Daniel Akaka

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, it is true, according to our counter intelligence specialists, that Chinese intelligence officers target Chinese Americans and that they also rely on Chinese in the United States who are not American citizens, but it has always been true that foreign intelligence services seek out Americans with similar ethnic backgrounds when trying to establish spy networks. There are numerous examples of this. During the cold war, East German operatives targeted German Americans. From an operational perspective, this only makes sense. It is the job of all Americans to be vigilant, regardless of ethnic background. This is the lesson of the recent concern over national security leaks. We should not overreact or allow ourselves to become sidetracked by unsupported charges that unfairly tarnish any individual or group absent solid evidence. As the recent report about national lab security by a Presidential panel chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman stated, ``enough is enough.'' We need now to sit down, review, improve our security procedures and think seriously anew about our policy towards China. I urge my colleagues in joining me in examining next steps, not our last steps, in an effort to implement security reforms at the national laboratories and to encourage the development of a more effective policy towards the People's Republic of China. I thank the Chair for this time. I, again, ask that we seriously look into our relationship with China. Exhibit No. 1 [From the New York Times, May 26, 1999] Well Is He a Spy--or Not? (By Hoyt Zia) Washington, DC.--After serving almost five years in the Clinton Administration, I've learned a number of things about Washington--and one of them is how innuendo can ruin a reputation in no time. In my job as chief counsel for export administration in the Commerce Department, I work daily with classified information in order to help regulate technology exports to China and other countries that can be used for military purposes. As such, I am well familiar with the risks to national security that could result from the improper disclosure of classified information, as well as the highly politicized nature of technology transfers to China. From this vantage point, I find myself greatly troubled by the atmosphere surrounding the espionage allegations leveled against Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear weapons scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. I'm afraid this tension is only going to get worse with the release yesterday of the report from the Congressional investigation led by Representative Christopher Cox. The case against Mr. Lee goes something like this: In 1996, intelligence officials obtains a Chinese document from 1988 containing classified information about an advanced American nuclear warhead. Since Mr. Lee traveled to China for scientific conferences in 1986 and 1988, and in 1982 had called a Chinese-American scientist at another national lab who was suspected of espionage, he was added to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's list of Chinese spies. After a three-year investigation by the F.B.I. yielded insufficient evidence to support a charge of espionage, Mr. Lee was fired from his job in March for unspecified breaches of security and identified as an espionage suspect. While recent Congressional investigations into the matter, including the one led by Representative Cox, have concluded that Chinese spying at the labs is pervasive and ongoing, there is no other evidence that Mr. Lee passed classified information to the Chinese, intentionally or otherwise. Nonetheless, many in the media and in the Government have pronounced Mr. Lee guilty of passing nuclear weapons secrets to the Chinese. Let me make clear that I do not defend Mr. Lee's alleged misconduct or contend that he has not done anything wrong. While the F.B.I. has yet to uncover any evidence to support charging him with espionage, he appears to have committed gross violations of the rules for handling classified material. The details of the security violations for which he was fired were never specified, but subsequently it was found that he had transferred highly classified nuclear weapons programs from a protected classified computer system to his unprotected desktop computer. If Mr. Lee indeed mishandled classified information, then he deserves to be punished for those violations, the same as anyone else. Nevertheless, such violations do not on their face make him a spy. A charge of espionage requires the specific intent to steal the secrets of one in order to turn them over to another. Mishandling classified information has nothing to do with giving secrets away, but simply failing to safeguard them properly. It has been reported that many of Mr. Lee's colleagues at the national laboratories have also been lax about observing these rules. Even John Deutch, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, was reportedly investigated after being accused of mishandling classified information, including allegedly having 31 secret C.I.A. files on his unsecure home computer. And it is well known that the major national weapons labs long resisted F.B.I. and Congressional pressure to tighten their security policies. While Mr. Lee should not be excused because ``everybody does it,'' neither should he be singled out if he has acted no differently from many of his colleagues of all ethnicities. Although the problem of lax security has been around for two decades and largely unnoticed, the controversy surrounding Mr. Lee will not let up. Attorney General Janet Reno has been vilified for the Justice Department's decision not to order wiretaps on Mr. Lee. Under normal circumstances would this even have been considered given the inadequate evidence? And there has even been talk of banning those scientists with ``dual loyalties'' from our scientific laboratories. Why this single-minded pursuit of Mr. Lee? There is an obvious difference between him and others in his position: He is of Chinese ancestry. For reasons that I cannot fathom, and notwithstanding numerous cases of exemplary service to this country, Asian-Americans continue to be accused of having dual loyalties to a degree far greater than any other immigrant group in this country. I know--I, too, have been accused of having dual loyalties because, though an American, I happen to be of Chinese ancestry. During the Congressional investigations into improper campaign fund-raising, I, like many other Asian- Americans, was interviewed by Federal and Congressional investigators as well as by self-appointed ``watchdog'' groups with their own political agendas. Though I was not involved in fund-raising and had no personal ties to the Chinese Government, I was named as a possible link to China by far-right publications like The American Spectator. The sole evidence was my Chinese ancestry. No official evidence was ever given to support those offensive falsehoods, but the damage to one's reputation from accusations of disloyalty are irreparable. The link to possible controversy was enough to cause Administration officials to withdraw my appointment to a higher position in the Department of the Navy where, as a former Marine officer, I hoped I could serve. I will forever have to explain to prospective employers why my loyalty as an American was called into question. It is no secret that the Chinese, like the Israelis, Russians, French, Germans and every other industrialized country, are spying on us every day. Perhaps it is also a fact of life that politicians conjure up fears against minority groups to achieve their objectives. But in the United States, there is something called due process. If the Government has evidence that Wen Ho Lee committed espionage, it should charge him and let the accusations be aired in a courtroom. If it doesn't, then it should put the matter to rest rather than allow innuendo and rumor not only to smear Mr. Lee but to call into question the loyalty of every Asian-American.