Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss American relations with Cuba. Recently, I had the opportunity to travel to Havana with Senators Baucus and Roberts. We spent ten hours with Fidel Castro, in what has been characterized by the press as a marathon meeting. But more importantly, we had meetings with dissidents and Catholic Church representatives. It was my first time in Cuba, and I went there with no pre-conceived notions although I did have the opportunity to be thoroughly briefed prior to our departure. I returned from Cuba convinced that lifting the trade embargo and restrictions on travel, especially for educational exchanges, are extremely important steps in an effort to foster economic and political liberalization in Cuba. They are important steps but not for the reasons which are generally assumed. As one Cuban told us, ending the American economic embargo on Cuba will not produce economic change. The Castro government has no interest in economic reform--even along the lines of that now seen in China or Vietnam. As the Minister of Economics and Planning explained, there is no program for privatization in the economy, insisting that capitalism does not work but ``pure socialism'' does. The government allows some private investments, mainly in farming, but the intent of the State is still to control the economy. Indeed, President Castro told us that he believed Cuba could not survive if it was a member of the International Monetary Fund and called the IMF the ``world's most subversive organization.'' While this was denied by the Foreign Minister, I came away convinced that the government does not want the American embargo on Cuba lifted because the lack of economic ties allows the government to blame the United States for its own economic failures. If the embargo was lifted, Cuba's leaders might find another excuse for their failed policies but it might make it harder for them to find widely acceptable excuses. The Cuban people have voted already for change. Many have fled to the United States. One Cuban told us that social and economic differences are increasing. The population has declined over the last decade in part because people sadly see no future for their children. The average Cuban salary is said to be $11 per month. The Castro regime was described to us by those we spoke to in Havana as a dying dictatorship: aging, inefficient and corrupt. In this environment we should not exaggerate America's influence. Castro will do everything to limit it. But we can start to build a basis for a future relationship with the Cuban people after Castro. The Congress can demonstrate our good will by a partial lifting of the trade embargo. We can demonstrate our good faith by allowing freer movement of Americans to Cuba and to do what we can to encourage Cubans, especially school children, to visit the United States on exchanges. The Congress should promote cultural ties and try to direct assistance to the Cuban people. None of this will be easy. Nothing Castro said indicated to me that he was willing to permit, for example, Cuban school children to attend American elementary and secondary schools or colleges in significant numbers. Nothing Castro said indicated to me that he was willing to allow American aid, including medical supplies, to be given directly to the Cuban people. But even if the hand of friendship is rejected, I believe we should still offer it. The future of Cuba is not Castro. President Castro said one clear truth: Cuba still suffers from an inherited history of four centuries of colonialism. Unfortunately, he does not understand that his form of paternal dictatorship perpetuates the same horrors he claims to abhor.

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 some of the names of those who 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 Friday, Saturday, Sunday and today. July 21: Benjamin Brown, 42, Gary, IN; Howard Brumskill, 23, Philadelphia, PA; Preston Butler, 18, Philadelphia, PA; Jennifer Casals, 57, Miami-Dade County, FL; Steven Cooks, 27, Memphis, TN; Shena Counts, 13, Baltimore, MD; Ronnie Loundon, 25, Nashville, TN; Calvin Maclin, 42, Detroit, MI; Kevin McCarthy, 29, Philadelphia, PA; Marc Mull, 19, Chicago, IL; Tavon Price, 21, Baltimore, MD; Jessica Roman, 56, Miami-Dade County, FL; Amanda Snow, 31, Houston, TX; Unidentified male, 15, Chicago, IL. July 22: Chris Cantie, 26, Philadelphia, PA; Richard Johnson, 28, Chicago, IL; Ignacio Molina, 28, Houston, TX; Alfonse Roberts, 20, New Orleans, LA; Andrew Sandoval, Jr., 28, Denver, CO; Thomas Correll Walker, 22, Washington, DC; Howard Westly, 22, Philadelphia, PA; Michael R. Williamson, 50, New Orleans, LA; Peter Sao Xiong, 18, St. Paul, MN; Unidentified male, 16, Portland, OR. July 23: Alva Anglin, 73, Memphis, TN; Jerome Cole, 25, Nashville, TN; Kewon Core, 22, Chicago, IL; Ronald Gates, 30, Chicago, IL; Marcos Guerra, 27, Houston, TX; Leon Hunter, 26, Detroit, MI; Luther Johnson, 21, Philadelphia, PA; Darroll Love, Washington, DC; Chelsea Martin, San Francisco, CA; Keila McDonald, 20, Oakland, CA; Khorosh Merrikh, 24, Houston, TX; Kimberly D. Price, 33, Oklahoma City, OK; Gerard Ouriel Robinson, 20, Washington, DC. July 24: Tyrone Blackwell, 20, Baltimore, MD; Billy Gissendanner, 30, Detroit, MI; Lorena Gonzalez, 38, Fontana, CA; Raphael Gonzalez, 57, Miami-Dade County, FL; Tyrone Green, 24, Baltimore, MD; David Rivera, 15, El Paso, TX; Sammie Simpkins, 50, Washington, DC; Ernest White, 20, Knoxville, TN; Anthony Wilson, 29, Chicago, IL. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned was 38-year-old Lorena Gonzalez of Fontana, California. Lorena was shot and killed one year ago today in front of her 2-year-old son by a man who robbed her of a mere three dollars while she was waiting in a parking lot for her husband to return from a nearby store. Another gun violence victim, 29-year-old Anthony Wilson, was shot and killed one year ago today in a drive-by shooting in front of his home on the south side of Chicago. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The time has come to enact sensible gun legislation. The deaths of Lorena and Anthony are a reminder to all of us that we need to act now.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to Chairman Thad Cochran, Ranking Member Herb Kohl, and Minority Whip Harry Reid for their efforts yesterday in passing Amendment 3976 to H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. This amendment, which was offered by my colleague, the Senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and myself will provide emergency relief to the Hawaii sugarcane industry. Since 1990, the Hawaii sugarcane industry has experienced a dramatic decline in its sugar production, from 55 sugarcane farms operating on approximately 162,000 acres to three sugarcane farms operating on 60,000 acres. Compared to other sugarcane growers in the United States, Hawaii growers are at a disadvantage due to higher transportation costs incurred in shipping raw sugar to California for refining. In addition, Hawaii growers are precluded from participating in certain relief provisions of the 1996 Farm bill, such as the United States Department of Agriculture's sugar loan program, which are available to other U.S. sugar growers. Hawaii sugar growers have demonstrated a strong commitment to remain in sugar production. They continue to be on the forefront of sugarcane production and are working to diversify its capabilities by venturing into other agricultural commodities such as fiberboard products, energy products, seed corn, and low caloric sweeteners. Without emergency funds to help Hawaii's sugar industry compensate for extraordinary low prices and high transportation costs, this distressed sector of Hawaii's agricultural industry will cease to exist. This amendment will designate $7.2 million as emergency funding for a grant from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the State of Hawaii. It will provide the necessary relief to this distressed sector of Hawaii's agriculture industry. This provision will provide compensation for extraordinary low prices and high transportation costs incurred by this industry. Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their support of this important amendment. bison meat and more nutritious indian reservation food supplies

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in honoring the memory of our dear friend and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. My deepest condolences and prayers go out to Nancy, his family, staff, and the people of Georgia. Paul Coverdell's career in public service as a state senator in Georgia, as Director of the United States Peace Corps, and as a U.S. Senator stand as an enduring tribute to his fine character, many talents, and boundless energy and commitment for his work. They also serve to remind us how one individual, working quietly and resourcefully, can accomplish so much in an all too brief period of time. In his public life, Paul Coverdell was a vigorous and congenial advocate for initiatives and issues he cared deeply about and an effective leader in the Senate and for his party. While I did not have many opportunities to work closely with Senator Coverdell, we share a commitment to quality education for our Nation's young people and appreciation for the importance of agriculture to our respective States' economies. Peanut farmers and sugar growers are frequent allies when commodity issues came before the Senate, and Senator Coverdell was a strong voice for Georgia farmers and his State's agricultural interests. On educational initiatives, Paul Coverdell and I rarely agreed; but he was never disagreeable. I admired his passion and tenacity on education issues, and appreciated the courtesy and humanity that characterized his work here in the Senate. Paul Coverdell has left a mark for the better in the lives of millions of people, in America and around the world. He served his country and constituents conscientiously, earning our respect, admiration, and affection. We grieve for his passing from this life. I am reassured that we will find comfort in his splendid legacy of public service and the knowledge that death is a transition to life eternal and he is now with God. As we bid our dear friend and colleague one last fond farewell, I am reminded of the passage from Scriptures, from Matthew, 25:23: His Master said unto him, ``Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been good and faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Now enter into the joy of your Master.'' May God bless Nancy, the Coverdell family and staff. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we are again debating the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. My colleagues may recall that this body rejected an identical amendment last year by a vote of 66-33. As I mentioned on the floor last August, the sugar program remains a great bargain for the American consumer. It's also one of the least expensive food items you will find in an American kitchen. Sugar is probably the best bargain you can find at the grocery store today. American sugar farmers and the U.S. sugar program help make sugar affordable. Consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the low prices we have in America. If you visit a grocery store in other industrialized nations you will get ``sticker shock'' when you pass the sugar display. Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable prices, sugar is a remarkable value for American consumers. U.S. consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save consumers more than a billion dollars annually. That's why I say that the sugar program is a great deal for American consumers. Thanks to the sugar program, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of sugar at bargain prices. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. If Congress terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. If the senior Senator from Hawaii would allow me to interject before the distinguished floor managers respond to his question, I wish to explain the need for this relief measure. According to witnesses who have testified before Congress and tax experts, the estate tax poses a dire problem for family-owned and closely held businesses. The owners typically have all their assets tied up in the business, and they have re-invested all their profits to make the business grow. When the owners die, the estate tax must be paid within 9 months and in many cases the families will have to sell the businesses to pay the tax. With only 9 months to pay off the estate tax, the families are often forced to settle for whatever price they can get. Now, rather than face such a fire sale, many business owners will sell their businesses while they are still alive so that their families can get a fair price. Many family-owned and closely held businesses do not show up on estate tax returns, because they have already been sold off in anticipation of having to pay the tax. Recognizing the liquidity problem that the estate tax imposes on closely held businesses, the Treasury Department has suggested that the number of owners permissible in a qualifying business should be raised from 15 to 75 so that eligibility for estate tax deferral and installment payment can be consistent with Subchapter S qualification. In the House, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, together with various members of the Small Business Committee and Representative Neil Abercrombie, have advocated this proposal as H.R. 4512. This is the proposal that Senator Inouye and I have raised with the distinguished floor managers. Am I correct in my understanding that the senior Senator from Delaware and the senior Senator from New York will favorably consider this proposal for inclusion in the eventual package of estate tax relief measures?

Mr. AKAKA. I, too, join in expressing my appreciation for the distinguished floor managers' support.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for most of the 1990s, the average gasoline prices in Honolulu hovered at roughly 25 cents to 50 cents above the national average. In June 1999, only 1 year ago, Hawaii's price of $1.51 per gallon ranked above Oregon's at $1.44 and the national average of $1.14. As late as last month, according to the Automobile Association of America, Hawaii topped the Nation with an average per gallon price of $1.85, compared to the next highest state, Nevada, at $1.67 and a U.S. average of $1.51. This month, according to AAA, Hawaii ranked fourth highest with an average price for regular unleaded of $1.86 per gallon. That fell below Illinois with an average of $1.98, Michigan at $1.96, and Wisconsin at $1.91. Still, Hawaii's price was well above the U.S. average of $1.63. It is no pleasure to say that Hawaii has lost this dubious distinction as the State with the Nation's highest gasoline prices. The pocketbooks of Americans are hurting all over the country. There has been no shortage of blame--short supplies, pipeline problems, cleaner gasoline requirements, too much driving and gas guzzlers, oil company manipulations, even an esoteric patent dispute, to name a few. So far, the initial examination of the causes of the dramatic increase of prices in some areas of the Midwest has provided no clear picture. The Clinton administration has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate if there were any illegal price manipulations in the Midwest leading to such dramatic price increases. This problem of dependence on imported oil has been in the making for many years. Our import dependence has been rising for the past 2 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 accounted 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 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. For months now, we have watched the price of gasoline and fuel oil rise at breakneck speed. All across America, families have suffered ever-escalating prices. We have not had a coherent and comprehensive energy policy for a long time. Additionally, we have not had a commitment to address our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Absence of an effective policy and a visible commitment to addressing our energy dependence have made us hostage to OPEC's production decision. It has also encouraged Mexico, our NAFTA partner, to join OPEC in limiting oil supplies. We all understand that there is no overnight solution to America's energy problems. We can't turn this trend around overnight. Tax repeals and other such short-term actions may appear appealing, given the political climate, and may even provide limited relief in the short run, but they do not provide a solution to our energy problem. They do not provide a sound basis for a national energy policy. Their unintended consequences may be other problems such as deficits in highway and transit funds. The only way to reverse our energy problem is to have a multifaceted energy strategy and remain committed to that strategy. In my judgment, you need both of these in equal portions. This will send a clear message to OPEC and their partners about America's resolve. 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. Natural gas appears to be the most attractive fuel to form the cornerstone of our energy policy. It is the right fuel to bridge the energy and environmental issues facing us. If we are to have a comprehensive energy policy that strengthens our economy and serves the real needs of Americans, then we need to dismantle our dependence on foreign oil as soon as possible. And the way to do this is to begin using more natural gas--a domestically abundant fuel--that is safe and reliable to deliver, more environmentally friendly than oil, and over three times as energy- efficient as electricity from the point of origin to point of use. Let me state those facts again: Natural gas is plentiful, efficient, environmentally friendly, and it is a domestic fuel source. Natural gas offers itself as a good choice for the fuel of the future. It offers us many advantages that other fuels do not. About 85 percent of the natural gas consumed in America each year is produced domestically. The balance is imported almost entirely from Canada. We have a large domestic natural gas resource base and advances in exploration and production technologies are allowing increased production. We also have potentially vast resources in the form of methane hydrates. This resource base is yet to be explored. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Wider use of natural gas will be more benign to the environment compared to some other fuel sources. Natural gas would emit reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and would not contribute to acid rain, smog, solid waste, or water pollution. We must invest in technologies that help facilitate wider application of natural gas. New technologies such as micro turbines, fuel cells, and other on-site power systems are environmentally attractive. Wider use of these technologies in the private and public sectors must be facilitated. All Federal research and development programs should be reevaluated to provide them with a clear direction. We must boost support for those programs that help replace imported oil. 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. At the same time, we must make a concerted effort to encourage development and use of alternative vehicle fuels. Natural gas vehicles should be made an integral part of our transportation sector. If coal was the energy source of the nineteenth century, and oil was the energy source of the twentieth century, then I submit natural gas can and should be America's source of energy for the twenty-first century. Americans are demanding an energy system that will guarantee adequate energy for future needs, protect the environment, and protect consumers from exploitation. We are facing numerous problems related to energy such as runaway prices, shortages, increases in pollution, self-sufficiency, and the effect of energy on our economy. While not a panacea, it is clear to this Senator that increased use of natural gas must be the center of America's energy strategy. The American people deserve better than the status quo. Natural gas is America's energy solution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. The letter goes on to note that although welfare rolls have decreased significantly across the country, ``great numbers of former welfare clients living in cities who are in need of services still remain.'' These are the hardest-to-help families who need our greatest assistance. Furthermore, many of these individuals will be reaching their lifetime limit on welfare benefits imposed by the 1996 welfare reform law and will no longer be able to rely on regular cash assistance to support their families. We cannot allow these families to be left without any safety net and should continue pursuing efforts to ``teach them how to fish''--this is what the amendment before us would do. While I am disappointed that the bill before us does not extend the Welfare-to-Work program, I hope that under the eligibility changes I helped to pass last year, Welfare-to-Work program accomplishments will continue to grow and provide strong impetus for the program's reauthorization. In the meantime, I