Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 2478 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

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. Mr. President, I rise to yield my time under the present measure to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this week the sixth Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference opened in New York. At the last conference five years ago countries agreed to extend indefinitely the treaty. I recently introduced, along with Senators Baucus, Kerry, Roth, Bingaman, Kerrey, Kohl, and Schumer, Senate Concurrent Resolution 107, expressing support for another successful review conference. A similar bipartisan resolution will be introduced in the House. I hope my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee will consider this resolution as quickly as possible. Some delegates to the conference have suggested that the United States is not as strongly committed as it once was to arms control, citing as examples the Senate failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Administration negotiations with the Russians to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I wish, as do many of my distinguished colleagues, that the CTBT had been ratified. I hope that it will be. Nevertheless, I believe all my colleagues, regardless of their position on this issue, share a strong and abiding interest in pursuing arms control agreements and making the world more secure from threats from weapons of mass destruction. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright observed in here address to the delegations to the conference ``the United States is part of the international consensus on nuclear disarmament.'' We have taken considerable steps with our allies to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal and have made a commitment to further reductions with the Russians. I share the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's concern-- expressed at the Review Conference--that ``nuclear conflict remains a very real and very terrifying possibility at the beginning of the 21st century.'' The nuclear weapons testing by India and Pakistan in 1998 are added reasons to be worried. Equally disturbing are reports that Iran is still pursuing secretly a nuclear weapon and long range missile program. While we develop a national missile defense program to protect us against limited attacks, we must strengthen those arms control regimes which help to contain the spread of weapons systems to states who may wish to harm us. One of the steps that the United States and other states can take is to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) made the IAEA safeguards system the verification arm of the NPT. While the IAEA does provide some technical assistance to countries for the peaceful use of nuclear technology, it also inspects the nuclear inventories of non-nuclear weapon members of the NPT to ensure there are no diversions to weapons use. The Gulf War disclosed for the first time an Iraq nuclear weapons program which was being carried out despite IAEA inspections. This disclosure provided new impetus to strengthening the IAEA inspection system. The IAEA has developed a strengthened safeguards program which consists of more intrusive and aggressive inspections. The agency also proposes a new inspection protocol giving its inspectors more authority to collect information. Some 46 countries have signed the protocol which the United States helped develop. But the increase in membership in the IAEA and the strengthened inspection system has meant more demands on IAEA inspectors and facilities. I asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a brief on the IAEA to explain its new functions. Zachary Davis, CRS's Specialist in International Nuclear Policy, is to be commended for his work on this subject. I urge my colleagues to read his analysis-- ``Nuclear Weapons: Strengthening International Atomic Energy Agency Inspections.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record in full, following my remarks. The IAEA deserves our full support and the NPT Review Conference deserves our full attention. Again, I urge my colleagues to express their support by co-sponsoring S. Con. Res. 107.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Concurrent Resolution expressing the sense of the Congress concerning support for the Sixth Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. The Sixth Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference will begin on April 24th in New York City. For the first time since the member parties agreed five years ago to a permanent extension to this important arms control agreement, states will be meeting to discuss additional efforts to strengthen the treaty. Thirty years ago, this treaty entered into force with 43 signatories. The number of parties to the agreement has increased to 187. Only four states--India, Pakistan, Israel, and Cuba--are not members. At the time of the last review conference in 1995, members agreed to hold review meetings every five years to assess progress in implementing efforts to attain the treaty's objectives. The resolution that I am introducing today, along with Senators Baucus, Kerry, Roth and Bingaman, reaffirms Congressional support for the objectives of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and calls on all parties participating in the review conference to make a good faith effort to ensure the conference's success. A similar resolution is being introduced in the House of Representatives. Many states have called into question American commitment to the control of nuclear weapons because of the Senate vote last year on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and because of fears that the American development of a national missile and theater missile defense systems are efforts to negate the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). I believe that Congressional support for the NPT and for other workable arms control agreements that achieve serious reductions in weapons of mass destruction is as strong as ever. The Congress will be looking very closely at this conference for reassurance that the other parties to the NPT, most especially the other nuclear weapons states such as China and Russia, share an equal commitment to attaining the objectives of the NPT. There have been suggestions that states will attempt to disrupt the conference by walking out or by proposing resolutions critical of the United States and other states. Such efforts will damage the treaty and give satisfaction only to those countries, such as Iraq and Iran, who still appear to desire nuclear weapons. Our resolution also expresses support for strengthening the international verification system operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). When the NPT was negotiated in 1970, the IAEA safeguards system was designated as its global verification mechanism. IAEA inspectors review the nuclear programs of all non-nuclear weapon members and, while the five legally recognized nuclear weapons states-- Britain, France, China, Russia, United States--are not obligated to permit inspections, in practice IAEA has some access to their facilities. The Gulf War revealed inadequacies in the IAEA safeguard system. The discovery of Iraq's secret nuclear program demonstrated the need for additional IAEA powers of information collection and inspection. Efforts are now underway to develop a Strengthened Safeguards system of which a critical part will be a new inspection protocol providing IAEA inspectors additional authority to collect more information about a wider range of activities. This new information and access will be critical to detecting states, such as Iraq and Iran, who may try to develop secretly a nuclear weapon. There is no greater threat to America's security than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Nonproliferation Treaty and the role of the IAEA are essential parts of our efforts to prevent nuclear catastrophe. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution and ensuring its speedy consideration.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, during last week's consideration of S. Con. Res. 101, the congressional budget resolution, the Senate by voice vote agreed to a modified amendment (amendment 3028) offered by the Senator from New Hampshire (Senator Smith) that: Assume(s) that no American will be prosecuted, fined or in anyway harassed by the Federal government or its agents for failure to respond to any census questions which refer to an individual's race, national origin, living conditions, personal habits or mental and/or physical condition, but that all Americans are encouraged to send in their census forms. There are serious consequences for state, local, and Federal Government when people are missed by the census. There are approximately 1,327 federal domestic assistance programs that use population information in some way. The breadth of the programs affected that touch families and businesses throughout the nation clearly spells out the need to ensure that all Americans are counted. The questions asked by the census represent a balance between the needs of our nation's communities and the need to keep the time and effort required to complete the form to a minimum. Federal and state funds for schools, employment services, housing assistance, road construction, day care facilities, hospitals, emergency services, programs for seniors, and much more are distributed based on census figures. The percentage of people undercounted in Hawaii--1.9 percent--was higher than the national average, and the largest component of the undercount by race was projected to be Asians and Pacific Islanders. I was so concerned that Hawaii would once more have a higher than average undercount that on March 14, 2000, I held a forum in Hawaii on the Census 2000. At that forum, I urge Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders to take advantage of the 2000 Census as an opportunity to be accurately represented in data and statistics that will impact our lives for the next 10 years. During the forum, which was attended by Congressman Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Hawaii's Lieutenant Governor Mazie Hirono, representatives from the Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior, and various Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander organizations, I strongly urged everyone to answer their questionnaires. The Senate agreed to the Smith amendment, as modified, on April 7, 2000. However, if there is no objection, I am submitting to the Record a statement by Census Director Kenneth Prewitt, regarding the Sense of the Senate amendment, Number 3028 to the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 101: The Census Bureau is required by law to collect a complete response from every resident in America to both the census short and long forms. Today's sense of the Senate amendment would undermine the quality of information from both forms. Census 2000 is not designed by law as a pick and choose exercise. Serious degradation of census information will negatively affect economic policy-making, public sector expenditures and private sector investment for a decade. The census procedures require enumerators in the non- response follow up phase to make six attempts to collect information. Congress would have to advise the Census Bureau whether six attempts (or even a single attempt) would constitute harassment. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, April 7, 2000. Madam President, I suggest the absence after quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on March 18th the people of Taiwan elected Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leaders Chen Shui-bian, former mayor of Taipei, to be President, and Annette Lu to be Vice-President of Taiwan. This was an historic vote, representing the first recorded, peaceful transfer of power in any Chinese political system in 5,000 years. A free and fair vote by 80 percent of the electorate occurred without violence with a military that remained in the barracks. It was a vote with implications not only for the people on Taiwan but also for China and the United States. First, the vote represented a rejection by a majority of the voters of the traditional ruling Kuomintang Party (KMT) and a vote in favor of political reform and change in Taiwan. There was a clear desire by the people to cleanse the political system that they viewed as corrupt. That the DPP could win a national election after having only been formed in 1986 indicates the maturity of the political system, as well as the deep desire for change. The first steps by President-elect Chen Shui-bian indicate the political sophistication of Taiwan's future leaders. He made conciliatory statements towards China, stating that he would avoid declaring independence and emphasizing that ``the people's top priority is peaceful cross-strait relations'' while declaring his willingness to ``negotiate cross-strait air travel, trade and investment, peace agreements, and military conference-building measures with the mainland.'' He has offered to meet with China's leaders, even to travel to Beijing. His party is now considering dropping its pro-independence policy in its party platform. He has nominated the current Kuomintang Defense Minister, Tang Fei, to be his Premier. General Tang was born in China. And in another step towards reform both major parties have reached an agreement to reduce the powers of the National Assembly and to strengthen those of the Legislative Yuan, the nation's parliament. The breath of fresh air blowing through Taiwan has not been matched in Beijing. In the run-up to the election the only wind out of China was the fierce breath of threats. Central Military Commission Vice- Chairman General Zhang and Vice Premier Qian Qichen both declared that ``Taiwan independence means war.'' A People's Liberation Army publication stated that ``the PLA is determined to liberate Taiwan. If they meet hard resistance, then they can choose to use weapons of mass destruction, like neutron bombs.'' Since the election, there has been some diminishment of the intensity of the attacks but Beijing remains consistent in its criticism and insistence on Taiwanese concessions. Last week, at a conference on Taiwan in Washington organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, PLA Senior Colonel Luo Yuan observed that ``if you no longer acknowledge you are Chinese and sell off Chinese national interests, the Chinese government will definitely punish this national traitor. [. . .] Once the Taiwan independence provokes an impasse, then we have no choice but the use of blood to uphold the authority.'' China's official Xinhua News Agency has commented that ``Lee Teng-hui's ignominious fate proves that all those who engage in `Taiwan independence' and splittism and try resorting to trickery to hoodwink the world will come to no good end. The wages of sin is death.'' Vice Premier Qian has insisted that there can be no negotiations with Chen or his envoys unless he accepts the principle that Taiwan is part of China and commits to negotiating only over the modalities of reunification. The quandary China finds itself now in is typified by the Beijing waiter, quoted in a recent