Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I had the privilege of chairing the 46th Annual National Prayer Breakfast held here in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 1998. This annual gathering in our Nation's Capital is hosted by Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives weekly prayer breakfast groups. Once again, we were honored by the attendance and participation of the President and the First Lady, as well as the Vice President and Mrs. Gore. Our colleague, Senator Connie Mack, inspired and encouraged us with his remarks, and we were challenged by the prayer offered by Dr. Billy Graham. This year we welcomed over 3,600 individuals from all walks of life, and from all 50 states and U.S. territories and many countries around the world. So that all may benefit from this special gathering, I request that the text of the program and a transcript of the 1998 proceedings be printed in the Record. I understand that the Government Printing Office estimates that it will cost approximately $1,426 to print this transcript in the Record. The material follows: National Prayer Breakfast Chairman: The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka Pre-Breakfast Prayer Mr. Robert L. Parker, Businessman, Oklahoma Opening Prayer General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Breakfast Welcome The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senate, Hawaii Remarks--Senate and House Breakfast Groups The Honorable Bobby Scott, U.S. House of Representatives, Virginia Old Testament Reading The Honorable Don Gevirtz, Former Ambassador to Fiji Duet Randy and Gae Hongo New Testament Reading Dr. Dorothy I. Height, National Council of Negro Women Prayer for National Leaders The Vice President of the United States Message The Honorable Connie Mack, U.S. Senate, Florida The President of the United States Closing Song The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, Randy and Gae Hongo (all join in) Closing Prayer Dr. Billy Graham [Audience, please remain in place until the President, Mrs. Clinton and other Heads of State have departed] Robert Parker. May we ask you now to join us in prayer? Please join us in prayer, if you will. Lord, as we gather together for the beginning of this new day, we pause now to listen to you. Thank you for being with us now, and thank you for being in this room. Your presence gives us hope and encouragement. Whenever we gather in your name, there is excitement. Help us capture that excitement today, to the betterment of the lives of us all. We all need your help. We all need your guidance. Give us the wisdom to be more like you in all that we do. And we especially thank you for sharing your servant, Billy Graham, with us. He represents you well, helps all of us be better followers. Thank you for listening. Thank you for showing the way. And thank you for the many blessings you have bestowed upon us. In your name we pray, Amen. Announcer. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the First Lady of the United States, and Mrs. Gore. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. Will you all be seated, please. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Akaka. I'm the convener of the United States Senate Breakfast Group and chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast. I want to say welcome to all of you here this morning. On behalf of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, I welcome you to the 46th annual National Prayer Breakfast. We're happy to have you here on this special day. Robert Parker presented the pre-breakfast prayer this morning, and we are happy to have you here. At this time, General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will offer the opening prayer. General? Gen. Hugh Shelton. Let us pray. O Lord, our strength and our redeemer, we come together today to pray for strength and guidance in a difficult and challenging world. Though we have come far, we have so far to go to realize your plan here on Earth. Lord, we ask your help and guidance for all those who have been chosen to lead our people all over the world. And grant that we may follow with humble and willing hearts to do the work that must be done to preserve the blessings of peace and to share the gifts that you have given us. May those chosen to lead, lead with wisdom and compassion, not in pursuit of wealth and power, but guided by your righteous word and walking in your upright ways. Today we pray for your blessings on all our men and women in uniform, at home and abroad. Keep them safe as they keep the peace. And keep them strong to carry the burdens that must be borne in a troubled world. And Father, though we are of many faiths, we have but one prayer, and that is to share your peace with people everywhere. May you stretch your loving hands over friend and foe alike and bring us together in the spirit of truth so that in our time we may know your peace. Now we pray that you would bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies and our help to thy service. These things we ask in your name. Amen. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, General Shelton. You honor us very much with your presence here at this prayer breakfast. Please enjoy your breakfast. Our program will resume in a few minutes. [Breakfast.] Senator Akaka. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a wonderful privilege for me to welcome all of you this morning to the National Prayer Breakfast. I particularly want to greet our international guests who represent over 160 nations. And everyone attending the prayer breakfast for the first time, I say again, welcome. (Applause.) This morning we gather almost 4,000 strong from all 50 states, commonwealths and the U.S. territories and nations around the world to reaffirm our faith, seek spiritual support for our President and leaders in our country, and share fellowship and friendship with one another. We are honored to have the President and First Lady and the Vice President and Mrs. Gore as our guests. In attendance we also have members of the Senate and the House, officials from the President's Cabinet and leaders of our armed forces, responsible student leaders and leaders from all facets of society throughout the United States. We're also pleased to welcome the President of Albania, former heads of state, cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, members of the diplomatic corps, educators and business, labor and religious leaders from around the world. Permit me to introduce the people sitting at the head table. And I'll do it quickly from my left to my right. Randy and Gae Hongo; General Hugh Shelton and Mrs. Carolyn Shelton; Dr. Dorothy Height; Mrs. Marilyn Gevirtz; Ambassador Don Gevirtz. (Laughter.) In a timely fashion to the Vice President and Mrs. Gore. (Laughter.) Congressman Bobby Scott; the President and First Lady; my better half, Millie; Senator Connie Mack and Priscilla Mack; Dr. Billy Graham; Mrs. Catherine Parker and Mr. Robert Parker. (Applause.) As chairman, I want to express my deepest appreciation to all participants this morning for sharing your faith with us. Looking upon this august and joyful assembly, I see the universality of the prayer breakfast, the coming together of people of different nations, faiths and cultures, and the power of love and consideration for one another. I am reminded of the passage from Psalm 33, verse 12: ``Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he chose for his inheritance. From heaven, the Lord looks down and sees all mankind. From his dwelling place, he watches all who live on Earth. He forms the hearts of all and considers all their works.'' God's love for all of us is everlasting, for all men and women from all nations. This perfect love fills our hearths, prepares us for the challenges we face each day and opens our minds to God's wisdom. As we seek to love God and one another, let the spirit of this prayer breakfast enrich us, strengthen us and lead us on life's journey, where we are never alone. It is my privilege at this time to introduce to you the honorable Bobby Scott, Congressman from Virginia, who is leader of the House Prayer Breakfast Group. He will speak to us on behalf of the House and the Senate Prayer Groups. Bobby? Representative Bobby Scott. Thank you, Senator. Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Vice President and Mrs. Gore, other dais guests, ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to join my congressional colleagues from the House and the Senate Prayer Breakfast Groups in bringing you another welcome to the 1998 National Prayer Breakfast. This is our 46th year of coming together to commemorate the value of prayer in both our personal lives and our work on behalf of the people of this nation. We are joined by national leaders of business, labor, government, religion and other walks of life throughout the United States and over 16 of countries around the world. Members from the U.S. Senate first met for prayer and divine guidance during World War II. The House organized a weekly prayer group shortly thereafter, And both groups have continued the practice of weekly prayer breakfasts, meeting for breakfast, prayer and fellowship. Since those first meetings in the face of a great national crisis, the need for a prayer group and the benefit of fellowship and prayer have been recognized in Congress. From the beginning of the prayer breakfast groups in both chambers, members of all faiths have come together to hear testimonials of faith and challenge and to seek guidance and strength from each other. What we discuss and exchange in those meetings stays in those meetings. So members are free to share with each other, and we do. The weekly prayer breakfast provides members with one hour during the week in which we can relax without the presence of the media and without regard to partisan political affiliation. And so I can assure you that it is one hour that many of us look forward to each week. As an example of the typical weekly prayer breakfast in the House, we begin with Scripture and a prayer and a report on member's faith and challenges, such as illness, or illness or death within their family, so that we can offer our prayers and support to that member. We also sing a hymn or, as more accurately can be described, we make a joyful noise. (Laughter.) And at each breakfast, one member is invited to speak for 15 minutes to share a personal challenge, reflection or faith experience with the group. The weekly Senate and House prayer breakfasts have met separately since their inception. However, in 1953 both groups decided to combine forces and hold the first National Prayer Breakfast. President Dwight D. Eisenhower attended that first National Prayer Breakfast, and every President since has attended each year's breakfast. President Clinton and Vice President Gore--(applause)-- President Clinton and Vice President Gore have continued that unblemished record through their presence here today, reflecting their recognition of the value of prayer in our professional and personal lives. So I know I speak for all of my colleagues in both chambers when I say that we are delighted to host this 46th National Prayer Breakfast. You strengthen us and uplift us with your presence. So, again, welcome. And may God bless you, Thank you. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. We will now hear an Old Testament reading from the Honorable Don Gevitz, an outstanding businessmen from California and our former United States Ambassador to the Republic of Fiji, the Kingdom of Tonga, the Republic of Nauru and the Republic of Tuvalu. Ambassador Don Gevirtz. Thank you, and good morning. Mr. President, my exboss, Mr. Vice President, distinguished guests. What is an ex-U.S. Ambassador born into the Jewish faith doing at an event like this? (Laughter.) Appreciating the power of interfaith brotherhood and fellowship inspired by the National Prayer Breakfast movement. At the core of my philosophy are the two words I want on my tombstone. They are, ``He grew.'' Although my readings this morning are from the Old Testament. I would like to borrow for just a moment from the rich tradition of Luke, chapter 2, verse 52, in the New Testament, because of its clear statement about human potential. ``Jesus grew in wisdom and statute and in favor with God and man.'' I think that this is God's wish for all of his children. Proverbs in the Old Testament clearly identifies the characteristic a person must have to grow to realize his human potential. Proverbs, chapter 20, verse 5, points out that ``The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.'' Additionally, verse 15 says, ``Gold there is, rubies in abundance, but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel.'' Proverbs, chapter 18, verse 15, suggests that ``The heart of the discerning gains in knowledge. The ear of the wise men searches for knowledge.'' And Proverbs, chapter 28, has important lessons of growth. Verse 14 says, ``Happy is the man who is never without fear. He who hardens his heart will fall into distress.'' And verse 22 says, ``He chases after wealth the man of greedy eye, not knowing that want is overtaking him.'' And finally, verse 1 says, ``The wicked man flees when no one is after him. The virtuous man is bold as a lion.'' The Bible has much wisdom for that person whose objective is growth. Samson had great credentials, but in Judges, chapter 16, verse 20, he learns that the Lord has left him. Consequently, he was remembered only for what he might have been. I want to be remembered for realizing my full potential, for earning those words on my tombstone, ``He grew.'' Thank you very much. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. Renowned inspirational signers Randy and Gae Hongo have traveled all the way from Honolulu to be with us this morning. They are joined this morning by their son Andrew, who came here from Yale University to sing as a family. The Hongo family will offer us a musical reflection, of their own arrangement, the phrase, ``Ua mau ke `ea `o ka `ania `I ka pono,'' which translates from Hawaiian into ``The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' It was first uttered in thanksgiving by King Kamehameha III. It is now the motto of the state of Hawaii. Its insight holds true today. The Hongo family. [Song.] Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Randy, Gae and Andrew. It is now my pleasure and great honor to introduce to you Dr. Dorothy Height, President of the National Council of Negro Women and a true national treasure, who will read from the New Testament. Dorothy Height. Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, distinguished guests and friends. Our New Testament reading is from Matthew, the 25th chapter, the 34th to the 45th verse. It answers the question that all of us ask ourselves every day as we try to be truthful, to be faithful, to serve our God. It answers the question that we have with each other, whatever our differences: What is our obligation? What must be our commitment? ``Then the king will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my father. Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me.' ``Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison or go to visit you?' The king will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of these, my brothers of mine, you did for me. ``Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fires prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me. I was sick and in prison, and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and we did not help you?' And he will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' '' [The reading of his word. (Applause.)] Senator Akaka. Thank you, Dr. Height. The Vice President and I entered Congress together as members of the class of 1976. As a Congressman and Senator, he faithfully participated in both the House and Senate breakfast groups. Today we are honored to have him offer the prayer for our national leaders. So it is with pleasure that I welcome the pride of class of '76--(laughter)--and an esteemed friend, the Vice President of the United States, Albert Gore, Jr. (Applause.) Vice President Gore. Thank you very much. I'm glad to be introduced by the pride of the class of '76. Thank you very much, and to Mrs. Akaka, to the President and First Lady, to Congressman Scott and to Senator and Mrs. Mack, to Dr. Graham and all the members of the clergy who are present, members of the cabinet, Speaker Gingrich and members of the House and Senate who are present. It is, of course, humbling to join with so many people of all faiths to rededicate ourselves to God's purposes and to reaffirm the ultimate purpose of our lives, to glorify the creator and to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, with all our souls and with all our minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. I believe God has a plan for the United States of America and has since our founding. Our mission has always been to advance the cause of liberty and to prove that religious, political and economic freedom are the natural birthright of all men and women and that freedom unlocks a higher fraction of the human potential than any other way of organizing human society. And I believe that God has given the people of our nation not only a chance, but a mission to prove to men and women in all nations that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and creeds, can not only work and live together but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our common purpose and to prove, in the words of Jesus, ``that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.'' Yet too often we lose sight of our common purpose and seek to make our public discourse one of meanness and not of meaning, one of bitterness and invective, not of faith and love. James Madison, one of our founders, wrote, ``A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence and power, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.'' We've seen those animosities unleashed by the whole continuum of human difference--differences of parties, opinion and faction, differences of nationality, religion, language and gender; and the most visible and therefore most persistent differences of all, those of race and ethnicity. Overcoming those differences, fulfilling the mission that is ours in human history, must be achieved ``not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, sayeth the Lord of hosts.'' It requires a dedication to faith and trust in God. And so, speaking for my own faith in Jesus Christ but acknowledging and respecting all of the faiths represented here, I offer this prayer for our nation and its leaders and ask you to join with me. God, who through thy saints and prophets has spoken to us in days of old, speak to us again in this hour. Teach us to be peacemakers and agents of reconciliation. Show us how to live out your commitment to the poor and to the oppressed. Inspire us to overcome the fears that have long bound us to small visions and tiny dreams. Save us from the differences that can obscure our common purpose and serve as an excuse and trigger for the unleashing of the evil that lies coiled in the human soul. Help us to overcome evil with good. Deliver us from the wanton selfishness that would make us rich in things but poor in spirit. Grant us wisdom and courage for the living of these days. We pray for all who are given the responsibility to lead our nation and the other nations of this world. Help all of these leaders to seek out your will and give to all of them the strength to live in your way in our world. In your name we pray, Amen. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. It gives me great pleasure to introduce our featured speaker this morning. Senator Connie Mack is a source of inspiration and strength in our Senate Prayer Breakfast Group. As our planning committee discussed whom to invite to address the breakfast, our focus turned inward. Connie has a wonderful message, and we are so grateful that he agreed to share it with us this morning. I give you my friend, the honorable Connie Mack. (Applause.) Senator Mack. Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Vice President, Mrs. Gore, ladies and gentlemen of the head table and guests from throughout our land and from across the globe. This is a distinct honor for me and true privilege to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning. There are several people that I would like to introduce before I begin my remarks, and in a sense it is an expression of the love and affection that I have for my family. I am one of eight children. Three of my brothers are here this morning: My brother Dennis, my brother Andy and my bother John. I am not quite sure where they're seated. (Applause.) All together. I have an older sister who is a Catholic nun who could not be with us today. And John is a trained Baptist minister. (Laughter.) So I think you can get the feel that there have been some interesting discussions--(laughter)--about religion in our lives. As I thought about what I would share with you this morning, I decided, rather than to give some speech on politics and government, that I would share with you my own personal quest for a deeper understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ. When I use the word ``share,'' this is something, frankly, that is pretty new to me. And when Danny called me and asked me if I would do it, frankly, there was no choice other than to say yes. But I must say to you, I felt a sense of terror go through my being. I'm an individual who has held my spiritual beliefs, my religious feelings and training, inside. I was not a person who shared those thoughts and ideas with anyone else, to the point that--and I see Don Nickles out there somewhere this morning--I can remember saying to Don before one of our policy committee lunches, when he asked me if I would give the blessing, I said, ``Don, I would rather not.'' And I don't know whether the men in the audience have had the experience of thinking about asking their wives to pray with them. We were having a discussion, a few of us in our Bible study and prayer breakfast, about prayer and about our prayer together, and I said to them, ``Isn't it strange? I find it difficult to say to my wife Priscilla--we've been married now 37 years--for some reason there was an incredible sense of vulnerability that kept me from turning to her and say, `Would you be willing to pray with me?' '' I am pleased to say that I did ask her, and we do pray together. Again, I don't know whether you have shared the same feelings that I have had, but there have been many times in my life where I sensed that there was a void, that there was a part of me that I wasn't dealing with, that there was a part of me that I did not understand. But there is also a part of me that said I want to get in touch with that part of me. And it is the prayer breakfasts and the Bible study group that helps me deal with that void, if you will. I was struggling really to have a deeper understanding of the word ``love.'' What does love really mean? Who is in control of my life? Like I suspect most of us in this room, and maybe especially at the head table, we have steadfastly tried to stay in control of our lives throughout our entire lives. What is the meaning of God's will? How do you know what God's will is? I want to touch on those points as I go through my remarks. But I also want to recognize--I mentioned Don Nickles a moment ago, and another colleague of mine in the Senate, Dan Coats, who never lost faith in me. No matter how many times they would ask and I would refuse to join them in Bible study or the prayer breakfast, they never gave up. ``Connie,'' they said, ``you would love this. This is exactly what you need.'' And finally, one day I said yes. And it's because of Dan and Don and Danny and others like them who kind of guided me along the path to a deeper understanding that I can honestly say to you today that on October the 26th, 1995, my life began anew. And I want to tell you about that, a very special meeting of Bible study. And again, a couple of our members, Dan Coats and I were engaged in a very focused discussion. Interestingly enough, today I cannot remember what the discussion was about. But I sure know it was focused. (Laughter.) One of the thoughts that occurred to me as our meeting was starting was, as I looked around the room to see who was there, Danny Akaka had not come yet. And Danny Akaka is a person who I have gotten to know and to love and deeply appreciate as a result of our experiences today at both prayer breakfasts and Bible study. And Danny wasn't there, and I kept thinking, ``I hope he comes today. I hope he comes today.'' Again, mind you, now, this focused discussion that was taking place. As it ended, seated right next to Dan Coats was Danny Akaka. And I was kind of stunned that you were there. I didn't know how you had gotten into the room. And I was expressing to him my sense of love and appreciation that he was with us. Lloyd Ogilvie at that time, I think sensing something special, said to us, ``Is there anyone here this morning who would like to deepen his commitment to Jesus Christ?'' The immediate thought that went through my mind was, ``It ain't me, buster.'' (Laughter.) I mean, that's it. ``It ain't me, buster.'' Lloyd said I'm now going to be remembered as the guy that said, ``It ain't me, buster.'' (Laughter.) But as soon as that thought went through my mind, no sooner had it gotten out of mind, I said, ``I want you to pray for me.'' And I had no idea what was going to happen after that. Lloyd asked me to move my chair to the center of the room, and all of my colleagues gathered around me, placed their hands on my shoulders and prayed for me. It is difficult and, frankly, impossible to explain to you the emotion that I felt at that moment. But the one thing I do recall is, contrary to what you might think, there was a sense of something flowing out of me. And later, when I thought through what that experience was, I know what it was. It was that desire of keeping control of my life, that I was the one that was in charge. I was willing to give up that control. And on that day, October the 26th, 1995, I know that that control went out of my life and I began the process, began the process, of turning my life over to God. After that very moving experience, Priscilla and I had the opportunity to be in Vermont on vacation. And I had gone out to go skiing that morning. And I got to the foot of the mountain that was in Vermont. It was -10 degrees. The wind was blowing 15, 20 knots. And I say, ``I've got to be crazy out here skiing.'' I went back home. I picked up a book that Lloyd Ogilvie had written called ``The Greatest Counselor in the World,'' a book about the Holy Spirit. And later that day there was a sense of restlessness in me, and I decided to go for a walk. And I put on some snow shoes. Now, being from Florida, I had not had that experience before. (Laughter.) And I walked out into the forest, along the sides of the mountain, by myself. As far as I could see, there was nothing but the beauty and cleanness of the white snow. The only sounds that I heard were the sounds of nature. The trees--I never heard this before, but the trees actually rubbing against each other as there was a breeze that made its way through the forest. I made my way down into a ravine, and there was a small stream that was making its way; a few spots where the water could be seen around the ice, and the sounds of that stream bubbling up. And I stopped there, wanting to get on my knees and to pray. But I must say to you, I was terrified about getting on my knees with those snow shoes. And with the snow, I didn't think I could get back up. (Laughter.) So I stood there, and I literally raised my hands to the heavens and prayed that the Holy Spirit would fill me. There was a rustling of the wind. I'm not trying to hold out any kind of mystery, but there was a rustling of the wind that gave me a sense that, in fact, I was being filled with the Holy Spirit. And as I look back on those days, I now recognize that the fruits of the Holy Spirit have become part of my day--love, peace, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control. They are part of my day because that's God's will. I remember not long after that that Priscilla and I had the opportunity to be at the movies. And the movie was over and I turned to her and I said, ``I am filled with a sense of joy.'' What was rather startling about that was that later I said to Priscilla, ``Do you know that that's the first time in over 17 years that I have truly had a sense of joy?'' My brother Michael had died of cancer in 1979. And for all those years, I carried around in me the gloom of his death. But I recognized, at the moment that I turned to Pris and said, ``I feel a sense of joy,'' that the gloom had been lifted and God's love had replaced it. I want to now share a couple of experiences with you to show you how my life has been changed as a result of this. Some of you in the Senate may remember a fellow by the name of Butch. He was a bus boy in the Senate dining room. I got to know Butch over the years as I would come in and have breakfast, and he would bring me a paper and we would chat for a few minutes. One day I was having lunch with some of my colleagues in the Senate dining room, and one of the waitresses came up to me and handed me a note and said that Butch was seriously ill. Well, I put the note in my pocket. And as I left the Senate dining room, I stopped and talked with the waitress and she once again said that Butch was seriously ill. And I could sense she was saying--she had given me the note that said he was at, I believe, Southeast Greater Hospital here in Washington. I could tell she was really saying to me, ``Can't you go see Butch?'' And like I'm sure most of my colleagues, my initial reaction was one of ``Where am I going to find the time?'' Well, again, the note's in my pocket. I went home. The following morning I looked at my schedule. There was a gap in my schedule. And I thought, ``Well, maybe I ought to just go see Butch.'' So I went over to the hospital. I went up to Butch's room. A nurse was there giving him a shot. And I looked at Butch, his eyes wide open, almost transfixed on the television set. And within a few seconds, it became obvious to me that Butch was about to die. It was just the two of us. I had asked the nurse how he was doing as I walked in, and she said, ``He was fine yesterday. His family came from Chicago. They had a great time together.'' But clearly things had changed. And again, it was just Butch and myself. And I thought, ``I cannot leave him here alone, to die alone.'' And I walked over to the side of the bed. I took Butch's hand, held it, rubbed his arms, and tried to comfort him in the sense of saying, ``It's all right. You're at peace now. You'll be joining your God and your creator.'' And Butch died just a few moments after that. The nurse came back in the room. She called one of, I believe, his aunts. His aunt actually was already on her way. She walked in within a few minutes. I explained to her that Butch had just died. I hugged her, embraced her, and again told her that he died in peace and he died in the hands of his God and creator. As you can imagine, as I made my way back to the Senate and back to the dining room so I could tell his colleagues on the staff of the dining room that Butch had died, as you can imagine, I was asking myself several questions. How did you get there that day? Why were you there at that moment? What was it that you were supposed to learn from that experience? And what I learned from the experience is something that's all too obvious, but sometimes we have a tendency to forget, and that is that in God's eyes, as it should be in our eyes, that all of us are equal. It makes no difference whether you're a United States Senator or whether you're a buy boy in the United States Senate. (Applause.) Another experience that happened to me was again an acquaintance of mine, and frankly, an acquaintance of many people in this room, Tom Korologos. Tom's wife Joy passed away as the result of melanoma, the same kind of cancer that killed