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as a member of the Energy Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee where I am ranking member on the International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services Subcommittee, I have benefited from numerous briefings and extensive hearings on the issues raised in the House select committee's Report on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China. Representative Cox and Representative Dicks and their colleagues on the House select committee have done the country a great national service in producing the report. The bipartisan manner in which they conducted their analysis is an example to us all of the importance of placing bipartisanship above political interests for the sake of national security. I was dismayed, as other Members have been, by the extent of Chinese espionage efforts exposed in the committee's report. I wish we could say that American efforts and commitment to countering Chinese espionage were as relentless and as persistent as their ongoing efforts to acquire information from us. Importantly, the President and the entire administration have taken major steps to reform our security at the national nuclear weapons laboratories and to improve our counterintelligence capability. Many of these changes were ordered by the President in February 1998 well before the House Select Committee was formed. Additional measures were taken during the committee's review as the extent of Chinese espionage became apparent. Let me make two cautionary statements: There is a great deal of discussion now in Washington as to whom to blame for the security lapses. There is the usual round of finger- pointing and calls for this or that person to resign. We should not spend all of our time searching for scapegoats. Only our adversaries take solace when we turn on ourselves and become distracted by partisan squabbling. Let us instead focus our attention on improving our security and rooting out those guilty of betraying America. Secondly, let us not sacrifice our efforts to build a constructive relationship with the Chinese people because of our justifiable anger at their government's espionage. Much of what has occurred is to our embarrassment for not being more vigilant. We need to engage China. We have issues and problems that can only be resolved by cooperation. These include bread and butter issues such as reducing our trade deficit and improving market accessibility for American goods. They include global issues such as global warming and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Select Committee's report indicates that, despite international commitments to the contrary, China continues to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. To convince China to cooperate with us in ending the threat of proliferation we will need to engage China. Our foreign visitor's program at the national laboratories has provided us with one opportunity to engage the Chinese on issues such as improving export controls. With enhanced restrictions, these programs should continue. it is our openness to the best scientific minds which aids America in keeping its intellectual edge sharp on the frontiers of science. But engagement is not a one-way street. China needs to demonstrate that it wants to and can engage the United States in a constructive and cooperative manner. China can choose to swamp us either with spies or with friends. The choice is theirs. There is a sense in the country from the revelations contained in the Cox Committee report that the Chinese have ``poisoned the well'' of relations between the United States and China. The report observes that ``the PRC uses a variety of techniques, including espionage, controlled commercial entities, and a network of individuals and organizations that engage in a vast array of contacts with scientists, business people, and academics.'' The report further charges that there are an increasing number of Chinese ``front companies'' in the United States attempting to gain access to our technology and national security secrets. China seems to be almost unchecked in its efforts to gain information on the United States. This view has two detrimental effects. The first effect is on the overall perception of the benefits of relations with China. On June 3, the President took the correct step of renewing normal trade relations with China. But it was a step that China needs to match. With a growing trade imbalance of $57 billion in 1998 out of a total trade of $85.4 billion, China is our fourth largest trading partner. We are also the third largest foreign investor in China. During the Asian financial crisis, American trade with China played a substantial role in keeping the Chinese economy afloat as Chinese exports to the U.S. grew even as Chinese exports to other nations fell. The lesson for China is that we are too important for them to ignore. The lesson for us is that China has become too big for us to ignore. A step in the right direction for both countries is to achieve an agreement on conditions for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Chinese participation in this international body would be a major leap forward into integrating China in the world economy. Conditions that permit more access for American goods and protection for American investment in China would help accelerate the modernization of the Chinese economy. I think the battle within China over whether or not to participate in the international economy has been won by the advocates of modernization led by President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji. Granting NTR to China this year will set the stage for a conclusion to the long-running negotiations with China over WTO accession. I support renewal of NTR for China because it is an essential step towards redefining American-Chinese relations in terms of mutual benefit rather than in terms of winner and loser. The second discouraging effect of the report is to taint Asian Americans, especially Chinese Americans, with the stain of suspicion of espionage. This unfair, but very real, perception came through clearly during a recent visit by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where one Asian American employee declared, ``we all feel like suspects of espionage.'' Mr. Hoyt Zia, chief counsel for export administration in the Commerce Department, wrote in the New York Times recently about the unfortunate and unwarranted charge that ``Asian-Americans continue to be accused of having dual loyalties to a degree far greater than any other immigrant group to this country.'' I commend his article, ``Well, Is He A Spy--Or Not?'', to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in its entirety in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. The United States initially led the global effort to strengthen nuclear nonproliferation when we signed this treaty on September 24, 1996; however, since that time, the Senate has not taken the necessary steps towards ratification. Without the Senate's expeditious approval of this treaty, the United States will be unable to assume a leadership position at the CTBT review conference this September. We will also be undercut in our efforts to urge other countries to ratify this agreement. Both Ambassador Nitze and Mr. Drell have a long and distinguished history of service to both Republican and Democratic presidents. President Reagan awarded Ambassador Nitze the Presidential Medal of Freedom. They both believe that America needs to lead the international effort to halt nuclear proliferation by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I urge my colleagues to read this important article. As the authors note, ``failure to ratify the CTBT would have to be regarded as the greatest disappointment of any Senate, if any time, of any party.'' Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, June 21, 1999] This Treaty Must Be Ratified [By Paul H. Nitze and Sidney D. Drell] For more than five decades, we have served in a variety of foreign policy, national security and intelligence positions for both Republican and Democratic administrations. A common thread in our experience is that our national interest is best served when America leads. When America hesitates, opportunities to improve our security and lost, and our strategic position suffers. This year, America has an opportunity to lead a global effort to strengthen nuclear nonproliferation by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This fall, a review conference will meet to discuss ways to bring the CTBT into effect even if it has not been approved by all 44 nuclear-capable nations (i.e., those states with nuclear reactors for research or power). The United States was the first nation to sign the CTBT in September 1996; 151 nations have now followed that lead. The U.S. Senate, however, has refused to consider ratification of the treaty, and only those nations that have ratified it will have a seat at this fall's conference. Approval of the CTBT by the Senate is essential in order for the United States to be in the strongest possible position to press for the early enforcement of this vital agreement. Failure to act will undercut our diplomatic efforts to combat the threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The president rightly has referred to the CTBT as the ``longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in the history of arms control.'' President Eisenhower was the first American leader to pursue a ban on nuclear testing as a means to curb the nuclear arms race. Today, such a ban would constrain advanced and not-so-advanced nuclear weapons states from developing more sophisticated and dangerous nuclear weapons capabilities. This is particularly important in South Asia. Last year, both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, threatening a dangerous escalation of their nuclear arms competition. Both countries now have expressed a commitment to adhere to the CTBT this year. U.S. ratification would remove any excuse for inaction on the part of these nations and would strengthen their resolve. The CTBT also fulfills a commitment made by the nuclear powers in gaining the agreement of 185 nations to