces scientists to the policy-making process. Many U.S. universities now offer undergraduate and graduate students a semester in Washington as an intern in an agency, congressional office, or think tank. These programs and others put scientists into staff roles at the federal and local levels and create cohorts of politically informed citizen-scientists. We applaud these efforts and call for more. In particular, we need more public discussion of what it means to serve as staff and why it is important for science that some scientists take on these roles. We need additional training at all levels to negotiate the clash of cultures. We need rewards for those who undertake staffing roles and do them well. These scientists should not be seen as digressing from ``real science'' but as facilitating the expanding reach of science as a respectable career path. Staffing science should be embraced as a necessary part of the scientific enterprise, as well as a form of public service that advances interest, appreciation, and understanding of a rapidly changing world.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. December 7, 1999: Jose Corral, 72, Miami-Dade County, FL; George Dean, 17, Philadelphia, PA; Kowandius Hammett, 22, Miami-Dade County, FL; John Jeter, 24, Philadelphia, PA; Andre Derrell Jones, 23, Baltimore, MD; Tommy Martin, 38, Oakland, CA; Casey B. Morgan, 42, Seattle, WA; Karen K. Morgan, 43, Seattle, WA; Thomas B. Morgan, 45, Seattle, WA; Adon L. Shelby, 32, Chicago, IL; Emeric Tahane, 22, Washington, DC; Heiu Minh Trihn, 22, New Orleans, LA; and Unidentified Male, 23, Nashville, TN. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this past week Washington, DC was the site of a global meeting of space faring nations at the International Space Symposium. A question raised at this event was how the United States' position, as a leader in both government sponsored and commercial space industry and exploration, is to be maintained in the future in light of emerging competitors and markets around the world. As a partner in the construction of the International Space Station, we have entered into the greatest example of international cooperation to date. As NASA director Dan Goldin remarked at the Symposium, the Space Station will be a partnership of 16 countries, including the U.S., Russia, Japan, the eleven members of the European Union, and Brazil. The Expedition 1 crew left for the Space Station at 1:53 AM, Tuesday morning, marking October 31, 2000, as the date that humanity began its permanent residence in space. American astronaut Bill Shepherd and Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev will dock with the Space Station on Thursday and begin assembly tasks as new elements are added to the orbiting outpost. At completion, the Space Station will have a pressurized volume larger than the cabin and cargo hold of a 747 airliner. Of the seven modules, six will house laboratories. With these, the United States and the nations of the world will have the opportunity to use the resources and capabilities of the Space Station for scientific and technological research. The U.S. laboratory module will have racks, or lab space, for individual experiments, as well as sites where independent research payload can be attached. Some portion of each will be dedicated to commercial use. As expected, a host of physical science experiments will use the research racks, payload sites, and Earth-viewing windows. Platforms will also be available to test communications systems. Exciting experiments are proposed in the life sciences and other fields only now recognizing the opportunities that exist in space. Studies in porous- ceramic bone replacement, gene transformation, and drug design will all benefit from extended experiments in the weightless environment of the Space Station. The ISS also provides an avenue for other countries to have access to space, for experimentation and exploration, thereby diminishing the need for their own space launch vehicle and potential missile capabilities. We must seize this opportunity for international cooperation, fair access to space, and limitless scientific and technological advancement. As the International Space Station demonstrates, the future poses many opportunities for the Unites States in space. However, it likewise presents several risks. Also discussed at the International Space Symposium were the threats facing the U.S. space industry. One of the largest and most worrisome for our long-term health and viability is a lack of trained, competent, technically skilled workers. The space sector employs between 400,000 and 1,000,000 people. Assuming a 25 year career span, this indicates a need for about 150,000 new employees a year. This does not take into account the fact that the space industry workforce is aging and that the skills used in the space sector, such as system level engineering, problem solving and trouble shooting, and general technical aptitude, are needed in other industries as well. A recent study found that the space sector dropped from being the third most popular field for young people to enter in 1990 to seventh in 1999. The space industry is finding it harder to both recruit and retain technically skilled workers. I bring this to our colleagues' attention, Mr. President, because the federal government is facing a similar threat. Shortages in workers with scientific and technical training are being faced by many Executive agencies and government labs, as well as the federal space community. As difficult as it is for the commercial space industry to recruit and retain qualified employees, it is even harder for the federal government. Now, and for the foreseeable future, the federal government will continue to be the biggest client for the space industry with its civil and military space ventures. The federal government needs to be able to make decisions regarding selection of products, services and systems and have the personnel to use them. It must also have the personnel to advise Congress and federal regulatory agencies in making intelligent, informed and prudent decisions that will encourage competition and success in the commercial space industry. The Federal and commercial space industry recognize the risk the shortage of technically skilled workers present to the nation's long- term prosperity and viability. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, I am interested in how we can avert what most certainly poses a threat to our national security and economic well-being. The Federal Government is attempting to address those factors in its work environment that make it less attractive to technically skilled workers, while emphasizing the rewarding and fulfilling public service careers available. A way for the Federal Government to increase the number of qualified workers could be a partnership with universities to encourage the skills and training needed to enter the field. The Federal Government should aggressively promote its student loan repayment program to attract young college graduates who may turn away from Federal service because they are burdened with school debts. This program, which has been authorized since 1991, was never implemented due to budget cuts, hiring freezes, and downsizing over the past decade. Since last March, Senators Durbin, Voinovich, and I have urged the Office of Personnel Management to implement the loan repayment program because we viewed it as an opportunity to encourage young people to join the Federal Government. We were successful in expanding the benefit beyond the scope of the initial authorization through an amendment to the FY01 DoD Authorization Act, which was signed by the President on October 30, 2000. The loan repayment program will be a critical component for the Federal Government in its effort to recruit and retain highly qualified professional, technical, or administrative personnel by allowing Federal agencies to repay up to $40,000 of an employee's student loans. In addition to attracting recent college graduates, efforts to retain experienced federal employees will include loan repayment programs for those who pursue additional academic training. We stand at the threshold of an age of opportunity and challenge. Our future as a global leader in space depends on having the people to meet this challenge. I urge my colleagues to join me in fostering an interest in public service among our nation's youth so that they will pursue careers that further our nation's federal space programs.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue which has, of late, affected the lives of all Americans. I am talking about rising energy costs. All indications suggest that America's summer of discontent is going to continue and become the winter of discontent with respect to energy prices. Americans have paid recordbreaking prices at the pump this summer. They will continue to suffer escalating prices this winter, too. Higher energy prices hit most those Americans who can afford it the least. But more important, the findings of an international panel of scientists has concluded that man-made greenhouse gases are altering the atmosphere in ways that affect earth's climate. The World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The function of IPCC is to assess available information on the science, impacts, and crosscutting economic issues related to climate change, in particular a possible global warming induced by human activities. The IPCC completed its first assessment report in August 1990 which indicated with certainty an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases due to the human activity. The report assisted the governments of many countries in making important policy decisions, in negotiating, and in the eventual implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was signed by 166 countries at the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The convention was ratified in December 1993 and took effect on 21 March 1994. IPCC also issued another assessment in 1995. I find the conclusions of the panel's latest assessment alarming. One of its most striking findings is its conclusion that the upper range of warming over the next century could be even higher than the panel's 1995 estimates. The evidence of increasing warming has shown up in different places-- retreating glaciers and snow packs, thinning polar ice, and warmer nights. There is a growing consensus that humans are playing a significant role in climate change. Even some of those who dissent from the view that human activity is altering the climate concede that human influence on the earth's climate is established. I rise today, in the closing days of the 106th Congress, to urge all interested organizations and individuals to begin working now to address energy issues early in the next Congress. We have two distinct problems to address. First, we must ensure that Americans continue to enjoy reasonably priced energy now and in the future. Second, we must work on the development of environmentally sound solutions to our energy problem in the mid- to long-term timeframe. In the last few months we have had several hearings on electricity restructuring, oil prices, supply and demand, gasoline price hikes, natural gas, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. All these hearings point to one thing--that we have problems with our energy picture, and they need to be fixed, and fixed soon. Our energy problem has been in the making for a long time. For the last thirty years, we have had several energy crises. The reasons for all of these crises were the same: actions and crises in the Middle East, rising American demand, bigger cars, and so on. The crisis this year is no different. Whenever the Middle East sneezes, Americans catch cold. American pockets books have suffered these periodic colds. But the people of Hawaii have suffered a long and almost interminable cold. Throughout the 1990's, Hawaii has been the number one state in terms of gas prices at the pump. It relinquished this dubious honor to states in the Midwest this summer. This has to stop. We must ensure that Americans get energy at reasonable prices. Our import dependence has been rising for the past two decades. The combination of lower domestic production and increased demand has led to imports making up a larger share of total oil consumed in the United States. Last year crude oil imports amounted for 58 percent of our oil demand. Oil imports will exceed 60 percent of total demand this year. Imports will constitute 66 percent of the U.S. supply by 2010, and more than 71 percent by 2020. Continued reliance on such large quantities of imported oil will frustrate our efforts to develop a national energy policy and set the stage for energy emergencies in the future. Transportation demands on imported oil remain as strong as ever. Since the oil shock of the 1970s, all major energy consuming sectors of our economy with the exception of transportation have significantly reduced their dependence on oil. The transportation sector remains almost totally dependent on oil-based motor fuels. The fuel efficiency of our vehicles needs to be improved. U.S. natural