Daniel Akaka

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.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords]. As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have a special interest in the Board of Veterans' Appeals. In 1994, our committee sought to address the unacceptable backlog of pending claims and passed legislation that streamlined the Board's process and helped retain experienced and qualified judges. This year, the President, veterans organizations, and the House of Representatives agreed to increase the Board's appropriations by $4 million to further reduce its response time. The Department of Veterans Affairs has indicated that the additional funds will reduce the processing time by 132 days in fiscal year 1997 and 272 days in fiscal year 2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not fund the administration's request. I understand the committee is awaiting the results of studies being undertaken on the effectiveness and efficiency of the adjudication and appeals system and decided against providing the additional funds. I, however, believe that the money will provide much needed relief to veterans currently waiting for a response from the Board. A veteran should not have to wait over a year and a half for a decision. We need to reduce the average response time and address the results of the studies when they are completed and made available to the appropriate committees for action. Therefore, I respectfully request that the chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and independent agencies support the restoration of the $4 million in conference.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to express my support for S. 607, a bill to clarify the liability of certain recycling transactions under the Superfund law. This legislation clarifies the Superfund Act to ensure that the product of scrap recycling is not subject to Superfund liability if certain standards are met. S. 607 does not exempt from Superfund liability recyclers who operate contaminated facilities. Nor does it exempt from Superfund contamination caused in whole or in part by waste generated during the course of processing recycled materials. My support for this legislation is not unconditional, however. During a review of this legislation I have identified a serious flaw in S. 607, as introduced. The language that appears in section 127(b)(2)(E) is drafted in a way that would, I believe, achieve exactly the opposite result that the bill's sponsor intends. After discussing this issue with industry and environmental groups, I have concluded that the best thing to do is support the bill and work to correct the error in the legislation. I have received assurances by the industry supporters of this legislation that they will not allow this error to stand, and will work to have the problem corrected. I will join with them in this effort.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two fine and outstanding foreign service officers stationed in our Beijing, China, embassy who went beyond the call of duty to help an American citizen in time of need. Ms. Stephanie Fossan and Mr. Kai Ryssdale exemplify the ``can do'' spirit that all our foreign service officers provide for many of our overseas citizens. In a letter I received from a Hawaii constituent doing business in China, he describes an incident where he lost his passport a day before his departure from Beijing. Without his passport he knew he would most certainly have to miss his scheduled flight. Because this was peak travel season for many Asians and the airlines were solidly booked, it would also mean an indefinite stay in China. This delay would become very difficult for this person because of health concerns and the lack of his daily medication. Ms. Fossan and Mr. Ryssdale worked beyond normal working hours to ensure that this Hawaii resident could secure a temporary passport. With temporary passport in hand, my constituent went to the Chinese Security Office to get his visa stamped, and he was able to board his plane to Honolulu the next morning as scheduled. All too often the hard work and dedication of our foreign service officers go overlooked. Many of these people live and work in very difficult conditions. The Secretary of State has testified before a committee of the Senate about ``sewer gases'' leaking into the embassy building in Beijing and the difficult living conditions under which the Americans who work there must endure. Ms. Fossan and Mr. Ryssdale represent the best in foreign service personnel who serve and protect our citizens abroad. To all personnel serving in our embassies abroad and to the Honorable James Sasser, Ambassador to the Peoples Republic of China, and his staff, I say thank you for your dedicated work for our country.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to express my support of Jeffords- Roth-Leahy renewable energy amendment. This amendment will restore funding for the Department of Energy solar and renewable energy research and development program to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1996. I want to thank Senator Jeffords for offering this amendment because I believe that our country's renewable energy program is at an important watershed. With support from Congress and the Federal Government, our Nation can forge ahead in developing reliable and cost- effective renewable technologies. We can also position our renewable energy industry to capture its share of the rapidly expanding market of solar and other renewable technologies. And, we can expand power generation capacity in an environmentally responsible manner. In recent years, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs have been remarkably successful and have created a new industry capable of world leadership in a very important technology sector. Energy efficient technologies are generating billions of dollars of consumer energy savings and new business opportunities and play an important role in job creation, according to a study by energy expert Daniel Yergin. If we retreat from this promising growth industry, as we did throughout the decade of 1980s, our international competitors will quickly carve up a market that will exceed a billion dollars by the turn of the century. We should not reduce funding for renewable R&D and allow this initiative to sputter and stall. We must move forward, as other countries are doing, and make essential investments in technologies that will create new jobs, open export markets, and promote a healthy environment. This is the choice we have made in approving this amendment. At stake is our ability to compete in an international energy market that will experience explosive growth in the decades ahead. Many countries cannot afford to meet the growing energy demand by building, operating, and maintaining centralized power plants and the costly infrastructure associated with them. The flexibility offered by renewable technologies is a natural fit for the developing world. Countries around the world are also making conscious strategic decisions to endorse and adopt renewable energy as a mainstay of their energy policy. These policies may lead to the amelioration of problems associated with global