extend indefinitely the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1995. The NPT remains the cornerstone of the worldwide effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce nuclear danger. We strongly embrace President Reagan's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. The administration needs to engage Russia on deep reductions in nuclear forces, despite the disruption in our bilateral relations resulting from the crisis in the Balkans. In the meantime, the United States will be able to maintain the safety and reliability of its own stockpile through the Department of Energy's science- based stockpile stewardship program. Our confidence in this program underpins our judgment that there is no technical reason why the CTBT is not the right thing to do. President Reagan's maxim--trust but verify--is still true today. With the CTBT, the United States will gain new tools to assess compliance with a ban on nuclear testing--including the right to request a short-notice, on-site inspection if we had evidence that a test might have occurred. Combined with the treaty's extensive international monitoring regime and our own intelligence resources, the CTBT is effectively verifiable. The Senate has an obligation to review expeditiously major treaties and agreements entered into by the Executive so that the world can be sure of America's course. When President Reagan signed the INF Treaty in December 1987, which eliminated an entire class of missiles, hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began within weeks, and the Senate voted to approve the treaty within six months. In comparison, the CTBT was signed by President Clinton more than 2\1/2\ years ago but still awaits its first hearing. In May 1961, President Eisenhower said that not achieving a nuclear test ban ``would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration--of any decade--of any time and of any party.'' Similarly, failure to ratify the CTBT would have to be regarded as the geatest disappointment of any Senate, of any time, of any party. We urge the Senate to ratify the CTBT now. Paul H. Nitze is a former arms control negotiator and was an ambassador-at-large in the Reagan administration. Sidney D. Drell is an adviser to the federal government on national security issues.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to support Senate consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to request unanimous consent that a June 21, 1999, Washington Post article written by Paul H. Nitze and Sidney D. Drell, be printed in the Record following my remarks. This article advocates the prompt ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make permanent the visa waiver program for certain visitors to the United States. The visa waiver program has been an unprecedented success in reducing barriers to travel and tourism to and from the United States. The program allows a citizen of a participating country to forego visa application at a U.S. consulate abroad, and allows them to travel to the U.S. for business or pleasure and make application for entry directly to the INS at a port of entry. To use this privilege, an applicant agrees to waive rights to challenge the decision of the INS inspector, and agrees to depart the U.S. within 90 days. More than 10 million visitors used the visa waiver program in fiscal year 1995. This represents 76 percent of the total number of non-immigrant entries by citizens of visa waiver countries. Visitors entering under the visa waiver program accounted for just under 50 percent of all temporary business and tourist entries. In the ten years since the implementation of the visa waiver program, international visitors have become accustomed to the program's requirements, and use it routinely. The program has effectively served the purpose for which it was designed, to facilitate the efficient flow of low-risk foreign tourists and business travelers. Simultaneously, the program has afforded Department of State consular officers more time to focus efforts on individuals who visit the U.S. for other purposes, such as employment or study, or those who intend to remain in the U.S. for extended periods. Further, it has allowed the Department of State to drastically reduce its consular staff at low-risk locations, and strengthen efforts in high risk locations. Yet, all this pales in comparison to the real benefit of the visa waiver program, that of expanded foreign travel and tourism to the U.S. Put simply, the U.S. needs this program to remain competitive with the many other nations around the globe who are competing for the finite pool of business travelers and tourists. In 1996, the World Tourism Organization reported that the United States was the second most popular international tourist destination and the number one location for tourism expenditures. Of the 44.8 million arrivals that year, 12.4 million entered under the visa waiver program. International tourism in the U.S. is a $65 billion enterprise which boosts the economies of many local communities. In my home state of Hawaii, tourism is an $11 billion indusry which generates about one-quarter of the state's tax revenue and one-third of its jobs. It is estimated that 80 percent of all international visitors arriving at Honolulu International Airport arrive under the visa waiver program. We know that the visa waiver program has been very successful because it provides a big boost for Japanese visitors to travel to Hawaii. Our long-term goal for a permanent visa waiver program would be to expand participation of the program in the Asia-Pacific region. Currently, most of the 26 eligible countries are in Europe. Only four of these countries are in the Asia-Pacific region--Australia, Japan, Brunei, and New Zealand. We hope that South Korea and China will be future participants in an expanded program. While the pilot program has been extended periodically since its inception, its unqualified success justifies a permanent program. Further, because the program's life has at times been uncertain and somewhat unpredictable, particularly at times when an authorization is about to expire, any real or perceived lapse in the program causes needless turmoil and uncertainty among the industry and government both here and abroad and, most important, the traveling public. In the ten years since it commenced, the benefit of the program has been clearly proven, and the need for it to remain a pilot program has ceased. To sunset the program in April 2000 or in the future would require a reinvestment of significant capital, both human and otherwise. In addition, because the visa waiver program is based on reciprocity, any termination or restriction of the program would likely result in a substantial backlash by other participating nations against U.S. citizens traveling abroad, resulting in more entry burdens for U.S. citizens when they attempt to enter other visa waiver countries. Visa waiver participants, by their very definition, are low-risk travelers. There is no data which indicates that visa waiver travelers stay longer than permitted otherwise violate the terms of their admission in any greater numbers than any other population of the traveling public. Another important benefit of the visa waiver program is the standardization of passports and machine readable documentation, which is used as an inducement for acceptance of a country into the program. The ability to read a document by machine has greatly increased the efficiency of the Federal inspection service process. I can say without reservation that this program is a resounding success. It has bolstered the U.S. economy through the expedited admission of millions of legitimate short-term visitors for business, allowing for the negotiation of contracts for the provision of American goods and services to the world. It has provided a welcome boost to the U.S. tourism industry, which employs thousands of American citizens, through the visa-free admission of millions of foreign tourists. We must support permanent reauthorization of this highly effective program. The visa waiver program is not just a win-win situation, it is a win for business, a win for tourism, and a win for effective management of the Department of State. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make permanent the visa waiver program for certain visitors to the United States. The visa waiver program has been an unprecedented success in reducing barriers to travel and tourism to and from the United States. The program allows a citizen of a participating country to forego visa application at a U.S. consulate abroad, and allows them to travel to the U.S. for business or pleasure and make application for entry directly to the INS at a port of entry. To use this privilege, an applicant agrees to waive rights to challenge the decision of the INS inspector, and agrees to depart the U.S. within 90 days. More than 10 million visitors used the visa waiver program in fiscal year 1995. This represents 76 percent of the total number of non-immigrant entries by citizens of visa waiver countries. Visitors entering under the visa waiver program accounted for just under 50 percent of all temporary business and tourist entries. In the ten years since the implementation of the visa waiver program, international visitors have become accustomed to the program's requirements, and use it routinely. The program has effectively served the purpose for which it was designed, to facilitate the efficient flow of low-risk foreign tourists and business travelers. Simultaneously, the program has afforded Department of State consular officers more time to focus efforts on individuals who visit the U.S. for other purposes, such as employment or study, or those who intend to remain in the U.S. for extended periods. Further, it has allowed the Department of State to drastically reduce its consular staff at low-risk locations, and strengthen efforts in high risk locations. Yet, all this pales in comparison to the real benefit of the visa waiver program, that of expanded foreign travel and tourism to the U.S. Put simply, the U.S. needs this program to remain competitive with the many other nations around the globe who are competing for the finite pool of business travelers and tourists. In 1996, the World Tourism Organization reported that the United States was the second most popular international tourist destination and the number one location for tourism expenditures. Of the 44.8 million arrivals that year, 12.4 million entered under the visa waiver program. International tourism in the U.S. is a $65 billion enterprise which boosts the economies of many local communities. In my home state of Hawaii, tourism is an $11 billion indusry which generates about one-quarter of the state's tax revenue and one-third of its jobs. It is estimated that 80 percent of all international visitors arriving at Honolulu International Airport arrive under the visa waiver program. We know that the visa waiver program has been very successful because it provides a big boost for Japanese visitors to travel to Hawaii. Our long-term goal for a permanent visa waiver program would be to expand participation of the program in the Asia-Pacific region. Currently, most of the 26 eligible countries are in Europe. Only four of these countries are in the Asia-Pacific region--Australia, Japan, Brunei, and New Zealand. We hope that South Korea and China will be future participants in an expanded program. While the pilot program has been extended periodically since its inception, its unqualified success justifies a permanent program. Further, because the program's life has at times been uncertain and somewhat unpredictable, particularly at times when an authorization is about to expire, any real or perceived lapse in the program causes needless turmoil and uncertainty among the industry and government both here and abroad and, most important, the traveling public. In the ten years since it commenced, the benefit of the program has been clearly proven, and the need for it to remain a pilot program has ceased. To sunset the program in April 2000 or in the future would require a reinvestment of significant capital, both human and otherwise. In addition, because the visa waiver program is based on reciprocity, any termination or restriction of the program would likely result in a substantial backlash by other participating nations against U.S. citizens traveling abroad, resulting in more entry burdens for U.S. citizens when they attempt to enter other visa waiver countries. Visa waiver participants, by their very definition, are low-risk travelers. There is no data which indicates that visa waiver travelers stay longer than permitted otherwise violate the terms of their admission in any greater numbers than any other population of the traveling public. Another important benefit of the visa waiver program is the standardization of passports and machine readable documentation, which is used as an inducement for acceptance of a country into the program. The ability to read a document by machine has greatly increased the efficiency of the Federal inspection service process. I can say without reservation that this program is a resounding success. It has bolstered the U.S. economy through the expedited admission of millions of legitimate short-term visitors for business, allowing for the negotiation of contracts for the provision of American goods and services to the world. It has provided a welcome boost to the U.S. tourism industry, which employs thousands of American citizens, through the visa-free admission of millions of foreign tourists. We must support permanent reauthorization of this highly effective program. The visa waiver program is not just a win-win situation, it is a win for business, a win for tourism, and a win for effective management of the Department of State. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, in introducing S. 1232, the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act. This legislation provides relief to those federal employees who were placed in an incorrect retirement system during the transition to the Federal Employees Retirement System from the Civil Service Retirement System in the mid-1980s. As the ranking Democrat on the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I am committed to correcting the erroneous pension problems facing anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 individuals. S. 1232 provides a reasonable solution in affording misclassified federal workers, former employees, retirees, and survivors with equitable relief from these retirement coverage errors. Moreover, the measure gives those affected a choice between corrected retirement coverage and the coverage the employee expected to receive, without disturbing Social Security coverage law. Similar legislation was offered in 1998, and my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, held a hearing on the measure at which officials from the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board testified in support of the bill. I believe this measure addresses the concerns of federal workers who have been placed in the wrong retirement system. It offers a workable and reasonable solution, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I also wish to note that S. 1232 enjoys the support of the Office of Personnel Management and the two largest federal employee unions, the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union, that are encouraged by the bipartisan effort that went into crafting this bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call your attention to a scandal in an American commonwealth. It is a scandal that involves forced labor and sex trade workers. It's not a pretty picture. It is a picture of a tropical paradise destroyed by greed and corruption. In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, foreign workers have been imported in mass to assemble goods for export to the United States. Taking advantage of loopholes in our immigration and labor laws, foreign businessmen use the Mariana Islands as a base to export garments to the United States. These foreign businessmen pay no export taxes, and their goods are not subject to textile quotas. Their workers are paid below minimum wage levels, if paid at all, and often live in deplorable conditions. Women from Asia and Russia are imported with the promise of high paying jobs in the United States only to find themselves marooned with no means of escape, forced to work as prostitutes in the booming Mariana sex trade. This long-running scandal has been exposed once again by the Global Survival Network. This American-based nongovernmental organization which uncovers human rights violations sent an undercover team to the CNMI to gather evidence on the continued use of forced labor in the commonwealth. They have just issued their report which was the subject of an ABC News segment on ``20/20.'' If you did not see the television broadcast, please read the report which I am sending to every Senator. Entitled ``Trapped: Human Trafficking for Forced Labor in The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. Territory),'' the report demonstrates in disturbing detail the continued trafficking of humans for indentured labor in factories and sex trade emporiums in the Marianas. Implicating organized crime groups from the People's Republic of China, South Asia, and Japan, the report estimates that there are about 40,000 indentured workers in the CNMI, earning about $160 million in profits for criminal syndicates. Indentured workers are being used to manufacture ostensibly as ``Made in the USA'' garments for export to the United States. None of these goods are required to be shipped to the U.S. on U.S.-flag ships in accordance with the Jones Act. This duty-free, quota-free zone in which foreign workers produce high value goods at below minimum wage is an entirely legal scheme for Chinese and other foreign manufacturers to bypass American textile quotas. The report also graphically details the increasing use of CNMI's loose immigration standards to make this former tropical paradise a major center for the booming Asian sex trade. Women from Asia and Russia are being lured to the Northern Marianas with promises of work opportunities in the United States only to find themselves imprisoned on islands from which there is no escape unless they agree to their employer's demands that they become prostitutes and sex hostesses. This sick trade in prostitution must be stopped. Loopholes in the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 need to be plugged as soon as possible. I hope you will join me in ending this deplorable situation in which men and women are being used virtually as slaves on an American commonwealth. Their report makes many important recommendations. Let me call your attention to four key issues which the Congress could and should act upon this year: Extend the Immigration and Nationality Act to the CNMI; Extend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to the CNMI; Revoke the CNMI's ability to use the ``Made in the USA label'' unless more than 75 percent of the labor that goes into the manufacture of the garment comes from U.S. citizens and/or aliens lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence, and other appropriately legal individuals; and Revoke the CNMI's ability to transport textile goods to the United States free of duties and quotas unless the garments meet the above criteria. This week's report prepared by the Global Survival Network is not the first analysis raising concerns about conditions in the CNMI. In recent years, a chorus of criticism has surfaced about the Commonwealth. For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that the CNMI has no reliable records of aliens who have entered the Commonwealth, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. A CNMI official testified that they have ``no effective control'' over immigration in their island. The bipartisan Commission on Immigration studied immigration and indentured labor in the CNMI. The Commission called it ``antithetical to American values,'' and announced that no democratic society has an immigration policy like the CNMI. ``The closest equivalent is Kuwait,'' the Commission found. The Department of Commerce found that the territory has become ``a Chinese province'' for garment production. The CNMI garment industry employs 15,000 Chinese workers, some of whom sign contracts that forbid participation in religious or political activities while on U.S. soil. China is exporting its workers, and its human rights policies, to the CNMI. Charges of espionage by China and security lapses in U.S. nuclear weapons labs have justifiably raised serious concerns in Congress. Every Member of Congress should be equally concerned with the imposition of Chinese human rights standards on American soil. The CNMI is becoming an international embarrassment to the United States. We have received complaints from the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh about immigration abuses and the treatment of workers. Despite efforts by the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations to persuade the CNMI to correct these problems, the situation has only deteriorated. After years of waiting for the CNMI to achieve reform, the time for patience has ended. Conditions in the CNMI are a looming political embarrassment to our country. I urge the Senate to respond by enacting S. 1052, bipartisan reform legislation introduced by my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Murkowski and Senator Bingaman. I urge the Senate to move on this measure as quickly as we can. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last night, the Senator from Alaska and I introduced the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act, legislation to end immigration abuses in a U.S. territory know as the CNMI. This is a bipartisan reform bill, and the changes we propose were supported by the Clinton Administration during the 105th Congress. I commend my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his leadership on CNMI reform. He traveled more than 10,000 miles to get a first-hand understanding of this issue. Our bill responds to the profound problems that we witnessed while visiting the CNMI. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a group of islands located in the far western Pacific. Following World War II, the United States administered the islands under a U.N. Trusteeship. In 1975, the people of the CNMI voted for political union with the United States. Today, the CNMI is a U.S. territory. A 1976 covenant enacted by Congress gave U.S. citizenship to CNMI residents. The covenant also exempted the Commonwealth from U.S. immigration law. This exemption led to the immigration abuses that our bill will correct. I don't represent the CNMI, but the Commonwealth is in Hawaii's backyard. I speak as a friend and neighbor when I say that conditions in the CNMI must change. The CNMI system of indentured immigrant labor is morally wrong, and violates basic democratic principles. The CNMI shares the American flag, but it does not share our immigration system. When the Commonwealth became a territory of the United States, we allowed them to write their own immigration laws. After twenty years of experience, we know that the CNMI immigration experiment has failed. Conditions in the CNMI prompt the question whether the United States should operate a unified system of immigration, or whether a U.S. territory should be allowed to establish laws in conflict with national immigration policy. Common sense tells us that a unified system is the only answer. If Puerto Rico, or Hawaii, or Arizona, or Oklahoma could write their own immigration laws--and give work visas to foreigners--our national immigration system would be in chaos. America is one country. We need a uniform immigration system, rather than one system for the 50 states and another system for one of our territories. There is a mountain of evidence proving just how bad the CNMI situation has become. Let me cite a few examples: Twenty years ago, the CNMI had a population of 15,000 citizens and 2,000 alien workers. Today, the citizen population has increased to 28,000. Yet the alien worker population has mushroomed to 42,000--a 2000 percent increase. Three to four thousand of these alien workers are illegal aliens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that the CNMI has no reliable records of aliens who have entered the Commonwealth, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. A CNMI official testified that they have ``no effective control'' over immigration in their island. The bipartisan Commission on Immigration studied immigration and indentured labor in the CNMI. The Commission called it ``antithetical to American values,'' and announced that no democratic society has an immigration policy like the CNMI. ``The closest equivalent is Kuwait,'' the Commission found. The Department of Commerce found that the territory has become ``a Chinese province'' for garment production. The CNMI garment industry employs 15,000 Chinese workers, some of whom sign contracts that forbid participation in religious or political activities while on U.S. soil. China is exporting their workers, and their human rights policies, to the CNMI. The CNMI is becoming an international embarrassment to the United States. We have received complaints from the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh about immigration abuses and the treatment of workers. Despite efforts by the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations to persuade the CNMI to correct these problems, the situation has only deteriorated. My colleagues, the Senator from Alaska and I have been patient. After years of waiting, the time for patience has ended. Conditions in the CNMI are a looming political embarrassment to our country. I urge the Senate to respond by enacting the reform legislation we have introduced.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today marks the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, who developed one of the most effective cancer screening tests in medical history--the Pap smear. Cervical cancer was one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in women in the United States 50 years ago and it is still a major killer of women worldwide. I rise today to introduce the Investment in Women's Health Care Act, a bipartisan bill to increase the reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory tests under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues--Senators Snowe, Murray and Collins. The inadequacy of current lab test reimbursement was brought to my attention by pathologists who alerted me to the significant cost- payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of the 23 States where the cost of performing the test greatly exceeds the Medicare payment. In Hawaii, the cost ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. Yet the Medicare reimbursement rate is only $7.15. The large disparity between the reimbursement level and the actual cost of performing the test may force labs in Hawaii and around the Nation to discontinue Pap smear testing. The below-cost reimbursement may compel some labs to process tests faster and in higher volume to improve cost efficiency. This situation increases the risk of inaccurate results and can severely