Daniel Akaka

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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I echo the sentiments of my colleague from Alaska. The aviation provisions in this tax bill are unfair to residents of and visitors to Hawaii and Alaska and will have a disproportionate impact on carriers that serve our States. The bill fails to recognize that the 49th and 50th States are fundamentally different from the rest of the Union in our heavy reliance on air transportation. As the only noncontiguous States, Hawaii and Alaska are, for all practicable purposes, accessible from the continental United States only by air. Furthermore, for different reasons, travel within Hawaii and Alaska is feasible only by commuter airline. In effect, Alaska's and Hawaii's air routes serve the same purpose as other States' highway systems. The pending measure would abrogate a long history of congressional support for our States' special aviation needs--needs which are embodied in current law--by imposing a per segment charge on flights to, from, and within Hawaii and Alaska. This new tax discriminates against the low-fare, short-haul carriers that serve the people of our States as well as the larger carriers that maintain our communications links with other States. Carriers that serve Hawaii can ill afford this additional tax burden; the impact is especially heavy on our local commuter airlines. The taxes of Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines alone will rise by as much as $7.5 million and $6 million, respectively, in the next year as a result of the new segment fee. Mr. President, I appreciate the conferees' desire to make excise taxes reflect usage of the air traffic system. But I do not believe that the conferees fully understood the implications of the segment tax with respect to states whose residents and visitors are wholly reliant on air service for intrastate and interstate travel. This is clearly an issue that deserves further study. Certainly this is an appropriate topic of review for the Mineta Airline Commission. Should the tax bill pass, I hope that Members of this body would agree to revisit this issue at the earliest opportunity. In any case, I will join Senator Murkowski and my other colleagues from Hawaii and Alaska in supporting legislation to restore the current tax treatment of our two States.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act. Senators Craig, Leahy, and Daschle have joined me in introducing the bill. This legislation is not merely a reauthorization of an expiring law. It will help establish a coordinated national aquaculture policy. It will stimulate the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture. The ever-growing demand for fish and fish products is a driving force behind the decline of our fisheries. Aquaculture can help satisfy demand for fishery products and, at the same time, reduce pressure on wild stocks. The bill will also provide a framework for sustainable aquaculture development by encouraging best management practices for aquaculture at the State level. The National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act addresses the most pressing needs of aquaculture farmers, such as research, aquacultural credit, and production and market data. For too long aquaculture farmers have suffered from the absence of a consistent and unified Federal policy to aid the development of aquaculture. My bill promotes policies to allow our country to become more competitive in the expanding global market for aquaculture products. The world market for aquaculture is vast, and the United States has the potential to lead future aquaculture production and technology. Efforts to expand the U.S. aquaculture industry will not go unrewarded. The United States imports 60 percent of its seafood, which results in a $3.5 billion annual trade deficit for fish products. Reducing our seafood trade deficit by one-third through expanded aquaculture production would create 25,000 new jobs. World production of aquaculture in 1995 was 21,300,000 metric tons. The U.S. contributed less than 3 percent to world output, however. With global seafood demand projected to increase 70 percent by 2025, and harvests from capture fisheries stable or declining, aquaculture production will have to increase by 700 percent, a total of 77 million metric tons annually, to meet future demand. The important question is whether U.S. aquaculture will share in this explosive growth. This bill is about creating jobs, expanding food production, and achieving sustainable aquaculture development. America has outstanding institutions for conducting aquaculture research. A coordinated effort, with appropriate Federal support, can advance aquaculture development and promote significant economic growth. Aquaculture has an important advantage because it can be conducted successfully on lands that are marginal for other forms of agriculture. Aquaculture is a diverse industry that affects all regions of the country. More than 30 States produce at least two dozen commercially important aquaculture species. Yet the United States ranks 9th among nations in the value of its production. China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Norway, Thailand, and Korea all enjoy a larger share of the global aquaculture market. In addressing the problem of our balance of trade, aquaculture can be part of the solution. Nowhere is the opportunity for aquaculture more promising than in Hawaii. We have a skilled labor force, access to Asian and North American markets, a climate that allows harvesting throughout the year, and a 1500-year tradition of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture supports more jobs per acre than other forms of agriculture, so it can strengthen our employment base at a time when other areas of Hawaiian agriculture are declining. Our tradition of aquaculture that operates in harmony with the environment will help assure that its growth and development is sustainable. However, the legislation I have introduced today was not designed merely to promote aquaculture in Hawaii. The bill was drafted with one basic principle in mind: to assist all segments of the aquaculture industry equally. It would be wrong to promote one segment of the industry, whether it is marine or freshwater aquaculture, or a particular species of fish or shellfish, over another. The United States can be a world leader in aquaculture in the same way that it leads in agriculture. This bill is an important step in achieving that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act. Senators Craig, Leahy, and Daschle have joined me in introducing the bill. This legislation is not merely a reauthorization of an expiring law. It will help establish a coordinated national aquaculture policy. It will stimulate the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture. The ever-growing demand for fish and fish products is a driving force behind the decline of our fisheries. Aquaculture can help satisfy demand for fishery products and, at the same time, reduce pressure on wild stocks. The bill will also provide a framework for sustainable aquaculture development by encouraging best management practices for aquaculture at the State level. The National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act addresses the most pressing needs of aquaculture farmers, such as research, aquacultural credit, and production and market data. For too long aquaculture farmers have suffered from the absence of a consistent and unified Federal policy to aid the development of aquaculture. My bill promotes policies to allow our country to become more competitive in the expanding global market for aquaculture products. The world market for aquaculture is vast, and the United States has the potential to lead future aquaculture production and technology. Efforts to expand the U.S. aquaculture industry will not go unrewarded. The United States imports 60 percent of its seafood, which results in a $3.5 billion annual trade deficit for fish products. Reducing our seafood trade deficit by one-third through expanded aquaculture production would create 25,000 new jobs. World production of aquaculture in 1995 was 21,300,000 metric tons. The U.S. contributed less than 3 percent to world output, however. With global seafood demand projected to increase 70 percent by 2025, and harvests from capture fisheries stable or declining, aquaculture production will have to increase by 700 percent, a total of 77 million metric tons annually, to meet future demand. The important question is whether U.S. aquaculture will share in this explosive growth. This bill is about creating jobs, expanding food production, and achieving sustainable aquaculture development. America has outstanding institutions for conducting aquaculture research. A coordinated effort, with appropriate Federal support, can advance aquaculture development and promote significant economic growth. Aquaculture has an important advantage because it can be conducted successfully on lands that are marginal for other forms of agriculture. Aquaculture is a diverse industry that affects all regions of the country. More than 30 States produce at least two dozen commercially important aquaculture species. Yet the United States ranks 9th among nations in the value of its production. China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Norway, Thailand, and Korea all enjoy a larger share of the global aquaculture market. In addressing the problem of our balance of trade, aquaculture can be part of the solution. Nowhere is the opportunity for aquaculture more promising than in Hawaii. We have a skilled labor force, access to Asian and North American markets, a climate that allows harvesting throughout the year, and a 1500-year tradition of aquaculture farming. Aquaculture supports more jobs per acre than other forms of agriculture, so it can strengthen our employment base at a time when other areas of Hawaiian agriculture are declining. Our tradition of aquaculture that operates in harmony with the environment will help assure that its growth and development is sustainable. However, the legislation I have introduced today was not designed merely to promote aquaculture in Hawaii. The bill was drafted with one basic principle in mind: to assist all segments of the aquaculture industry equally. It would be wrong to promote one segment of the industry, whether it is marine or freshwater aquaculture, or a particular species of fish or shellfish, over another. The United States can be a world leader in aquaculture in the same way that it leads in agriculture. This bill is an important step in achieving that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which allows for the expansion of the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, commonly referred to as Punchbowl. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye has joined me as a sponsor of this measure. This is a very simple bill. It authorizes $1.5 million for the construction of an additional columbarium at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. The cemetery is nearing its capacity and is only open to interment of cremains. It is estimated by the year 2002, Punchbowl will no longer be open for any burials. However, while the national cemetery will be closed to burials, Hawaii will begin to experience 5 years of the greatest expected burial needs for our World War II veterans. Currently, 26,000 World War II veterans reside in Hawaii. Based on present columbarium usage at Punchbowl, the Department of Veterans Affairs expects 20 percent of these veterans to chose cremation and inurnment at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. The number of Hawaii veterans wishing to be interred at Punchbowl does not include veterans who reside outside of Hawaii who would like to be buried at this facility. Every year, we have veterans who choose to return to Hawaii to be buried with their comrades. The bill I am introducing today will allow Punchbowl to accommodate 5,000 additional veterans and their spouses. This small expansion will allow our Nation's veterans, particularly those who served their country in World War II, to be buried in National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable request on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Gorton. The ``Mighty Mo'' is a historical icon of World War II in the Pacific. It began its service in World War II by providing gunfire support during the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The U.S.S. Missouri took its place in world history when it became the site for the formal signing of Japan's surrender. Continuing its auspicious beginnings, the Missouri participated in the Korean war, was decommissioned, then recommissioned, and saw its final battles during the Persian Gulf conflict. She was finally decommissioned on March 31, 1992. In January 1995, the Department of the Navy declared Iowa class battleships in excess to its requirements. The people of Hawaii have always believed that the Missouri's home is Hawaii. We supported having her homeported in Hawaii before she was decommissioned in 1992. Since then, our community has been diligently working to bring the Missouri to Hawaii to fulfill its final mission--as a memorial museum in the Pacific. It is a fitting tribute to those we honor at the Arizona Memorial to have the Missouri become a part of our memorial in the Pacific. The Senator from Washington believes that the Navy's evaluation process was unfair because the criteria were changed during the evaluation stage. However, the General Accounting Office found that the Navy provided all applicants the same information on the additional criteria at the same time. Although all interested parties were provided the same information, none of the applicants requested clarification of the additional requirement. The Navy conducted an impartial and fair review in determining the site location for the Missouri. There is no reason to reopen the selection process. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, and let us move forward in establishing a memorial to those who so gallantly fought in the Pacific.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. According to the Energy Committee, in the reconciliation proposal, this was supposed to be for 5 years. The committee is now recommending that it be extended to 10 years. My reason for keeping it at 5 years would be to have the other 5 years to be used for purchasing excess oil, and for that reason I am opposing this. But I am not objecting to it because Chairman Murkowski is supporting this.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, in offering this amendment to restore funding for the East-West Center in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Over the past 37 years, the East-West Center has established its reputation as one of the most respected and authoritative institutions dedicated to the advancement of international cooperation throughout Asia and the Pacific. The Center has played a key role in promoting constructive American involvement in the Asia-Pacific region through its education, dialogue, research, and outreach programs. The Center addresses critical issues of importance to the Asia-Pacific region and U.S. interests in the area, including international trade, economic cooperation and politics, security, energy and natural resources, population, the environment, technology, and culture. The achievements of the East-West Center bear repetition. Since its creation by Congress in 1960, the Center has welcomed more than 53,000 participants from over 60 nations and territories to research, education, and conference programs. Over 45,000 alumni have pursued degrees and participated in research, training, and dialogue under East-West Center grants. Scholars, statesmen, government officials, journalists, teachers, and business executives from the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific have benefited from studies at the Center. These government and private sector leaders comprise an influential network of East-West Center alumni throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The EWC alumni association has 35 chapters throughout Asia. I continually encounter proud Center alumni in meetings with Asian and Pacific island government officials and business leaders. The success of the Center as a forum for the promotion of international cooperation and the strength of the positive personal relationships developed at the Center are reflected in the prestige it enjoys in the region. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, and other American allies in the region--over 20 countries in all--support the Center's programs with contributions. The Center has also received endowments from benefactors in recognition of its contributions and value. Mr. President, the countries of Asia and the Pacific are critically important to the United States and our political and economic interests into the next century. By the year 2000, the Asia-Pacific region will be the world's largest producer and consumer of goods and services. Their markets for energy resources, telecommunications, and air travel are fast becoming the world's largest. Future economic growth and job creation in the United States is closely linked to our ability to identify and secure opportunities in the world's fastest growing economies. The East-West Center provides leadership and advice on economic issues, including APEC [Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation] and the U.S.-Pacific Island Joint Commercial Commission [JCC]. Mr. President, given the strategic and economic importance of the Asia-Pacific region to U.S. interests, and the credibility and trust enjoyed by the East-West Center in the region, I believe it is short- sighted to slash funding for the Center. While issues and developments in Asia are the focus of increased attention, and foreign affairs mandarins speak of the dawn of the Asian century, the United States has closed AID offices in the region and slashed funding for programs and organizations--like the East-West Center. These institutions are valuable to our Nation's understanding of Asia and the Pacific rim and our interaction with regional scholars, executives, and government leaders. Withdrawing our support sends signals to our friends and others in the region that our commitment and engagement are tenuous. For over three decades we have invested in the East-West Center, creating an important resource that promotes regional understanding and cooperation, provides expertise on complex regional issues, and informs our foreign policy decisionmaking. The amendment we offer seeks to ensure the continued existence of the East-West Center and the quality of its programs. If the Congress ends funding for the Center, its viability will be threatened and its future brought into doubt. This amendment authorizes a modest, but essential, level of support for the continued operation of the East-West Center. It communicates the importance our country places on exchange and cooperation with nations of the Asia-Pacific region and the lead role played by the East-West Center in promoting regional interaction and cooperation. Mr. President, I want to conclude by thanking my friend and colleague from Hawaii for his leadership in this effort to preserve the mission and good work of the East-West Center. I also want to express my appreciation to our colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment and expressed support for the East-West Center. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, the State of Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State are deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric projects on State waters. Across the United States, the question of who should have authority for hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very contentious. But in the case of the fresh water streams of Hawaii, the answer is clear. The State of Hawaii, not the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, should have the authority for hydropower regulation in Hawaii, if the Commission finds it has no mandatory jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act. Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that unnecessary Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to protect stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a steam protection and management task force. The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river system of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific locale. The issues of interstate commerce, protecting military ports, or long interstate rivers are not applicable. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to terminate FERC's voluntary jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh waters of the State of Hawaii. This legislation is nearly identical to one passed by the Senate during the 103d Congress. In 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee again approved the bill. I will continue to fight for the passage of this legislation in the 105th Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, the State of Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State are deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric projects on State waters. Across the United States, the question of who should have authority for hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very contentious. But in the case of the fresh water streams of Hawaii, the answer is clear. The State of Hawaii, not the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, should have the authority for hydropower regulation in Hawaii, if the Commission finds it has no mandatory jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act. Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that unnecessary Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to protect stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a steam protection and management task force. The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river system of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific locale. The issues of interstate commerce, protecting military ports, or long interstate rivers are not applicable. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to terminate FERC's voluntary jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh waters of the State of Hawaii. This legislation is nearly identical to one passed by the Senate during the 103d Congress. In 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee again approved the bill. I will continue to fight for the passage of this legislation in the 105th Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise today to note the impending retirement of Edward P. Scott, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs with the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Ed has served in this position since his confirmation by the Senate in May 1993, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have greatly appreciated Ed's successful efforts to maintain close relations with legislators and keep Congress apprised of VA operations, programs, and policies. During his tenure, VA confronted the impact of judicial review on veterans' claims; addressed the health care, research, and compensation needs of Persian Gulf veterans suffering from undiagnosed illnesses; and, in the face of unprecedented fiscal pressures, began the most comprehensive restructuring of its health care and benefits administrations in history. Ed has played a critical role in developing and implementing VA's response to each of these challenges, while keeping Congress fully informed of, and involved in, major developments. Mr. President, prior to his administration appointment, Ed enjoyed a long and varied career in public service. After graduating cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1963, where he was Law Review editor, he clerked for New Jersey Supreme Court Associate Justice Nathan Jacobs. He then joined the Air Force for 3 years, working as an assistant staff judge advocate at Keesler Air Force Base before retiring in the rank of captain. Soon after, he joined the Peace Corps, serving as deputy director and, later, country director, in Korea. Returning to the United States, he signed on as a staff attorney to the Mental Health Law Project in Washington, DC. In 1977, he joined the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, thus embarking on a long and distinguished career in the veterans arena. In the 16 years he was employed on the committee staff, he alternately served as majority and minority general counsel and, ultimately, staff director and chief counsel. As a committee staffer, Ed was instrumental in creating the Vet Center Program, enacting the Montgomery GI bill, elevating VA to cabinet rank, and establishing the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. During the 102d Congress, one of the most productive legislative periods in the committee's history, he helped revamp VA physician pay, improve homeless veterans programs, create a fairer system of compensation for survivors of disabled veterans, bring educational benefits in line with inflation, heighten concern for minority veterans, and establish a program to help treat women who were sexually abused in the military. In addition, under the leadership of my distinguished colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Rockefeller, respectively, he helped resolve controversial matters relating to agent orange exposure and VA drug pricing. Mr. President, I should also note that Ed played an important role in improving health care benefits and services for Hawaii's 120,000 veterans. Ed had an opportunity to visit Hawaii, gaining firsthand an appreciation of the unique needs of our multiethnic veterans population as well as of the special problems that confront the community as a consequence of Hawaii's insular geography and isolation from the mainland. He materially supported the Hawaii Delegation's efforts, initiated by my late predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga, to establish a VA medical center on Oahu; triple the size of the Honolulu VA outpatient clinic; and, establish vet centers, primary care clinics, and a residential post-traumatic stress disorder treatment center in the neighbor islands. Mr. President, however extensive Ed's achievements, what is most remarkable about this good man is the grace and sense of balance he has brought to public service. In dealing with many different organizations and personalities, each with a separate agenda, often on extremely contentious issues, he brought calm to rough waters and comfort to bruised egos. His willingness to consider every side to an issue, his ability to rise above partisan and personal concerns, truly elevated the level of debate on veterans issues. By his example, he constantly reminded us of our primary obligation, which is to promote the welfare of veterans. Thank you, Mr. President. Ed's departure from public service is a loss to all who care about good government. I offer him and his wife, Jane, my best wishes as they embark on a new, and I hope rewarding, phase of life.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to observe the untimely death late last month of my former Senate staff member, Jeffrey J. Dye, the young executive director of the Tennessee Democratic Party, and the only son of Dennis and Janell Dye. After serving less than 2 months in his new position, and reportedly meeting every challenge that this difficult job had to offer, Jeff was struck down in the very prime of life, at 27, by an epileptic seizure. It was a tragedy to his family, his friends, and the party he served with such fire and dedication. Jeff's passing has a very personal impact, Mr. President, because he worked for me for 2\1/2\ years, first as a research assistant and later as a legislative correspondent, until he obtained a coveted position with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee [DLCC] last July. As a Senate staffer, Jeff displayed the thirst for knowledge and eagerness to serve that characterizes many idealistic youth who come to Washington, He fulfilled his duties capably and supported me and my legislative staff in my Senate responsibilities. He gave much, Mr. President, and he learned much about the duties and responsibilities of public service. But it was clear from the start that Jeff chafed to do more. His endless interest in the political drama of our times, coupled with his youthful energy, finally turned him to the arena that he truly was born for: electoral politics, the art and science of political campaigning. Never was there an operative so constitutionally fitted for the rock and roll of modern, media-age politics as he. Jeff loved the ups and downs of elections, the eat-or-be eaten nature of the democratic process, whether in the form of a Presidential campaign or a race for the local school board. He had a Texas-size appetite where these things applied. But Jeff was not merely interested in the process. He was driven by a real concern for the people of our country. He had a passion to help ordinary Americans, and an abiding confidence in the ability, and indeed the obligation, of government to help the less fortunate. That is why he worked long hours, well into the evenings, to learn more about the political profession. Indeed, Jeff had a personal vision, one that he shared with some of my staff. He hoped to use the Internet as a communication tool for campaigns. His idea was to establish a multicandidate, multiparty bulletin board on the Internet for campaign literature and party platforms. Through this means, he hoped that everyone might have access to the information they needed to make better decisions about candidates and campaigns. Campaigns would thus be fairer and more informed. So when Jeff left my office last July to take up a position with the DLCC, the organization within the national Democratic Party that focuses on electing Democrats to State legislatures, I felt the loss of his departure but understood that he was going forward in the right direction. And when I heard that his success at the DLCC led to a position with the Tennessee Democratic Party, I knew he had found his dream. Jeff's unexpected death the third Monday in April was thus double tragic, for in addition to his youth, he seemingly had at last found a position that exactly meshed with his temperament, interests, and abilities. His opportunities appeared boundless. But if Jeff was taken from us just as he appeared to be fully engaged in life, we must remember that he died doing that which he truly loved. How many of us can say the same? Mr. President, Jeff's years among us were far too few, but let us take comfort in the knowledge that he lived them fully. May his parents and loved ones take solace in his bright memory.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a measure which permanently authorizes the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. I am pleased that Senators Daschle, Inouye, Hollings, Wellstone, and Jeffords have joined me in cosponsoring this important measure. In 1992, I authored a bill that established a 5-year pilot program of direct home loans to assist native american veterans who reside on trust lands. This pilot program, administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], provides direct loans to native American veterans to build or purchase homes on trust lands. Previously, native American veterans who reside on trust lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. This disgraceful treatment of native American veterans was finally corrected when Congress established the native American Direct Home Loan Program. Despite the complexities of creating a program that addresses the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 46 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations continue with other tribes. Since the program's inception, 127 native American veterans have been able to achieve home ownership, and none of the loans approved by the VA have been foreclosed. Unfortunately, the authority to issue new loans under this remarkably successful program will cease on September 30, 1997. This would be tragic and devastating to a number of native American veterans who want to participate in this program. Although VA has proposed a 2-year extension for the program, it fails to address the basic reason this program exists--equity. Native American veterans who reside on trust lands should be afforded the same benefits available to other veterans. Without this program, home loan benefits to native Americans living on trust lands will cease. This is the only program available for native American veterans who live on trust lands to finance a home for themselves and their families. There are no alternatives available. Permanent authorization of this program will ensure that native American veterans are provided equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for the last two weeks, I have had the great pleasure of sponsoring two Congressional fellows from the island of Kosrae. Mr. Lyndon Jackson and Mr. Charleton Timothy, legislative aides for the Government of Kosrae, have been working in my office since April 22 and will be leaving on May 9. They have been sent to Washington at the request of the speaker of the Kosrae State Legislature, the Honorable Hiteo S. Shrew, to learn more about our Nation's legislative and governmental processes. For their benefit, I thought I might take this opportunity to make some observations about Kosrae. As some of my colleagues know, Kosrae is one of the most beautiful islands in the Pacific, located just 5 degrees north of the equator, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. While only 42 square miles in size, it is well known throughout the region for its lush topography, beautiful beaches, clear blue waters, and rich coral reefs. I should tell my colleagues that the splendor of Kosrae is not exaggerated. My one and only visit to Kosrae took place fifty years ago this year, shortly after the end of World War II, when I had the good fortune to help crew the Morning Star, a schooner sent by the churches of Boston, MA, as part of a Christian mission to islands in Micronesia. The island was remarkably beautiful at that time, and I have been told that this continues to be the case. Although experiencing significant cultural changes over the past several decades, Kosrae's 8,000 inhabitants enjoy a casual, family oriented lifestyle. Fishing is a significant recreational and commercial activity. Kosrae is a major exporter of tuna to Guam and other Pacific islands. The island also has an abundance of citrus products and is particularly known for its sweet tangerines. And Kosrae handicrafts, such as their unique coconut baskets and trays, are renowned throughout the region. Kosrae is a single-island state that is part of the Federated States of Micronesia [FSM], formerly known as the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. As trustee of the territory in the years following World War II, the United States was responsible for preparing the islands for eventual self-government, by helping develop their political, economic, and social institutions. In 1978, the four territorial districts of Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae organized to form the Federated States of Micronesia, an action which became effective 1979 after the adoption of the Federation's draft constitution. The Federated States comprise 607 small islands, totaling only 270 square miles of land, spread across more than 1 million square miles of the Pacific. In 1986, after years of negotiations with our government, the FSM entered into the Compact of Free Association. The trusteeship was terminated at that time. The United States exercised no further administrative responsibility, and the island nation became fully self- governing. The terms of the compact generally provided for a framework of United States assistance, in return for which the FSM delegated security responsibility to the United States. This agreement has been in effect since November of 1986 with renegotiation of its financial provisions to start in November of 1999. Mr. President, in the period since the signing of the Compact, the close relationship between the United States and FSM has in some respects become stronger. The FSM has established constitutional governments at the national, state, and municipal levels that are patterned after our own. And in appreciation for our investment in Micronesia's quest for self-sufficiency, the FSM has reciprocated by maintaining strong political, economic, educational, and cultural ties. The FSM has also been a strong supporter in the United Nations on key issues of concern to the United States For instance, the FSM has consistently voted with the United States on such major issues as the situation in Bosnia, the Middle East peace process, and human rights in Iran and Iraq. Mr. President, I expect the strong relationship between the peoples of Micronesia and the United States to grow stronger and richer in the years ahead, as the FSM's experiment in American-style democracy continues. As the November 1999 date for renegotiating the compact of Free Association draws closer, I hope that my colleagues who have not yet had an opportunity to do so will take the opportunity to visit this unique and lovely place, and to acquaint themselves with the needs of Micronesia's people as well as the unique opportunities that the region offers our nation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a measure which permanently authorizes the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. I am pleased that Senators Daschle, Inouye, Hollings, Wellstone, and Jeffords have joined me in cosponsoring this important measure. In 1992, I authored a bill that established a 5-year pilot program of direct home loans to assist native american veterans who reside on trust lands. This pilot program, administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], provides direct loans to native American veterans to build or purchase homes on trust lands. Previously, native American veterans who reside on trust lands were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. This disgraceful treatment of native American veterans was finally corrected when Congress established the native American Direct Home Loan Program. Despite the complexities of creating a program that addresses the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 46 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations continue with other tribes. Since the program's inception, 127 native American veterans have been able to achieve home ownership, and none of the loans approved by the VA have been foreclosed. Unfortunately, the authority to issue new loans under this remarkably successful program will cease on September 30, 1997. This would be tragic and devastating to a number of native American veterans who want to participate in this program. Although VA has proposed a 2-year extension for the program, it fails to address the basic reason this program exists--equity. Native American veterans who reside on trust lands should be afforded the same benefits available to other veterans. Without this program, home loan benefits to native Americans living on trust lands will cease. This is the only program available for native American veterans who live on trust lands to finance a home for themselves and their families. There are no alternatives available. Permanent authorization of this program will ensure that native American veterans are provided equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I am introducing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Replenishment Act, a bill to purchase oil for the strategic petroleum reserve using revenue obtained from leasing SPR storage capacity. Senators Bingaman and Landrieu join me in sponsoring this measure. The strategic petroleum reserve is the cornerstone of U.S. energy security. During an oil emergency, the SPR is America's insurance policy against oil price shocks and economic disruption. However, our insurance policy is not providing the level of coverage we need. Because of declining U.S. oil production our dependence on imports is dangerously high, and the situation will grow worse in the coming decade. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. dependence on oil imports will rise from the current level of 50 percent to 60 percent in the year 2010. As oil imports increase, the strategic petroleum reserve will provide less and less energy security. The logical response should be to stockpile more oil. Yet, exactly the opposite is occurring. Some $315 million in revenue from the Operation Desert Storm drawdown was diverted to pay operating expenses rather than purchase replacement oil. Annual purchases of crude for the SPR have been halted, and we have begun to sell oil from the reserve as a deficit reduction measure. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Department of Energy sold $450 million barrels of oil for this purpose. Congress and the administration share the blame for the sale of these strategic assets. The most alarming development of all, however, was last week's announcement by the Department of Energy that it is seeking public comment on the future of the strategic petroleum reserve. The first question on the DOE comment notice was ``Should the United States continue to maintain the SPR?'' That's like asking whether the Titanic should carry life boats. The strategic petroleum reserve provides an essential umbrella of energy security and the importance of this asset will increase as we become more dependent on oil imports. Like many Federal programs, the strategic petroleum reserve has become a victim of the balanced budget process. Congress and the administration are unable to muster the political will, or the scarce Federal dollars, to maintain or expand our emergency reserve. My colleagues and I on the Energy Committee have proposed a modest initiative to purchase new oil for the reserve. The bill we have introduced today would finance the purchase of oil for the SPR using revenue obtained from the lease of excess SPR storage capacity. With its current inventory, the SPR has more than 100 million barrels of available, but unused storage. A number of foreign governments have expressed interest in storing oil in the U.S. reserve to meet International Energy Agency responsibilities. Storing oil in our gulf coast facility would be far less expensive for these countries than constructing new storage capacity. The cost of constructing new capacity exceeds $15 per barrel, whereas the annual operating cost at SPR facilities is less than 50 cents per barrel. All of the revenue generated from such leases would be dedicated to the purchase of crude oil for the U.S. reserve. During consideration of last year's reconciliation bill, the Senate adopted a proposal I offered that was nearly identical to the legislation I have introduced today. The Clinton administration has a mixed response to this proposal. They support legislation giving DOE the authority to lease idle SPR capacity to foreign governments, but they have reservations about dedicating leasing revenue for the purchase of new oil. The legislation I am introducing today is an essential first step toward a more rational energy security policy. As the Senate Energy Committee considers the reauthorization of the strategic petroleum reserve, I will work with my colleagues on the committee to ensure that this measure is included as an amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I am introducing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Replenishment Act, a bill to purchase oil for the strategic petroleum reserve using revenue obtained from leasing SPR storage capacity. Senators Bingaman and Landrieu join me in sponsoring this measure. The strategic petroleum reserve is the cornerstone of U.S. energy security. During an oil emergency, the SPR is America's insurance policy against oil price shocks and economic disruption. However, our insurance policy is not providing the level of coverage we need. Because of declining U.S. oil production our dependence on imports is dangerously high, and the situation will grow worse in the coming decade. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. dependence on oil imports will rise from the current level of 50 percent to 60 percent in the year 2010. As oil imports increase, the strategic petroleum reserve will provide less and less energy security. The logical response should be to stockpile more oil. Yet, exactly the opposite is occurring. Some $315 million in revenue from the Operation Desert Storm drawdown was diverted to pay operating expenses rather than purchase replacement oil. Annual purchases of crude for the SPR have been halted, and we have begun to sell oil from the reserve as a deficit reduction measure. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Department of Energy sold $450 million barrels of oil for this purpose. Congress and the administration share the blame for the sale of these strategic assets. The most alarming development of all, however, was last week's announcement by the Department of Energy that it is seeking public comment on the future of the strategic petroleum reserve. The first question on the DOE comment notice was ``Should the United States continue to maintain the SPR?'' That's like asking whether the Titanic should carry life boats. The strategic petroleum reserve provides an essential umbrella of energy security and the importance of this asset will increase as we become more dependent on oil imports. Like many Federal programs, the strategic petroleum reserve has become a victim of the balanced budget process. Congress and the administration are unable to muster the political will, or the scarce Federal dollars, to maintain or expand our emergency reserve. My colleagues and I on the Energy Committee have proposed a modest initiative to purchase new oil for the reserve. The bill we have introduced today would finance the purchase of oil for the SPR using revenue obtained from the lease of excess SPR storage capacity. With its current inventory, the SPR has more than 100 million barrels of available, but unused storage. A number of foreign governments have expressed interest in storing oil in the U.S. reserve to meet International Energy Agency responsibilities. Storing oil in our gulf coast facility would be far less expensive for these countries than constructing new storage capacity. The cost of constructing new capacity exceeds $15 per barrel, whereas the annual operating cost at SPR facilities is less than 50 cents per barrel. All of the revenue generated from such leases would be dedicated to the purchase of crude oil for the U.S. reserve. During consideration of last year's reconciliation bill, the Senate adopted a proposal I offered that was nearly identical to the legislation I have introduced today. The Clinton administration has a mixed response to this proposal. They support legislation giving DOE the authority to lease idle SPR capacity to foreign governments, but they have reservations about dedicating leasing revenue for the purchase of new oil. The legislation I am introducing today is an essential first step toward a more rational energy security policy. As the Senate Energy Committee considers the reauthorization of the strategic petroleum reserve, I will work with my colleagues on the committee to ensure that this measure is included as an amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Inouye in encouraging the U.S. Trade Representative's continued pursuit of this case. The consequences of this interim WTO report are significant--not just for Hawaii, but for the U.S. agricultural community and for U.S. trading interests generally. Ambassador Barshefsky wisely recognized those implications when she joined with numerous other WTO members in calling for a WTO dispute settlement panel to condemn the EU banana import regime. The WTO panel acknowledged that in an increasingly interdependent global economy, governments will be held accountable for the adverse consequences their trade policies may have on foreign producing sectors, however large or small they might be. Hence, if the banana panel's interim report is adopted, as we expect it to be, small producing interests, such as the banana producers of Hawaii will be entitled under the long arm of the WTO to all rights and interests guaranteed by that treaty. Since the success of small producing interests is a critical aspect of Hawaii's agricultural future, this long arm protection is of great reassurance to us. Under the new WTO rules, if the banana report is adopted, the EU will face a stark choice: it will either have to dismantle this unlawful regime or face legal WTO trade retaliation. After decades of EU disregard of U.S. agricultural interests, a strict enforcement of that choice should establish an effective model for resolving future disputes with the EU and, equally important, should deter the EU from even engaging in unlawful agricultural policies in the first instance. Restored confidence in international dispute settlement should, in turn, help broaden the general view that trade agreements are a positive force in the promotion of U.S. agricultural trading interests. The banana report promises to be helpful to U.S. agriculture in still another way. By clarifying the conditions under which agricultural tariff rate quotas [TRQ's] can be administered, the report should prevent countries from using TRQ's to accomplish the sort of nontransparent, discriminatory and restrictive non-tariff barriers that the Uruguay Round sought to eliminate. In addition to the favorable precedent being set for American agriculture, the banana report also gives expansive life and coverage to the new WTO agreement governing services. The report found that U.S. service suppliers engaged in the wholesale distribution of fresh fruit have had their conditions of trade adversely affected by the EU regime in numerous ways, always to the direct benefit of EU corporate interests. The measure of U.S. harm as a result of these services violations may exceed $1 billion, a level well in excess of the harm normally implicated in international dispute settlement actions. By strictly upholding U.S. service supplier interests in this case, the panel has helped ensure meaningful, lasting protection of all U.S. sectors covered by the new international services accord. In short, if adopted, the WTO banana report will represent an unambiguous win for multiple trading interests throughout our country. We accordingly ask our Senate colleagues to lend all necessary support to Ambassador Barshefsky and her staff to secure adoption and full implementation of this important WTO report. The editorial follows: [From the Journal of Commerce, Apr. 11, 1997] Ending Banana Inanity An interim ruling last month by a World Trade Organization dispute panel, calling on the European Union to overhaul its system of banana trade preferences, was a big achievement for the 40 countries--one-third of the WTO's membership--involved in the case. It showed that a rules-based trading system can yield just decisions even in complex and politically charged cases. The banana case involved a decades-old system of trade preferences that European nations granted their banana producing former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. For six of those countries, that preferential access left relatively slim quotas for Latin American producers, many of whom market their fruit through U.S.-based Chiquita Brands. That difficulty was compounded when, in 1993, the EU sought to transform the voluntary preference program adopted by some of its member states into a uniform regime for the entire union. That meant forcing Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and other EU states to impose caps on banana imports, driving up the price and limiting the supply of the Latin American bananas their consumers prefer. In principle, the EU could have handled this change in a way that did not discriminate against third countries and break WTO rules. But Brussels took the opportunity to set up a whole new system that favored European banana marketing companies and put Chiquita Brands at a disadvantage. The mechanism was a Byzantine system of import and export licenses, which were made available to European marketers and to the foreign governments willing to cooperate with them. Four countries--Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Nicaragua--were made an offer by the EU that they couldn't refuse: Agree to supply bananas under the EU regime or be punished with less access to the world's largest banana market. The EU also enlisted Caribbean politicians to defend the system it had set up to benefit European marketers. The result was that Chiquita saw its market share in Europe plunge by nearly 50%, costing it hundreds of millions of dollars. The United States has fought this system in world trade bodies for years. Dispute panels of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, forerunner of the WTO, twice ruled that Europe's banana regime violates trade law, but the EU refused to honor those rulings. Washington's persistence may pay off yet, however, since the WTO's rules prevent a single nation from blocking a panel ruling. To its credit, the three-member WTO panel withstood overheated lobbying by the EU and its allies in the Caribbean, who falsely charged that the United States was out to wreck the original preference program for former colonies. Instead, the panel identified the real issue: the right of investors in services--in this case, marketing and distributing bananas--to have a fair shot at a big market. Moreover, the EU's claims notwithstanding the panel's interim ruling will not threaten Caribbean exports to Europe, which amount to 8% of Europe's banana imports. The only losers will be the big European banana trading firms, which will not longer be able to charge monopoly prices. The ruling also is a welcome signal that the WTO will not simply acquiesce when Brussels requires all member nations to raise their trade barriers to the highest level imposed elsewhere in the union. The WTO allows this ``leveling up,'' but also requires that exporters in third countries be compensated for their losses. The panel decision, if finalized, would require the EU to offer such compensation. The decision is a victory for European consumers, who have been paying high prices as a result of the EU banana regime. If the interim ruling is finalized--as is expected--and the EU implements it as it should, Europe's long chapter of banana inanity may finally draw to a close.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to note the impending retirement of Mr. William E. Brew, who currently serves as the minority general counsel of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. As of April 4, his retirement date, Bill will have served 19 years and 1 day as a loyal and dedicated staff member of the U.S. Senate. A veteran of the Vietnam war, Bill has held increasingly important positions of responsibility on the staff of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Since he was hired by Senator Alan Cranston in 1978, Bill has served as associate counsel, associate general counsel, minority counsel, deputy general counsel, general counsel, and most recently, minority general counsel to the committee. Through the many political changeovers in the administration and Congress in his nearly two decades on Capitol Hill, Bill provided institutional continuity, serving as a source of reliable information and wise advice on legislation, policy, and procedure for Members of both parties. Bill was closely involved in developing all of the major veterans initiatives that were enacted by Congress during this period. Among his major accomplishments are legislation relating to agent orange compensation, establishment of judicial review of veterans claims, establishment of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, and creation of programs relating to the readjustment needs of Vietnam and post-Vietnam veterans. In addition to these special accomplishments, Bill worked hard to become the Senate's foremost authority on veterans health care matters. He served as an invaluable resource to members of the committee on the medical needs of the diverse, 27 million-strong veterans population as well as on the legal, administrative, and structural nuances of the hundreds of Department of Veterans Affairs' hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing homes, and domiciliaries. Bill is well known for his logical, analytical, and deliberative mind. His patience and fairness are legendary, and few have been as adept at working in the heated, give-and-take atmosphere of the legislative process. His adherence to the very highest personal and professional standards has been a credit to the U.S. Senate. In short, Bill has been the veteran's veteran, that special individual whom Senators, professional staffers, administration officials, and veterans advocates have trusted to render an objective assessment on any particular veterans issue or to undertake any worthy cause in behalf of those who served. Mr. President, I believe that I have a special insight into the qualities of this outstanding individual. In the days and months immediately following my appointment to the U.S. Senate in 1990, Bill Brew was one of the experienced hands who helped indoctrinate me in the complexities of veterans policy and the doings of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Since then, I and my staff have relied on him for advice on issues major and minor. Whatever success I have had in the way of veterans legislation is in great measure due to his assistance. Indeed, no one worked longer or harder to improve the condition of Hawaii's 120,000 veterans than Bill Brew. It was his experience and energy that fueled a series of committee investigations revealing VA's historical neglect of the Aloha State's veterans. As a consequence of these inquiries, VA established four new primary care clinics and readjustment counseling centers in Hawaii; tripled the size of the Honolulu outpatient clinic; began preparations to construct a VA medical center on Oahu; and, established a unique residential treatment center for Pacific-area veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. So, Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I extend Bill a fond farewell. I offer him my deep gratitude for the service he has rendered me and other members of this body over the last two decades. No one has worked harder to advance the public interest than this stellar public servant. I wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his appreciation and wish him well during this break. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 490 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that I have sponsored in the past two Congresses to provide a measure of tax relief to working families throughout America. My bill would restore value to the child and dependent care credit by allowing an annual adjustment of the credit for inflation. Mr. President, as the Federal Government and the states work to move people from welfare to work, the problems faced by working Americans seeking affordable, quality child-care services for their children will likely worsen. The availability and affordability of adequate child care are the principal concerns expressed by an increasing number of middle-class working parents. Many parents are forced to patch together a network of child care providers to secure care for their children. The evidence in support of improving the child and dependent care credit is clear. The number of single mothers working outside the home has dramatically increased in recent years. More than 56 percent of all mothers with children under 6 years work outside the home, and over 70 percent of women with children over age 6 are in the labor market. The percentage of Hawaii households in which both parents work outside the home is even higher than the national average. According to projections developed by the Bank of Hawaii based on the 1990 Census, 61.8 percent of all Hawaii families have both parents employed, and 71.3 percent of all households have at least two individuals in the workforce. The increased participation of single mothers in the labor market and the large number of two-parent families in which both parents work outside the home have made the dependent care credit one of the most popular and productive tax incentives ever enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, the value of the credit has declined significantly over the years as inflation has slowly eaten away at the value of this benefit. Measured in constant dollars, the maximum credit of $2,400 has decreased in value by more than 45 percent since 1982. In 1981, the flat credit for dependent care was replaced with a scale to give the greatest benefit of the credit to lower income working families. Since that time, neither the adjusted gross income figures employed in the scale, nor the limit on the amount of employment- related expenses used to calculate the credit, has been adjusted for inflation. My bill provides a measure of much needed relief to working American families. It would index the child and dependent care credit and restore the full benefit of the credit. The maximum amount of employment-related child care expenses allowed under current law--$2,400 for a single child and $4,800 for two or more children--has simply failed to keep pace with escalating care costs. Unlike other tax credits and deductions provided taxpayers in the Internal Revenue Code, the dependent care credit is not adjusted for inflation. Without an adjustment for inflation, we will continue to diminish the purpose of this credit to offset the expense of dependent and child care services incurred by parents working outside the home. While the cost of quality child care has increased as demand exceeds supply, the dependent care credit has failed to keep up with the spiraling costs. My legislation addresses this chronic problem by automatically adjusting the dependent and child care credit for inflation. Under this legislation, both the dollar limit on the amount creditable and the limitation on earned income would be adjusted annually. Mr. President, the average cost for out of home child care exceeds $3,500 per child, per year. Child care or dependent care expenses can seriously strain a family's budget. This burden can become unbearable for single