climate change. The past decade was a period of unparalleled success in the drive to reduce the cost of solar and renewable technologies. Some are at the verge of becoming cost competitive with conventional energy sources. This trend will continue to improve in the years ahead. As these technologies become more and more cost competitive, the rate at which these technologies are integrated into the energy grid will steadily increase. What is at stake is the ability of a young, dynamic industry to capture the world markets for renewable technologies so that Americans can hold their share of rewarding, high paying jobs. That is what the Jeffords amendment is all about. If we are to move into the future with a strong economy and a healthy environment, renewable energy technologies must be a part of our investment strategy for the future. Although the value of U.S. renewable energy exports exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars, the U.S. renewable energy industry is barely penetrating the expanding world market for renewable energy technologies. This is a result of a weak commitment to renewable energy research, development, and export promotion. Compared with seven other leading trading nations, the United States ranks lowest in resources allocated to solar and renewable export promotion, according to a 1992 Department of Energy report. National Science Foundation data confirms that the U.S. investment in R&D is in decline. Since 1987, Federal R&D investments have dropped steadily in real terms. Since 1992, industry R&D has stagnated. And today, less than one-third of private R&D is dedicated to research; the rest is being spent on product and process development. I support the Jeffords amendment because I want to reverse this trend. Frankly, I would have preferred higher spending levels for solar and renewable programs, but this is not realistic given the budget constraints we face. Unless we maintain a reasonable funding level for these programs, we will continue to lose ground and should not be surprised if other countries outcompete U.S. industry in this rapidly expanding market. Finally, there are important energy security reasons for supporting this amendment. U.S. oil imports are at record levels, are continuing to grow, and could reach 60 percent of consumption by the year 2005. Oil imports that high would contribute nearly $90 billion to the trade deficit. According to a recent Department of Commerce analysis, this level of oil imports constitutes a threat to U.S. economic security. Persian Gulf countries are projected to control 70 percent of the global market for oil by the year 2010, making world oil markets increasingly unstable. Renewable energy technologies will lead to significant movement toward alleviating some of the potential negative consequences of our continuing and increasing reliance on imported oil.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, with Senator Inouye as a cosponsor, I am introducing legislation to give the State of Hawaii a greater say over proposals to develop seven U.S. possessions in the Pacific which are currently not affiliated with any U.S. State or territory. These islands are Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, and Palmyra Atoll. My legislation would transfer jurisdiction, but not title, of these areas to the State of Hawaii. Proposals to consolidate these Pacific islands into the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction have surfaced before. Last year, Congressman Elton Gallegly introduced a nearly identical bill in the House and a hearing was held on the measure by the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs on January 31, 1995. The Clinton Administration supported the proposal, as did Hawaii's State Senate. At the time of its introduction, however, there were many people in the State of Hawaii who wanted to know more about the potential benefits and liabilities that would accrue to the State should jurisdiction be transferred under the Gallegly bill. As a consequence, Hawaii's Gov. Benjamin Cayetano convened a task force headed by the Office of State Planning and the Pacific Basin Development Council to review the implications of the proposal. My reason for reviving this legislation is that recent proposals to develop these islands have greatly alarmed the people of Hawaii and the Pacific. In blatant disregard for the welfare of people residing in the mid-Pacific region, a group of developers and financiers have announced a proposal to store high-level nuclear fuel on Palmyra Atoll, a privately owned U.S. possession located 1,000 miles from Hawaii. This action occurred after the group failed to secure Midway Island for their joint venture. On June 13, I introduced legislation to prohibit an interim or permanent nuclear storage facility on any U.S. possession outside of the 50 States, including Palmyra. However, I believe that the developers of Palmyra have forced us to consider a much broader issue; that is, how can we give the people of Hawaii a greater say in what goes on in our own backyard? While the cold war has ended, the threat of storing nuclear waste in isolated Pacific islands is just as alarming to the people of Hawaii. Instead of the tropical Pacific, nuclear entrepreneurs in search of a Pacific island for storing high- level waste would turn our region into the toxic Pacific. The legislation I introduce today will give the people of Hawaii the opportunity to respond, at the local level, to efforts to store nuclear waste on Palmyra or any of these U.S. possessions. At the moment, Hawaii residents are effectively precluded from decisions on issues confronting these islands, despite the fact that some of these islands are geographically part of the Hawaiian islands and have historical, political, or cultural links to Hawaii. Through the transfer of jurisdiction to the State of Hawaii, the Governor of Hawaii, the State legislature, and the residents of Hawaii can have a real voice in determining the future of these islands. Five of the islands under my bill--Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll--are uninhabited U.S. possessions, though Palmyra is privately owned. The other two islands-- Johnston Atoll and Midway Island--fall under Department of Defense jurisdiction. Five of the islands, excluding Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, are national wildlife refuges. Midway Island has been managed as an overlay national wildlife refuge since 1988 when the U.S. Navy signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Most recently, on May 22, 1996, the Navy transferred custody of and accountability for Midway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Johnston Atoll is currently being used by the U.S. Army for the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System. There are about 960 civilian and 250 military personnel working on the island. Most recently, the Army testified that it expects to complete the destruction of chemical weapons by the year 2000. This is welcome news to all of us in the Pacific. Mr. President, to ensure that U.S national security interests are not jeopardized, my bill would allow the United States to maintain its current defense operations and needs. In summary, Mr. President, the State of Hawaii has more at stake in what happens in the Pacific than any other State in the Union. The legislation I introduce today preserves U.S. interests in the Pacific while ensuring that the State of Hawaii has a clear voice over decisions that affect the region.