handicap patient outcomes. This bill would increase the a reimbursement rate for Pap smear labwork from its current $7.15 to $14.60--the national average cost of the test. This rate is important because it establishes a benchmark for many private insurers. Last year, we were successful in having language included in the omnibus appropriations conference report recognizing the large disparity between the costs incurred to provide the screening tests and the amount paid by Medicare. The conferees noted that data from laboratories nationwide indicates that the cost of providing the test averages $13.00 to $17.00, with the costs in some areas being higher. Accordingly, conferees urged the Health Care Financing Administration to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear screening. Although HCFA has indicated a willingness to increase this payment, I am concerned that the adjustment the agency is considering may be significantly less than the costs incurred by most laboratories in providing this service. Therefore, my colleagues and I are compelled to reintroduce legislation that would implement what we believe to be an appropriate increase. Mr. President, no other cancer screening procedure is as effective for early detection of cancer as the Pap smear. Over the last 50 years, the incidence of cervical cancer deaths has declined by 70 percent due in large part to the use of this cancer detection measure. Evidence shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent, if treatment and follow-up is timely. If the Pap smear is to continue as an effective cancer screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced for all women. Adequate payment is necessary to ensure women's continued access to quality Pap smears. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I also ask consent the text of my bill be included in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today marks the 116th birthday of Dr. George Papanicolaou, who developed one of the most effective cancer screening tests in medical history--the Pap smear. Cervical cancer was one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in women in the United States 50 years ago and it is still a major killer of women worldwide. I rise today to introduce the Investment in Women's Health Care Act, a bipartisan bill to increase the reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory tests under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues--Senators Snowe, Murray and Collins. The inadequacy of current lab test reimbursement was brought to my attention by pathologists who alerted me to the significant cost- payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of the 23 States where the cost of performing the test greatly exceeds the Medicare payment. In Hawaii, the cost ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. Yet the Medicare reimbursement rate is only $7.15. The large disparity between the reimbursement level and the actual cost of performing the test may force labs in Hawaii and around the Nation to discontinue Pap smear testing. The below-cost reimbursement may compel some labs to process tests faster and in higher volume to improve cost efficiency. This situation increases the risk of inaccurate results and can severely handicap patient outcomes. This bill would increase the a reimbursement rate for Pap smear labwork from its current $7.15 to $14.60--the national average cost of the test. This rate is important because it establishes a benchmark for many private insurers. Last year, we were successful in having language included in the omnibus appropriations conference report recognizing the large disparity between the costs incurred to provide the screening tests and the amount paid by Medicare. The conferees noted that data from laboratories nationwide indicates that the cost of providing the test averages $13.00 to $17.00, with the costs in some areas being higher. Accordingly, conferees urged the Health Care Financing Administration to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear screening. Although HCFA has indicated a willingness to increase this payment, I am concerned that the adjustment the agency is considering may be significantly less than the costs incurred by most laboratories in providing this service. Therefore, my colleagues and I are compelled to reintroduce legislation that would implement what we believe to be an appropriate increase. Mr. President, no other cancer screening procedure is as effective for early detection of cancer as the Pap smear. Over the last 50 years, the incidence of cervical cancer deaths has declined by 70 percent due in large part to the use of this cancer detection measure. Evidence shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent, if treatment and follow-up is timely. If the Pap smear is to continue as an effective cancer screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced for all women. Adequate payment is necessary to ensure women's continued access to quality Pap smears. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I also ask consent the text of my bill be included in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work and accomplishments of a team of individuals in Hawaii who have been honored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as 1999 ``Environmental Heroes.'' We seldom take the time to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of those working at the community level, with high school students, far from Washington, D.C. Their dedication can make a big difference in people's lives and the health of our environment. Honored in Hawaii were Hawaii Sea Grant's Extension Director Bruce Miller, Hawaii State Representative Brian Schatz, and Youth for Environment Service Coordinator Sean Casey. This marks the third year that NOAA has recognized individuals and organizations throughout the United States for their ``tireless efforts to preserve and protect the nation's environment.'' The 1999 NOAA Class of Environmental Heroes included 34 individuals or programs, and the honorees are traditionally announced as part of Earth Day activities nationwide. Each honoree was also sent personal commendations from Vice President Al Gore who congratulated this year's heroes for their commitment and accomplishments in protecting the environment of our nation. The Hawaii team was recognized for their creation of Youth for Environmental Service, called YES. The YES program educates and engages K-12 students in discussions of local environmental issues and activities that sustain the environment. YES gives students a chance to get involved through projects such as restoring trails, planting trees, picking up litter from beaches and streams, and more. To date, YES has given presentations to more than 65,000 students in 450 schools, involved 25,000 students in environmental community service projects, removed 20 tons of debris from Honolulu streams, restored one mile of the most used hiking trail on Oahu; planted approximately 2,000 plants, cleaned 40 beaches, stenciled more than 2,500 storm drains with a ``Dump No Waste'' message, and organized more than 350 other community service projects. The YES project is an excellent example of the partnering of extension and educational goals through the University of Hawaii's Sea Grant Program. Mr. President, I extend my warmest congratulations to our three Hawaii Environmental Heroes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, along with my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Dan Inouye, today I am introducing legislation to authorize designation of the Ala Kahakai (``Trail by the Sea''), on the Island of Hawaii, as a National Historic Trail. The Ala Kahakai is the modern name for an approximately 175-mile portion of the ancient shoreline footpath, the Ala Loa (``Long Trail''), that once circumscribed the island of Hawaii. The Ala Loa served as the major land route connecting more than 600 communities of the island kingdom of Hawaii between the 15th and 18th centuries. It is associated with many prehistoric and historic housing areas, most of the royal centers and temples of the island, a number of major battles, and the facilitation of government functions such as tax collection. Of more recent significance, a key section of the trail is associated with the series of events that unfolded between 1779 and 1820 that had lasting consequences for Hawaiian cultural evolution: Captain Cook's landing and subsequent death at Kealakekua Bay in 1779; Kamehameha's rise to power and consolidation of the Hawaiian Islands under monarchical rule; the death of Kamehameha I in 1819, followed by the overthrow of the ancient religious system, the kapu: and, finally, the arrival of the first Western missionaries in 1820. Interest in preserving this important Hawaiian cultural legacy has been growing since the 1970s, when the State of Hawaii began developing Na Ala Hele (``Trails for Walking''), a proposal for cooperative management of the statewide trail system. I 1988, the concept evolved into the Hawaii Statewide Trail and Access System, whose mission is to develop trail access while