Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

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

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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to raise the minimum wage. My colleagues, the case for an increase in the minimum wage is clear. America has enjoyed eight and one-half years of economic expansion. The economic boom that began in March 1999 is now the longest peacetime expansion in American history. However, the rising tide of economic development has not lifted the boats of millions of American workers. Millions of Americans earning the minimum wage are rapidly becoming a permanent underclass in our society. This amendment is a big step forward for millions who are struggling to feed and raise a family, and rent decent housing, while earning the minimum wage. At the same time that our economy is expanding, the distribution of income is becoming more and more unequal. As the charts prepared by the Senator from Massachusetts make clear, the earnings of average Americans have grown little, and the overall distribution of income has become increasingly unequal. Whether you examine the trend of U.S. income distribution or compare the wages of U.S. workers to those in other industrialized countries, the result is clear: the wages of the average American worker are stagnating. While I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for championing this amendment, I am also grateful that his amendment extends the minimum wage to the only U.S. territory where minimum wage is not governed by Federal law. I am speaking of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For my colleagues who are not familiar with this territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is located 4,000 miles west of Hawaii. In 1975, the people of the CNMI voted for political union with the United States. Today, the CNMI flies the flag of the United States as a U.S. territory. In 1976, Congress gave U.S. citizenship to residents of the CNMI. At the same time, however, Congress exempted the Commonwealth from the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As we now know, that omission was a grave error. Today's amendment will correct that longstanding mistake. The CNMI section of this amendment stands for the simple proposition that America is one country and that the U.S. minimum wage--whatever amount it may be--should be uniform. Common sense dictates that our country must have a single, national law on minimum wage. Throughout the United States, Federal law requires that minimum wage workers be paid $5.15 per hour--everywhere, that is, except the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In the CNMI, the minimum wage is $3.15 per hour, 40 percent less than the U.S. minimum wage. You would have to go back twenty years, to January 1980, to find a time when the statutory minimum wage was that low in the United States. Today, workers in the CNMI are being paid wages that are 20 years behind the times. And the numbers I have cited do not account for the effect of inflation. Once you adjust the CNMI minimum wage for inflation, you would have to go back to the 1930s--the Depression years--to find a time when the wages of American workers had the same buying power as minimum wage workers in the CNMI today. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the CNMI--which I remind my colleagues is U.S. soil--is the equivalent of less than ten cents an hour. Ten cents an hour! You can't even buy a pencil for 10 cents. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in this territory is 60 years out of date. This situation is a disgrace. In Guam, ninety miles from the CNMI, they have been paying the minimum wage since 1950. It's time to end this embarrassment and reform the minimum wage in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. That's one of the important things that this amendment would do. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a provision in the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary conference report, which Congress passed a few days ago, and which the President vetoed yesterday. As the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Proliferation, International Security, and Federal Services, with jurisdiction over the census, I am disappointed the conference report requires that decennial census activities be appropriated by specific program components, known as frameworks. Appropriating by framework for the decennial census has never been done before and would cause serious management problems for Census 2000. According to Census Director Kenneth Prewitt, such a change in funding practices would come at the same time that Census 2000 activities are at their highest. Past congressional direction on the allocation of funds by framework has been in report language, which afforded Congress the ability to guide spending without hamstringing operational management of the census. Director Prewitt noted in a letter to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Census, ``Congressional approval in the form of a reprogramming would be required for any movement of funds between decennial program components.'' This would necessitate obtaining clearance by the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget, as well seeking congressional approval. The Senate version of H.R. 2670 did not include this onerous provision, which will seriously impede the Census Bureau from shifting needed funds in a timely manner. ``A decennial census is, by its nature, an unpredictable exercise. Decisions must be made quickly and frequently adjusted to adapt to ever-changing conditions in the field,'' Director Prewitt said. In its budget presentation, the Census Bureau designed eight frameworks for major decennial activities, such as management, field data collection, address listing, automation, Puerto Rico and Island areas. The frameworks have been used as strong guidelines rather than strict appropriation limits because funds may need to be shifted quickly between frameworks to cover unexpected contingencies. Historically, the Census Bureau has been able to move funds among its frameworks--it is inappropriate and damaging for Congress to mandate reprogramming at this time. Any delay in census operations in order to accommodate having to wait for affirmation of a reprogramming request will seriously degrade the quality and completeness of the resulting population count that must be delivered by December 31, 2000. The President vetoed the conference report yesterday, and it is my hope this provision, retained from the House version of the bill, will be deleted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print Director Prewitt's letter in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, regrettably, this is not the first incident of such behavior in the Northern Mariana Islands. As Bill Lann Lee said in announcing the pleas: We have seen too many cases of modern-day slavery. Nor is it the first incident of sexual slavery in the Northern Mariana Islands. Indeed, slavery and prostitution are endemic to the islands' economy. According to the Department of the Interior's latest report on working conditions in the Commonwealth ``many workers are virtually prisoners, confined to their barracks during nonworking hours.'' There are documented reports of Chinese female workers becoming pregnant and who are pressured to have abortions. The grave situation in the Northern Marianas is captured by the headlines in the Department of the Interior's report. Here are a few of them: ``Local Control Over Immigration Has Led to an Unhealthy, Pervasive Reliance Upon Indentured Alien Workers,'' ``The CNMI Garment Industry Has Abused Current Trade Privileges to the Detriment of U.S. Workers,'' ``U.S. Companies and U.S. Taxpayers.'' Another one: ``Worker Exploitation in the Form of Recruitment Fraud,'' ``Payless Paydays & Coerced Abortions, Ineffective Border Control,'' and ``Smuggling of Aliens and Increased Criminal Activity.'' This is not a pleasant picture, and it only gets worse. In another report earlier this year, an undercover investigative team sponsored by the Global Survival Network detailed the sex trade and slavery in these once idyllic Pacific islands. According to their report, ``Trapped: Human Trafficking for Forced Labor in The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands'': Many of the Chinese women working in clubs with local clientele, for example, said they had come to the CNMI ostensibly to work as waitresses, unaware that they would have to work in a nightclub and/or be forced into sexual slavery. These women had been trafficked into the CNMI specifically for sex work without their knowledge or consent. Given this environment, is it any wonder three people have pled guilty to forcing women into slavery and prostitution? No. The wonder is that more people have not been so found. Hopefully this will change. As the Department of Justice notes, this prosecution was the result of a new effort to increase resources and oversight in the Commonwealth. Fortunately, some American clothing retailers are beginning to react to sweatshop conditions in the Northern Marianas. Just the other day, five major retailers--Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan, Phillips-Van Heusen, Bryland L.P., and The Dress Barn--agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit about this deplorable working environment. The settlement with these businesses follows a similar settlement agreed to last June with Nordstrom, J. Crew, Cutter & Buck, and Gymboree. Hopefully this marks a trend toward ending indentured servitude in the Commonwealth. More needs to be done. The central cause of the slavery and prostitution on this American territory is the lack of any controls on immigration. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with this U.S. territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is located 4,000 miles west of Hawaii. In 1975, the people of the CNMI voted for political union with the United States. Today the CNMI is a U.S. territory. A 1976 covenant enacted by Congress gave U.S. citizenship to residents of the CNMI. However, the covenant exempted the Commonwealth from the Immigration and Nationality Act. As we now know, that omission was a grave error. I want my colleagues of the Senate to know that the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Mr. Murkowski, and I have introduced legislation to correct fundamental immigration problems in the Commonwealth, such as the ones that led to the convictions obtained by the Justice Department. It was only yesterday, that the Energy Committee approved our CNMI reform bill. I hope that the full Senate will act on our legislation soon. Our bill stands for the simple proposition that America is one country and we must abide by a single, uniform immigration law. Congress must terminate an immigration system that is fundamentally wrong and incorporate the CNMI under Federal immigration law. Common sense dictates that our country must have a single, national immigration system. If Puerto Rico, or Hawaii, or Oregon, or Washington could write their own immigration laws--and grant work visas to foreigners--the U.S. immigration system would be in chaos. That is exactly what is happening in the CNMI. Over the past 20 years, the number of citizens in the Commonwealth doubled. During the same period, however, the population of alien workers exploded by 2,000 percent. Today, the CNMI has twice as many indentured laborers as citizens in its work force. A decade ago, in response to a growing concern about the large number of guest workers employed in the CNMI, the Reagan administration demanded change. Since then, the Bush and Clinton administrations have repeatedly criticized CNMI immigration and demanded reform. The Commonwealth is simply unable to control its borders. One CNMI official testified that they have ``no effective control'' over immigration. The INS reports that the CNMI has no reliable records of aliens entering the Commonwealth, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. A bipartisan commission labeled the Commonwealth's immigration system ``antithetical to American values.'' It is not just the number of workers that prompt concern; alien workers in the CNMI serve as indentured laborers. In a civilized society, indentured servitude, we believe, is immoral. The United States outlawed indenture over a century ago, but it continues today in the CNMI. The Commonwealth is becoming an international embarrassment for the United States. We have received complaints from the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh about immigration abuses and mistreatment of workers. Countries around the world watch--and wait--for Congress to act. The CNMI system of indentured immigrant labor violates basic democratic principles. It is time for Congress to enact CNMI immigration reform. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 Three Plead Guilty to Forcing Women Into Slavery and Prostitution in Northern Mariana Islands Washington, D.C.--Three individuals who were indicted last November on charges that they lured women from China, held them in slavery and forced them into prostitution pled guilty today in federal district court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, the Justice Department announced. Soon Oh Kwon, president of Kwon Enterprises, Inc., which does business in Saipan, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate rights, specifically the right to be free from involuntary servitude. Kwon's wife, Ying Yu Meng pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate federal laws that prohibit involuntary servitude, extortion, and transportation for illegal sexual activity. Kwon's son, Mo Young Kwon, who is an officer of Kwon Enterprises, also entered a guilty plea to one count of transportation for illegal sexual activity. ``Sadly, we have seen too many cases of modern day slavery,'' said Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. ``Today's guilty pleas, should put those who exploit workers on notice that the Justice Department will be relentless in bringing them to justice.'' The charges arose out of allegations that the three lured women from China to the CNMI and then held them in slavery and forced them to work as prostitutes in K's Hideaway Karaoke, a bar owned by Kwon Enterprises. ``This kind of abuse of guest workers is intolerable'' said Frederick A. Black, U.S. Attorney for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands. ``No matter where someone is from, once they come to the United States, they should be free from slavery.'' As part of his guilty plea filed with the court, Soon Oh Kwon admitted that, in 1996 and 1997, Kwon Enterprises, in collaboration with Kwon's mother-in-law, recruited and brought women from China to Saipan to work at the karaoke club, where they were forced to have sex with customers. The women were not allowed to stop working for Kwon Enterprises until they had paid debts owed to Kwon and his family for bringing them to Saipan. In order to discourage the women from leaving without permission, the women were subjected to mental and physical coercion, which included threats to their lives, and their families' reputations in China. Soon Oh Kwon also admitted to brandishing a pistol at some of the women. Kwon and his wife also admitted that they threatened the women in order to prevent them from making complaints to the CNMI Department of Labor and Immigration. Kwon's wife admitted that she had general oversight responsibility for the women who were employed by Kwon Enterprises and made sure that they did not leave without permission by intimidating and instilling fear in them. Kwon's son admitted that he made arrangements with customers of the karaoke club to have sex with the women, collected the money, and directed the women to leave with the customers in order to engage in illegal sexual activity. Sentencing is set before Judge Alex R. Munson on January 11, 2000. Soon Oh Kwon is facing a maximum prison term of ten years; Ying Yu Meng, a maximum prison term of five years; and Mo Young Kwon, a maximum prison term of ten years. The prosecution was the result of a cooperative investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as part of the Clinton Administration's CNMI Initiative on Labor, Immigration and Law Enforcement, a broad based multi-agency initiative designed to increase resources and oversight in the CNMI, a U.S. Commonwealth located in Micronesia.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to a recent announcement by Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Justice Department announced the conviction of three individuals charged with luring women from China into slavery and forced prostitution in the Northern Mariana Islands. The three pled guilty in Federal district court in Saipan. The defendants pled guilty to extortion, transportation for illegal sexual activity, and conspiracy to violate the right of women to be free from involuntary servitude. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Justice Department announcement be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this past Sunday, eight rodeo stars were inducted into the Rodeo Hall of Fame at the National Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center in Oklahoma City. Included among the honorees is one of Hawaii's most legendary paniolos--paniolo is Hawaiian for cowboy--the late Ikua Purdy. Ikua Purdy was born in 1873 at Parker Ranch, one of the largest and most famous ranches in the world, on the Big Island of Hawaii. As a boy he learned to ride and rope, working as a paniolo in the cattle industry, a large and important enterprise in Hawaii at the time. Ikua Purdy secured his place as a rodeo legend for his exploits in 1908 at the World Championship Rodeo in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Purdy, along with Eben ``Rawhide Ben'' Parker Low, Jack Low, and Archie Ka`aua traveled from the Big Island to Cheyenne and borrowed horses to compete in the world roping championship. This was their first competition outside of Hawaii. At the conclusion of the two-day competition, Jack Low placed sixth, Archie Ka`aua finished third, and Ikua Purdy won the won roping championship with a record time of 56 seconds--an amazing time that is all the more incredible since it came after an arduous 3,300-mile trek and accomplished with a borrowed horse. Mr. President, I ask that two articles from The Honolulu Advertiser detailing the remarkable achievements of Ikua Purdy be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Honolulu Advertiser, July 5, 1999] Bid Made To Give Paniolo His Due (By Dan Nakaso) In 1908, three Hawaii paniolo set off for Cheyenne, Wyo., where they heard the best ropers and riders in the land were gathering. Just to get to the World Championship Rodeo, Ikua Purdy, Jack Low and Archie Ka`aua had to take a boat from the Big Island to Honolulu, catch a steamship to San Francisco, then hop a train to Cheyenne. When they arrived 3,300 miles later, the other cowboys didn't know what to make of their dark skin, floppy hats and colorful clothes. And for a while it looked as if Purdy, Low and Ka`aua had made their journey for nothing, because nobody would loan them horses to compete. But when the dust of competition settled after two days of roping and riding, Low had finished sixth, Ka`aua third and Purdy stood alone as the world roping champion. The story became the stuff of paniolo lore. In the 101 years that followed, Purdy's legend has been remembered in Hawaii through paniolo songs, such as ``Hawaiian Rough Riders'' and ``Walomina.'' He was among the first people inducted into Hawaii's sports Hall of Fame. What happened in Cheyenne has also inspired a modern-day quest by a pair of California cattle ranchers to give Purdy-- and Hawaii's paniolo lifestyle--their rightful places in the history of the American West. Purdy's name on the Mainland is only now spreading in cowboy circles, mostly through cattlemen Jack Roddy and Cecil Jones. They're trying to get Purdy inducted into the Rodeo Hall of Fame, a wing of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center in Oklahoma City. Later this month, the historical society that runs the Rodeo Hall of Fame will send its 400 members ballots containing Purdy's name. If Purdy is voted in when the ballots are counted in September, Roddy and Jones believe it will be just the start toward recognizing Hawaii's place in cowboy and cattle history. ``Purdy's just the beginning,'' Roddy said. ``We need to tell the whole story of Hawaii, how cattle showed up in Hawaii first (even before Texas) and what Hawaii did for the rest of the West. The cowboys over there view Hawaii a people wearing hula skirts on beaches. They don't realize it's huge cattle country.'' If Purdy doesn't make it into the Hall of Fame this summer the historical society might not consider him again for years. He missed induction last year by 60 votes, a fact that gnaws at Billy Bergin, a Big Island veterinarian who grew up working as a paniolo. Bergin established the Paniolo Preservation Society 18 months ago and is pushing people in Hawaii to pay $25 to the historical society so they can become voting members and get Purdy inducted. In just the last three months, 87 people from Hawaii have joined, according to the National Cowboy Hall of Fame. Before the Hawaii campaign, ``no one had ever heard of Ikua Purdy,'' said Judy Dearing, who coordinates the rodeo program part of the Hall of Fame. ``Now we have such an interest from the Hawaii folks that we have a nice file an inch-and-a-half thick on Ikua.'' Jones vaguely remembered reading ``about some guy who came to Cheyenne and showed everybody up, set some records that were unbelievable and beat all the hotshots.'' Last year ``the nominating committee wondered how come his name hadn't come up before. Unfortunately, not enough people were aware of him. I said, `We need to get the word out. He's long overdue.' '' Purdy's descendants lean toward the humble side of life, just like Ikua, and the push to elect him into the Hall of Fame makes some of them uncomfortable. ``Most of us feel he should be in the Hall of Fame because of his merits and not by buying a vote,'' said Palmer Purdy, one of Ikua's grandsons. ``Don't get me wrong, I want to see him inducted. I just don't want to get him in that way. I want him to be inducted because he was a competitor and he was good at it and he was the best that Hawaii had to offer.'' Ikua was born on Christmas Eve, 1873, at Mana on the Big Island's Parker Ranch. He died on the Fourth of July, 1945, at Ulupalakua on Maui, where he finished out his paniolo days as foreman of Ulupalakua Ranch. He's buried at Ulupalakua. As a boy, Palmer Purdy, now 52, never heard a word from his father, William, about Ikua's victory in Cheyenne or his status as a legend. It wasn't until Palmer became a teenager that he got curious about his dead grandfather. ``All my uncles and aunties are very humble and didn't openly discuss Ikua's greatness,'' Purdy said. ``They didn't want to brag. But I would overhear other people talking about Ikua Purdy being a famous cowboy.'' The more he heard how Purdy taught paniolo to train horses in the ocean--not ``break'' them--and about Purdy's victories in Hawaii rodeos, the more Palmer filled in the gaps. ``The first thing that came to my mind was, `Wow, I missed a lot growing up.' We sure would have liked to see him in action. When people start writing songs about you, you put a dent in people's minds. So he must have been a great, great individual for that to happen.'' the early days Purdy's life is just one chapter in the history of cowboys, horses and cattle in Hawaii, Bergin, Roddy and Jones said. It begins in either 1792 or 1793 when British sea Capt. George Vancouver brought cattle to the Big Island as a gift to King Kamehameha I. Some of them died soon after, so Vancouver convinced Kamehameha to impose a kapu on killing cattle to give them a chance to breed. The herd grew so successfully over the next three decades that cattle terrorized people and overran crops and forests. Rock walls in parts of urban Honolulu and other islands still stand as testament to the crude efforts to gain control over the bovines. In 1830, Kamehameha III turned to Spanish California for help. Three vaqueros came over and showed Hawaiians how to ride horses that had been imported here 30 years before, and how to handle cattle. Hawaii had its first working cowboys by 1836--some three or four decades before America. They called themselves paniolo, and Island-ized version of the word Espanol, or Spanish. Raising cattle soon grew into a major export industry and helped Hawaiians pay off debts they had racked up by not filling orders for sandalwood. Among the big cattle operations was the Parker Ranch on the Big Island, founded in 1848 by John Palmer Parker. Purdy was one of his great-grandsons. In 1907, Eben ``Rawhide Ben'' Parker Low went to Cheyenne's Frontier Days and thought Hawaii's paniolo would be able to hold their own in competition there. Rawhide Ben had recently sold Pu`uwa`awa`a Ranch on the Big Island and financed the trip to Cheyenne in 1908 for himself, his half-brother Purdy, his cousin Ka'aua and his brother Jack Low. ``He felt they were the top ropers in the Islands,'' said Tila Spielman, Rawhide Ben's granddaughter. The horses that Purdy, Low and Ka`aua borrowed were rough. And on the second day of competition, Low downed his calf in record time, but an asthma attack kept him from tying it up. His time from the first day was still good enough for sixth place. Ka`aua's time of 1 minute, 28 seconds, got him third place. And Purdy was champion with an astounding 56 seconds. According to some accounts, it might have even been as low as 52 seconds. Purdy never returned to Cheyenne, or even left Hawaii again. He is on the verge of being immortalized in Oklahoma, but the attention he is getting today is exactly the kind that would have made him nervous. Whenever he was asked about his accomplishments, Purdy would simply say: ``Other things to talk about besides me.''

Mr. AKAKA. Ikua Purdy went home to Hawaii and resumed his work as a paniolo until his death in 1945. He did not return to the mainland to defend his title, in fact he never left Hawaii's shores again. But his victory and legend live on in Hawaii and the annals of rodeo history. His achievements are immortalized in song and hula in Hawaii, including ``Hawaiian Rough Riders'' and ``Waiomina.'' Yet, during his lifetime, Ikua Purdy avoided drawing attention to his roping mastery and world record performance. I am pleased to join Ikua Purdy's family and friends in honoring the legacy and talent of one of Hawaii's and America's greatest cowboys. This weekend's well-deserved induction into the Rodeo Hall of Fame enshrines a sporting feat that continues to amaze rodeo fans and highlights the long, proud history of Hawaii's paniolos. This well-deserved honor for a paniolo whose talents were matched only by his humility and quiet dignity follows on the heels of renewed interest and appreciation of Hawaii's illustrious paniolo traditions. The Hawaiian cowboy played an important role in the economic and cultural development of Hawaii and helped to establish the islands as a major cattle exporter to California, the Americas, and the Pacific Rim for over a century. Paniolo history is frequently overlooked in Hawaii and is largely unknown beyond our shores. Yet, this is an important part of Hawaii's history and of American history. Indeed, Hawaii's working cowboys preceded the emergence of their compatriots in the American West. Paniolo came from Spain, Portugal, Mexico, California, and throughout South America to work Hawaii's ranches. They brought their languages and culture, including the guitar and ukulele. As they shared their culture, married and raised families, they embraced the Native Hawaiian culture and customs. In many ways, this sharing and blending of cultures is the foundation for the diverse and rich heritage the people of Hawaii enjoy today. The paniolo experience is part of the distinct historical narrative of our nation's history. It illustrates how differences have developed into shared values and community. By illuminating the many currents and branches of our history and society, we acquire a better understanding and appreciation of our national landscape. The rediscovery of paniolo history was further encouraged when Governor Ben Cayetano declared 1998 the ``Year of the Paniolo'' in Hawaii. An excellent documentary film by Edgy Lee, ``Paniolo O Hawaii-- Cowboys of the Far West,'' that premiered at the Smithsonian captures the essence of the Hawaiian cowboy and highlights the economic and cultural significance of the paniolo in the islands. I encourage all students and enthusiasts of the American West and cowboy lore to learn about the Hawaiian paniolo.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the boys of summer rarely disappoint us, and last night's final game of the National League playoffs once again confirmed that baseball is truly America's pastime. The series captivated television audiences as the Mets and Braves went head to head in extra innings in their last two games: Sunday's game was the longest in playoff history--lasting more than five hours, and last night's game was not decided until the bottom of the 11th--just past midnight. I want to single out Hawaii's own, Benny Agbayani, the star New York outfielder, who proudly wears number 50 for the 50th state. Benny had an illustrious playoff season and proved he is an invaluable addition to the Mets starting lineup. After playing in Triple A since 1993, the Hawaii outfielder was called up by the Mets in early May to replace the injured Bobby Bonilla. He secured his slot by batting .400 and hitting 10 home runs by mid-June. The former St. Louis School and Hawaii Pacific University all-state athlete has made Hawaii proud and has captured the nation's attention with his strength at bat, agility on the field, and grace in waiting for his place in baseball history. My aloha to Benny, his recent bride Niela, and their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. The United States needs to train people, design equipment, and to invent new techniques if it is going to preserve the safety and reliability of its nuclear deterrent. The Stockpile Stewardship Program can accomplish all of these objectives. The Stockpile Stewardship Program has had problems but it has made great progress. As Director Tarter noted, it has opened up new possibilities for weapons science not even contemplated a few years ago. This is the future: one of science, not one of testing. As a strong advocate of National Missile Defense, I have been struck by how some are willing to have such extraordinary confidence in the ability of American scientist and engineers to overcome problems in missile defense but do not seem to place the same confidence in the ability of American scientists and engineers to do the same with stockpile stewardship. Choosing the path of science does not mean the United States cannot test if science proves inadequate to practice. The assurances contained in the President's six safeguards attached to this treaty mean that, if necessary, we can resume testing. I have full confidence in this President or any future President being willing to take this extraordinary step, and I have full confidence that this or any future Congress will back that President up should such a decision to return to testing be necessary. Supporting the CTBT does not preclude America from taking whatever steps are necessary to preserve our national security. I would argue, as have many of my colleagues, and interestingly enough, many of our allies, that ratification of the treaty helps preserve American security by locking in our nuclear superiority and limiting the abilities of other nations to match our nuclear capability. Our allies, who benefit from the security of the American nuclear umbrella, want the CTBT because they know it enhances, not detracts, from their security. Yes, it is true that the treaty will not prevent proliferation absolutely. A country does not need to conduct nuclear tests to have a nuclear capability. But will it have a reliable weapons system? I do not think so. Yes, it is true that the CTBT will not prevent a country from trying to hide small scale nuclear tests. But I believe that the international monitoring system which will be in place as well as the United States' own national technical means will be so extensive that any test will be detected. That country will then be subject to an international inspection. Some suggest that the United States will not be able to gain a consensus for such an inspection. I do not see why not: it will be in the interest of all signatories to ensure that no countries violate the agreement. I cannot envision a majority of states not agreeing to an inspection of a suspected nuclear test. I do not know if the CTBT will create a new international norm discouraging nuclear weapons development. I do know that the CTBT will make such development technically more difficult to do and politically more difficult to deny. Let me conclude by asking this simple question: do my colleagues who oppose the CTBT want our country to resume nuclear testing? If not, then I suggest that the only course is to invest in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I say, give American science a chance. Invest in the future of weapons science, not in the past of weapons testing by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Exhibit No. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate giving its advice and consent to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Debate on the CTBT has unfortunately become politicized. It should not be. The series of hearings held in the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee were fair and serious. I was impressed by the intelligent discussion and debate. But I wish that we had heard more. As Senator Hagel indicated in his statement on the floor, we should not be compressing debate on this issue. We should hold more extensive hearings. This treaty is about the future. It is about making a world more secure from the threat of nuclear war. This issue is too important, too important for the Senate of the United States not to have held hearing after hearing on all aspects of the treaty. Such hearings would, in my view, have better clarified all the benefits of the Treaty. I have supported the treaty, I continue to support the treaty, and I will vote for the treaty, not because it is perfect--the CTBT does not mean an end to the threat of nuclear war or nuclear terrorism or nuclear proliferation, but it does represent a step in the right direction of containing these threats. Let us be clear on what not ratifying the CTBT means: A vote against the CTBT is a vote for the resumption of nuclear testing by the United States. A resumption of nuclear testing is the clear consequence of the criticism by opponents of the CTBT that the stockpile Stewardship Program is not sufficient to guarantee the safety, reliability and performance of the nation's nuclear weapon stockpile. Critics of the Stockpile Stewardship Program argue that only actual testing can preserve our nuclear deterrence. Indeed at least one witness testifying before the Armed Services Committee advocated a resumption of 10 kiloton testing. That means testing a weapon almost the size of what was dropped on Hiroshima. I do not believe that the American public wants to see the resumed testing of Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons. Nor do I believe such testing is necessary, not as long as America persists in investing sufficient resources in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Yes, there are uncertainties about the ability of the Stewardship Program over time to be successful. As the Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, John Browne, has testified, ``the average age of the nuclear stockpile is older than at any time in history, and nuclear weapons involve materials and technologies found nowhere else on earth.'' And as his colleague at the Lawrence Livermore laboratories, Bruce Tarter, stated, ``the pace of progress must be quickened. Much remains to be accomplished, and the clock is running.'' Indeed, the United States has no alternative to the Stockpile Stewardship Program unless we want to return to the level of nuclear testing that we saw prior to President Bush ordering a moratorium on testing in 1992. I ask unanimous consent that a chart demonstrating the number of United States nuclear tests, from July 1945 through September 1992, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduced S. 1694, the Hawaii Water Resources Reclamation Act of 1999. Senator Inouye joins me in sponsoring this legislation. My colleagues, rural Hawaii faces difficult economic times. The past decade has been especially challenging for agriculture in our state. Sugar has declined dramatically, from 180,000 acres of cane in 1989 to 60,000 acres today, and with this decline has come tremendous economic disruption. 120,000 acres may not seem like much to Senators from large states of the continental U.S., but in Hawaii the loss has huge implications. 120,000 acres represents more than 45 percent of our cultivated farm land. Hawaii County, where the greatest impact of these losses is felt, faces double digit unemployment. As Carol Wilcox, author of the definitive history of irrigation in Hawaii noted in her recent book ``Sugar Water,'' the cultivation of sugarcane dominated Hawaii's agricultural landscape for the last 25 years of the 19th century and for most of this century as well. ``Sugar was the greatest single force at work in Hawaii,'' she wrote, and water was essential to this development. The face of Hawaii agriculture is changing. During the past decade, 95 sugar farms and plantations closed their doors. Today, many rural communities in Hawaii are struggling to define new roles in an era when sugar is no longer the king of crops. We have entered a period of rebirth. A new foundation for agriculture is being established. Diversified agriculture has become a bright spot in our economy. Farm receipts from diversified crops rose an average of 5.5 percent annually for the past three years, surpassing the $300 million mark for the first time. Hawaii still grows sugarcane, but diversified farming represents the future of Hawaii agriculture. The restructuring of agriculture has prompted new and shifting demands for agricultural water and a broad reevaluation of the use of Hawaii's fresh water resources. The outcome of these events will help define the economic future of rural Hawaii. While the Bureau of Reclamation played a modest role in Hawaii water resource development, sugar plantations and private irrigation companies were responsible for constructing, operating, and maintaining nearly all of Hawaii's agricultural irrigation systems. Over a period of 90 years, beginning in 1856, more than 75 ditches, reservoirs, and groundwater systems were constructed. Although Hawaii's irrigation systems are called ditches, the use of this term misrepresents their magnitude. Hawaii's largest ditch system, the East Maui Irrigation Company, operates a network of six ditches on the north flank of Haleakala Crater. The broad scope of East Maui irrigation is extensively chronicled in ``Sugar Water'': Among the water entities, none compares to EMI. It is the largest privately owned water company in the United States, perhaps in the world. The total delivery capacity is 445 mgd. The average daily water delivery under median weather conditions is 160 mgd . . . Its largest ditch, the Wailoa Canal, has a greater median flow (170 mgd) than any river in Hawaii . . . The [EMI] replacement cost is estimated to be at $200 million. Most of Hawaii's irrigation systems--ditches as we know them--are in disrepair. Some have been abandoned. Those that no longer irrigate cane lands may not effectively serve the new generation of Hawaii farmers, either because little or no water reaches new farms or because the ditches have not been repaired or maintained. Thus, the wheel has turned full circle: the challenge that confronted six generations of cane farmers, access to water, has become the challenge for a new generation that farms diversified agriculture. In response to these changing events, the Hawaii Water Resources Reclamation Act authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to survey irrigation and water delivery systems in Hawaii, identify the cost of rehabilitating the systems, and evaluate demand for their future use. The bill also instructs the Bureau to identify new opportunities for reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater for agriculture and non- agricultural purposes. Finally, the bill authorizes the Bureau to conduct emergency drought relief in Hawaii. This is especially important for struggling farmers on the Big Island. While I hesitate to predict the findings of the Bureau's study, I expect we will learn that some of the ditch systems should be repaired or improved, while others should be abandoned. We may also learn that the changing face of Hawaii agriculture justifies entirely new systems or new components being added to existing ditches. Because the bill emphasizes water recycling and reuse, the report will identify opportunities to improve water conservation, enhance stream flows, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and rebuilding groundwater supplies. These important objectives will help ensure that any legislative response to the Bureau's report is ecologically appropriate. The process outlined in S. 1694 cannot advance unless sound environmental principles are observed. Those who are for Hawaii's rivers and streams, as I do, believe that water resource development should not adversely affect fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Hawaii's rivers support a number of rare native species that rely on undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable of these is the goby, which actually climbs waterfalls, reaching habitat that is inaccessible to other fish. As a young boy, my friends and I caught and ate o'opu, as the goby are known to Hawaiians, at Oahu's streams. I am determined to preserve this, and the other forms of rich biological heritage that inhabit our streams and watersheds. My remarks would not be complete without a review of the history of Federal reclamation initiatives in Hawaii. Hawaii's relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation dates from 1939, when the agency proposed developing an aqueduct on Molokai to serve 16,000 acres of federally managed Hawaiian Home Lands. While this project did not proceed, in 1954 Congress directed the Bureau to investigate irrigation and reclamation needs for three of our islands: Oahu, Hawaii, and Molokai. A Federal reclamation project on the Island of Molokai was eventually constructed in response to this investigation. The project continues in operation today. In the first session of Congress following Hawaii's statehood, legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to develop reclamation projects in Hawaii under the Small Reclamation Projects Act was signed into law. The most recent interaction with the Bureau occurred in 1995 when Congress authorized the Secretary to allow Native Hawaiians the same favorable cost recovery for reclamation projects as Indians or Indian tribes. I will work closely with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to pass the Hawaii Water Resources Reclamation Act. I ask that a copy of S. 1694 be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act of 1999. This measure will enhance the safety and efficiency of our air transportation system. The residents of Hawaii, a State that is perhaps more dependent on air transportation than any other, stand to benefit significantly from this legislation. Today I want to speak to title VI of the bill which addresses the issue of air tour operations at national parks. Title VI establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units of the National Park System. The legislation requires the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service and with public input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management plan for parks currently or potentially affected by air tour flights. Under this process, routes, altitudes, time restrictions, limitations on the number of flights, and other operating parameters could be prescribed in order to protect sensitive park resources as well as to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An air tour plan could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours within half a mile outside the boundaries of a park, regulate air tour operations that impact tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter air technology. S. 82 also creates an advisory group comprising representatives of the FAA, the Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and recommendations on overflight issues. As embodied in the air tour management plan 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 commercial aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks. In other words, an air tour management plan for Yosemite in California may differ significantly from a plan for the Florida Everglades, in order to take into account differences in terrain, weather, types of resources to be protected, and other factors. What is important about this bill is that it establishes a uniform procedure, with common regulatory elements, that will address overflight issues on a consistent basis across the nation, while allowing for local variations. I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for promoting dialogue