Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in introducing a bill that would permanently authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. As the proud author of the original legislation enacted in 1992 to extend eligibility for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program to National Guard and Reserve members, I am pleased with the results of the program. Tens of thousands of dedicated reservists who served for at least six years, and continue to serve or have received an honorable discharge, have been able to fulfill the dream of home ownership through this program. The participation of Guard and Reserve members not only benefits these service members, but also stabilizes the financial viability of the program since this group has had a lower default rate than most other program participants. In anticipation of the October 1999 expiration of the eligibility of reservists for VA-guaranteed home loans, I introduced legislation last year to permanently authorize the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. With bipartisan support in the House and Senate, a revised version of my legislation was enacted into law. While I am pleased that the eligibility of reservists for veterans housing loans was extended September 2003, I believe that permanent authority should be provided to members of the Selected Reserve. Since the end of the cold war, we have reassessed the role, size, and structure of our Armed Forces. Recognizing the changes in our national military strategy prompted by a new global environment and appreciating the need to address our nation's budget deficit, we have significantly downsized our active duty military forces. As a result, the National Guard and Reserve have played a more prominent role in the Total Force. Reservists are being increasingly called upon to protect and promote our national security interests in regions throughout the world. Most recently, reservists have been serving alongside active duty forces in the Balkans to support NATO air operations over Kosovo. By making permanent the eligibility of members of the Selected Reserve for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program, we would specifically recognize their vital service to our country and ensure that veterans housing loans will continue to be available to them beyond the near future. The VA guaranty program is also an important component of a benefits package which makes Guard and Reserve service more attractive to qualified individuals. This is of particular importance during a time when the civilian sector is competing for the same pool of limited applicants, as well as when our military needs are becoming increasingly technical, demanding only the most intelligent, motivated, and competent individuals. Currently, the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program cannot be used as a recruitment tool since the authority expires in four years and reservists are required to serve for at least six years before they qualify for VA-guaranteed loans. A permanent authorization will assist the National Guard and Reserve with their recruitment efforts by allowing veterans housing loans to be offered as an incentive. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would recognize the vital contributions of National Guard and Reserve members to our country, as well as ensure that veterans housing loans will continue to be available in the future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in introducing a bill that would permanently authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. As the proud author of the original legislation enacted in 1992 to extend eligibility for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program to National Guard and Reserve members, I am pleased with the results of the program. Tens of thousands of dedicated reservists who served for at least six years, and continue to serve or have received an honorable discharge, have been able to fulfill the dream of home ownership through this program. The participation of Guard and Reserve members not only benefits these service members, but also stabilizes the financial viability of the program since this group has had a lower default rate than most other program participants. In anticipation of the October 1999 expiration of the eligibility of reservists for VA-guaranteed home loans, I introduced legislation last year to permanently authorize the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program for members of the Selected Reserve. With bipartisan support in the House and Senate, a revised version of my legislation was enacted into law. While I am pleased that the eligibility of reservists for veterans housing loans was extended September 2003, I believe that permanent authority should be provided to members of the Selected Reserve. Since the end of the cold war, we have reassessed the role, size, and structure of our Armed Forces. Recognizing the changes in our national military strategy prompted by a new global environment and appreciating the need to address our nation's budget deficit, we have significantly downsized our active duty military forces. As a result, the National Guard and Reserve have played a more prominent role in the Total Force. Reservists are being increasingly called upon to protect and promote our national security interests in regions throughout the world. Most recently, reservists have been serving alongside active duty forces in the Balkans to support NATO air operations over Kosovo. By making permanent the eligibility of members of the Selected Reserve for the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program, we would specifically recognize their vital service to our country and ensure that veterans housing loans will continue to be available to them beyond the near future. The VA guaranty program is also an important component of a benefits package which makes Guard and Reserve service more attractive to qualified individuals. This is of particular importance during a time when the civilian sector is competing for the same pool of limited applicants, as well as when our military needs are becoming increasingly technical, demanding only the most intelligent, motivated, and competent individuals. Currently, the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program cannot be used as a recruitment tool since the authority expires in four years and reservists are required to serve for at least six years before they qualify for VA-guaranteed loans. A permanent authorization will assist the National Guard and Reserve with their recruitment efforts by allowing veterans housing loans to be offered as an incentive. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would recognize the vital contributions of National Guard and Reserve members to our country, as well as ensure that veterans housing loans will continue to be available in the future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1999, a bill to close a serious loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Inouye and Lebin are cosponsors of the legislation. Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act over 30 years ago to stop the mistreatment of animals and to prevent the unintentional sale of family pets for laboratory experiments. Despite the Animal Welfare Act's well- meaning intentions and the enforcement efforts of the Department of Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners with reliable protection against the actions of some unethical dealers. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Rather, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. These are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats. ``Random source'' dealers are USDA licensed Class B dealers that provide animals for research. Many of these animals are family pets, acquired by so-called ``bunchers'' who sometimes resort to theft and deception as they collect animals and sell them to Class B dealers. ``Bunchers'' often respond to ``free pet to a good home'' advertisements, tricking animal owners into giving away their pets by posing as someone interested in adopting the dog or cat. Some random source dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a time in squalid conditions, providing them with little food or water. The mistreated animals often pass through several hands and across state lines before they are eventually sold by a random source dealer to a research laboratory. Mr. President, the use of these animals in research is subject to legitimate criticism because of the fraud, theft, and abuse that I have just described. Dr. Robert Whitney, former director for the Office of Animal Care and Use at the National Institutes of Health echoed this sentiment when he stated, ``The continue existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care, and use of animals in the important research to better the health of both humans and animals.'' While I doubt that laboratories intentionally seek out stolen or fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the fact remains that these animals end up in research laboratories, and little is being done to stop it. Mr. President, it is clear to most observers, including animal welfare organizations around the country, that this problem persists because of random source animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, the Pet Safety and Protection Act preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders, municipal pounds that choose to release dogs and cats for research purposes, legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research, and private and federal facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to the high fees charged by random animal dealers. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from random source dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to sue its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers. To combat any future violations of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet Safety and Protection Act increases the penalties under the Act to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. The history of disregard for the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act by some animal dealers makes the Pet Safety and Protection Act necessary. Mr. President, the purpose of this Act to stop the fraudulent practices of some Class B Dealers. Most importantly, it ensures that animals used in research are not gained by theft or deceit, and are provided decent shelter, ventilation, sanitation, and nourishment. The bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but ends senseless neglect, brutality, and deceit.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1999, a bill to close a serious loophole in the Animal Welfare Act. Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Inouye and Lebin are cosponsors of the legislation. Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act over 30 years ago to stop the mistreatment of animals and to prevent the unintentional sale of family pets for laboratory experiments. Despite the Animal Welfare Act's well- meaning intentions and the enforcement efforts of the Department of Agriculture, the Act routinely fails to provide pets and pet owners with reliable protection against the actions of some unethical dealers. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against AIDS, cancer, and a host of life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used in research. Rather, I am concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research facilities. These are less than 40 ``random source'' animal dealers operating throughout the country who acquire tens of thousands of dogs and cats. ``Random source'' dealers are USDA licensed Class B dealers that provide animals for research. Many of these animals are family pets, acquired by so-called ``bunchers'' who sometimes resort to theft and deception as they collect animals and sell them to Class B dealers. ``Bunchers'' often respond to ``free pet to a good home'' advertisements, tricking animal owners into giving away their pets by posing as someone interested in adopting the dog or cat. Some random source dealers are known to keep hundreds of animals at a time in squalid conditions, providing them with little food or water. The mistreated animals often pass through several hands and across state lines before they are eventually sold by a random source dealer to a research laboratory. Mr. President, the use of these animals in research is subject to legitimate criticism because of the fraud, theft, and abuse that I have just described. Dr. Robert Whitney, former director for the Office of Animal Care and Use at the National Institutes of Health echoed this sentiment when he stated, ``The continue existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care, and use of animals in the important research to better the health of both humans and animals.'' While I doubt that laboratories intentionally seek out stolen or fraudulently obtained dogs and cats as research subjects, the fact remains that these animals end up in research laboratories, and little is being done to stop it. Mr. President, it is clear to most observers, including animal welfare organizations around the country, that this problem persists because of random source animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act strengthens the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to research laboratories. At the same time, the Pet Safety and Protection Act preserves the integrity of animal research by encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate sources that comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Legitimate sources are USDA-licensed Class A dealers or breeders, municipal pounds that choose to release dogs and cats for research purposes, legitimate pet owners who want to donate their animals to research, and private and federal facilities that breed their own animals. These four sources are capable of supplying millions of animals for research, far more cats and dogs than are required by current laboratory demand. Furthermore, at least in the case of using municipal pounds, research laboratories could save money since pound animals cost only a few dollars compared to the high fees charged by random animal dealers. The National Institutes of Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, has already adopted policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from random source dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act also reduces the Department of Agriculture's regulatory burden by allowing the Department to sue its resources more efficiently and effectively. Each year, hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on regulating 40 random source dealers. To combat any future violations of the Animal Welfare Act, the Pet Safety and Protection Act increases the penalties under the Act to a minimum of $1,000 per violation. The history of disregard for the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act by some animal dealers makes the Pet Safety and Protection Act necessary. Mr. President, the purpose of this Act to stop the fraudulent practices of some Class B Dealers. Most importantly, it ensures that animals used in research are not gained by theft or deceit, and are provided decent shelter, ventilation, sanitation, and nourishment. The bill in no way impairs or impedes research, but ends senseless neglect, brutality, and deceit.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1487 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as I listen to all the evils attributed to the sugar program during today's debate on the McCain amendment, I hardly recognize the tiny white crystals that sweeten my cereal each morning. Sugar is an essential element of human nutrition. It's also one of the least expensive food items you will find in an American kitchen. When you go to a restaurant, there are only two things available at no charge and in unlimited quantity: water and sugar. Despite these achievements, sugar is being abused and maligned on the Senate floor. As I listen to the criticism of the sugar program,I think that some of my colleagues have lost sight of a basic fact that American consumers clearly understand: sugar is probably the best bargain you can find at the grocery store today. A pound of refined sugar costs 39 cents. American sugar farmers and the U.S. sugar program help make sugar affordable. Consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the low prices we have in America. If you visit a grocery store in other industrialized nations you will get ``sticker shock'' when you pass the sugar display. In Tokyo, consumers pay nearly 90 cents for a pound of sugar, more than twice the U.S. price. In Europe, prices average 50 to 70 cents per pound. Obviously, sugar is no bargain in Europe and Japan. On average, the retail price for a pound of sugar is 54 cents in developed countries--38 percent more than the price in American supermarkets. Consumers in developing countries pay a significant premium for sugar. When they go to market, all they get is the same one-pound box of sugar as we do in America, but they pay substantially more for it--38 percent more. Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable prices, sugar is a remarkable bargain for American consumers. U.S. consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save consumers $1.4 billion annually. That's why I say that the sugar program is a great deal for American consumers. Thanks to the sugar program, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of sugar at bargain prices. I thank my colleagues for rejecting this amendment. If Congress terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to urge Senate consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. As Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, I believe that ratification of the CTBT would enhance our nation's security for several reasons. It imposes a verifiable ban on all nuclear weapons testing, conducted anywhere, at any time; it takes a pro-active step towards ending the threat of nuclear tests conducted by rogue nations attempting to develop nuclear weapons; and it demonstrates the United States' commitment to a safer and more secure future free from radioactive fallout produced by nuclear explosions. Implementing the CTBT does not preclude improving our nuclear weapons. The United States will be able to maintain a sophisticated and viable arsenal without conducting dangerous nuclear tests. In the last decade, the most frequently cited argument against a test ban has been the claim that continued testing is necessary to ensure that stockpiled weapons are reliable; that is, they will detonate as planned and that the yield and effects will meet design specifications. Even test ban critics acknowledge that reliability stockpile testing has been mainly nonnuclear. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Robert Baker, former Deputy Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, ACDA, said, ``[they] do not routinely go out and take nuclear weapons out of the stockpile and test them.'' Other weapons designers have testified that nuclear tests simulations on high-performance computers are adequate substitutes for nuclear explosions and can provide accurate data on warhead viability. The purpose of testing existing weapons has not been to detect unforeseen problems but rather to check on particular problems identified through the non-nuclear inspection and simulation program. With very rare exceptions, the tested weapons performed in the desired manner. In fact, only one stockpile confidence test performed between 1979 and 1986 revealed a problem needing correction. The reason that any nuclear reliability testing of stockpiled weapons has been necessary in the past is that some older types of nuclear designs were originally put into the stockpile without the stringent production verification tests now standard. Our stockpile stewardship program enables the United States to meet the requirements for a treaty banning all types of nuclear testing while simultaneously maintaining a viable nuclear arsenal. This is not a new effort. It was not invented by the Clinton Administration. American presidents have sought for nearly forty years to negotiate a treaty that prohibits nuclear testing. President Eisenhower initially noted its importance in his State of the Union address in January of 1960 when he said that ``looking to a controlled ban on nuclear testing'' could be the means of ending the ``calamitous cycle . . . which, if unchecked, could spiral into nuclear disaster.'' President Kennedy later reaffirmed the United States' commitment to such a treaty in a 1963 commencement address at American University, stating that ``the conclusion of such a treaty [that ended nuclear testing] would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. . . . [Furthermore,] it would increase our security [and] it would decrease the prospects of war.'' Today, this treaty has the strong support of members from both parties. If the Senate does not consent to the ratification of this treaty before the September 24, 1999, deadline, the United States will not be able to participate in decisions regarding the future of the treaty. Under the terms of Article XIV of the CTBT, a conference of the countries that have ratified can be convened on the third anniversary of the treaty's opening for signature to determine how to ``accelerate the ratification process in order to facilitate the [treaty's] early entry into force.'' Although both countries that have and have not ratified the treaty before the date of this conference may attend, the non-member countries of the treaty are only invited as observers and may not participate. The United States is one of the 44 named countries that is required to sign and ratify the treaty before it can ``enter into force''. If the United States does not ratify this treaty, we are preventing the CTBT's implementation. The United States must ratify this treaty so that it can continue its leadership role in arms control. We should not be the holdout country that threatens the CTBT's entry into force. By demonstrating our commitment to halting nuclear testing, the United States creates an environment that encourages other countries to ratify the treaty. The threat of rogue nations developing nuclear weapons is real and urgent. The July 1999 Deutch Commission's Report, entitled ``Combating Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,'' cites several examples: in the spring of 1998, India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, worsening instability on the subcontinent; during the recent crisis in Kashmir, a nuclear war in South Asia looked possible for the first time; and countries in the Middle East and East Asia attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The CTBT prevents other nations who ratify it from conducting nuclear tests. It helps rein in rogue nations now and in the future that attempt to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction. Finally, this is a treaty that the American people want. Recent polls show that 82 percent of Americans support ratification of the CTBT. They know that ending nuclear explosions is a better way to protect the United States against nuclear weapons threats. I urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty so that we may take action on this agreement before it is too late. We cannot allow the United States to be locked out of its rightful leadership role at the September review conference on this treaty. This treaty is the most effective step that we can take to enhance international security and to maintain nuclear safety.