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, with Senator Inouye as a cosponsor, I am introducing legislation to give the State of Hawaii a greater say over proposals to develop seven U.S. possessions in the Pacific which are currently not affiliated with any U.S. State or territory. These islands are Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, and Palmyra Atoll. My legislation would transfer jurisdiction, but not title, of these areas to the State of Hawaii. Proposals to consolidate these Pacific islands into the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction have surfaced before. Last year, Congressman Elton Gallegly introduced a nearly identical bill in the House and a hearing was held on the measure by the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs on January 31, 1995. The Clinton Administration supported the proposal, as did Hawaii's State Senate. At the time of its introduction, however, there were many people in the State of Hawaii who wanted to know more about the potential benefits and liabilities that would accrue to the State should jurisdiction be transferred under the Gallegly bill. As a consequence, Hawaii's Gov. Benjamin Cayetano convened a task force headed by the Office of State Planning and the Pacific Basin Development Council to review the implications of the proposal. My reason for reviving this legislation is that recent proposals to develop these islands have greatly alarmed the people of Hawaii and the Pacific. In blatant disregard for the welfare of people residing in the mid-Pacific region, a group of developers and financiers have announced a proposal to store high-level nuclear fuel on Palmyra Atoll, a privately owned U.S. possession located 1,000 miles from Hawaii. This action occurred after the group failed to secure Midway Island for their joint venture. On June 13, I introduced legislation to prohibit an interim or permanent nuclear storage facility on any U.S. possession outside of the 50 States, including Palmyra. However, I believe that the developers of Palmyra have forced us to consider a much broader issue; that is, how can we give the people of Hawaii a greater say in what goes on in our own backyard? While the cold war has ended, the threat of storing nuclear waste in isolated Pacific islands is just as alarming to the people of Hawaii. Instead of the tropical Pacific, nuclear entrepreneurs in search of a Pacific island for storing high- level waste would turn our region into the toxic Pacific. The legislation I introduce today will give the people of Hawaii the opportunity to respond, at the local level, to efforts to store nuclear waste on Palmyra or any of these U.S. possessions. At the moment, Hawaii residents are effectively precluded from decisions on issues confronting these islands, despite the fact that some of these islands are geographically part of the Hawaiian islands and have historical, political, or cultural links to Hawaii. Through the transfer of jurisdiction to the State of Hawaii, the Governor of Hawaii, the State legislature, and the residents of Hawaii can have a real voice in determining the future of these islands. Five of the islands under my bill--Baker Island, Jarvis Island, Howland Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll--are uninhabited U.S. possessions, though Palmyra is privately owned. The other two islands-- Johnston Atoll and Midway Island--fall under Department of Defense jurisdiction. Five of the islands, excluding Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, are national wildlife refuges. Midway Island has been managed as an overlay national wildlife refuge since 1988 when the U.S. Navy signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Most recently, on May 22, 1996, the Navy transferred custody of and accountability for Midway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Johnston Atoll is currently being used by the U.S. Army for the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System. There are about 960 civilian and 250 military personnel working on the island. Most recently, the Army testified that it expects to complete the destruction of chemical weapons by the year 2000. This is welcome news to all of us in the Pacific. Mr. President, to ensure that U.S national security interests are not jeopardized, my bill would allow the United States to maintain its current defense operations and needs. In summary, Mr. President, the State of Hawaii has more at stake in what happens in the Pacific than any other State in the Union. The legislation I introduce today preserves U.S. interests in the Pacific while ensuring that the State of Hawaii has a clear voice over decisions that affect the region.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to prohibit an interim or permanent nuclear waste storage facility outside of the 50 States. My bill would prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing a license to store nuclear waste in any of the territories, or on U.S. possessions such as Midway Island or Palmyra Atoll. Some of my Senate colleagues may wonder whether this is a bill in search of a problem that does not exist. Until a few weeks ago, I would have never imagined that legislation such as this was necessary. However, based on information I have compiled, it is clear that the bill I am proposing is urgently needed. Earlier this year, the Honolulu papers reported that Palmyra Island, a Pacific atoll located 900 miles southwest of Hawaii, was sold to a New York investment firm known as KVR, Inc. The reason KVR purchased Palmyra has always been vague and uncertain. However, 2 weeks ago details of a scheme for Palmyra were uncovered when the island's new owners quietly circulated legislation that would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license for high-level nuclear fuel storage on Palmyra. The State of Hawaii and its delegation in Congress strongly oppose this proposal. I have recently discovered that Palmyra was not the only island targeted for nuclear storage. Midway Island and sites in the Republic of the Marshall Islands were also proposed for nuclear waste storage by the owners of Palmyra and their associates. As more and more information surfaces about the activities of Palmyra's new owners, their business associates, and the web of corporations they control, the true picture of their scheme emerges. When you fit all the pieces of the puzzle together, you find that a group of nuclear entrepreneurs have been combing the Pacific for the past 2 years, searching for a home for their nuclear waste dump. It is an affront to Hawaii and the Pacific that they would hatch this scheme and operate in the shadows for so long. Let me present the facts in greater detail. In October 1994, the developers of this nuclear waste initiative wrote the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to propose that high-level nuclear waste be stored in the Marshall Islands. Prior to sending their letter, representatives from both sides met in Washington to discuss the proposal. In exchange for providing exclusive use of an island for storing nuclear fuel, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government would receive $160 million in concession payments as well as a share of any profits from the venture. Fortunately this initiative did not succeed. The plan to store nuclear materials in the Republic of the Marshall Islands was opposed by the Clinton administration and prompted Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the Department of Energy from negotiating such an arrangement with the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government. At this point the scheme to build a nuclear waste dump on a low-lying Pacific atoll appeared dead. But the proposal resurfaced when a group of Washington lobbyists and Wall Street financiers purchased Palmyra Atoll earlier this year. The bill drafted by the new owners of Palmyra is one of the most remarkable legislative proposals I have seen in my 20 years in Congress. It is a legislative blank check, granting carte blanche authority to the owners of Palmyra to become the world's only, privately owned nuclear fuel storage and reprocessing enterprise. This proposal would vastly increase the risk of nuclear proliferation by placing the critical elements of weapons of mass destruction--plutonium and uranium--in private hands. The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license to store 200,000 tons of nuclear fuel on Palmyra. The license shall be granted for the maximum period permitted by law. By directing the NRC to license nuclear waste storage on Palmyra, the draft legislation would circumvent NRC licensing standards and waive environmental, engineering, and safety requirements that normally apply to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. One of the boldest elements of the bill grants the owners of Palmyra the exclusive right to determine the scope of activities on the atoll. Why should anyone, whether a private individual or an arm of government, be granted unfettered authority over an island where 200,000 tons of nuclear fuel is being stored and reprocessed? This would be nuclear madness. Another flaw of this proposal is that atolls like Palmyra are environmentally sensitive and prone to erosion and extreme weather conditions. Eastern Island, the highest point on the atoll, is less than 6 feet above sea level. Any nuclear material stored at Palmyra would eventually have to be relocated. The National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have determined that above-ground storage of nuclear materials can only be an interim solution. Spent nuclear fuel stored at Palmyra would eventually have to be relocated to a permanent storage site. If this proposal succeeds, ships carrying spent nuclear fuel from all corners of the globe will transect the Pacific to deposit nuclear material at Palmyra, only to transport this fuel once again to a permanent storage site at another location. If the plan for nuclear reprocessing goes forward, the traffic in nuclear cargo would increase dramatically. The bill further declares that the owners of Palmyra shall have title to any nuclear fuel, commencing at the time waste is transferred to containers bound for Palmyra. It would summarily select a site for storing nuclear waste without scientific or technical evaluation of the geologic, hydrologic, seismic or other conditions of the atoll. It negates decades of research, planning, and development we have invested in achieving an acceptable approach to our nuclear waste problem. Of course, in order to achieve this remarkable plan, the bill waives the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws are the hallmark of our Nation's commitment to protecting the environment and enjoy broad, bipartisan support. The notion that these fundamental environmental laws should be waived during the licensing of a high-level nuclear waste storage site is simply irresponsible. The American people will never accept such a proposal, no matter how well it is sugarcoated. The revelation this week that Midway, an island that is part of the Hawaiian chain, was also sought by the owners of Palmyra is an especially frightening development for the people of Hawaii. In December 1995, the chairman of U.S. Fuel and Security requested that the Navy allow high-level nuclear fuel storage on Midway Island. U.S. Fuel and Security is a company affiliated with the new purchasers of Palmyra. The company has a business plan that calls for storing nuclear materials on a privately owned island in the Pacific Ocean, which we now know to be Palmyra. Fortunately, the request was denied and the Navy transferred operational control of Midway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in May of this year. The purchase of Palmyra was consummated only after it became clear that the Navy would not approve the proposal for Midway storage. Weeks ago, when details first surfaced about establishing a nuclear waste dump on Palmyra, it was difficult to believe that there was any truth to these proposals. But as I uncovered more and more information, I began to realize that this story was fact, and not fiction. This tale of nuclear intrigue is like a bad onion. Each time you peel away another layer it smells even more. You begin to wonder what else this group is up to that we do not know about. That is why I am introducing legislation to prohibit the storage of nuclear waste in any of the Pacific territories or on U.S. islands such as Midway or Palmyra. My bill is a preemptive strike against proposals to store nuclear waste on Palmyra. It would shut the door on any possibility of turning these Pacific islands into a nuclear waste dump. I also want to put the Senate on notice that I am examining legislation to transfer jurisdiction of Palmyra, Midway, and five other U.S. possessions to the State of Hawaii. This proposal would give Hawaii legal authority over, but not title to, these islands. When a similar proposal surfaced last year in the House of Representatives, legitimate concerns were raised about the potential liability associated with such a transfer. In light of efforts to store nuclear fuel on some of these islands, I believe that we should revisit the idea of placing these Pacific islands, which are geographically close to Hawaii, under the State's jurisdiction. I will closely examine the question of liability and take steps to ensure that the Federal Government is responsible for cleanup of any hazardous or toxic substances on these islands, and that the State of Hawaii is indemnified from future liability. Transferring jurisdiction of islands like Palmyra and Midway to the State of Hawaii would mean that our Governor, the State legislature, and ultimately the people of Hawaii would have a greater say in determining the future of these islands. This legislation could be a substitute for, or an addition to, the bill I have introduced today. My colleagues, the nuclear era began in the Pacific when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Since that time, more than 150 nuclear devices have been detonated in the region. The United States conducted 66 tests in the Marshall Islands and Johnston Atoll during the 1940's and 1950's. The British conducted 21 tests on Christmas Island and in Australia during the 1950's. The French detonated more than 180 devices on Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls under a nuclear testing program that began in 1974 and ended in February 1996. The environmental consequences of this nuclear legacy are evident throughout the Pacific to this day. Given the international outpouring of criticism during the recent French testing, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider establishing the world's largest spent nuclear fuel dump at Palmyra. The Pacific has been under assault since the dawn of the nuclear era and should not become a future dumping ground for the world's nuclear problems. Half a century of nuclear testing is enough.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, to recognize and honor World War II Filipino veterans. The concurrent resolution we submit today is the first step in acknowledging the contributions made by Filipino veterans to the United States during World War II. Few Americans realize the pivotal role Filipinos played during World War II. From 1898 to 1946, the Philippines were a U.S. possession. Although the Philippine Independence Act of 1934 established a 10 year timetable for independence and bestowed the Commonwealth of the Philippines with certain powers over internal affairs, its full independence was delayed until 1946 because of the Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945. Between 1934 and 1946, the United States retained certain sovereign powers over the Philippines. President Roosevelt invoked an executive order on July 26, 1941, which ordered the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the U.S. Army Forces of the Far East under the command of Lieutenant General Douglas MacArthur. Thousands of Filipinos served with United States military personnel in the Pacific during World War II. Of the nearly 142,000 Filipino veterans who fought during World War II, only 70,000 survivors remain today. From the Japanese landing at Lingayen to the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, Filipino Army units gave their all to repel Japanese forces. Filipinos forces marched alongside Americans in the Death March after the surrender at Bataan and Corregidor. Thousands of Filipinos continued to resist Japanese occupation and continued to assist the United States through intelligence gathering throughout the war. In return for their service, Filipino veterans were granted benefits amounting to only fifty cents on the dollar compared to other veterans. President Truman objected to the restrictions on benefits for the Commonwealth Army veterans. The Filipino veterans who were called into service by the United States served just as honorably and faithfully as American veterans and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Recognition of the Filipino veterans who served during World War II is long overdue and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing an amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to prohibit an interim or permanent nuclear waste storage facility outside of the 50 States. My bill would prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from issuing a license to store nuclear waste in any of the territories, or on U.S. possessions such as Midway Island or Palmyra Atoll. Some of my Senate colleagues may wonder whether this is a bill in search of a problem that does not exist. Until a few weeks ago, I would have never imagined that legislation such as this was necessary. However, based on information I have compiled, it is clear that the bill I am proposing is urgently needed. Earlier this year, the Honolulu papers reported that Palmyra Island, a Pacific atoll located 900 miles southwest of Hawaii, was sold to a New York investment firm known as KVR, Inc. The reason KVR purchased Palmyra has always been vague and uncertain. However, 2 weeks ago details of a scheme for Palmyra were uncovered when the island's new owners quietly circulated legislation that would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license for high-level nuclear fuel storage on Palmyra. The State of Hawaii and its delegation in Congress strongly oppose this proposal. I have recently discovered that Palmyra was not the only island targeted for nuclear storage. Midway Island and sites in the Republic of the Marshall Islands were also proposed for nuclear waste storage by the owners of Palmyra and their associates. As more and more information surfaces about the activities of Palmyra's new owners, their business associates, and the web of corporations they control, the true picture of their scheme emerges. When you fit all the pieces of the puzzle together, you find that a group of nuclear entrepreneurs have been combing the Pacific for the past 2 years, searching for a home for their nuclear waste dump. It is an affront to Hawaii and the Pacific that they would hatch this scheme and operate in the shadows for so long. Let me present the facts in greater detail. In October 1994, the developers of this nuclear waste initiative wrote the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to propose that high-level nuclear waste be stored in the Marshall Islands. Prior to sending their letter, representatives from both sides met in Washington to discuss the proposal. In exchange for providing exclusive use of an island for storing nuclear fuel, the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government would receive $160 million in concession payments as well as a share of any profits from the venture. Fortunately this initiative did not succeed. The plan to store nuclear materials in the Republic of the Marshall Islands was opposed by the Clinton administration and prompted Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the Department of Energy from negotiating such an arrangement with the Republic of the Marshall Islands Government. At this point the scheme to build a nuclear waste dump on a low-lying Pacific atoll appeared dead. But the proposal resurfaced when a group of Washington lobbyists and Wall Street financiers purchased Palmyra Atoll earlier this year. The bill drafted by the new owners of Palmyra is one of the most remarkable legislative proposals I have seen in my 20 years in Congress. It is a legislative blank check, granting carte blanche authority to the owners of Palmyra to become the world's only, privately owned nuclear fuel storage and reprocessing enterprise. This proposal would vastly increase the risk of nuclear proliferation by placing the critical elements of weapons of mass destruction--plutonium and uranium--in private hands. The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license to store 200,000 tons of nuclear fuel on Palmyra. The license shall be granted for the maximum period permitted by law. By directing the NRC to license nuclear waste storage on Palmyra, the draft legislation would circumvent NRC licensing standards and waive environmental, engineering, and safety requirements that normally apply to the storage of spent nuclear fuel. One of the boldest elements of the bill grants the owners of Palmyra the exclusive right to determine the scope of activities on the atoll. Why should anyone, whether a private individual or an arm of government, be granted unfettered authority over an island where 200,000 tons of nuclear fuel is being stored and reprocessed? This would be nuclear madness. Another flaw of this proposal is that atolls like Palmyra are environmentally sensitive and prone to erosion and extreme weather conditions. Eastern Island, the highest point on the atoll, is less than 6 feet above sea level. Any nuclear material stored at Palmyra would eventually have to be relocated. The National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have determined that above-ground storage of nuclear materials can only be an interim solution. Spent nuclear fuel stored at Palmyra would eventually have to be relocated to a permanent storage site. If this proposal succeeds, ships carrying spent nuclear fuel from all corners of the globe will transect the Pacific to deposit nuclear material at Palmyra, only to transport this fuel once again to a permanent storage site at another location. If the plan for nuclear reprocessing goes forward, the traffic in nuclear cargo would increase dramatically. The bill further declares that the owners of Palmyra shall have title to any nuclear fuel, commencing at the time waste is transferred to containers bound for Palmyra. It would summarily select a site for storing nuclear waste without scientific or technical evaluation of the geologic, hydrologic, seismic or other conditions of the atoll. It negates decades of research, planning, and development we have invested in achieving an acceptable approach to our nuclear waste problem. Of course, in order to achieve this remarkable plan, the bill waives the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws are the hallmark of our Nation's commitment to protecting the environment and enjoy broad, bipartisan support. The notion that these fundamental environmental laws should be waived during the licensing of a high-level nuclear waste storage site is simply irresponsible. The American people will never accept such a proposal, no matter how well it is sugarcoated. The revelation this week that Midway, an island that is part of the Hawaiian chain, was also sought by the owners of Palmyra is an especially frightening development for the people of Hawaii. In December 1995, the chairman of U.S. Fuel and Security requested that the Navy allow high-level nuclear fuel storage on Midway Island. U.S. Fuel and Security is a company affiliated with the new purchasers of Palmyra. The company has a business plan that calls for storing nuclear materials on a privately owned island in the Pacific Ocean, which we now know to be Palmyra. Fortunately, the request was denied and the Navy transferred operational control of Midway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in May of this year. The purchase of Palmyra was consummated only after it became clear that the Navy would not approve the proposal for Midway storage. Weeks ago, when details first surfaced about establishing a nuclear waste dump on Palmyra, it was difficult to believe that there was any truth to these proposals. But as I uncovered more and more information, I began to realize that this story was fact, and not fiction. This tale of nuclear intrigue is like a bad onion. Each time you peel away another layer it smells even more. You begin to wonder what else this group is up to that we do not know about. That is why I am introducing legislation to prohibit the storage of nuclear waste in any of the Pacific territories or on U.S. islands such as Midway or Palmyra. My bill is a preemptive strike against proposals to store nuclear waste on Palmyra. It would shut the door on any possibility of turning these Pacific islands into a nuclear waste dump. I also want to put the Senate on notice that I am examining legislation to transfer jurisdiction of Palmyra, Midway, and five other U.S. possessions to the State of Hawaii. This proposal would give Hawaii legal authority over, but not title to, these islands. When a similar proposal surfaced last year in the House of Representatives, legitimate concerns were raised about the potential liability associated with such a transfer. In light of efforts to store nuclear fuel on some of these islands, I believe that we should revisit the idea of placing these Pacific islands, which are geographically close to Hawaii, under the State's jurisdiction. I will closely examine the question of liability and take steps to ensure that the Federal Government is responsible for cleanup of any hazardous or toxic substances on these islands, and that the State of Hawaii is indemnified from future liability. Transferring jurisdiction of islands like Palmyra and Midway to the State of Hawaii would mean that our Governor, the State legislature, and ultimately the people of Hawaii would have a greater say in determining the future of these islands. This legislation could be a substitute for, or an addition to, the bill I have introduced today. My colleagues, the nuclear era began in the Pacific when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Since that time, more than 150 nuclear devices have been detonated in the region. The United States conducted 66 tests in the Marshall Islands and Johnston Atoll during the 1940's and 1950's. The British conducted 21 tests on Christmas Island and in Australia during the 1950's. The French detonated more than 180 devices on Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls under a nuclear testing program that began in 1974 and ended in February 1996. The environmental consequences of this nuclear legacy are evident throughout the Pacific to this day. Given the international outpouring of criticism during the recent French testing, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider establishing the world's largest spent nuclear fuel dump at Palmyra. The Pacific has been under assault since the dawn of the nuclear era and should not become a future dumping ground for the world's nuclear problems. Half a century of nuclear testing is enough.