among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of legislation--the National Parks Airspace Management Act, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Inouye and Senator Frist--that I promoted in several previous Congresses. Title VI also reflects the hard-won consensus developed by the National Parks Overflights Working Group, a group comprising industry, environmental, and tribal representatives, which worked for many months to hammer out critical details embodied in the pending measure. Adoption of this bill is essential if we are to address effectively the detrimental impacts of air tour activities on the National Park System. Air tourism has significantly increased in the last decade, nowhere more so than at high profile units such as Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, as well as Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks in my own State. A major 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly 100 parks experienced adverse park impacts. That number has assuredly risen since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted with attempts to preserve the natural qualities and values that characterize many national parks, in some instances seriously. While air tour operators often provide important emergency services, enhance park access for special populations such as the handicapped and elderly, and offer an important source of income for local economies-- notably tourism-dependent areas such as Hawaii--unregulated overflights have the potential to harm park ecologies, harm wildlife, and impair visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour operations can also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors alike. The tragic crash of an air tour on the Big Island of Hawaii last week which killed nine people, is a stark reminder of the dangers inherent in air travel. It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the respective interest 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's initial, but ultimately limited, attempt to come to grips with the overflights issue. S. 82 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 balancing the needs of air tour operators against the imperative to preserve and protect our natural resources. The overflights provisions of this bill are the consequence 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 form the underpinnings of this legislation; representatives of aviation and environmental advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International, the U.S. Air Tour Association, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and the Wilderness Society; and, officials of the FAA and Park Service. From the Park Service, in particular, I recognize Jackie Lowey, Wes Henry, Marv Jensen, Sheridan Steele, Ken Czarnowski, and Dave Emmerson, all of whom worked directly on this legislation. And I would be remiss if I did not recognize the unsung contributions of Ann Choiniere of the Commerce Committee staff and Steve Oppermann, formerly of my staff and more recently a consultant to the Park Service, who spent countless hours shaping the details in this bill. However, title VI is, above all, the product of the energy and vision of my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator 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 been relentless in his quest to impel progress on this subject. For his leadership in writing the overflights provisions of this bill, and for his decade-long fight to preserve natural quiet in our national parks, Senator McCain deserves the lasting appreciation of all those who believe in maintaining the integrity of the National Park System. Mr. President, in conclusion, I am pleased to have been involved in developing legislation 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, resources that must be protected at all costs. I believe that title VI of the pending measure reasonably and prudently balances these sometimes opposing considerations, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for the time and also my chairman from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for permitting me to speak during this time. I rise to address an issue of critical importance to our national security: containing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by North Korea. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I see this as one of the most pressing security issues facing America. The Clinton administration has been working hard at containing and countering this threat, holding important discussions with the North Koreans, most recently in Berlin. Last Friday, a North Korean spokesman stated that North Korea would ``not launch a missile while the talks are underway with a view to creating an atmosphere more favorable for the talks'' with the United States. This, I believe, is a very positive step. North Korea's development and August 1998 testing of a long-range missile drew America's attention to this emerging threat to our national security. Even more directly, it raised concerns about Hawaii's security. Following this test, the North Koreans began preparing to launch a second missile, which our intelligence analysts believe could deliver a several-hundred kilogram payload to Hawaii and to Alaska. North Korean preparations to test launch a much larger missile prompted the administration to take multilateral efforts to persuade the North Koreans not to launch and to restrict their missile development. Following negotiations in Berlin between the United States and the North Koreans last week, the President announced his decision to ease some sanctions against North Korea administered under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Defense Production Act, and the Department of Commerce's Export Administration regulations. So far these efforts have been partially successful, and the North Koreans have agreed to a moratorium on missile launches during this series of talks with the United States. The administration is to be congratulated for the intensity with which it has pursued a solution to this dangerous problem. There has been some criticism of the administration's approach, with a few critics arguing that the administration is rewarding bad behavior or giving in to extortion demands. I do not believe this is the case. The formal announcement by the North Korean Government stating there would be no missile tests while talks are underway with the United States is a clear indication that North Koreans have accepted the new approach in relations outlined by Secretary Perry. There is no doubt that the North Koreans have an active missile export program which is dependent upon imports of foreign technology and exports of cruise missiles. Therefore, it is in our national security interest to limit North Korean missile development and especially North Korean missile exports toward which the Berlin agreement takes a firm step. By lifting some economic sanctions, holding out the possibility of lifting additional sanctions, and suggesting to the North Koreans that the United States is willing to normalize relations with North Korea, the North Koreans have been given a powerful incentive towards agreeing to a permanent moratorium on missile development. Reimposing sanctions would send such a strong signal of distrust with North Korean actions that it could well set back North Korean efforts to achieve international respectability to lower levels than those today. This is not a sanctions relief for moratorium deal. It leads, instead, to a normalization of relations for a reduction in threat. Normalization is predicated upon North Korean willingness to change their behavior in terms of terrorism, drug dealing, and proliferation, including a verifiable end to their nuclear warhead and missile programs. We are not looking at an immediate end to the hostile atmosphere that has worsened tensions on the Korean peninsula. We must determine what our long-term objectives are on the Korean peninsula. If our ultimate goal is the peaceful unification of the Koreas as one democratic state, we need to assess more effectively how our current strategy will lead us in that direction. I look forward to the administration's elaborating its next steps towards North Korea. So far, the administration has worked hard and well at containing tensions on the peninsula. It is not a success which must come easily, given the difficulty of dealing with the North Koreans. More hard work and the support of Congress will be needed to make a lasting peace possible. I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Alaska for granting me this time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour of debate to Senator Byrd.