conserving Hawaii's environmental and cultural heritage. The Na Ala Hele planning process called for the development of a demonstration trail for each of Hawaii's major islands, including a 35- mile demonstration trail on the Big Island of Hawaii. In introduced legislation (P.L. 120-361) in 1992 proposing that NPS study whether an expanded, 175-mile version of the Big Island trail, the Ala Kahakai, should be incorporated into the National Trails System. Pursuant to P.L. 120-461, the National Park Service undertook a study to evaluate the desirability and feasibility of establishing the Ala Kahakai as a national trail. In January 1998, after a long process of consultation with federal, state, local authorities and other interests, and after a period of public review, the study (``Ala Kahakai National Trail Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement'') was completed. In August 1998, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the National Park System Advisory Board, endorsed the study's principle recommendation that the Ala Kahakai be designated a National Historic Trail. According to the study, the trail meets all of the three criteria for historic trail designation. To wit: it must be a trail or route established by historic use and must be historically significant as result of that use; it must be of national significance with respect to any of several broad facets of American history, such as trade and commerce, exploration, migration and settlement, or military campaigns; and, it must have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interest based on historic interpretation and appreciation. In addition, the study suggested that the trail not only qualifies for designation as a National Historic Trail, but that it has the potential to be designated a National Scenic Trail (although to do so would trivialize its historical and cultural significance) and may well be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The study presented four alternatives for the management of the Ala Kahakai: (a) no action, (b) a national historic trail (continuous), (c) a state historic trail, and a national historic trail (discontinuous)-- ultimately recommending alternative ``b'' as the best means to preserve and restore the trail and maximize public access to the entire route. The preferred alternative assumes recognition of a continuous route that, over time, could become continuous on the ground. It is fairly clear that reestablishing the 175-mile route is physically possible. Although some parts of the trail have been covered by lava, eroded by tides, or otherwise sustained damage from natural and human processes, these sections can be bridged through recreational trail links. In some cases, the trail can be rebuilt using traditional construction methods. About half (93 miles, or 53 percent) of the proposed trail is in local, state, or federal government ownership, and 82 miles cross private lands. Of the latter, 16 miles have been dedicated, through planning requirements, as public land. Of the remaining 66 miles of trail on private lands, as much as 35 miles are classified as ``ancient trail'' and thus claimable as state-owned under Hawaiian law. For the remaining sections of trail that are not ancient trail, or for which the state's claim has been forfeited in some way, landowner participation would be entirely voluntary. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is key to preserving and interpreting an important Hawaiian legacy that is threatened by time, neglect, and modern activity. The Ala Kahakai boasts more cultural and historical resources than any other trail in the National Trails System. Its designation as a national historic trail would help us preserve one of the most important and evocative legacies of Hawaii's indigenous history and culture. I hope that Congress will act quickly on this measure, to ensure that the trail can be developed as a resource for all Americans to enjoy. Thank you, Mr. President. This measure is supported by State and local authorities as well as a wide spectrum of community organizations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of support from Hawaii Governor Ben Cayetano, as well as the Department of Interior's Record of Decision on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I certainly would accept that, and I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. I want her to know that I will be speaking on the emergency supplemental and rescissions bill.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the emergency supplemental and rescissions bill.

Mr. AKAKA. To use TANF funding as an offset abrogates this agreement. I hope my colleagues, the appropriators, are working to keep this agreement intact. Hawaii and other states need this money to assist poor families. And of all states, Hawaii needs assistance the most. Mr. President, our Nation is enjoying the longest peacetime expansion in American history--yet Hawaii is not benefiting from this expansion. While the country is enjoying the lowest unemployment in nearly 30 years and tremendous job creation, Hawaii is losing jobs and its people are having a difficult time finding work at a living wage. Our unemployment rate is at 5.7 percent as of November 1998--well above the country's average of 4.3 percent. Bankruptcy filings increased more than 30 percent form 1997 to 1998. Retail sales fell 7 percent from $16.3 billion in 1997 to $15.2 billion in 1998. These are some recent economic indicators. Hawaii has been suffering from an economic downturn for most of this decade. As if this were not enough, my state has had to endure the worst of all states from the economic crisis in Asia. The Aloha State welcomed 11 percent fewer tourists from Japan and other parts of Asia in 1998. If anything should be slated for emergency funding, Hawaii should. With all of this need, you can see why $800,000 in TANF funding means a lot to my state. The number of families in Hawaii receiving assistance under this program has increased since the new law was passed. According to the Hawaii Department of Human Services, as of January, 1999, 16,575 single-parent families and 7,119 two-parent families were on the rolls, for a total of 23,694 families receiving assistance. This represents an increase of more than 2,000 families since 1995 when the number of families receiving assistance was 21,480. Hawaii's numbers have increased because of the tough economic conditions we are now enduring. Hawaii needs every bit of our TANF funding to make sure that our poor families continue to be self-sufficient. This is stated in the letter I submitted earlier from Governor Cayetano. We have not put our unobligated balances aside for a rainy day fund because we do not have enough of it--we need to use every dollar we have for caseloads now. Once again, I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Stevens, to continue working to find another $350 million offset for this emergency supplemental bill, rather than defer much-needed TANF funds.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me time. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern on the FY 1999 emergency supplemental and rescissions bill. I support disaster relief for Central America and the Caribbean, emergency relief for America's farmers in crisis, and aid to Jordan to implement the Wye River agreement. It is important that these priorities be funded. My concern is that one of the budget offsets to pay for this bill pits these important foreign and domestic needs against the needs of the country's poorest families--something that Hawaii's poorest families can ill afford. This supplemental bill seeks to defer $350 million in funding from ``unobligated balances'' under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program until fiscal year 2001. The language in the bill requires deferral of portions of states' unobligated TANF funds. The deferral is based on the states' share of total unobligated funds. Preliminary estimates show this means Hawaii would not be able to spend about $800,000 of its TANF funds until fiscal year 2001. It is my understanding that my friend from Alaska, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, is working to find a different offset so that the $350 million in TANF funds will not have to be deferred. I strongly encourage him in these efforts and urge that this be done. In the meantime, we all know that TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare program in 1996. I am a critic of the TANF Program for failing to provide an adequate safety net for low- income families. However, I am adamant that full funding must continue to go to the states to assist welfare families and their children. No part of it should be deferred to offset supplemental spending. The term ``unobligated,'' may seem self-explanatory. Anyone may think that a $350 million deferral of unobligated funds under the bill would apply to funds that have simply not been spent under this program. Proponents would argue that welfare rolls have fallen so far that this money is not needed by states, which is why it remains unobligated. However, Mr. President, we