strongly urge my colleagues to support programs such as Fathers Work, Families Win for low income individuals. It is interesting to note that in 1998 and 1999, while the nation was experiencing low unemployment, layoffs were still widespread. This trend was mainly due to companies requiring new skills to meet the demands of a new economy. Unfortunately, as we have seen by the announcements of large-scale layoffs from companies such as Coca-Cola, J.C. Penney Company, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, the situation is not getting any better. So, why are we in Congress looking at reducing or eliminating funding for vital programs that empower former welfare recipients and low-wage workers with the information and skills necessary to become viable citizens in their communities? Skills Training programs are essential to ensure that displaced workers will be able to transition into another trade. We must not forget that the Federal Reserve Board is reviewing the possibility of raising interest rates in an effort to slow down U.S. economic growth. This could negatively impact not only Hawaii's economy, especially the construction industry that is one of Hawaii's leading areas for job growth, but the nation as a whole. Hawaii's economy is just recovering from a decade of economic stagnation and layoffs and cannot afford another recession without providing the necessary funds for skills training programs. The current and proposed funding levels for skills training programs are inadequate to ensure the availability of a trained workforce. We must remain committed in our efforts to equip employers with an employment system capable of addressing potential labor shortages. For the State of Hawaii, eliminating all new funding for One Stop Career Centers/Labor Market Information will adversely impact Hawaii's ability to comply with the Workforce Investment Act. Hawaii will not be able to develop core employment statistics products used by employers, job seekers, educators, students, and others. More specifically, valuable labor market information would no longer be provided to the public. I commend Hawaii's Job Corps program for its successful placement rate of 70 percent. This is significant given Hawaii's fragile economy in recent years. The success of this program clearly illustrates the positive effect the skills training programs have on our communities. We should not reduce or eliminate funding for these vital programs that enhance employment opportunities for individuals and their families. The amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would address the potential shortcomings in funding as proposed in the House and Senate. This amendment provides appropriate funding for the Department of Labor's Youth and Adult Employment and Training Programs, especially funding for Dislocated Worker assistance, Youth Opportunity grants, Job Corps, and One Stop Career Centers. In addition, this amendment also provides appropriate funding for the Summer Jobs program resulting from implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. We must continue to improve our skills training program to ensure that America's workforce remains competitive to the global economy. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for yielding time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Democratic skills training amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This amendment further increases our country's human capital by adding $1.05 billion to skills training programs at the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. President, while I commend the chairman and ranking member for their efforts in coming forward with a bill that avoids many of the drastic cuts approved by the House of Representatives, there are still a number of vital programs that continue to be seriously underfunded. This amendment provides adequate funding for Federal skills training programs to serve more individuals who are seeking to improve their ability to contribute to the workplace. Today's global economy demands that the United States do all it can to ensure that every member of our workforce is prepared to meet new workplace chllenges. Unfortunately, the gap between high-skilled and low-skilled workers continues to grow, leaving many at the lower end of the spectrum even farther behind. One particular program I would like to mention is the Fathers Work, Families Win program. This important initiative improves the employment potential of certain low income individuals who generally have lower levels of education and work experience. As a result, these individuals usually end up accepting jobs that pay relatively low wages and have few benefits. They often have irregular track records in employment: they hold several jobs at a time, work part-time or intermittently, or endure periods of unemployment. Many of these individuals have been on the welfare rolls or are living under conditions that make them vulnerable to becoming dependent on Federal assistance. We must not forget that these individuals have the potential to make meaningful contributions to the economy and, given the opportunity, can become self-sufficient and successfully support their families. This is one reason why I am interested in seeing the Fathers Work, Families Win program funded. The portion of the program entitled Families Win provides $130 million in competitive grants for programs to help low income parents stay employed, move up the career ladder, and remain off welfare. The program's Fathers Work component provides $125 million for competitive grants to help certain non-custodial parents find a job, maintain employment, and advance on their career path. This is important because many fathers, rather than being ``deadbeat dads,'' are ``dead broke dads.'' They have the desire to support their families through child support payments and other means, but cannot do so because they cannot secure or maintain steady employment paying a living wage. Fathers Work, Families Win would build on the investments and partnerships started under the Workforce Investment Act and the Welfare-to-Work program. State and local Workforce Investment Boards are eligible applicants under both parts of Fathers Work, Families Win. These boards have been implementing WIA [weeeea] across the country, reforming the way in which job training and job placement services are conducted. The competitive grant program funds enable the Boards to further integrate services for the population of low income workers under programs such as WIA, Wagner-Peyser [wag-ner pie-zer] grants, Welfare-to-Work grants, and grants under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This integrated approach will help to ensure that many low income families will not fall through the cracks and will find it easier to use the network of services at their disposal. I continue to be a strong supporter of the Welfare-to-Work program. Last year, I introduced the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999 which included provisions to reauthorize the program and to improve access to the program for more low income individuals. The eligibility changes were included in the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000, which I thank my colleagues for working on and supporting. However, the Welfare-to-Work program itself has not yet been renewed. With eligibility changes taking effect for competitive grantees at the beginning of 2000 and for formula grantees later this year, Welfare-to- Work efforts must be given more time to run. If the program is not reauthorized, worthwhile efforts at the State and local levels to help low income families will be adversely impacted. Because the Welfare-to-Work program has not been extended, many local communities are concerned because their efforts to help Welfare-to-Work participants have just begun. An abrupt end to the program would cause significant investments to go to waste. As the U.S. Conference of Mayors states in a letter dated June 10, 2000, ``Without the extension of the Welfare-to-Work program, welfare reform will be dealt a serious set back in our nation's cities which are home to the highest concentrations of people still on welfare.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I stand here today to pay tribute to the 22 men who received the Medal of Honor yesterday. As has been indicated by a number of my colleagues, one of those recipients is my dear friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Daniel K. Inouye. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to: Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Second Lieutenant, 442nd Regimental Combat Team; Rudolph Davila, Staff Sergeant, 3rd Army; Barney Hajiro, Private First Class, 442nd RCT; Mikio Hasemoto, Private, 100th Battalion; Joe Hayashi, Private First Class, 442nd RCT; Shizuya Hayashi, Private, 100th Battalion; Yeiki Kobashigawa, Technical Sergeant, 100th Battalion; Robert Kuroda, Staff Sergeant, 442nd RCT; Kaoru Moto, Private First Class, 100th Battalion; Kiyoshi Muranaga, Private First Class, 442nd RCT; Masato Nakae, Private First Class, 100th Battalion; Sinyei Nakamine, Private, 100th Battalion; William Nakamura, Private First Class, 442nd RCT; Joe Nishimoto, Private, 442nd RCT; Allan Ohata, Staff Sergeant, 100th Battalion; James Okubo, Technical Sergeant, 442nd RCT; Yukio Okutsu, Technical Sergeant, 442nd RCT; Frank Ono, Private First Class, 442nd RCT; Kazuo Otani, Staff Sergeant, 442nd RCT; George Sakato, Private, 442nd RCT; Ted Tanouye, Technical Sergeant, 442nd RCT; Francis Wai, Captain, 34th Division. Mr. President, these 22 Medal of Honor recipients have joined an elite group of soldiers honored for exceptional valor in service to our country. It may have taken half a century, but the passage of time has not diminished the magnificence of their courage. These 22 men truly represent the best that America has to offer. They answered the call to duty and proved that patriotism is solely a circumstance of the heart. These men answered the call of duty with conviction and courage, at a time when these virtues were most in demand by a needy Nation. In the face of discrimination and injustice at home, these men set aside personal consideration to defend our great Nation on foreign battlefields. By their actions, these 22 men proved that patriotism is not based on the color of one's skin, but on the courage and strength of one's convictions. I am pleased to have contributed to the process that finally led to the appropriate recognition of these soldiers. Legislation initiated by the Senate required the military to review the records of all Asian Pacific American recipients of the Navy Cross or Distinguished Service Cross during World War II to determine if any merit upgrade to the Medal of Honor. Many times I have been asked why I thought review was necessary. The review provision was offered and adopted out of concern that Asian Pacific American veterans have never been fully recognized for their military contributions during the Second World War. Many in Hawaii know of the exploits of the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team. It came as a surprise that few on the mainland were familiar with the service of this famous all-Nisei, second generation Japanese unit, or of the secret Military Intelligence Service whose members served in the Pacific. Twenty of the twenty two Medal of Honor recipients honored yesterday and today are from the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Of the remaining two recipients, Sergeant Francis Davila served with the 7th Infantry and Captain Francis Wai served with the 34th Division. Few people realize the history of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. On December 7, 1941, during the attack on Pearl Harbor, a call went out for all University of Hawaii ROTC members to report for duty. These students, most of whom were Americans of Japanese ancestry, responded to the call and were fully prepared to defend the United States. 370 of the Japanese American ROTC cadets were sworn into the Hawaii Territorial Guard and guarded the most sensitive and important installations in Hawaii. Due to the shock at the attack on Pearl Harbor and an unfortunate ignorance by some of the culture and racial makeup of the citizens of Hawaii, there were individuals who opposed Japanese Americans serving in the Territorial Guard. The 370 Japanese Americans who had served faithfully, willingly, and patriotically during the weeks following Pearl Harbor, were dismissed from the Territorial Guard because of their ancestry. Instead of rebelling, resigning, or protesting, these men wrote to the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department and stated their ``willingness to do their part as loyal Americans in every way'' and offered themselves for ``whatever you may see fit to use us.'' These men formed the Varsity Victory Volunteers and worked at the quarries, constructed roads, helped construct warehouses, renovated quarters, strung barbed wire, and built chairs, tables, and lamps. They even donated blood and bought bonds. We cannot forget that these men were students and could have been making money in white collar jobs. Instead, they devoted their time to doing what they could to help the military. It was this group of Japanese American volunteers, the Varsity Victory Volunteers, who were eventually given the authorization by the War Department to form the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which would earn the distinction as the ``most decorated unit for its size and length of service in the history of the United States.'' Their motto, ``Go for Broke,'' is a perfect description of their spirit and character as men and as a fighting unit. The 442nd and 100th Battalion captured enemy positions and rescued comrades. They completed missions that seemed impossible. Ignoring danger, they repeatedly placed themselves in harm's way, gaining a reputation for fearless and fierce fighting. Throughout the Army their bravery earned them the nickname the ``Purple Heart Battalion.'' In 1943, when the War Department decided to accept Nisei volunteers, over 1,000 Hawaii Nisei volunteered on the first day. The spirit and attitude of these volunteers is captured in the senior Senator from Hawaii's memoir, ``Journey to Washington.'' I want to read an excerpt from the book describing an exchange between young Dan Inouye and his father as he left to report for induction. After a long period of silence between us, he said unexpectedly, ``You know what `on' means?'' ``Yes,'' I replied. On is at the very heart of Japanese culture. On requires that when one man is aided by another, he incurs a debt that is never canceled, one that must be repaid at every opportunity. ``The Inouyes have great on for America,'' my father said. ``It has been good to us. And now it is you who must try to return the goodness. You are my first son, and you are very precious to your mother and me, but you must do what must be done.'' Mr. President, for over 60 years, my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, has returned to America the goodness and service to honor his father's admonition. On the field of battle in Italy, in the territorial legislature, and for over 40 years in Congress, Dan Inouye has served his country with distinction and courage. His leadership on national defense, civil rights, and a host of other issues have made America a stronger and better country. I am proud to serve with him in the United States Senate. Mr. President, the people of Hawaii are also very proud that 12 of the 22 men awarded the Medal of Honor are from Hawaii. My Honolulu office received a call the other day from a constituent in Waianae, a small community on the leeward coast of Oahu, who wanted to make sure that people knew that three Medal of Honor recipients were from Waianae. Indeed, the people of Hawaii are proud and grateful for all the local boys who have served in defense of our nation. They are well aware of the sacrifice and hardship endured by our men in uniform during World War II and subsequent conflicts. Out of the 22 men honored, 10 were killed in battle. Five of the recipients survived World War II, but have passed on prior to knowing that their medals were upgraded. That leaves us with seven living recipients, five of whom, I am proud to say, are from the State of Hawaii. I see this as an opportunity to inform the American public about the degree and level of participation of Asian Pacific Americans in the war effort. I thank President Clinton, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, and Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera for the painstaking and thorough manner in which the review and nomination process was conducted. I commend Secretary Caldera and all the Army personnel who conducted this review in a thorough and professional manner. They carried out the difficult task of identifying the records of more than one hundred veterans. I would also like to acknowledge the 442nd Veterans Club, and Club 100 for their unwavering support and assistance in the review process. I want to thank Ed Ichiyama, Sakae Takahashi, and Iwao Yokooji for their tremendous work in recognizing the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans in military intelligence and the frontlines of battle. The accounts documented for each of the 104 Distinguished Service Cross recipients underscore our faith in a Nation that produces such heroes and are a wonderful legacy for our children and grandchildren. I would also like to pay tribute to the Military Intelligence Service, whose unit citation was signed by Secretary Caldera last night, because in a profound way, my interest in this area began with the MIS. About 10 years ago, I heard of the late Colonel Richard Sakakida's remarkable experiences as an Army undercover agent in the Philippines during World War II. His MIS colleagues worked to have his extraordinary service honored by our Government and the Government of the Philippines. While working to have Colonel Sakakida's service acknowledged with appropriate decoration, I realized that there were many war heroes whose valiant service had been overlooked. I recalled that only two Asian Pacific Americans received the Medal of Honor for service during World War II. The number seemed too low when you consider the high- intensity combat experienced by the 100th and 442nd, the service of 12,000 Filipino Americans in the U.S. Army, and the dangerous assignments taken by the 6,000 members of the MIS. President Truman recognized it for what it was on a rain-drenched day in 1945, when during a White House ceremony honoring the 100th and 442nd, he observed, ``you fought not only the enemy, you fought prejudice, and you have won.'' Mr. President, these men are not being awarded the Medal of Honor because of their race. They are being given their due recognition for their exceptional acts of valor. Fifty-five years ago, our country refused to appropriately recognize that these men distinguished themselves by gallantry and audacious courage, risking their lives in service above and beyond the call of duty. This is a great day to be an American, and I am honored to stand before the Senate to pay tribute to these 22 men who fought to defend our great Nation. In their memory and in celebration of our Nation's everlasting commitment to justice and liberty, I honor these 22 men and their achievements and offer them the highest praise for all they have done to keep us free.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in 1970, Congress established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to ``assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' Therefore, OSHA is responsible for ensuring that both employers and employees have access to the necessary training, resources, and support systems to eliminate workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths. To achieve a safe and healthy workplace, OSHA must be pro-active in identifying workplace safety and health problems. We, in Congress, must not forget our commitment to America's workers. That is why I am here today to speak on behalf of OSHA's effort to establish ergonomic standards. Each year more than 600,000 workers suffer serious injuries, such as back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, and tendinitis, as a result of ergonomic hazards. Last year, in my State of Hawaii, more than 4,400 private sector workers suffered serious injuries from ergonomic hazards at work. Another 700 workers in the public sector suffered such injuries. These injuries are a major problem not only in the State of Hawaii, but across the nation. It affects not just truck drivers and assembly line workers, but also nurses and computer users. Every sector of the economy is affected by this problem. The impact can be devastating for workers who suffer from these injuries. It is important to note that ergonomics is not new. It has been around as early as World War II, where the designers of our small plane cockpits took into consideration the placement of cockpit controls for our pilots. And, for OSHA this matter is also not new. OSHA has been working on ergonomic standards for 10 years, of which, for the last five years, OSHA has been delayed from