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Excellence in Economic Education Act of 1999, a bill I am introducing today with my friends, Senators Cochran, Murray, Inouye, and Kerrey. With each passing day, the need for increased economic literacy becomes more and more apparent. The rise of Internet commerce, market globalization, advances in technology, growth of online investment services, and the increase in the number of Americans who invest in the stock market serve to highlight the importance of economic literacy for citizens of every age and professional background. I am convinced that more education about basic economic concepts such as money, personal finance, and inflation--starting from a young age--could help people make decisions about their financial situation, so that they can better prepare for and endure our changing economy. We need to help young people better understand economic implications of their actions: they can't always get what they want; they need to be more responsible with money; and, they are learning fiscal habits now that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. In addition to teaching our youth how to make good financial decisions, we must help them become productive and well-informed citizens. It has been shown that a lack of knowledge about fundamental economics can have negative effects on our economy and lead to divisions and polarization in our communities. Economic education can have profound long-term effects for all of us. We must educate our country's future workforce about what effects the retirements of our ``baby boom generation'' will have on them. Currently, Social Security reform is one of the biggest issues that is before us. We are working to ensure that Social Security will remain solvent well into the next century. As we know, the number of people receiving Social Security will surge from 44 million now to 75 million in 2020. Even if we achieve a truly bipartisan solution on Social Security, our young people will still feel the impact from this tremendous future demographic shift, and they should learn how to prepare themselves for security in retirement. Economic education can help them. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the results of a basic economics test given nationally by the National Council on Economic Education, which provides further evidence of the need for increased economic education. Taken by 1,010 adults and 1,085 high school students, the test's findings are striking: (1) half of adults and two-thirds of high school students failed, while only six percent of adults and three percent of high school students got an ``A''; (2) on average, adults received a grade of 57 percent and high school students a grade of 48 percent; (3) students and adults alike lacked a basic understanding about the concepts of money, inflation and scarcity of resources--core economic concepts; (4) a sizeable number of students--35 percent--admitted that they simply do not know what the effect of an increase in interest rates would be; and (5) only a little more than half of adults, 54 percent, and less than one in four students, 23 percent, know that a budget deficit occurs when the Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues for that year. However, amid these disappointing results, the study found that 96 percent believe basic economics should be taught in high school. Currently, 38 states have adopted guidelines for teaching economics in their schools, but only 13 states require that students take economics in order to graduate. Clearly, people see the need for improved economic education, and this need exists in many States. This brings me to a brief description of what the Excellence in Economic Education Act would do. My bill would ensure that a majority of total funds appropriated under the Act would be distributed to state councils on economic education and economic education centers based at universities to support the work that these entities are performing. It would support the National Council on Economic Education in economic literacy activities that it conducts. It would also fund the creation of new councils and centers in states without a council or center. The goals of the bill are to increase student knowledge of and achievement in economics; strengthen teachers' understanding of and ability to teach economics; encourage related research and development, dissemination of instructional materials, and replication of best practices and programs; help States measure the impact of economic education; ensure a strong presence of the nationwide network in every State; and leverage and increase private and public support for economic education partnerships at all levels. Support for economic education is in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act which lists economics as a national core subject area. My bill encourages the National Council and state councils and centers to work with local businesses and private industry as much as possible, particularly in obtaining matching funds. Mr. President, we need to improve economic literacy for our children, just as we need to ensure reading literacy, writing aptitude, math and science comprehension, and an understanding of history and the arts. Economics is a fundamental, practical building block that should round out our children's education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act. For more specific details on the grants my bill creates, one-fourth of funds would be provided to the National Council, so that the council may strengthen and expand its nationwide economic education network, support and promote teacher training in coordination with current Eisenhower Professional Development activities, support related research, and develop and disseminate appropriate materials. The remaining funds will be distributed by the National Council to state councils or centers, which will work in partnership with the private sector, state educational agencies, local educational agencies, institutions of higher education or other organizations that promote economic development or educational excellence. With this money, councils and centers will be able to fund teacher training programs, resources to school districts that want to incorporate economics into curricula, evaluations of the impact of economic education on students, related research, school-based student activities to promote consumer and personal finance education and to encourage awareness and student achievement in economics, interstate and international student and teacher exchanges, and replication of best practices to promote economic literacy. The National Council runs an International Economics Exchange Program which is authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program assists with economic education in transition countries of the former Soviet Union, and enjoys broad support. My bill would boost the domestic component of the National Council's activities. In addition, my bill puts increased emphasis on economics by adding it to the list of subject areas in Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, such as National Teacher Training Project, Star Schools, Magnet Schools, Fund for the Improvement of Education, and Urban and Rural Education Assistance. We are looking for ways to better educate our young people on how to manage their resources, be better workers, make wise investments, and prepare for a secure financial future. My bill provides the flexibility needed so that this may happen through practical means and make economics come alive for students. It is important to start working on this now. Before we know it, current eighth graders will have gone through high school, possibly college, and entered the workforce. One again, I thank Senators Cochran, Inouye, Murray, and Kerrey for becoming original cosponsors of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Excellence in Economic Education Act of 1999, a bill I am introducing today with my friends, Senators Cochran, Murray, Inouye, and Kerrey. With each passing day, the need for increased economic literacy becomes more and more apparent. The rise of Internet commerce, market globalization, advances in technology, growth of online investment services, and the increase in the number of Americans who invest in the stock market serve to highlight the importance of economic literacy for citizens of every age and professional background. I am convinced that more education about basic economic concepts such as money, personal finance, and inflation--starting from a young age--could help people make decisions about their financial situation, so that they can better prepare for and endure our changing economy. We need to help young people better understand economic implications of their actions: they can't always get what they want; they need to be more responsible with money; and, they are learning fiscal habits now that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. In addition to teaching our youth how to make good financial decisions, we must help them become productive and well-informed citizens. It has been shown that a lack of knowledge about fundamental economics can have negative effects on our economy and lead to divisions and polarization in our communities. Economic education can have profound long-term effects for all of us. We must educate our country's future workforce about what effects the retirements of our ``baby boom generation'' will have on them. Currently, Social Security reform is one of the biggest issues that is before us. We are working to ensure that Social Security will remain solvent well into the next century. As we know, the number of people receiving Social Security will surge from 44 million now to 75 million in 2020. Even if we achieve a truly bipartisan solution on Social Security, our young people will still feel the impact from this tremendous future demographic shift, and they should learn how to prepare themselves for security in retirement. Economic education can help them. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the results of a basic economics test given nationally by the National Council on Economic Education, which provides further evidence of the need for increased economic education. Taken by 1,010 adults and 1,085 high school students, the test's findings are striking: (1) half of adults and two-thirds of high school students failed, while only six percent of adults and three percent of high school students got an ``A''; (2) on average, adults received a grade of 57 percent and high school students a grade of 48 percent; (3) students and adults alike lacked a basic understanding about the concepts of money, inflation and scarcity of resources--core economic concepts; (4) a sizeable number of students--35 percent--admitted that they simply do not know what the effect of an increase in interest rates would be; and (5) only a little more than half of adults, 54 percent, and less than one in four students, 23 percent, know that a budget deficit occurs when the Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues for that year. However, amid these disappointing results, the study found that 96 percent believe basic economics should be taught in high school. Currently, 38 states have adopted guidelines for teaching economics in their schools, but only 13 states require that students take economics in order to graduate. Clearly, people see the need for improved economic education, and this need exists in many States. This brings me to a brief description of what the Excellence in Economic Education Act would do. My bill would ensure that a majority of total funds appropriated under the Act would be distributed to state councils on economic education and economic education centers based at universities to support the work that these entities are performing. It would support the National Council on Economic Education in economic literacy activities that it conducts. It would also fund the creation of new councils and centers in states without a council or center. The goals of the bill are to increase student knowledge of and achievement in economics; strengthen teachers' understanding of and ability to teach economics; encourage related research and development, dissemination of instructional materials, and replication of best practices and programs; help States measure the impact of economic education; ensure a strong presence of the nationwide network in every State; and leverage and increase private and public support for economic education partnerships at all levels. Support for economic education is in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act which lists economics as a national core subject area. My bill encourages the National Council and state councils and centers to work with local businesses and private industry as much as possible, particularly in obtaining matching funds. Mr. President, we need to improve economic literacy for our children, just as we need to ensure reading literacy, writing aptitude, math and science comprehension, and an understanding of history and the arts. Economics is a fundamental, practical building block that should round out our children's education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act. For more specific details on the grants my bill creates, one-fourth of funds would be provided to the National Council, so that the council may strengthen and expand its nationwide economic education network, support and promote teacher training in coordination with current Eisenhower Professional Development activities, support related research, and develop and disseminate appropriate materials. The remaining funds will be distributed by the National Council to state councils or centers, which will work in partnership with the private sector, state educational agencies, local educational agencies, institutions of higher education or other organizations that promote economic development or educational excellence. With this money, councils and centers will be able to fund teacher training programs, resources to school districts that want to incorporate economics into curricula, evaluations of the impact of economic education on students, related research, school-based student activities to promote consumer and personal finance education and to encourage awareness and student achievement in economics, interstate and international student and teacher exchanges, and replication of best practices to promote economic literacy. The National Council runs an International Economics Exchange Program which is authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program assists with economic education in transition countries of the former Soviet Union, and enjoys broad support. My bill would boost the domestic component of the National Council's activities. In addition, my bill puts increased emphasis on economics by adding it to the list of subject areas in Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, such as National Teacher Training Project, Star Schools, Magnet Schools, Fund for the Improvement of Education, and Urban and Rural Education Assistance. We are looking for ways to better educate our young people on how to manage their resources, be better workers, make wise investments, and prepare for a secure financial future. My bill provides the flexibility needed so that this may happen through practical means and make economics come alive for students. It is important to start working on this now. Before we know it, current eighth graders will have gone through high school, possibly college, and entered the workforce. One again, I thank Senators Cochran, Inouye, Murray, and Kerrey for becoming original cosponsors of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise, while we are debating the budget reconciliation bill, to talk about an important family issue that I raised during debate on the emergency supplemental bill in March. I want to voice my strong opposition to efforts by Members in the other body to use $6 billion in unspent welfare and health care funds, intended for low-income children and their families, as a gimmick to overcome their problem with this year's low budget caps. Mr. President, I am referring to attempts to rescind $6 billion in unobligated Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF money, and unobligated Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Plan funds. I learned of this proposal after reading the July 28, 1999, New York Times, in which appeared a story entitled, ``Leaders in House Covet States' Unspent Welfare Money.'' Why do they want to do this? To help fund the $792 billion tax cut proposal that the other body passed last week--a proposal that would mostly help the wealthy in our nation. Any such action would be a repudiation of our promise to help families living in poverty. It is a classic situation of reverse Robin Hood: robbing the poor to give more to the rich. Mr. President, during debate on the welfare reform bill in 1996, states agreed to trade entitlement status under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program for the assurance of a fixed, annual amount in the form of a block grant. Those of us who opposed the welfare bill for this and other reasons warned that it would be harder under a block grant to keep welfare funds from being cut. Now, certain members are turning our fears into reality. The cuts in this former entitlement program have begun. Cutting funds in this manner, Mr. President, would represent a betrayal of our promise to protect America's poor families. Again, as I explained in March, the term, ``unobligated,'' may seem self-explanatory--that these are simply funds that have not been spent under TANF, Medicaid, or CHIP. Under TANF, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a combined total of $4.2 billion from fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 is available. Some would point out that many poor families have worked their way to self- sufficiency and that welfare rolls have fallen by record numbers, as reasons why this money is not needed by states and remains unobligated. However, many states are relying heavily on these unobligated funds and have already committed them for a wide variety of uses. States need to distribute some of this funding to counties and local agencies, or to child care and social services activities. Governors are keeping ``rainy day'' funds for contingencies such as recessions or periods of stagnant growth--as we have now in my State of Hawaii--that force families back onto welfare and leave states without enough money until the next quarterly federal payment. States are also planning to use this money for fundamental or new, innovative expenses to help poor families become financially independent. In July 23, the National Governors Association wrote to Congressmen John Porter and David Obey of the House Appropriations Committee, to plead their case. This letter is signed by Governors Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Michael O. Leavitt of Utah, one Democrat and one Republican. The letter states, ``Cutting funding for vital health and human services programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, and child support would adversely affect millions of Americans--with the greatest impact on children and the elderly in the greatest need. We reiterate our adamant and uniform opposition to these unprecedented cuts and to any proposal that would result in such drastic cuts to our most vulnerable citizens.'' I concur with the Governors' sentiments about these valuable programs. Mr. President, I do this especially because the monies in question were originally designated to help our poorest children and their families. Instead, they would, over the next 10 years, go toward such things as estate tax relief and capital gains tax relief--tax benefits for the wealthiest taxpayers in the Nation. Tax relief can be a good thing. However, it should not be the top priority when we face the urgent need to pay down our country's debt and save Social Security and Medicare. I hope my colleagues agree with me on an issue that is important to many poor Americans. I hope funding is not taken out of TANF, Medicaid or CHIP, as a solution to low budget caps. independent bakery drivers