know that funding decisions by state and local governments take time. Transfers of expenditures must go through a process. States often commit funding to counties and local governments that is not transferred immediately, so the amount is not taken off the states' books. The fact is many states rely heavily on these unobligated funds and have already committed them for a wide variety of uses, such as distribution to counties and local agencies, ``rainy day'' funds for contingencies such as economic downturns that swell the rolls and leave states without enough money until the next federal payment, transfers into child care and social services activities, or other basic expenses to help low-income families become self-sufficient. My state of Hawaii continues to plan uses for all available funds to provide child care services to our TANF families so that they can be given a chance to continue at their jobs and make it work. Hawaii is doing this the right way, instead of simply looking at the numbers and acting to drop welfare recipients off their rolls. Hawaii is truly ``teaching them to fish,'' so that they truly achieve self sufficiency. Deferring release of TANF funds for a number of years and using the $350 million for emergency spending violates the agreement made when TANF was passed. I have a letter here from Governor of Hawaii, Benjamin Cayetano, dated March 12th, that describes the agreement between Governors, Congress, and the administration that the entitlement nature of the old AFDC Program would be replaced with a set amount of funding to states under TANF. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment to be offered by my colleagues from Washington and Massachusetts, Senators Murray and Kennedy, to S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The amendment represents a true investment in education, as well as in the future of our Nation and my State of Hawaii. Built on a bipartisan agreement passed last year, the amendment seeks to reduce class size in early grades through the hiring of additional well-qualified teachers. This would mean more individualized attention for students from their teachers, increased learning in the basics that will immeasurably help them in future grades, and a better chance at success from an early age. I also support other amendments to be offered to S. 280. One will be offered by my colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, regarding an equally vital school modernization initiative. I have spoken in support of this initiative in the past. This plan would finance the building and renovation of public schools through tax credits in lieu of interest on bonds. Hawaii would receive tax credits to support $50 million in school modernization. The other amendment that will be offered by Senator Boxer to help communities fund afterschool programs for kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students will be one that I will support. This will help keep students off the streets after school, for too many youths in my State are left with nothing to do but turn to drugs, alcohol, gangs and other destructive behaviors. And this happens also in other States. These amendments have my full support. Now I would like to focus my remarks on the class size amendment. I commend my colleagues for supporting the first installment of the 7- year class size reduction proposal last year. We passed $1.2 billion in 1998 to hire 30,000 teachers. Under this spending, Hawaii will receive more than $5.6 million. We must pass the Murray-Kennedy amendment to finish the job and assure that the teachers hired under last year's downpayment will continue to be funded. This amendment would provide $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to hire 38,000 teachers, which would give Hawaii nearly $7 million for 178 teachers. So this is something that Hawaii really looks forward to. Students in my State need these well-qualified, well-trained teachers. I hear from students, parents, and teachers alike that classes are too large. The average size of a class in Hawaii is in the mid-twenties. However, research shows that the optimum number of students in a class, particularly lower grades, is in the mid- to upper-teens. Among other problems, larger classes create discipline problems, especially in communities with large numbers of at-risk children. If we want to give our students the best possible chance to learn, they need smaller classes and teachers who are able to give them enough personal attention. In addition to helping students, this amendment would also help Hawaii's teachers. As a former teacher, I have taught both small and large classes. I have taught in different kinds of systems. I know when students are grasping ideas. And we know when they are not. One of the most rewarding things a teacher can experience is to see the faces of students light up when they realize they have learned something new. When there are too many students in a class and only one teacher to supervise them, the result is a difficult and poor learning environment. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this class size amendment. It makes sense to focus our efforts this way on students during their early grades, because these represent some of the most vital years in a child's educational development. We must give our children a rock-solid foundation in the basics so they may continue to build a strong base of knowledge throughout their educational history. We know that well- educated children will mean a great citizenry for the future of our country. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murray and Kennedy, for giving me this opportunity and this chance to speak on their amendment at this most important time in the history of our country. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Downed Animal Protection Act, a bill to eliminate inhumane and improper treatment of downed animals at stockyards. The legislation prohibits the sale or transfer of downed animals unless they have been humanely euthanized. Downed animals are severely distressed recumbent animals that are too sick to rise or move on their own. Once an animal becomes immobile, it must remain where it has fallen, often without receiving the most basic assistance. Downed animals that survive the stockyard are slaughtered for human consumption. These animals are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to handle humanely. They have very demanding needs, and must be fed and watered individually. The suffering of downed animals is so severe that the only humane solution to their plight is immediate euthanasia. Mr. President, the bill I introduce today requires that these hopelessly sick and injured animals be euthanized by humane methods that rapidly an effectively render animals insensitive to pain. Humane euthanasia of downed animals will limit animal suffering and will encourage the livestock industry to concentrate on improved management and handling practices to avoid this problem. Downed animals compromise a tiny fraction, less than one-tenth of one percent, of animals at stockyards. Banning their sale or transfer would cause no economic hardship. The Downed Animal Protection Act will prompt stockyards to refuse crippled and distressed animals, and will make the prevention of downed animals a priority for the livestock industry. The bill will reinforce the industry's commitment to humane handling of animals. The problem of downed animals has been addressed by major livestock organizations such as the United Stockyards Corp., the Minnesota Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas. All of these organizations have taken strong stands against improper treatment of animals by adopting ``no-downer'' policies. I want to commend these and other organizations, as well as responsible and conscientious livestock producers throughout the country, for their efforts to end an appalling problem that erodes consumer confidence. Despite a strong consensus within industry, the animal welfare movement, consumers, and government that downed animals should not be sent to stockyards, this sad problem continues, causing animal suffering and an erosion of public confidence in the industry. Mr. President, this legislation will complement industry effort to address this problem by encouraging better care of animals at farms and ranches. Animals with impaired mobility will receive better treatment in order to prevent them from becoming incapacitated. The bill will remove the incentive for sending downed animals to stockyards in the hope of receiving some salvage value for the animals and would encourage greater care during loading and transport. The bill will also discourage improper breeding practices that account for most downed animals. My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby removing any unfair advantages that might result from differing standards throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors of the Packers and Stockyards Administration regularly visit stockyards to enforce existing regulations. Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will be insignificant.