Washington Post article, who commented as he watched news of the Taiwan elections, ``their lives are better than ours, economically and politically. They have more freedom. They can elect their leaders.'' One of the first actions by the Taiwanese political parties was to reform its political structure by reducing the role of the National Assembly sending another powerful signal to the Mainland where its hand-picked, 2,978 strong, National People's Congress delegate just met for stage-managed debates. China's leaders have been struggling to earn the degree of legitimacy through economic reform alone and through the continued use of force to suppress dissent that Taiwan's leaders have earned at the ballot box through the exercise of free speech and free trade. No longer can China's leaders look across the Straits and see a mirror of themselves in Taiwan's former exiled rulers. Instead they see an example of a political system which evolved in a few short years from totalitarian rule to a democracy. Martial law rule ended in Taiwan in 1987. A new legislature was elected in 1992. There were presidential elections in 1996, local elections in 1997 and 1998, and a second presidential election in 2000. China's Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington Liu Xiaoming described Taiwan's presidential election as ``a local election in an area of China.'' Yet, even if his description is accepted, it demonstrates how far the rest of China has to go: in China, a germinating democracy has not progressed beyond the stage of local village elections. Municipal or national elections have yet to be held. As President Clinton so succinctly observed, ``the election provides a fresh opportunity for both sides to reach out and resolve their differences through dialogue.'' Ironically, it is China, which had urged Taiwan to adopt direct trade, postal, and telecommunications links while Taiwan under President Lee rejected such direct ties, that now rejects President- elect Chen's offers to institute direct contacts. There apparently is the perception even inside China that their policy needs to be changed. One official was quoted over the weekend as saying, ``we are painting ourselves into a corner. We are tough when we should be soft and passive when we should be taking the initiative.'' Yet, even as Taiwan has grown apart from China, it has also grown closer. It has invested $24 billion in China and China now accounts for 23 percent of all Taiwanese exports. Taiwan's and China's economic progress have become mutually self-sustaining. As a result, we should not be painting China into a corner now. As it attempts to come to terms with the new realities in Taiwan, we should be taking steps to welcome China into a greater, more responsible role in the international system. A critical step in that regard is granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). This critical vote in the U.S. Congress promises to open up China's markets to greater competition and more goods from the West. PNTR does not mean that China will be a democracy, nor does it mean instant benefits for the American economy, but it is a step towards integrating China into the new world community. Shortly after China joins the World Trade Organization, Taiwan will join. This is the third new reality with which American policymakers must contend. Taiwan has changed. It is not the single-party dictatorship which it was when the Taiwan Relations Act or the three communiques were promulgated. It is a vibrant democracy with a strong economy. It has long clamored to be allowed to play a more active role in the world community by providing assistance to international aid organizations or in UN Specialized Agencies. Can a new role be found for the Taiwan of today in tomorrow's world? Finding one may well be the key if China and Taiwan are to resolve their differences and achieve conciliation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a Native Hawaiian Master Artist Rocky Ka'ioliokahihikolo'Ehu Jensen. Ka'ioliokahihikolo'Ehu, ``The black-hawk-striving-towards-the-source- child-of-the-Ehu,'' is the descendant of High Chief Iwikauikau; Hawaiian warrior chiefs from the islands of Hawai'i (Keli'iwaiho'ikeone); Kaua'i (Kahihikolo); Moloka'i (Keka' alauniu); and O'ahu (Ka'io); and Kahuna (Shaman) from Ko'olaupoko, O'ahu (Mamaki) and Manoa, O'ahu (Papanu' umealani). Rocky is one of Hawai'i's brightest local talents who has dedicated his life to the perpetuation of Hawaiian culture through his powerful artistry. He is recognized by our State Foundation on Culture and the Arts as a master sculptor and is talented in other media as well. Born in Honolulu on April 8, 1944, Rocky Jensen absorbed cultural traditions from his grandparents with whom he spent his summers. His artistic talents were recognized at an early age when he won his first art scholarship from the Honolulu Academy of Arts at the age of nine. He was educated in Hawai'i and the mainland where he graduated from junior college. This talented artist continued his post-secondary education in Hawai'i and was tutored by renown artists. He has in turn lectured, conducted seminars, advised and served as a consultant on Hawaiian issues, and written magazine and newspaper articles on Hawaiian history and art. He continues to do so. Rocky Jensen has held numerous exhibitions in leading museums of the world, including several first such as the organizing Hale Naua III, the first native art society and the first contemporary native Hawaiian are exhibit at Honolulu Hale as well as the Bishop Museum. He has been recognized in American Artists of Renown: 1981-1982, Crafts of America (1987-1989), and the California Art Review: 1990. Rocky Jensen's better known works include his 1970 illustration of ``twenty men'' for ``Men of Ancient Hawai'i,'' in which he set a precedent for proper historical attire and artifacts. To this day, this illustration stands as testimony to meticulous research and artistry. More recently, Rocky has been acclaimed for Na Lehua Helele'i, a memorial which honors pre-contact Hawaiian warriors. Lehua greets visitors at the entrance of the U.S. Army Museum of Hawaii at Fort DeRussy, the most visited Army Museum. Na Lehua Helele'i, ``the scattered lehua blossoms,'' an ancient Hawaiian phrase that equates the red petals with the blood of fallen warriors, is one of his major works and perhaps his most heroic, sculptured with great force and expression. Lehua, a memorial to pre- contact Hawaiian warriors, consists of five eight-foot-tall images of Ku, the god of war, carved out of native ohi'a logs and ensconced in a semi-circle fronting the museum. Each image is similar but depicts the different faces of Ku, his benign, healing qualities as well as warlike aspects. Na Lehua Helele'i was a twenty-year labor of love and commitment at great personal sacrifice. Since its unveiling a year ago, some have proclaimed it to be one of the best works in the state. Mr. President, I salute the talent and generosity of Native Hawaiian Master Artist Rocky Ka'ioliokahihikolo' Ehu Jensen. To Lucia, wife and partner, mahalo from the bottom of my heart for sharing Rocky with us. And, taking advantage of a fortuitous and joyful coincidence, happy birthday, Rocky, and many, many more years of outstanding artistry. I also want to take this opportunity to wish you and Lucia every success as you launch Makaku or ``inner Eye,'' your studio/school.