finalizing any ergonomic standard. Opponents of a standard have either prohibited OSHA from issuing its standard or delayed its work until such time as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) can complete their studies and report to Congress. Although NIOSH and NAS completed their reports and both indicated that there was credible research showing a consistent relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and certain physical factors, critics were not satisfied and requested another NAS report in 1998; yet another delaying tactic. It is unfortunate that OSHA has been prevented from issuing any ergonomic standard for the past five years. It is important to note that some of these delays were part of agreements and promises made to proponents for accepting some of these requests. As we see now, the promises made have been broken. More specifically, in 1997, the leadership of the Appropriations Committee in the House agreed that the coming fiscal year would be the last time in which OSHA would be prohibited from spending any of its funds on issuing proposed ergonomic standards, and again, in 1998, House Appropriations Chair Robert Livingston and Ranking Member David Obey sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman that stated, ``it is in no way our intent to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.'' However, in 1999, legislation was introduced (H.R. 987 and S. 1070) to block OSHA's ergonomic standards, and the House Appropriations Committee adopted a rider that would shut down the rulemaking process and block OSHA's final rule. American workers cannot afford any more delays. Injuries that result from ergonomic hazards are serious, disabling, and costly. Carpal tunnel syndrome results in workers losing more time from their jobs than any other type of injury. It is estimated that these injuries account for an estimated $20 billion annually in workers compensation. The most compelling reason to allow OSHA to complete this process is that these injuries and illnesses can be prevented. In fact, some employers across the country have already taken action and put in place workplace ergonomics programs to prevent injuries. However, two-thirds of employers still do not have adequate ergonomic programs in place. It has been 10 years since Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole promised to take action to protect workers from ergonomic injuries and to issue an ergonomics standard. Since that time, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered serious injuries as a result of ergonomic hazards. OSHA's proposed rule would prevent 300,000 injuries each year and save $9 billion in workers' compensation and related costs. It is time for Congress to remember the commitment made to the nation's workforce when it established OSHA in 1970, and allow OSHA to continue its issuing of an ergonomics standard.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation which would award the Medal of Honor to James K. Okubo, Ed W. Freeman, and Andrew J. Smith. There is no doubt that these three individuals are deserving of this award based on their brave and selfless service in defense of our great nation. The passage of this measure makes it possible for these men to receive a long overdue and well-deserve honor. This legislation marks the culmination of my efforts to recognize James K. Okubo for his acts of gallantry during World War II. James K. Okubo was born in Ancacortes, Washington, raised in Bellingham, Washington, and interned at Tule Lake, California. Mr. Okubo entered military service in Alturas, California on May 22, 1943 and was discharged from the Army in December 1945. Following his military service, Mr. Okubo was a professor at the University of Detroit Dental School. Mr. Okubo passed away following a car accident in 1967. Mr. Okubo (Tec 5) served as a medic, member of the Medical Detachment, 442nd Regimental Combat Team. For his heroism displayed over a period of several days (October 28, 29 and November 4, 1944) in rescuing and delivering medical aid to fellow soldiers during the rescue of the ``Lost Battalion'' from Texas, he was recommended to receive the Medal of Honor. The medal, however, was downgraded to a Silver Star. The explanation provided at the time was that as a medic, James S. Okubo was not eligible for any award higher than the Silver Star. Due to my concern that Mr. Okubo did not receive full recognition for his acts of heroism and bravery, I requested reconsideration of Mr. Okubo's case under section 1130, Title 10 of the United States Code. The Senior Army Decorations Board reviewed the case and submitted it to Secretary Caldera recommending an upgrade to the Medal of Honor. Secretary Caldera approved the recommendation which resulted in this important measure. This legislation is especially significant as fellow members of Mr. Okubo's unit will be awarded the Medal of Honor next week. It is my hope that this legislation will be enacted shortly, thereby allowing the Okubo family to participate in this auspicious event with the other families of members from the 100th Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Mr. Okubo's heroism on the battlefield is an inspiration to all who believe in duty, honor, and service to one's country. Mr. Okubo takes his rightful place among America's great war heroes. He is a shining example of the sacrifices made by so many other Asian Pacific Americans during World War II, who served our country so ably in spite of the difficulties they faced as members of a suspect minority.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to honor Carl ``Bobo'' Olson, the legendary world boxing champion born and nurtured in Hawaii, who was inducted yesterday into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota, New York. This is certainly a well-deserved honor for ``The Hawaiian Swede,'' a distinguished champion whose life and 16-year professional career represent the grit, tenacity, skill and love of sport that have made boxing popular worldwide. Born in 1928, Bobo Olson grew up quickly on the tough streets of downtown Honolulu in the early 1940s, sharpening his boxing skills at an early age. Bobo and I grew up in the same community, the Pauoa and Punchbowl area in Honolulu--a neighborhood where families of different races, many of Hawaiian or Portuguese heritage--lived side-by-side and shared our cultures and traditions. We all closely followed Bobo's rise to champion and took pride in a local boy who had reached the top in his sport and handled his success with humility and grace. He began fighting professionally at age 16, and won 19 fights before he reached the age where he could legally box on the mainland circuit. As a professional, Bobo won the World Middleweight Championship by defeating Randy Turpin of England in October 1953 before 18,869 spectators in a 15-round fight at New York's Madison Square Garden. Ring Magazine named him fighter of the year in 1953. He held the title for two years; losing it in 1955 to Sugar Ray Robinson. Olson's career record was 117 fights, 99 wins, 49 by knockout, 16 losses and two draws. Four of those losses were to Ray Robinson, who is considered by many boxing experts and fans to be the greatest middleweight ever and among boxing's all-time greats. Bobo Olson held the middleweight title longer than any other boxer in the 1950s and fought as a middleweight and light-heavyweight. He never shied away from a challenge. Bobo was inducted into the World Boxing Hall of Fame in 1958, and was also among the first class of athletes, sportsmen and sportswomen inducted into the Hawaii Sports Hall of Fame in 1998. After retiring from boxing in 1966, Bobo worked as recreational director for the Operating Engineers Local Union in San Francisco and in public relations for the Teamsters. Now happily retired, he and his wife Judy reside in Honolulu. Mr. President, I join boxing enthusiasts and the people of Hawaii in congratulating Carl ``Bobo'' Olson on his induction into the International Boxing Hall of Fame. He remains a soft-spoken champion, and his quiet intensity and commitment to excellence offer a lasting illustration of good sportsmanship for all of us.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Postmasters Fairness and Rights Act, which will allow our nation's postmasters to take an active and constructive role in managing their post offices and discussing compensation issues. I am joined by Senators Durbin, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Edwards, and Baucus in offering this legislation. Currently, Postmasters lack an equitable process for discussing pay and benefits and have seen an erosion of their role in improving the quality of mail services to postal patrons and managing their local post offices. These inequities have contributed to the decline in the number of Postmasters since the reorganization of the Postal Service 30 years ago. Our bill would create a positive and fair procedure to address the inequalities that have resulted from the present ``consultative process.'' This would foster better mail services by investing Postmasters with greater input in operational decision-making, improving Postmasters' morale, and helping attract and retain qualified Postmasters. The measure would also define ``Postmaster'' for the first time. Mr. President, the Postal Service estimates that seven million customers a day transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of the mail 6 days a week, and the Postal Service does not disappoint us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view our neighborhood post offices as cornerstones of our communities. In fact, many of our towns and cities have developed around a post office where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal government. Our nation's postmasters are on the front line to ensure that the mail gets delivered in a timely manner, and they have helped fuel the infrastructure that boosted the performance ratings of the Postal Service to an all-time high in 1999. Despite these successes, there remains the question of pay and compensation, which this bill addresses. I would also like to note that a House companion bill, H.R. 3842, introduced on March 8, 2000, enjoys bipartisan support from 23 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with deep admiration and praise for an integral presence within America's diverse society--Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Every May, during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, we commemorate the major contributions made by this small, but by no means insignificant part of the U.S. population. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, both in the aggregate and in groups of distinct and unique ethnic origin, comprise a growing force in our citizenry. Whether their ancestry is Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Laotian, Hmong, or other Asian American, or Native Hawaiian, Chamorro, Samoan, Micronesian, Tongan, Fijian, or other Pacific Islander American, they are a vibrant part of our society. If one could see numbers about each of the distinct peoples in the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, they would observe that we make up one of the fastest growing segments of the population. Our reach in communities across America is increasing. Asian Pacific Americans should not be thought of as located only in a few select states such as Hawaii or California. We have migrated over time from various points of origin in the U.S. to all parts of the country and have come to contribute to local business, education, and politics in every state. Nearly 11 million Asian and Pacific Islanders lived in the U.S. in about 2.5 million families, according to last year's estimates. About four-fifths of these families were headed by married couples. Furthermore, the Census Bureau projects that the Asian and Pacific Islander population will more than triple to nearly 38 million by the middle of this new century, climbing from four to nine percent of the American population. This growth in the number of Asian Pacific Americans will be felt across the country, and more light will be shed on the multifaceted strengths and varied needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. President Clinton recognized the importance of increasing awareness about Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders when he signed Executive Order 13125 in June, 1999. The Executive Order established the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders with the goal of improving the quality of life for this population by increasing their participation in Federal programs. Such programs include those related to health, human services, housing, education, labor, transportation, economic development, and community development programs--encompassing those which currently serve this population and those which may not have served this population in the past. I am happy to say that the Initiative is marching onward through high-level, interagency meetings involving all major agencies in the Executive Branch, and the establishment of the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The Commission will be sworn in later this week and includes 15 members representing various interests and diverse segments of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. It will be chaired by an esteemed colleague, former Congressman Norman Mineta, and will include representatives such as Haunani Apoliona from my State of Hawaii. I hope that now and in the next Administration, the Initiative and the Commission will continue to work hand-in-hand toward: increased research and data collection; private sector, public sector and community involvement; and, development, monitoring, and coordination of Federal efforts toward improved quality of life for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. There is clear evidence to show that this type of Federal attention is needed. As stated in the Presidential Proclamation for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month 2000, despite many successes, the needs in the community still continue to be great: While many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders today are thriving, others are still struggling to overcome obstacles. Because of oppression in their countries of origin, some new immigrants have arrived without having completed their education; once here, some have encountered language and cultural barriers and discrimination. Pacific Islanders, too, must overcome barriers to opportunity caused by their geographic isolation and the consequences of Western influences on their unique culture. For these and other reasons, too many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders face low-paying jobs, inadequate health care, and lack of educational opportunity. The Initiative, Advisory Commission, and the Asian American and Pacific Islander community have much work to do in these areas. I urge that the proper resources and attention continue to flow to support this combined effort. Mr. President, within this Federal effort, I cannot underscore enough how much we need to focus on improving data collection for the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. The tremendous diversity in the community poses challenges that have produced data and statistics that are inadequate. Most data collection tends to lump the various Asian American and Pacific Islander ethnicities together in a single category, swallowing up numbers for each distinct group and failing to present an accurate picture of the services needed. For example, the respected organization, the College Board, produced a report regarding minority achievement in higher education. The report failed to include Asian Pacific Americans because we were considered to be over-represented in higher education. Unfortunately, in the making of the report, differences between individual groups within the community were ignored. For example, higher educational attainment is greater for groups like Japanese and Chinese Americans than it is for American Samoan and Southeast Asian Americans. Statistics such as these must be brought to light so that educational agencies and institutions know to which groups they should target their limited resources. Thankfully, Congressman Robert Underwood, the Chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus, worked to counter this problem and, in the end, reached an agreement with The College Board to work together and analyze disaggregared data for the population. As another example of data collection challenges, I have worked on Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, which governs the racial and ethnic data collection by Federal agencies. In 1993, I began efforts to change the Directive so that Native Hawaiians would be disaggregated from the Asian Pacific Islander category. My main concern was that Native Hawaiians, as an indigenous people were being classified with populations that had immigrated to the U.S., thereby creating the misperception that Native Hawaiians were immigrants rather than the indigenous peoples of Hawaii. I finally succeeded in 1997, when OMB Policy and Statistical Directive No. 15 was revised. Native Hawaiians were disaggregated from the Asian Pacific Islander category and a new category entitled, ``Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders'' was created. That was one step toward fixing inaccuracies in data collection. Agencies have until January 1, 2003 to make all existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements consistent with its standards. However, provisions of the revised directive took effect immediately for all new and revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements that include racial and/or ethnic information. It is my understanding that only the Department to Health and Human Services has established a policy with respect to the requirements of OMB Directive 15. I have encouraged all Federal agencies to actively work to implement this Directive, especially in collaborative efforts with the White House Initiative and President's Advisory Commission. As a further example, on March 14, 2000, I hosted a forum to discuss Census 2000 and its impact on Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in Honolulu. The forum included panel members from the Federal government, Congress, and Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Chamorro community organizations. The issue which generated the most concern regarding Census 2000 was the application of multiracial reporting. This issue is one of particular sensitivity in Hawaii, where a large percentage of the population has multiethnic backgrounds. In Hawaii, it is very common for individuals, when asked for their ethnicity, to list their entire ethnic background. Only when asked which ethnicity the individual most identifies with will the individual limit the answer to one ethnic background. Furthermore, it was revealed through forum discussion that there is no resolution as to how data will be reported for those who check off more than one race on the 2000 Census form. This raises the fear that the final counts of various Pacific Islander populations--such as the Native Hawaiian population-- where multiple-race backgrounds are common, would be inaccurate. Statisticians verify that this has enormous effect on smaller populations. I am continuing to work on this problem because of the tremendous impact that Federal data has in its use in deciding funding and participation in thousands of Federal, state and local programs. Inaccurate data means that many individuals will not be served, and we must do what we can to prevent this from happening. We must work on these and other issues facing the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, just as we do for issues facing our country's other populations, because it is part of our responsibility to keep each part of our diverse America as strong as it can be. Mr. President, I recently introduced related legislation that would allow us to take a broader look at, and emphasize the heterogeneous nature of, America. S. 2478, or the Peopling of America Theme Study Act of 2000, takes pride in America's diversity by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to identify regions, areas, districts, structures and cultures that illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions in the peopling of this country. I hope that this effort will provide a basis for the preservation and interpretation of the complex movement of people, ideas, and cultures to and across the American continent that resulted in the peopling of the nation, and the development of our unique, pluralist society--one that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are fully a part. The bill encourages development of preservation and education strategies to capture elements of our national culture and history such as immigration, migration, ethnicity, family, gender, health, neighborhood, and community. The prehistory and the history of this nation are inextricably linked to the mosaic of migrations, immigrations and cultures that has resulted in the peopling of America. Americans are all travelers from other regions, continents and islands, and I feel we need a better understanding and appreciation of this coherent and unifying theme in America. This is the source of our nation's greatness and strength. Our rich American heritage includes the traditions, cultures, and contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, both as a group and as individuals. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my statement with a note of praise and congratulations to some of the members of the Asian Pacific American community most deserving of recognition. President Clinton recently approved the Army nominations of 21 Asian Pacific American World War II veterans to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor. This concluded a review that I requested of service records of Asian American and Pacific Islanders who received the Distinguished Service Cross during World War II. The approval of the Medal of Honor for these 21 men who served with valor in World War II--19 from the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and 100th Infantry Battalion--is long overdue recognition of the heroic service and bravery displayed by these Asian American soldiers and their comrades in arms. As we honor these patriots, including my colleague Senator Daniel Inouye, let us also remember the thousands of young men, living and deceased, whose courage, sacrifice and spirit proved that patriotism is a circumstance of the heart, not a consequence of the skin. The 100th/442nd fought with incredible courage and bravery in Italy and France. Its members won 1 Medal of Honor, 53 DSCs, and more than 9,000 Purple Hearts. The unit itself won 8 Presidential Unit Citations. The fact that the 100th/442nd saw such fierce and heavy combat, yet received only one Medal of Honor award, and then only posthumously and due to congressional intervention, raised serious questions about the fairness of the award process at that time. Unfortunately, Asian Pacific Americans were not accorded full consideration for the Medal of Honor at the time of their service. A prevailing climate of racial prejudice against Asian Pacific Americans during World War II precluded this basic fairness, the most egregious example being the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans. The bias, discrimination, and hysteria of that time unfortunately has an impact on the decision to award the military's highest honor to Asians and Pacific Islanders. I commend Secretary Caldera and all the Army personnel who conducted the DSC review in a thorough and professional manner. They carried out the difficult task of identifying and reconstructing the records of more than one hundred veterans with diligence, sensitivity, and dispatch. The stories documented for each of the 104 DSC recipients will astonish and humble all who read them and underscore our faith in a nation that produces such heroes. As the only Chinese American in this body and the sole Native Hawaiian in the Congress, I am proud of the legacy that we as Americans are leaving for the world. I am proud of our great country, and I am proud of the citizens that make our country great--including our nation's Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. We have much to celebrate during Asian Pacific Heritage Month 2000. Mr. President, thank you again for this opportunity, and I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am very pleased and extremely honored to welcome to the Senate our guest Chaplain today, Rev. Dr. Edward Merritt ``Ted'' Robinson of Central Union Church in Honolulu. Dr. Robinson is senior minister at Central Union Church in Honolulu, the largest United Church of Christ in the West and 1 of the 10 largest in the United States. Central Union was founded over 150 years ago, and the ``Church in the Garden'' is renowned for its commitment to community outreach as much as for its beautiful sanctuary. For over a century, the congregation has worked to put its faith into action in Hawaii, nationally, and throughout Asia and the Pacific. Dr. Robinson has served as senior minister at Central Union for 15 years and has ministered in the United Church of Christ for over 30 years. He was born in Westwood, MA, and received his bachelor's degree from Yankton College and bachelor of theology degree from Yankton School of Theology. He holds a master's of divinity from United Seminary in St. Paul and master's of sacred theology from the Iliff School of Theology at the University of Denver. He earned his doctor of ministry degree at San Francisco Theological Seminary. In addition to his work in the United Church of Christ, Dr. Robinson has served on a number of boards and commissions in Honolulu including the Salvation Army, Girl Scouts, Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children, Hawaii Habitat for Humanity, and Honolulu Boy Choir. Ted and Barbara Robinson are the proud parents of two children, Sarah and Jonathan, and one granddaughter. When we are home in Hawaii, we frequently worship at Central Union. Ted Robinson is one of the finest preachers to grace Hawaii. He is a friend and source of comfort for me and my family and inspires his active and growing congregation to live their lives as courageous people of faith. By word and deed, he embraces the mission of Central Union inscribed in the sanctuary above the altar: ``Love Never Faileth.'' It is my pleasure and privilege to welcome my good friend and minister to the Senate. Aloha.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am concerned about an emerging issue that has important implications for our national security: the commercial satellite imaging industry. Soon the public will have access to high resolution pictures able to show objects as small as three feet in size. The rapid evolution of satellite technology has suddenly made the ``eye in the sky'' accessible to everyone, from foreign governments to the average individual. Secret sites are suddenly no longer secret. Photos of Area 51, a top-secret military installation located in Nevada, were recently made available by a private company selling commercial satellite images. The wide availability of these pictures to any person or country that can afford to buy them has the potential to both help or hinder our security. Initially satellites were used during the Cold War for defense purposes. These classified images were only available to the government. However, civilians began to benefit from satellite pictures about thirty years ago when the government satellite, Landsat, began to sell photos to the public for agricultural planning purposes. The first commercial satellite launch did not occur until 1986, when France, Sweden and Belgium jointly launched SPOT I. The technology of satellites today has evolved considerably since Landsat, in 1972, began providing photos to the public. Those pictures could only render images of objects larger than 250 feet across. This all changed when earlier this year a private company called Space Imaging made history by distributing the first high-resolution satellite images of a North Korean ballistic missile site. Their photos had a one-meter resolution, providing the public a detailed look at the missile facilities of this rogue nation. Ruts in the road used by North Korean trucks could be seen. The industry for commercial satellites is growing steadily. In 1994 President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 23 which permitted the Commerce Department to license 12 U.S. companies to operate remote-sensing satellites. Space Imaging and Aerial Images, the company which took the Area 51 pictures, may be the first two of these companies to get a satellite aloft, but there are more to come. At least two other U.S. companies plan on launching satellites this year and several foreign companies have similar plans. Legal restrictions surrounding these photo purchases are few. Imaging companies do not have to identify either their customers or their pictures. An amendment to the 1997 Defense Authorization Act prohibits U.S. companies from selling satellite images of Israel that show objects with a diameter under 6 feet. Any sale of images to a terrorist state or any regime under U.S. or international sanctions is also prohibited. Aside from these restrictions, there are virtually no limitations on any satellite or any sale of satellite pictures. And even these restrictions are going to be harder to maintain as competition increases from more companies outside the United States. At the moment, the images are expensive, limited in coverage but not difficult to purchase. Foreign governments, private groups or individuals can now place their orders. In a competitive market with more countries offering this service, there will be competition to provide more precise pictures, of a greater number of subjects, in a more timely manner, at less cost. The restrictions the U.S. now imposes will be harder to maintain in such a free market. What was secret once, will be secret no longer. Pictures of Area 51, for example, were provided by a Russian launched satellite. India is also beginning a program to launch high-resolution imaging satellites and Israel is planning to launch its own commercial satellite. American restrictions on satellite images of Israel only apply to American satellites. Soon commercial satellites will also be using radar imaging--and thus will no longer be limited by the need for clear skies--and hyperspectral sensors which permit analysis of chemical characteristics. The United States government has long been part of the action. NASA's Commercial Remote Sensing Program is based at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. But it is clear that as this competitive industry grows in the future, we should examine the impact of commercial satellites on our nation's security. Many have applauded the growth of this industry as a means of keeping the public well-informed and expanding the national discussion on issues of national and international security. It is true that having access to satellite images of other countries does enable the U.S. to monitor more areas around the world, to identify violations of international agreements, detect human rights abuses and watch for possible security threats. It will mean private, non-governmental organizations, such as the one which commissioned the pictures of North Korea, will be watching the world too, and issuing their intelligence bulletins. This may result in confusing interpretations. Countries could take advantage of the fact that they may be monitored by one of these satellites. Knowing that they are being photographed by a satellite and that these images may be made public, states could attempt to blackmail