gas demand in the last decades has increased significantly. It is expected to grow by more than 30 percent over the next decade. Demand for natural gas from each of the major consuming sectors--residential, commercial, industrial, and electricity generation will increase. Electricity generation accounts for the lion's share of this increase at 50 percent of the increase. We are facing problems on both sides of the supply and demand equation. Worldwide supplies of available energy sources are getting tighter and demand is increasing. This only means that unless one side of the equation changes, we will continue to have energy problems. We cannot look at our energy sources in a piecemeal fashion. We will have to take a comprehensive look at all aspects of our energy picture. The only way to deal with our energy problem is to have a multifaceted energy strategy and remain committed to that strategy. We must adopt energy conservation, encourage energy efficiency, and support renewable energy programs. Above all, we must develop energy resources that diversify our energy mix and strengthen our energy security. I urge all interested organizations and individuals to work together to strengthen our energy policy, an energy policy that serves the American public. In the short term, we can do this by building upon a lot of good work that has already been done. Initiatives such as the deep water royalty incentives proposed by our former colleague, Senator Bennett Johnston and supported by the Administration have been major contributors to the 65 percent increase in offshore oil production under this Administration. Policies that led to the increases in natural gas production in deep waters by 80 percent in just the past two years are welcome. Natural gas production on Federal lands has increased by nearly 60 percent since 1992. This is a good sign that we are able to utilize our national resources in an environmentally responsible manner. Initiatives such as the Interagency Working Group on Natural Gas, the Federal Leadership Forum to address environmental review processes, a resource assessment for Wyoming oil and gas, and technology partnering with the Bureau of Land Management to improve access to Federal lands will provide increased energy resources. In 1998, DOE and the Occidental Petroleum Corporation, concluded the largest divestiture of federal property in the history of the U.S. government. The sale of Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in California for $3.65 billion underscored the Clinton Administration's faith in the private sector to carry responsible development of the 11th largest of the Nation's oil and gas fields. The Clinton Administration has proposed several tax incentives to encourage new domestic exploration and production and to lower the business costs of the producers when oil prices are low. It also proposed tax credits for improving energy efficiency and promoting use of renewable energy. Tax reforms would help us improve our energy supply picture. The Administration has also advanced legislation to address the issue of restructuring the electric utility industry. A number of other restructuring proposals have been made. The electric utility industry is an integral part of the overall energy supply and demand equation. The restructuring that we are talking about essentially involves the lower 48 States that are contiguous. Some may ask what is in it for Hawaii? It is not connected to the national grid. The answer is simple. Hawaii imports from the Mainland a vast portion of goods and services it consumes. Reduction in production costs on the Mainland because of competition unleashed by electric utility industry restructuring would benefit the people of Hawaii. We can build upon the Clinton Administration's accomplishments. Its strategically focused energy policy encompasses economic, environmental, and national security considerations. It is a balanced approach. The effects of major global climate change on the U.S. and the rest of the world will be devastating. I will take a few minutes here to describe the effect of climate change on Hawaii. Being a state consisting of islands with limited land mass, we are, as we must be, sensitive to global climate changes. We are tropical paradise and we would like to stay that way. But the worldwide problem of greenhouse gases threatens our well-being. Honolulu's average temperature has increased by 4.4 degrees over the last century. Rainfall has decreased by about 20 percent over the past 90 years. By 2100, average temperatures in Hawaii could increase by one to five degrees Fahrenheit in all seasons and slightly more in the fall. New data may revise this estimation upward. 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. It is also not yet clear how the intensity of hurricanes might be affected. The health of Hawaii's people may be negatively affected by climate change. Higher temperatures may lead to greater numbers of heat-related deaths and illnesses. Increased respiratory illnesses may result due to greater ground-level ozone. Increased use of air conditioning could increase power plant emissions and air pollution. Viral and bacterial contamination of fish and shellfish habitats could also cause human illness. Expansion of the habitat and infectivity of disease-carrying insects could increase the potential for diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. In Honolulu, Nawiliwili, and Hilo, the sea level has increased six to fourteen inches in the last century and is likely to rise another 17 to 25 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. During storms, coastal areas would be increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Agriculture might be enhanced by climate change, unless droughts decrease water supplies. Forests may find adapting to climate change more difficult. For example, `ohi'a trees are sensitive to drought and heavy rains. Changes could disproportionately stress native tree species because nonnative species are more tolerant of temperature and rainfall changes. Climatic stress on trees also makes them vulnerable to fungal and insect pests. 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. Higher temperatures could also 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. Adapting to the sea level rise could be very expensive, as it may necessitate the protection or relocation of coastal structures to prevent their damage or destruction. We have to address the problems that may be created by the climate change and the sooner we start on this the better off we will be. We would have to 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 energy sources. We would have to work closely with other nations in a cooperative manner. We can help the rest of the world through our well known technological prowess. Our energy policy for the 21st century requires forward thinking. Sustainable economic growth requires a sustainable energy policy. In an era with revolutionary changes in communications and information technologies, information exchange, interdependent trade, the world economies are becoming increasingly globalized. Our challenge will be to sustain this global economy while enhancing the global environment. Our energy challenge will be to formulate and implement policies that provide not only the U.S. but all nations with reasonably priced energy. We need fundamentally different sources of energy for the 21st century. Hydrogen is one such energy source. The long-term vision for hydrogen energy is that sometime well into the 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. But fossil fuels, especially natural gas, will be a significant long-term transitional resource. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate changes and energy security concerns will help bring about penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both the transportation and electricity sectors. We are a long way from realizing this vision for hydrogen energy. But progress is being made and many challenges and barriers remain. Sustained effort is the only way to overcome these challenges and barriers. We need to support a strategy that focuses on midterm and long-term goals. While we develop suitable technologies for using this clean source of energy, we can rely on other clean sources such as natural gas. Natural gas is a good choice for the fuel of the future. It is safe and reliable to deliver, more environmentally friendly than oil, and more than three times as energy-efficient as electricity from the point of origin to point of use. There are other potential sources of clean energy such as methane hydrates that need to be explored and developed. We need to unleash American ingenuity to find solutions to our energy problem. This Senator is convinced that we can do this only when we have a national commitment to, and a strategy for technological advancement as part of national energy policy. Only a national commitment will help us maintain a sustainable economic growth while protecting environmental values. We should recognize that there is a growing intersection between national economy, environment, and energy. If we ignore energy policy, then we only imperil our economy and national security. I want to compliment my friends, Senators Murkowski and Bingaman, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee for the great effort that they put into educating us all and trying to build a consensus on very difficult issues. Our Senate Energy Committee has committed a great deal of time in discussing our energy problems. I believe the time has come for us to act. I am committed to help move the energy agenda with alacrity in the coming Congress. In the coming session, we must try to move legislation that encourages, adopts, and strengthens energy conservation. We must encourage energy efficiency, and support renewable energy programs. Above all, we must formulate and advance policies that encourage the development of energy resources that diversify our energy mix and strengthen our energy security without sacrificing the environment. We have had eight long years of unparalleled economic growth. The health of our economy is threatened by the escalating price of energy and dire predictions about our energy supply and demand equation. We cannot allow our energy problem to derail our economy. We cannot allow the greenhouse gases to negatively impact the American people and their way of life. We must act at the earliest possible moment in the coming session to address energy issues that we were not able to address in a bipartisan fashion in the 106th Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I am pleased to introduce legislation to amend the Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, one of the cornerstone of our nation's good government laws. Enacted in 1989, the WPA is intended to protect federal employees from workplace retaliation when disclosing waste, fraud, or abuse. The law was passed unanimously in 1989, and strengthened through amendments in 1994, again with unanimous support of both houses of Congress. I am joined today by Senator Levin, who was a primary sponsor of the landmark 1989 Act and the 1994 amendments. A key goal of the Whistleblower Protection Act was to close the loopholes that had developed under prior law. Back in 1978, Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act, which included statutory whistleblower rights that elevated certain disclosures to absolute protection due to their public policy significance. The 1978 Act protected ``a'' disclosure evidencing a reasonable belief of specified misconduct, with certain listed statutory exceptions--classified or other information whose release was specifically barred by other statutes. Despite statutory language, the Federal Court of Appeals, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel--all created in 1978 to investigate and adjudicate the WPA--appeared to interpret the law as discretionary rather than absolute. This removed the law's foundation. Congress, in 1978, had intended to create absolute categories of protection to end the inherent chilling effect in constitutional balancing tests that required employees to guess whether they were covered by the First Amendment. Congress sought to eliminate the confusion by resolving the balance in favor of free speech rights for serious misconduct listed in the statute. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit and administrative agencies did not respect this mandate and created loopholes based on factors irrelevant to the public, such as whether an employee had selfless motives or was the first to expose particular misconduct. As a result, a cornerstone of the Whistleblower Protection Act was to close these loopholes that arose under prior law by amending protection of ``a'' disclosure to ``any'' disclosure which meets the law's standards. The purpose was to clearly prohibit any new exceptions to the law's coverage. Only Congress has that authority. Again, however, in both formal and informal interpretations of the Act, loopholes continued to proliferate. Congress responded to this reluctance to abide by congressional intent through the passage of the 1994 amendments. The Governmental Affairs Committee report on the amendments rebutted prior interpretations by the Federal Circuit, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel that there were exceptions to ``any.'' The Committee report concluded, ``The plain language of the Whistleblower Protection Act extends to retaliation for `any disclosure,' regardless of the setting of the disclosure, the form of the disclosure, or the person to whom the disclosure is made.'' I am pleased to note that since the enactment of the 1994 amendments, both the Office of the Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board generally have honored congressional boundaries. However, the Federal Circuit continues to disregard clear statutory language that the Act covers disclosures made to supervisors, to possible wrongdoers (Horton v. Dept. of Navy 66 F.3d 279, 1995), or as part of their job duties. (Willis v. Dept. of Agriculture, 141 F.3d 1139, 1998). In order to protect the statute's cornerstone that ``any" lawful disclosure evidencing significant abuse is covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act, our bill would codify the repeated and unconditional statements of congressional intent and legislative history. It would amend sections 2302(b)(8)(A) and 2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, U.S.C. to protect any disclosure of information. This would be without restriction to time, place, form, motive or context, made to any audience unless specifically excluded in section 2302(b)(8) by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in section 2302(b)(8). These include gross waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Consistent with current law, if the disclosure evidences a prohibited personnel practice against the employee making the disclosure, his or her remedy will continue to be available through section 2302(b)(9), rather than section 2302(b)(8). The exceptions resulting from the Federal Circuit's rulings defeat the underlying good government goals of the Whistleblower Protection Act by removing protection where it counts the most: for federal employees, who acting as public servants, are carrying out their responsibilities to the public as employees of their agencies. By stripping protection from in-house disclosures, the Federal Circuit imposed loopholes that chill employees from working within their agencies to address potential waste, mismanagement, or abuse issues. If employees seek to solve problems within the chain of command, they could forfeit their rights to whistleblower protection from subsequent retaliation under the Court's rulings in Horton and Willis. To maintain protection against reprisal, federal employees must now bypass normal organizational activities responsible for implementing the law. Moreover, the loophole created by Willis removes protection when employees are performing their job duties. Because of the Court's rulings, the intent of the Act to create an environment where federal employees can safely serve the public on the job has been compromised. Secondly, the legislation would institutionalize a principle currently expressed by a ban on spending on enforcement of any nondisclosure agreement that does not contain language specifically protecting an employee's rights under various open government statutes. This includes the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Lloyd Lafollette Act, which prohibits discrimination against government employees who communicate with Congress. This prohibition has been passed on an annual basis since 1988 as part of the yearly appropriations process. Our bill would make it a prohibited personnel practice to take a personnel action implementing or enforcing nondisclosure rules without specific notice of the listed statutes and their supremacy in the event of a conflict. The appropriations provision, known as the ``anti-gag statute,'' has proved effective against attempts by agencies to override the Whistleblower Protection Act through prior restraint. The law originally passed as a spending control against abuses of national security secrecy, in which as a procedural prerequisite for security clearances, employees had to waive their constitutional and statutory free speech rights. Since its passage, however, it has been useful against gag orders in broad areas of specific and generic public concerns, including gag orders imposed as a precondition for employment and resolution of disputes, as well as general agency policies barring employees from communicating directly with Congress or the public. Prior restraint not only has a severe chilling effect, but strikes at the heart of this body's ability to perform its oversight duties by negating the repeatedly reaffirmed unequivocal congressional policy that whistleblowers have the right to make protected disclosures anonymously as a way to prevent retaliation. Disclosing classified information is prohibited by law except to specific audiences listed in section 2302 and would not be a protected disclosure under this legislation. Nor would this legislation require the Merit System Protection Board to review security clearance determinations. The Supreme Court clearly spoke on this issue in Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), which found that denial of a security clearance is not . . . an ``adverse action.'' The Court upheld the Board's jurisdiction over due process procedures underlying a clearance decision. Egan stands as a bright line test, and if an employee requests review of the substantive judgments underlying a security clearance, OSC examiners, administrative judges, and members of the MSPB would be justified in denying jurisdiction. However, the Board could have jurisdiction if an employee complained that he or she suffered a prohibited personnel practice, because he or she was forced to sign an illegal nondisclosure agreement or its terms were enforced, regardless of context. Congress repeatedly has reaffirmed its intent that employees should not be forced to sign agreements that supercede an employee's rights under good government statutes. Moreover, Congress has unanimously supported the concept that federal employees should not be subject to prior restraint from disclosing wrongdoing nor suffer retaliation for speaking out. Lastly, the bill provides the Special Counsel with authority to appear and represent the interests of the Office of Special Counsel in civil actions brought in connection with the exercise of its authority to protect the merit system against prohibited personnel practices under section 2302(b)(8) and violations of the Hatch Act. It also gives the Special Counsel the right to seek review of decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board before the Federal Circuit where the Special Counsel determines that the Board issued an erroneous decision in a whistleblower retaliation case or in a case arising under the Hatch Act, or that the Board's decision will have a substantial impact on the enforcement of those laws. Under the bill, in Board cases in which the Special Counsel was not a party, the Special Counsel must first petition the Board for reconsideration of its decision before seeking review. The Court of Appeals shall grant petitions for review by the Special Counsel at its discretion. This additional authority would enable the Office of Special Counsel to fulfill its statutory missions more effectively to protect federal whistleblowers against retaliation and to enforce the Hatch Act. While OSC, under current law, has a central role as public prosecutor in cases before the Merit Systems Protection Board, it in no way authorizes OSC to seek judicial review of an MSPB decision that the Special Counsel considers erroneous. Our legislation recognizes that providing the Special Counsel the authority to seek such review--in precedential cases--is crucial to ensuring the promotion of the public interests furthered by these statutes. Moreover, under existing law, the Special Counsel cannot appear to represent himself or herself as a party, or even as an amicus curiae, where another party has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in a whistleblower retaliation or Hatch Act case. As a result, the Special Counsel, who Congress intended would be a vigorous, independent advocate for protection of the merit system, cannot participate at all in the arena in which the law is largely shaped: the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This bill reflects our conviction that the public interests underlying the whistleblower retaliation laws and the Hatch Act are best served by ensuring that the Special Counsel's views are considered by the Court in important cases. Mr. President, there is significant history that defines congressional intent with respect to ensuring that federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliatory measures. It is my intention that this bill will begin the needed dialogue to guarantee that any disclosures within the boundaries of the statutory language are protected. As the ranking member of the Federal Services Subcommittee, I will seek hearings in the next Congress on the Whistleblower Protection Act and the amendments I am proposing today. It is my intention to request a hearing that would be independent of any reauthorization hearing held for the MSPB and the OSC, both of whose authority expires in 2002. There is strong support for the legislation Senator Levin and I are introducing today. I ask unanimous consent, in addition to the text of the bill, that I be allowed to insert into the Record immediately following my statement, a petition signed by the heads of 72 organizations urging Congress to restore the Whistleblower Protection Act to its 1994 boundaries. Among the 70-plus groups that support this effort are the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Government Employees, Blacks in Government, National Association of Treasury Agents, National Treasury Employees Union, Common Cause, and the Federation of American Scientists. I also wish to extend my appreciation to the Special Counsel and the Acting Chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board for the technical assistance they provided. Lastly, I would like to commend the Government Accountability Project for its dedication and perseverance over the years. Since 1977, GAP has sought to protect the public interest and promote government accountability by defending whistleblowers. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to ensure that congressional intent embodied in the Whistleblower Protection Act is codified to ensure that the law is not weakened further.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman, Chairman and Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my colleague on the Committee, Senator Bayh, my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation that will accelerate the ongoing efforts for the development of a fuel for the future-- hydrogen. Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. There is strong evidence that hydrogen can be a solution for America's long-term energy needs. All indications suggest that America's summer of discontent is going to continue and become the winter of discontent with respect to energy prices. Americans have paid record-breaking prices at the pump this summer. They will continue to suffer escalating prices this winter too. Higher energy prices hit most those Americans who can afford it the least. Our Nation is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. We rely on imports to meet our needs. Our dependence on imported oil has been increasing for years. Oil imports have been rising for the past two decades. The combination of lower domestic production and increased demand has led to imports making up a larger share of total oil consumed in the United States. In 1992, crude oil imports accounted for approximately 45 percent of our domestic demand. Last year crude oil imports amounted for 58 percent. The Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Outlook forecasts that oil imports will exceed 60 percent of total demand this year. EIA's long-term forecasts have oil imports constituting 66 percent of U.S. supply by 2010, and more than 71 percent by 2000. Continued reliance on such large quantities of imported oil will frustrate our efforts to develop a national energy policy and set the stage for energy emergencies in the future. Mr. President, the way to improve our energy outlook is to adopt energy conservation, encourage energy efficiency, and support renewable energy programs. Above all, we must develop energy resources that diversify our energy mix and strengthen our energy security. Now is the time to increase our efforts to develop new sources of energy. Growing evidence points to hydrogen as a fuel to resolve our energy problems and satisfy a wide variety of the world's energy needs. Hydrogen as a fuel is not a new concept. For more than two decades there has been global interest in hydrogen as a renewable fuel. Progress is being made at an accelerating pace. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. Transit bus demonstrations are underway in both the United States and Europe. Major automobile companies are poised to deploy fuel cell passengers cars within the next few years. All these activities involve government and private sector cooperation. But many problems and challenges remain. Hydrogen production costs from both fossil and renewable energy sources remain high. Attractive low-cost storage technologies are not available. There is an inadequate infrastructure. We need to address these challenges and barriers if we are to enjoy the fruits of an efficient and environmentally friendly energy source. This Senator believes that an aggressive research and development program can help us overcome many of these challenges such as bringing down the production costs from fossil and renewable sources, by advancing storage technologies, and addressing safety concerns with efforts in establishing codes and standards. Our Nation needs an active and focused research, development, and demonstration program to make the breakthroughs necessary to make hydrogen a viable source of energy. My predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga was one of the first to focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as this legislation has come to be known, was designed to accelerate development of domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source in sufficient quantities to reduce the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels. As a result of Senator Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy has been conducting research that will advance technologies for cost-effective production, storage, and utilization of hydrogen. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 expanded the research, and development, and demonstration program under the Matsunaga Act. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. My good friend and former colleague in the House, Representative George E. Brown, Jr., was instrumental in the introduction and passage of the Hydrogen Future Act. Serving as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Science Committee, Congressman Brown earned a reputation as a true champion and advocate for science. He was an early supporter of hydrogen as a source of energy. He was the principal sponsor of the companion legislation to Senator Matsunaga's bill in the House. Congressman Brown passed away on July 15, 1999. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes and amends the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. I propose that Congress dedicate this legislation to George Brown's memory and cite the Act as George E. Brown, Jr. Hydrogen Future Act. The legislation I am introducing today is consistent with the thinking of experts who have looked at this issue. The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report titled ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century'' in response to a request from President Clinton to review the national energy R&D portfolio and make recommendations on how to ensure that the U.S. has a program that addresses its energy needs for the next century. In its report issued in November 1997, PCAST proposed a substantial increase in Federal spending for applied energy technology R&D, with the largest share going to energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. This was a major change in focus. With this new R&D emphasis, the PCAST report acknowledges and supports advances in a wide range of both hydrogen- producing and hydrogen-using technologies. The bill I am introducing today supports the recommendations of PCAST. The Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP) was established pursuant to the Spark Matsunaga Hydrogen Act. The panel's primary functions are to advise the Secretary of Energy on the implementation and conduct of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Program and to review and make recommendations on the economic, technical, and environmental consequences of deploying hydrogen energy systems. The Hydrogen Future Act gave additional functions to HTAP. The Act requires HTAP to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department's Hydrogen Program and make recommendations for improvements. HTAP is also required to make recommendations for future legislation. The panel, appointed by the Secretary of Energy, has broad representation from industry, government, and academia. While some members of the panel represent the hydrogen community, others represent fossil energy, industrial gases, transportation, and environment groups--areas affected by the development and deployment of hydrogen energy systems. This mix provides the panel with a balanced perspective that allows diversity of viewpoints. Members serve on a pro-bono basis. HTAP, in its report to Congress has strongly endorsed reauthorizing the Hydrogen Future Act. Today's bill reflects most of the recommendations of this expert body. The long-term vision for hydrogen energy is that sometime well into 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. But fossil fuels will be a significant long-term transitional resource. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate changes and energy security concerns will help bring about penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both transportation and electricity sectors. We are a long way from realizing this vision for hydrogen energy. But progress is being made and many challenges and barriers remain. Sustained effort is the only way to overcome these challenges and barriers. We need to support a strategy that focuses on mid-term and long-term goals. We must support development of technologies that enable distributed electric-generation fuel cell systems and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for transportation applications. For the long-term, we should look to hydrogen technologies that enhance renewable systems and offer society the promise of clean, abundant fuels. Significant forces are coming together that may accelerate wider acceptance of hydrogen as an energy source. Industry is moving ahead with fuel cell developments at a rapid pace. Many companies are forming partnerships to bring new technologies to the market place. Daimler- Chrysler, Ford, and Ballard have formed a partnership and pledged $1.5 billion for commercialization of automotive fuel cells. Edison Development Company, General Electric, SoCal Gas, and Plug Power have agreement to commercialize residential fuel cells. There are other companies pursuing the same market sector and are developing high performance fuel cell technology for automotive and electrical generation systems. Initiatives for controls of emissions from automobiles such as California's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen powered vehicles. There is significant industry interest in bringing fuel cell technology to mining operations. The Department of Energy administers the Hydrogen Program that supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safer and less expensive manner in the near future. Progress in several research and development areas shows promise that some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. Some of the promising technologies include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, reversible PEM fuel cell systems. Others lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory are involved in the program. DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers-of-excellence have been established at Florida Solar Energy Center at University of Miami and University of Hawaii. The U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The DOE Hydrogen Program is well managed and run by dedicated managers and capable and talented technologists. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. HTAP, in its review of the program reached similar conclusions. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes the Hydrogen Future Act and adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. It highlights the potential of hydrogen as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy, the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and industry. It encourages private sector investment and cost sharing in the development of hydrogen as an energy source. The legislation authorizes $250 million over the next five years for research and development of technologies for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed- generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. It also authorizes $50 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. This will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It may encourage integration of renewable energy resources with hydrogen storage in distributed power scenarios. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use. It will lead to development of hydrogen- based operating experience acceptable to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting the development of hydrogen technologies, we will be ushering in an era of a non-polluting source of energy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The price we will pay for development of this clean and renewable energy is minuscule compared to the benefits. And Mr. President, if we develop hydrogen technologies, we will be less likely to be held hostage by our friends in the Middle East. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman, Chairman and Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my colleague on the Committee, Senator Bayh, my friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, and my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, to introduce legislation that will accelerate the ongoing efforts for the development of a fuel for the future-- hydrogen. Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. There is strong evidence that hydrogen can be a solution for America's long-term energy needs. All indications suggest that America's summer of discontent is going to continue and become the winter of discontent with respect to energy prices. Americans have paid record-breaking prices at the pump this summer. They will continue to suffer escalating prices this winter too. Higher energy prices hit most those Americans who can afford it the least. Our Nation is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. We rely on imports to meet our needs. Our dependence on imported oil has been increasing for years. Oil imports have been rising for the past two decades. The combination of lower domestic production and increased demand has led to imports making up a larger share of total oil consumed in the United States. In 1992, crude oil imports accounted for approximately 45 percent of our domestic demand. Last year crude oil imports amounted for 58 percent. The Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Outlook forecasts that oil imports will exceed 60 percent of total demand this year. EIA's long-term forecasts have oil imports constituting 66 percent of U.S. supply by 2010, and more than 71 percent by 2000. Continued reliance on such large quantities of imported oil will frustrate our efforts to develop a national energy policy and set the stage for energy emergencies in the future. Mr. President, the way to improve our energy outlook is to adopt energy conservation, encourage energy efficiency, and support renewable energy programs. Above all, we must develop energy resources that diversify our energy mix and strengthen our energy security. Now is the time to increase our efforts to develop new sources of energy. Growing evidence points to hydrogen as a fuel to resolve our energy problems and satisfy a wide variety of the world's energy needs. Hydrogen as a fuel is not a new concept. For more than two decades there has been global interest in hydrogen as a renewable fuel. Progress is being made at an accelerating pace. Fuel cells for distributed stationary power are being commercialized and installed in various locations in the United States and worldwide. Transit bus demonstrations are underway in both the United States and Europe. Major automobile companies are poised to deploy fuel cell passengers cars within the next few years. All these activities involve government and private sector cooperation. But many problems and challenges remain. Hydrogen production costs from both fossil and renewable energy sources remain high. Attractive low-cost storage technologies are not available. There is an inadequate infrastructure. We need to address these challenges and barriers if we are to enjoy the fruits of an efficient and environmentally friendly energy source. This Senator believes that an aggressive research and development program can help us overcome many of these challenges such as bringing down the production costs from fossil and renewable sources, by advancing storage technologies, and addressing safety concerns with efforts in establishing codes and standards. Our Nation needs an active and focused research, development, and demonstration program to make the breakthroughs necessary to make hydrogen a viable source of energy. My predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga was one of the first to focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as this legislation has come to be known, was designed to accelerate development of domestic capability to produce an economically renewable energy source in sufficient quantities to reduce the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels. As a result of Senator Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy has been conducting research that will advance technologies for cost-effective production, storage, and utilization of hydrogen. The Hydrogen Future Act of 1996 expanded the research, and development, and demonstration program under the Matsunaga Act. It authorized activities leading to production, storage, transformation, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications. My good friend and former colleague in the House, Representative George E. Brown, Jr., was instrumental in the introduction and passage of the Hydrogen Future Act. Serving as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Science Committee, Congressman Brown earned a reputation as a true champion and advocate for science. He was an early supporter of hydrogen as a source of energy. He was the principal sponsor of the companion legislation to Senator Matsunaga's bill in the House. Congressman Brown passed away on July 15, 1999. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes and amends the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996. I propose that Congress dedicate this legislation to George Brown's memory and cite the Act as George E. Brown, Jr. Hydrogen Future Act. The legislation I am introducing today is consistent with the thinking of experts who have looked at this issue. The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report titled ``Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century'' in response to a request from President Clinton to review the national energy R&D portfolio and make recommendations on how to ensure that the U.S. has a program that addresses its energy needs for the next century. In its report issued in November 1997, PCAST proposed a substantial increase in Federal spending for applied energy technology R&D, with the largest share going to energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. This was a major change in focus. With this new R&D emphasis, the PCAST report acknowledges and supports advances in a wide range of both hydrogen- producing and hydrogen-using technologies. The bill I am introducing today supports the recommendations of PCAST. The Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP) was established pursuant to the Spark Matsunaga Hydrogen Act. The panel's primary functions are to advise the Secretary of Energy on the implementation and conduct of the Department of Energy's Hydrogen Program and to review and make recommendations on the economic, technical, and environmental consequences of deploying hydrogen energy systems. The Hydrogen Future Act gave additional functions to HTAP. The Act requires HTAP to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department's Hydrogen Program and make recommendations for improvements. HTAP is also required to make recommendations for future legislation. The panel, appointed by the Secretary of Energy, has broad representation from industry, government, and academia. While some members of the panel represent the hydrogen community, others represent fossil energy, industrial gases, transportation, and environment groups--areas affected by the development and deployment of hydrogen energy systems. This mix provides the panel with a balanced perspective that allows diversity of viewpoints. Members serve on a pro-bono basis. HTAP, in its report to Congress has strongly endorsed reauthorizing the Hydrogen Future Act. Today's bill reflects most of the recommendations of this expert body. The long-term vision for hydrogen energy is that sometime well into 21st century, hydrogen will join electricity as one of our Nation's primary energy carriers, and hydrogen will ultimately be produced from renewable sources. But fossil fuels will be a significant long-term transitional resource. In the next twenty years, increasing concerns about global climate changes and energy security concerns will help bring about penetration of hydrogen in several niche markets. The growth of fuel cell technology will allow the introduction of hydrogen in both transportation and electricity sectors. We are a long way from realizing this vision for hydrogen energy. But progress is being made and many challenges and barriers remain. Sustained effort is the only way to overcome these challenges and barriers. We need to support a strategy that focuses on mid-term and long-term goals. We must support development of technologies that enable distributed electric-generation fuel cell systems and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for transportation applications. For the long-term, we should look to hydrogen technologies that enhance renewable systems and offer society the promise of clean, abundant fuels. Significant forces are coming together that may accelerate wider acceptance of hydrogen as an energy source. Industry is moving ahead with fuel cell developments at a rapid pace. Many companies are forming partnerships to bring new technologies to the market place. Daimler- Chrysler, Ford, and Ballard have formed a partnership and pledged $1.5 billion for commercialization of automotive fuel cells. Edison Development Company, General Electric, SoCal Gas, and Plug Power have agreement to commercialize residential fuel cells. There are other companies pursuing the same market sector and are developing high performance fuel cell technology for automotive and electrical generation systems. Initiatives for controls of emissions from automobiles such as California's zero emissions vehicle requirements favor early introduction of hydrogen powered vehicles. There is significant industry interest in bringing fuel cell technology to mining operations. The Department of Energy administers the Hydrogen Program that supports a broad range of research and development projects in the areas of hydrogen production, storage, and use in a safer and less expensive manner in the near future. Progress in several research and development areas shows promise that some of these new technologies may become available for wider use in the next few years. Some of the promising technologies include advanced natural gas- and biomass-based hydrogen production technologies, high pressure gaseous and cryogas storage systems, reversible PEM fuel cell systems. Others lay the groundwork for long range opportunities. The Hydrogen Program utilizes the talents of our national laboratories and our universities. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, as well as Jet Propulsion Laboratory are involved in the program. DOE Field Office at Golden, Colorado, and Nevada Operations Office in Nevada are also involved. University-led centers-of-excellence have been established at Florida Solar Energy Center at University of Miami and University of Hawaii. The U.S. participation in the International Energy Agency contributes to the advancement of DOE hydrogen research through international cooperation. The DOE Hydrogen Program is well managed and run by dedicated managers and capable and talented technologists. The program has also built strong links with the industry. This has resulted in strong industry participation and cost sharing. HTAP, in its review of the program reached similar conclusions. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes the Hydrogen Future Act and adds provisions for the demonstration of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. It highlights the potential of hydrogen as an efficient and environmentally friendly source of energy, the need for a strong partnership between the Federal government, industry, and academia, and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration between Federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and industry. It encourages private sector investment and cost sharing in the development of hydrogen as an energy source. The legislation authorizes $250 million over the next five years for research and development of technologies for hydrogen production, storage and use. This will allow advancement of technologies such as smaller-scale production systems that are applicable to distributed- generation and vehicle applications, advanced pressure vessels, photobiological and photocatalytic production of hydrogen, and carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and fullerenes. It also authorizes $50 million for conducting integrated demonstrations of hydrogen technologies at government facilities. This will help secure industry participation through competitive solicitations for technology development and testing. It may encourage integration of renewable energy resources with hydrogen storage in distributed power scenarios. It will test the viability of hydrogen production, storage, and use. It will lead to development of hydrogen- based operating experience acceptable to meet safety codes and standards. By supporting the development of hydrogen technologies, we will be ushering in an era of a non-polluting source of energy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The price we will pay for development of this clean and renewable energy is minuscule compared to the benefits. And Mr. President, if we develop hydrogen technologies, we will be less likely to be held hostage by our friends in the Middle East. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to commend the joint efforts of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Honolulu Emergency Services Department, and Hawaii's Department of Health, and National Guard for establishing one of the Nation's premier weapons of mass destruction, WMD, containment, mitigation and response capabilities. As the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I follow Federal terrorism defense programs closely, especially those that affect Hawaii. Terrorism, particularly the threat of domestic terrorism, remains at the forefront of concern for all of us. Although it has been 7 years since the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center and 5 years since the destruction of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, these unspeakable atrocities left an indelible mark in the hearts of all Americans. In the intervening years, the threat of terrorism has become more pronounced. The National Commission on Terrorism recently concluded that ``. . . international terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America--today's terrorists seek to inflict mass casualties, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. This was underscored by the December 1999 arrests in Jordan and at the U.S./Canadian border of foreign nationals who were allegedly planning to attack crowded millennium celebrations.'' Fortunately, we have made signifcant strides in enhancing our defense against and reducing our vulnerabilities to terrorism. The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201, Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment, authorized a coordinated Federal response to train, equip, and otherwise enhance the capability of Federal, State, and local emergency ``first responders,'' e.g., primarily police, fire, and emergency medical officers, for terrorist incidents involving mass casualties, or nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Most of our current antiterrorism programs are outgrowths of this landmark legislation. More than 40 Federal departments, agencies, and bureaus have some role in combating terrorism. The Justice Department, through the FBI, is the lead Federal agency for domestic terrorism and provides on-site emergency law enforcement response to all incidents. However, State and local governments and emergency responders bear the primary responsibility for responding to terrorist incidents, augmented by Federal resources. Therefore, Federal, State, and local coordination and cooperation is critical to ensuring that our population centers are properly safeguarded. I am particularly pleased with terrorism preparedness efforts in Hawaii, which have been hailed by HHS as ``exemplary'' and ``national models.'' Two little known, but essential components of the national antiterrorism program and support to local communities are Civil Support Teams, CSTs, and Metropolitan Medical Response Systems, MMRS. Hawaii's Civil Support Team is one of 27 Army and Air National Guard CSTs that will be deployed in 26 States by the spring of 2001. Each team consists of 22 members who undergo 15 months of specialized training. Each team is equipped with a mobile analytical lab and a communications facility. Teams would be deployed to assist first responders in the event of a WMD incident. The teams, under the command of a State's governor, provide support to civilian agencies to assess the nature of an attack, provide medical and technical advice, and help coordinate subsequent State and Federal responses. Hawaii's Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, the 93rd WMD-CST, is a composite Army/Air National Guard Unit, and component of the Hawaii Army National Guard, Headquarters, State Area Command. The team is currently undergoing training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and is expected to be fully trained and deployed by May 2001. In 1997, Honolulu was selected as one of the first 25 cities in the Nation to contract with HHS to develop a Metropolitan Medical Response System and procure essential prophylactic pharmaceuticals and specialized equipment. MMRS are multi-disciplinary medical teams consisting of physicians, nurses, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and law enforcement officers, who provide initial on-site response and care, provide for safe patient transportation to hospital emergency rooms, provide definitive medical and mental health care to victims of various types of attack, and can prepare patients for onward movement to other regions, should this be required In August 2000, the HHS expanded Hawaii's MMRS program by directing and funding an assessment of the unique needs of geographically isolated jurisdictions and an evaluation of long-term sustainment of the MMRS. Both studies will serve as national models. This is a further testament of the quality of Hawaii's MMRS program and highly complimentary of the personnel involved in its development. Fortunately, terrorism involving the use of weapons of mass destruction is likely to remain rare. Nevertheless, as in the case of other low probability/high consequence risks, it remains a very serious and highly complex national concern. The precautionary safeguards we have taken thus far are essential and prudent, but offer no guarantees. We need to remain vigilant and ensure that our antiterrorism and counter terrorism programs continue to be properly funded, adequately maintained, and adjusted to meet the ever evolving threat. The American public demands no less.