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1878 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise with others of my colleagues in the Senate in support of the sixth annual National Race for the Cure, which will be held in Washington, DC, on Saturday, June 15, this year. Race for the Cure, as has been noted, is a breast cancer benefit run sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The foundation was established in 1982 by Nancy Brinker in honor of her sister who died of breast cancer at the age of 36. Since its creation, the foundation, through events such as Race for the Cure, has raised millions of dollars to promote education, promote awareness, promote research, and promote early detection of the disease. Three-fourths of the money raised goes toward local treatment and screening activities, while one-fourth of the funds goes to the Komen Foundation to fund national research activities. The statistics on breast cancer remain startling, Mr. President. This year, an estimated 44,000 women in our country will die from breast cancer, and another 184,000 will be diagnosed with the disease. I continue to have great concern over the high incidence and low survival rates for this disease among minority and low-income women. I remain particularly concerned that the Native Hawaiian women have the highest incidence of breast cancer among all racial and ethnic groups in this country. While the cause of breast cancer remains unknown and the disease is not fully understood, significant advancements have been made in the management of breast cancer. As with many of the life-threatening illnesses, early detection of breast cancer, coupled with appropriate and timely followup, remains the most effective method to ensure successful treatment and improved survivability. However, Mr. President, much work remains. Many women do not know how to conduct self-examinations, and many would benefit from a screening mammogram. Some of them do not seek it because of fear, because of cost or even because of lack of access. In closing, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues and their staff and families to participate in the 1996 National Race for the Cure. All of us have families or friends who have battled breast cancer. In particular, this sixth annual race has special meaning for those of us in the Senate. This year's race is dedicated to the memory of Martha Moloney, a longtime aide to Senator Wendell Ford who lost her valiant fight against breast cancer last November. Continuing the fight against breast cancer is the most appropriate way to honor Martha's memory and to recognize the heroic efforts of millions of women and their families confronting this disease. Mr. President, this is one of those dreaded diseases in our country. We all need to support the race 100 percent and participate in all of these activities. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am delighted today to honor Norton and Joan Langley of Honolulu, Hawaii, who will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary on May 28, 1996. The commitment to marriage is a solemn one, and the desire to remain united for half a century is laudable. The Langleys met while teenagers and were married in 1946, after Norton returned from World War II with two Purple Hearts. In 1957, they traded life in San Francisco for Honolulu where they opened the first of their clothing stores, Casual Aire of Hawaii. Their flagship shop, located in the lovely Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel in Waikiki, was featured in the opening shots of the first television series produced in Hawaii--``Hawaiian Eye.'' Two of their three children continue to reside in Honolulu where son, Larry, and daughter, Jodi, operate Casual Aire. Their eldest daughter, Nanci, resides in Virginia, and is a valued member of my staff. I wish this happy family all the best and congratulate them on the strength of their family ties.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very dear friend and pioneer Hawaii businessman, Hung Wo Ching, Aloha Airgroup vice chairman, who died on March 26, 1996, in Honolulu. Since 1958, Mr. Ching served on the interisland carrier's board of directors and held a number of executive positions with the company. Under his leadership, Aloha Airlines Inc. grew from an upstart airline to become the dominant interisland carrier in the State of Hawaii. Hung Wo Ching was raised in Hawaii by immigrant parents from Canton, China. He graduated from Honolulu's McKinley High School in 1931 and attended the University of Hawaii. Following his freshman year, he studied liberal arts at Yenching University in Beijing, China. In 1935, he returned to the United States and completed his undergraduate education at Utah State University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in agricultural economics. In 1945, he received his doctorate in agricultural economics from Cornell University. When he was 41 years old, he attended Harvard University as a visiting scholar. In 1945, Mr. Ching traveled to Tientsin, China to start a sugarbeet industry. The outbreak of civil war in China 2 years later put an end to those dreams, and he returned to Hawaii to concentrate on his real estate investments. Shortly after his return to Hawaii, the founder of Trans Pacific Airlines encouraged him to invest in his upstart airline. In addition to being on Aloha's board of directors, Mr. Ching was also a director for Bishop Insurance of Hawaii, Inc., and the chairman of the board of directors of Diamond Head Memorial Park and Nuuanu Memorial Park. He was an honorary trustee of the U.S. Committee for Economic Development and the Bishop Museum, and a member of the advisory councils of Cornell University and Utah State University. He was a member of the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, the Hawaiian Civic Club, and the advisory board of Liliuokalani Trust. Over the years, Mr. Ching has held trusteeships and directorships with many Hawaii companies and charitable foundations, including Bishop Estate, Bank of Hawaii, Alexander and Baldwin, Matson Navigation Co., Hawaiian Telephone, Hawaiian Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Hawaiian Western Steel, Ltd., and Hauoli Sales, Ltd. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in paying tribute to the memory of Hung Wo Ching, and pass along our deepest sympathies to his wife, Elizabeth, and his children and grandchildren.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I am most grateful for the Senator from Maryland's past assistance in providing support and funding for the two centers. As created by Congress, the centers were established to address the special needs of women and minority veterans overlooked under the Department's previous structure. Both centers and their respective Advisory Committees have made great strides in identifying and assisting minority and women veterans. The Committee for Minority Veterans is required to meet at least twice a year and submit a annual report no later than July 1. The Committee on Women Veterans is scheduled to meet four times during a fiscal year and is expected to submit its next annual report in January 1997. The projected costs for the two committee to hold meetings, conduct public hearings, visit VA field facilities, and outreach to minority and women veterans are estimated to be over $120,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. I am pleased that the provision in this bill will not adversely affect the activities of the Center for Minority Veterans and the Center on Women Veterans. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland for their assistance on this matter. devils lake basin

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, would the Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, yield for a question?

Mr. AKAKA. Is it the intention of the committee to include the Committee for Minority Veterans and the Committee on Women Veterans under the restrictions placed on the travel budget of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs?

Mr. AKAKA. Will the Committee for Minority Veterans and the Committee on Women Veterans be able to meet their responsibilities, including travel obligations, under the restrictions placed on the Secretary's travel?