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I take the floor to commend my friends, the chairman and the ranking member, for their efforts in coming forward with a bill that provides valuable funding for veterans and key housing programs. However, I urge my colleagues to provide additional funding for section 8 vouchers. We have talked a lot about this. In my State of Hawaii, there is a 20-month wait for public housing and a 44-month wait for section 8 vouchers. Without additional funding for these programs, Hawaii's residents will only see an increase in the waiting period for public housing and section 8 vouchers. We must ensure that adequate funding is provided for these important programs which benefit so many people. Lastly, I wish to also urge my colleagues to revisit the Community Builders Program and provide HUD with the ability to continue this valuable program. In my State, this program has provided a valuable service for Hawaii's low-income families. Once again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for making very tough decisions in crafting this legislation. I know it was not easy, and I am pleased the committee sought additional funding for our Nation's veterans' health care system. But I hope we also understand the need for affordable housing, and I urge the committee to revisit this issue in conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to others who are calling for increases in education funding. Our investment in the education of future generations that will someday run this country cannot be undervalued. We must ensure the best education for our young people. However, this will not happen if we undermine education as a priority by cutting funding for schools, classrooms, and students. This funding would be deeply reduced for years to come without a veto of the tax bill, as President Clinton has promised. In addition, we may see reductions in fiscal year 2000 funding if we do not give greater emphasis to education as a priority in the current appropriations process. This is the challenge before us today. Education's share of the Federal budget has declined, and it did not start out at a significant percentage to begin with. Education makes up 2 percent of the fiscal year 1999 budget. Compare this 2 percent with about 15 percent for defense, 22 percent for Social Security, 11 percent for Medicare, and 13 percent for interest on the debt. These numbers are reported by the Committee for Education Funding. In addition, the Federal share of education funding has declined, falling from 14 percent for elementary and secondary programs in fiscal 1980 to 6 percent in fiscal year 1998. For higher education, the Federal share fell from 18 percent to 12 percent from 1980 to 1998. Because Federal dollars leverage more support for education from other sectors of the economy, we cannot allow the Federal share to dwindle. We can scarce afford to continue this way and shrink the education dollar if we look at what lies ahead. According to the recent Baby Boom Echo Report from the U.S. Department of Education, total public and private school enrollment in this country has risen to a record 53 million students. Furthermore, between 1989 and 2009, elementary school enrollment will have increased by 5 million children, secondary enrollment by almost 4 million students, and college by 3 million students. The report lists Hawaii among the top 15 states in enrollment growth. For public elementary and secondary enrollment, in a decade, Hawaii will have 26,000 more students in its schools, reaching 227,000 students. This means 13 percent more students will be in Hawaii's classrooms in 2009 than are there today. Many States are facing similar projections, and there seems to be no end in sight to this growth. There will be tremendous repercussions from this Baby Boom Echo. One example is in the need for school construction and modernization. Mr. President, in Hawaii, about three in every four schools need to upgrade or repair buildings to good overall condition. More than half of schools report at least one inadequate building feature, whether the roof is leaking, plumbing is not functioning well, or windows are inadequate. In addition, four out of five schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, such as air quality, ventilation, or lighting. We will need to attend to some or all of these conditions soon as Hawaii continues to feel the impact of increasing enrollments. Over the next decade, the Hawaii Department of Education estimates that it will need $1.5 billion for capital improvements. This will include 15 new elementary schools, 2 new intermediate schools, and 2 new high schools. The figure also accounts for 400 new permanent classrooms and $120 million for building replacement. In addition, class size will need to be reduced before learning is stifled altogether--this will be had to do with more students in schools. Hawaii's average class size is already in the mid-20s, while the recommended size is 18. These are only a few examples of the need in our public schools that will be heightened by rising enrollments. It is easy to see shy I cannot condone the education cuts that would result if the tax bill became law. I am not opposed to tax cuts, but committing $792 billion to tax cuts at this time would lead to serious neglect of this country's greater priorities. In an era of budget surplus, we would have to hang our heads in shame for using funds for tax breaks when problems loom large: Social Security and Medicare need to be made solvent for future decades; the amount we are putting toward interest on the debt must be reduced; and our domestic priorities, including education, most be boosted. However, the majority's tax plan calls for about 50-percent cuts in nondefense discretionary programs. For education, this means: 6 million children denied extra academic support under Title I funds for the disadvantaged, including 25,000 students in Hawaii; almost 800,000 students denied a Pell grant, including 2,000 in Hawaii; and nearly $3 billion less in IDEA funding to States, including $9 million intended for special education in Hawaii. The tax bill would mean a giant step backward for education. Now, it appears that the majority is going after education funding for the next fiscal year. It is bad enough that the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill is often left for last, which means that it picks up ``leftovers'' after other appropriations bills have been taken care of. This is how we treat a bill that contains programs for the most vulnerable Americans. We are currently tangling with an even bigger problem with this bill caused by low allocations for the Labor-HHS bill--something which could have been avoided in this era of surplus. In their zeal to keep the budget surplus sacred for tax cuts, my colleagues in the majority capped the Labor-HHS bill at $73.6 billion. This would translate into a 17-percent cut in overall education funding. We know that this 17-percent cut will be felt by State and local education agencies, school districts, schools, and classrooms. Its impacts will go directly to our children. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program will be cut almost $80 million from current funding, which means a cut of more than $375,000 from programs in Hawaii's school- and community-based drug education and prevention activities. Looking at title I for the disadvantaged once again, Hawaii would lose more than $3 million. Hawaii's schools cannot afford this loss in funding. There are additional cuts I could list. The bottom line is that it would be a travesty to see this Congress ravage education funding. Mr. President, I stand here not only as a Senator representing the people of Hawaii. I stand here as a former teacher, vice principal, principal, and administrator in Hawaii's school system. I remember what it is like to be at the front of a classroom with young faces and bright eyes eager to learn and looking for guidance. I listened to parents' concerns at PTA meetings. I talked to individual students about a poor academic record, spotty school attendance, or disruptive behavior that made it difficult for others in the class to learn. I remember what it was like being on the front lines of education. I cannot see any good for the future of our country coming out of these large education cuts. We bemoan problems facing our schools today such as unexpected and shocking incidents of violence. Let us put muscle behind our rhetoric and treat education as a priority by preventing this 17-percent cut. I ask my colleagues to join me in restoring education as a priority and calling for increases, not huge decreases, in the investment in our country's future. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to speak on an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recorded as voting ``nay'' on yesterday's rollcall vote No. 274 related to the germaneness of a provision in the Shelby substitute amendment to H.R. 2084, the fiscal year 2000 Transportation appropriations bill. This will not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 53, a sense of Congress resolution relating to the recent allegations of espionage and illegal campaign financing that have brought into question the loyalty of individuals of Asian Pacific ancestry. Mr. President, I am concerned about the negative impact that the recent investigation of Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at Los Alamos, New Mexico, is having on the Chinese American community. Certain recent media coverage of this investigation has chosen to portray Chinese and Chinese Americans with a broad brush, using loaded words that are offensive and implying that certain people should be treated with suspicion solely because of their ethnicity or national origin. Cartoons exaggerate and poke fun at physical appearances of individuals by depicting slanted eyes and buck teeth. In one particularly offensive example, a recent editorial in a Santa Fe, New Mexico, newspaper made fun of Asian accents, unnecessarily referred to the ``Fu Manchu'' character, and tried to link the allegations of stolen nuclear secrets and the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Mr. President, Asian Pacific Americans are an important part of our body politic. They have made significant contributions to politics, business, industry, science, sports, education, and the arts. Men and women like the late Senator Sparky Matsunaga, Olympic Champion Kristi Yamaguchi, Architect I.M. Pei, Maxine Hong Kingston, Ellison Onizuka, and many others have enhanced and invigorated the life of this nation. Asian Americans have played a fundamental part in making this country what it is today. Asian immigrants helped build the great transcontinental railroads of the 19th century. They labored on the sugar plantations of Hawaii, on the vegetable and fruit farms of California, and in the gold mines of the West. They were at the forefront of the agricultural labor movement, especially in the sugarcane and grape fields, and were instrumental in developing