parents, almost invariably single mothers, who must balance the need to work with their parental responsibilities. Middle-class Americans are working harder than ever to maintain their standard of living. In many families, parents have been forced to work longer hours, deplete their savings, and go deeper into debt. There is an urgent need to enact changes in our tax code that are pro-family and pro-children. The Working Families Child Care Tax Relief Act meets both of these goals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we prepare for hearings on campaign fundraising irregularities, I would like to express concern about the negative impact that this issue is having on the image of the Asian- American community. Mr. President, Asian-Americans are an important part of our body politic. They have made significant contributions to politics, business, industry, science, sports, education, and the arts. Men and women like Senator Dan Inouye, Kristy Yamaguchi, Tommy Kono, I.M. Pei, David Henry Hwang, An Wang, and Ellison Onizuka have enhanced and invigorated the life of the Nation. Indeed, Asian-Americans have played a fundamental part in making this country what it is today. Asian immigrants helped build the great transcontinental railroads of the 19th century. They labored on the sugar plantations of Hawaii, on the vegetable and fruit farms of California, and in the gold mines of the West. They were at the forefront of the agricultural labor movement, especially in the sugarcane and grape fields, and were instrumental in developing the fishing and salmon canning industries of the Pacific Northwest. They were importers, merchants, grocers, clerks, tailors, and gardeners. They manned the assembly lines during America's Industrial Revolution. They operated laundries, restaurants, and vegetable markets. They also served our Nation in war: the famed all-nisei 100th/442d combat team of World War II remains the most decorated unit in U.S. military history. Despite their historical contributions, Asian immigrants and Asian- Americans have suffered social prejudice and economic, political, and institutional discrimination. They were excluded from churches, barber shops, and restaurants. They were forced to sit in the balconies of movie theaters and the back seats of buses. They were required to attend segregated schools. They were even denied burial in white cemeteries--in one instance, a decorated Asian-American soldier killed in action was refused burial in his hometown cemetery. Rather than receive equal treatment, Asians on the whole were paid lower wages than their white counterparts, relegated to menial jobs, or forced to turn to businesses and industries in which competition with whites was minimized. For more than 160 years, Asians were also refused citizenship by a law that denied their right to naturalize, a law that remained in effect until 1952. Without citizenship, Asians could not vote, and thus could not seek remedies through the Tammany Halls or other political organizations as did other immigrant groups. The legacy of this injustice is seen today in the relative lack of political influence and representation of Asian-Americans at every level and in every branch of government. Additionally, Asians were denied immigration rights. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 singled out Chinese on a racial basis, and the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1908 and the National Origins Act of 1924 prohibited Japanese immigration--while permitting the annual entry of thousands of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland. The 1924 law also allowed European immigrants to bring their wives from their homelands, but barred the entry of women from China, Japan, Korea, and India. Even Asians who were United States citizens were prohibited from bringing Asian wives into the country. Conversely, the 1922 Cable Act provided that any American woman who married an Asian would lose her citizenship. It was not until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated immigration by national origins that the vestiges of these legal restrictions were lifted. Asians were also targeted by laws prohibiting them from owning property. The alien land laws passed by California and other Western and Southern States earlier this century, fostered by nativists and envious competitors, placed heavy obstacles in the path of struggling Asian immigrants and their children that were not faced by others. Perhaps most egregiously, Asians were denied civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The relocation of Asian-Americans from the west coast and Hawaii and their detention in internment camps between 1941 and 1946 is one of the worst civil rights violation in our history. One hundred twenty thousand men, women, and children of Japanese descent, two-thirds of them citizens, were incarcerated behind barbed wire fences, without due process or evidence of wrongdoing, under the grim view of machine gun towers. German-Americans or Italian-Americans did not suffer a similar fate. In the process, Americans of Asian ancestry were torn from their friends, their loved ones, their property, and their faith in the American dream. It was only in 1988, through legislation sponsored by Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and others who serve in this body today, that the U.S. Government officially apologized for this injustice. The reasons for historical prejudice and discrimination against Asians are complex, often involving economic or political motives. For example, at one time European immigrant labor groups felt threatened by cheap Asian labor and staged strikes and acts of violence against Asians. Employers cultivated such ethnic antagonism as a stratagem to depress wages for all workers, Asian and European. Nativists used Asians as a foil for their racist philosophies. Politicians cynically exploited anti-Asian sentiment to maintain power. And the press used the ``Yellow Peril'', the specter of unlimited ``oriental'' immigration, to sell papers. But at heart, the reasons for anti-Asian practices remain far simpler: Asians looked different, they had accents, they worshipped different gods. They came from cultures and spoke languages that were beyond the narrow experience of traditional, white America. Thus, Asians and Asian-Americans were targets. Unlike other contemporaneous immigrants--Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews--Asians stood out; they could not blend into the majority white population. Asians were naturally suspect for their skin color and appearance: they looked different so many Americans believed they must be different; that is to say, somehow less than true-blooded American. In many instances, the reaction of Asians was to turn inward, to establish their own communities or ghettoes, like Chinatown or Japantown, or turn to small businesses or farms where they did not have to compete for employment against Caucasians--further isolating and insulating their communities from the rest of American society. In time, however, Asians became more integrated in American life. The progeny of immigrants were born citizens, spoke only English, watched television and went to the movies, danced to the latest music, and felt they earned their place in society through workplace contributions and military service. As they assimilated, Asian-Americans enjoyed success in many areas of endeavor; in fact, they have been so successful that Asian-Americans have been cited as the ``model minority.'' Today, Asian-Americans tend to have high educational achievement, some are prominent in business and the professions, and they have been cited by social scientists for having community spirit, a sense of fiscal responsibility, and a strong work ethic. But the model minority image is mythical in many respects. On average, Asian-Americans earn less than Caucasians. There is a significant income disparity between Asians and whites with equal education. Asian-Americans also tend to be located in secondary labor markets, where wages are low and prospects minimal, and occupy lower or technical positions, where income potential is not as great as in the executive ranks. Proportionately fewer Asian-Americans are managers than is the case with other population groups; they constitute less than half of 1 percent of the officers and directors of the Nation's thousand largest companies. In corporate America, Asian-Americans have their own ``glass ceiling.'' In addition, many Americans mistakenly view the successful assimilation of more established, affluent groups such as Chinese- Americans and Japanese-Americans as the community norm. They do not realize that the community is extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity and recency of immigration. The more recent arrivals from Southeast Asia--for example, Vietnamese, Thais, Cambodians, Laotians--have significantly lower levels of income, education, and occupational advancement. Perhaps because of their success, perceived and otherwise, Asian- Americans continue to suffer for their minority status. They are periodically targets of hate crimes. The 1982 baseball bat killing of Vincent Chin in Detroit, a scapegoat for the Detroit auto industry's inability to compete with Japan, illustrated America's ignorance about Asian-Americans--Chin was of Chinese, not Japanese, heritage--and the inequality of justice for Asian-Americans--the killers paid a fine of $3,780 and never served jail time. In 1987, teenagers chanting, ``Hindu, Hindu,'' beat a young Indian-American to death. These are not isolated incidents. Last year, a report by the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium found that hate crimes against Asian Pacific- Americans grew from 335 incidents in 1993 to 458 incidents in 1995, a 37 percent increase in just two years. These violent incidents have been paralleled and surely fed by a growing national xenophobia. The fear of things foreign has manifested itself in cutbacks in international programs; the growth of the English only movement; and the passage of California's proposition 187 and Federal legislation to curtail social services to undocumented aliens and legal residents. Fear of Asians and other minorities is also seen in proposals to rollback minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act and in broadbased attacks on affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting. I recall that only a few years ago, during the height of the debate over the budget deficit, much was made of the fact that a significant portion of our debt was held by Japan, but overlooked was the fact that both the British and Dutch had far greater investments in United States debt and property than the Japanese. Likewise, Japanese purchases of signature properties like Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center received sensationalized coverage, but few stories traced the decline and eventual sale of these high-profile investments to other owners. Today, with the hype and hoopla surrounding Asians and Asian- Americans involved in the fundraising controversy, we see hints of the kinds of anti-Asian treatment that have been practiced in the past. The first and most obvious of these is the inappropriate and misguided attention paid by the media, commentators, and public figures to the ethnic heritage of those involved in the fundraising controversy. For example, an early Washington Post front page headline trumpeted an ``Asian Funds Network.'' However, upon a careful examination of the article, the reader found the article was principally concerned with Asian-Americans, not Asians. Clearly, in some quarters, ``Asian'' and ``Asian-American'' are synonymous, unlike the case with Europeans and European-Americans. In fact, the term ``European'' Americans is rarely heard in public discourse, because the ethnic origin of European Americans is not presumed to have a bearing on their patriotism. Despite the fact that Asian-Americans have paid taxes, lived and worked here for several generations, and died in military service, a different standard applies: Asian-Americans are still deemed to have an extraordinary, perhaps sinister, connection to their countries of origin. Mr. President, I think that I speak for the entire Asian-American community in expressing the hope that we can get to the bottom of this whole controversy, wherever the cards may fall. Those responsible for violations of laws or improper conduct should be identified and appropriately dealt with by the relevant authorities. However, I know that Asian-Americans also agree that the gratuitous attention to the heritage and citizenship of John Huang and other fundraisers is unjust and destructive. According to the press and others, John Huang isn't simply a DNC fundraiser or even an Asian-American fundraiser; rather, he is referred to as a ``Taiwan-born naturalized citizen with ties to an Indonesian conglomerate'' or, worse, ``an ethnic Chinese with overseas connections.'' Last fall, during an appearance at the University of Pennsylvania, Presidential candidate Ross Perot erroneously referred to John Huang as an ``Indonesian businessman.'' Later, alluding to the fundraising controversy, Mr. Perot rhetorically asked his audience, ``Wouldn't you like to have someone out there named O'Reilly? Out there hard at work. You know, so far we haven't found an American name.'' The implication of these and other characterizations is that being Asian and naturalized, rather than of European stock and native born, somehow renders one less American. Mr. President, this hyphenation or qualification of citizenship status is one of the subtle ways in which Asian-Americans are cast as different and therefore suspicious. To some, Asians and Asian-Americans are the Fu Manchus of Hollywood legend--evil, cunning, and inscrutable Easterners who march in lockstep to some hidden agenda. According to this view, being of Filipino or Thai or Pakistani heritage is all the same--if your skin is yellow or brown, you are alleged to share certain invidious characteristics of your race; your individualism fades into a kind of monolithic group identity. Thus, all Asians and Asian-Americans are, by extension, responsible for John Huang's or Charlie Trie's or Johnny Chung's alleged misdeeds. Furthermore, goes this circular reasoning, since it is accepted that Asians lack individualism, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung must be part of an Asian conspiracy. A columnist for the New York Times played on this stereotype when, in a series of editorials last year, he wrote of the ``penetration of the White House by Asian interests'' and characterized John Huang as ``the well-subsidized Lippo operative placed high inside Clinton Commerce.'' The columnist also referred to an ``Asian connection'' which provided contributions through ``front men with green cards.'' Even the respected Wall Street Journal described some of John Huang's donations as coming from ``people with tenuous connections to this country,'' although it is unclear whether it was referring to Asian residents or Asian-Americans. A more recent manifestation of this stereotype can be found on this week's cover of the National Review, which depicts President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton with slanted eyes, buckteeth, and wearing a coolie hat and Mao cap, respectively, over the headline, ``The Manchurian Candidates.'' This is a true low for reporting standards, more reminiscent of William Randolph Hearst's Yellow Press than of modern journalism. Some irresponsible publications, in the interests of sensationalism, are obviously more than willing to conflate racist stereotypes with modern standards of objective journalism. The President, Mrs. Clinton, and the Asian-American community are owed an apology for this gross affront to decency and taste. Mr. President, a second major fallout of the fundraising affair is the impression fostered by the media and commentators that legal Asian- American participation in the political process is illegitimate. Charges of undue influence on the part of the Asian-American community have been raised with regard to immigration policy, specifically, the ``fourth preference'' category that allows siblings of citizens to immigrate. The press makes much of the fact that Asian-Americans who are concerned about this matter also contributed money to the campaign. Certainly Asian-Americans, the majority of whom are immigrants, wish to be reunited with their families. However, it is improper to imply that contributions to political campaigns by Asian-Americans should be held to a higher standard or any more suspect than contributions by other Americans. This is tantamount to suggesting that the practice of giving to political campaigns should be limited only to non-Asians. A third troublesome impact of the fundraising allegations is the overhasty and excessive reaction to the issue of legal contributions by permanent residents. In the wake of the ``Asian donor'' story, proposals have been made to eliminate their eligibility to make political contributions. Alarmed by the public fallout of the controversy, the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee have preemptively decided not to accept contributions from permanent residents or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. And a number of Members of Congress have returned contributions made by permanent residents who are Asian, not because the contributions were illegal but because they feared the public's reaction to their accepting ``Asian'' money. Mr. President, I acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns regarding the wisdom of allowing permanent residents to make contributions to political campaigns, apart from the possibility that proscribing such contributions may violate the free speech rights accorded all residents, citizens and aliens alike, by the Constitution. As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court has held that campaign contributions are an activity protected by the first amendment, and that the first amendment rights of legal residents are fully protected. In this instance, however, I am more concerned by the possibility that the only reason why campaign contributions by permanent residents has become an issue now is because, for the first time, Asians and Asian-Americans happen to be involved in a major way. Evidence of this perhaps can be seen in the DNC's private audit of supposedly suspect contributions. Reportedly, DNC auditors asked Asian-American donors whether they were citizens, how they earn their money, if they would provide their tax returns, and other intrusive questions, while threatening to tell the press if the donors did not cooperate. Some of the Asian-Americans contacted were longtime political contributors with impeccable reputations, who were naturally outraged. The DNC audit clearly smacked of selective harassment of those who happened to have Asian surnames; it underscores the Asian-American community's fear that they are being asked to pay for the alleged transgressions of a handful of individuals who happen to be of Asian heritage. Mr. President, a fourth major concern of the fundraising affair is that it has undermined Asian-American leadership opportunities in Government. According to some analyses, the fundraising affair impelled the Clinton administration to drop from consideration the names of University of California-Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien and former U.S. Congressman Norm Mineta for the positions of Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Transportation, respectively. Thus far, no Asian- American has ever held Cabinet rank, and only a handful are represented in the senior ranks of Government. Furthermore, I would not be surprised to learn that every Asian- American candidate for political appointment is currently being scrutinized for contacts he or she may have had, no matter how innocent, with the Asian and Asian-American principals in the fundraising investigation. As a consequence, I greatly fear that promising Asian-American candidates for responsible Federal office will fall by the wayside, victims of guilt by association. A fifth and perhaps most serious impact of the fundraising story, however, is its long-term effect on Asian-American participation in the political process. Last year, a record 75,000 Asian-Americans registered to vote, a sign of the Asian-American community's newfound confidence and political maturity. I am deeply concerned that biased scrutiny of Asians and Asian-Americans by the press, politicians, and investigators will kill this initial flowering of a historically quiescent and apolitical community, a flowering that led to the historic election of an Asian-American to governorship of a mainland State. Will this scandal confirm Asian-Americans' fears that the system is rigged against them, discouraging them from participating in the development of public policy in a meaningful way? If so, this would be tragic for a community that is by far the fastest growing in the Nation, which is expected to comprise 7 percent of the population by 2020, and which has so many skills and experiences to offer our country. This tragedy would be compounded for those immigrants recently escaped from the yoke of authoritarianism, who might find the consequences of political activism reminiscent of the penalties experienced in their countries of origin. In conclusion, Mr. President, as we investigate the fundraising affair, let us remember the bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination faced by Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans as they struggled for acceptance in the New World. Let us recall how they overcame steep social, economic, and institutional barriers to become valuable, contributing members of society. With this in mind, Mr. President, let us keep our attention on matters of substance--the laws that were possibly broken, the processes and procedures that were bent, the individuals who circumvented or corrupted the system, and most of all what we can do to prevent abuses in the future. These are the real issues at hand. By the same token, Mr. President, let us avoid focusing on such irrelevancies as the ethnicity of the participants in this affair. Let us cease characterizing individuals by meretricious stereotypes; conversely, let us avoid judging an entire community by the actions of a few individuals. To do otherwise, Mr. President, would be a grave disservice to the seven million Americans of Asian ancestry who are valued and rightful participants in our great democratic experiment. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of articles by Robert Wright and Frank Wu addressing Asian-Americans and the fundraising controversy be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the State of Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State are deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric power projects on State waters. The question of who should have authority for hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very contentious. Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that continued Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Whenever a hydroelectric power project is proposed, a number of environmental considerations must be weighed before approval is granted. Important issues must be evaluated, such as whether the proposed dam or diversion will impair the stream's essential flow characteristics, or what effect the hydropower project will have on the physical nature of the stream bed or the chemical makeup of the water. Will a dam or diversion diminish flow rates and reduce the scenic value of one of Hawaii's waterfalls? Will it harm recreational opportunities? These, and other questions must be answered. The effect of a new dam or diversion on the State's disappearing wetlands must be weighed. Wetlands provide vital sanctuary for migratory birds, as well as habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterfowl. They serve as reservoirs for storm water, filtering water-borne pollutants before they reach the fragile coastal habitat, and provide a recharge area for groundwater. Historic resources may be at risk on streams when hydropower projects are proposed. When Polynesians first settled our islands, Hawaiian culture was linked to streams as much as it was linked to the sea. The remnants of ancient Hawaiian settlements can be found along many State rivers. Will the Federal Government give adequate attention to stream resources that have unique natural or cultural significance when it issues a hydroelectric license or permit? Most important of all, hydropower development must be compatible with preserving native aquatic resources. Hawaiian streams support many species that depend on undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable of these species is the gobie, which can climb waterfalls and colonize stream sections that are inaccessible to other fish. These are some of the complex factors that must be considered during Federal hydropower decisionmaking. Federal agencies that have responsibility for fish, wildlife, and natural resource protection have raised questions about the State of Hawaii's commitment to protecting stream resources. They assert that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better equipped than the State to protect environmental values. Nothing could be further from truth. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to protect stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a stream protection and management task force. Meanwhile, FERC has shown little regard for stream protection and has granted a preliminary permit to a hydropower developer on the Hanalei River. This is the same river that the Fish and Wildlife Service is fighting to preserve. The Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge on the island of Kauai, and is home to four endangered water birds. Sixty percent of the State's taro crop is grown in the wetlands adjacent to the river. When it comes to protecting environmental values, FERC is off to a very poor start. The experience with the proposed Hanalei hydropower project raises serious questions about appropriateness of the Federal efforts to regulate hydropower in Hawaii. Our rivers and streams bear no resemblance to the wide, deep, long, and relatively flat rivers of the continental United States. Hawaiian streams generally comprise groups of short riffles, runs, falls, and deep pools. There are only five streams with a length of 40 miles or more. Only two streams have a median flow rate greater than 100 cubic feet per second. By comparison, the mean discharge of the Mississippi River is nearly 40,000 times the annual flow of Hawaii's longest river, the Kiikii River. The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river systems of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific location. When it comes to regulating hydropower in Hawaii, FERC is a fish out of water. Chairman Murkowski has agreed to include the text of my legislation to exempt Hawaii from the FERC hydropower jurisdiction in section 2 of the hydropower legislation he introduced today. Section 2 would terminate FERC's jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh water of the State of Hawaii. Section 2 is identical to the legislation passed by the Senate during the 103d Congress as part of an omnibus hydropower bill, but the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on the bill. In the 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee again approved the bill. I will continue to fight for the passage of this legislation during the 105th Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the State of Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State are deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric power projects on State waters. The question of who should have authority for hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very contentious. Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that continued Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Whenever a hydroelectric power project is proposed, a number of environmental considerations must be weighed before approval is granted. Important issues must be evaluated, such as whether the proposed dam or diversion will impair the stream's essential flow characteristics, or what effect the hydropower project will have on the physical nature of the stream bed or the chemical makeup of the water. Will a dam or diversion diminish flow rates and reduce the scenic value of one of Hawaii's waterfalls? Will it harm recreational opportunities? These, and other questions must be answered. The effect of a new dam or diversion on the State's disappearing wetlands must be weighed. Wetlands provide vital sanctuary for migratory birds, as well as habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterfowl. They serve as reservoirs for storm water, filtering water-borne pollutants before they reach the fragile coastal habitat, and provide a recharge area for groundwater. Historic resources may be at risk on streams when hydropower projects are proposed. When Polynesians first settled our islands, Hawaiian culture was linked to streams as much as it was linked to the sea. The remnants of ancient Hawaiian settlements can be found along many State rivers. Will the Federal Government give adequate attention to stream resources that have unique natural or cultural significance when it issues a hydroelectric license or permit? Most important of all, hydropower development must be compatible with preserving native aquatic resources. Hawaiian streams support many species that depend on undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable of these species is the gobie, which can climb waterfalls and colonize stream sections that are inaccessible to other fish. These are some of the complex factors that must be considered during Federal hydropower decisionmaking. Federal agencies that have responsibility for fish, wildlife, and natural resource protection have raised questions about the State of Hawaii's commitment to protecting stream resources. They assert that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better equipped than the State to protect environmental values. Nothing could be further from truth. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to protect stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a stream protection and management task force. Meanwhile, FERC has shown little regard for stream protection and has granted a preliminary permit to a hydropower developer on the Hanalei River. This is the same river that the Fish and Wildlife Service is fighting to preserve. The Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge is the largest refuge on the island of Kauai, and is home to four endangered water birds. Sixty percent of the State's taro crop is grown in the wetlands adjacent to the river. When it comes to protecting environmental values, FERC is off to a very poor start. The experience with the proposed Hanalei hydropower project raises serious questions about appropriateness of the Federal efforts to regulate hydropower in Hawaii. Our rivers and streams bear no resemblance to the wide, deep, long, and relatively flat rivers of the continental United States. Hawaiian streams generally comprise groups of short riffles, runs, falls, and deep pools. There are only five streams with a length of 40 miles or more. Only two streams have a median flow rate greater than 100 cubic feet per second. By comparison, the mean discharge of the Mississippi River is nearly 40,000 times the annual flow of Hawaii's longest river, the Kiikii River. The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river systems of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific location. When it comes to regulating hydropower in Hawaii, FERC is a fish out of water. Chairman Murkowski has agreed to include the text of my legislation to exempt Hawaii from the FERC hydropower jurisdiction in section 2 of the hydropower legislation he introduced today. Section 2 would terminate FERC's jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh water of the State of Hawaii. Section 2 is identical to the legislation passed by the Senate during the 103d Congress as part of an omnibus hydropower bill, but the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on the bill. In the 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee again approved the bill. I will continue to fight for the passage of this legislation during the 105th Congress.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I am naturally interested in this debate over Senate Resolution 39--a funding resolution for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee special investigation, as amended by the Senate Rules Committee. I object to the action taken by the Rules Committee on Thursday that forces the Governmental Affairs Committee to limit its investigation solely to illegal activities related to the 1996 elections. I object because the Governmental Affairs Committee had a bipartisan agreement on a broad scope for this fundraising investigation. However, in an effort to appease those opposed to reforming our campaign finance laws, the Rules Committee overrode the agreement unanimously adopted by the Governmental Affairs Committee on January 30, 1997. The scope of the investigation is now so narrow that we are being forced to operate with blinders. If a fundraising activity is improper--we cannot look at it. If the activity occurred prior to 1996--we cannot look at it. If the activity involves soft money or questionable use of tax-exempt organizations--we cannot look at that, unless it is clearly illegal. The Rules Committee resolution narrows the definition of illegal so that the Governmental Affairs Committee would have to show evidence of criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt before an activity or individual can be investigated. Is there anyone who does not believe that there are some serious allegations that are improper rather than illegal? How can we legislate changes in our campaign finance laws if we cannot look into activities that are not currently illegal, but should be illegal? Mr. President, I am proud to be a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee because it is one committee that continually operates in a bipartisan and fair manner. We hammered out the scope of our investigation over a period of several days and it received support from Democrats and Republicans alike. Last Friday, I participated in a press conference called by the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Glenn, to express concern with the newly amended funding resolution that came out of the Rules Committee. At that news conference, I said that the committee had taken the high ground by unanimously agreeing to a resolution setting forth the scope of its investigation. Back on January 30, 1997, the committee agreed on a number of issues relating to illegal or improper fundraising and spending practices which would lead to a consensus of how to best consider the issues at hand. Regretfully, since the adoption of that agreement, there has been discord, insinuations, accusations, and other obstacles to resolving the impasse over the committee's special investigatory funding. I object to the revision of the scope previously agreed upon by the Governmental Affairs Committee because past investigations into allegations of misconduct examined improper and unethical conduct as well as illegal conduct. Moreover, if the funding resolution before us today is adopted, we will limit the scope of the investigation to only the 1996 election cycle, thereby eliminating the possibility of looking into the issue of soft money, issue advocacy, and possible illegal use of tax-exempt organizations. Under the amended resolution, the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation would be precluded from investigating allegations that may be embarrassing to Congress, and potential problems related to individual members would be referred to the Senate Ethics Committee. I know that most Members of Congress are honest; however, if our citizenry believes that money buys access, then we must look into allegations that point to improper use of office. The statement of purpose of the Governmental Affairs special investigation, as amended by the Rules Committee last Thursday, authorizes funds for ``the sole purpose of conducting an investigation of illegal activities in connection with 1996 Federal election campaigns.'' We have been told that the scope agreed to in the resolution before us was patterned after the Watergate resolution. However, the omission of two key words from that original Watergate resolution--unethical and improper--will undermine any investigation into the influence of money on Federal elections. Mr. President, I shall not belabor this issue as I know there are other Members who wish to speak. I want to reiterate, however, that the scope agreed to on January 30, 1997, was very inclusive--it would provide for an investigation into the business of fundraising by both parties. The purpose of our inquiry was to examine all aspects of campaign fundraising--both Presidential and congressional--with the eventual outcome to be substantive and effective campaign finance reform legislation. I fear that without ensuring that improper fundraising practices are included in the investigation that this may never come about. We cannot deny the public a full and thorough inquiry into allegations that may eventually lead to tough campaign finance laws.