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call attention to a report prepared at my request by the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service entitled ``China's Foreign Conventional Arms Acquisitions: Background and Analysis.'' As ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have been keenly interested in the implications of Chinese conventional force modernization on Asian stability. I am providing copies of this excellent analysis, which was authorized by Shirley Kan, Christopher Bolkcom, and Ronald O'Rourke, to all Senators. I believe my colleagues will find the report useful and insightful as we assess American policy towards China. The report examines the major foreign conventional weapon systems that China has acquired or has committed to acquire since 1990, with particular attention to implications for U.S. security concerns. It pays special attention to Chinese air and naval acquisitions and describes how Chinese leaders began to pay greater attention to modernizing the People's Liberation Army, PLA, in the early 1990s, transforming it from a force mainly oriented towards domestic security to one focused on modern warfare. Since then, China has ranked among the top 10 leading arms buyers among developing nations. According to the analysis, the catalyst for PLA modernization, including the procurement of advanced foreign military equipment, was China's view that its top security problem was preventing Taiwan's permanent separation and securing unification as ``one China.'' However, additional security goals may be precluding Japan's rise as the strongest Asian power, ensuring Chinese influence over the Korean Peninsula, supporting Chinese claims to territory in the East and South China Seas, subduing India's quest for power, and countering American power in the region. As China modernizes its forces, it is clear that arms sales from Russia are essential, providing advance aircraft, including Su-27 fighters, missile systems, submarines, and surface ships. The report is unclear as to the strategic advantage derived by Russia in selling such advanced systems to a country with which it historically has had difficulty along a shared border. The report concludes that the operational significance of these major qualitative upgrades through foreign arms acquisitions remains to be seen and will depend in large measure on the PLA's ability to demonstrate an ability to conduct effective joint military operations. The report also does an excellent job of comparing Chinese new conventional weapons to American capabilities, suggesting that in most cases--with some critical exceptions--American forces still retain a tactical and strategic edge. For example, the report mentions the potential threat from a nuclear armed SS-N-22, an anti-ship cruise missile, and the superior capabilities of the Su-27 fighter aircraft. Obviously, the United States should not be complacent. The Chinese are, for the first time in modern history, developing a capability to project air and naval forces beyond their coastal areas. The Untied States needs to seek ways to address any threat to American interests as a result of that capability not only through pursuing our own military modernization program but also through a strategic dialogue with China which reassures China that we have a shared desire in regional stability. Indeed, in many ways, initiating a productive diplomatic dialogue with China on Asian security may be more difficult than maintaining our qualitative edge on power projection. Again, I commend this excellent report by the Congressional Research Service which was coordinated by Shirley Kan, a specialist in National Security Policy. It is one of the most comprehensive, unclassified assessments currently available on Chinese conventional arms acquisitions.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin once described how ``for want of nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.'' I wish to call the Senate's attention today to a similar situation. For $13 million, we could help prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in losses from forest fires. This case involves a Federal program which can help detect wild fires and volcanic activity from space. It is a small program that has been in a pilot phase for a couple of years but which is now operational. Except it is not operating. It stopped when funding for it ended on September 30, 2000. Unfortunately, funds to keep it going have not been authorized or appropriated for the next fiscal year. The program, which only recently came to my attention, is called the Hazard Support System. It is operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and is a forceful example of how today's modern technologies can be employed to the benefit of us all. For several years, our fire and volcanic agencies have been working with the Department of Defense to realize the potential dual use of the nation's ballistic missile warning satellites to argument existing fire detection and suppression capabilities and to monitor global volcanic activity. We have heard a great deal about fires over the past few months. On average there about 100,000 wildland fires in the United States each year, destroying millions of acres of timber, rangeland, and homes at the cost of hundred of millions of dollars. In 1994, federal fire suppression cost $920 million. Here is a system--the Hazard Support System--which can detect fires of less than a quarter acre in size and dispatch warnings via the Internet to fire fighters in five minutes, saving potentially millions of dollars--not to mention people's homes--and it is not being funded. The system's utility is not limited to forest fires but also can be used to detect volcanic eruptions and to track ash clouds. One can ask why should we care about tracking ash clouds? Imagine cruising through an ash cloud in a airplane at 30,000 feet above Alaska: volcanic ash is sucked into the jet's engines where it instantly melts, coating the inside of the engines, cutting off the flow of oxygen, and causing the engines to stall. The plane drops to 10,000 feet where the engines restart only because the rapid descent has dislodged the ash crust. This actually happened to an aircraft in Alaska. Jet radars and weather satellites cannot detect ash clouds. To these systems, ash looks like water vapor. With ash from volcanic explosions traveling around the world at high altitudes, we cannot fly safely unless we have the ability to track these clouds. Every year about 10 volcanic eruptions penetrate the altitude range of air traffic. Seven passenger airliners have experienced engine power losses, and plane repair and replacement costs, as of 1994, exceeded $200 million. Most of the world's volcanoes can erupt without warning. There is no global volcano monitoring capability. Currently, less than half of America's 65 potentially active volcanoes are monitored for signs of activity--but not their ash clouds. We have active volcanoes in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. Most of the volcanoes in the Aleutian Islands are active but, along this major international airline route, only 10 percent of these volcanoes are monitored. Only 10 percent of the world's 1,500 potentially active volcanoes are under constant surveillance. The USGS' Hazard Support System fuses the fire- and volcanic-activity detection capabilities of the world's environmental weather satellites with that of our ballistic missile warning satellites--without affecting their primary national security mission--to provide 24-hour worldwide detection. The cost of this system for its first year would be $13.5 million and $5 million thereafter. The benefits of this program for states in the Western part of the United States are obvious. I have been assured by the Administration that the only reason funding for this program was not requested for the next fiscal year was because, at the time of the budget preparation, the system was not yet operational. It is now operational and proven. I intend to seek funding for a small program with a huge return in protecting Americans from future forest fires and the danger of catastrophic airline crashes. I would urge my colleagues to join me in support of this program.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to commend employees of the many Federal departments and agencies responsible for the impressive preliminary work on establishing a Global Disaster Information Network, GDIN. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, I take a keen interest in the way in which institutions in the federal government respond to disasters. I am struck by the tremendous potential advanced technologies, including satellite imaging, the Worldwide Web, and computer data systems can play in improving our responsiveness to natural disasters. Much of the credit is due to the visionary leadership of Vice President Gore for directing GDIN's development and for recognizing the potential for harnessing current day technologies in an unprecedented and innovative way. GDIN represents a coordinated effort among the Nation's federal disaster agencies, intelligence agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, academia, and industry, and their international counterparts, to utilize existing and emerging information technology more effectively to provide key decision makers with information critical for reducing loss from natural disasters. As a result of GDIN, the availability of critical disaster response, recovery, mitigation and preparedness information is now greater than ever before. Domestic disasters are estimated to cost an average of $54.3 billion, causing 510 deaths per year. International disasters kill more than 133,000 people and cost more than $440 billion in property damage. The added costs of widespread human suffering and political instability are incalculable. The current capabilities of GDIN are impressive, but future capabilities and possibilities hold even greater promise. GDIN's development exemplifies the best international collaborative efforts between government and industry and illustrates the innovation possible only in this great technological age. Surprisingly, GDIN has received scant attention by the American public or the media. Prior to GDIN, there was no common approach to accessing a single source for the broad range of information needed for natural disaster reduction or aids to help integrate information from many diverse sources. Relevant information was difficult to locate or use effectively. Disaster managers worldwide were consistently frustrated by poor telecommunications and inadequate infrastructure. In February 1997, Vice President Gore wrote to key Federal departments and agencies requesting a feasibility study for establishing a global disaster information network, through the integration of the Internet and other emerging technologies, to improve preparedness and responsiveness to natural or environmental disasters. A Federal task force was formed to explore public/private partnerships to make the concept a reality. In April 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13151, formally creating GDIN and setting operational objectives. A key objective of