Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Fairness in Judiciary Appointments Act of 1997, with my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii. Our measure would require the appointment of judges on the circuit court of appeals from all States in the circuit. This legislation is identical to S. 1320, which was introduced in 1995. This measure will require no new appropriations and no additional spending authority. It would, however, ensure fairness in the appointment of circuit court judges and remove political pressure in weighing the nomination of a person from a more populated State over an individual from a less populated State. Our bill would require that judges on the circuit court of appeals be appointed from every State in the circuit. The impact of the measure on fairness and justice would be long-term and far-reaching. It will assure that all citizens of every State in the Nation are represented by an active circuit judge on each of the circuits. I am disappointed that the past three administrations have failed to nominate a circuit court judge from Hawaii, which is part of the ninth circuit. Hawaii's only active judge serves as a senior judge since his retirement over 10 years ago. There are currently 8 vacancies on the court out of 28 seats. Two additional judges are expected to retire this spring, which will mean that a full one-third of the seats on the ninth circuit court will be vacant. I will not go into the inability of the Senate to act on judicial appointments in the last Congress at this time. However, I will state for my colleagues that I am hopeful we will eliminate the existing backlog of vacancies at all levels of the Federal court system in a bipartisan manner. It is my firm belief that legal decisions should be based on the law, not representation. But representation would add to the credibility and legitimacy of the Federal appellate courts and the decisions they render. I urge my colleagues to support the Fairness in Judiciary Appointment Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Fairness in Judiciary Appointments Act of 1997, with my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii. Our measure would require the appointment of judges on the circuit court of appeals from all States in the circuit. This legislation is identical to S. 1320, which was introduced in 1995. This measure will require no new appropriations and no additional spending authority. It would, however, ensure fairness in the appointment of circuit court judges and remove political pressure in weighing the nomination of a person from a more populated State over an individual from a less populated State. Our bill would require that judges on the circuit court of appeals be appointed from every State in the circuit. The impact of the measure on fairness and justice would be long-term and far-reaching. It will assure that all citizens of every State in the Nation are represented by an active circuit judge on each of the circuits. I am disappointed that the past three administrations have failed to nominate a circuit court judge from Hawaii, which is part of the ninth circuit. Hawaii's only active judge serves as a senior judge since his retirement over 10 years ago. There are currently 8 vacancies on the court out of 28 seats. Two additional judges are expected to retire this spring, which will mean that a full one-third of the seats on the ninth circuit court will be vacant. I will not go into the inability of the Senate to act on judicial appointments in the last Congress at this time. However, I will state for my colleagues that I am hopeful we will eliminate the existing backlog of vacancies at all levels of the Federal court system in a bipartisan manner. It is my firm belief that legal decisions should be based on the law, not representation. But representation would add to the credibility and legitimacy of the Federal appellate courts and the decisions they render. I urge my colleagues to support the Fairness in Judiciary Appointment Act of 1997. Mr. President, I ask consent that my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I offer a bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to waive fees at joint parking facilities with the Department of Defense [DOD]. Currently, the VA is required to charge its users and employees to park at facilities built with special revolving funds. There is no exemption to this fee requirement for joint VA/DOD facilities, which results in an administrative nightmare for a parking facility in Hawaii. The VA parking structure at Tripler Army Medical Hospital will be shared by VA and DOD. While the law currently requires VA visitors and medical staff to pay for parking, DOD visitors and personnel are exempt from such a charge. Determining who is a VA or DOD visitor to the facility will be difficult to administer without creating a bureaucratic ordeal. Under the current situation, only VA medical employees at Tripler will be required to pay for parking. Visitors, DOD personnel, and VA regional employees would not be charged for parking. In addition, any VA medical employee who is also a DOD retiree would be exempt from the parking charge, because DOD retirees receive free parking at DOD facilities. Thus, only VA medical personnel who are not DOD retirees will be required to pay for parking. The cost to administer this parking fee will far outweigh the revenues received. Since parking fees are determined by surrounding area facilities and since Tripler is located in a residential area, parking fees for the Tripler facility would be nominal. Therefore, I am submitting legislation which will allow joint VA/DOD parking facilities to be exempt from the current statute.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I offer a bill to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to waive fees at joint parking facilities with the Department of Defense [DOD]. Currently, the VA is required to charge its users and employees to park at facilities built with special revolving funds. There is no exemption to this fee requirement for joint VA/DOD facilities, which results in an administrative nightmare for a parking facility in Hawaii. The VA parking structure at Tripler Army Medical Hospital will be shared by VA and DOD. While the law currently requires VA visitors and medical staff to pay for parking, DOD visitors and personnel are exempt from such a charge. Determining who is a VA or DOD visitor to the facility will be difficult to administer without creating a bureaucratic ordeal. Under the current situation, only VA medical employees at Tripler will be required to pay for parking. Visitors, DOD personnel, and VA regional employees would not be charged for parking. In addition, any VA medical employee who is also a DOD retiree would be exempt from the parking charge, because DOD retirees receive free parking at DOD facilities. Thus, only VA medical personnel who are not DOD retirees will be required to pay for parking. The cost to administer this parking fee will far outweigh the revenues received. Since parking fees are determined by surrounding area facilities and since Tripler is located in a residential area, parking fees for the Tripler facility would be nominal. Therefore, I am submitting legislation which will allow joint VA/DOD parking facilities to be exempt from the current statute.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 291 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in behalf of myself, Senator Frist, and Senator Inouye, I am today introducing the National Parks Airspace Management Act of 1997, a bill designed to mitigate the impact of commercial air tour flights over units of the National Park System. The measure would establish a new, statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on park units. This measure is similar to legislation I offered in the last two Congresses. Briefly, our bill would specify the respective authorities of the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in developing and enforcing park overflight policy; establish a process for developing individualized airspace management plans at parks experiencing significant commercial air tour activity; provide for the designation of those parks which did not experience commercial air tour activity as of January 1, 1997, as flight-free parks; establish a new, single standard governing the certification and operation of all commercial air tour operators that conduct flights over national parks; require a variety of safety measures, such as improved aircraft markings, maintenance of accurate aeronautical charts, installation of flight monitoring equipment, and an air tour data base; and, establish a National Park Overflight Advisory Council. Mr. President, aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas such as national parks have been increasing in scope and intensity for a number of years, sparking significant public debate and controversy about the safety and environmental impact of such activity. The focus of much of the debate, and much of the controversy, has been the commercial air tour sightseeing industry, which has experienced explosive growth in some areas, notably at the Grand Canyon and in my own State of Hawaii. But significant commercial air tour activity has also been developing in such widely dispersed locations as Glacier National Park in Montana, the Utah national parks, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, and the Statue of Liberty and Niagara Falls in New York. In fact, at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, commercial air tour overflights have fostered such opposition that the State of Tennessee has passed legislation to restrict such flights. In 1987, precipitated by a midair collision at the Grand Canyon, Congress adopted the National Parks Overflights Act, Public Law 100-91. The act permanently banned below-the-rim flights at the Grand Canyon and led to a Special Federal Aviation Regulation--SFAR 50-2-- establishing flight-free zones and air corridors at the park. The act also established temporary altitude restrictions for Yosemite National Park in California and Haleakala National Park in Hawaii. Finally, Public Law 100-91 mandated that the Park Service conduct a study on the impact of low-level flights on units of the National Park System. Since passage of the National Parks Overflights Act, a number of important developments have occurred. First, in 1993 a Department of Transportation and Department of the Interior interagency working group was established to address park overflight issues of mutual concern, an acknowledgment by the executive branch that the issue required extensive interagency cooperation, but also a reflection of the deep differences in approach and attitude that existed between the National Park Service and the FAA on this contentious matter. In 1994, the overflights report mandated by Public Law 100-91 was completed, identifying and documenting low-altitude flights as threats to park resources and recommending a variety of means to address these threats, such as incentives to encourage use of quite aircraft technology, flight-free zones and flight corridors, altitude restrictions, noise budgets, and limits on times of air tour operations. Also in 1994, in response to a pair of helicopter crashes in the Pacific, the FAA issued an emergency flight rule--SFAR 71-- imposing certain altitude and other operating restrictions on air tour operators in Hawaii. More recently, last spring, the President issued an executive memorandum directing agency heads to participate in the effort to protect natural quite in National Park System units. The memorandum led to the final rule for the Grand Canyon, issued in December 1996, providing for additional, delineated restrictions on air tour activity at the park. The memorandum also led to a new rule promulgated earlier this year to ban preemptively, for 2 years or until a national rule is developed, flights at Rocky Mountain National Park. Finally, as a result of the President's memorandum, the FAA and the Park Service were required to develop a comprehensive, national rule governing air tour flights at all national parks. Work on the national rule is in the preliminary stages. While these developments have been welcome, it is fair to say that overall progress on the overflights issue has been desultory. For every Grand Canyon or Rocky Mountain, there are dozens of parks whose overflights problems remain completely unaddressed. In this regard, problems and delays associated with the development of a national rule have been particularly disappointing. Reportedly, the FAA and Park Service continue to squabble over matters of jurisdiction, and air tour operators and environmental organizations continue to prefer confrontation to accommodation. In the meantime, air tour-generated problems continue to accrete, exacerbating the environmental and safety consequences of park overflights. This experience has shown us that only Congress, through legislation, can produce lasting, effective policy on this matter. Mr. President, when all is said and done, the simple truth is that the complex problems associated with park overflights cannot be fully resolved administratively. In my opinion, this state of affairs is largely due to the fact that the FAA and the Park Service, the two agencies with the heaviest responsibility for addressing park overflights, are governed by vastly different statutory mandates. On the one hand, the FAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of air commerce; on the other, the Park Service is charged with protecting and preserving park resources. These mutually exclusive missions have bred different approaches, attitudes, and institutional cultures that have hindered interagency cooperation and development of a consistent, effective park overflights policy. Only by modifying or clarifying their statutory responsibilities with respect to the management of park airspace can the two Federal agencies be expected to work together consistently and systematically to address the overflight problem. Mr. President, the legislation we are proposing today would address this and other barriers to the development of a comprehensive park overflights policy. Our bill deals with the commercial air tour overflights issue in a national context, since the safety and environmental concerns which are being debated so vociferously at the Grand Canyon and in Hawaii are being echoed at park units scattered throughout the National Park System. At the outset, our bill establishes a finding that National Park Service policy recognizes the importance of natural quiet as a resource to be conserved and protected in certain park units. Toward that end, our legislation creates a new statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on units throughout the National Park System. The bill articulates a regulatory scheme under which the Park Service and the FAA are required to work in tandem to develop operational policies with respect to the overflights problem. It provides for joint administration in many areas while clearly denoting the FAA's primary on matters related to safety and air efficiency and the Park Service's lead role in identifying the resources to be protected and the best means of protecting them. The bill requires the development, with public involvement, of individually tailored park airspace management plans for units significantly affected by overflight activity, as determined by the Director of the Park Service. It calls for good faith negotiations between commercial air tour operators and both the Park Service and the FAA to reach agreement on flights over park areas. It provides for the Park Service to recommend to the FAA the designation of individual units as ``flight-free parks'' for those units which, as of January 1, 1997, experienced no overflights by commercial air tour operators and where air tour flights would be incompatible with or injurious to the purposes or values of those parks. It also mandates the development by the FAA of a generic operational rule for commercial air tour operations at all units of the National Park System, subject to modification at individual park units based on negotiations among air tour operators, the FAA, and the Park Service. Our legislation requires the FAA to implement a single standard, through a new subpart of part 135, title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, for certifying commercial air tour operators. Such a uniform standard, which has been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], will substantially enhance safety by providing essential consistency in such areas as pilot qualifications, training, and flight and duty time limitations. It mandates commercial air tour safety initiatives recommended by the NTSB and others, including the installation of a flight monitoring system and the use of identification markings unique to a commercial air tour operator, the development of aeronautical charts which reflect airspace management provisions with respect to individual park units, and the development of a national database on air tour operations. Last, but by no means least, the bill establishes a National Park Overflight Advisory Council which would provide advice and recommendations to the Park Service and the FAA on all issues related to commercial air tour flights over park units and serve as a national forum for interest groups, including representatives of the air tour industry and the environmental community, to exchange views constructively. It is significant to note that our bill will not affect emergency flight operations, general aviation, military aviation, or scheduled commercial passenger flights that transit National Park System units. Furthermore, recognizing the special needs for air travel in Alaska, this bill will not affect the management of park units or aircraft operations over or within park units in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, I believe that the legislation we are offering today will give us the tools to minimize the adverse effects of commercial air tour flights on park resources as well as on the ground visitor experience, while at the same time enhancing the safety of such flights. I believe it is a balanced measure that, through extensive opportunity for public involvement, attempts to accommodate the legitimate concerns of all park users, including air tour operators and passengers. Indeed, I strongly believe that under certain well- regulated conditions, air tourism provides an important service to many elderly, disabled, or other visitors who might otherwise never enjoy the wonders of our national parks. Nevertheless, our bill's central premise is that the 369 park units of the National Park System were created because of their exceptional natural or cultural significance to the American people. All of the provisions of the National Parks Airspace Management Act are therefore designed with the protection of park resources as their essential, if not exclusive, goal. For it is self-evident that a park whose values have been corrupted is a park ultimately not worth visiting, by air or land. Mr. President, in closing, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] earlier this week introduced related legislation on park overflights. While his bill differs from ours in some details, the intent of both measures is the same--to mitigate the adverse effects of air tours flights on our national parks. Given our common goal, I hope that we can work together in crafting an effective, bipartisan approach to this troubling and divisive issue. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the National Parks Airspace Management Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in behalf of myself, Senator Frist, and Senator Inouye, I am today introducing the National Parks Airspace Management Act of 1997, a bill designed to mitigate the impact of commercial air tour flights over units of the National Park System. The measure would establish a new, statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on park units. This measure is similar to legislation I offered in the last two Congresses. Briefly, our bill would specify the respective authorities of the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in developing and enforcing park overflight policy; establish a process for developing individualized airspace management plans at parks experiencing significant commercial air tour activity; provide for the designation of those parks which did not experience commercial air tour activity as of January 1, 1997, as flight-free parks; establish a new, single standard governing the certification and operation of all commercial air tour operators that conduct flights over national parks; require a variety of safety measures, such as improved aircraft markings, maintenance of accurate aeronautical charts, installation of flight monitoring equipment, and an air tour data base; and, establish a National Park Overflight Advisory Council. Mr. President, aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas such as national parks have been increasing in scope and intensity for a number of years, sparking significant public debate and controversy about the safety and environmental impact of such activity. The focus of much of the debate, and much of the controversy, has been the commercial air tour sightseeing industry, which has experienced explosive growth in some areas, notably at the Grand Canyon and in my own State of Hawaii. But significant commercial air tour activity has also been developing in such widely dispersed locations as Glacier National Park in Montana, the Utah national parks, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, and the Statue of Liberty and Niagara Falls in New York. In fact, at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, commercial air tour overflights have fostered such opposition that the State of Tennessee has passed legislation to restrict such flights. In 1987, precipitated by a midair collision at the Grand Canyon, Congress adopted the National Parks Overflights Act, Public Law 100-91. The act permanently banned below-the-rim flights at the Grand Canyon and led to a Special Federal Aviation Regulation--SFAR 50-2-- establishing flight-free zones and air corridors at the park. The act also established temporary altitude restrictions for Yosemite National Park in California and Haleakala National Park in Hawaii. Finally, Public Law 100-91 mandated that the Park Service conduct a study on the impact of low-level flights on units of the National Park System. Since passage of the National Parks Overflights Act, a number of important developments have occurred. First, in 1993 a Department of Transportation and Department of the Interior interagency working group was established to address park overflight issues of mutual concern, an acknowledgment by the executive branch that the issue required extensive interagency cooperation, but also a reflection of the deep differences in approach and attitude that existed between the National Park Service and the FAA on this contentious matter. In 1994, the overflights report mandated by Public Law 100-91 was completed, identifying and documenting low-altitude flights as threats to park resources and recommending a variety of means to address these threats, such as incentives to encourage use of quite aircraft technology, flight-free zones and flight corridors, altitude restrictions, noise budgets, and limits on times of air tour operations. Also in 1994, in response to a pair of helicopter crashes in the Pacific, the FAA issued an emergency flight rule--SFAR 71-- imposing certain altitude and other operating restrictions on air tour operators in Hawaii. More recently, last spring, the President issued an executive memorandum directing agency heads to participate in the effort to protect natural quite in National Park System units. The memorandum led to the final rule for the Grand Canyon, issued in December 1996, providing for additional, delineated restrictions on air tour activity at the park. The memorandum also led to a new rule promulgated earlier this year to ban preemptively, for 2 years or until a national rule is developed, flights at Rocky Mountain National Park. Finally, as a result of the President's memorandum, the FAA and the Park Service were required to develop a comprehensive, national rule governing air tour flights at all national parks. Work on the national rule is in the preliminary stages. While these developments have been welcome, it is fair to say that overall progress on the overflights issue has been desultory. For every Grand Canyon or Rocky Mountain, there are dozens of parks whose overflights problems remain completely unaddressed. In this regard, problems and delays associated with the development of a national rule have been particularly disappointing. Reportedly, the FAA and Park Service continue to squabble over matters of jurisdiction, and air tour operators and environmental organizations continue to prefer confrontation to accommodation. In the meantime, air tour-generated problems continue to accrete, exacerbating the environmental and safety consequences of park overflights. This experience has shown us that only Congress, through legislation, can produce lasting, effective policy on this matter. Mr. President, when all is said and done, the simple truth is that the complex problems associated with park overflights cannot be fully resolved administratively. In my opinion, this state of affairs is largely due to the fact that the FAA and the Park Service, the two agencies with the heaviest responsibility for addressing park overflights, are governed by vastly different statutory mandates. On the one hand, the FAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of air commerce; on the other, the Park Service is charged with protecting and preserving park resources. These mutually exclusive missions have bred different approaches, attitudes, and institutional cultures that have hindered interagency cooperation and development of a consistent, effective park overflights policy. Only by modifying or clarifying their statutory responsibilities with respect to the management of park airspace can the two Federal agencies be expected to work together consistently and systematically to address the overflight problem. Mr. President, the legislation we are proposing today would address this and other barriers to the development of a comprehensive park overflights policy. Our bill deals with the commercial air tour overflights issue in a national context, since the safety and environmental concerns which are being debated so vociferously at the Grand Canyon and in Hawaii are being echoed at park units scattered throughout the National Park System. At the outset, our bill establishes a finding that National Park Service policy recognizes the importance of natural quiet as a resource to be conserved and protected in certain park units. Toward that end, our legislation creates a new statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on units throughout the National Park System. The bill articulates a regulatory scheme under which the Park Service and the FAA are required to work in tandem to develop operational policies with respect to the overflights problem. It provides for joint administration in many areas while clearly denoting the FAA's primary on matters related to safety and air efficiency and the Park Service's lead role in identifying the resources to be protected and the best means of protecting them. The bill requires the development, with public involvement, of individually tailored park airspace management plans for units significantly affected by overflight activity, as determined by the Director of the Park Service. It calls for good faith negotiations between commercial air tour operators and both the Park Service and the FAA to reach agreement on flights over park areas. It provides for the Park Service to recommend to the FAA the designation of individual units as ``flight-free parks'' for those units which, as of January 1, 1997, experienced no overflights by commercial air tour operators and where air tour flights would be incompatible with or injurious to the purposes or values of those parks. It also mandates the development by the FAA of a generic operational rule for commercial air tour operations at all units of the National Park System, subject to modification at individual park units based on negotiations among air tour operators, the FAA, and the Park Service. Our legislation requires the FAA to implement a single standard, through a new subpart of part 135, title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, for certifying commercial air tour operators. Such a uniform standard, which has been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], will substantially enhance safety by providing essential consistency in such areas as pilot qualifications, training, and flight and duty time limitations. It mandates commercial air tour safety initiatives recommended by the NTSB and others, including the installation of a flight monitoring system and the use of identification markings unique to a commercial air tour operator, the development of aeronautical charts which reflect airspace management provisions with respect to individual park units, and the development of a national database on air tour operations. Last, but by no means least, the bill establishes a National Park Overflight Advisory Council which would provide advice and recommendations to the Park Service and the FAA on all issues related to commercial air tour flights over park units and serve as a national forum for interest groups, including representatives of the air tour industry and the environmental community, to exchange views constructively. It is significant to note that our bill will not affect emergency flight operations, general aviation, military aviation, or scheduled commercial passenger flights that transit National Park System units. Furthermore, recognizing the special needs for air travel in Alaska, this bill will not affect the management of park units or aircraft operations over or within park units in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, I believe that the legislation we are offering today will give us the tools to minimize the adverse effects of commercial air tour flights on park resources as well as on the ground visitor experience, while at the same time enhancing the safety of such flights. I believe it is a balanced measure that, through extensive opportunity for public involvement, attempts to accommodate the legitimate concerns of all park users, including air tour operators and passengers. Indeed, I strongly believe that under certain well- regulated conditions, air tourism provides an important service to many elderly, disabled, or other visitors who might otherwise never enjoy the wonders of our national parks. Nevertheless, our bill's central premise is that the 369 park units of the National Park System were created because of their exceptional natural or cultural significance to the American people. All of the provisions of the National Parks Airspace Management Act are therefore designed with the protection of park resources as their essential, if not exclusive, goal. For it is self-evident that a park whose values have been corrupted is a park ultimately not worth visiting, by air or land. Mr. President, in closing, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] earlier this week introduced related legislation on park overflights. While his bill differs from ours in some details, the intent of both measures is the same--to mitigate the adverse effects of air tours flights on our national parks. Given our common goal, I hope that we can work together in crafting an effective, bipartisan approach to this troubling and divisive issue. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the National Parks Airspace Management Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1997, on behalf of myself, Senator Inouye, and Senator Glenn to combat fraud against victims of Federal disasters. Like similar legislation I introduced in the 103d and 104th Congresses, this measure would make it a Federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. We are all aware of the tremendous costs incurred during a natural disaster. California is recovering from the devastating floods that have caused nearly $1.6 billion in damage and has made 42 of the State's 58 counties eligible for disaster assistance. Just before the dams and levees in California overflowed, the Pacific Northwest was hit with violent storms, and recently Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota have been declared Federal disaster areas, as have 13 counties in Idaho and four in Nevada. During the 1990's, a number of deadly natural disasters have occurred throughout the United States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, wild fires, mudslides, and blizzards. Many were declared Federal natural disasters like Hurricane Iniki, which in 1993 leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii causing $1.6 billion in damage and Hurricane Andrew which devastated southern Florida. Through instant, onscreen media coverage, the Nation has had ringside seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses. We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help rebuild strangers' homes. Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these catastrophes, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on trusting and unsuspecting victims, whose immediate concerns are applying for disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and dealing with the rebuilding of their lives. The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1997 would criminalize some of the activities undertaken by these unprincipled people whose sole intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will make it a Federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice-- first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets from $60 a month to $60 a day. In other flood-hit areas, carpet cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities. Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered south Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. After Hurricane Iniki devastated the island of Kauai, a contractor promising quick home repair took disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without completing promised construction. These fraud victims have yet to find relief. While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make it a Federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim and fail to provide the agreed-upon material or service for the cleanup, repair, and recovery. The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is the responsibility of the States to impose restrictions on price increases prior to a Federal disaster declaration, Federal penalties for price gouging should be imposed once a Federal disaster has been declared. I am pleased to incorporate in this measure an initiative Senator Glenn began following Hurricane Andrew to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods and services. Fortunately, citizens in Hawaii were spared spiraling cost increases after Hurricane Iniki because the State government acted swiftly to counteract attempts at price gouging by instituting price and rent freezes. There already is tremendous cooperation among the various State and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-State during a natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions has created a strong support network. However, a Federal remedy is needed to assist States when a disaster occurs. There should be a broader enforcement system to help overburdened State and local governments during a time of disaster. The Federal Government is in a position to ensure that residents within a federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. Federal agencies should assist localities to provide such a support system. In addition to making disaster-related fraud a Federal crime, this bill would also require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop public information materials to advise disaster victims about ways to detect and avoid fraud. I have seen a number of antifraud materials prepared by State consumer protection offices and believe this section would assist States to disseminate antifraud-related material following the declaration of a disaster by the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that sends a clear message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a natural disaster.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1997, on behalf of myself, Senator Inouye, and Senator Glenn to combat fraud against victims of Federal disasters. Like similar legislation I introduced in the 103d and 104th Congresses, this measure would make it a Federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. We are all aware of the tremendous costs incurred during a natural disaster. California is recovering from the devastating floods that have caused nearly $1.6 billion in damage and has made 42 of the State's 58 counties eligible for disaster assistance. Just before the dams and levees in California overflowed, the Pacific Northwest was hit with violent storms, and recently Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota have been declared Federal disaster areas, as have 13 counties in Idaho and four in Nevada. During the 1990's, a number of deadly natural disasters have occurred throughout the United States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, wild fires, mudslides, and blizzards. Many were declared Federal natural disasters like Hurricane Iniki, which in 1993 leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii causing $1.6 billion in damage and Hurricane Andrew which devastated southern Florida. Through instant, onscreen media coverage, the Nation has had ringside seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses. We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help rebuild strangers' homes. Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these catastrophes, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on trusting and unsuspecting victims, whose immediate concerns are applying for disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and dealing with the rebuilding of their lives. The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1997 would criminalize some of the activities undertaken by these unprincipled people whose sole intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will make it a Federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice-- first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets from $60 a month to $60 a day. In other flood-hit areas, carpet cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities. Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered south Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. After Hurricane Iniki devastated the island of Kauai, a contractor promising quick home repair took disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without completing promised construction. These fraud victims have yet to find relief. While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make it a Federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim and fail to provide the agreed-upon material or service for the cleanup, repair, and recovery. The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is the responsibility of the States to impose restrictions on price increases prior to a Federal disaster declaration, Federal penalties for price gouging should be imposed once a Federal disaster has been declared. I am pleased to incorporate in this measure an initiative Senator Glenn began following Hurricane Andrew to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods and services. Fortunately, citizens in Hawaii were spared spiraling cost increases after Hurricane Iniki because the State government acted swiftly to counteract attempts at price gouging by instituting price and rent freezes. There already is tremendous cooperation among the various State and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-State during a natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions has created a strong support network. However, a Federal remedy is needed to assist States when a disaster occurs. There should be a broader enforcement system to help overburdened State and local governments during a time of disaster. The Federal Government is in a position to ensure that residents within a federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. Federal agencies should assist localities to provide such a support system. In addition to making disaster-related fraud a Federal crime, this bill would also require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop public information materials to advise disaster victims about ways to detect and avoid fraud. I have seen a number of antifraud materials prepared by State consumer protection offices and believe this section would assist States to disseminate antifraud-related material following the declaration of a disaster by the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that sends a clear message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a natural disaster.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act, a bill to ensure that Hawaii has access to the strategic petroleum reserve during an oil supply disruption. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act would guarantee Hawaii oil at a fair price and give tankers bound for Hawaii priority loading during an emergency. This legislation passed the Senate in two previous Congresses. During the 104th Congress, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources once again approved the bill. Only the inability of the House to adopt strategic petroleum reserve reforms has prevented my bill from becoming law. I will work aggressively during the 105th Congress to enact this measure. The objective of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act can be summarized in one word: access. Because of its tremendous distance from the Gulf Coast, Hawaii needs guaranteed access to the strategic petroleum reserve [SPR], as well as priority access to the SPR loading docks. My bill addresses both these concerns. First, it provides a mechanism to guarantee an award of SPR oil. Hawaii's energy companies will be allowed to submit binding offers for a fixed quantity of oil at a price equal to the average of all successful bids. This concept is modeled after the Federal Government's method of selling Treasury bills. It would give Hawaii ready access to emergency oil supplies at a price that is fair to the Government. Without this bill, Hawaii's energy companies, and the population they serve, face the risk that their bid for SPR oil would be rejected and that oil inventories would run dry. The second component of my bill addresses the problem of delay. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act grants Hawaii-bound ships expedited access to SPR loading docks. It would be a terrible misfortune if deliveries to Hawaii were delayed because the tanker scheduled to carry emergency supplies was moored in the Gulf of Mexico, waiting in line for access to the SPR loading docks. As any grade-school geography student knows, Hawaii is a long way from the Gulf of Mexico, especially when you have to transit the Panama Canal. The distance between the SPR loading docks and Honolulu, by way of the canal, is 7,000 miles--more than one-quarter of the distance around the globe. But distance alone is not the issue. When you add together the time between the decision to draw down the reserve and the time for oil from the reserve to reach our shores, the seriousness of the problem emerges. It takes time to solicit and accept bids for SPR oil, time to locate and position tankers, time for tankers to wait in line to gain access to SPR loading docks, and more time to transit the canal to Hawaii. Obviously, Hawaii is at the end of a very, very long supply line. People overlook the fact that insular areas have a limited supply of petroleum products on hand at any time. While Hawaii waited for emergency supplies to arrive, oil inventories could run dry and our economy could grind to a halt. Recently, the Department of Energy asked Hawaii's East-West Center to study this problem. The East-West Center report concluded that my SPR access measure ``is an excellent proposal which would greatly reassure the islands that their basic needs would be maintained.'' The East-West Center report provides strong justification for granting Hawaii special access to SPR oil during an energy emergency. The report found that a major oil supply disruption would have a much more severe impact on the Pacific islands than on the rest of the United States. Although all of Asia would experience some degree of inflation and recession, the small economies of the insular areas would be virtually unprotected from volatile economic forces. While the rest of the United States does not have to rely on ocean transport from other nations for essential goods and services, the economies of Hawaii and the Pacific islands are heavily dependent on ocean-borne trade and foreign visitors. The need for this provision is further justified by a December 1993 Department of Energy/State of Hawaii analysis of Hawaii's energy security which found the following: Hawaii depends on imported oil for over 92 percent of its energy. This makes Hawaii the most vulnerable State in the Nation to the disruption of its economy and way of life in the event of a disruption of the world oil market or rapid oil price increases. Currently, 40 percent of Hawaii's oil comes from Alaska and the remainder from the Asia-Pacific region. The export capabilities of these domestic and foreign sources of supply are projected to decline by approximately 50 percent by the year 2000. This will likely increase Hawaii's dependence on oil reserves of the politically unstable Middle East. Hawaii is also vulnerable to possible supply disruptions in the event of a crisis. The long distance from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana and Texas, combined with a declining number of U.S.-flag tankers capable of transiting the Panama Canal, make timely emergency deliveries problematic. Other studies have consistently verified Hawaii's energy vulnerability and its need for special access to the SPR. An analysis by Mr. Bruce Wilson, an accomplished oil economist, determined that the delivery of SPR oil to Hawaii from the Gulf of Mexico could take as long as 53 days. That exceeds the State's average commercial working inventory by 23 days. As Mr. Wilson's research shows, an oil supply disruption is Hawaii's greatest nightmare. Some suggest that market forces will ensure that Hawaii and the territories receive the oil they need during an energy emergency. Unfortunately, these are the same market forces that cause Hawaii's consumers to pay 50 percent more per gallon of gasoline than consumers pay on the Mainland. When a crisis hits, our energy prices can double or triple. Hawaii may be the 50th State, but we deserve the same degree of energy security that the rest of the Nation enjoys. It's simply a matter of equity. Hawaii's tax dollars help fill and maintain the reserve; Hawaii should enjoy the energy security the SPR is designed to provide. My bill will safeguard Hawaii from the harsh economic consequences of an oil emergency. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act is not only good energy policy, it's good economic policy for Hawaii. 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 Emergency Petroleum Supply Act, a bill to ensure that Hawaii has access to the strategic petroleum reserve during an oil supply disruption. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act would guarantee Hawaii oil at a fair price and give tankers bound for Hawaii priority loading during an emergency. This legislation passed the Senate in two previous Congresses. During the 104th Congress, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources once again approved the bill. Only the inability of the House to adopt strategic petroleum reserve reforms has prevented my bill from becoming law. I will work aggressively during the 105th Congress to enact this measure. The objective of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act can be summarized in one word: access. Because of its tremendous distance from the Gulf Coast, Hawaii needs guaranteed access to the strategic petroleum reserve [SPR], as well as priority access to the SPR loading docks. My bill addresses both these concerns. First, it provides a mechanism to guarantee an award of SPR oil. Hawaii's energy companies will be allowed to submit binding offers for a fixed quantity of oil at a price equal to the average of all successful bids. This concept is modeled after the Federal Government's method of selling Treasury bills. It would give Hawaii ready access to emergency oil supplies at a price that is fair to the Government. Without this bill, Hawaii's energy companies, and the population they serve, face the risk that their bid for SPR oil would be rejected and that oil inventories would run dry. The second component of my bill addresses the problem of delay. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act grants Hawaii-bound ships expedited access to SPR loading docks. It would be a terrible misfortune if deliveries to Hawaii were delayed because the tanker scheduled to carry emergency supplies was moored in the Gulf of Mexico, waiting in line for access to the SPR loading docks. As any grade-school geography student knows, Hawaii is a long way from the Gulf of Mexico, especially when you have to transit the Panama Canal. The distance between the SPR loading docks and Honolulu, by way of the canal, is 7,000 miles--more than one-quarter of the distance around the globe. But distance alone is not the issue. When you add together the time between the decision to draw down the reserve and the time for oil from the reserve to reach our shores, the seriousness of the problem emerges. It takes time to solicit and accept bids for SPR oil, time to locate and position tankers, time for tankers to wait in line to gain access to SPR loading docks, and more time to transit the canal to Hawaii. Obviously, Hawaii is at the end of a very, very long supply line. People overlook the fact that insular areas have a limited supply of petroleum products on hand at any time. While Hawaii waited for emergency supplies to arrive, oil inventories could run dry and our economy could grind to a halt. Recently, the Department of Energy asked Hawaii's East-West Center to study this problem. The East-West Center report concluded that my SPR access measure ``is an excellent proposal which would greatly reassure the islands that their basic needs would be maintained.'' The East-West Center report provides strong justification for granting Hawaii special access to SPR oil during an energy emergency. The report found that a major oil supply disruption would have a much more severe impact on the Pacific islands than on the rest of the United States. Although all of Asia would experience some degree of inflation and recession, the small economies of the insular areas would be virtually unprotected from volatile economic forces. While the rest of the United States does not have to rely on ocean transport from other nations for essential goods and services, the economies of Hawaii and the Pacific islands are heavily dependent on ocean-borne trade and foreign visitors. The need for this provision is further justified by a December 1993 Department of Energy/State of Hawaii analysis of Hawaii's energy security which found the following: Hawaii depends on imported oil for over 92 percent of its energy. This makes Hawaii the most vulnerable State in the Nation to the disruption of its economy and way of life in the event of a disruption of the world oil market or rapid oil price increases. Currently, 40 percent of Hawaii's oil comes from Alaska and the remainder from the Asia-Pacific region. The export capabilities of these domestic and foreign sources of supply are projected to decline by approximately 50 percent by the year 2000. This will likely increase Hawaii's dependence on oil reserves of the politically unstable Middle East. Hawaii is also vulnerable to possible supply disruptions in the event of a crisis. The long distance from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana and Texas, combined with a declining number of U.S.-flag tankers capable of transiting the Panama Canal, make timely emergency deliveries problematic. Other studies have consistently verified Hawaii's energy vulnerability and its need for special access to the SPR. An analysis by Mr. Bruce Wilson, an accomplished oil economist, determined that the delivery of SPR oil to Hawaii from the Gulf of Mexico could take as long as 53 days. That exceeds the State's average commercial working inventory by 23 days. As Mr. Wilson's research shows, an oil supply disruption is Hawaii's greatest nightmare. Some suggest that market forces will ensure that Hawaii and the territories receive the oil they need during an energy emergency. Unfortunately, these are the same market forces that cause Hawaii's consumers to pay 50 percent more per gallon of gasoline than consumers pay on the Mainland. When a crisis hits, our energy prices can double or triple. Hawaii may be the 50th State, but we deserve the same degree of energy security that the rest of the Nation enjoys. It's simply a matter of equity. Hawaii's tax dollars help fill and maintain the reserve; Hawaii should enjoy the energy security the SPR is designed to provide. My bill will safeguard Hawaii from the harsh economic consequences of an oil emergency. The Emergency Petroleum Supply Act is not only good energy policy, it's good economic policy for Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Plant Protection Act, a comprehensive consolidation of Federal laws governing plant pests and diseases, noxious weeds, and the plant products that harbor pests and weeds. During the past century, numerous Federal laws were enacted to address problems caused by plant pests and noxious weeds. While some of these laws continue to protect agriculture and the environment, others are ambiguous, outmoded, or difficult to enforce. The Nation's agricultural community, as well as private, state, and Federal land managers, cannot afford the continuing uncertainty caused by the hodgepodge of Federal plant pest laws, some of which were enacted before World War I. Legislation to revise and consolidate federal plant pest laws is urgently needed and long overdue. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman highlighted the problem created by federal plant protection laws when he told Congress that ``in some instances, it is unclear which statutes should be relied upon for authority. It is difficult to explain to the public why some apparently similar situations have to be treated differently because different authorities are involved.'' A 1993 report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment reached the same conclusion. The OTA found that Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading alien pests. The Plant Protection Act will address many of these problems. The bill I introduced today will enhance the Federal Government's ability to combat weeds, plant pests, and diseases, and protect our farms, environment, and economy from the harm they cause. Plant pests are a problem of monumental proportions. Insects such as Mediterranean fruit fly, fire ant, and gypsy moth plague America's farmers and cause billions of dollars in crop losses annually. Destructive plant diseases include chestnut blight, which wiped out the most common tree of our Appalachian forests, elm blight, which destroyed many splendid trees throughout our towns and cities, and the white pine blister rust, which eliminated western white pine as a source of timber for several decades. Alien weeds also cause havoc, and nowhere is this problem more apparent than in Hawaii. Because our climate is so accommodating, Hawaii is heaven-on-earth for weeds. Weeds such as gorse, ivy gourd, miconia, and banana poka are ravaging our tropical and subtropical landscape. Invasive noxious weeds do more than just compete with domestic species. They transform the landscape, change the rules by which native plants and animals live, and undermine the economic and environmental health of the areas they infest. Alien weeds fuel grass and forest fires, promote soil erosion, and destroy critical water resources. They significantly increase the cost of farming and ranching. Noxious weeds destroy or alter natural habitat, damage waterways and powerlines, and depress property values. Some are toxic to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Alien weeds are biological pollution, pure and simple. Due to the worldwide growth in trade and travel we are witnessing an explosion in the number of foreign weeds that plague our Nation. Just how big is this problem? Let me offer an example. Last year, on Federal lands alone, we lost 4,500 acres each day to noxious weeds. That's a million-and-a-half acres a year, or an area the size of Delaware. By comparison, forest fires--one of the most fearsome natural disasters--claimed only half as many Federal acres as weeds. Noxious weeds have also been called biological wildfire, and for good reason. Forests, national parks, recreation areas, urban landscapes, wilderness, grasslands, waterways, farm and range land across the Nation are overrun by noxious weeds. Farmers experience the greatest economic impact of this problem. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that exotic weeds cost U.S. farmers $3.6 to $5.4 billion annually due to reduced yields, crops of poor quality, increased herbicide use, and other weed control costs. Noxious weeds are a significant drain on farm productivity. Despite the magnitude of this problem, few people get alarmed about weeds. The issue certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Time or Newsweek. Perhaps if kudzu, a weed known as the ``vine that ate the South,'' attacked the Capitol grounds, weeds would finally get the attention they deserve. Several of these foreign weeds are truly the King Kong of plants. Some are 50 feet tall. Others have 4 inch thorns. Some have roots 25 feet deep, and others produce 20 million seeds each year. My least-favorite weed is the tropical soda apple, a thorny plant with a sweet-sounding name. It bears small yellow and green fruit. But, like fruit from the forbidden tree, tropical soda apples are a source of great strife. This import from Brazil has inch-long spikes covering its stems and leaves. The fruit is a favorite among cattle, and when they pass the seeds in their manure new weeds quickly sprout. As cattle are shipped from state to state with soda apple seeds in their stomachs you can easily imagine how the problem rapidly spreads. Tropical soda apple is a weed control nightmare. The saga of tropical soda apple prompted me to introduce S. 690, the Federal Noxious Weed Improvement Act during the 104th Congress. S. 690 would grant the Secretary of Agriculture emergency powers to restrict the entry of a foreign weed until formal action can be taken to place it on the noxious weed list. This legislation would prevent future tropical soda apples from taking root. I have incorporated the text of S. 690 into section 4 of the Plant Protection Act. Other provisions of the legislation I have introduced today are drawn from USDA recommendations for consolidating weed and plant pest authorities. Because the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority over plant pests and noxious weeds is dispersed throughout many statutes, Federal efforts to protect agriculture, forestry, and our environment are seriously hindered. To enable the Department to respond more efficiently to this challenge, the Plant Protection Act will consolidate these authorities into a single statute. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Plant Protection Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we move toward adjournment, I wish to comment on the recently passed illegal immigration reform bill. I also wish to commend everyone who helped hammer out the compromise that was incorporated into H.R. 4278, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill. The resulting compromise properly shifted the focus from penalizing those legally admitted to this country to those who illegally cross our borders. The conference report, as passed by the House of Representatives last week, would have severely restricted benefit eligibility for legal permanent residents and other lawfully admitted immigrants. Legal residents--people who contribute to our society by working hard, paying taxes, serving in our Nation's Armed Forces, and observing all laws to remain in the United States--would have been ineligible for most Federally funded public assistance based on income. The resulting compromise eliminates deeming provisions that would have restricted the ability of legal immigrants to receive federal benefits during their first 5 years in the United States. Moreover, it dropped provisions mandating deportation or denial of naturalized status to immigrants who accept Federal benefits during a 12-month period over 7 years. These are significant changes which soften the newly enacted welfare reform bill that bars legal resident aliens from receiving a number of Federal benefits. The House-passed conference agreement also called for establishing income standards for the sponsorship by U.S. citizens of family members that were unrealistically high and would have had a deleterious effect on family reunification--a long-standing goal of U.S. immigration policy. The conference agreement numbers would have kept sponsorship of immediate family members out of the reach of many hard-working, tax- paying families. Under the compromise, sponsors of immigrant relatives must now earn a minimum of 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. This is a more realistic standard that will assist low-income wage earners in reuniting with their family members. I voted for the Senate immigration reform bill in May, not because I thought it was perfect, but because it addressed the issue of illegal immigration. I was hopeful that the House and Senate bills could be negotiated in a bipartisan fashion so that Congress could enact meaningful immigration reform. During the conference, Democrats were excluded from the process. The results, Mr. President, were predictable. The Congress does not represent only one opinion. We must be willing and able to compromise, to hear one another's concerns, and find solutions that will not harm our citizens and legal immigrants. Congress was on the verge of enacting legislation that would have created a second-class citizenship for legal immigrants. I am pleased that we were able to avert action that would have unfairly treated those legally admitted to this country, threatened to close the door on refugees fleeing persecution, and denied working Americans the right to be reunited with their families.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1711, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. I am especially pleased that this measure includes provisions that would improve the Centers for Minority and Women Veterans and allow refinancing under the Veterans' Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992. These provisions are based on measures I introduced earlier in this Congress which were reported by the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Native American Home Loan Refinancing Mr. President, S. 1711 contains a provision that authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to refinance direct loans issued to Native American veterans under Native American Home Loan Program, established by Public Law 102-547. This initiative is derived from S. 1342, legislation I introduced with Senators Rockefeller, Inouye, Wellstone, and Simon. Under this provision, the same credit standards that apply to refinancing of VA guaranteed loans also apply to refinancing of Native American direct loans. As my colleagues are aware, the Native American Direct Loan Pilot Program was established by Congress to ensure equal access to home loans for those veterans residing on reservations or other trust lands. Because trust lands cannot be used as collateral, commercial lending institutions are unwilling to issue mortgages for housing on such lands. The direct loans authorized under Public Law 102-547 permit Native Americans to purchase, construct, or improve dwellings on trust land despite the absence of commercial financing. As of May 1996, VA had entered into agreements with 38 tribes and Native Hawaiians to provide direct home loans to tribal members, and negotiations were ongoing to conclude agreements with 21 additional tribes. More than 90 loans had been closed, 42 commitments issued, and 130 applications pending. Recently, however, VA determined that Native Americans wishing to take advantage of lower interest rates could not refinance under the program. This clearly violated the intent of Congress in establishing the program, which was to ensure that Native American veterans enjoy the same access to VA home loan benefits as other veterans, especially when one considers the fact that refinancing is authorized under other VA loan programs. This bill will correct this inequity and, hopefully, encourage other Native Americans to utilize the direct loan program. It is important to point out that VA will not incur additional costs if this refinancing option is adopted, since the agency will be permitted to charge an administrative refinancing fee. In fact, it is possible that the refinancing provision will save the department money as well, by allowing veterans to lower their mortgage payments and thus reduce the likelihood of default. Centers for Minority and Women Veterans Mr. President, S. 1711 also contains improvements to the Centers for Minority and Women Veterans as well as the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans that were enacted as part of Public Law 103-446. These provision are derived from S. 749, legislation I introduced with Senator Rockefeller last year. Among other initiatives, Public Law 103-446 established within VA a Center for Minority Veterans, a Center for Women Veterans, and an Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. These provisions were adopted in order to ensure that VA appropriately addresses the special needs and concerns of veterans who are women or members of minority groups. S. 1711 makes the following modifications to these initiatives: First, it allows the directors of the Center for Minority Veterans and the Center for Women Veterans to have either career or noncareer status. Under the legislation adopted 2 years ago, both directors are required to be noncareer appointees. I believe the Secretary should have the discretion to appoint either career or noncareer individuals to these jobs. This bill restores that option so that the Secretary will have the flexibility to appoint directors with career status so as to be able to consider the widest possible field of qualified candidates. Second, it adds an additional function to the list of statutory functions of the Center for Minority Veterans. Specifically, the legislation requires the center to advise the Secretary of the effectiveness of VA's efforts to include minority groups in clinical research and on the particular health conditions affecting the health of minority group members. This provision is consistent with the goals set forth in section 492B of the Public Health Service Act. The Center for Women Veterans is already mandated by law to carry out a similar function with respect to the health of women veterans. Third, it explicitly requires that the Center for Minority Veterans provides support and administrative services to the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. This provision is consistent with the traditional agency role of providing professional and technical support to advisory entities. Again, this provision parallels existing law requiring that the Center for Women Veterans provide support to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. Fourth, it defines the minority veterans for whom the Center for Minority Veterans has responsibility. The law establishing the Center neglected to provide such a definition. This bill defines minority veterans as individuals who are Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Native American--including American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian--and Pacific-Islander American. This definition is identical to the definition included in current law with respect to the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. Fifth, the legislation extends the termination date of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans an additional 2 years, from December 31, 1997, to December 31, 1999. This provision is necessary because delays in establishing the Advisory Committee have reduced its potential working life to significantly less than the three years authorized by Congress. Extending the life of the Advisory Committee to December 1999 is not unreasonable, given that all other statutory VA advisory boards, including the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, and the Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs, are authorized permanently. In fact, I hope that Congress will in the future consider an initiative to authorize the Advisory Committee on a permanent basis. Finally, S. 1711 contains a provision that gives the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans and the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the respective activities of the Center for Minority Veterans and the Center for Women Veterans. Insofar as the Advisory Committees were established to oversee all of the activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to minorities and women, they necessarily should be tasked with overseeing the work of the very offices that are chiefly responsible for ensuring that the special needs of minority and female veterans are accommodated by VA. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to Senator Simpson and Senator Rockefeller for including the home loan and minority provisions in the pending measure. I also wish to thank their respective Committee staffs, including Bill Tuerk and Tom Harvey for the majority and Bill Brew and Jim Gottlieb for the minority, for working so hard on a bipartisan basis to help me develop and refine these initiatives. Together, our efforts will significantly improve access by minority and women veterans to VA benefits and services. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge swift passage of this important measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3118, the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, as amended by the committee substitute. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the substitute amendment, which provides for greater uniformity and flexibility in veterans' health care eligibility, enacts significant improvements in health care programs, and authorizes major construction projects. I am especially pleased with sections of the bill that make improvements in the Readjustment Counseling Service [RCS] program. As my colleagues know, RCS operates over 200 community-based vet centers around the Nation, each of which provides a variety of services designed to help returned veterans adjust to civilian life. These include services relating to post-traumatic stress disorder, homelessness, disaster assistance, sexual trauma, alcohol and substance abuse, suicide prevention, the physically disabled, and minority veterans. To date, vet centers have successfully assisted well over 1 million veterans. The RCS improvements in this bill include: making World War II and Korea theater veterans eligible for vet center services for the first time; directing VA to study the desirability of collocating vet centers with outpatient clinics; directing VA to report on the feasibility of providing limited, primary health care services at vet centers; making the Advisory Committee on Readjustment of Veterans a permanent, statutory entity; and clarifying and enhancing the status of the Director of RCS, which will guarantee a degree of administrative autonomy for the program. Mr. President, these provision are derived from S. 403, the Readjustment Counseling Service Amendments of 1995, which was cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Wellstone, Inouye, and Jeffords. S. 403 in turn was derived from legislation I originally offered in the 103d Congress which twice passed the Senate. I am disappointed that some of the provision of S. 403 were not included in this compromise measure. These include provisions that would have: made RCS a statutory agency within VA, required congressional notification of proposed changes to the administrative or organizational structure of RCS, required a specific RCS operating budget to be identified in VA's annual budget submission, and authorized vet centers to offer bereavement counseling to the families of service persons killed in service. Nevertheless, I am deeply appreciative that many of the goals of that legislation have been achieved in the pending measure. Mr. President, many people deserve to be recognized for their efforts in making possible the RCS provisions in this bill. First, I would like to thank Senators Simpson and Rockefeller and their respective staffs, notably Chris Yoder and Bill Brew, for putting together this compromise. Second, I wish to recognize Al Batres, Susan Angell, Stephen Molnar, and other RCS employees, whose testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee in 1993 provided the original justification for my legislation. Steve Molnar, Director of the Honolulu Vet Center, has been, and continues to be, a source of inspiration for his untiring dedication to the Aloha State's veterans. Last, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of Gerry Kifer, a former Congressional Fellow with my office, whose insights and hard work led to the drafting of my original RCS legislation. Gerry provided the focus and energy that made today's legislation possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope my colleagues can support the RCS provisions contained in H.R. 3118, as amended. I urge swift enactment of the bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this year marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Smithsonian Institution, our premier educational institution dedicated to the ``increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'' To mark this important anniversary, I am today introducing legislation to expand the scope of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History to include a new entity, the Center for American Cultural Heritage. The Center for American Cultural Heritage would be dedicated to presenting one of the most significant experiences in American history, the complex movement of people, ideas, and cultures across boundaries-- whether voluntary or involuntary, internal or external--that resulted in the peopling of America and the development of a unique, pluralist society. In large measure, this experience defines who we are as individuals and ultimately binds us together as a nation. Under my bill, the Center would serve as: A location for permanent and temporary exhibits and programs depicting the history of America's diverse peoples and their interactions with each other. The exhibits would form a unified narrative of the historical processes by which the United States was developed. A center for research and scholarship to ensure that future generations of scholars will have access to resources necessary for telling the story of American pluralism. A repository for the collection of relevant artifacts, artworks, and documents to be preserved, studied, and interpreted. A venue for integrated public education programs, including lectures, films, and seminars, based on the Center's collections and research. A location for a standardized index of resources within the Smithsonian dealing with the heritages of all Americans. The Smithsonian holds millions of artifacts which have not been identified or classified for this purpose. A clearinghouse for information on ethnic documents, artifacts, and artworks that may be available through non-Smithsonian sources, such as other federal agencies, museums, academic institutions, individuals, or foreign entities. A folklife center highlighting the cultural expressions of the peoples of the United States. The current Smithsonian Center for Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies, which already performs this function, could be integrated with the Center. A center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. The Center would facilitate programs designed to encourage greater understanding of, and respect for, each of America's diverse ethnic and cultural heritages. The Center would also disseminate techniques of conflict resolution currently being developed by social scientists. An oral history center developed through interviews with volunteers and visitors. The Center would also serve as an oral history repository and a clearinghouse for oral histories held by other institutions. A user-friendly visitor center providing individually tailored orientation guides to Smithsonian visitors. Visitors would use the Center as an initial orientation phase for ethnically or culturally related artifacts, artworks, or information that can be found throughout the Smithsonian. A location for training museum professionals in museum practices relating to the life, history, art, and culture of the peoples of the United States. The Center would sponsor training programs for professionals or students involved in teaching, researching, and interpreting the heritages of America's peoples. A location for testing and evaluating new museum-related technologies that could facilitate the operation of the Center. The Center could serve as a test bed for cutting-edge technologies that could later be used by other museums. My legislation also calls for the Center to be organized as an arm of the National Museum of American History, not as a free-standing entity, with the director of the Center reporting to the director of the National Museum. In other words, the Center represents an expansion of an existing Smithsonian entity, National Museum, as opposed to the establishment of a new museum. My bill also stipulates that the Center be located in new or existing Smithsonian facilities on or near the National Mall. Finally, my bill establishes an Advisory Committee on American Cultural Heritage to provide guidance on the operation and direction of the proposed Center. Mr. President, aside from the original Americans who have lived here for thousands of years, Americans are travellers from other lands. From the most recent immigrants from Southeast Asia to the first Europeans who came as explorers and conquerors, from the Africans who were forcibly brought over as slaves to the Mexicans of Nuevo Mexico and the French of the Louisiana Territory who, through treaty or land purchase or conquest were brought into the American fold through a change in political boundaries--all were once visitors to this great country. America is thus defined by the movement of its peoples, both internally and externally. This complex journey has shaped our national character and determined who we are as a nation. The grand progress to and across the American landscape, via exploration, the slave trade, traditional immigration, or internal migration, gave rise to the interactions that make the American experience unique in history. So much of who we are is bound to the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other shores, as well as by the new traditions and cultures that were created on arrival. Whether we settled in the agrarian West or the industrialized North, whether we lived in the small towns of the Midwest or the genteel cities of the South, we inevitably formed relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. It is therefore impossible to comprehend our joint heritage as Americans unless we know the history of our various American cultures, as they were brought over from other lands and as they were transformed by encounters with other cultures in America. As one eminent cultural scholar has noted: How can one learn about slavery, holocausts, immigration, ecological adaptation or ways of seeing the world without some type of comparative perspective, without some type of relationship between cultures and peoples. How can we understand the history of any one cultural group--for example, the Irish--without reference to other groups--for example, the British. How can we understand African American culture without placing it in some relationship to its diverse African cultural roots, the creolized cultures of the Caribbean, the Native American bases of Maroon and Black Seminole cultures, the religious, economic and linguistic cultures of the colonial Spanish in Columbia, the French in Haiti, the Dutch in Suriname, and the English in the United States? The purpose of the Center for American Cultural Heritage is to explore the intercultural and interethnic dialogue of the American people, specifically by exploring our fundamental common experience, the process by which this land was peopled. This manifold experience is central to our appreciation of ourselves as individuals, as representatives of particular ethnic, racial, religious, or regional groups, and ultimately, as citizens of the United States. Understanding the peopling of America process is key to a fuller comprehension of our relationships with each other--past, present, and future. Mr. President, it is strange and remarkable that the Smithsonian, our leading national educational institution, has never properly devoted itself to presenting this central experience in our history. Aside from occasional, temporary exhibits on a specific immigration or migration subject, such as the National Museum's current exhibit on the northern migration of African Americans, none of the Smithsonian's many museums and facilities has taken it upon itself to examine any aspect of the peopling of America phenomenon, much less offered a global review of the subject. In part, this derives from the fact that the Smithsonian, for all its reputation as world-class research and educational organization, remains an institution rooted in 19th century intellectual taxonomy. For example, during the early years of the Smithsonian, the cultures of Northern and Western European Americans were originally represented at the Museum of Science and Industry, which eventually became the National Museum of American History. However, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and others were treated ``ethnographically'' as part of the National Museum of Natural History. This artificial bifurcation of our cultural patrimonies is still in place today. Consequently, the collections of various ethnic and cultural groups have been fragmented among various Smithsonian entities, making it difficult to view these groups in relation to each other or as part of a larger whole. Mr. President, the establishment of a Smithsonian Center of American Cultural Heritage is long overdue. The saga of the peopling of America deserves a national venue, a place where all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin, can come to discover and celebrate their many-branched roots. The Smithsonian, with its unequalled stature, reputation, resources, and, of course, location in the Nation's Capital, is the only institution capable of telling this magnificent story, one that transformed us from strangers from many different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. Mr. President, in May 1995, the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, a blue ribbon panel charged with pondering the future of the 150-year-old institution, issued its final report. In its preface, the Commission noted: The Smithsonian Institution is the principal repository of the nation's collective memory and the nation's largest public cultural space. It is dedicated to preserving, understanding, and displaying the land we inhabit and the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color. It holds in common for all Americans that set of beliefs--in the form of artifacts--about our past that, taken together, comprise our collective history and symbolize the ideals to which we aspire as a polity. The Smithsonian--with its 140 million objects, 16 museums and galleries, the national Zoo, and 29 million annual visits-- has been, for a century and a half, a place of wonder, a magical place where Americans are reminded of how much we have in common. The story of America is the story of a plural nation. As epitomized by our nation's motto, America is a composite of peoples. Our vast country was inhabited by various cultures long before the Pilgrims arrived. Slaves and immigrants built a new nation from ``sea to shining sea,'' across mountains, plains, deserts and great rivers, all rich in diverse climates, animals, and plants. One of the Smithsonian's essential tasks is to make the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children. We cannot even imagine an ``American'' culture that is not multiple in its roots and in its branches. In a world fissured by differences of ethnicity and religion, we must all learn to live without the age-old dream of purity-- whether of bloodlines or cultural inheritance--and learn to find comfort, solace, and even fulfillment in the rough magic of the cultural mix. And it is the challenge to preserve and embody that marvelous mix--the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it-- that the Smithsonian Institution, on the eve of the twenty- first century, must rededicate itself. Mr. President, what more appropriate or compelling argument in favor of a Center for American Cultural Heritage can be found than in these words? What initiative other than the Center for American Cultural Heritage would more directly address the Smithsonian's role in presenting ``the diversity and depth of American civilizations in all its timbres and color,'' or making ``the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children,'' or preserving ``the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it''? Mr. President, I believe that the Center is a worthy initiative that is consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian. Nevertheless, I understand that my colleagues will need time to consider the merits of this major, new proposal. I am aware that the Smithsonian has a large number of costly projects already underway that require Congress's full attention. For this reason, I harbor no illusions that a Center for American Cultural Heritage can be established anytime soon, perhaps not until the next century. However, I hope that this legislation will initiate a national conversation about the role that the Smithsonian should play in preserving America's diverse cultural patrimony. I look forward to beginning this conversation with my colleagues, the academic community, and the interested public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this year marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Smithsonian