my brother in 1979. I picked up the phone and I called Tom and gave my condolences and expressed my concern and my love for him. I ended up going to Joy's funeral service. And again, I had maybe met Joy once. And as I was sitting in the church waiting for the service to begin, I was again asking myself-- again, to the members of the House and Senate, and clearly the President and the Vice President, understand this incredible demand on us for our time. And it's almost a natural thing to kind of ask every place we go. ``Why are we here?'' And so as I'm, waiting for this service to begin, I'm asking those same kind of questions. Why am I here? Well, once the service began and the family began to express their deep convictions to their Lord and maker, it was pretty obvious to me why I was there. I wrote down some notes that morning during the service of some feelings that went through my mind, and I want to share from the notes that I made that morning. So they may not be grammatically collect, so bear with me. I'm going to read them exactly as I wrote them. ``Was there because I have replaced the love of self with the love for others. Being at the funeral service for Joy Korologos also allowed me to recognize that doing God's will is not the pursuit of the grand, but rather one day at a time, one moment at a time, pursuing God's will; that if I allow God to guide me one step at a time, I will eventually get to where he wants me to be in my life. And if I truly believe, if I truly believe this and follow that belief throughout each day, I will be free. I will be at peace; the ultimate freedom, to be free of worldly desires.'' I also learned that this moment was a life-changing moment. As I said above, pursue God's will one step at a time and not worry or even wonder where it may lead me. This is a radical departure for me from my previous life--management by objectives, goal-setting, state a goal, a target, an objective, and then pursue it. Now for me it is ``Help me, dear God, to do what is right, what is in your will at this moment, and then my life will take care of itself.'' To me, this was a great revelation. Two points that I would want to build on here for just a moment; that doing God's will is not the pursuit of the grand. I don't know about you, but as I have thought about trying to understand God's will, I always had this idea that there was some huge event in the future that I was called on to participate in, always trying to figure out what it was; never could do it. And now I understand that if each day I will pursue God's will--and I think you're beginning to understand why I said a moment ago that when Danny called me and asked me if I would be willing to give this address this morning, I had no choice but to do it, because on that day my sense was it was God's will that I speak this morning. So, again, I try to live each day now attentive, attentive to the needs of others, attentive to the needs of my colleagues in the Senate, trying to make sure that I am not so busy that I don't hear their cries for help. I'd like to close my thoughts here this morning with another personal experience. And I want to use 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, verse 13, which I suspect that many of you are familiar with. I have used 1 Corinthians 13 at both weddings and at funerals, because in essence it is all about life. ``And now abide faith, hope, love, these three. But the greatest of these is love.'' And I don't know about you, but I've always kind of wondered what makes love the greatest of those three. And I will try to explain in just a couple of minutes at least what my understanding of that Bible reading is. Both my mother and father died during these past 20 months or so. In a conversation in Bible study, as I was expressing my concerns about having a deeper understanding of love and trying to understand my relationship with my God and maker, it was said to me that sometimes it's helpful to think about your loving relationship with your father here on Earth. It may give you some insight into your loving relationship with your God. Well, as would, I think, be natural when you see your parents heading towards the last moments of their life, it's fairly easy to get into a discussion about what love is all about. And I found out one of the things that there's a big difference between the love between a mother and her son and a father and his son. My mother loved me unconditionally. It made no matter what I did. She was there to comfort me, to love me, to protect me. But with my father, frankly, it was different. And I didn't understand what that relationship was. Was the relationship one that was based on a need for reward? Was I looking for respect? What portion of it was fear? And as I watched my father over the last 20 years or so and recognized that he did over 17,000 hours of volunteer time at the local hospitals, and I heard people talk about seeing my father helping them being wheeled down to surgery or to the X-ray, I sensed that there was a strong sense of love that my father had expressed during those years. And I finally understood the significance of the meaning of love and why love is so important, because frankly love is a collection of all the graces that God has given us in which we express in action, that we act in behalf of or on behalf of those less fortunate than us, those who at the moment need our assistance. And so for all those years I saw this outpouring of love from my mother and father and I understood then why I love my father and why I loved my Father in heaven, and it is very simple. It is because they so deeply loved me. Thank you. Have a great day. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now my privilege and high honor to introduce the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. Welcome, Mr. President. (Applause.) President Clinton. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to my good friend and sometimes golfing partner, Senator Akaka, to all the members of Congress here, Reverend Graham, other head table guests and ladies and gentlemen. For five years now, Hillary and I have looked forward to this day. For me it's a day in which I can be with other people of faith and pray and ask for your prayers, both as President and as just another child of God. I have done it for five years, and I do so again today. At each of these breakfasts, from our shared experiences and our prayers, God's grace always seems to come, bringing strength and wisdom and peace. Today I come more than anything else to say thank you. First, thank you, Connie Mack, for your wonderful message and the power of your example. I also thank all of you here for many things in the last five years and ask your help in helping us to work together to make our nation better, and the work that God has sent me to do and you to do. I thank you for helping me to strike blows for religious liberty--with the work so many of you in this room have done to help us to protect the rights of federal employees, to follow their faith at work, our students in school. In particular, I want to thank Reverend Don Argue, the former President of the National Association of Evangelicals and Rabbi Arthur Schneier and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Newark, Theodore McCarrik, who next week will go to China to look into religious practices there and to begin a dialogue there in hopes that a part of our relationship with China will be about our concern for the kind of religious liberty we have practiced here this morning. (Applause.) I thank so many of you in the community of faith who have worked with the government in partnership to help move poor families from welfare, from welfare to work, to honor the Scripture that our friend Dorothy Height read today. And I ask more of you to join in. I thank those of you who have been responsible for working with me--and I see Senator Grassley out there and Harris Wofford is here--to bring communities of faith into the circle of national service. We now have 5,000 young Americans working with religious organizations earning the Americorps scholarship to go to college with after they serve with their community of faith wherever they live in America. And the Congress has provided for many more positions, and I ask you to help us to enlist more young Americans to give meaning to their lives, to live out their faith, and to help make our country a better place. I thank you for the prayers, the letters, the scriptural instruction that I have gotten from so many of you and many others around this country in recent weeks and indeed in the last five years. And I ask that they continue. Finally, I couldn't help thinking when Connie Mack was talking that what we all need very much is to take what we feel when we're here every year and keep it close with us when we leave here every year--day in and day out, week in and week out, in good times and bad. And I ask for your help in that. We have a difficult decision we are facing now, as a country and our administration, because of the concern all Americans have that we not expose our children, if we can help it, to the dangers of chemical and biological warfare. And last night I came across a scripture verse that a friend of mine sent me in the last 72 hours that I had not had the chance to read--a prayer of King Solomon that I ask you to keep in mind as we face this decision. Solomon said in I Kings, ``I am only a little child, and I do not know how to carry out my duties. Your servant is here among people you have chosen--a great people--too numerous to count or number. So you give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong, for who is able to govern this great people of yours.'' I also ask for your prayers as we work together to continue to take our country to higher ground and to remember the admonition to Micah, which I try to repeat to myself on a very regular basis. I ask your prayers that I and we might act justly and love mercy and walk humbly with our God. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Sen. Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for that wonderful message of gratitude and prayer. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and inspiration. And thank you for making the time to join us this morning. And I want you to know that we are praying for you. To offer the benediction, I'm thrilled to welcome back to the National Prayer Breakfast a man whose presence inspires all of us to good and whose wisdom brings us comfort and hope, Dr. Billy Graham. We love you, Dr. Graham. (Applause.) Dr. Graham. Thank you very much. And as far as I'm concerned, I give all the glory and praise to God. (Applause.) It's been my privilege to be at many of these prayer breakfasts, I suppose more than any other person. (Laughter.) In fact, they told me that when I was interviewed by Senator Sam Nunn the other day about the history of the prayer breakfast, that they thought I was the oldest person that had attended the prayer breakfast for so long. And I suppose that's right. And they couldn't find any others that had been to so many, and so they asked me if I would be interviewed for the Archives--(laughter)--and the history of the prayer breakfast. (Laughter.) But I don't know when I've been so moved at a prayer breakfast as this one. I feel the Holy Spirit is bringing us together and speaking to us. (Applause.) Not only different religious backgrounds, but different political backgrounds. And here I see members of all parties smiling, listening to the Word of God, listening to this magnificent word on the love of God an the love that he can put in our hearts. And when the President spoke, I could not help but think of the various times that I've had the privilege of being with him alone to talk, read the Bible and pray. And I know that he's sincere in what he had to say. And to Vice President Gore and to all of you that are here, many of you, I look at you and I think back to times we've been together in years past, in your state, in your town. I'm an evangelist. I travel from place to place and preach the gospel. And it's the same gospel I started with. The human heart is the same. The gospel is the same. It never changes, that God loves you no matter who you are. (Applause.) So I'm going to ask that we have this closing prayer together. Our Father and our God, as we come to the close of another National Prayer Breakfast, we pause to give you thanks for the opportunity we have had to come apart from our daily tasks and turn our minds and our hearts to you. Give us a holy dissatisfaction with anything less than your perfect will that we heard expressed a few moments ago. Help us to see ourselves as we truly are in your sight, as men and women who are subject to the temptations of pride and power and flesh and who need your forgiveness and your strength. Help us remember that you teach us that we're all sinners and everyone who is in this place needs repentance and forgiveness, including me. May we all come to the cross. And by your grace, help us to turn to you for the forgiveness and mercy we need. We thank you for the promise of the Bible, that if we truly confess our sins that you're faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As we leave this place, help us to find in you the strength we need to live as we should. Give us motives that are pure, lips that are honest, lives that are blameless, and hearts that are filled with compassion and love. We pray for the millions of the hungry and poor in our world and for the thousands even in our own land and for all who are oppressed, that we will not be deaf to their cries. We pray today especially for President and Mrs. Clinton, for Vice President and Mrs. Gore, for the Cabinet, for members of the Supreme Court, for the Congress and all others to whom you have given responsibility in our land, and for their families who many times have to bear the burden of responsibility. Give them strength and courage, integrity and wisdom, as they face the complex problems of our nation and our world. And, O Lord, we pray that we will be faithful in praying that if it be thy will that thou would bring peace to the Middle East. And we pray that if it be thy will, that we'll not have war, as President Yeltsin has warned us about. Send the strong driving wind of the Holy Spirit across our land, to bring us a new breath of joy and freedom in serving you. May we see a national, an international revival. Renew our vision. Restore our faith. Rekindle our desire to love and serve you and serve each other. As we leave this place, may we commit ourselves afresh to him who alone is the way, the truth and the life. And now, may the Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you, the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. (Applause.) Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Graham. This concludes the 46th National Prayer Breakfast. I ask all of you to please rise and remain standing until the President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President and Mrs. Gore depart from the ballroom. (Applause.) I thank all of you for your participation and your cooperation. Trust in God and carry his love with you and share it with others today and every day. Thank you very much. This concludes the National Prayer Breakfast. (Applause.)

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun. The Senator's amendment would authorize over $22 billion in essential bonding authority to the 50 States and territories to improve our Nation's public school system. The Moseley-Braun school construction amendment would provide direct assistance to states to improve and construct school facilities for our nation's children. The amendment before us will help thousands of schools across the country modernize their facilities to meet increasing technological demands. It will also provide assistance to local school districts to build additional facilities for the growing number of students. Hawaii's schools, particularly our rural schools on the neighbor islands, are in great need of improvement and modernization. The inclusion of modern technology in our education curriculum requires extensive renovations in older school buildings to ensure that all children have equal access to today's technological advancements. Hawaii's schools could receive an estimated $53 million for school construction under this amendment. This would greatly assist my state in meeting the increased educational demands of our children. Mr. President, as a former teacher, I have taught in both the private and public school systems, and I recognize the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. However, I believe that the Federal Government has a moral obligation to ensure that all our children are provided a quality education, and diverting potential resources away from our public schools is a disservice to the majority of American children who attend public schools. The underlying proposal does not focus on those who need the most help. The bill before us provides an average tax break for families with public school children of only $7 over five years, while families with children in private schools would receive a $37 benefit. This proposal provides a disproportionate share of benefits to wealthier families who do not need the additional Federal assistance. I urge my colleagues to support the Moseley-Braun school construction amendment and provide all our nation's children an equal opportunity to learn in safe, clean, modern school facilities. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to establish voluntary standards for certifying tropical forest products grown in Hawaii. Senator Inouye has joined me in cosponsoring this measure. Agriculture has long been the backbone of the economy of rural Hawaii. Recently, however, the decline of sugarcane has caused an upheaval for many of our rural communities. In the past 10 years, 21 sugarcane plantations have gone out of business and the State has lost 115,000 acres of sugarcane production. For more than 160 years, sugar provided jobs and a special way of life for communities throughout the State. Cane is still king on Maui and parts of Kauai, but elsewhere it has disappeared from the agricultural map. Our great challenge is to develop new opportunities that keep Hawaii green and economically productive for at least as long--and hopefully longer--than our relationship with sugar. For many landowners, the future of rural Hawaii is in forestry. But what will forestry in Hawaii look like 10, 20, or 50 years from now? Many people have strong feelings about how to answer this question. Sustainability is the emerging idea in forest development. This means practicing stewardship that integrates the growth, nurturing, and harvesting of trees with the conservation of soil, air, water, and wildlife. Sustainable forests are managed to serve the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. In Hawaii, the stewardship ethic is very strong, especially within the forestry community. Hawaii's tropical forests are home to some of the richest biological diversity on the planet, and our forest managers understand the importance of preserving our living heritage. But in many countries, stewardship and responsible forest development is weak or nonexistent. Around the globe, forests are disappearing at an unprecedented rate, and nowhere is this problem more severe than in the tropics. More than half of the world's tropical rain forests have been consumed, degraded, or destroyed in this century. Because of the attention being given to forest degradation, consumers are asking questions about the source of the wood demand, and foresters to supply, wood products from well-managed forests. As the demand for sustainable forest products has increased, criteria for sustainable forestry have been formalized. The result is a world- wide movement to verify that sustainable forestry claims are genuine. This process is known as certification. In recent years, the Hawaii forestry industry has closely monitored the certification movement. The bill I am introducing today will prompt an important dialogue on certification. I am inviting all stakeholders in this issue--Hawaii's forest industry, landowners, conservation experts, and affected communities--to engage in a free and open exchange about forest certification. What are the benefits of certification? For consumers, certification is a way of ensuring that forest products they purchase do not contribute to forest degradation. Independent verification of forestry practices is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval telling them that sustainable standards are being met. To landowners, certification is a way of ensuring that their careful management is rewarded in the marketplace. A certification label may result in a premium for your products, better market access, and in some cases, more secure supply agreements. The best way for the Hawaii forest industry to increase the value of their resource may be to sell certified tropical wood products into a world market that recognizes the abuse that tropical forests have suffered--and is willing to pay more for a tropical product that has received proper certification. Just how widespread is certification today? Forest certification is big business. Certification is practiced in 25 countries. European and North American buyers groups are committed to wood products certification. Eleven nations, including Germany and France, are represented in the European buyers group. Certification is voluntary, not mandatory, and my bill reflects this fact. Over time, however, landowners who do not employ sustainable practices and do not seek certification may find it more difficult to market their timber. My bill will establish standards certifying that Hawaii forest products are cultivated, harvested, and processed in a sustainable manner. Although forestry certification standards are high, certification will not require perfection. Like agriculture, forestry is subject to the forces of nature, and nature is often unpredictable. For certification to become successful in Hawaii, I believe that a bottom up rather than top down approach to consensus-building makes the most sense. With this in mind, in January, 1998, I will convene a meeting in Hawaii to further the dialog about forest certification and the bill I introduced today. Certification can take root in Hawaii without action by Congress. However, my bill can jump start the dialog and provide a format for discussion. I will be the first one to cheer if certification becomes a reality with, or without, legislation by Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to establish voluntary standards for certifying tropical forest products grown in Hawaii. Senator Inouye has joined me in cosponsoring this measure. Agriculture has long been the backbone of the economy of rural Hawaii. Recently, however, the decline of sugarcane has caused an upheaval for many of our rural communities. In the past 10 years, 21 sugarcane plantations have gone out of business and the State has lost 115,000 acres of sugarcane production. For more than 160 years, sugar provided jobs and a special way of life for communities throughout the State. Cane is still king on Maui and parts of Kauai, but elsewhere it has disappeared from the agricultural map. Our great challenge is to develop new opportunities that keep Hawaii green and economically productive for at least as long--and hopefully longer--than our relationship with sugar. For many landowners, the future of rural Hawaii is in forestry. But what will forestry in Hawaii look like 10, 20, or 50 years from now? Many people have strong feelings about how to answer this question. Sustainability is the emerging idea in forest development. This means practicing stewardship that integrates the growth, nurturing, and harvesting of trees with the conservation of soil, air, water, and wildlife. Sustainable forests are managed to serve the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. In Hawaii, the stewardship ethic is very strong, especially within the forestry community. Hawaii's tropical forests are home to some of the richest biological diversity on the planet, and our forest managers understand the importance of preserving our living heritage. But in many countries, stewardship and responsible forest development is weak or nonexistent. Around the globe, forests are disappearing at an unprecedented rate, and nowhere is this problem more severe than in the tropics. More than half of the world's tropical rain forests have been consumed, degraded, or destroyed in this century. Because of the attention being given to forest degradation, consumers are asking questions about the source of the wood demand, and foresters to supply, wood products from well-managed forests. As the demand for sustainable forest products has increased, criteria for sustainable forestry have been formalized. The result is a world- wide movement to verify that sustainable forestry claims are genuine. This process is known as certification. In recent years, the Hawaii forestry industry has closely monitored the certification movement. The bill I am introducing today will prompt an important dialogue on certification. I am inviting all stakeholders in this issue--Hawaii's forest industry, landowners, conservation experts, and affected communities--to engage in a free and open exchange about forest certification. What are the benefits of certification? For consumers, certification is a way of ensuring that forest products they purchase do not contribute to forest degradation. Independent verification of forestry practices is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval telling them that sustainable standards are being met. To landowners, certification is a way of ensuring that their careful management is rewarded in the marketplace. A certification label may result in a premium for your products, better market access, and in some cases, more secure supply agreements. The best way for the Hawaii forest industry to increase the value of their resource may be to sell certified tropical wood products into a world market that recognizes the abuse that tropical forests have suffered--and is willing to pay more for a tropical product that has received proper certification. Just how widespread is certification today? Forest certification is big business. Certification is practiced in 25 countries. European and North American buyers groups are committed to wood products certification. Eleven nations, including Germany and France, are represented in the European buyers group. Certification is voluntary, not mandatory, and my bill reflects this fact. Over time, however, landowners who do not employ sustainable practices and do not seek certification may find it more difficult to market their timber. My bill will establish standards certifying that Hawaii forest products are cultivated, harvested, and processed in a sustainable manner. Although forestry certification standards are high, certification will not require perfection. Like agriculture, forestry is subject to the forces of nature, and nature is often unpredictable. For certification to become successful in Hawaii, I believe that a bottom up rather than top down approach to consensus-building makes the most sense. With this in mind, in January, 1998, I will convene a meeting in Hawaii to further the dialog about forest certification and the bill I introduced today. Certification can take root in Hawaii without action by Congress. However, my bill can jump start the dialog and provide a format for discussion. I will be the first one to cheer if certification becomes a reality with, or without, legislation by Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Craig and Landrieu, I am introducing the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1997. Methane hydrate is a methane-bearing, ice-like substance that occurs in abundance in marine sediments. It is a crystalline solid of methane molecules surrounded by a structure of water molecules. Methane hydrates are stable at moderately high pressures and low temperatures and contain large quantities of methane. One unit volume of methane hydrate contains more than 160 volumes of methane at standard temperature and pressure. Methane hydrates are found in deep ocean sediments. Significant quantities are also found in the permafrost of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. Despite their potential as an energy resource, methane hydrates have not received the attention they deserve. We are only beginning to understand the magnitude of this potential resource. The amount of methane sequestered in gas hydrates is enormous. Worldwide estimates range from 100,000 trillion cubic feet to 270 million trillion cubic feet. Locations of known methane hydrate deposits within the Untied States include the Arctic, the seabed adjacent to northern California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern Seaboard. A conservative estimate of deposits under U.S. jurisdiction is 2,700 trillion cubic feet to seven million trillion cubic feet of gas. A recent U.S. Geological Survey analysis indicates the presence of over 500 trillion cubic feet of methane at the Black Ridge site off the coast of Carolinas alone. When you consider that current U.S. consumption is less than 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, you begin to appreciate the magnitude of this energy resource. The U.S. energy outlook is perilous at best. Our dependence on imported oil is steadily increasing. Soon we will import over 60 percent of the oil we consume. Air pollution is a persistent problem. We are spending enormous resources to improve air quality. Global climate change poses a looming challenge. With these concerns in mind, it is easy to recognize the importance of methane hydrates. Methane hydrates are a strategic resource because they contain huge amounts of methane in a concentrated form. Extracted methane from hydrates represents an extraordinarily large energy resource and petrochemical feedstock. Methane is less polluting than other hydrocarbons because of its higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Given the concerns about global climate change, a transition to methane as an energy resource is an attractive solution. The U.S. is not doing enough to explore this viable energy source. Other countries, primarily Japan and India, have aggressive programs to develop methane hydrates. Japan has launched an exploration project for methane hydrates in its surrounding waters. The Japanese National Oil Corporation is conducting a seismic survey off Hokkaido Island and will drill test wells in two locations in 1999. Commercial production is planned for 2010. About six trillion cubic meters of methane hydrates can be found in the seabed near Japan. Recovery of one-tenth of this reserve could yield about 100 years supply of natural gas for Japan. As part of its plan to boost natural gas resources, the Oil Industry Development Board of India has earmarked $56 million for a program of methane hydrates research and development. We cannot be left behind these and other nations in the race to develop this important energy resource. Science News recently published an article summarizing the hopes and hazards associated with methane hydrates. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record. This is an exciting area of research and of new knowledge. It has an enormous payoff, not only for our energy security, but also for the global environment. 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 Naval Research Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Secretary of Energy would also consult with other Federal and State agencies, industry, and academia. It directs the Department to conduct research on, and identify, explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate resources as a source of energy. It also directs the Department to develop technologies needed to develop methane resources in an environmentally sound manner. It provides for research to develop safe means of transportation and storage of methane produced from methane hydrates. To alleviate the concerns related to releases of methane, the legislation directs the Department to undertake research to assess and mitigate hydrate degassing, both natural and that associated with commercial development. It requires the Department to develop technologies to reduce the risk of drilling through the gas hydrates. And finally, it provides for the training of scientists and engineers that would be needed for this new and exciting field on endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. I am pleased to join Senator Murkowski and other colleagues in introducing legislation today that addresses certain aviation tax inequities that were enacted as part of Public Law 105-34, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Among other aviation provisions, Public Law 105-34 lowered the passenger ticket tax from 10 percent to 9 percent, falling incrementally to 7.5 percent over 3 years. In addition, the law established a new domestic segment fee of $1, rising incrementally to $3 over 5 years, which will ultimately be indexed for inflation. However, flights from certain small, rural airports are taxed at a simple 7.5 percent rate and exempted from the segment fee. Finally, while the existing $6 international departure tax for flights between Hawaii and other states is maintained, the charge is indexed for inflation beginning in 1999. Mr. President, these taxes unfairly discriminate against Hawaii travellers. Residents of and visitors to Hawaii are entirely dependent on plane service for communication among the State's eight major islands as well as for travel to and from the distant U.S. mainland. The new aviation charges make personal, commercial, and Government travel within Hawaii more costly and hurts our tourism-based economy by inhibiting visitation from other States. I understand that many of these problems also apply to Alaska, which has similar transportation concerns. The bill we are introducing today addresses these shortcomings. Our legislation would reinstate the prior 10 percent ticket tax and eliminate the new segment fee on flights between our States and the mainland as well as on intrastate flights in Hawaii and Alaska. The measure would also eliminate the inflation adjustment for the $6 international departure tax to which flights to and from our States are subject. Finally, the bill would redefine the rural airport exemption in such a way that will qualify many passengers travelling within Hawaii and Alaska for the reduced 7.5 percent rate. Thank you, Mr. President. For the sake of Hawaii's and Alaska's unique air transportation needs, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I am pleased to join Senator Murkowski and other colleagues in introducing legislation today that addresses certain aviation tax inequities that were enacted as part of Public Law 105-34, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Among other aviation provisions, Public Law 105-34 lowered the passenger ticket tax from 10 percent to 9 percent, falling incrementally to 7.5 percent over 3 years. In addition, the law established a new domestic segment fee of $1, rising incrementally to $3 over 5 years, which will ultimately be indexed for inflation. However, flights from certain small, rural airports are taxed at a simple 7.5 percent rate and exempted from the segment fee. Finally, while the existing $6 international departure tax for flights between Hawaii and other states is maintained, the charge is indexed for inflation beginning in 1999. Mr. President, these taxes unfairly discriminate against Hawaii travellers. Residents of and visitors to Hawaii are entirely dependent on plane service for communication among the State's eight major islands as well as for travel to and from the distant U.S. mainland. The new aviation charges make personal, commercial, and Government travel within Hawaii more costly and hurts our tourism-based economy by inhibiting visitation from other States. I understand that many of these problems also apply to Alaska, which has similar transportation concerns. The bill we are introducing today addresses these shortcomings. Our legislation would reinstate the prior 10 percent ticket tax and eliminate the new segment fee on flights between our States and the mainland as well as on intrastate flights in Hawaii and Alaska. The measure would also eliminate the inflation adjustment for the $6 international departure tax to which flights to and from our States are subject. Finally, the bill would redefine the rural airport exemption in such a way that will qualify many passengers travelling within Hawaii and Alaska for the reduced 7.5 percent rate. Thank you, Mr. President. For the sake of Hawaii's and Alaska's unique air transportation needs, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Craig and Landrieu, I am introducing the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1997. Methane hydrate is a methane-bearing, ice-like substance that occurs in abundance in marine sediments. It is a crystalline solid of methane molecules surrounded by a structure of water molecules. Methane hydrates are stable at moderately high pressures and low temperatures and contain large quantities of methane. One unit volume of methane hydrate contains more than 160 volumes of methane at standard temperature and pressure. Methane hydrates are found in deep ocean sediments. Significant quantities are also found in the permafrost of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. Despite their potential as an energy resource, methane hydrates have not received the attention they deserve. We are only beginning to understand the magnitude of this potential resource. The amount of methane sequestered in gas hydrates is enormous. Worldwide estimates range from 100,000 trillion cubic feet to 270 million trillion cubic feet. Locations of known methane hydrate deposits within the Untied States include the Arctic, the seabed adjacent to northern California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern Seaboard. A conservative estimate of deposits under U.S. jurisdiction is 2,700 trillion cubic feet to seven million trillion cubic feet of gas. A recent U.S. Geological Survey analysis indicates the presence of over 500 trillion cubic feet of methane at the Black Ridge site off the coast of Carolinas alone. When you consider that current U.S. consumption is less than 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, you begin to appreciate the magnitude of this energy resource. The U.S. energy outlook is perilous at best. Our dependence on imported oil is steadily increasing. Soon we will import over 60 percent of the oil we consume. Air pollution is a persistent problem. We are spending enormous resources to improve air quality. Global climate change poses a looming challenge. With these concerns in mind, it is easy to recognize the importance of methane hydrates. Methane hydrates are a strategic resource because they contain huge amounts of methane in a concentrated form. Extracted methane from hydrates represents an extraordinarily large energy resource and petrochemical feedstock. Methane is less polluting than other hydrocarbons because of its higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio. Given the concerns about global climate change, a transition to methane as an energy resource is an attractive solution. The U.S. is not doing enough to explore this viable energy source. Other countries, primarily Japan and India, have aggressive programs to develop methane hydrates. Japan has launched an exploration project for methane hydrates in its surrounding waters. The Japanese National Oil Corporation is conducting a seismic survey off Hokkaido Island and will drill test wells in two locations in 1999. Commercial production is planned for 2010. About six trillion cubic meters of methane hydrates can be found in the seabed near Japan. Recovery of one-tenth of this reserve could yield about 100 years supply of natural gas for Japan. As part of its plan to boost natural gas resources, the Oil Industry Development Board of India has earmarked $56 million for a program of methane hydrates research and development. We cannot be left behind these and other nations in the race to develop this important energy resource. Science News recently published an article summarizing the hopes and hazards associated with methane hydrates. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record. This is an exciting area of research and of new knowledge. It has an enormous payoff, not only for our energy security, but also for the global environment. 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 Naval Research Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Secretary of Energy would also consult with other Federal and State agencies, industry, and academia. It directs the Department to conduct research on, and identify, explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate resources as a source of energy. It also directs the Department to develop technologies needed to develop methane resources in an environmentally sound manner. It provides for research to develop safe means of transportation and storage of methane produced from methane hydrates. To alleviate the concerns related to releases of methane, the legislation directs the Department to undertake research to assess and mitigate hydrate degassing, both natural and that associated with commercial development. It requires the Department to develop technologies to reduce the risk of drilling through the gas hydrates. And finally, it provides for the training of scientists and engineers that would be needed for this new and exciting field on endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1418 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jaffer Mohiuddin, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 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. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has joined me as a sponsor of this measure. 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 in the mainland States. Per capita income is a poor measure of a State's relative ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. An excellent analysis of this issue is included 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 program policies. It is time for similar recognition of this factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act this past summer, the Senate included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent for the next 3 years. Setting a higher match rate as was done for Alaska would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate than a majority of the States, but would better recognize 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 ranked eighth in the country, compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher cost levels are reflected in State government expenditures and State taxation. Thus, on a per capita basis State revenue and expenditures are far higher in Hawaii, as well as 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 10 States with the highest poverty rates in the country, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only 3 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 10 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 this past summer, Hawaii should be included in this long-warranted change, as 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, on page 879 of the conference report, note 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, for example, Hawaii's Aid to Families with Dependent Children/ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [AFDC/TANF] caseloads have been increasing dramatically. In Hawaii, our caseload has risen by 21 percent since 1994 compared to a national decline of 23 percent during this same period. 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 now. The State has not participated in the 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 believe it is also important to point out that based on Hawaii's current Medicaid spending level of approximately $700 million, each percentage point increase in our FMAP rate would provide approximately $7 million annually in additional Federal funds. Thus, the cost of enhancing the State's FMAP rate would be relatively modest. 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 introduce legislation to 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. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has joined me as a sponsor of this measure. 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 in the mainland States. Per capita income is a poor measure of a State's relative ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. An excellent analysis of this issue is included 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 program policies. It is time for similar recognition of this factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act this past summer, the Senate included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent for the next 3 years. Setting a higher match rate as was done for Alaska would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate than a majority of the States, but would better recognize 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 ranked eighth in the country, compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher cost levels are reflected in State government expenditures and State taxation. Thus, on a per capita basis State revenue and expenditures are far higher in Hawaii, as well as 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 10 States with the highest poverty rates in the country, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only 3 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 10 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 this past summer, Hawaii should be included in this long-warranted change, as 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, on page 879 of the conference report, note 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, for example, Hawaii's Aid to Families with Dependent Children/ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [AFDC/TANF] caseloads have been increasing dramatically. In Hawaii, our caseload has risen by 21 percent since 1994 compared to a national decline of 23 percent during this same period. 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 now. The State has not participated in the 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 believe it is also important to point out that based on Hawaii's current Medicaid spending level of approximately $700 million, each percentage point increase in our FMAP rate would provide approximately $7 million annually in additional Federal funds. Thus, the cost of enhancing the State's FMAP rate would be relatively modest. 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. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1376 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the Reverend Dr. Abraham Akaka, my brother Abe, who passed away last month. Brother Abe, as our family knew him, was ``kahu,'' meaning shepherd in Hawaiian, to people of faith in Hawaii. For 28 years, he was pastor of Kawaiahao Church, the Westminster Abbey of the Pacific, Christianity's mother church in Hawaii. A true man of God, he dedicated his life to serving our church and its congregation, while attending to the spiritual needs of our people and communities across our State, and Nation. In a life marked by numerous achievements, honors, awards, and titles, the appellation ``kahu'' best describes Brother Abe. He was also a beloved husband and wonderful father to his five children, aided in his ministry by his wife Mary Lou Jeffrey Akaka. He was a source of comfort and inspiration, a bulwark of strength, and font of love for our family, and will be sorely missed. Mr. President, I ask that a tribute I offered at my brother's memorial service at Kawaiahoa Church be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair very much. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year marked the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment dedicated to the ``increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'' Since its founding, the Smithsonian has promoted excellence in research and public education in all fields of human and scientific interest. To continue this great tradition of excellence, and to ensure its relevance to its patrons and beneficiaries, the American people, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Senator Patty Murray, to establish a new Smithsonian entity, the National Museum for the Peopling of America. The Peopling of America Museum would be dedicated to presenting one of the most significant experiences in American history, the complex movement of people, ideas, and cultures across boundaries--both internal or external--that resulted in the peopling of the Nation and the development of our unique, pluralist society. This movement transformed us from strangers from different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. Under our bill, the Museum would have a number of different functions. These include serving as: A location for exhibits and programs depicting the history of America's diverse peoples and their interactions with each other. The exhibits would collectively form a unified narrative of the historical processes by which the United States was developed; A center for research and scholarship to ensure that future generations of scholars will have access to resources necessary for telling the story of American pluralism; A repository for the collection of relevant artifacts, artworks, and documents to be preserved, studied, and interpreted; A venue for integrated public education programs, including lectures, films, and seminars, based on the Center's collections and research; and A location for a standardized index of resources within the Smithsonian dealing with the heritages of all Americans. The Smithsonian's holdings contain millions of artifacts which have not been identified or classified for this purpose. A clearinghouse for information on ethnic documents, artifacts, and artworks that may be available through non-Smithsonian sources, such as other federal agencies, museums, academic institutions, individuals, or foreign entities. A folklife center highlighting the cultural expressions of the peoples of the United States. The existing Smithsonian Center for Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies, which already performs this function, could be integrated with the museum. A center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. The Museum would facilitate programs designed to encourage greater understanding of, and respect for, each of America's diverse ethnic and cultural heritages. The Museum would also disseminate techniques of conflict resolution currently being developed by social scientists. An oral history center developed through interviews with volunteers and visitors. The museum would also serve as an oral history repository and a clearinghouse for oral histories held by other institutions. A visitor center providing individually tailored orientation guides to Smithsonian visitors. Visitors could use the museum as an initial orientation phase for ethnically or culturally related artifacts, artworks, or information that can be found in each of the Smithsonian's many facilities. A location for training museum professionals in museum practices relating to the life, history, art, and culture of the peoples of the United States. The museum would sponsor training programs for professionals or students involved in teaching, researching, and interpreting the heritage of America's peoples. A location for testing and evaluating new museum-related technologies that could facilitate the operation of the museum. The facility could serve as a test bed for cutting-edge technologies that could later be used by other private or public museums. Our legislation also stipulates that the museum would be located in new or existing Smithsonian facilities on or near the National Mall. Additionally, the measure establishes an Advisory Committee on American Cultural Heritage to provide guidance on the operation and direction of the proposed museum. Mr. President, aside from the first Americans, whose precedence must be acknowledged, we Americans were travelers from other lands. From the first Europeans who came as explorers and conquerors to the African slaves who endured the middle passage and labored in the fields of our early plantations, from the people of Nuevo Mexico to the French of the Louisiana Territory who became Americans through annexation, from the Irish who fled poverty and famine at home to the Chinese who came in search of Gold Mountain--all were once visitors to this great country. America is defined by the grand, entangled progress of its individual peoples to and across the American landscape--through exploration, the slave trade, immigration, or internal migration--that gave rise to the rich interactions that make the American experience unique. We embody the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other shores, as well as the new traditions and cultures that we adopted on arrival. Whether we settled in the agrarian West, the industrialized North, the small towns of the Midwest, or the genteel cities of the South, our forebears inevitably formed relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is comprehensible only through the histories of our various constituent cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by encounters with other cultures. As one eminent cultural scholar has noted: How can one learn about slavery, holocausts, immigration, ecological adaptation or ways of seeing the world without some type of comparative perspective, without some type of relationship between cultures and peoples. How can we understand the history of any one cultural group--for example, the Irish--without reference to other groups--for example, the British. How can we understand African American culture without placing it in some relationship to its diverse African cultural roots, the creolized cultures of the Caribbean, the Native American bases of Maroon and Black Seminole cultures, the religious, economic and linguistic cultures of the colonial Spanish in Columbia, the French in Haiti, the Dutch in Suriname, and the English in the United States? Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Smithsonian, perhaps our most prestigious educational institution, has never attempted to explore this comparative perspective of how our Nation came to be peopled. For whatever reason, the institution has failed to examine the college of relationships that shaped the values, attitudes, and behaviors of our various constituencies. Aside from occasional, temporary exhibits on a specific immigration or migration topic, such as the Museum of American History's recent exhibit on the northern migration of African- Americans, none of the Smithsonian's many museums and facilities has tasked itself to examine any aspect of this phenomenon, the peopling of America experience, much less offered a global review of the subject. This shortcoming derives, in part, from the fact that the Smithsonian, for all its reputation as a world-class research and educational organization, remains an institution rooted in 19th century intellectual taxonomy. For example, during the early years of the Smithsonian, the cultures of Northern and Western European Americans were originally represented at the Museum of Science and Industry, which eventually became the Museum of American History. However, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and others were treated ethnographically as part of the Museum of Natural History. This artificial bifurcation of our cultural patrimonies is still in place today. Consequently, the collections of various ethnic and cultural groups have been fragmented among various Smithsonian entities, making it difficult to view these groups in relation to each other or as part of a larger whole. The establishment of the Peopling of America Museum would address this glaring deficiency. The museum would instantly create a national venue where all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin, could visit in order to discover and celebrate their diverse historical roots. More important, the museum would facilitate an exploration of our commonalities, the historical and cultural experiences that created the unique American identity and sensibility. Mr. President, in May 1995, the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, a blue ribbon panel charged with pondering the future of the 150-year-old institution, issued its final report. In its preface, the Commission noted: The Smithsonian Institution is the principal repository of the nation's collective memory and the nation's largest public cultural space. It is dedicated to preserving, understanding, and displaying the land we inhabit and the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color. It holds in common for all Americans that set of beliefs--in the form of artifacts--about our past that, taken together, comprise our collective history and symbolize the ideals to which we aspire as a polity. The Smithsonian--with its 140 million objects, 16 museums and galleries, the national Zoo, and 29 million annual visits-- has been, for a century and a half, a place of wonder, a magical place where Americans are reminded of how much we have in common. The story of America is the story of a plural nation. As epitomized by our nation's motto, America is a composite of peoples. Our vast country was inhabited by various cultures long before the Pilgrims arrived. Slaves and immigrants built a new nation from ``sea to shining sea,'' across mountains, plains, deserts and great rivers, all rich in diverse climates, animals, and plants. One of the Smithsonian's essential tasks is to make the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children. We cannot even imagine an ``American'' culture that is not multiple in its roots and in its branches. In a world fissured by differences of ethnicity and religion, we must all learn to live without the age-old dream of purity-- whether of bloodlines or cultural inheritance--and learn to find comfort, solace, and even fulfillment in the rough magic of the cultural mix. And it is the challenge to preserve and embody that marvelous mix--the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it-- that the Smithsonian Institution, on the eve of the twenty- first century, must rededicate itself. Mr. President, what more compelling argument in favor of the Peopling of America Museum can be found than in these words? What initiative other than the Peopling of America Museum would more directly address the Smithsonian's role in presenting the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color, or making the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children, or preserving the multivarious mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it? In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that this initiative will foster a much-needed understanding of our diversity, of the rich cultural and historical differences that constitute our uniqueness as individuals. Conversely, and more important, I believe that the Peopling of America Museum will promote an appreciation of the common values, relationships, and experiences that bind our citizens together. A museum dedicated to the celebration of our unity in diversity will sustain and invigorate our sense of national purpose; surely this is a mission worthy of the Smithsonian to undertake. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that this legislation will initiate a national dialog about the central role that the Smithsonian should play in preserving, researching, and exhibiting America's cultural and historical patrimony. I look forward to beginning this conversation with my colleagues, the academic community, and the interested public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year marked the 150th anniversary of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment dedicated to the ``increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'' Since its founding, the Smithsonian has promoted excellence in research and public education in all fields of human and scientific interest. To continue this great tradition of excellence, and to ensure its relevance to its patrons and beneficiaries, the American people, today I am introducing legislation, cosponsored by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Senator Patty Murray, to establish a new Smithsonian entity, the National Museum for the Peopling of America. The Peopling of America Museum would be dedicated to presenting one of the most significant experiences in American history, the complex movement of people, ideas, and cultures across boundaries--both internal or external--that resulted in the peopling of the Nation and the development of our unique, pluralist society. This movement transformed us from strangers from different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. Under our bill, the Museum would have a number of different functions. These include serving as: A location for exhibits and programs depicting the history of America's diverse peoples and their interactions with each other. The exhibits would collectively form a unified narrative of the historical processes by which the United States was developed; A center for research and scholarship to ensure that future generations of scholars will have access to resources necessary for telling the story of American pluralism; A repository for the collection of relevant artifacts, artworks, and documents to be preserved, studied, and interpreted; A venue for integrated public education programs, including lectures, films, and seminars, based on the Center's collections and research; and A location for a standardized index of resources within the Smithsonian dealing with the heritages of all Americans. The Smithsonian's holdings contain millions of artifacts which have not been identified or classified for this purpose. A clearinghouse for information on ethnic documents, artifacts, and artworks that may be available through non-Smithsonian sources, such as other federal agencies, museums, academic institutions, individuals, or foreign entities. A folklife center highlighting the cultural expressions of the peoples of the United States. The existing Smithsonian Center for Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies, which already performs this function, could be integrated with the museum. A center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. The Museum would facilitate programs designed to encourage greater understanding of, and respect for, each of America's diverse ethnic and cultural heritages. The Museum would also disseminate techniques of conflict resolution currently being developed by social scientists. An oral history center developed through interviews with volunteers and visitors. The museum would also serve as an oral history repository and a clearinghouse for oral histories held by other institutions. A visitor center providing individually tailored orientation guides to Smithsonian visitors. Visitors could use the museum as an initial orientation phase for ethnically or culturally related artifacts, artworks, or information that can be found in each of the Smithsonian's many facilities. A location for training museum professionals in museum practices relating to the life, history, art, and culture of the peoples of the United States. The museum would sponsor training programs for professionals or students involved in teaching, researching, and interpreting the heritage of America's peoples. A location for testing and evaluating new museum-related technologies that could facilitate the operation of the museum. The facility could serve as a test bed for cutting-edge technologies that could later be used by other private or public museums. Our legislation also stipulates that the museum would be located in new or existing Smithsonian facilities on or near the National Mall. Additionally, the measure establishes an Advisory Committee on American Cultural Heritage to provide guidance on the operation and direction of the proposed museum. Mr. President, aside from the first Americans, whose precedence must be acknowledged, we Americans were travelers from other lands. From the first Europeans who came as explorers and conquerors to the African slaves who endured the middle passage and labored in the fields of our early plantations, from the people of Nuevo Mexico to the French of the Louisiana Territory who became Americans through annexation, from the Irish who fled poverty and famine at home to the Chinese who came in search of Gold Mountain--all were once visitors to this great country. America is defined by the grand, entangled progress of its individual peoples to and across the American landscape--through exploration, the slave trade, immigration, or internal migration--that gave rise to the rich interactions that make the American experience unique. We embody the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other shores, as well as the new traditions and cultures that we adopted on arrival. Whether we settled in the agrarian West, the industrialized North, the small towns of the Midwest, or the genteel cities of the South, our forebears inevitably formed relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. Our rich heritage as Americans is comprehensible only through the histories of our various constituent cultures, carried with us from other lands and transformed by encounters with other cultures. As one eminent cultural scholar has noted: How can one learn about slavery, holocausts, immigration, ecological adaptation or ways of seeing the world without some type of comparative perspective, without some type of relationship between cultures and peoples. How can we understand the history of any one cultural group--for example, the Irish--without reference to other groups--for example, the British. How can we understand African American culture without placing it in some relationship to its diverse African cultural roots, the creolized cultures of the Caribbean, the Native American bases of Maroon and Black Seminole cultures, the religious, economic and linguistic cultures of the colonial Spanish in Columbia, the French in Haiti, the Dutch in Suriname, and the English in the United States? Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Smithsonian, perhaps our most prestigious educational institution, has never attempted to explore this comparative perspective of how our Nation came to be peopled. For whatever reason, the institution has failed to examine the college of relationships that shaped the values, attitudes, and behaviors of our various constituencies. Aside from occasional, temporary exhibits on a specific immigration or migration topic, such as the Museum of American History's recent exhibit on the northern migration of African- Americans, none of the Smithsonian's many museums and facilities has tasked itself to examine any aspect of this phenomenon, the peopling of America experience, much less offered a global review of the subject. This shortcoming derives, in part, from the fact that the Smithsonian, for all its reputation as a world-class research and educational organization, remains an institution rooted in 19th century intellectual taxonomy. For example, during the early years of the Smithsonian, the cultures of Northern and Western European Americans were originally represented at the Museum of Science and Industry, which eventually became the Museum of American History. However, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and others were treated ethnographically as part of the Museum of Natural History. This artificial bifurcation of our cultural patrimonies is still in place today. Consequently, the collections of various ethnic and cultural groups have been fragmented among various Smithsonian entities, making it difficult to view these groups in relation to each other or as part of a larger whole. The establishment of the Peopling of America Museum would address this glaring deficiency. The museum would instantly create a national venue where all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin, could visit in order to discover and celebrate their diverse historical roots. More important, the museum would facilitate an exploration of our commonalities, the historical and cultural experiences that created the unique American identity and sensibility. Mr. President, in May 1995, the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, a blue ribbon panel charged with pondering the future of the 150-year-old institution, issued its final report. In its preface, the Commission noted: The Smithsonian Institution is the principal repository of the nation's collective memory and the nation's largest public cultural space. It is dedicated to preserving, understanding, and displaying the land we inhabit and the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color. It holds in common for all Americans that set of beliefs--in the form of artifacts--about our past that, taken together, comprise our collective history and symbolize the ideals to which we aspire as a polity. The Smithsonian--with its 140 million objects, 16 museums and galleries, the national Zoo, and 29 million annual visits-- has been, for a century and a half, a place of wonder, a magical place where Americans are reminded of how much we have in common. The story of America is the story of a plural nation. As epitomized by our nation's motto, America is a composite of peoples. Our vast country was inhabited by various cultures long before the Pilgrims arrived. Slaves and immigrants built a new nation from ``sea to shining sea,'' across mountains, plains, deserts and great rivers, all rich in diverse climates, animals, and plants. One of the Smithsonian's essential tasks is to make the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children. We cannot even imagine an ``American'' culture that is not multiple in its roots and in its branches. In a world fissured by differences of ethnicity and religion, we must all learn to live without the age-old dream of purity-- whether of bloodlines or cultural inheritance--and learn to find comfort, solace, and even fulfillment in the rough magic of the cultural mix. And it is the challenge to preserve and embody that marvelous mix--the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it-- that the Smithsonian Institution, on the eve of the twenty- first century, must rededicate itself. Mr. President, what more compelling argument in favor of the Peopling of America Museum can be found than in these words? What initiative other than the Peopling of America Museum would more directly address the Smithsonian's role in presenting the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color, or making the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children, or preserving the multivarious mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it? In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that this initiative will foster a much-needed understanding of our diversity, of the rich cultural and historical differences that constitute our uniqueness as individuals. Conversely, and more important, I believe that the Peopling of America Museum will promote an appreciation of the common values, relationships, and experiences that bind our citizens together. A museum dedicated to the celebration of our unity in diversity will sustain and invigorate our sense of national purpose; surely this is a mission worthy of the Smithsonian to undertake. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that this legislation will initiate a national dialog about the central role that the Smithsonian should play in preserving, researching, and exhibiting America's cultural and historical patrimony. I look forward to beginning this conversation with my colleagues, the academic community, and the interested public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today at noon, we have another opportunity to invoke cloture on S. 25, the McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which I support. I am sorely disappointed that yesterday, the Republican majority once again successfully blocked going to the bill. After yesterday's two votes, the majority leader said that campaign reformers should just give up--that the bill's chances for enactment in this session of the 105th Congress were dead. I do not believe that the American people should be denied the benefit of campaign finance reform that would, in my opinion, level the playing field so that running for Federal office would not be so strongly influenced by money. It is amazing to me that after several months of public hearings by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that anyone doubts the critical need to rewrite our campaign funding laws. Throughout the course of the hearings we have witnessed example after example of the misuse of our campaign finance laws. And yet there remains a real crisis in the Senate over our inability to enact any campaign finance reform legislation. Moreover, this wholesale disdain for ending the money chase through substantive finance reform fuels the distrust held by the American public of Congress and their belief that Congress does not wish to clean up its own house. Our committee has examined allegations of foreign money influencing Federal campaigns, the use of Federal facilities to raise funds, contributors donating in another's name, and access to Congress and the White House linked to campaign donations. Like my colleagues, I support prosecution by the Department of Justice of these allegations if it is appropriate. We have also had an opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on how they would reform the funding of elections. Mr. President, we can no longer allow the mad hunt for money to drive our elections. Nor can we ignore the dramatic increases in soft money donations, the problems associated with unregulated independent expenditures and issue advocacy, and the improper use of tax-exempt organizations. And yet, despite the tremendous explosion in campaign expenditures and the dismay over the political system expressed by the voters, there remains steadfast opposition to reforming our Nation's campaign finance laws, as evidenced by yesterday's votes. I was hopeful, although perhaps too optimistic, to believe that S. 25, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill would be embraced by most Members of the Senate. I was wrong. With less than 50 percent of voting age Americans going to the polls in the last election, so much is at stake. The public's deep distrust of this Nation's elected officials by the voters will continue if the only thing that comes from the Senate's investigation into campaign finance abuse allegations and the abbreviated debate on S. 25 is political rhetoric and finger-pointing. The Republican majority has seen fit to stifle the efforts of those Senators who support reforming the Nation's campaign finance laws. The only hope I see in passing such reform at a future date lies with the American voter. It will be up to the people of this great democracy to demand that their Senators support campaign finance reform. There will be no campaign finance reform until there is a nationwide movement to stop the campaign finance abuses uncovered by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. S. 25, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997, was modified in good faith, in an attempt to craft a bill more acceptable to the opposition. Unfortunately, it did not pass muster with those opposing it. In spite of yesterday's defeats, we have another chance to proceed to S. 25 by invoking cloture today. Americans deserve a Government that works hard for their interests and not just the interests of monied contributors. Our citizens deserve a more responsive, efficient, accountable and representative Government.

Mr AKAKA

Mr AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murkowski in introducing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act, legislation to curb trade, immigration, wage, and apparel labeling abuses in the CNMI. On July 31, 1997, I introduced S. 1100, the CNMI Reform Act, S. 1100 extends the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Commonwealth, limits use of the ``Made in USA'' label, and applies the U.S. minimum wage to the CNMI. The measure we are introducing today is similar to S. 1100, but also imposes duties on CNMI garments unless garment companies employ a sufficient number of U.S. employees and establishes a comprehensive regime for CNMI immigration and naturalization. This is a bipartisan bill, drafted by the Clinton administration at the request of the Republican chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. It contains more comprehensive reforms than the measure I introduced earlier this year. Under the Murkowski-Akaka bill, the CNMI garment industry will face severe restrictions because of continued abuses. After a thorough analysis, the Commerce Department recently concluded that the Commonwealth is an ``outpost for Chinese apparel production.'' The Commerce Department found that apparel manufacturers from the People's Republic of China have transplanted their operations to the CNMI, employing bonded and indentured Chinese leaders to sew Chinese fabric into garments labeled ``Made in USA.'' By using the Commonwealth as an apparel manufacturing base, Chinese manufacturers avoid tariffs and escape United States quotas on finished goods. Despite promises of the American dream if they work in the CNMI, laborers must sign contracts with the People's Republic of China that waive rights guaranteed to U.S. workers, forbid participation in religious and political activities while in the United States, prohibit workers from marrying, and subject employees to penalties in the PRC. Working conditions in the CNMI garment industry hardly justify granting ``Made in USA'' status and preferential duties to CNMI garments. A recent investigative report by King World Productions-``Inside Edition'' is evidence of the abuses which garment workers suffer. ``Inside Edition'' used hidden cameras to expose the overcrowded and squalid buildings workers are forced to live in. Employees described being confined to barracks ringed by barbed wire and being treated more like prisoners than employees. immigration concerns I am sure many Senators will find it hard to believe that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not apply to all territories in the United States. As surprising as it may be, the CNMI is exempt from U.S. immigration law and maintains its own policy on immigration. After 20 years, CNMI immigration policy is a proven failure. In 1980, the Commonwealth's population was 16,780. Of these, 12 percent were alien residents. Today, CNMI's has a population of 59,000, more than half of whom are aliens. Rather than preventing an influx of immigrants, the CNMI has established an aggressive policy of recruiting low-wage, foreign guest workers to operate an ever-expanding garment and tourism industry. According to the CNMI representative in Washington, local immigration policy has ``no limit. It is wide open, unrestricted.'' The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that CNMI authorities have no reliable records of aliens who have entered the CNMI, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. Ninety-one percent of the private sector work force are alien guest workers, and these workers have overwhelmed the CNMI to the point where the unemployment rate among U.S. citizens living in the Commonwealth is 14 percent. There is no justification for an immigration policy that admits foreign workers in such overwhelming numbers that it leads to double-digit unemployment. Given these circumstances, the application of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI is long overdue. ``made in usa'' abuse The evidence that garments sewn in the CNMI directly and unfairly compete with U.S. apparel manufacturers is very strong. According to the Commerce Department, 85 percent of CNMI apparel is classified as import sensitive. This classification means that CNMI garments compete with segments of the U.S. apparel industry that are experiencing significant decline due to heavy import penetration. Apparel manufacturers in the CNMI enjoy benefits that far exceed those enjoyed by foreign or domestic manufacturers. CNMI garment factories are not subject to the U.S. minimum wage and pay no duty on fabrics they import. Furthermore, quotas do not apply to either fabric imported into the Commonwealth, or to finished garments cut and sewn in the CNMI using foreign labor. Yet these products are labeled ``Made in the USA'' and compete unfairly with apparel employment elsewhere in the United States. labor abuse The 1976 covenant exempts the CNMI from the Federal minimum wage. This exemption was granted with the understanding that as its economy grew and prospered, the CNMI would raise its minimum wage to the Federal level. Foreign workers typically enter the CNMI under 1-year work permits and are paid a minimum wage of $3.05. According to the July 1997 report by the Department of the Interior, the lower minimum wage, combined with unlimited access to foreign labor, creates an incentive for employers to hire foreign labor for all jobs, including skilled and entry level jobs at or near the minimum wage. Employment statistics clearly supports the Interior Department's analysis. The minimum wage is sometimes a lightning-rod for Republicans. However, in a labor market where there is an unlimited supply of guest workers, the low CNMI minimum wage means that low-wage alien laborers are displacing U.S. workers. Any policy that favors foreign workers over the interests of employed and unemployed U.S. citizens is indefensible. human rights and sexual abuse The Commonwealth's immigration policy results in serious problems in other areas. The Justice Department has documented numerous cases of women and girls being recruited from the Philippines, China, and other Asian countries expressly for criminal sexual activity. These abuses are a direct consequence the Commonwealth's unrestricted immigration policy. Typically, these women are told they will work in the CNMI as waitresses, but are forced into nude dancing and prostitution upon their arrival. The Justice Department described this situation as the ``systematic trafficking of women and minors for prostitution,'' which may also involve illegal smuggling, organized crime, immigration document fraud, and pornography. Cases of sexual servitude have also been identified. The U.S. Justice Department also found cases of female guest workers and aliens living in the CNMI being forced into prostitution through intimidation or threats of physical harm. In some instances, women who resist are kidnapped, raped, and tortured. I thank Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for his efforts to reform these abuses in the CNMI. I look toward to working with him on moving this bill through our committee so that it can be considered on the Senate floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be granted leave of the Senate, pursuant to Rule 6, paragraph 2, to be absent from the Senate proceedings as of noon Thursday, September 18 through Monday, September 22nd.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, when the Senate turns to S. 830, the FDA reform bill, I yield my 1 hour for debate under the cloture rules to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I was absent on the recent vote on the motion to table the Sessions amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted aye to table the Sessions second-degree amendment No. 1125. My vote would not have changed the outcome of the vote. This morning I was issued a new legislative pager to announce rollcall votes. Unfortunately, the pager was not properly programmed and did not function when the vote was called. I thank the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Reform Act, a bipartisan initiative to curb immigration, wage, and apparel labeling abuses in the CNMI. Senators Collins, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Landrieu, Bumpers, Ford, Bingaman, and Hollings are cosponsors of this legislation. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is located 3,900 miles west of Hawaii. Following World War II, the United States administered the islands under a U.N. Trusteeship. In 1975, the people of the CNMI voted for political union with the United States. Today the CNMI is a U.S. territory. A 1976 covenant enacted by Congress gave U.S. citizenship to residents of the CNMI. The covenant exempted the Commonwealth from U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws, however. This omission has led to a number of abuses in the CNMI that my bill would rectify. immigration abuse in the cnmi I am sure many Senators will find it hard to believe that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not apply to all territories in the U.S. As surprising as it may be, the CNMI is exempt from U.S. immigration law. Let me explain the origins of this unique situation. At the time that the covenant establishing the CNMI was negotiated, the Northern Marianas leadership expressed concern that immigrants from neighboring Asian countries might settle in the CNMI and thereby alter the Commonwealth's culture. The island government requested that it be given exclusive authority over immigration so that it could limit the entry of aliens and preserve local culture and customs. Congress agreed to the request, but specifically reserved the right to extend Federal immigration law to the CNMI if the situation warranted. After 20 years, CNMI immigration policy is a proven failure. In 1980, the Commonwealth's population was 16,780. Of these, 12 percent were alien residents. Today, CNMI's population is 59,000, more than half of whom are aliens. Rather than preventing an influx of immigrants, the CNMI has established an aggressive policy of recruiting low-wage, foreign guest workers to operate an ever-expanding garment and tourism industry. According to the CNMI representative in Washington, local immigration policy has ``no limit. It is wide open, unrestricted.'' The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that CNMI authorities have no reliable records of aliens who have entered the CNMI, how long they remain, and when, if ever, they depart. Ninety-one percent of the private sector work force are alien guest workers. These workers have overwhelmed the CNMI, driving up unemployment in the Commonwealth to 14 percent. There is no justification for an immigration policy that admits foreign workers in such overwhelming numbers that it leads to double-digit unemployment. The application of U.S. immigration law to the CNMI is long overdue. The CNMI has exploited its immigration exemption to the point where alien workers constitute a majority of the CNMI population. The Commonwealth's exemption from the Immigration and Nationality Act has been so abused that protecting the island culture ceases to be an issue. Despite a 3-year effort by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Labor, and Interior, and an appropriation of $10 million by Congress, there had been little or no improvement in CNMI immigration policy. In fact, the Commonwealth's immigration policy has grown worse. Between January 1995 and May 1996, 23 new garment companies received operating licenses, prompting the CNMI Government to enact legislation to double the number of foreign workers permitted in the island's garment industry. ``made in usa'' abuse The U.S. apparel industry would be shocked to learn that in 1996, $555 million of textile products labeled ``Made in USA'' were cut and sewn in the CNMI by workers who enjoy none of the protections typically associated with the ``Made in USA'' label. Even more frightening is the fact that the CNMI textile industry is growing at a rate of 30 percent annually. Textile manufacturers across the United States who pay their employees the Federal minimum wage are undercut by CNMI competitors who label their garments ``Made in USA'' but employ foreign laborers to sew foreign fabric, pay them $3.05 an hour and subject them to feudal working conditions. The evidence that garments sewn in the CNMI directly and unfairly compete with U.S. apparel manufacturers is very strong. According to the Commerce Department, 85 percent of CNMI apparel is classified as import sensitive. This classification means that the CNMI garments compete with segments of the U.S. apparel industry that are experiencing significant decline due to heavy import penetration. Apparel manufacturers in the CNMI enjoy benefits that far exceed those enjoyed by foreign or domestic manufacturers. CNMI garment factories are not subject to the U.S. minimum wage and pay no duty on fabrics they import. Furthermore, quotas do not apply to either fabric imported into the Commonwealth, or to finished garments cut and sewn in the CNMI using foreign labor. Yet these products are labeled ``Made in the USA'' and compete unfairly with apparel employment elsewhere in the United States. The July 1997 report on labor, immigration, and law enforcement in the CNMI confirms my analysis of the Commonwealth's garment industry. Page 13 of the report contains the following finding: The duty and quota-free preferences afforded to products of the CNMI, coupled with local control of immigration and minimum wage, have led to a rapidly growing garment manufacturing industry. Apparel manufacturers operating in the CNMI, who mainly employ workers from the People's Republic of China, label their products ``Made in the USA,'' and use Chinese fabric not subject to United States duty or quota. By using the CNMI as an apparel manufacturing base, these manufacturers avoid duties and are not subject to United States quotas on finished products. These imports adversely affect the United States apparel industry's employment and profits. In some cases, these garment factories are transplanted to the CNMI from the People's Republic of China. They are owned or managed by Chinese nationals, and staffed by bonded and indentured Chinese laborers. Despite promises of the American dream if they work in the CNMI, laborers must sign contracts with government officials in the People's Republic of China that waive rights guaranteed to U.S. workers, forbid participation in religious and political activities while in the U.S., prohibit workers from marrying, and subject employees to penalties in China for violations of their labor contracts. In factories with close ties to China, compliance with labor contracts is directly monitored by representatives of the Chinese government. These working conditions hardly justify granting ``Made in the USA'' status to CNMI garments. cnmi denies employment opportunities to u.s. workers The 1976 covenant exempts the CNMI from the Federal minimum wage. This exemption was granted with the understanding that as its economy grew and prospered, the CNMI would raise its minimum wage to the Federal level. Foreign workers typically enter the CNMI under 1-year work permits and are paid a minimum of wage of $3.05. According to the July 1997 report by the Department of the Interior, the lower minimum wage, combined with unlimited access to foreign labor, creates an incentive for employers to hire foreign labor for all jobs, including skilled and entry level jobs at or near the minimum wage. Employment statistics clearly support the Interior Department analysis. Ninety-one percent of the private sector work force are alien guest workers. U.S. citizens who can find work, and there are many who cannot, are typically employed by the government in jobs that pay more than the minimum wage. Due to its irresponsible immigration policy, foreign workers have overwhelmed the CNMI to the point where unemployment among U.S. citizens living in the Commonwealth is 14 percent. The CNMI preference for foreign laborers deprives U.S. citizens of private sector opportunities and leaves them with the limited options of government work, unemployment and welfare, or relocation to Guam or the mainland. The minimum wage is sometimes a lightning-rod issue for Republicans. However, in a labor market where there is an unlimited supply of guest workers, the low CNMI minimum wage means that low-wage alien laborers are displacing U.S. workers. Any policy that favors foreign workers over the interests of employed and unemployed U.S. citizens is indefensible. labor abuse in the cnmi CNMI immigration and wage abuses have caused a number of collateral problems. Pervasive labor abuses in the Commonwealth have provoked international outrage. In 1995, the Philippine government imposed a moratorium on immigration of Filipino workers in the CNMI. The Philippine Government's extraordinary action to protect its citizens from employment in the CNMI was the first such decision by a foreign government in U.S. history. Although the Philippine Government has since lifted the moratorium, recurring abuses prompted Philippine officials to announce that the moratorium may soon be reimposed. While the U.S. minimum wage does not apply, CNMI must adhere to all other Federal labor laws. The U.S. Department of Labor has uncovered a systematic pattern of labor abuses in the CNMI. These abuses are a direct consequence of the Commonwealth's unrestricted immigration policy. Examples include involuntary servitude and peonage, illegal withholding of wages, nonpayment of overtime wages, illegal deductions from paychecks to cover employer expenses, kickbacks of wages to employers, and employee lock-downs in work sites and living barracks. human rights and sexual abuse The Commonwealth's immigration policy results in serious problems in other areas. The Justice Department has documented numerous cases of women and girls being recruited from the Philippines, China, and other Asian countries expressly for criminal sexual activity. These abuses are a direct consequence of the Commonwealth's unrestricted immigration policy. Typically, these women are told they will work in the CNMI as waitresses, but are forced into nude dancing and prostitution upon their arrival. The Justice Department described this situation as the ``systematic trafficking of women and minors for prostitution,'' which may also involve illegal smuggling, organized crime, immigration document fraud, and pornography. Cases of sexual servitude have also been identified. The U.S. Justice Department also found cases of female guest workers and aliens living in the CNMI being forced into prostitution through intimidation or threats of physical harm. In some instances, women who resist are kidnapped, raped, and tortured. To correct these abuses in the CNMI, my bill makes three changes in Federal law. First, it extends the Immigration and Nationality Act to the Commonwealth so that the CNMI will end its dependence on foreign labor. Second, it would limit use of the ``Made in USA'' label to apparel manufactured with a minimum percentage of U.S. citizen labor. In 1999, the minimum percentage of U.S. citizen labor must be 20 percent. In 2000, the minimum percentage must be 35 percent and thereafter the minimum percentage rises to 50 percent. Finally, my bill would make the U.S. minimum wage applicable to the CNMI so that the CNMI garment industry competes fairly with industry on the U.S. mainland. Despite efforts to portray itself as an economic miracle, there is a dark side to the CNMI economy. Citizens and foreign laborers pay a very high price for the Commonwealth's economic success, and enjoy few benefits of that success. The time for patience has ended. The time has come to force changes that the Commonwealth has been unwilling to enact. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the following additional documents be printed in the Record: the executive summary of the Clinton administration's July 1997 report on labor, immigration, and law enforcement in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Library of Congress translation of a Chinese shadow contract, the memo from the State Department confirming that an agency of the Chinese Government is a party to the shadow contract, and a June 20, 1997, Washington Times article and a June 6, 1997, Honolulu Star-Bulletin article on the CNMI.