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Long-Term Care Group Insurance Act of 2000, introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], the ranking minority member of the HELP Aging Subcommittee [Ms. Mikulski], and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging [Mr. Grassley]. This bipartisan legislation is testament to what can be accomplished when members from both sides of the aisle have a common goal. I salute the months-long effort undertaken by my colleagues and their staffs to bring this compromise bill to fruition. As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, with direct jurisdiction over this measure, I am mindful that there are several long-term care bills pending before the Subcommittee. However, I would like to point out that the three pending bills, S. 894, S. 57, and S. 36, are original proposals introduced by the Senators from Georgia, Maryland, and Iowa, who have combined features from each of their bills to craft a measure that will address the long-term care insurance needs of federal and military personnel and their families. Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. Although Medicaid provides some long-term care support, an individual generally must ``spend-down,'' his or her income and assets to qualify for coverage. More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older require long-term, care due to illness or disability. An approximately equal number of children and adults under the age of 65 also require long-term care because of health conditions from birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. The need for long-term care is great. By the year 2030, the number of Americans age 65 years or older will double, from 34.3 to 69.4 million. The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per year in many parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or physical therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion was spent on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure does not take into account that fully 80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is persons 65 and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non- institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 percent. These statistics point to the overriding need to help American families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to reach $97,000 by the year 2030. What Congress can do, however, is make long-term care insurance available to a broad segment of the population and offer a model for the private sector. The bill introduced today will provide quality group long-term care insurance to the nation's federal employees, including postal workers, members of the Foreign Service, and Uniformed Services. Retirees of these agencies and their spouses, parents, and parents-in-law will be eligible to participate, and employees in a ``deferred annuitant status'' can enroll when retirement benefits are activated. The bill has broad-based support, including endorsement by the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, two federal employee unions, as well as the Military Consortium, an organization of the major military groups. The proposal parallels portions of the President's four-part initiative designed to address long-term health, including having the federal government serve as a model employer by offering quality private long-term care insurance to federal employees. The bill introduced today allows the Office of Personnel Management to use its market leverage to offer enrollee-paid quality private long-term care insurance to federal employees, military personnel, retirees, and their families at group rates. Participants would pay the full premium, whose costs are expected to be 10-20 percent lower than open market rates. There would be options, including cash reimbursement for family care givers, tax exemptions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and portability benefits--features that will provide enrollees the ability to tailor policies to individual needs. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which will offer federal employees, uniformed service personnel, retirees, and their families an opportunity to plan for future long- term care needs in a responsible manner. I foresee this proposal as serving as a model for the private sector and state and local governments, and I again thank my colleagues for their diligence in crafting this compromise measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Long-Term Care Group Insurance Act of 2000, introduced by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], the ranking minority member of the HELP Aging Subcommittee [Ms. Mikulski], and the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging [Mr. Grassley]. This bipartisan legislation is testament to what can be accomplished when members from both sides of the aisle have a common goal. I salute the months-long effort undertaken by my colleagues and their staffs to bring this compromise bill to fruition. As the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, with direct jurisdiction over this measure, I am mindful that there are several long-term care bills pending before the Subcommittee. However, I would like to point out that the three pending bills, S. 894, S. 57, and S. 36, are original proposals introduced by the Senators from Georgia, Maryland, and Iowa, who have combined features from each of their bills to craft a measure that will address the long-term care insurance needs of federal and military personnel and their families. Many Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare and their regular health insurance programs will pay for long-term care. They do not. Although Medicaid provides some long-term care support, an individual generally must ``spend-down,'' his or her income and assets to qualify for coverage. More and more Americans are requiring long-term care. About 5.8 million Americans aged 65 or older require long-term, care due to illness or disability. An approximately equal number of children and adults under the age of 65 also require long-term care because of health conditions from birth or a chronic illness developed later in life. The need for long-term care is great. By the year 2030, the number of Americans age 65 years or older will double, from 34.3 to 69.4 million. The cost of nursing home care now exceeds $40,000 per year in many parts of the country, and home care visits for nursing or physical therapy runs about $100 per visit. In 1996, over $107 billion was spent on nursing homes and home health care. However, this figure does not take into account that fully 80 percent of all long-term care services are provided by family and friends. In my own state of Hawaii, 13.2 percent of the population is persons 65 and older. Although Hawaii enjoys one of the highest life expectancies--79 years, compared to a national average of 75 years--the state's rapidly aging population will greatly impact available resources for long-term care, both institutional and from non- institutional sources. Hawaii's long-term care facilities are operating at full capacity. According to the Hawaii State Department of Health, the average occupancy rate peaked at 97.8 percent in 1994. But occupancy remains high. By 1997, the average occupancy dropped to 90 percent. These statistics point to the overriding need to help American families provide dignified and appropriate care to their parents and relatives. We know that the demand for long-term care will increase with each passing year, and that federal, state, and local resources cannot cover the expected costs. Nursing home costs are expected to reach $97,000 by the year 2030. What Congress can do, however, is make long-term care insurance available to a broad segment of the population and offer a model for the private sector. The bill introduced today will provide quality group long-term care insurance to the nation's federal employees, including postal workers, members of the Foreign Service, and Uniformed Services. Retirees of these agencies and their spouses, parents, and parents-in-law will be eligible to participate, and employees in a ``deferred annuitant status'' can enroll when retirement benefits are activated. The bill has broad-based support, including endorsement by the National Treasury Employees Union and the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, two federal employee unions, as well as the Military Consortium, an organization of the major military groups. The proposal parallels portions of the President's four-part initiative designed to address long-term health, including having the federal government serve as a model employer by offering quality private long-term care insurance to federal employees. The bill introduced today allows the Office of Personnel Management to use its market leverage to offer enrollee-paid quality private long-term care insurance to federal employees, military personnel, retirees, and their families at group rates. Participants would pay the full premium, whose costs are expected to be 10-20 percent lower than open market rates. There would be options, including cash reimbursement for family care givers, tax exemptions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and portability benefits--features that will provide enrollees the ability to tailor policies to individual needs. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which will offer federal employees, uniformed service personnel, retirees, and their families an opportunity to plan for future long- term care needs in a responsible manner. I foresee this proposal as serving as a model for the private sector and state and local governments, and I again thank my colleagues for their diligence in crafting this compromise measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. This measure will enhance the safety and efficiency of our air transportation system, upon which the island state of Hawaii depends upon so much. I am especially supportive of title VIII, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. Mr. President, title VIII of H.R. 1000 establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units of the National Park System. This legislation requires the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service and with input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management plan, known as ATMP's, for parks currently or potentially affected by air tour flights. The ATMP process evaluates routes, altitudes, time restrictions, limitations on, and other operating parameters to protect sensitive park resources and to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An ATMP could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours within \1/2\ mile of park boundaries, regulate air tour operations that affect tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter air technology. H.R. 1000 also creates an advisory group comprised of representatives of the FAA, the Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and recommendations on overflight issues. Through the ATMP process, this bill treats overflights issues on a park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which environmental and aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks. I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for promoting dialog among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of legislation, the National Parks Airspace Management Act, that I sponsored in several previous Congresses. Mr. President, adoption of this bill is essential if we are to address the detrimental impact of air tour activities on the National Park System effectively. Air tourism has significantly increased in the last decade, nowhere more so than over high profile units such as the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks. A 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly a hundred parks experienced adverse park impacts, and that number has certainly increased since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted with the qualities and values that many park units were established to promote. Air tour operators often provide important emergency services while enhancing park access for special populations like the physically challenged and older Americans. Furthermore, air tour operators offer an important source of income for local economies, notably tourism- dependent areas such as Hawaii. However, unregulated overflights have the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, and impair visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour operations also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors alike. It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the respective interests of the aviation and environmental communities. Congress and the Administration have struggled to develop such a policy since enactment of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, Congress' initial, but limited, attempt to address the overflights issue. Title VIII of H.R. 1000 will finish where the 1987 act left off, providing the FAA and Park Service with the policy guidance and procedural mechanisms that are essential to balance the needs of air tour operators with the imperative to preserve and protect our natural resources. Mr. President, the overflights provisions of this bill are the product of good faith efforts on the part of many groups and individuals. They include members of the National Parks Overflights Working Group, whose consensus recommendations from the underpinnings of this legislation; representatives of air tour and environmental advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International and the National Parks and Conservation Association; and, officials of the FAA and Park Service. However, title VIII is above all the product of the energy and vision of Senator John McCain. As the author of the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act, Senator McCain was the first to recognize the adverse impacts of air tours on national parks, and the first to call for a national policy to address this problem. Since then, he has employed his moral authority and legislative skills to advance a constructive solution on this subject. For his leadership in writing this bill and for his long advocacy of park overflight issues, Senator McCain deserves our lasting appreciation. Mr. President, I am honored to have worked closely with Senator McCain over the last few years to formulate an overflights bill that promotes aviation safety, enhances the viability of legitimate air tour operations, and protects national parks from the most egregious visual and noise intrusions by air tour helicopters and other aircraft. Left unchecked, air tour activities can undermine the very qualities and resources that give value to a park. I believe that the pending measure reasonably and prudently balances these sometimes opposing considerations, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the staff of the Commerce Committee for their hard work in putting this legislation together. Ann Choiniere deserves mention for her day-to-day management of the overflights issue. I would also like to recognize former members of my own staff, Kerry Taylor, Bob Weir, Steve Oppermann, and John Tagami, who made important contributions to this issue. Steve in particular has served as an expert resource whose tireless, and largely unheralded contribution has shaped the overflights debate in a major way. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to associate my remarks with those of my colleagues over the past few days while we have discussed S. 1134, the education savings accounts bill. I am pleased that education has been raised as a priority by this body. Education will continue to be a high-profile issue as we continue to work on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has started to markup. At this time, I would like to talk about a number of related issues that need to be addressed from the Federal level. I began my career as an educator. I taught music, social studies, math, and other subjects in Hawaii's classrooms. I ran schools as a vice principal and principal. In my current position, I still come in direct contact with students who travel thousands of miles from my great State of Hawaii to tell me what is good and what is bad about their education. It is no surprise that the bulk of these students are in public school, since 90 percent of American students are served by the public school system. When I ask students what makes the biggest difference in how they learn, they talk about teachers who motivate and the commitment they put into subjects. When asked about how their education can improve, students lament the poor conditions of playgrounds and classrooms, overcrowding in classrooms, the lack of proper textbooks, and the need for more and better computers. My colleagues have touched on these, and many other problems, as they debated amendments to S. 1134. I supported the amendment offered by my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb, which sought to authorize $24.8 billion in school modernization bonds and a $1.3 billion grant and zero-interest loan program for urgent school repairs. The modernization bonds would build or modernize 6,000 schools and the grant/loan program would finance about 8,300 urgent repair projects. Although states have addressed some of these needs, students are still learning in substandard conditions. The Federal Government can assist with these projects. This has been acknowledged through the inclusion of a school construction provision in S. 1134. Unfortunately, this provision will only help a handful of schools in need, as opposed to the comprehensive assistance that would have been made available if the Robb amendment were adopted. Regarding the conditions in Hawaii's schools, 73 percent need to upgrade or repair buildings to good overall condition, 57 percent have at least one inadequate building feature--such as a condition related to plumbing or electricity--and 78 percent report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor such as poor air quality or ventilation. Because of Hawaii's temperate climate, we do not have to worry about having to heat our classrooms in the winter. However, we face other challenges such as corrosion due to the amount of salt in the air from the ocean. Funding in the Robb amendment would take into account the differences across states and provide assistance for the myriad of problems facing our schools. The Campaign to Rebuild America's Schools tells me that Hawaii faces a $955 million cost for school modernization--nearly 80 percent for infrastructure and more than 20 percent of that for technology needs. The school modernization initiative would provide Hawaii's schools with $63 million to meet some of these needs. I will continue to work with my colleagues to pass this legislation. I have also been a long-time supporter of class size reduction efforts. I voted for the Murray amendment, which would continue the help to communities to hire 100,000 quality teachers to reduce class size in lower grades. I was pleased to see the second installment of this initiative funded through last year's appropriations process, which will provide Hawaii with more than $6 million in fiscal year 2000. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2001 would increase this funding to Hawaii to more than $8 million. Our students deserve the best possible learning environment. Larger classes of 30 or 35 students tend to be noisier, have greater potential to be disruptive, and provide less teacher time to each student, compared to classes with fewer students. Many students are struggling through courses, and some of this can be attributed to their presence in larger classes. Impending teacher shortages will compound this problem, as well as will record school enrollments that will only increase, into the new millennium. The class size reduction initiative would help mitigate these problems facing our school-age generations. I support other amendments that were taken up and are anticipated to S. 1134, and I commend my colleagues for their work on this bill. These include Senator Abraham for working to provide more computers and increased technology in classrooms and Senators Graham and Hutchison for encouraging individuals to transition their careers into teaching. I also support Senator Wellstone in his ongoing effort to look at the levels and effects of child poverty. Mr. President, I would like to make a final point about worthy legislation in this area. I have a bill, S. 1487, the Excellence in Economic Education Act, that would work to boost economic literacy in the country. I will not offer my bill as an amendment to S. 1134 at this time, but I intend to do so when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes before the Senate. In this debate about education, I must highlight the need for us to educate Americans, starting from a young age, about the importance of many aspects of economic education: personal finance, consumer education, entrepreneurship, career and retirement planning. It is important for our students to have a practical understanding of economics to help them in their daily lives, and my bill would help. It provides funding directly to the State and local level by giving grants to economic education councils and centers nationwide through the National Council on Economic Education. It also provides assistance on the national level to boost resources developed by the National Council that help states and schools teach economics to teachers and students. I hope that my colleagues will support my effort to pass this legislation during ESEA debate. Mr. President, I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about the importance of education. We must continue to make significant investments in the future of this country, and we can accomplish this by magnifying the resources that we provide to education. To finish my remarks, I would like to comment on one more thing that I hear from Hawaii's students. I am frequently impressed by the thoughtful ideas and expressions of concern voiced by the young men and women I meet. Students talk about issues that are surprisingly values-based: the need to treat one another with kindness and respect. Or, as we say in Hawaiian, ``malama'': to take care of, to care for, or to support. With all of the tragic incidents at our schools, I hope that our students can achieve a better understanding of the value of human life so that these incidents can be reduced. America's youth should strive to understand why we must treat others as we would like to be treated. Some of this helpful dialogue is occurring naturally, initiated by the students themselves, in our schools. We must do what we can to support our young people as they tangle with these often overwhelming and disturbing issues. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I thank Chairman Murkowski, who has done a great job in shepherding and crafting this bill and bringing it to the floor of the Senate. This has been a tough few years because there have been some objections along the way. I think we are doing it correctly. We are taking care of the concern of embarrassment for the United States that would be faced when we pass this bill. This is a bipartisan bill. The chairman has diligently worked, as have staff on both sides of the aisle, well to bring us to this point. I am glad I had a chance to be a part of it and know this is the right thing for our country; that is, for us to pass S. 1052 with its amendments. I thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA. I yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise to add a bit to my statement. In my statement, I mentioned that Senator Murkowski was the only Senator who went to CNMI. But Senator Harkin also went to CNMI in August.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I thank my friend from the State of Wisconsin for his statement. I also thank him for saying what he felt about the CNMI. I express my gratitude to the majority leader for scheduling this bill today and also the Democratic leader for supporting it. I look forward to working out this bill with my friend, the chairman, Senator Murkowski. As we begin today's debate, I want to express my sincere thanks to the leadership of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for their commitment to CNMI immigration reform. The Senator from Alaska, Chairman Murkowski, and the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, understand that a great injustice is taking place far from the Nation's Capitol. That is why they have brought this legislation to the Senate floor. Their efforts prove that they live by the words of one of our Senate titans, Daniel Webster, who proclaimed justice the ``great interest of man on earth.'' Perhaps some Senators, and many viewers who are watching these proceedings in the gallery or on television, are wondering, ``Why is the United States Senate--that great deliberative body in the world's strongest democracy--taking time from its busy schedule to debate legislation that affects a distant island community with a population of only 70,000 people?'' You might ask, ``Why don't we work on other important legislation, such as nuclear waste policy, judicial nominations, or health care for our armed forces?'' The answer to these questions is that conditions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana are an affront to democratic values. The answer is that the CNMI immigration system has sparked international protests from our Pacific allies. Immigration in the Commonwealth violates fundamental standards of morality and human decency. That's why we must pass the reform measure pending in the Senate. Chairman Murkowski is a longstanding champion of CNMI immigration reform. He is the only Senator in recent memory to visit the Commonwealth, where he witnessed the profound problems caused by their local immigration law. I doubt that many of my colleagues know very much about the CNMI, a U.S. Island territory located 1,500 miles south of Tokyo. Those Senators who are familiar with the territory have probably read the growing number of articles on the immigration and labor abuse in the Commonwealth. Yet only Chairman Murkowski has visited the islands to get a first-hand understanding of their problems. I joined him on his tour of the CNMI in February of 1996. The statement that was made by the chairman on what we saw there, as I said, is accurate and very descriptive. It was a shame to see that a part of the United States is living under those conditions. The legislation before us won't correct all of the Commonwealth's problems, but it will address the most significant concern, immigration abuse. Chairman Murkowski is a man of the Pacific who understands the need to have an immigration policy that reflects America values. The states we represent, Alaska and Hawaii, are closest to our Pacific neighbors, and we recognize the need to respond to problems that generate strong protests from other Pacific nations. I am honored to join him as a cosponsor of S. 1052, legislation to reform immigration abuses in the CNMI. When the CNMI became a U.S. commonwealth in 1976, Congress granted it local control over immigration at the request of island leaders. This means that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not apply in the CNMI. We now know this decision was a great mistake. Using its immigration authority, the Commonwealth has created a plantation economy that relies upon wholesale importation of low-paid, short-term indentured workers. Indentured servitude, a practice outlawed in the United States over 100 years ago, had resurfaced in the CNMI. Foreign workers pay up to $7,000 to employers or middlemen for the right to a job in the CNMI. When they finally reach the Commonwealth, they are assigned to tedious, low paying work for long hours with little or no time off. At night they are locked in prison-like barracks. If they complain, they are subject to immediate deportation at the whim of their employer. Some arrive in the islands only to find that they were victims of an employment scam. There are no jobs waiting for them, and no way to work off their bondage debt. Concern about the CNMI's longstanding immigration problems has historically been bipartisan. In fact, officials in the Reagan administration first sounded the alarm about the run-away immigration policies that the Commonwealth adopted. The administration of every President in the past 16 years--the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations--has consistently criticized the Commonwealth's immigration policy. Bipartisan studies have also condemned CNMI Immigration. The Commission on Immigration Reform called the CNMI system of immigration and indentured labor ``antithetical to American values.'' According to the Commission, no democratic society has an immigration policy like the CNMI. The closest equivalent is Kuwait, where foreign workers constitute a majority of the workforce and suffer harsh and discriminatory treatment by the citizen population. For this reason, the CNMI has also become an international embarrassment for the United States. We have received complaints from the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh about immigration abuse and the treatment of workers. They failure of the Commonwealth to reform its immigration system has seriously tarnished our image in the region. Concerns about the CNMI are not new. Perhaps we should be criticized for not acting sooner. Yet, despite a 14-year effort by the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations to persuade the CNMI to correct immigration problems, the problems persist. After 14 years of waiting for the Commonwealth to implement reform, it is time for Congress to act. Statistics on Commonwealth immigration provide compelling evidence of the need for reform. Twenty years ago, the CNMI had a population of 15,000 citizens and 2,000 alien workers. Today, the citizen population stands at 28,000, but the alien worker population has mushroomed to 42,000. That's a 2,000 percent increase. The Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that the CNMI has no reliable records of aliens entering the Commonwealth, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. One CNMI official testified that they have ``no effective control'' over immigration in their islands. The CNMI shares the American flag, but it does not share our immigration system. When the Commonwealth became a territory of the United States, we allowed them to write their own immigration laws. After twenty years of experience, the CNMI immigration experiment has failed. Conditions in the CNMI prompt the question whether the U.S. should operate a unified immigration system, or whether a U.S. territory should be allowed to establish laws in conflict with national immigration policy. Common sense tells us that a unified system is the only answer. If Puerto Rico, or Hawaii, or Arizona, or Oklahoma could write their own immigration laws--and give work visas to foreigners--our national immigration system would be in chaos. America is one country. We need a uniform immigration system, not one system for the 50 states and another system for one of our territories. I don't represent the CNMI, but the Commonwealth is Hawaii's backyard. I speak as a friend and neighbor when I say that this policy cannot continue. The CNMI system of indentured immigrant labor is morally wrong, and violates basic democratic principles. We hope that our colleagues will hear our voices and will join us in passing S. 1052. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to our chairman, Senator Murkowski, for all he has done. He has given an extraordinary and accurate and descriptive report of our visit to CNMI. I will follow with some remarks. At this time, I yield to my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, for his remarks, to be recognized after he has concluded.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent to be given 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will enhance our ability to understand and conserve coral reef ecosystems and the ocean life that depends on them. In the past few years, Congress and the administration have recognized the importance of coral reefs to ocean ecologies and grown increasingly concerned about the challenges facing our reefs. 1997 was recognized as ``Year of the Reef,'' and the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 8 which recognized the significance of maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems by promoting stewardship for reefs. In 1998 the President signed Executive Order 13089 establishing the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force under joint leadership of the Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior. The Executive order directs federal agencies to take steps to protect, manage, research and restore coral ecosystems. The bill I am introducing today supplements these actions by establishing a targeted national program for coral reef research, monitoring, and conservation for areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. It is a companion measure to S. 1253, introduced earlier this year by Senator Inouye, that authorizes a coral reef program through the Department of Commerce. Mr. President, the importance of reefs to our economy, culture, and to the stability of our shorelines is becoming increasingly apparent as we begin to understand more about the interdependence of reefs and human activity. Substantial research shows that reefs are under greater stress than ever before, both from natural causes and human-induced damage. We need to act now before the decline of reefs becomes irreversible. This measure authorizes coral reef research and conservation efforts through the Department of the Interior. The Department manages over 2,000 acres of sensitive coral reef habitat and adjacent submerged land at 20 national wildlife refuges and 9 units of the National Park System in Hawaii, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the territories of Guam and American Samoa in the Pacific. Of the 4.2 million acres of reefs in the United States, few have been mapped, assessed, or characterized. There is still much to learn about the location and biology of coral reefs, their susceptibility to disease, and how they can be restored and sustained. This measure establishes a coral reef conservation matching grant program that will leverage federal monies with non-federal funds raised through a non-profit foundation. This initiative is consistent with the efforts of the President's Coral Reef Task Force established by Executive Order No. 13089, and with the activities of other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that are involved in coral reef research, monitoring, restoration and conservation. Under my legislation, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to provide grants for coral reef conservation projects in areas under the Department's jurisdiction, through a merit-based, competitive program. Grants will be awarded on a 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent non- federal basis. The Secretary may also enter into an agreement with one or more foundations to solicit private funds dedicated to coral conservation programs. Up to 80 percent of the funding will be distributed equally between the Atlantic/Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean, and 20 percent of the funding can be used for emerging priorities or threats identified by the Secretary in consultation with the Coral Reef Task Force. Grants may be made to any relevant natural resource management authority of a State or territory of the United States, to other government authorities with jurisdiction over coral reefs as well as to educational or non-governmental institutions or organizations with demonstrated expertise in coral reef conservation. Priority will be given to projects that promote reef conservation through cooperative projects with local communities; that involve non- governmental organizations, academic or private institutions or local affected governments; that enhance public knowledge and awareness of coral reef resources; and that promise sound scientific information on the extent, nature and condition of reef ecosystems. Most importantly, this legislation encourages community-based conservation efforts that involve local communities, nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions in the protection of reefs. It brings people and communities together to participate in, and learn more about, the conservation of ocean resources--coral reefs and the many species that depend on reef ecosystems. Only by making ordinary people responsible for reef conservation, can we alter the types of human activity and behavior that are responsible for the adverse impacts on coral reefs that we glimpse today. Mr. President, the people of Hawaii, our Nation's only insular state, are perhaps more aware of the subtle and interdependent relationship we have with coral reefs. But all citizens should appreciate that the health of coral reefs is emblematic of the health of our oceans--upon which we depend for so many resources, from clean water to food to pharmaceuticals. Coral reefs are the rain forests of the ocean--a wild, beautiful, complex bountiful resource whose importance to life on earth, much less ourselves, is only beginning to be understood. But the harsh reality is that we are going to lose our reefs if we do not act soon, before we fully understand their role in the great web of marine life. There are simply more people on the globe, in more places in the ocean, than ever before. Boats, anchors, snorkelers and divers are entering the water in increasing numbers. We are removing things from the water at an increasing rate--exotic salt water fish for home aquariums and pieces of coral for houses and home decor. The amount of sediment and pollution runoff onto coral reefs increases with every major shoreline development. It is vital that we start now, to research and preserve our reefs, before human impacts cause irreversible damages to a resource whose essential role in nature is only just beginning to be understood. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which represents a critical step in helping us understand and live sustainably with coral reef ecosystems. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.