GDIN is to promote the United States as an example and leader in the development and dissemination of disaster information, both domestically and abroad, and to seek cooperation with foreign governments and international organizations. Continued Federal leadership is essential to its continued success. The creation of a highly sophisticated and widely distributed knowledge base, encompassing common systems of measurements, methods of data visualization and exploitation, information analysis, event forecasting, knowledge modeling, and data and information management, remains key to successful future development. For example, in 1997, the region of Grand Forks, North Dakota suffered losses greater than $400 million when the Red River rose. In order to predict flood areas accurately, we need a system that can overlay information not only on water levels and rates but also the surrounding infrastructure of levies and roads, which affect the flow of water. A positive example of data integration was in the 1996 fire in Mendocino, California, in which data from the Landsat Thematic Mapper, Digital Elevation Models, infrared scanners, information from National Technical Means, and field reports were used to assess fire damage, as well as the potential for erosion and new growth. Additional information on rangeland, wildlife habitats, and recreational needs were included to build a comprehensive plan for re-vegetation resulting in a plan by the U.S. Forest Service, which is estimated to have saved $250 million by more efficient planting. These are isolated examples. The program, both nationally and internationally, is still in its infancy. The information is there but the way to access it is still a work in progress. Unfortunately, on the domestic front there has been a lack of support in some circles for this program. Such lack of support is deplorable. The need to find more effective ways to respond to disasters in the United States must be above partisan politics. We live in truly amazing times. Rapid improvements in communications, the Internet, space imagery, remote sensing, global positioning technologies, and early warning forecasting hold promise to continue to revolutionize disaster management and therefore save lives and reduce human suffering in very significant ways.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 27, 1999: Jermaine Allen, 26, Baltimore, MD; John Arcady, 49, Cincinnati, OH; Nathaniel Ball, 61, Tulsa, OK; Patrick Penson, 18, Fort Worth, TX; Eric Shine, 29, Charlotte, NC; Kevin Woods, 37, St. Louis, MO. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act, which seeks to address important issues to the people of Guam dealing with land, economic development and social issues. On July 25, the House passed similar legislation, H.R. 2462, which was introduced by Congressman Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam. During the 105th Congress, the Senate passed similar provisions of H.R. 2462 as part of S. 210, an omnibus territories bill. There are several provisions of the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act. First, Section 2 of the bill provides a process for the Government of Guam to receive lands from the U.S. government for specified public purposes by giving Guam the right of first refusal for declared federal excess lands by the General Services Administration prior to it being made available to any other federal agency. It also provides for a process for the Government of Guam and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to engage in negotiations on the future ownership and management of declared federal excess lands within the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. Section 3 provides the Government of Guam with the authority to tax foreign investors at the same rates as states under U.S. tax treaties with foreign countries since Guam cannot change the withholding tax rate on its own under current law. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, there is a 30 percent withholding tax rate for foreign investors in the United States. Since Guam's tax law ``mirrors'' the rate established under the U.S. Code, the standard rate of foreign investors in Guam is 30 percent. It is a common feature in U.S. tax treaties for countries to negotiate lower withholding rates on investment returns. Unfortunately, while there are different definitions for the term ``United States'' under these treaties, Guam is not included. This omission has adversely impacted Guam since 75 percent of Guam's commercial development is funded by foreign investors. As an example, with Japan, the U.S. rate for foreign investors is 10 percent. This means that while Japanese investors are taxed at a 10 percent withholding tax rate on their investments in the fifty states, those same investors are taxed at a 30 percent withholding rate on Guam. While the long-term solution is for U.S. negotiators to include Guam in the definition of the term ``United States'' for all future tax treaties, the immediate solution is to amend the Organic Act of Guam and authorize the Government of Guam to tax foreign investors at the same rates as the fifty states. It is my understanding that all other U.S. territories have remedied this problem in one way or another. Therefore, Guam is the only U.S. jurisdiction in the country that is not extended tax equity for foreign investors. With an unemployment rate of 15 percent, Guam continues to struggle economically due to the Asian financial crisis. That is why I believe it is vitally important for the federal government to assist Guam in stimulating its economy through sound federal policies and technical assistance. This section would greatly assist the Government of Guam in promoting economic development on the island and would provide long needed tax equity. Section 4 considers Guam within the U.S. Customs zone in the treatment of betel nuts, which are part of Chamorro tradition and culture. While betel nuts are grown in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has an important alert for betel nuts from foreign countries in place due to the influx of betel nuts from Asian countries for commercial consumption and the FDA's contention that the betel nut is ``adulterated.'' This means an automatic detention of betel nuts by U.S. Customs agents when entering the United States. Although Guam is a U.S. territory, Guam is considered to be outside the U.S. Customs zone. Betel nuts grown in Guam, therefore, are subject to the FDA ban in the same manner as foreign countries. This section narrowly applies to Guam, limits use to personal consumption, and ensure that the FDA ban against foreign countries remains in place. Section 5 empowers the governors of the territories and the State of Hawaii to report to the Secretary of the Interior on the financial and social impacts of the Compacts of Free Association on their respective jurisdictions and requires that the Secretary forward Administration comments and recommendations on the report to Congress. This is an important issue to the State of Hawaii as the numbers of migrants to Hawaii from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau continue to grow. The State of Hawaii has spent well over $14 million in public funds in the past year alone, with most of the funds being spent on our educational and health care systems. Under the compact agreements, the Federal government made clear that it would compensate jurisdictions affected, yet the State of Hawaii has not received federal funding since the implementation of these agreements. This section seeks to improve the reporting requirements for Compact Impact Aid to address this situation. Section 6 establishes a five-member Guam War Claims Review Commission to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The goal of the Commission is to review the facts and circumstances surrounding U.S. restitution to Guamanians who suffered compensable injury during the occupation of Guam by Japan during World War II. Compensable injury includes death, personal injury, or forced labor, forced march, or internment. The Commission would review the relevant historical facts and determine the eligible claimants, the eligibility requirements, and the total amount necessary for compensation, and report its findings and recommendations for action to Congress nine months after the Commission is established. The 1951 Treaty of Peace between the U.S. and Japan effectively barred claims by U.S. citizens against Japan. As a consequence, the U.S. inherited these claims, which was acknowledged by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles when the issue was raised during consideration of the treaty before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1952. Considerable historical information indicates that the United States intended to remedy the issue of war restitution for the people of Guam. In 1945, the Guam Meritorious Claims Act was enacted which authorized the Navy to adjudicate and settle war claims in Guam for property damage for a period of one year. Claims in access of $5,000 for personal injury or death were to be forwarded to Congress. Unfortunately, the Act never fulfilled its intended purposes due to the limited time frame for claims and the preoccupation of the local population with recovery from the war, resettlement of their homes, and rebuilding their lives. On March 25, 1947, the Hopkins Commission, a civilian commission appointed by the Navy Secretary, issued a report which revealed the flaws of the 1945 Guam Meritorious Claims Act and recommended that the Act be amended to provide on the spot settlement and payment of all claims, both property and for the death and personal injury. Despite the recommendations of the Hopkins Commission, the U.S. government failed to remedy the flaws of the Guam Meritorious Act when it enacted the War Claims Act of 1948, legislation which provided compensations for U.S. citizens who were victims of the Japanese war effort during World War II. Guamanians were U.S. nationals at the time of the enactment of the War Claims Act, thereby making them ineligible for compensation. In 1950, with the enactment of the Organic Act of Guam, Guamanians became U.S. citizens. In 1962, Congress again attempted to address the remaining circumstances of U.S. citizens and nationals that had not received reparations from previous enacted laws. Once again, however, the Guamanians were inadvertently made ineligible because policymakers assumed that the War Claims Act of 1948 included them. Section 6 brings closure to this longstanding issue. In summary, Mr. President, the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act will go a long way toward resolving issues that the Federal Government has been working on with the Government of Guam on land, economic development and social issues. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to resolve these issues to assist Guam in achieving greater economic self-sufficiency.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act, which seeks to address important issues to the people of Guam dealing with land, economic development and social issues. On July 25, the House passed similar legislation, H.R. 2462, which was introduced by Congressman Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam. During the 105th Congress, the Senate passed similar provisions of H.R. 2462 as part of S. 210, an omnibus territories bill. There are several provisions of the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act. First, Section 2 of the bill provides a process for the Government of Guam to receive lands from the U.S. government for specified public purposes by giving Guam the right of first refusal for declared federal excess lands by the General Services Administration prior to it being made available to any other federal agency. It also provides for a process for the Government of Guam and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to engage in negotiations on the future ownership and management of declared federal excess lands within the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. Section 3 provides the Government of Guam with the authority to tax foreign investors at the same rates as states under U.S. tax treaties with foreign countries since Guam cannot change the withholding tax rate on its own under current law. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, there is a 30 percent withholding tax rate for foreign investors in the United States. Since Guam's tax law ``mirrors'' the rate established under the U.S. Code, the standard rate of foreign investors in Guam is 30 percent. It is a common feature in U.S. tax treaties for countries to negotiate lower withholding rates on investment returns. Unfortunately, while there are different definitions for the term ``United States'' under these treaties, Guam is not included. This omission has adversely impacted Guam since 75 percent of Guam's commercial development is funded by foreign investors. As an example, with Japan, the U.S. rate for foreign investors is 10 percent. This means that while Japanese investors are taxed at a 10 percent withholding tax rate on their investments in the fifty states, those same investors are taxed at a 30 percent withholding rate on Guam. While the long-term solution is for U.S. negotiators to include Guam in the definition of the term ``United States'' for all future tax treaties, the immediate solution is to amend the Organic Act of Guam and authorize the Government of Guam to tax foreign investors at the same rates as the fifty states. It is my understanding that all other U.S. territories have remedied this problem in one way or another. Therefore, Guam is the only U.S. jurisdiction in the country that is not extended tax equity for foreign investors. With an unemployment rate of 15 percent, Guam continues to struggle economically due to the Asian financial crisis. That is why I believe it is vitally important for the federal government to assist Guam in stimulating its economy through sound federal policies and technical assistance. This section would greatly assist the Government of Guam in promoting economic development on the island and would provide long needed tax equity. Section 4 considers Guam within the U.S. Customs zone in the treatment of betel nuts, which are part of Chamorro tradition and culture. While betel nuts are grown in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has an important alert for betel nuts from foreign countries in place due to the influx of betel nuts from Asian countries for commercial consumption and the FDA's contention that the betel nut is ``adulterated.'' This means an automatic detention of betel nuts by U.S. Customs agents when entering the United States. Although Guam is a U.S. territory, Guam is considered to be outside the U.S. Customs zone. Betel nuts grown in Guam, therefore, are subject to the FDA ban in the same manner as foreign countries. This section narrowly applies to Guam, limits use to personal consumption, and ensure that the FDA ban against foreign countries remains in place. Section 5 empowers the governors of the territories and the State of Hawaii to report to the Secretary of the Interior on the financial and social impacts of the Compacts of Free Association on their respective jurisdictions and requires that the Secretary forward Administration comments and recommendations on the report to Congress. This is an important issue to the State of Hawaii as the numbers of migrants to Hawaii from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau continue to grow. The State of Hawaii has spent well over $14 million in public funds in the past year alone, with most of the funds being spent on our educational and health care systems. Under the compact agreements, the Federal government made clear that it would compensate jurisdictions affected, yet the State of Hawaii has not received federal funding since the implementation of these agreements. This section seeks to improve the reporting requirements for Compact Impact Aid to address this situation. Section 6 establishes a five-member Guam War Claims Review Commission to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The goal of the Commission is to review the facts and circumstances surrounding U.S. restitution to Guamanians who suffered compensable injury during the occupation of Guam by Japan during World War II. Compensable injury includes death, personal injury, or forced labor, forced march, or internment. The Commission would review the relevant historical facts and determine the eligible claimants, the eligibility requirements, and the total amount necessary for compensation, and report its findings and recommendations for action to Congress nine months after the Commission is established. The 1951 Treaty of Peace between the U.S. and Japan effectively barred claims by U.S. citizens against Japan. As a consequence, the U.S. inherited these claims, which was acknowledged by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles when the issue was raised during consideration of the treaty before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1952. Considerable historical information indicates that the United States intended to remedy the issue of war restitution for the people of Guam. In 1945, the Guam Meritorious Claims Act was enacted which authorized the Navy to adjudicate and settle war claims in Guam for property damage for a period of one year. Claims in access of $5,000 for personal injury or death were to be forwarded to Congress. Unfortunately, the Act never fulfilled its intended purposes due to the limited time frame for claims and the preoccupation of the local population with recovery from the war, resettlement of their homes, and rebuilding their lives. On March 25, 1947, the Hopkins Commission, a civilian commission appointed by the Navy Secretary, issued a report which revealed the flaws of the 1945 Guam Meritorious Claims Act and recommended that the Act be amended to provide on the spot settlement and payment of all claims, both property and for the death and personal injury. Despite the recommendations of the Hopkins Commission, the U.S. government failed to remedy the flaws of the Guam Meritorious Act when it enacted the War Claims Act of 1948, legislation which provided compensations for U.S. citizens who were victims of the Japanese war effort during World War II. Guamanians were U.S. nationals at the time of the enactment of the War Claims Act, thereby making them ineligible for compensation. In 1950, with the enactment of the Organic Act of Guam, Guamanians became U.S. citizens. In 1962, Congress again attempted to address the remaining circumstances of U.S. citizens and nationals that had not received reparations from previous enacted laws. Once again, however, the Guamanians were inadvertently made ineligible because policymakers assumed that the War Claims Act of 1948 included them. Section 6 brings closure to this longstanding issue. In summary, Mr. President, the Guam Omnibus Opportunities Act will go a long way toward resolving issues that the Federal Government has been working on with the Government of Guam on land, economic development and social issues. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to resolve these issues to assist Guam in achieving greater economic self-sufficiency.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Graham. The cosponsors of this legislation are well-known for their commitment to encouraging all Americans to prepare for their own long-term needs. Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. Although Medicare provides some long-term care support, an individual generally must ``spend-down'' his or her income and assets to qualify for coverage. More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 6.4 million Americans, aged 65 or older, require some long-term care due to illness or disability. Over five million children and adults under the age of 65 also require long-term care because of health conditions from birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. Only 12 percent receive care in nursing homes or other institutional settings. The need for long-term care is great. In 20 years, one in six Americans will be age 65 or older. By the year 2040, the number of Americans age 85 years or older will more than triple to over 12 million. The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per a year in most parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or physical therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion was spent on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure does not take into account that over 80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is 65 years and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non- institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 percent. These statistics point to the overriding need to help American families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to reach $97,000 by the year 2030. What Congress can do, however, it make long-term care insurance available to a broad segment of the population. As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Federal Services, I co-chaired a hearing on long-term care insurance on May 16, 2000. We heard testimony on S. 2420, legislation to authorize the Office of Personnel Management to contract with one or more insurance carriers for long-term care insurance for federal and military personnel and their families. As a cosponsor of that bill, I am pleased that just last night, the Senate passed our measure after substituting the text of S. 2420 under H.R. 4040, the House long-term care bill for the federal family. The bill, as amended, also includes provisions of S. 1232, the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Cochran last year. These provisions will provide relief to the estimated 20,000 federal employees who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in the wrong retirement system. H.R. 4040, as amended, offer a model for the private sector. I am delighted that similar legislation providing long-term care insurance for federal employees and military personnel is included in Senator Graham's bill, and I welcome the opportunity to join with him in helping Americans meet their long-term care needs in a dignified manner. The bill introduced today provides a comprehensive effort to address our citizens' long-term care needs. Among its provisions are the authorization of a phased-in tax deduction for the premiums of qualified long-term care insurance, implementation of the National Family Caregiver Support Program, restoration of $2.38 billion authorization for the Social Services Block Grant, and creation of a national public information campaign. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor the Omnibus Long-term Care Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Graham. The cosponsors of this legislation are well-known for their commitment to encouraging all Americans to prepare for their own long-term needs. Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. Although Medicare provides some long-term care support, an individual generally must ``spend-down'' his or her income and assets to qualify for coverage. More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 6.4 million Americans, aged 65 or older, require some long-term care due to illness or disability. Over five million children and adults under the age of 65 also require long-term care because of health conditions from birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. Only 12 percent receive care in nursing homes or other institutional settings. The need for long-term care is great. In 20 years, one in six Americans will be age 65 or older. By the year 2040, the number of Americans age 85 years or older will more than triple to over 12 million. The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per a year in most parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or physical therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion was spent on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure does not take into account that over 80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is 65 years and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non- institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 percent. These statistics point to the overriding need to help American families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to reach $97,000 by the year 2030. What Congress can do, however, it make long-term care insurance available to a broad segment of the population. As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Federal Services, I co-chaired a hearing on long-term care insurance on May 16, 2000. We heard testimony on S. 2420, legislation to authorize the Office of Personnel Management to contract with one or more insurance carriers for long-term care insurance for federal and military personnel and their families. As a cosponsor of that bill, I am pleased that just last night, the Senate passed our measure after substituting the text of S. 2420 under H.R. 4040, the House long-term care bill for the federal family. The bill, as amended, also includes provisions of S. 1232, the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Cochran last year. These provisions will provide relief to the estimated 20,000 federal employees who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in the wrong retirement system. H.R. 4040, as amended, offer a model for the private sector. I am delighted that similar legislation providing long-term care insurance for federal employees and military personnel is included in Senator Graham's bill, and I welcome the opportunity to join with him in helping Americans meet their long-term care needs in a dignified manner. The bill introduced today provides a comprehensive effort to address our citizens' long-term care needs. Among its provisions are the authorization of a phased-in tax deduction for the premiums of qualified long-term care insurance, implementation of the National Family Caregiver Support Program, restoration of $2.38 billion authorization for the Social Services Block Grant, and creation of a national public information campaign. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill.