Daniel Akaka

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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. Chief Justice and esteemed colleagues, I rise to offer my thoughts on the momentous decision we will render shortly. At the start, I deeply regret that the American people have been denied the opportunity to hear the Senate's final deliberations on the impeachment charges against President Clinton. I say this because I have been thoroughly impressed with the thought, tenor, and passion brought to this deliberation by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I wish the American people could have the opportunity to observe what I have had the privilege of witnessing for the past two days. Whether seated in the gallery, watching on television, listening on radio, or following on-line, the public would have benefitted tremendously from the opportunity to hear, in real time and full context each of our remarks. The opportunity to read a transcript later this week in the Record will not come close to viewing these proceedings. It lacks the power of the moment. when I took the oath to do impartial justice on January 7, 1999, I knew, as one of 100 Senators, that I was assuming the unique role of judge and juror in the Senate impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Over these weeks, I have listened to the presentations by the House Managers, the White House counsel, and the President's defense team without prejudice. I have analyzed the video testimony of Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal, and read numerous grand jury transcripts, the referral from the Independent Counsel, and the House report and related documents. The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment by straight party line votes after bitter and divisive partisan debate, forwarding to the Senate the impeachment articles to remove the President of the United States as authorized by the Constitution. At the same time, the partisan nature of the House action invites challenge to its legitimacy. And, although we have more often than not voted along party lines during the impeachment trial, I am proud of this body and its genuine effort to pursue a bipartisan course during our trial of the President. We have disagreed without being disagreeable. The body has not strayed too far from the comity and tone that marked our first bipartisan caucus to set the framework for this proceeding. We have taken the admonition of the senior Senator from West Virginia to heart and avoided descending into the pit of caustic partisanship and recrimination. After reviewing volumes of evidence and weighing weeks of presentations before the Senate, I have concluded that a case has not been made on either of the articles of impeachment against President Clinton. Conviction and removal from office, as charged by the House Managers, is simply not warranted. The record does not sustain the level of proof necessary to convict and remove the President. Certain facts are indisputable: the President lied to the American people and to his wife and daughter about an extramarital affair; he lied to his staff; and he was misleading in his deposition in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and his grand jury testimony. However, impeachment is not a Constitutional means to punish a President ``when he gets out of bounds,'' as proposed by the House Managers. The constitutional standard is whether high crimes and misdemeanors were committed, and that test has not been met. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon based on the filing of a false tax return. I was reasoned that the President's misleading tax return was unrelated to his duties as president, although a minority believed the count was unsupported by the evidence. Thus we see that all crimes that may be punishable by the courts are not punishable by impeachment. Rather, impeachment is narrowly limited by the Constitution to offenses of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. After listening to many presentations on this issue, I am convinced that impeachment and removal from office should only be used for crimes against the country or threats to our national security. Our founding fathers carefully defined the terms of impeachment in a manner that establishes a high threshold and requires the charges to be of an egregious nature. That is why the Senate has only once before held an impeachment trial for a President. The House Managers recommend impeachment because it is the only way in which the President's misconduct can be punished. Yet, I remind my colleagues that the President remains subject to criminal and civil penalties after he leaves office in two years. As I will point out, the facts and other evidence accumulated and presented to the Senate do not meet the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal that our founding fathers established. Article One charges the President with perjury before the grand jury in August 1998, for willfully giving false testimony under oath in a judicial proceeding. Yet to prove this charge the House Managers introduced material from the Jones suit during their Senate presentation even though the House rejected an article of impeachment dealing with Paula Jones suit. Nonetheless, despite this blurring of the lines between criminal and civil matters, a perjury conviction requires that the testimony be material to the case at hand. Judge Susan Webber Wright's rulings in the Jones case specifically excluded evidence concerning Monica Lewinsky because it was immaterial. Furthermore, Thomas Sullivan, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, testified before the House Judiciary Committee that perjury ``can be particularly arcane, including the requirements that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his testimony to be false at the time he or she testified, that the alleged false testimony was material, and that any ambiguity or uncertainty about what the question or answer meant must be construed in favor of the defendant.'' Mr. Sullivan also noted that generally, ``federal prosecutors do not use the criminal process in connection with civil litigation involving private parties,'' because, ``there are well established remedies available to civil litigants who believe perjury or obstruction has occurred.'' Article Two charges the President with seven different instances of obstruction of justice. The House Managers insist that the evidence shows that these separate acts constitute a deliberate attempt by the President to obstruct justice. The White House argues that the President did not seek to influence witnesses nor impede discovery. Legal scholars have argued that the lumping together of these seven charges would cause most courts to throw out the charges, and witness testimony undermines the House charges. After the smoke cleared from the charges and countercharges, it was evident to me that the connections between the actions of the President and the actions by the witnesses were circumstantial, at best. Moreover, I agree with White House counsel Charles F. Ruff, who in his closing arguments said of the House Managers, ``I believe their vision to be too dark, a vision too little attuned to the needs of the people, too little sensitive to the needs of our democracy.'' In the obstruction of justice count, the Managers charge the President with asking Monica Lewinsky to lie, a charge that she denies in two dozen depositions, and testimony given under the protection of immunity. There is no evidence that the President ever asked her to provide a false affidavit in the Jones case or to testify falsely. Vernon Jordan, the President's close friend and advisor, testified that although he met with Ms. Lewinsky and was given a draft of the affidavit, he refused to review the document and referred the young woman to her attorney for advice and counsel. The House Managers say the President is guilty of obstructing justice when he ordered his secretary, Betty Currie, to retrieve gifts given by the President to Monica Lewinsky. However, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony, on a number of occasions, indicates that it was she who asked Mrs. Currie to keep the gifts, not the President. The House states that the President asked Vernon Jordan to intensify an on-going job search in Ms. Lewinsky's behalf after Judge Webber Wright ruled that Paula Jones's attorney could investigate the President's sexual relations with state or federal employees. Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky first met in November 1997, a month before Ms. Lewinsky was listed as a witness in the Jones case. Sinister motives do not appear to be involved in the inquiries by Mr. Jordan on her behalf that led to two job rejections and one job offer. Efforts by the House Managers to link the job search and the affidavit unravel when the dates on which Mr. Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky first met, when Ms. Lewinsky's name first appeared on the Paula Jones case witness list, and the drafting of the affidavit are analyzed. The President, Ms. Lewinsky, and Mr. Jordan have testified that no one was seeking Ms. Lewinsky's silence, and Ms. Lewinsky further testified that she realized in October 1997 that she would not be returning to the White House for employment and she renewed her job search in New York City. The additional testimonies of Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Blumenthal added no new information to the case against the President. I voted against deposing these witnesses since they already had been deposed many times. Moreover, we each received thousands of pages of testimony from the grand jury, various depositions, statements given under oath, and documents relating to the impeachment charges. We know that Ms. Lewinsky had been questioned on at least 23 separate occasions, including after the President's grand jury testimony and as recently as January 22, 1999, by the House prosecutors before testifying February 1, 1999, on video. During arguments in favor of deposing Ms. Lewinsky, House Manager Bryant urged the deposition because he believed the Senate should observe her demeanor, her tone, and her tenor in responding to questions. I respectfully disagreed with Mr. Bryant then, as I do now. My decision was bolstered when I viewed Ms. Lewinsky's videotaped testimony in which she reaffirmed her grand jury testimony. I saw no purpose in bringing her to the witness table again, nor Mr. Jordan, who had been questioned five times, nor Mr. Blumenthal, who has answered questions under oath four times. These witnesses did not change their testimonies, nor did they provide information that was omitted in previous testimony. The witnesses' statements are a matter of record, and they comprise thousands of pages encompassed in the volumes of testimony and sworn affidavits that are the basis of the House articles of impeachment. I concur with House majority counsel David Schippers who said during the House Judiciary impeachment proceedings, ``As it stands, all of the factual witnesses are uncontradicted and amply corroborated.'' In conclusion, I cannot overstate my disappointment with the actions of the President. He deliberately misled the American people and greatly diminished the public's trust in the office of the presidency. However, I have concluded that the two articles of impeachment, as drafted and presented by the House, fail to meet the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and I will vote to acquit the President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lott, Landrieu, Craig, and Graham I am introducing the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999. Methane hydrates are rigid, ice-like solids of water surrounding a gas molecule. They remain solid at high pressure and low temperature. Such conditions are found in Arctic permafrost and in deep sea sediments. Methane hydrate has tremendous gas storage capacity: one volume of methane hydrate will expand to more than 160 volumes of methane under normal temperature and pressure conditions. The data on this unlikely resource will surprise you. We are only beginning to quantify and characterize methane hydrate resources. Fundamental research on methane hydrates is urgently needed to serve our long-term energy supply needs, create short-term advances in conventional fuel extraction, and further the science of global climate change. Significant, widespread quantities of gas hydrates have been detected, but not characterized, all over the world. In the United States, on-shore Arctic deposits are found in Alaska. Deep sea methane hydrate deposits are perhaps the most abundant source of methane, occurring at depths greater than 300 meters. Marine geologists have identified large deposits off the coasts of most of the U.S., including Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, Oregon, and North and South Carolina. However, we know very little about the quantity and nature of these deposits. Worldwide, the estimated amount of methane trapped in gas hydrate form is 10,000 gigatons--twice the amount of carbon found in all other fossil fuels on Earth. This represents close to 3,000 times the amount of methane present in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that 320,000 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas exists in hydrate form in the U.S.