the international community by staging what appears to be a more robust nuclear program or preparations for a missile test for the benefit of the threatening images that this would produce. After all pictures do not lie, do they? Or they could do exactly the opposite and disguise their advanced defense capabilities so that the images captured and released to the media actually reinforce a rogue nation's efforts to circumvent international law. This possibility calls to mind the pictures taken last January of the Nodong missile launch site in North Korea. As I mentioned earlier, those pictures depicted a crude missile site and a launch pad that cuts through a rice paddy, making the North Korean facilities appear primitive and unthreatening. But these observations contradict the September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate which believes North Korea to be the country most likely to develop ICBMs capable of threatening the U.S. during the next fifteen years. If the U.S. accepts these pictures as fact and believes that the North Korean missile site is as unthreatening as it appears, should we let down our guard and disregard the threat they may pose to our country? I think not. Similarly, in March of this year, satellite photos of Pakistan's nuclear facility and missile garrison were taken by a commercial satellite and sold to a Washington-based arms control organization. These images have sparked a public policy debate over their interpretation and international security implications. The organization that purchased these photos insists that they are proof that Pakistan will not be persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons program. However, a possible misinterpretation of this data could easily incite a flare-up of the already volatile relationship between Pakistan and India. We cannot make assumptions about what these pictures mean when constructing our national security policy. Our eyes can deceive us. Photo interpretation is going to open up a new area of commercial employment for former government analysts. This evolving space race of the commercial satellite industry can offer us many military and civilian benefits. It can be an important tool in assisting us to make many of our national security decisions in the future. But we must also be wary about jumping to conclusions from what we see. A single picture may not be worth a thousand words. We must contemplate the use of these commercial satellites carefully and find the way to best utilize them so that they bolster, not threaten, our national security. Just as Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation devices are now widely accessible, we could have a situation in which an enemy uses GPS to attack an American target identified by commercial satellite imaging. Recently, the White House announced the United States would stop its intentional degradation of the GPS signals available to the public, giving the public access to the precise location system previously possible only for the Department of Defense. Defense is requesting $500 million in FY2001 to sustain and modernize the GPS program. Much of the technology used in commercial space launches came from the military. This is a strange new world. We need to gain a greater understanding of the implications of this technology on our national security. The technology may be inherently uncontrollable--just as export controls over computer encryption became impossible to sustain. Satellite imagery has the potential to be a major asset to the arms control, human rights, and environmental communities. We are witnessing the birth of a new area of information technology. I would urge my colleagues to consider this issue as we begin to examine American security in the 21st century.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today during Public Service Recognition Week 2000 to encourage my colleagues to take a moment to honor the many selfless actions and outstanding accomplishments of our nation's state, local, and Federal public servants. As the ranking member on the Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, with direct jurisdiction over the Federal civil service, I take particular pride in honoring the millions of dedicated men and women who work around the clock on our behalf. Their responsibilities are as varied as the challenges presented by their jobs. Our armed forces and civilian defense workers keep us out of harms's way--both domestically and abroad--our public school teachers instruct our children, and the U.S. Postal Service provides delivery to every address in the nation. Our public servants safeguard our food supplies; support our social services infrastructure, oversee and protect our economy; and so much more. These men and women are the backbone of what makes America great. We often take them for granted and in certain instances subject them to scorn and ridicule. With little recognition from the public they serve, these employees are unwavering in their dedication, honor, purpose, and ability to serve their cities, counties, states, and Federal Government. I am heartened that so many school districts are fostering public service by requiring their students to serve as volunteers prior to graduating high school. As a former school teacher and administrator, I believe that voluntary service is useful and appropriate in developing a sense of community and fellowship, and I am hopeful that as each generation matures it will see the value of continuing their public service by working in state, local, or Federal Government. However, I am aware that Congress must play a role in supporting public service. At a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing this week on the effectiveness of Federal employee incentive programs it became evident that the lack of sufficient funds to support viable and much-needed compensation, recognition, and incentives program for Federal employees was hampering efforts to recruit, retain, and relocate Federal workers. Federal agencies, if given adequate funding, would be better positioned to utilize incentive programs that are already available. Flattened budgets and the pressure to reallocate limited resources do not benefit Federal employees or the ultimate end-user: the American taxpayer. Our Nation's Federal civil servants have given much to their country, especially when Congress was balancing the budget during times of crunching deficits. Now that the country is enjoying record-breaking surpluses, I believe Federal employees should be rewarded for their contributions, and I will continue to push for realistic budgets and salaries for Federal agencies and their employees. I proudly join all public service workers in observance of the 16th annual Public Service Recognition Week, and I heartily salute the past accomplishments, outstanding service, and future contribution that these outstanding men and women make to our Nation's greatness.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, America is truly unique in that we are all immigrants to the United States, coming from different regions--whether from Asia, across the Bering Sea, or from islands in the Pacific Ocean, or Mexico, Europe or many other regions of the world. The prehistory and the history of this Nation are inextricably linked to the mosaic of migrations, immigrations and cultures that has resulted in the peopling of America. Americans are all travelers from other regions, continents and islands. We need a better understanding of this coherent and unifying theme in America. With this in mind, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Graham, a bill authorizing the National Park Service to conduct a theme study on the peopling of America. 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 are today. The peopling of America will acknowledge the diverse set of people that we are today. The peopling of America will acknowledge the first migrants who settled the North American continent, the Pacific Islands, and the lands that later became the United States of America. The original peoples came across the Bering Sea from Asia, or they arrived at our Pacific Islands across thousands of miles of ocean from the South Pacific and Micronesia. The peopling of America continued as Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch and English laid claim to lands and opened the floodgates of European migration and the involuntary migration of slaves from Africa. This was just the beginning. America has been growing and changing ever since. The growth and change can be characterized as the movement of groups of people across external and internal boundaries, the strength within their cultures, and the diffusion of cultural ways through the United States. 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, districts, structures and cultures that illustrate and commemorate key events or decisions in the peopling of America, 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 educational institutions, public history organizations, State and local governments, and groups knowledgeable about the peopling of America. Mr. President, as we enter a new century of hope and opportunity, it is incumbent on us to reflect on the degree to which the development of the United States owes to our population diversity. Looking back, we understand that our history, and our very national character, is defined by the grand, entangled progress of people to, and across the American landscape--through exploration, colonization, the slave trade, traditional immigration, or internal migration--that gave rise to the rich interactions that make the American experience unique. We embody the culture 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 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 formed relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is comprehensible only through the stories of our various contituent cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by encounters with other cultures. All Americans were originally travelers from other lands. Whether we came to this country as native peoples, English colonists or African slaves, or as 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 any significance. Ellis Island is part of the Statute 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 European--who were processed at the island during its active period, 1892 to 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 only tells 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 experience 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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I yield the floor.