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I join my colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As my colleagues may know, the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund expired on September 30, 1997, and the authorization for the Advisory Council expires on September 30, 2000. This bill would reauthorize the fund and the Council through fiscal year 2005. There is a growing backlog of preservation needs throughout our country that is not being met. To ensure that this situation is not exacerbated, and to address these shortfalls on a long-term basis, the Historic Preservation Fund should be reauthorized at the earliest opportunity. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was amended in 1976 to establish the Historic Preservation Fund. Administered by the National Park Service, the Fund provides grants-in-aid to States, certified local governments, and outlying areas. The National Historic Preservation Act provides that $150 million from Outer Continental shelf oil and gas receipts is deposited in the Fund each year. The revenue remains available in the Fund until appropriated by Congress. Since September 30, 1997, no additional deposits from OCS revenues into the Fund have been authorized. Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund is critical because it provides for the continuation of grants used by States, Tribes, Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and local governments to pay the costs of surveys, comprehensive historic preservation plans, National Register nominations, brochures and educational materials, as well as architectural plans, historic structure reports, and engineering studies necessary to repair listed properties. Since 1968, over $800 million in grant funds has been awarded to 59 States, territories, local governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, Indian tribes, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In Fiscal Year 1998, the States received a total of $29.4 million in historic preservation grants-in-aid, an average allocation of $524,000, which typically is matched by $350,000 in non-federal matching share contributions. During 1998, States surveyed 14.9 million acres of historic resources and added 185,100 properties to their inventories. Also in 1998, States submitted 1,602 nominations to the National Register of Historic Places and reviewed 89,000 Federal projects for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In Hawaii, over 38,000 properties are maintained on the state's inventory of known historic properties. Besides providing grants-in-aid, the Historic Preservation Fund also administers a grant program for Native Hawaiians, Indian Tribes, and Alaska Natives for cultural heritage programs. The Tribal Preservation Program has directly assisted over 170 tribes through the award of 259 grants. For example, the Hopi Tribe in Arizona received a grant to document the rock art sites at Antelope Mesa, resulting in 100 sites being included in their Cultural Resources Management Plan. In Alaska, the Native Village of Venetie drafted a historic preservation plan for Venetie and Arctic Village utilizing a grant from the Historic Preservation Fund. The Seneca Nation of Indians in New York used a grant to develop educational materials for their school children using oral interviews with tribal elders. In all, more than $9 million in grant funds has been used to assist tribes in assuming State Historic Preservation Office responsibilities, in drafting preservation ordinances, implementing cultural resource management plans, identifying and protecting historic sites, and conducting preservation needs assessments. In addition, the Fund provides matching grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities to preserve threatened historic buildings located on their campuses. Funding for preservation projects has been used at Fisk University and Knoxville College in Tennessee; Miles College, Talladega College, Selma University, Stillman College, Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University, Claflin College, Voorhees College in South Carolina; and Rust College and Tougaloo University in Mississippi. In addition to the Historic Preservation Fund, Congress created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. As an independent federal agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Council is the major policy advisor to the Federal government on historic preservation. The Council administers programs including, but not limited to, the Historic Preservation Fund, the National Register, and programs of the National Trust. The Council also reviews the policies of Federal agencies in implementing the National Historic Preservation Act, conducts training and educational programs, and encourages public participation in historic preservation. The Council's authorization expires in Fiscal Year 2000. The Council's role in working with Federal agencies to support the National Historic Preservation Act is essential for protecting this country's historical resources. The Council coordinates many different preservation programs. The Council works with the Housing and Urban Development's HOME program for affordable housing, promotes preservation of historic properties during natural disasters, and promotes preservation and reuse of historic properties during military base closures. The Council, working with State and local governments through State Historic Preservation Officers, has significantly enhanced our ability to preserve our national heritage. Both the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council contribute to ongoing Federal, Native Hawaiian, Tribal, State, local and private partnerships in historic preservation. Matching funds are contributed by the States and local and private partners to enhance the investment in our historic heritage. Federal and State funding for historic preservation creates jobs, promotes economic development, and helps leverage commitments from private and public sources. Historic sites in our country are tangible reminders of our diverse and rich heritage and provide us with a sense of continuity with our past. The Historic Preservation Fund has provided numerous opportunities for preserving our country's irreplaceable historic and archeological resources. For example, in Hawaii, preservation projects in the Oahu Market in Chinatown and at the Mission Houses were funded through Historic Preservation Fund grants. Similarly, New Hampshire used preservation funding to assist with the transformation of the 1925 Goffstown High School into an apartment complex for the town's older inhabitants. The Alaska Gold Rush Centennial was developed as a heritage tourism initiative of the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office using historic preservation funds to establish State-community partnerships. Also, the Save America's Treasures program funded by the Historic Preservation Fund has provided grants for preservation projects of national scope and significance, including restoration of the Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence. A similar bill introduced by the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) passed the Senate last year by unanimous consent but was not acted on by the House. I hope that the legislation we are offering today--a simple reauthorization of the Fund and Council through 2005-- can be adopted expeditiously. This legislation is supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the National Alliance of Statewide Preservation Organizations, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, Preservation Action, the Society for American Archaeology, and the American Historical Association. I urge my colleagues to support this measure as well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I join my colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As my colleagues may know, the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund expired on September 30, 1997, and the authorization for the Advisory Council expires on September 30, 2000. This bill would reauthorize the fund and the Council through fiscal year 2005. There is a growing backlog of preservation needs throughout our country that is not being met. To ensure that this situation is not exacerbated, and to address these shortfalls on a long-term basis, the Historic Preservation Fund should be reauthorized at the earliest opportunity. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was amended in 1976 to establish the Historic Preservation Fund. Administered by the National Park Service, the Fund provides grants-in-aid to States, certified local governments, and outlying areas. The National Historic Preservation Act provides that $150 million from Outer Continental shelf oil and gas receipts is deposited in the Fund each year. The revenue remains available in the Fund until appropriated by Congress. Since September 30, 1997, no additional deposits from OCS revenues into the Fund have been authorized. Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund is critical because it provides for the continuation of grants used by States, Tribes, Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and local governments to pay the costs of surveys, comprehensive historic preservation plans, National Register nominations, brochures and educational materials, as well as architectural plans, historic structure reports, and engineering studies necessary to repair listed properties. Since 1968, over $800 million in grant funds has been awarded to 59 States, territories, local governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, Indian tribes, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In Fiscal Year 1998, the States received a total of $29.4 million in historic preservation grants-in-aid, an average allocation of $524,000, which typically is matched by $350,000 in non-federal matching share contributions. During 1998, States surveyed 14.9 million acres of historic resources and added 185,100 properties to their inventories. Also in 1998, States submitted 1,602 nominations to the National Register of Historic Places and reviewed 89,000 Federal projects for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In Hawaii, over 38,000 properties are maintained on the state's inventory of known historic properties. Besides providing grants-in-aid, the Historic Preservation Fund also administers a grant program for Native Hawaiians, Indian Tribes, and Alaska Natives for cultural heritage programs. The Tribal Preservation Program has directly assisted over 170 tribes through the award of 259 grants. For example, the Hopi Tribe in Arizona received a grant to document the rock art sites at Antelope Mesa, resulting in 100 sites being included in their Cultural Resources Management Plan. In Alaska, the Native Village of Venetie drafted a historic preservation plan for Venetie and Arctic Village utilizing a grant from the Historic Preservation Fund. The Seneca Nation of Indians in New York used a grant to develop educational materials for their school children using oral interviews with tribal elders. In all, more than $9 million in grant funds has been used to assist tribes in assuming State Historic Preservation Office responsibilities, in drafting preservation ordinances, implementing cultural resource management plans, identifying and protecting historic sites, and conducting preservation needs assessments. In addition, the Fund provides matching grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities to preserve threatened historic buildings located on their campuses. Funding for preservation projects has been used at Fisk University and Knoxville College in Tennessee; Miles College, Talladega College, Selma University, Stillman College, Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University, Claflin College, Voorhees College in South Carolina; and Rust College and Tougaloo University in Mississippi. In addition to the Historic Preservation Fund, Congress created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. As an independent federal agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Council is the major policy advisor to the Federal government on historic preservation. The Council administers programs including, but not limited to, the Historic Preservation Fund, the National Register, and programs of the National Trust. The Council also reviews the policies of Federal agencies in implementing the National Historic Preservation Act, conducts training and