--a staggering resource. By comparison, we have an estimated reserve of 1,300 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of conventional natural gas. The potential of methane hydrates as an energy resource is best described in terms of consumption. The U.S. consumes 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year; U.S. gas reserves will likely supply gas for approximately 60 years at current consumption rates. However, gas consumption is expected to rise dramatically in the future. If the hydrate resource can be harvested, the amount of natural gas found in one deposit off the Carolina would satisfy our natural gas needs for over 70 years. Can we produce natural gas from these vast reserves? Natural gas from methane hydrates will never be realized unless we undertake a serious methane hydrates research program. The U.S. is not doing enough to explore this exciting new energy source. Other nations, primarily Japan and India, have launched aggressive R&D programs to explore methane hydrates. Some believe that Japanese commercial production is only a decade away. Clearly we are falling behind in our efforts to understand this energy source. In the face of dwindling energy resources and increased reliance on energy imports, we can hardly afford to miss this important opportunity. In addition to potential use as an energy source, methane hydrate deposits also represent a challenge to conventional oil and gas extraction. Hydrates influence physical properties of ocean sediments, particularly strength and stability. Characterizing hydrate formation and breakdown is important for the safety of deep offshore drilling and other deep sea operations. Release of large quantities of methane to the atmosphere from hydrate deposits, and the sequestration methane in hydrate form, can also have significant effects on global climate change. The importance of the process in global climate regulation is relatively unknown, and demands investigation. Even though this resource accounts for more potential energy than all other conventional fuels combined, has attracted significant foreign investment, challenges conventional oil and gas production, and holds unknown secrets about global climate, the Department of Energy budget is limited to $500,000 in FY 1999. My bill establishes a small research and development program with the potential for major payback. It would direct the Department of Energy to conduct research and development in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, National Science Foundation, and the Naval Research Laboratory.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I authored during the 105th Congress that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for Hawaii to reflect more fairly the state's ability to bear its share of Medicaid payments. The federal share of Medicaid payments varies depending on each state's ability to pay--wealthier states bear a larger share of the cost of the program, and thus have lower FMAP rates. Per capita income is used as the measure of state wealth. Because per capita income in Hawaii is quite high, the state's FMAP rate is at the lowest level--50 percent. Hawaii is one of only a dozen states whose FMAP rate is at the 50 percent level. My bill would increase Hawaii's FMAP rate from 50 percent to 59.8 percent. Because of our geographic location and other factors, the cost of living in Hawaii greatly exceeds the cost of living on the mainland. Per capita income is a poor measure of a state's ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. An excellent analysis of this issue appears in the 21st edition of The Federal Budget and the States, a joint study conducted by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the office of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. According to the study, if per capita income is measured in real terms, Hawaii ranks 47th at $19,755 compared to the national average of $24,231. This sheds a totally different light on the state's financial status. The cost of living in Honolulu is 83 percent higher than the average of the metropolitan areas tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on 1995 data. Recent studies have shown that for the state as a whole, the cost of living is more than one-third higher than the rest of the U.S. In fact, Hawaii's Cost of Living Index ranks it as the highest in the country. Some government programs take the high cost of living in Hawaii into account and funding is adjusted accordingly. These include Medicare prospective payment rates, food stamp allocations, school lunch programs, housing insurance limits, and military living expenses. These examples reflect the recognition that the higher cost of living in noncontiguous states should be taken into account in fashioning government policies. It is time for similar recognition of this factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. My colleagues may recall that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent. Setting a higher match rate would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate than a majority of the states, but would more accurately reflect Hawaii's ability to pay its fair share of the costs of the Medicaid program. Despite the high cost of living, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that Hawaii also has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. The State's 16.9 percent poverty rate is eighth in the country, compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher costs are reflected in state government expenditures and state taxation. Thus, on a per capita basis, state revenue and expenditures are far higher in Hawaii and Alaska, than in the 48 mainland states. The higher expenditure levels are necessary to assure an adequate level of public services which are more costly to provide in these states. Of the top ten states with the highest poverty rates in the country, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only three others have an FMAP rate between 50-60 percent. The other six states have FMAP rates of 65 percent and higher. Even more astonishing is that of the top ten states with the lowest real per capita income, only Hawaii has a 50 percent FMAP rate. To bring equity to this situation, Hawaii has sought an increase in its FMAP rate over the past several years. Just as we did for Alaska in 1997, Hawaii deserves equitable treatment. This change is long warranted. The same factors justifying an increase for Alaska apply to Hawaii. Recognition of this point was made by House and Senate conferees to the Balanced Budget Act. The conferees noted that poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are different than those for the rest of the nation, yet there is no variation from the national calculation in the FMAP. The conferees correctly noted that comparable adjustments are generally made for Alaska and Hawaii. The case for an FMAP increase is especially compelling in Hawaii, which has a proud history of providing essential health services in an innovative and cost-effective manner. That commitment is not easy to fulfill. Unlike most states, Hawaii's Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (AFDC/TANF) caseloads have risen significantly in recent years. Since TANF block grants are based on historical spending levels, the increased demand has placed extreme pressure on state resources. Hawaii has sought to maintain a social safety net while striving for more efficient delivery of government services. The most striking example is the QUEST medical assistance program, which operates under a federal waiver. QUEST has brought managed care and broader coverage to the state's otherwise uninsured populations. At the same time, Hawaii is the only state whose employers guarantee health care coverage to every full-time employee, a further example of Hawaii's commitment to a strong social support system. There is a particularly strong need for a more suitable FMAP rate for Hawaii at this time. The state has not participated in the robust economic growth that has benefitted most of the rest of the nation. Hawaii's unemployment rate is above the national average and state tax revenues have fallen short of projected estimates. The need to fund 50 percent of the cost of the Medicaid program puts an increasing strain on the state's resources. For all of these reasons, the FMAP rates for Hawaii should be adjusted to reflect more equitably the state's ability to support the Medicaid program. This will assure that the special problem of the noncontiguous states is dealt with in a principled manner. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an upward adjustment in Hawaii's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I authored during the 105th Congress that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for Hawaii to reflect more fairly the state's ability to bear its share of Medicaid payments. The federal share of Medicaid payments varies depending on each state's ability to pay--wealthier states bear a larger share of the cost of the program, and thus have lower FMAP rates. Per capita income is used as the measure of state wealth. Because per capita income in Hawaii is quite high, the state's FMAP rate is at the lowest level--50 percent. Hawaii is one of only a dozen states whose FMAP rate is at the 50 percent level. My bill would increase Hawaii's FMAP rate from 50 percent to 59.8 percent. Because of our geographic location and other factors, the cost of living in Hawaii greatly exceeds the cost of living on the mainland. Per capita income is a poor measure of a state's ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. An excellent analysis of this issue appears in the 21st edition of The Federal Budget and the States, a joint study conducted by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the office of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. According to the study, if per capita income is measured in real terms, Hawaii ranks 47th at $19,755 compared to the national average of $24,231. This sheds a totally different light on the state's financial status. The cost of living in Honolulu is 83 percent higher than the average of the metropolitan areas tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on 1995 data. Recent studies have shown that for the state as a whole, the cost of living is more than one-third higher than the rest of the U.S. In fact, Hawaii's Cost of Living Index ranks it as the highest in the country. Some government programs take the high cost of living in Hawaii into account and funding is adjusted accordingly. These include Medicare prospective payment rates, food stamp allocations, school lunch programs, housing insurance limits, and military living expenses. These examples reflect the recognition that the higher cost of living in noncontiguous states should be taken into account in fashioning government policies. It is time for similar recognition of this factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. My colleagues may recall that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent. Setting a higher match rate would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate than a majority of the states, but would more accurately reflect Hawaii's ability to pay its fair share of the costs of the Medicaid program. Despite the high cost of living, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that Hawaii also has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. The State's 16.9 percent poverty rate is eighth in the country, compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher costs are reflected in state government expenditures and state taxation. Thus, on a per capita basis, state revenue and expenditures are far higher in Hawaii and Alaska, than in the 48 mainland states. The higher expenditure levels are necessary to assure an adequate level of public services which are more costly to provide in these states. Of the top ten states with the highest poverty rates in the country, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only three others have an FMAP rate between 50-60 percent. The other six states have FMAP rates of 65 percent and higher. Even more astonishing is that of the top ten states with the lowest real per capita income, only Hawaii has a 50 percent FMAP rate. To bring equity to this situation, Hawaii has sought an increase in its FMAP rate over the past several years. Just as we did for Alaska in 1997, Hawaii deserves equitable treatment. This change is long warranted. The same factors justifying an increase for Alaska apply to Hawaii. Recognition of this point was made by House and Senate conferees to the Balanced Budget Act. The conferees noted that poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii are different than those for the rest of the nation, yet there is no variation from the national calculation in the FMAP. The conferees correctly noted that comparable adjustments are generally made for Alaska and Hawaii. The case for an FMAP increase is especially compelling in Hawaii, which has a proud history of providing essential health services in an innovative and cost-effective manner. That commitment is not easy to fulfill. Unlike most states, Hawaii's Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (AFDC/TANF) caseloads have risen significantly in recent years. Since TANF block grants are based on historical spending levels, the increased demand has placed extreme pressure on state resources. Hawaii has sought to maintain a social safety net while striving for more efficient delivery of government services. The most striking example is the QUEST medical assistance program, which operates under a federal waiver. QUEST has brought managed care and broader coverage to the state's otherwise uninsured populations. At the same time, Hawaii is the only state whose employers guarantee health care coverage to every full-time employee, a further example of Hawaii's commitment to a strong social support system. There is a particularly strong need for a more suitable FMAP rate for Hawaii at this time. The state has not participated in the robust economic growth that has benefitted most of the rest of the nation. Hawaii's unemployment rate is above the national average and state tax revenues have fallen short of projected estimates. The need to fund 50 percent of the cost of the Medicaid program puts an increasing strain on the state's resources. For all of these reasons, the FMAP rates for Hawaii should be adjusted to reflect more equitably the state's ability to support the Medicaid program. This will assure that the special problem of the noncontiguous states is dealt with in a principled manner. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an upward adjustment in Hawaii's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1999, which would stop fraud against victims of federal disasters. As with legislation I offered in the past, my measure would make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. The senior senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] joins me in sponsoring this bill. Everyone knows the tremendous costs incurred during a natural disaster. During the winter of 1997 through the spring of 1998, there were tornadoes and flooding in the southeastern states that caused $1 billion in damage and resulted in at least 132 deaths. From December 1996 to January 1997, severe flooding over portions of California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Montana resulted in $3 billion in damages, while in September 1996, Hurricane Fran struck North Carolina and Virginia at a cost of $5 billion. During the past decade, there have been a number of deadly natural disasters throughout the United States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards. Through round-the-clock media coverage, Americans have front row seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses. We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help rebuild strangers' homes. Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these disasters, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on the trusting and unsuspecting victims whose immediate concerns are applying for disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and rebuilding their lives. My interest in this was heighten by Hurricane Iniki, which on September 11, 1992, leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii and caused $1.6 billion in damage. As the people of Kauai began the recovery and rebuilding process, a contractor promising quick home repair took disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without completing promised construction. Most of these fraud victims never found relief. Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice-- first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets from $60 a month to $60 a day! In other flood-hit areas, carpet cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities. Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered South Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1999 would criminalize some of the activities undertaken by unprincipled people whose sole intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make it a federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim and fail to provide the agreed upon material or service for the cleanup, repair, and recovery. The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is the responsibility of the states to impose restrictions on price increases prior to a federal disaster declaration, federal penalties for price gouging should be imposed once a federal disaster has been declared. I am pleased to incorporate a provision in this bill initiated by our former colleague and cosponsor of this legislation in the 105th Congress, Senator John Glenn, who, following Hurricane Andrew, sought to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods and services legislatively. I am pleased to note that there is extensive cooperation among the various state and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-state during a natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions has created a strong support network. My bill would ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency develop public information in order to ensure that residents within a federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. The development of public information materials to advise disaster victims about ways to detect and avoid fraud would come under the jurisdiction of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. At the present time, FEMA, under the guidance of its director, James Lee Witt, has done an outstanding job in meeting natural disasters. I believe there is only admiration and praise for the cooperation that now exists between FEMA and state agencies dealing with natural disasters. Therefore, I have no doubt that government at all levels would benefit from the dissemination of federal anti-fraud related material following the declaration of a disaster by the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that sends a strong message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a natural disaster.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed H.R. 4110, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. This measure strives to improve the services and benefits provided to our nation's veterans by amending several health, education, housing, and other benefits programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am especially pleased that the measure contains two provisions which I have been working on. Section 603 of the bill will extend the eligibility of members of the National Guard and Reserve for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Loan Guaranty Program. The provision will ensure that the men and women in the Selected Reserve will continue to be eligible for this program through September 30, 2003. Under current law, authorization for the program is scheduled to expire in October 1999. As the author of legislation in 1992 which extended eligibility for VA-guaranteed home loans to National Guard and Reserve members who complete six years of service, I am pleased with the participation in the program by members of the Selected Reserve. The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program for Guard and Reserve members has provided many individuals and families with a needed opportunity to obtain a mortgage in order to purchase a home, many for the first time. The VA Home Loan Guaranty Program is not only beneficial for members of the Selected Reserve, it also contributes to the financial viability of the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program since the origination fees paid by Reservists more than offset the cost of additional loan guarantees. I am gratified that the home loan program will continue to be made available to members of the National Guard and Reserves who have served our country. I am also pleased with the inclusion of Section 706 in H.R. 4110. This provision would prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from establishing or collecting parking fees at the Spark M. Matsunaga Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Under current law, the VA is required to charge its users and employees to park at facilities built with special revolving funds. In Hawaii, the VA parking structure is located on the grounds of the Tripler Army Medical Hospital and will be shared by VA and the Department of Defense. The joint VA/DOD parking facility would result in an administrative nightmare if parking fees were required to be assessed for VA medical employees and visitors but not DOD personnel and visitors. Furthermore, the costs of administering the parking fees far outweigh the revenues that would be generated from the assessment of nominal parking charges. The waiver of parking fees for the VA parking structure at Tripler Army Medical Center will ensure that all visitors and employees enjoy free and equal access to the facilities.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for the last year or so, both the House and Senate have been working on legislation that would reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has reported legislation offered by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, that would modify the Act in significant ways. Although it is unlikely that we will take up this bill in the short time remaining to us, I would like to make a few observations about the Endangered Species Act and what it has meant to Hawaii, home to more endangered species than any other state or territory within the United States. Mr. President, as legislators, we are guardians of our Nation's rich natural inheritance; in this capacity, we cannot afford to squander the ecological legacy we leave to our children. Surely, part of our concern for rare species and ecosystems is the simple realization that once they are gone, we would have failed in our stewardship responsibility. Hawaii is poised on the brink of irreversible ecological change, and it is important that wise stewardship decisions be rendered to preserve our unique, tropical ecosystem. The term ``ecosystem'' has become a political buzzword and does not adequately described the delicate checks and balances that make up the natural world. The basis of Hawaii's natural system begins not with a list of threatened plants and animals, but with the unique origin of the islands. For millions of years, lava welling out from the earth's mantle cooled upon the ocean floor, gradually forming the Hawaiian islands, one by one, a process that is ongoing even today. As one island moves away from the influence of a ``hot spot'' in the middle of the Pacific, another island is born. Each island is the peak of a volcanic mountain, with its base hidden far below the surface of the ocean. Only a few types of birds, insects, and plants were able to colonize the remote islands, and these few evolved into scores or even hundreds of unique species. The islands sheltered no large land mammals or reptiles, only creatures that have gradually lost their natural defenses against such predators. The Endangered Species Act is critical to this unique, insular ecosystem. There are, 1,126 total U.S. species listed by Fish and Wildlife Service under protection of the ESA, and although its islands represent just two-tenths of one percent of the total U.S. land area, Hawaii is home to more rare and endangered species than any other state or territory. In addition, three-fourths of the nation's now extinct plants and birds once existed only in Hawaii. Hawaii has an astounding 363 listed endangered species. Only California, with 223 listed species, rivals Hawaii in the number of listed endangered species. The Pacific islands, not including Hawaii, have a total of 16 listed endangered species. The causes of Hawaiian species decline are numerous and complicated, but the most significant threats come from non-native animals that uproot and devour fragile native plants. Feral pigs, rats, and mongooses not only physicially destroy plants, but spread the seeds of aggressive alien plants such as the South American banana poke vine, and small invasive trees like the Brazilian strawberry guava. These alien plants form thick, impenetrable monocultures that choke out native plants. When native plants disappear, the birds and insects that rely on native plants for food are also threatened. Diseases that kill native flora and fauna are also spread by alien species: birds in particular are ravaged by diseases transmitted through mosquitoes. Hawaiian plants and animals co-evolved over millions of years and continue to depend on each other for survival. The interdependency of Hawaiian insects, birds, and plants makes this ecosystem susceptible to rapid, irreversible change due to loss of species richness. Endangered species in Hawaii range from mammals such as the charismatic monk seal and the Hawaiian goose (also the state bird), or nene [nay-nay], to sea creatures like the hawksbill sea turtle and invertebrates such as the Oahu tree snail. There are endangered plants from 279 taxa, including plants with great cultural significance such as the mahoe and uhiuhi. Hawaii harbors at least 5,000 species as yet unknown to science as well as many rare species, including the wekiu bug, which has ``antifreeze'' in its blood, and the Wood's tree hibiscus, a small tree previously unknown to science, found in Kauai, with only four individuals known worldwide. I cannot stress enough that the loss of even one species may contribute to the decline of entire ecosystems, and barring unprecedented action, many species may vanish undiscovered. Along with the species, lost also is genetic information that could lead to new foods and medicines. Mr. President, the survival of hundreds of endangered species now depends on human intervention. Though gravely threatened, Hawaii's remaining natural treasures can be saved. Conservation of habitat, control and eradication of noxious introduced plants and predators, and enlightened resource management are the answer. Conservationists within Hawaii kill feral animals, erect fences to keep ungulates away from fragile plants, breed animals in captivity, pollinate flowers by hand, and destroy alien plants. We are hoping to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems so that Hawaii's native species have the respite and protection they need to survive. Thus, Hawaii is not a lost cause: more than a quarter of the state's land remains unspoiled. But we must continue in our struggle to protect rare and endangered species before the battle is over and our legacy to our children is robbed of species richness. Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, we have garnered important knowledge and won substantial victories across the country in our efforts to protect imperiled species. Eight U.S. species have removed from the list due to recovery and another 18 species have been upgraded from endangered to threatened. More importantly, at least half of all species listed for a decade or more are not either stable or improving in status. For example, the first group of captive-bred Mexican wolves was released back into the American southwest this year; California condors, southeastern fish, and dear to me, the Hawaiian silversword plant and `alala have also been re-introduced to the wild. Bird conservation groups in my own state have hatched eggs from 12 different endemic species--species that have never before been reared in captivity like the `akohekohe, palila, Maui parrotbill, puaiohi, `elepaio, and `amakihi. All of this has been accomplished in 25 years since the Act's passage--remarkable when considered on nature's time scale rather than our fast paced Congressional calendar. But these successful conservation efforts are not merely a result of Federal law. In Hawaii at least, the State legislature has enacted an endangered species law that is comparable, and, in some instances, stronger than Federal law. Last year, the State amended this law to allow ``take'' of endangered or threatened species when such authorization is issued in conjunction with a safe harbor agreement or habitat conservation plan. Although modelled after Federal law, the State amendments are more strict. For example, under the ESA, in order to allow for a ``take,'' the population must not decrease; however, under the Hawaiian statute, the likelihood of population increase must be proven before taking is allowed. Despite success on the Federal and State levels to protect and preserve biological diversity, Congress may next year consider legislation similar to the Kempthorne bill, that in its current form could weaken the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Nation's most important law protecting endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat. There are many provisions of the Kempthorne bill, S. 1180, the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997, that I applaud and support. The bill emphasizes recovery efforts, and codifies many of the administration's efforts to provide incentives to landowners that are affected by the Endangered Species Act. The Kempthorne bill also expands the role of States in implementing the act, which has the potential to tailor species recovery efforts on a case-by-case basis, rather than applying a Federal cookie-cutter approach to species protection. However, there are key elements of S. 1180 that are fundamentally unsound. For example, the legislation would lock in Habitat Conservation Plans without allowing for review and adjustment. Mr. President, our knowledge of rare species is slow in coming; but as our information base grows, Habitat Conservation Plans need to change and grow, too, reflecting new and more complete information about the needs of endangered species. Imagine if our knowledge or medical science were similarly locked in--we would still be using leeches to bleed patients of ``humors.'' In addition, the Kempthorne measure does not fully cover water rights, nor does it provide just compensation to property owners. It would also establish significant bureaucratic obstacles to listing, management, and recovery plans. And it offers less conservation per dollar appropriated. Our House colleague, Congressman George Miller, has put forward a bill that I find more consistent with the original intent of the Endangered Species Act. The Miller bill emphasizes recovery of species; steps up protection of candidate species; creates a new and important category of ``survival habitat'' which is designated at time of listing, yet also has a version of ``no surprises'' permits; and creates a habitat conservation fund based on performance bonds paid by recipients of incidental take permits. It contains extensive tax benefits for landowners affected by the Endangered Species Act. Most importantly, under the Miller legislation, the public is allowed to sue to enforce the terms of Habitat Conservation Plans. I applaud Senator Kempthorne for attempting in his legislation to balance the needs of private landowners against the protections we accord endangered species; unfortunately, I believe his bill tilts too far in favor of the former. However well-meaning, key provisions of the bill represent a backtracking on endangered species and endangered species habitat protection. Until these shortcomings are addressed, Congress should not consider altering the most important and effective law we have on the books for protecting our rarest forms of life. Mr. President, let me conclude by noting that more than any other state, Hawaii is teetering on the edge of no return. The Endangered Species Act is our ultimate safety net when the more than 150 other U.S. laws and international treaties fail to prevent a species from declining toward extinction. When measured in terms of preventing threatened species from going extinct, the Act has been an overwhelming success. I would be reluctant to support legislation, however well- intentioned, that would reduce the effectiveness of this landmark law. I therefore look forward to debating reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act when the 106th Congress convenes. Senator Kempthorne and Congressman Miller have both made good starts in heightening concern about endangered species and in bringing to light the complexities of species protection and recovery. Let us build on their efforts next year and debate more thoroughly the requirements that are necessary to crafting a stronger, more effective endangered species law. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks delivered earlier this afternoon by my friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Nickles) regarding the International Religious Freedom Act. I commend him and Senator Lieberman for their leadership in advancing this legislation. I congratulate their willingness to work with the Administration and all interested parties to craft legislation that is inclusive, that preserves many options for the President, yet is strong and effective in addressing religious persecution around the world. The revisions suggested and accepted in the spirit of compromise have not weakened the core purpose or value of this legislation. This is one of the most important pieces of foreign relations legislation this Congress will consider during this session. It proposes action against religious persecution worldwide, and establishes a structure by which the United States can more effectively investigate, monitor, and address serious violations of religious freedom, an internationally recognized human right, as well as an issue of concern to all people of faith. The International Religious Freedom Act is a necessary step to ensure that religious persecution will not be tolerated in our conduct of foreign policy. S. 1868 seeks to promote religious freedom by establishing an Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Liberty, a Special Advisor within the White House on Religious Persecution, and a bipartisan Commission on International Religious Liberty. It also provides the President with an array of options, including economic sanctions, which he can use to respond to countries that engage in or condone religious persecution. The measure in no way constricts or mandates the conduct of American foreign policy. This is not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, a conservative or liberal proposal, or an effort to protect or promote any one faith. It is supported by the Episcopal Church, the Christian Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Catholic organizations, and other religious and human rights associations across the country. Indeed, it is an ecumenical effort supported by a bipartisan group in Congress, and it enjoys wide support among all people of faith and supporters of human rights. This is why I was honored to join Senator Nickles, Lieberman, Specter, and Coats, Congressmen Wolf and Clement, and a diverse coalition of religious leaders this morning to urge Congressional action on the International Religious Freedom Act before adjournment. As a longtime supporter of human rights, the defense of the right to religious freedom is as significant as IMF funding and our ongoing efforts to deal with the international financial crisis. Sadly, many of the conflicts we are witnessing today have religious intolerance at their core. It is my strong belief that if we in the United States, our allies in other nations and people of faith around the world speak out about religious liberty and call attention to religious persecution, and bring positive forces to bear in defense of religious freedom, we can advance understanding and respect for this basic human right and prevent religious intolerance from festering and exploding into conflict and violence. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, yesterday I stood with the President and several of my Democratic colleagues to call on the Republican leadership to focus their attention on the children of America. Millions of American children in schools across the United States are being denied the basic education foundation they need to succeed. In Hawaii, thousands of children waited with anticipation for the new school year. Parents took their children to buy school supplies, new clothes, and other back-to-school preparations. However, many of these students entered or returned to schools that are so inadequate that they cannot receive a quality education. Our children are being asked to learn in environments that are not conducive to learning, and may even be dangerous. But still, these young, bright-eyed, captivated children go day-after-day to schools seeking to learn the wonders of the world. Mr. President, Congress has the moral responsibility to ensure that we provide our children access to quality education. President Clinton recently called on Congress to enact several education initiatives that will improve education facilities, ensure that the education curriculum challenges and engages our students, and provide teachers and administrators the resources they need to teach and support our children. These proposals work together to strengthen our nation's schools. First, we need to build and modernize our nation's schools. We continue to demand that our workforce compete in the demanding high technology marketplace, yet we educate children in schools that do not have access to the information superhighway, let alone the physical capabilities to support the demand for access. Many of Hawaii's schools were built over 50 years ago, before schools required a computer in every classroom. For example, I recently received a e-mail from a concerned parent whose child attends Hickam Elementary School. The parents had decided to hold a teachers' breakfast for the faculty at the school. They turned on the air conditioning in the office and the library and blew the fuses--the electrical wiring was unable to handle the demand for the increased energy required by the air conditioners. If the wiring cannot support air conditioners, how can it support the computers and the air conditioners needed to cool the rooms which house the computers? Although Hawaii is facing economic problems, we are not facing these problems alone. Every day 14 million students attend schools that need extensive repair and replacement, like Hickam Elementary School. Almost 60 percent of America's schools reported at least one major building feature in disrepair. As we continue to rely on technological advances to improve education for our children, schools need to be capable of supporting these increasing demands. Hickam is not the only school in Hawaii experiencing this hardship; many schools in Hawaii face this problem. Administrators must choose whether to cool the library so that children can read and learn, or turn on the computers in their labs. This should not be. We need to assist schools in making the investments to improve existing facilities or allow them to build new facilities to meet the growing technological demands. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our children are able to learn in a comfortable and safe environment. That is why I support efforts to rebuild, modernize, and reduce overcrowding in more than 5,000 public schools through Federal support that would pay the interest on nearly $22 billion in bonds to help improve the schools across the country, including Hawaii. But a new school loaded with technology gizmos is not enough. Ensuring access to such advancements does not guarantee success. We must also invest in our teachers. We chide teachers for being unqualified, but we fail to provide them the support needed to succeed. We lament the teacher shortage, but fail to provide the resources to recruit quality individuals. And, we have a growing problem with teacher retention, yet we fail to give teachers the respect they deserve and acknowledge that teaching is a very complex and difficult profession. As my colleagues know, before I came to Congress, I was a teacher. I taught elementary, intermediate, and high school students in Hawaii. I know, firsthand, the difficulties teachers face each day in their classroom. Fortunately, I taught during a time when teachers were respected and appreciated. Today, however, we take teachers for granted. We expect them to be teachers, counselors, and sometimes, even part-time parents. We fail to recognize the importance these individuals have in shaping the nature of our nation's future leaders. I am not sure when this terrible decline began, but I know that it must stop. We must raise our respect for teachers and realize that they are not the source of our education problems, nor are they the only ones that can improve our current situation. We have a responsibility to provide the resources needed to allow our nation's teachers to succeed. We need to increase funding for teacher development programs such as technology teacher training, which helps teachers learn to use technology effectively to improve classroom instruction and enhance student learning. We need to help communities hire 100,000 new qualified teachers to allow schools to reduce there class sizes. We need to reduce the number of out-of-field teachers, particularly for new teachers who are more often assigned to teach subjects outside of their field of training and often do not have the support and mentoring to assist in their development. The First Lady said, ``it takes a village to raise a child.'' I believe that, but I also believe that it takes a village to teach a child. Teachers, parents, administrators, and communities as a whole must be committed to ensuring that our children are provided the assistance they need to obtain a quality education. Children are wonderful, forthright, and open individuals, particularly when they are young. It is always a treat for me to meet with young students, they often have a very truthful and direct way of putting things into perspective. Just three weeks ago, I participated in a satellite conference with third grade students from Queen Liliuokalani Elementary School and high school students from Radford and Kaimuki High Schools. The high school students are participants in E-school, a virtual school which provides on-line and satellite distance learning opportunities to students and teachers. Hawaii's Department of Education is a national leader in the virtual school concept. Leveraging federal funding through the Technology Literacy Fund and the Technology Challenge Grants, Hawaii students are able to learn and receive over 21 high school credit courses for on-line classes. Yet, even with these wonderful achievements in Hawaii, more needs to be done. The students who participated shared with me their concerns over the lack of more capable computers, the need for greater security for the system, and the desire for more teachers who are able to use the system. Students want to learn, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the resources available to help them achieve their goals. We know that children learn better in small classes, particularly in the early childhood years, study after study has proven that class size makes a difference in the achievements of our children. President Clinton has requested $12 billion over 7 years to reduce the class size in grades 1 to 3. As a former teacher, I strongly believe that the proposal would significantly advance the educational achievements of our students. The average class size in the United States for grades 1 to 3 is 23. In Hawaii, the average class size for kindergarten through third grade is 21.9. How can we expect our children to be able to learn when one teacher is required to teach 21 five- to eight-year-olds. I challenge my colleagues to spend a day, just one day, at a elementary school in their State to experience firsthand the challenges in getting 21 five through eight-year-olds to pay attention to you. Our responsibility should not stop with the school bell. As many as 5 million children are home alone after school each week. Hawaii was fortunate to have the first state-wide after-school care program. This innovative program began in 1990 under the leadership of Governor Benjamin Cayetano while he was the Lieutenant Governor. Hawaii's A-Plus program provides after-school activities to eligible students in grades K through 6. The program provides supervised enrichment and physical development activities at 171 public schools. It is available to eligible children and fees are based on a sliding scale from $6 to $55 per month. However, many of our children in other states are not as fortunate. Only one-third of the schools in low-income neighborhood and half the schools in affluent areas offer after-school programs. Full funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program would provide 400,000 children in the United States access to safe learning centers, similar to those provided in Hawaii. First-rate facilities, quality teachers, students ready and willing to learn are important ingredients needed to ensure success for our children, but that success also needs to be based on high academic standards. We must set significant academic standards for our students to ensure that they will be able to compete in the growing global economy. We should increase funding for Goals 2000 to assist states in raising and setting academic standards that challenge and motivate students. We need to expand funding for Title I to provide the means for disadvantaged communities to develop and maintain high academic standards. Mr. President, our schools are in disrepair, our classrooms are overcrowded, our teachers are overburdened, our children need our help now. We have a responsibility and a moral obligation to provide modern, safe facilities, reduce class sizes, provide the support for children outside of the classrooms, and support and help recruit and retain well-qualified teachers. I urge my Senate colleagues to make a concerted effort to address this vital national problem. The implications of ignoring or delaying our obligation may have ramifications that may not be so easily corrected. Our nation's children are depending upon us to make the sacrifice and do what needs to be done. We must stand up and meet this challenge, if we do not, we will have failed our nation's children--our nation's future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. Passage of this important measure will ensure that access to higher education remains attainable for all Americans. The increase in the Pell Grant eligibility included in the bill will help families and students offset the growing cost of higher education. This successful program has helped ensure that low-income and disadvantaged students have the opportunity to pursue a post-secondary education. The bill also includes the continuation of the concept of the State Student Incentive Grants (SSIGs). The new modified program, Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Program, will continue the worthwhile effort of encouraging additional financial opportunities for students seeking a higher education. The decrease in the student loan interest rate is another effort to ensure that students and their families are able to obtain a quality higher education. The decrease in the student loan interest rate helps students reduce the financial burden of higher education. Too often students are forced to chose between their education and the enormous financial hardship they must overcome to obtain the education they need to improve their lives. The agreement included in the bill helps to reduce the financial burden for students and their families. Mr. President, the provisions in the bill relating to teacher development and preparation are important to ensure that we have the quantity and quality of teachers needed for the next generation of students. Across the country the shortage of teachers, particularly in critical subjects such as special education, math and science where there is serious demand, is having an adverse impact on our students. However, the problem is not just recruiting students to become teachers, the problem is making sure that students have the support and encouragement once they have chosen this honorable profession. Teacher development and preparation programs are essential if we are to stem the tide of teachers leaving the profession before retirement. Too many teachers are leaving to seek employment opportunities outside of the teaching profession because administrators and communities are failing to provide the support they need. The teacher development and preparation programs included in the bill will help to address this important issue. Ensuring that our teachers obtain the educational background needed to achieve academic success must start at higher education institutions. Colleges and universities should not complain about the caliber of students pursuing higher education, while denying their educational degree programs the resources and the support that they need. The caliber of teachers leaving these institutions has a direct impact on the quality of students coming through the front door. The provisions in this bill help to address these concerns. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kennedy, the Ranking Member, for their support on resolving the eligibility concerns surrounding the students from the Federated Associated States (FAS). The House, unfortunately, attempted to terminate the eligibility of college students from FAS for Pell Grants, Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, and College Work Study. The House provision would have upset the unique relationship the United States has with the FAS and violated the legal and moral obligation we have with the countries under the U.S. Compact of Free Association with the Republic of Palau and the U.S. Compact of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It would have been an embarrassment if the U.S. failed to live up to its moral obligations in ensuring that FAS citizens were given the educational assistance necessary to become self-governing. The agreement worked out in conference ensures continued federal financial aid eligibility for FAS students and does not preclude the inclusion of such eligibility in the renegotiation of the Compact with the FAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for this important measure and look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 1998. This measure will enhance the safety and efficiency of our air transportation system, upon which the island state of Hawaii is uniquely dependent. I am pleased that this weighty legislation is named for the departing senior senator from Kentucky, whose contributions to aviation are legion. I am especially supportive of Title VII of the bill which addresses the issue of air tour operations at national parks. Mr. President, Title VII of S. 2279 establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units of the National Park System. The legislation requires the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service and with public input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management plan (ATMP) for parks currently or potentially affected by air tour flights. Under the ATMP process, routes, altitudes, time restrictions, limitations on the number of flights, and other operating parameters could be prescribed in order to protect sensitive park resources as well as to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An ATMP could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours within half a mile outside the boundaries of a park, regulate air tour operations that impact tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter air technology. An ATMP would include an environmental determination. S. 2279 also creates an advisory group comprising representatives of the FAA, Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and recommendations on overflight issues. As embodied in the ATMP process, this bill treats overflights issues on a park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which environmental and aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks. I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for promoting dialogue among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of legislation--the National Parks Airspace Management Act, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Inouye and Senator Frist--that I have promoted in the last three Congresses. Mr. President, adoption of this bill is essential if we are to address effectively the detrimental impacts of air tour activities on the National Park System. Air tourism has significantly increased in the last decade, nowhere more so than at high profile units such as Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks in my own state. A 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly a hundred parks experienced adverse park impacts, and that number has assuredly risen since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted with the qualities and values of many park units, in some instances seriously. While air tour operators often provide important emergency services, enhance park access for special populations (e.g., the handicapped and elderly), and offer an important source of income for local economies, notably tourism-dependent areas such as Hawaii, unregulated overflights have the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, and impair visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour operations can also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors alike. It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the respective interests of the aviation and environmental communities. Congress and the Administration have struggled to develop such a policy since enactment of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, Congress's initial, but limited attempt to address the overflights issue. S. 2279 will finish where the 1987 Act left off, providing the FAA and Park Service with the policy guidance and procedural mechanisms that are essential to balancing the needs of air tour operators against the imperative to preserve and protect our natural resources. Mr. President, the overflights provisions of this bill are the product of good faith efforts on the part of many groups and individuals. They include: members of the National Parks Overflights Working Group, whose consensus recommendations form the underpinnings of this legislation; representatives of air tour and environmental advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International and the National Parks and Conservation Association; and, officials of the FAA and Park Service, notably Park Ranger Wes Henry, the Park Service's long-serving point man on overflights, who has served as the agency's institutional memory and conscience on this issue. However, Title VII is above all the product of the energy and vision of Senator John McCain. As the author of the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act, Senator McCain was the first to recognize the adverse impacts of air tours on national parks, and the first to call for a national policy to address this problem. Since then, he has employed his moral authority and legislative acumen impel progress on this subject. For his leadership in writing this bill and for his long advocacy of park overflight issues, Senator McCain deserves our lasting appreciation. Mr. President, I am tremendously honored to have worked closely with Senator McCain over the last year to formulate an overflights bill that promotes aviation safety, enhances the viability of legitimate air tour operations, and protects national parks from the most egregious visual and noise intrusions by air tour helicopters and other aircraft. Left unchecked, air tour activities can undermine the very qualities and resources that give value to a park; these must be protected. I believe that the pending measure reasonably and prudently balances these sometimes opposing considerations, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. That concludes my remarks, Mr. President. Before closing, however, I would like to recognize the staff of the Commerce Committee--including John Raidt, Mike Reynolds, Charles Chambers, Sam Whitehorn, and Ann Choiniere--for their hard work in putting this legislation together. Ann Choiniere especially deserves mention for her day-to-day management of this issue. I would also like to recognize former members of my own staff, Kerry Taylor, Bob Weir, and Steve Opperman, who made important contributions to this issue. Steve in particular has served as an expert resource whose tireless, and largely unheralded contributions have shaped the overflights debate in a major way. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the world record breaking achievements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program conducted at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on Kauai. This exemplary program is part of NASA's Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program, which first gained national recognition for record breaking Pathfinder flights last year. Mr. President, on December 10, 1997, I was proud to participate in a ceremony dedicating the previous record breaking flight that reached an altitude of 71,500 feet in memory of Hawaii's beloved hero, Colonel Ellison Onizuka. This was a most fitting tribute to honor Colonel Onizuka and inspire our youth to excellence. Since that time, the Pathfinder solar electric powered remotely piloted aircraft has undergone design upgrades which have allowed the ERAST Team to once again set a new world altitude record for unmanned solar-powered aircraft. This landmark was accomplished when the solarplane climbed to 80,200 feet above PMRF on August 6, 1998. I am particularly proud of the students and faculty of Kauai Community College and the talented personnel at PMRF who assisted NASA's ERAST Team in attaining this monumental achievement. The success of Pathfinder and Pathfinder Plus has opened new doors to possible educational, scientific, and technological applications that were not imaginable a few years ago. There are countless implications for advances in the fields of aviation, satellite deployment, solar energy technology, oceanic and atmospheric research and monitoring, and environmental protection. Mr. President, I commend NASA's ERAST Team, the students and faculty of Kauai Community College and the personnel at PMRF for demonstrating that through our imagination, we can reach unimagined realms in space and near space.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak during morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today Capitol Police Officer Jacob J. Chestnut was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, concluding a week that has saddened and shocked every American and touched the hearts of millions of people around the world. I rise to express my profound sorrow over the death of Officer Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, and to extend my sympathy to the families, friends, and fellow officers of these two brave men. The tremendous outpouring of grief and respect we have experienced and witnessed during the Congressional ceremony and honors on Tuesday, and in the requiem services for Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut over the past two days are fitting tribute to the courage and selfless sacrifice of these fallen heroes. The deaths of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, killed in the line of duty as they defended all of us who are privileged to work and visit the Capitol, is a testament to the fidelity and valor of these men, as well as a reminder of the exceptional bravery and courage of the men and women of the Capitol Police who protect the Capitol complex and grounds. We are fortunate to have these officers on the job, protecting all of us, willing to confront the dangers and violence that too often afflict our world today, so that our Capitol can remain open and accessible to the public. The professionalism, pride, and good- natured courtesy which these officers bring to their duties, day in and day out, serves our democracy by keeping the Capitol open to the people and safeguarding, with their lives if necessary, the freedom and liberty we cherish. On the Capitol dome, looking across the Capital City, stands the Statue of Freedom Triumphant in War and Peace, an emblem of democracy and hope, a symbol of America's promise that every citizen has the freedom and opportunity to realize their God given potential. In her right hand Freedom holds an olive branch, in her left, a sword, a reminder that the preservation of freedom and democracy often requires sacrifice. Over the course of our history, the Capitol has witnessed stirring oratory and the passage of landmark legislation which have inspired us, strengthened our nation, restored hope, preserved our Republic, and maintained our resolve. The heroic actions of Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson, who acted to preserve and protect life without regard to their own safety, bonds deeds to the ideals and values we celebrate and honor here at the heart of our democracy. The President said it best when he stated that the actions of these brave men sanctified the Capitol. May God bring comfort and peace to the families, friends, and colleagues of Detective John Gibson and Officer Jacob Chestnut.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, a we continue to celebrate the International Year of the Ocean, I would like to inform members of the status and efforts to save the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, the only seal endemic to the Hawaiian islands. As you may know, the Hawaiian monk seal is one of three species of monk seal known in the world. The other two are the Caribbean and Mediterranean monk seal. The last Caribbean monk seal was sighted in 1952 and is thought to be extinct; the Mediterranean monk seal still survives, but barely, with a population of only 500-1,000 individuals. The rarity of the monk seal makes efforts to save the Hawaiian variety all the more urgent. Monk seals belong to an order known as pinnipedia, which in Latin means feather or flipper footed. This order includes seals, sea lions, and walruses. Walruses are not found in Hawaii because the weather is not cold enough for them to survive; sea lions are also not natural to the area. The only pinniped found in Hawaiian waters is a seal--the Hawaiian monk seal. Although, Hawaiian monk seals predominately inhabit the Northwestern Hawaiian islands, including Kure Atoll, French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, they are occasionally found in the main Hawaiian islands. In fact, the Hawaiian monk seal is one of only two mammals that are endemic to the Hawaiian islands, the other being the Hoary bat. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates that there is a population of approximately 1,200-1,400 Hawaiian monk seals. This is half of what the population was in the 1950s. Factors threatening this species include entanglement and consumption of marine debris, disturbance by humans and animals on pupping and haul out beaches, mobbing of females by males, and shark predation. The NMFS is leading the effort to save the Hawaiian monk seal from further endangerment and ultimate extinction. Under federal law, the agency protects Hawaiian monk seals through education, research, and recovery programs. For example, NMFS has appointed a Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery team to help with research programs, data analysis, population assessment, and addressing specific problems such as mobbing, human disturbance, and fishing line/net entanglement. The recovery team's mission is to eliminate the causes leading to the declining monk seal population and recommend how further efforts should be managed to stabilize and impede endangerment of this species. Throughout the years, NMFS has monitored activity on primary breeding locations and taken appropriate actions to aid young monk seal pups and their mothers to a full and healthy life. In order to do this, NMFS has initiated recovery plans to protect females and their offspring from vicious male mobbing which occurs when adult male monk seals attack pups, juveniles, and sub-adult females, probably mistaking them for breeding females. Some of the efforts that NMFS has launched include removing weaned pups from the beach and placing them in enclosed pens until they are strong enough to be released on their own, relocating monk seal males from areas where they greatly outnumber females, and rehabilitating small abandoned pups until they can be released back into the wild. NMFS also strives to decrease indirect and direct human activities that result in harmful occurrences, like a seal swallowing marine debris or entangling itself in fishing lines or nets. In order to accomplish the task of cleaning up beaches and ridding the oceans of debris, NMFS offers information to schools, marine parks, organizations, and individuals who want to learn what they can do to help the recovery of this species. NMFS also sets up signs on beaches where monk seals are most likely to breed or visit informing visitors how to avoid disturbing the sea animals. Fortunately, the agency is supported by other organizations that have fostered efforts for the recovery of this unique and beautiful species. These include: the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, which assists and supports NMFS's recovery efforts; Earthtrust and the Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which promote awareness of and education about the Hawaiian monk seal; Sea Life Park Hawaii, which has in the past offered rehabilitation for monk seal pups; and Dolphin Quest, which financially supports monk seal recovery efforts. In addition to these organized efforts to save the monk seal, I should recognize the conservation conscious beachgoers, fishermen, and other individuals, who go out of their way to ensure that their activities do not disturb or harm Hawaiian monk seals or other marine life. By simply picking up trash before they leave the beach, beachgoers can do much to promote the survival of the Hawaiian monk seal. Fishermen can also help by being aware of where they fish and making sure that they do not cast their lines in an area where Hawaiian monk seals may inhabit and accidentally bite onto a baited hook. It is also important to make sure that fishing lines and nets are not left in the ocean for a monk seal to swallow or become entangled in. Thus, conscientious citizens can do much to perpetuate the existence of this special creature. Mr. President, the Hawaiian monk seal is one of Hawaii's biological treasures. Through the combined efforts of government agencies, community organizations, and ordinary citizens, we may one day witness the full recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal. It is my hope that through the education and preservation of this rare species, more people will learn to respect and value all marine life and, by extension, understand our own relationship to our living environment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I have offered an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill to provide $12 million for electric and hybrid- electric vehicle development. The funds will be administered by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA. Senators Inouye, Jeffords, Leahy, Coats, and Boxer have joined me as cosponsors of the amendment. This is not a new program. Congress provided $115 million to the Department of Defense for the electric vehicle program over the past five fiscal years. Industry has contributed more than $115 million in matching funds. In fiscal year 1998, the appropriation was $15 million, so my amendment represents a budget reduction of 20 percent compared to the current fiscal year. Seven regional consortia, comprised of more than 200 member companies, participate in the program. Individual consortia, which were selected competitively, include Hawaii, Sacramento, the Mid Atlantic Consortium in Johnstown, PA, the Northeast Consortium in Boston, the Southern Consortium in Atlanta, the Mid America Consortium in Indianapolis, and CALSTART in Burbank, CA. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposed that the DARPA program be transferred to the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation. The object of the fiscal year 1999 change was to transfer DoD-developed technology to commercial service vehicles such as buses, delivery vans, and service trucks. I support this transfer. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of all three federal agencies and the consortia that participate in the electric vehicle program, another year of funding through the Department of Defense is needed before the transition can proceed. The Department of Defense has long been interested in hybrid electric combat vehicles because they can reduce fuel consumption by 50 percent, leading to a reduced fuel logistics burden, increased endurance, and reduced emissions. In addition, hybrid electric combat vehicles use electric power for mobility, weapons, countermeasures and sensors, and have reduced thermal and acoustic signatures. The five-year DARPA program has resulted in the development of a number of combat vehicles with hybrid electric propulsion. These include an Army M-113 Armored Personnel Carrier, a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, two High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, commonly known as Humvees, and a prototype composite armored vehicle. Other DoD projects are in the planning stages. DARPA and the Marine Corps are jointly developing a hybrid-electric reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting vehicle, designed as a stealthy, fuel efficient vehicle that can be transported by the V-22 Osprey in support of the Marine Corps Sea Dragon operation. DARPA and the Army are jointly developing a combat hybrid power system for a 15-ton future combat vehicle. The system will provide pulse power for electric guns, directed energy weapons, and electromagnetic armor, as well as other components and systems. The funds provided by my amendment should be used in the same manner, and for the same program objectives, as in fiscal year 1998 funding. As the author of the amendment, it is my intention that DARPA administer the program as it did in fiscal year 1998, and that funds can be used for the development of defense and non-defense electric and hybrid- electric vehicles. I thank the Chairman, and my colleague from Hawaii, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee for their consideration of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Investment in Women's Health Act of 1998, a bill to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory tests. This is the Senate companion measure to the bill introduced in the House by my colleague and friend, Representative Neil Abercrombie. Last year, I was contacted by pathologists who alerted me to the cost-payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of 23 states where the cost of performing the test significantly exceeds the Medicare payment. In Hawaii, the cost of performing the test ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. The Medicare reimbursement rate is only $7.15. This large disparity between the reimbursement rate and the actual cost may force labs in Hawaii and other states to discontinue Pap smear testing. Additionally, 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. If the Pap smear is to continues an effective cancer screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced for all women. Adequate payment is a necessary component of ensuring women's continued access to quality Pap smears. My bill will increase the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smear lab work 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. 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. Experts agree that the detection and treatment of precancerous lesions can actually prevent cervical cancer. Evidence also shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment and follow-up. Mr. President, an estimated 13,700 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in 1998 and 4,900 women will die of the disease. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the average Pap smear production costs for 23 states be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Investment in Women's Health Act of 1998, a bill to increase Medicare reimbursement for Pap smear laboratory tests. This is the Senate companion measure to the bill introduced in the House by my colleague and friend, Representative Neil Abercrombie. Last year, I was contacted by pathologists who alerted me to the cost-payment differential for Pap smear testing in Hawaii. According to the American Pathology Foundation, Hawaii is one of 23 states where the cost of performing the test significantly exceeds the Medicare payment. In Hawaii, the cost of performing the test ranges between $13.04 and $15.80. The Medicare reimbursement rate is only $7.15. This large disparity between the reimbursement rate and the actual cost may force labs in Hawaii and other states to discontinue Pap smear testing. Additionally, 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. If the Pap smear is to continues an effective cancer screening tool, it must remain widely available and reasonably priced for all women. Adequate payment is a necessary component of ensuring women's continued access to quality Pap smears. My bill will increase the Medicare reimbursement rate for Pap smear lab work 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. 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. Experts agree that the detection and treatment of precancerous lesions can actually prevent cervical cancer. Evidence also shows that the likelihood of survival when cervical cancer is detected in its earliest stage is almost 100 percent with timely and appropriate treatment and follow-up. Mr. President, an estimated 13,700 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in 1998 and 4,900 women will die of the disease. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the average Pap smear production costs for 23 states be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would enable the Senate Employees Child Care Center (SECCC) to receive the proceeds from Senate recycling or other waste prevention programs. Specifically, my bill would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to receive funds from Senate recycling programs and make those funds available for the activities and expenses of the SECCC, subject to the regular appropriations process. The effect of this measure will be to provide the SECCC with a potentially steady, if relatively small, source of income as well as create an additional incentive for the Senate to support recycling efforts. Mr. President, the SECCC was established as a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation in 1984 by parents who work for the Senate. Today, the center provides full and part-time care for about 50 children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years. The SECCC is open to the entire community, with priority enrollment reserved for children of Senate employees. The SECCC is accredited by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs, a division of the National Association of Young Children. It first received such recognition in 1989, the first day care center in Washington, D.C., to be so distinguished. The SECCC is governed by an independent board composed of the parents of children enrolled at the center. A cooperative relationship exists between the SECCC and the Senate. The parents, through the board, are responsible for oversight of SECCC operations; the Senate provides critical support, such as providing for the facility itself and utilities. The Senate is providing the funds for the construction of a new center, near the Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence, which is expected to be ready for occupancy within a few months. The Senate currently does not appropriate annual funds for the operation of the SECCC. The SECCC's annual operating budget of approximately $535,000 is funded entirely through tuition payments and the center's fundraising efforts. These funds are used to defray costs associated with tuition assistance (scholarships), teacher salaries, curriculum materials, meals, general office expenses, advertising and marketing, accounting and audit fees, professional development, and unemployment and liability insurance. The recycling program for House and Senate buildings is operated by the Office Waste Recycling Program (OWRP), under the Architect of the Capitol. Through OWRP, the Architect is responsible for collecting and bundling recycled materials; a private contractor, under contract to the General Services Administration, serves as the recycling facility. However, the Architect does not have the authority to receive funds from recycling or other so-called ``enterprise'' activities; thus, all recycling funds from both the Senate and House are deposited in the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The OWRP started as pilot project in 1990-91 and was expanded on a voluntary participation basis to all offices in the House and Senate office buildings in 1992. The program is based on the concept of source separation, an approach that includes the separation, collection, and removal of high and mixed grade paper as well as aluminum cans, glass, and certain types of plastic materials. The effectiveness of the program depends on the active participation of Congressional staff, who are needed to separate recyclables into designated receptacles, and the custodial and labor forces, who must ensure that materials remain segregated during the collection process. The program has been a success in certain respects. For example, it has allowed Congress to avoid paying costs associated with hauling away and landfilling recycled materials, since these costs are borne by the recycling contractor. According to the OWRP, in FY97, the House Office Buildings recycled 2,247 tons of paper, cans, glass, and plastic, avoiding landfill/haulaway costs of $173,000. For the same year, the Senate Office Buildings collected 898 tons, for a savings of $69,146. However, actual revenues generated by the program have been nominal. The Senate recycling program, for example, brought in a relatively paltry $2,694 in FY96 and $2,364 in FY97, the last full year for which we have data, while collecting an estimated 1,021 tons and 886 tons of paper waste. The reason for this seemingly low return is that the contractor is not required to pay for materials that are contaminated by a certain percentage. With respect to paper, which constitutes the bulk of Senate recyclables, contamination refers to mixing with other recyclable (e.g., newspapers with high grade paper) or with foreign matter such as food. Apparently, Senate and House recycled materials have relatively high contamination levels, a fact which may be attributed in part to an absence of incentives on the part of Congressional offices to recycle. This is in sharp contrast to the situation with federal agencies, which beginning in 1991 have had the authority to retain recycling proceeds, either to defray the cost of maintaining recycling programs and/or direct them to programs that directly benefit employees, including day care activities. In my opinion, it is no accident that while the level of participation in recycling programs varies from agency to agency, overall the Executive Branch agencies' recycling programs are much more robust than Congress'. Mr. President, my bill would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to receive Senate recycling funds and make them available for the payment of SECCC activities and expenses, through the annual appropriations process. This would achieve two mutually beneficial goals: first, to provide a small but important supplement to the day care center's operating budget; second, to improve the efficiency of the Senate recycling program by establishing an internal incentive to recycle. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill as well as a letter supporting the legislation from the SECCC's board of directors be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President. I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would enable the Senate Employees Child Care Center (SECCC) to receive the proceeds from Senate recycling or other waste prevention programs. Specifically, my bill would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to receive funds from Senate recycling programs and make those funds available for the activities and expenses of the SECCC, subject to the regular appropriations process. The effect of this measure will be to provide the SECCC with a potentially steady, if relatively small, source of income as well as create an additional incentive for the Senate to support recycling efforts. Mr. President, the SECCC was established as a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation in 1984 by parents who work for the Senate. Today, the center provides full and part-time care for about 50 children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years. The SECCC is open to the entire community, with priority enrollment reserved for children of Senate employees. The SECCC is accredited by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs, a division of the National Association of Young Children. It first received such recognition in 1989, the first day care center in Washington, D.C., to be so distinguished. The SECCC is governed by an independent board composed of the parents of children enrolled at the center. A cooperative relationship exists between the SECCC and the Senate. The parents, through the board, are responsible for oversight of SECCC operations; the Senate provides critical support, such as providing for the facility itself and utilities. The Senate is providing the funds for the construction of a new center, near the Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence, which is expected to be ready for occupancy within a few months. The Senate currently does not appropriate annual funds for the operation of the SECCC. The SECCC's annual operating budget of approximately $535,000 is funded entirely through tuition payments and the center's fundraising efforts. These funds are used to defray costs associated with tuition assistance (scholarships), teacher salaries, curriculum materials, meals, general office expenses, advertising and marketing, accounting and audit fees, professional development, and unemployment and liability insurance. The recycling program for House and Senate buildings is operated by the Office Waste Recycling Program (OWRP), under the Architect of the Capitol. Through OWRP, the Architect is responsible for collecting and bundling recycled materials; a private contractor, under contract to the General Services Administration, serves as the recycling facility. However, the Architect does not have the authority to receive funds from recycling or other so-called ``enterprise'' activities; thus, all recycling funds from both the Senate and House are deposited in the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The OWRP started as pilot project in 1990-91 and was expanded on a voluntary participation basis to all offices