the fishing and salmon canning industries of the Pacific Northwest. They were importers, merchants, grocers, clerks, tailors, and gardeners. They manned the assembly lines during America's Industrial Revolution. They opened laundries, restaurants, and vegetable markets. They also served our nation in war: the famed all-Nisei 100th/442nd combat team of World War II remains the most decorated unit in U.S. military history. Despite their contributions, Asian immigrants and Asian Pacific Americans suffered social prejudice and economic, political, and institutional discrimination. They were excluded from churches, barber shops, and restaurants. They were forced to sit in the balconies of movie theaters and the back seats of buses. They attended segregated schools. They were even denied burial in white cemeteries; in one instance, a decorated Asian American soldier killed in action was refused burial in his hometown cemetery. Rather than receive equal treatment, Asians and Pacific Islanders were historically paid lower wages than their white counterparts, relegated to menial jobs, or forced to turn to businesses and industries in which competition with whites was minimized. For more than 160 years, Asians were also denied citizenship by a law that prevented them from naturalizing, a law that remained in effect until 1952. Without citizenship, Asians could not vote, and thus could not seek remedies through the Tammany Halls or other political organizations like other immigrant groups. The legacy of this injustice is seen today in the relative lack of political influence and representation of Asian Americans at every level and in every branch of government. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy Committee and governmental Affairs Committee, where I am Ranking Member on the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I have expressed my concern about the unfair and unwarranted negative impact this issue is having on the image of the Asian Pacific American community. We need to move quickly beyond the search for ethnic scapegoats. This is the lesson of the recent concern over national security leaks. We should not overreact. Mr. President, I applaud President Clinton's executive order of June 7, 1999, to establish a commission to study and suggest ways to improve the quality of life for Asian Pacific Americans. President Clinton rightfully stated that many Asian Pacific Americans are underserved by federal programs. The order outlines steps to ensure that federal programs, especially those that gather data on health and social services, are responsible to Asian Pacific Americans needs. It's a step in the right direction and it may focus on some of the more compelling issues involving Asian Pacific Americans in terms of improving the quality of their lives.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President yesterday, this body unanimously adopted the Helms amendment to H.R. 2084, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Helms amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States Census bureau should include marital status on the short form census questionnaire to be distributed to the majority of American households for the 2000 decennial census. The marital status question currently appears only on the long form which will be distributed to one out of every six households, rather than to all households as the short form is distributed. I agree with the importance of collecting information about marital status, and I know that by using modern statistical methods and the information obtained from the question on the long form, we will know how many Americans are married. Although I supported the amendment, I offer some explanation about the amendment, on behalf of the Census Bureau, about why the marital status question was moved to the long form rather than left on the short form. I would also like to respond to my colleague from North Carolina, who said that the U.S. Census Bureau ``obviously no longer regards marriage as having any importance.'' This attitude should not be ascribed to the actions of the Census Bureau. This was hardly a frivolous decision. Rather, an explanation can be found in the agency's efforts to comply with Congressional mandates on the decennial census questionnaires. In one of its many mandates imposed on the Census Bureau about conducting the 2000 census, Congress directed the agency to reduce the number of questions asked on decennial questionnaires. In response, the Census Bureau performed a review of each question on both the long form and the short form. From this review, the agency eliminated questions for which it found no statutory or legal requirement, including the marital status question. A major reason for excluding certain questions from the short form is that the short form must be processed immediately to provide timely information to States for redistricting purposes. In accordance, the questions not needed for redistricting purposes were eliminated from the short form and some were shifted to the long form. Some questions were eliminated altogether, for the sake of brevity. Marital status was determined as not necessary for State redistricting purposes, not because the Census Bureau regarded marriage as unimportant, and therefore was shifted to the long form. Following the question review and elimination, the Census Bureau complied once again with long-standing Congressional mandate and provided the proposed questionnaire two years in advance of the decennial census. This submission was made on March 31, 1998, to the Governmental Affairs Committee and Majority Leader in the Senate, and the Subcommittee on the Census and Speaker in the other body. After this submission, the agency accepted and considered various concerns about the content of the form. The Census Bureau reports that no comments regarding content of the marital category were received. The Census Bureau then finalized the questionnaire content. At present, 246 million of the 462 million forms for the 2000 decennial census have been printed. Redesigning and reprinting this quantity of questionnaires would be extremely costly and lead to deleterious delays. We are already within seven months of the questionnaire mail-out date. In addition, the FY 2000 Commerce-Justice- State Appropriations Bill that funds the Census Bureau has not yet passed, and the version of the bill produced by this body does not provide the full $4.6 billion request--our figure is $1.7 billion short. Therefore, even if the forms were reprinted, the Census Bureau would not have adequate funds to mail the forms. Mr. President, the Census Bureau needs much more support than we are giving it if we expect a fair and accurate 2000 census. I feel that amendment #1658 provides us with a perfect opportunity to call on conferees on the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill to provide full funding for the 2000 census. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. budget committee scoring

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, I wish to call attention to an important briefing given to Senate staff just prior to the August recess by Administration officials from the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Census Bureau on the new Automated Export System (AES). The AES is a joint venture between the U.S. Customs Service and the Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. AES provides for the electronic filing of the Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) and electronic filing of the outbound manifest. AES is an information gateway designed to ensure compliance with and enforcement of laws relating to exporting. It will improve the collection of trade statistics and improve customer service. Its goal is a paperless reporting of export information by the year 2002. I believe the AES will become the centerpiece of efforts to improve the effectiveness of the United States' export control program. Last June Senator Thompson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, held very important hearings on the findings and recommendations of reports issued by the Inspectors General from six U.S. agencies involved in the export control process: namely, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, State, Treasury (U.S. Customs), and the Central Intelligence Agency. One of the critical recommendations made by several of the Inspectors General was that licensing officials should perform ``cumulative effect analysis'' of proposed export transactions. The primary tool for this analysis will be information gathered in the AES. Furthermore, the recent report from the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former CIA Director John Deutch, entitled ``Combating Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,'' also highlighted the AES program as a central tool for improving the overall performance of our export control program. The Deutch Report observed that the AES could be used as a tool to identify trends in shipments of otherwise non-strategic items that might be used by rogue nations pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction. Based upon the Deutch Commission's recommendation, Senator Specter introduced a bill, S. 1372, entitled ``Proliferation Prevention Enhancement Act of 1999.'' This bill mandates that U.S. companies electronically files Shipper's Export Declarations (SEDs) through AES for exports of items that are on the U.S. Munitions List of the Commerce Control List. I commend my colleague for his efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of our export control program which is so essential to preserving our nation's security. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and urge its support. Our continued oversight of exports of dual-use and munitions list items will help ensure that exports do not go awry to rogue nations or individuals.