educational programs, and encourages public participation in historic preservation. The Council's authorization expires in Fiscal Year 2000. The Council's role in working with Federal agencies to support the National Historic Preservation Act is essential for protecting this country's historical resources. The Council coordinates many different preservation programs. The Council works with the Housing and Urban Development's HOME program for affordable housing, promotes preservation of historic properties during natural disasters, and promotes preservation and reuse of historic properties during military base closures. The Council, working with State and local governments through State Historic Preservation Officers, has significantly enhanced our ability to preserve our national heritage. Both the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council contribute to ongoing Federal, Native Hawaiian, Tribal, State, local and private partnerships in historic preservation. Matching funds are contributed by the States and local and private partners to enhance the investment in our historic heritage. Federal and State funding for historic preservation creates jobs, promotes economic development, and helps leverage commitments from private and public sources. Historic sites in our country are tangible reminders of our diverse and rich heritage and provide us with a sense of continuity with our past. The Historic Preservation Fund has provided numerous opportunities for preserving our country's irreplaceable historic and archeological resources. For example, in Hawaii, preservation projects in the Oahu Market in Chinatown and at the Mission Houses were funded through Historic Preservation Fund grants. Similarly, New Hampshire used preservation funding to assist with the transformation of the 1925 Goffstown High School into an apartment complex for the town's older inhabitants. The Alaska Gold Rush Centennial was developed as a heritage tourism initiative of the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office using historic preservation funds to establish State-community partnerships. Also, the Save America's Treasures program funded by the Historic Preservation Fund has provided grants for preservation projects of national scope and significance, including restoration of the Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence. A similar bill introduced by the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) passed the Senate last year by unanimous consent but was not acted on by the House. I hope that the legislation we are offering today--a simple reauthorization of the Fund and Council through 2005-- can be adopted expeditiously. This legislation is supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the National Alliance of Statewide Preservation Organizations, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, Preservation Action, the Society for American Archaeology, and the American Historical Association. I urge my colleagues to support this measure as well.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a very important piece of legislation--legislation that is vital to the future of health care in this country, the Patients' Bill of Rights. Democrats have fought long and hard to debate this bill on the floor of the Senate and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of the underlying measure. Today more than 160 million Americans, over 75 percent of the insured population, obtain health coverage through some form of managed care. Managed care arrangements can and do provide affordable, quality health care to large numbers of people. Yet reports of financial consideration taking precedence over patients health needs deserve our attention. We hear stories and read news articles about people who have paid for health insurance or received employer-sponsored insurance, became ill, only to discover that their insurance does not provide coverage. Recent surveys indicate that Americans are increasingly worried about their health care coverage. 115 million Americans report having a bad experience with a health insurance company or knowing someone who has. This undermining of confidence in our health care system must be addressed. We must act to restore the peace of mind of families in knowing that their health insurance will be there when they need it most. We can accomplish this by establishing real consumer protections, restoring the doctors decision-making authority, and ensuring that patients get the care they need. Some of the important issues that we are debating include the scope of coverage, definition of who determines ``medically necessity,'' protecting the doctor/patient relationship, access to care, and accountability. True managed care reform cannot come from a narrow bill that covers only a certain segment of the population. Today much of the regulation of managed care plans comes form the states. However, federal laws such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, combined with the various state regulations, form a patchwork of regulation for managed care plans. Some in this chamber believe that the protections we are considering should only apply to ERISA-covered plans and not to the 113 million Americans who have private insurance that is regulated by the states. They argue that these issues should be left to the states to address. Democrats believe that everyone deserves equal protection, regardless of where they may live or work. The Patients' Bill of Rights would not interfere with patient protection laws passed by the states, it would simply extend these patient protection rights to all Americans. As managed care has grown, so has the pressure on doctors and other health care providers to control costs. Complaints receiving widespread attention include denials of necessary care, lack of accountability, limited choice of providers, inadequate access to care, and deficient information disclosure for consumers to make informed plan decisions. Mr. President, a strong Patients' Bill of Rights should address the shortcomings of managed care. S. 6 takes a comprehensive approach in dealing with these issues, which is why I am a cosponsor of the measure. The dominance of managed care has undermined the doctor-patient relationship. Often tools are used to restrain doctors from communicating freely with patients or providing them with incentives to limit care. We need to ensure that insurers cannot arbitrarily interfere in the medical decision making. The Patients' Bill of Rights includes a number of provisions to prevent arbitrary interference by insurers. Our bill establishes an independent definition of medical necessity, prohibits gag clauses on physicians and other restrictions on medical communications, and protects providers from retaliation if they advocate for their patients. The issue of who decides what is medically necessary is probably the most fundamental issue of this debate. We must empower patients so they receive appropriate medical treatment, not necessarily the cheapest treatment, not necessarily the treatment that an insurance company determines is appropriate, but the best treatment. Currently, many doctors are finding insurance plans second-guessing and overriding their medical decisions. Democrats believe that the ``medical necessity'' of patient care should be determined by physicians, consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice. Doctors are trained to diagnose and make treatment decisions based on the best professional medical practice. We need to keep the medical decisions in the hands of doctors and not insurance company bureaucrats. Families in managed care plans often face numerous obstacles when seeking access to doctors and health care services. Some of these barriers include restrictions on access to emergency room services, specialists, needed drugs, and clinical trials. S. 6 would ensure access to the closest emergency room, without requiring prior authorization. It would provide access to qualified specialists, including providers outside of the network if the managed care company's choices are inadequate, and direct access to obstetricians and gynecologists for women and pediatricians for children. S. 6 would also ensure access to drugs not included in a managed care plan's covered list when medically indicated and provide access to quality clinical trials. Finally, the underlying bill allows consumers to hold managed care companies accountable for medical negligence. Currently, insurers make decisions with almost no accountability. Patients deserve the right to a timely internal appeal and an unbiased external review process when they disagree with a decision made by the insurer. Patients also deserve recourse when the misconduct of managed care plans results in serious injury or death. However, under ERISA plans, patients have no right to obtain remedy under state law. These patients are limited to the narrow federal remedy under ERISA, which covers only the cost of the procedure the plan failed to pay for. S. 6 would ensure that managed care companies can be held accountable for their actions. It does not establish a right to sue, but prevents federal law from blocking what the states deem to be appropriate remedies. A strong legal liability provision will discourage insurers from improper treatment denials or delays and result in better health care. Mr. President, only a comprehensive bill will guarantee patient protection with access to quality, affordable health care. We should not miss this important opportunity to enact meaningful legislation that is federally enforceable and will improve care and restore confidence in our health care system.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for allowing me to do this. I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 6 minutes to introduce a bill.