in the House and Senate office buildings in 1992. The program is based on the concept of source separation, an approach that includes the separation, collection, and removal of high and mixed grade paper as well as aluminum cans, glass, and certain types of plastic materials. The effectiveness of the program depends on the active participation of Congressional staff, who are needed to separate recyclables into designated receptacles, and the custodial and labor forces, who must ensure that materials remain segregated during the collection process. The program has been a success in certain respects. For example, it has allowed Congress to avoid paying costs associated with hauling away and landfilling recycled materials, since these costs are borne by the recycling contractor. According to the OWRP, in FY97, the House Office Buildings recycled 2,247 tons of paper, cans, glass, and plastic, avoiding landfill/haulaway costs of $173,000. For the same year, the Senate Office Buildings collected 898 tons, for a savings of $69,146. However, actual revenues generated by the program have been nominal. The Senate recycling program, for example, brought in a relatively paltry $2,694 in FY96 and $2,364 in FY97, the last full year for which we have data, while collecting an estimated 1,021 tons and 886 tons of paper waste. The reason for this seemingly low return is that the contractor is not required to pay for materials that are contaminated by a certain percentage. With respect to paper, which constitutes the bulk of Senate recyclables, contamination refers to mixing with other recyclable (e.g., newspapers with high grade paper) or with foreign matter such as food. Apparently, Senate and House recycled materials have relatively high contamination levels, a fact which may be attributed in part to an absence of incentives on the part of Congressional offices to recycle. This is in sharp contrast to the situation with federal agencies, which beginning in 1991 have had the authority to retain recycling proceeds, either to defray the cost of maintaining recycling programs and/or direct them to programs that directly benefit employees, including day care activities. In my opinion, it is no accident that while the level of participation in recycling programs varies from agency to agency, overall the Executive Branch agencies' recycling programs are much more robust than Congress'. Mr. President, my bill would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to receive Senate recycling funds and make them available for the payment of SECCC activities and expenses, through the annual appropriations process. This would achieve two mutually beneficial goals: first, to provide a small but important supplement to the day care center's operating budget; second, to improve the efficiency of the Senate recycling program by establishing an internal incentive to recycle. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill as well as a letter supporting the legislation from the SECCC's board of directors be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a very special Hawaii business person. Charles Wesley Fortner is the recipient of the 1998 U.S. Small Business Administration's Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Mr. Fortner, 28 years of age, is a resident of Mililani, Hawaii, and the founder and president of the Honolulu-based telecommunications firm, Island Page, Inc. In 1994, Mr. Fortner had the courage to move to Hawaii to open the business by himself. With two partners who gave him the paging rights to the Hawaiian Islands, Mr. Fortner established the business location and field tested the equipment that carries the paging signals by driving and walking all over the island. In less than four years, Island Page has grown from a one-man operation to a company with a trained staff of 18 employees. Mr. Fortner's motivational ability and management style encourage his employees to operate the business with a strong customer service attitude. Those who know Mr. Fortner consider him the model of the new business mentor for the next century. Island Page sales totaled $280,000 in 1995 and increased 370 percent in 1996 to pass the $1 million mark. Sales for 1997 were expected to increase another 50 percent. The company achieved a profit of 12 percent in 1996 and anticipated a 25 percent return in 1997. Mr. Fortner is the man behind Island Page's popular ``Captain Beep Beep'' radio campaign. His creative abilities have also played a major role in establishing the technical requirements of the company. He brought with him to Hawaii a new line of equipment that allowed him to operate the business at a lower cost than his competitors. The company started in one location on Oahu, moved into the Dillingham community in the second year and opened a third location in Hawaii Kai in 1997. Mainland travelers can use the Island Page network and local subscribers can travel anywhere in the country and receive a page from Hawaii. I am pleased that Charles Wesley Fortner has been named SBA's 1998 Young Entrepreneur of the Year. I believe that he embodies the best Hawaii has to offer.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Sherrie M. Suzuki of Hawaii Baptist Academy in Hawaii for winning first place in the 11th Annual National Peace Essay state-level competition. More than 5,000 participants from various countries around the world, including the United States and U.S. territories entered this contest. Each student wrote on issues concerning war crimes and human rights violations in various international conflicts. Miss Suzuki's essay entitled, ``Cleansing the Wounds of War'', sheds light on an ongoing issue concerning how war criminals should be brought to justice. Her solution examines the United Nations' tribunal expected to be permanently implemented in 1998. She writes ``an international tribunal is one logical solution'' to the problem of making war criminals pay for their atrocities. Her essay discusses the positive outcomes of the Nuremberg trials and the negative effects of Rwanda's mistakes. Mr. President, it is inspiring to witness the active role that young people play in enhancing their understanding about peace relations. Ms. Suzuki is proof that young students today are getting more involved in activities that address peacemaking issues. I am proud that Ms. Suzuki has received such a prestigious award. Her determination to expand her knowledge of peace and conflicts that arise in a changing global environment is admirable. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a young woman of outstanding potential and achievement.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the Senate considers funding for the International Space Station, I want to remind my colleagues about the achievements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Since 1915, American aviators, astronauts, and spacecrafts have expanded human knowledge. The advancements made by NASA are found in virtually every aircraft in use today. One example, used by Continental Airlines, is a NASA-developed device that warns of dangerous wind-shear conditions. In addition, NASA made valuable contributions to medicine by allowing scientists to utilize microgravity conditions in space to grow larger breast cancer cells, allowing different growth stages of these cells to be studied. NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body and developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without penetrating the skin. NASA research led to the development of a three-inch implant for diabetes that provides more precise control of blood sugar levels, thereby freeing diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections. These are just a few of the scientific and medical advances developed from NASA technology. A panel of experts headed by aerospace consultant Jay Chabrow recently concluded that the space station's cost through the assembly stage could be $24.7 billion, which is $3 billion more than NASA now projects. While the overrun projected in the Chabrow report is a concern, the estimate in the report is modest in historic terms. For example, the initial contract for the lunar excursion module was $350 million. By the end of the contract, the cost had escalated to $2.3 billion, seven times the original cost. For the entire Apollo, Mercury, and Gemini programs, NASA spent approximately $100 billion to reach the moon. These programs, much like the International Space Station, ventured into unknown territory and were considered inherently risky. It is also important to note that while the panel indicated that there may be cost overruns and schedule delays, the panel also recognized that NASA's management of the Space Station has been ``resourceful and effective'' in addressing the many challenges that have resulted from this project. With over 400,000 pounds of flight hardware completed, NASA and its international partners believe that by the end of this year, over half a million pounds will be completed and the first two elements of the station will be in orbit. Although Russia has only been able to complete 95 percent of the module, the Russian government has reiterated its commitment to the station. However, NASA continues to evaluate other contingency plans to address possible delays by Russia. Once completed, the International Space Station will be the most complex structure ever sent into orbit, encompassing a laboratory and living quarters the size of two football fields. As demonstrated by several experiments conducted on the Russian Mir space station, Skylab, and space shuttle flights, advancements in science will be enhanced by the International Space Station. These experiments have been used to determine or refine existing protein structure models, create new drugs to battle viruses, such as AIDS, and develop inhibitors, such as those used to alleviate the complication of inflammation associated with heart surgery. Mr. President, as I have mentioned, the importance of the International Space Station is evident. The technological advancements that may be achieved by this project are monumental. I urge my colleagues to continue funding the International Space Station and maintain American's leadership in space research and exploration.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution to commemorate the centennial anniversary of U.S. relations with the territory of Guam, which was acquired by the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898. The Philippines and Puerto Rico were acquired at the same time under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, but the Philippines has since become an independent nation and Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth. The island of Guam remains an unincorporated U.S. territory and is geographically located in the western Pacific. As we commemorate this historic moment in U.S.-Guam relations, I think it is fitting that we recognize the contributions and sacrifices that the people of Guam have made to our country, and the strategically significant role that Guam continues to play in the western Pacific. Guam is the only remaining U.S. territory that was occupied by Japan during World War II from 1941 to 1944, and served as a significant staging area for our military conflicts in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War. The people of Guam also served our nation well in assisting our efforts to resettle thousands of refugees affected by these conflicts. The island continues to be used by the U.S. military as a strategic post in the Pacific. We need to commend the people of Guam for their loyalty and their sacrifice to our country. Because of Guam's great distance from the continental United States and close proximity to Asia, it is often difficult for Americans to remember that Guam is even a part of the United States and her people are U.S. citizens. Moreover, given Guam's history, isolation and small size, it is not easy for Americans and Congressional policymakers to understand the aspirations of the people of Guam and the issues confronting her political leaders. That is why I am pleased that President Clinton recently acknowledged that the federal government has a duty to fully consider the unique situation Guam faces on political status and land issues. I wholeheartedly agree with the President and urge that we engage the Government of Guam in a constructive discussion on Guam's quest for commonwealth status and the return of federal excess lands. One point I would like to make clear, however, is that I believe that federal excess land issues can be addressed separately from commonwealth negotiations. The resolution of Guam's political status should not hinder the federal government's efforts to redress longstanding land issues. In fact, last year the Senate passed S. 210, an omnibus territories bill, which includes a provision which provides for the transfer of certain federal excess lands in Guam. With one third of the land in Guam controlled by the Defense Department, I think that the people of Guam have more than shouldered their burden as part of U.S. national security in the Asia-Pacific region. The federal impact on land use planning is more evident if you consider that Guam is just 30 miles long and nine miles wide. Let's recognize this year's centennial by enacting S. 210 and show that we do care about Guam's needs. Mr. President, for the past 100 years, the people of Guam have served as loyal citizens to our country. They have worked hard to develop a private sector to supplement the jobs created by the presence of our U.S. military bases. They have done their best to promote economic self-sufficiency. They have been there for us all these years and I think it is time that we recognize this and show our appreciation. I believe that the United States should take this opportunity to give back to the people of Guam by seriously engaging them in political status and land issues. It is the last we can do for all that Guam has done for our country.