Institution, our premier educational institution dedicated to the ``increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.'' To mark this important anniversary, I am today introducing legislation to expand the scope of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History to include a new entity, the Center for American Cultural Heritage. The Center for American Cultural Heritage would be dedicated to presenting one of the most significant experiences in American history, the complex movement of people, ideas, and cultures across boundaries-- whether voluntary or involuntary, internal or external--that resulted in the peopling of America and the development of a unique, pluralist society. In large measure, this experience defines who we are as individuals and ultimately binds us together as a nation. Under my bill, the Center would serve as: A location for permanent and temporary exhibits and programs depicting the history of America's diverse peoples and their interactions with each other. The exhibits would form a unified narrative of the historical processes by which the United States was developed. A center for research and scholarship to ensure that future generations of scholars will have access to resources necessary for telling the story of American pluralism. A repository for the collection of relevant artifacts, artworks, and documents to be preserved, studied, and interpreted. A venue for integrated public education programs, including lectures, films, and seminars, based on the Center's collections and research. A location for a standardized index of resources within the Smithsonian dealing with the heritages of all Americans. The Smithsonian holds millions of artifacts which have not been identified or classified for this purpose. A clearinghouse for information on ethnic documents, artifacts, and artworks that may be available through non-Smithsonian sources, such as other federal agencies, museums, academic institutions, individuals, or foreign entities. A folklife center highlighting the cultural expressions of the peoples of the United States. The current Smithsonian Center for Folklife Programs and Cultural Studies, which already performs this function, could be integrated with the Center. A center to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. The Center would facilitate programs designed to encourage greater understanding of, and respect for, each of America's diverse ethnic and cultural heritages. The Center would also disseminate techniques of conflict resolution currently being developed by social scientists. An oral history center developed through interviews with volunteers and visitors. The Center would also serve as an oral history repository and a clearinghouse for oral histories held by other institutions. A user-friendly visitor center providing individually tailored orientation guides to Smithsonian visitors. Visitors would use the Center as an initial orientation phase for ethnically or culturally related artifacts, artworks, or information that can be found throughout the Smithsonian. A location for training museum professionals in museum practices relating to the life, history, art, and culture of the peoples of the United States. The Center would sponsor training programs for professionals or students involved in teaching, researching, and interpreting the heritages of America's peoples. A location for testing and evaluating new museum-related technologies that could facilitate the operation of the Center. The Center could serve as a test bed for cutting-edge technologies that could later be used by other museums. My legislation also calls for the Center to be organized as an arm of the National Museum of American History, not as a free-standing entity, with the director of the Center reporting to the director of the National Museum. In other words, the Center represents an expansion of an existing Smithsonian entity, National Museum, as opposed to the establishment of a new museum. My bill also stipulates that the Center be located in new or existing Smithsonian facilities on or near the National Mall. Finally, my bill establishes an Advisory Committee on American Cultural Heritage to provide guidance on the operation and direction of the proposed Center. Mr. President, aside from the original Americans who have lived here for thousands of years, Americans are travellers from other lands. From the most recent immigrants from Southeast Asia to the first Europeans who came as explorers and conquerors, from the Africans who were forcibly brought over as slaves to the Mexicans of Nuevo Mexico and the French of the Louisiana Territory who, through treaty or land purchase or conquest were brought into the American fold through a change in political boundaries--all were once visitors to this great country. America is thus defined by the movement of its peoples, both internally and externally. This complex journey has shaped our national character and determined who we are as a nation. The grand progress to and across the American landscape, via exploration, the slave trade, traditional immigration, or internal migration, gave rise to the interactions that make the American experience unique in history. So much of who we are is bound to the cultures and traditions that our forebears brought from other shores, as well as by the new traditions and cultures that were created on arrival. Whether we settled in the agrarian West or the industrialized North, whether we lived in the small towns of the Midwest or the genteel cities of the South, we inevitably formed relationships with peoples of other backgrounds and cultures. It is therefore impossible to comprehend our joint heritage as Americans unless we know the history of our various American cultures, as they were brought over from other lands and as they were transformed by encounters with other cultures in America. As one eminent cultural scholar has noted: How can one learn about slavery, holocausts, immigration, ecological adaptation or ways of seeing the world without some type of comparative perspective, without some type of relationship between cultures and peoples. How can we understand the history of any one cultural group--for example, the Irish--without reference to other groups--for example, the British. How can we understand African American culture without placing it in some relationship to its diverse African cultural roots, the creolized cultures of the Caribbean, the Native American bases of Maroon and Black Seminole cultures, the religious, economic and linguistic cultures of the colonial Spanish in Columbia, the French in Haiti, the Dutch in Suriname, and the English in the United States? The purpose of the Center for American Cultural Heritage is to explore the intercultural and interethnic dialogue of the American people, specifically by exploring our fundamental common experience, the process by which this land was peopled. This manifold experience is central to our appreciation of ourselves as individuals, as representatives of particular ethnic, racial, religious, or regional groups, and ultimately, as citizens of the United States. Understanding the peopling of America process is key to a fuller comprehension of our relationships with each other--past, present, and future. Mr. President, it is strange and remarkable that the Smithsonian, our leading national educational institution, has never properly devoted itself to presenting this central experience in our history. Aside from occasional, temporary exhibits on a specific immigration or migration subject, such as the National Museum's current exhibit on the northern migration of African Americans, none of the Smithsonian's many museums and facilities has taken it upon itself to examine any aspect of the peopling of America phenomenon, much less offered a global review of the subject. In part, this derives from the fact that the Smithsonian, for all its reputation as world-class research and educational organization, remains an institution rooted in 19th century intellectual taxonomy. For example, during the early years of the Smithsonian, the cultures of Northern and Western European Americans were originally represented at the Museum of Science and Industry, which eventually became the National Museum of American History. However, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and others were treated ``ethnographically'' as part of the National Museum of Natural History. This artificial bifurcation of our cultural patrimonies is still in place today. Consequently, the collections of various ethnic and cultural groups have been fragmented among various Smithsonian entities, making it difficult to view these groups in relation to each other or as part of a larger whole. Mr. President, the establishment of a Smithsonian Center of American Cultural Heritage is long overdue. The saga of the peopling of America deserves a national venue, a place where all Americans, regardless of ethnic origin, can come to discover and celebrate their many-branched roots. The Smithsonian, with its unequalled stature, reputation, resources, and, of course, location in the Nation's Capital, is the only institution capable of telling this magnificent story, one that transformed us from strangers from many different shores into neighbors unified in our inimitable diversity--Americans all. Mr. President, in May 1995, the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, a blue ribbon panel charged with pondering the future of the 150-year-old institution, issued its final report. In its preface, the Commission noted: The Smithsonian Institution is the principal repository of the nation's collective memory and the nation's largest public cultural space. It is dedicated to preserving, understanding, and displaying the land we inhabit and the diversity and depth of American civilization in all its timbres and color. It holds in common for all Americans that set of beliefs--in the form of artifacts--about our past that, taken together, comprise our collective history and symbolize the ideals to which we aspire as a polity. The Smithsonian--with its 140 million objects, 16 museums and galleries, the national Zoo, and 29 million annual visits-- has been, for a century and a half, a place of wonder, a magical place where Americans are reminded of how much we have in common. The story of America is the story of a plural nation. As epitomized by our nation's motto, America is a composite of peoples. Our vast country was inhabited by various cultures long before the Pilgrims arrived. Slaves and immigrants built a new nation from ``sea to shining sea,'' across mountains, plains, deserts and great rivers, all rich in diverse climates, animals, and plants. One of the Smithsonian's essential tasks is to make the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children. We cannot even imagine an ``American'' culture that is not multiple in its roots and in its branches. In a world fissured by differences of ethnicity and religion, we must all learn to live without the age-old dream of purity-- whether of bloodlines or cultural inheritance--and learn to find comfort, solace, and even fulfillment in the rough magic of the cultural mix. And it is the challenge to preserve and embody that marvelous mix--the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it-- that the Smithsonian Institution, on the eve of the twenty- first century, must rededicate itself. Mr. President, what more appropriate or compelling argument in favor of a Center for American Cultural Heritage can be found than in these words? What initiative other than the Center for American Cultural Heritage would more directly address the Smithsonian's role in presenting ``the diversity and depth of American civilizations in all its timbres and color,'' or making ``the history of our country come alive for each new generation of American children,'' or preserving ``the multi-various mosaic that is our history, culture, land, and the people who have made it''? Mr. President, I believe that the Center is a worthy initiative that is consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian. Nevertheless, I understand that my colleagues will need time to consider the merits of this major, new proposal. I am aware that the Smithsonian has a large number of costly projects already underway that require Congress's full attention. For this reason, I harbor no illusions that a Center for American Cultural Heritage can be established anytime soon, perhaps not until the next century. However, I hope that this legislation will initiate a national conversation about the role that the Smithsonian should play in preserving America's diverse cultural patrimony. I look forward to beginning this conversation with my colleagues, the academic community, and the interested public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Plant Protection Act, a comprehensive consolidation of Federal laws governing plant pests, noxious weeds, and the plant products that harbor pests and weeds. Over the past century, numerous Federal laws have been enacted to address problems caused by plant pests and noxious weeds. While some of these laws are effective tools for protecting agriculture and the environment from these threats, others are in conflict or create enforcement ambiguities. The Nation's agricultural community, as well as private, State and Federal land managers, cannot afford the continuing uncertainty caused by Federal plant pest laws, some of which were enacted prior to World War I. Legislation to revise and consolidate Federal plant pest laws is urgently needed and long overdue. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman recently characterized the problems created by hodgepodge of Federal plant protection laws when he Stated that ``in some instances, it is unclear which statutes should be relied upon for authority. It is difficult to explain to the public why some apparently similar situations have to be treated differently because different authorities are involved.'' A 1993 report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment reached the same conclusion. The OTA found that Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading alien pests. The Plant Protection Act will correct many, but not all, of these problems. The bill I have introduced today will enhance the Federal Government's ability to combat plant pests and noxious weeds, and protect our farms, environment, and economy from the harm they cause. Plant pests are a problem of monumental proportions. Some of the most damaging insects include the Mediterranean fruit fly, fire ant, and the gipsy moth. Disease pathogens include chestnut blight, which wiped out the most common tree of our Appalachian forests, the elm blight, which destroyed many splendid trees lining our city streets, and the white pine blister rust, which eliminated western white pine as a source of timber for several decades. Alien weeds also cause havoc, and nowhere is this problem more apparent than in Hawaii. Because our climate is so accommodating, Hawaii is heaven-on-earth for weeds. Alien plants such as gorse, ivy gourd, miconia, and banana poka are ravaging our tropical and subtropical forests. Earlier this year, Hawaii's environment passed an unfortunate milestone: for the first time, foreign introduced plants outnumber Hawaii's diverse native species. Hawaii is not alone in facing this problem. In fact, no State or region is immune to this threat. Invasive foreign weeds do more than just compete with domestic species. They transform the landscape, change the rules by which native plants and animals live, and undermine the economic and environmental health of the areas they infest. Alien weeds fuel grass and forest fires, promote soil erosion, and destroy critical water resources. They significantly increase the cost of farming and ranching. Noxious weeds destroy or alter natural habitat, damage waterways and power lines, and depress property values. Some are toxic to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Alien weeds are biological pollution, pure and simple. The worldwide growth in trade and travel has caused an explosion in the number of foreign weeds that plague our Nation. Just how big is this problem? Let me offer an example. Last year, on Federal lands alone, we lost 4,500 acres each day to noxious weeds. That's a million-and-a-half acres a year, or an area the size of Delaware. By comparison, forest fires--one of the most fearsome natural disasters--claimed only half as many Federal acres as weeds. Noxious foreign weeds have been called a biological wildfire, and for good reason. Forests, national parks, recreation areas, urban landscapes, wilderness, grasslands, waterways, farm and range land across the Nation are overrun by noxious weeds. The greatest economic impact of this problem is felt by farmers. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that exotic weeds cost U.S. farmers $3.6 to $5.4 billion annually due to reduced yields, crops of poor quality, increased herbicide use, and other weed control costs. Noxious weeds are a significant drain on farm productivity. Despite the magnitude of this problem, few people get alarmed about weeds. The issue certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Time or Newsweek. Perhaps if kudzu, a weed known as the ``vine that ate the South,'' attacked the Capitol dome, weeds would finally get the attention they deserve. Several of these foreign weeds are truly the ``King Kong of plants.'' Some are 50 feet tall. Others have 4 inch thorns. Some have roots 25 feet deep, and others produce 20 million seeds each year. My least-favorite weed is the tropical soda apple, a thorny plant with a sweet-sounding name. This import from Brazil has inch long spikes covering its stems and leaves. The only attractive thing about this plant is its small yellow and green fruit. Tropical soda apple presents a particularly difficult control problem because the fruit is a favorite among cattle. They consume the apples and then pass the seeds in their manure where new weed infestations quickly sprout. As cattle are shipped from State to State with soda apple seeds in their stomachs you can easily see how the problem rapidly spreads. It's a weed control nightmare. The saga of tropical soda apple prompted me to introduce S. 690, the Federal Noxious Weed Improvement Act in April 1995. S. 690 would grant the Secretary of Agriculture emergency powers to restrict the entry of a foreign weed until formal action can be taken to place it on the noxious weed list. This legislation would prevent future tropical soda apples from taking root. I have incorporated the text of S. 690 into section 4 of the Plant Protection Act. Other provisions of the legislation I have introduced today are drawn from USDA recommendations for consolidating weed and plant pest authorities. Because the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority over plant pests and noxious weeds is dispersed throughout numerous statutes, Federal efforts to protect agriculture, forestry, and our environment are seriously hindered. To enable the Department to respond more efficiently to this challenge, I have introduced legislation to consolidate these authorities into a single statute. The text of this measure is drawn from draft recommendations prepared by USDA, although I have made some significant changes, particularly in the provisions relating to weeds. 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 Plant Protection Act, a comprehensive consolidation of Federal laws governing plant pests, noxious weeds, and the plant products that harbor pests and weeds. Over the past century, numerous Federal laws have been enacted to address problems caused by plant pests and noxious weeds. While some of these laws are effective tools for protecting agriculture and the environment from these threats, others are in conflict or create enforcement ambiguities. The Nation's agricultural community, as well as private, State and Federal land managers, cannot afford the continuing uncertainty caused by Federal plant pest laws, some of which were enacted prior to World War I. Legislation to revise and consolidate Federal plant pest laws is urgently needed and long overdue. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman recently characterized the problems created by hodgepodge of Federal plant protection laws when he Stated that ``in some instances, it is unclear which statutes should be relied upon for authority. It is difficult to explain to the public why some apparently similar situations have to be treated differently because different authorities are involved.'' A 1993 report issued by the Office of Technology Assessment reached the same conclusion. The OTA found that Federal and State statutes, regulations, and programs are not keeping pace with new and spreading alien pests. The Plant Protection Act will correct many, but not all, of these problems. The bill I have introduced today will enhance the Federal Government's ability to combat plant pests and noxious weeds, and protect our farms, environment, and economy from the harm they cause. Plant pests are a problem of monumental proportions. Some of the most damaging insects include the Mediterranean fruit fly, fire ant, and the gipsy moth. Disease pathogens include chestnut blight, which wiped out the most common tree of our Appalachian forests, the elm blight, which destroyed many splendid trees lining our city streets, and the white pine blister rust, which eliminated western white pine as a source of timber for several decades. Alien weeds also cause havoc, and nowhere is this problem more apparent than in Hawaii. Because our climate is so accommodating, Hawaii is heaven-on-earth for weeds. Alien plants such as gorse, ivy gourd, miconia, and banana poka are ravaging our tropical and subtropical forests. Earlier this year, Hawaii's environment passed an unfortunate milestone: for the first time, foreign introduced plants outnumber Hawaii's diverse native species. Hawaii is not alone in facing this problem. In fact, no State or region is immune to this threat. Invasive foreign weeds do more than just compete with domestic species. They transform the landscape, change the rules by which native plants and animals live, and undermine the economic and environmental health of the areas they infest. Alien weeds fuel grass and forest fires, promote soil erosion, and destroy critical water resources. They significantly increase the cost of farming and ranching. Noxious weeds destroy or alter natural habitat, damage waterways and power lines, and depress property values. Some are toxic to humans, livestock, and wildlife. Alien weeds are biological pollution, pure and simple. The worldwide growth in trade and travel has caused an explosion in the number of foreign weeds that plague our Nation. Just how big is this problem? Let me offer an example. Last year, on Federal lands alone, we lost 4,500 acres each day to noxious weeds. That's a million-and-a-half acres a year, or an area the size of Delaware. By comparison, forest fires--one of the most fearsome natural disasters--claimed only half as many Federal acres as weeds. Noxious foreign weeds have been called a biological wildfire, and for good reason. Forests, national parks, recreation areas, urban landscapes, wilderness, grasslands, waterways, farm and range land across the Nation are overrun by noxious weeds. The greatest economic impact of this problem is felt by farmers. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that exotic weeds cost U.S. farmers $3.6 to $5.4 billion annually due to reduced yields, crops of poor quality, increased herbicide use, and other weed control costs. Noxious weeds are a significant drain on farm productivity. Despite the magnitude of this problem, few people get alarmed about weeds. The issue certainly doesn't appear on the cover of Time or Newsweek. Perhaps if kudzu, a weed known as the ``vine that ate the South,'' attacked the Capitol dome, weeds would finally get the attention they deserve. Several of these foreign weeds are truly the ``King Kong of plants.'' Some are 50 feet tall. Others have 4 inch thorns. Some have roots 25 feet deep, and others produce 20 million seeds each year. My least-favorite weed is the tropical soda apple, a thorny plant with a sweet-sounding name. This import from Brazil has inch long spikes covering its stems and leaves. The only attractive thing about this plant is its small yellow and green fruit. Tropical soda apple presents a particularly difficult control problem because the fruit is a favorite among cattle. They consume the apples and then pass the seeds in their manure where new weed infestations quickly sprout. As cattle are shipped from State to State with soda apple seeds in their stomachs you can easily see how the problem rapidly spreads. It's a weed control nightmare. The saga of tropical soda apple prompted me to introduce S. 690, the Federal Noxious Weed Improvement Act in April 1995. S. 690 would grant the Secretary of Agriculture emergency powers to restrict the entry of a foreign weed until formal action can be taken to place it on the noxious weed list. This legislation would prevent future tropical soda apples from taking root. I have incorporated the text of S. 690 into section 4 of the Plant Protection Act. Other provisions of the legislation I have introduced today are drawn from USDA recommendations for consolidating weed and plant pest authorities. Because the U.S. Department of Agriculture's authority over plant pests and noxious weeds is dispersed throughout numerous statutes, Federal efforts to protect agriculture, forestry, and our environment are seriously hindered. To enable the Department to respond more efficiently to this challenge, I have introduced legislation to consolidate these authorities into a single statute. The text of this measure is drawn from draft recommendations prepared by USDA, although I have made some significant changes, particularly in the provisions relating to weeds. 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 Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and a host of other life-threatening illnesses. Orthopedic surgeons are making tremendous progress in designing new and improved joint-replacement materials for patients. Emergency medical techniques, such as CPR, have saved thousands of lives since they were developed. What do these advancements in medicine have in common? Animal research helped make them possible. Animal research ensures that drugs and surgical techniques, which benefit millions of people every day, are safe and effective. Animal research is of great importance to our future, but there is growing evidence that, in some instances, research is being carried out using family pets that have been fraudulently obtained from the owners who love them. The concern that has prompted me to introduce the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996 does not relate to whether animals should or should not be used in medical research. Rather, this bill provides a sensible solution to the growing problem of stray and stolen pets being sold to research facilities. It addresses problems caused by unethical Class B ``random source'' animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996 will safeguard family pets while allowing essential research to continue in an environment free from deception and abuse. According to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS], there are 4,325 licensed animal dealers in the United States. About 1,100 of these dealers are licensed by APHIS as Class B ``random source'' animal dealers. This means that these dealers do not breed the animals themselves, but obtain their dogs and cats from other sources. Unfortunately, there is significant evidence to conclude that many Class B ``random source'' dealers are profiteering through theft or by deceptively acquiring animals. For example, in 1995, 50 class B dealers supplied 24,000 of the 89,000 dogs used for research. APHIS investigations of these dealers found that up to 50 percent engaged in fraudulent record-keeping practices. In other words, up to 11,000 of the dogs sold to medical facilities in 1995 may have been obtained through pet theft, falsified records, and other unscrupulous techniques. The provisions of current law are impossible to enforce effectively. In response to evidence of repeated violations of Federal law by Class B ``random source'' dealers, I have introduced the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1996. This legislation will ensure that dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained from legitimate sources. The problem of pet theft should not be left unchecked. Dr. Robert Whitney, former director of the Office of Animal Care and Use at the National Institutes of Health recently declared that, ``The continued existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care, and use of animals in the important research to better the health of both humans and animals.'' it is in the interests of consumers, pet owners, and researchers alike, to see that animals used for research purposes are obtained legitimately and treated with respect. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.