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1317 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Organ Donor Leave Act. This bill would extend the amount of leave in each calendar year available to federal workers who serve as living organ donors from 7 days to 30 days. It is a straight forward way to ensure that federal employees who serve as an organ donor have sufficient time to recover from an organ transplant operation. I am delighted to be joined by Senator Frist, one of the nation's leading transplant surgeons and the only active surgeon in Congress, as well as Senators Edwards, Stevens, Levin, Sarbanes, and Durbin. The bill we offer is a companion bill to H.R. 457, introduced by Representative Elijah Cummings and marked out of the House Government Reform Committee. Last year, an identical bill passed the House, but not the Senate. It is my hope that, with such a distinguished list of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the Senate will quickly enact this important legislation. In most instances, an organ transplant operation and post-operative recovery time for a living donor is generally six to eight weeks. In order to address the disparity between the available leave a federal employee may take for an organ donation and the average recovery time, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) assisted in the drafting of this legislation to increase the amount of time that may be used for organ donation to 30 days. The amount of leave for a bone marrow donation would remain at seven days because experience shows that a week is considered adequate recovery time form bone marrow donations. Since 1954, when the first kidney transplant was performed, there have been hundreds of patients who have received successful transplants from living donors. Unfortunately, there are not enough organs available and over 55,000 Americans currently wait for a life-saving organ. There are certain organs, such as a single kidney, a lobe of a lung, a segment of the liver, or a portion of the pancreas, which may be transplanted from a living donor. These operations can reduce the mortality of small children needing liver transplants, help another person breathe, or free a dialysis patient from daily treatment. According to the University of Southern California Liver Transplant Program, ``With living donors, liver transplants can be performed electively and before patients get extremely ill, thus leading to better outcomes. Another advantage to this approach is the emotional satisfaction donors share with recipients when a life is saved.'' Our bill has the strong support of the American Transplantation Society, the nation's largest professional transplant organization, representing over 1,400 physicians, surgeons, and scientists. In a letter expressing support of the Organ Donor Leave Act, the AST noted: ``. . . a lack of leave time has served as a significant impediment and disincentive for individuals willing to share the gift-of-life. This important initiative addresses the disparities between leave time and recovery time.'' According to AST, the bill would give ``. . . donors the added assurance that they will be granted an adequate amount of time to recuperate from the life-saving process that they undertake voluntarily.'' Mr. President, this bill has already been passed by the House once, and appears to be on the same course in the 106th Congress. I hope the Senate will agree with the other chamber, and I urge my colleagues to support moving this life-saving legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Society of Transplantation be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me. President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform efforts. Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most families take these things for granted because they live without the anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and find their children living at risk. Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty. Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment, and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the promise of this country's future in their hands. Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare. Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in 1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare- to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or substance abuse problems. We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self- sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these individuals might have already had an educational record, special skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to- Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have their benefits reduced or completely removed. These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996 that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for you.'' This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment. The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and their families in my beleaguered state. My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also makes a number of important improvements to the program that states, counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics, including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic. Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent. In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and more people in need would be able to find employment. A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously popular. Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5 billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from states that did not receive a formula grant. Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will improve. For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within 12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP). The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for themselves and their families. Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to $30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say that our Native American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency. Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000 children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system. My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and community-based organizations so that all are able to work together and be better able to provide services to those who are in need. Finally, the bill eases Welfare-to-Work's ``work first'' requirements that mean that TANF recipients must find jobs first, before they are able to take advantage of stand-alone programs such as job training, basic education or vocational education programs. My bill would designate these as allowable work activities under Welfare-to-Work. This change is in response to requests from states who want to use program funds to better prepare recipients for the workforce before sending them off to a job. This approach seeks to improve TANF recipients' chances at maintaining steady employment. Although my colleagues may have disagreed on welfare reform in the past, Welfare-to-Work is a program that all should be able to support. It represents a Federal-state-local partnership, as well as a partnership between government, private industry, and community-based organizations. It encourages people to take responsibility for themselves, find work, and contribute to their families and society in a meaningful way. We cannot abandon these welfare recipients who are the most difficult to employ and must instead invest in them in a way that will help them find jobs paying a living wage, become self- sufficient, and allow them to break out of the cycle of dependency on public assistance. I would again like to thank my colleagues Senators Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of my bill, and I urge other colleagues to join us in supporting this important Welfare-to-Work reauthorization bill.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier this year and introduced as H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of my bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me. President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform efforts. Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most families take these things for granted because they live without the anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and find their children living at risk. Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty. Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment, and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the promise of this country's future in their hands. Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare. Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in 1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare- to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or substance abuse problems. We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self- sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these individuals might have already had an educational record, special skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to- Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have their benefits reduced or completely removed. These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996 that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for you.'' This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment. The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and their families in my beleaguered state. My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also makes a number of important improvements to the program that states, counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics, including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic. Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent. In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and more people in need would be able to find employment. A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously popular. Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5 billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from states that did not receive a formula grant. Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will improve. For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within 12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP). The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for themselves and their families. Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to $30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say that our Native American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency. Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000 children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system. My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and community-based organizations so that all are able to work together and be better able to provide services to those who are in need. Finally, the bill eases Welfare-to-Work's ``work first'' requirements that mean that TANF recipients must find jobs first, before they are able to take advantage of stand-alone programs such as job training, basic education or vocational education programs. My bill would designate these as allowable work activities under Welfare-to-Work. This change is in response to requests from states who want to use program funds to better prepare recipients for the workforce before sending them off to a job. This approach seeks to improve TANF recipients' chances at maintaining steady employment. Although my colleagues may have disagreed on welfare reform in the past, Welfare-to-Work is a program that all should be able to support. It represents a Federal-state-local partnership, as well as a partnership between government, private industry, and community-based organizations. It encourages people to take responsibility for themselves, find work, and contribute to their families and society in a meaningful way. We cannot abandon these welfare recipients who are the most difficult to employ and must instead invest in them in a way that will help them find jobs paying a living wage, become self- sufficient, and allow them to break out of the cycle of dependency on public assistance. I would again like to thank my colleagues Senators Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of my bill, and I urge other colleagues to join us in supporting this important Welfare-to-Work reauthorization bill.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier this year and introduced as H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me as original cosponsors of my bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, I want to stress the importance of the United States implementing in a timely manner the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, commonly referred as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The Convention is an important multilateral agreement that serves to reduce the threat posed by chemical weapons. It bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons by signatory states. The Convention also requires the destruction of all chemical weapons and production facilities by signatory states. The Convention does not, however, prohibit the manufacture, use, and consumption of chemicals that could be used as warfare agents or their precursor chemicals as long as these chemicals are used for legitimate peaceful purposes. Although the Convention has been in force for 2\1/2\ years, the United States is not in the compliance because the administration has not yet submitted the required industrial declarations to the International Organization on the Proliferation of Chemical Weapons. This is a disappointment since the United States played a central role in spearheading development of this treaty. Most of our allies have complied with their treaty obligations, but it is likely that they will not agree to a second round of inspections until the United States has submitted declarations and U.S. industry has undergone inspections. The United States has the largest chemical industry in the world. This industry is involved in legitimate production, use, consumption, export and import of chemicals subject to verification under the Convention. The United States must serve as a model of compliance with the Convention to build confidence with our friends and foes and also to ensure that chemical weapons are never used again. On June 25, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13128 to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, which Congress passed on October 21, 1998. However, the administration still has not issued regulations for industry to comply with the declaration and inspection requirements under the treaty. The American chemical industry is poised to comply with our treaty obligations. I hope the administration quickly issues these regulations so the United States is in compliance with our treaty obligations.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to an important Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on export controls held last week. In August 1998, the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee requested the Inspectors General of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, State, and Treasury and the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct a review of their export license processes and to follow-up on an earlier set of reports that were done in 1993. In their reports and at the hearing, the Inspectors General raised a number of important issues which, I believe, will require further oversight and clarification. These issues are especially important in light of the recent Cox Committee Report which highlighted espionage activities at our National Laboratories and the release of classified nuclear information. As we begin to debate the reauthorization of the Export Administration Act, the recommendations made by the Inspectors General should be considered in this context. The Inspectors General concluded that the export control processes work relatively well, but they also highlighted additional issues that the Congress should continue to monitor. Certain of these issues include: Inadequate monitoring by our National Laboratories of foreign visitors, who may be exposed to controlled technology which may require an export license. Inadequate analysis by all of the agencies of the cumulative effect of dual-use and munitions list exports to a particular country or end- user. Need to upgrade certain computer systems used in the export process. Improve monitoring of conditions placed on licenses to ensure that sophisticated items are not diverted. Enhance the processes for pre-license checks and post-shipment verifications of certain exports. Enhance training and guidance of Licensing Officers. I look forward to the Governmental Affairs Committee holding further hearings on this subject. We must ensure that the United States maintains an efficient and effective export control system. Further, our additional oversight on this issue will help ensure that exports of dual-use and munitions items will not go to rogue nations or individuals. Our hearing last week raised important national security and proliferation issues, and I commend Senator Thompson and Senator Lieberman, the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, for their leadership.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our former colleague, a dear friend and a great American, Ambassador James R. Sasser, whose distinguished service as United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China ended yesterday. Ambassador Sasser helped guide US-China relations through an interesting and complicated period, and as he and his family return to the United States I want to thank him for his dignified representation of our country. I was privileged to serve with Jim Sasser when he was a member of the United States Senate. From 1977-1995, Jim Sasser distinguished himself first as the junior Senator, then later as the senior Senator from the State of Tennessee. While a member of the United States Senate, Senator Sasser served as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and as chair of numerous subcommittees on a variety of domestic and foreign policy areas. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Sasser introduced legislation to improve child nutrition, increase regulation of savings institutions and enhance research and training for geriatric diseases. However, Senator Sasser was best known for his role as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee where he worked with the White House to secure passage of the 1993 Budget Reconciliation and Deficit Reduction Act, an accomplishment that is in large part responsible for the unprecedented period of economic growth our nation enjoys and the transformation of an escalating federal budget deficit into an impressive surplus. Moreover, Senator Sasser distinguished himself on foreign policy issues, courageously speaking his mind on issues such as the Reagan Administration policies in Central America. He was well respected by his colleagues and was known for his sharp intellect and genial personality. His campaign slogan during his 1976 Senate campaign was ``in behalf of a government that reflects our decency.'' Senator Sasser lived up to that promise through his distinguished record in the United States Senate. After returning to private life in 1995, Jim Sasser served as a Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University before he was nominated as Ambassador to China. On January 10, 1996, Jim Sasser was sworn in by Vice President Al Gore as United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. Knowing that Sino- American relations were at an all time low, Ambassador Sasser went to the People's Republic of China with the same diligence that distinguished him as a Senator. The first motto that he graced the Chinese Embassy with, ``We may doze, but we never close,'' typifies the job that Ambassador Sasser did for three remarkable years. Ambassador to China is one of the most difficult assignments for a diplomat. Dealing with the government of the most populous country in the world can be an intimidating task. Ambassador Sasser rose to the challenge and quickly established amicable relationships with President Jiang Zemin and most recently with premier Zhu Rongji. So tight were there bonds that Premier Zhu said after his trip to America with Jim Sasser last year. ``I would never have made it without the Ambassador.'' The relationships allowed Ambassador Sasser to navigate through the tough times in United States-China relations and have helped build and sustain cordial relations between the President of the United States and the President of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, his 18 years of distinguished service in the U.S. Senate helped prepare him for dealing with domestic and foreign policymakers in both countries. Just weeks after Ambassador Sasser was sworn in, his diligence was tested when China began missile tests over the Taiwan Strait. Recently, United States-China relations were strained once again by the tragic, accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during NATO air strikes and reports of Chinese espionage of our national nuclear weapons laboratories. Ambassador Sasser distinguished himself and the entire American contingent of diplomats in China by acting in a respectful and sympathetic manner to the Chinese government during this unfortunate incident. I will never forget the photographs of Ambassador Sasser in the ruins of our embassy in Beijing. The calm, composed, and dignified manner in which he responded to the seige at our embassy and ambassador's residence are the benchmark for grace under fire and will forever symbolize the sacrifice and skills of our nation's diplomatic corps and foreign service personnel. I had the opportunity to visit and talk with Ambassador Sasser on numerous occasions in Beijing. His assistance and advice was always courteous and on point. From human rights issues to intellectual property copyrights, Ambassador Sasser has done a tremendous job representing and communicating American interests in the People's Republic of China. During his 40 months of service as American Ambassador to China, the longest tenure of any American Ambassador to China, Jim Sasser has accomplished so much in helping to improve Sino-American relations. His achievements are numerous and commendable. Ambassador Sasser's service has helped advance cooperation between American and Chinese political and security officials. Economic relations between our two countries have improved under Ambassador Sasser's leadership including ongoing negotiations for admitting China into the World Trade Organization. In the area of nuclear nonproliferation, Ambassador Sasser has seen the Chinese government address U.S. concerns about providing assistance to rogue nations, as well as issuing a State Council directive controlling export of dual-use items with potential nuclear weapons uses. The U.S. Embassy in China has also helped to secure relief assistance to Chinese earthquake victims. The list of accomplishments of Ambassador Sasser and his corps of diplomatic officials goes on and on. His record as Ambassador speaks for itself. Although United States-China relations have been damaged by the accidental bombing of the Belgrade embassy, we can say that relations with China are better now than they were 3 years ago when Ambassador Sasser assumed his post in Beijing. Now that Jim and Mary have returned safely home, I would like to take one final opportunity to thank them and his family for their courageous service and commitment to serving America in China. I have to agree with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's assessment of Ambassador Sasser as ``the best Ambassador to China we've ever had''. To Jim Sasser and his family, I say maholo nui loa, thank you very much, for your service and bid you aloha, welcome home.