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding to me. Mr. President, I rise to register my opposition to the school voucher provision included in the pending measure. The conference report to the fiscal year 1996 D.C. appropriations bill contains language that would establish a scholarship program for low-income students to attend private and religious schools or attend after-school programs in religious, private, or public institutions. As a former teacher and public school principal, my chief concern is that this measure would, for the first time, permit Federal tax dollars to be used to subsidize private or religious education. This provision represents the proverbial camel's nose under the tent of public funding, which could lead to the diversion of additional Federal moneys toward private instruction. Worse, it would encourage States and localities to follow the Federal example, with disastrous consequences for public education. There are no quick fixes for what ails our system of learning. It takes time, energy, and resources to construct and maintain school buildings, to develop appropriate curricula, to hire and train effective teachers, to encourage parental involvement, to make our schools safe from crime. And it takes time, energy, and resources to ensure that our schools provide our children with the skills and knowledge necessary to respond to the economic, scientific, and technological challenges that will confront them upon graduation. Nevertheless, speaking from my background as an educator, I know that given adequate attention and resources, public schools can and do work. I have no quarrel with private or religious schools. In many cases, they provide a quality education for thousands of young people; in fact, we have many fine private institutions of our own in Hawaii. But private schools are by nature highly selective. They may choose their students on virtually any basis one could care to name, including income, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, aptitude, behavior, even physical or emotional disability. This exclusiveness guarantees that only a small fraction of school-age children will be able to matriculate in private schools; as a consequence, the vast majority of children will continue to be served by public schools. Knowing this, is it our place to take away precious funds from the many who attend public schools in order to assist the few who attend private schools? Is this an appropriate, fair, or wise use of tax dollars? How many public schoolteachers could we hire for $42 million, the amount that this program will cost over the next 5 years? How many textbooks could we give to inner-city children? How many school lunches could we offer undernourished kids? How many personal computers could we purchase for classrooms? Most importantly, what would be the long- term cost of this provision to public instruction, if this provision opens the door to additional raids on the Federal Treasury in the name of school choice? Mr. President, vouchers are the snake oil in the pharmacology of American education, a quick fix for an imagined ailment. They expose a lack of will and imagination in addressing the real education challenges facing our Nation, challenges which millions of teachers, students, and parents could overcome in public schools around the country, if only they had the support we and other policymakers could give them. I urge my colleagues to reject this approach, and instead work hard to improve what we already have, a democratic system of public education that is funded by all citizens for the benefit of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke cloture on this measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. Mr. President, as I listen to all the evils that are being attributed to the sugar program during today's debate on the Senate floor, I hardly recognize the tiny white crystals that sweeten my cereal each morning. Sugar is an essential element of human nutrition. It is also the least expensive food item you will find in an American kitchen. When you go to a restaurant, there are only two things available at no charge and in an unlimited quantity: water and sugar. Yet on the Senate floor, sugar is the most maligned commodity grown in America. Despite all the criticism being circulated by corporate food processors that are trying to put American sugar farmers out of business, sugar is one of the best bargains you will find at the grocery store today. A pound of refined sugar costs 39 cents. But consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the same low prices as consumers in America. If you visited the grocery store in other industrialized nations you would get sticker shock when you came to the sugar display. In Tokyo, consumers pay nearly 90 cents for a pound of sugar, more than double the U.S. price. In Europe, prices average 50 to 70 cents per pound. Among developed countries, the average retail price for a pound of sugar is 54 cents, which is a premium of 38 percent compared to the U.S. price. And what do these consumers get for the premium price they pay? Nothing. They get the same 1-pound box of sugar as we do in America, but they pay substantially more for it--38 percent more. Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable prices, sugar is a remarkable bargain for American consumers. U.S. consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. That is a savings of $1.4 billion annually. So there is no doubt about one thing: the sugar program is a great deal for American consumers. By any measure, the sugar program has guaranteed U.S. consumers a stable supply of sugar at bargain prices. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. If Congress reduces or terminates the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the economy disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reid-Gregg amendment. I am dumbfounded by the arguments of sugar opponents that the changes recommended by the Senate Agriculture Committee are inadequate. If anything, the reforms go too far. Cane sugar growers in my State will barely recognize the sugar program if the Senate bill becomes law. The Senate bill eliminates marketing controls, eliminates minimum price guarantees, and increases sugar imports by 20 percent. Growers will pay a 1-cent-per-pound penalty when they forfeit sugar, which amounts to a cut in the loan rate. Finally, all beet and cane sugar growers will face a 25-percent increase in fees paid to the Federal Government to market sugar. The only thing that has not changed is the requirement that the program operate at no cost to the taxpayer. The committee bill contains real reform. For sugar farmers in Hawaii and on the mainland these reforms will be painful, so painful that a number of them will not survive. I urge my colleagues to oppose deeper cuts than those proposed by the committee.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is with a great sense of relief and hope that I rise today to comment on the announcement by French President Jacques Chirac that France has concluded its nuclear weapons testing program for good and will close its nuclear testing center in French Polynesia. Like most people throughout the Pacific islands and Asia, the citizens of Hawaii were angered by the six underground nuclear explosions at Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls conducted by France. The threat to the environment and public health posed by the numerous blasts over the years is real and ongoing. This week, an article in the Washington Post documented French acknowledgement that radioactive materials have leaked into the sea surrounding the atolls. These reports confirm claims made by international organizations that French nuclear testing has weakened the coral atolls and vented radioactive materials into the Pacific. Regrettably, France has not allowed independent inquiry and verification at the test sites. The global outcry against the resumption of French nuclear testing has given renewed vigor to the drive for an international moratorium on nuclear testing and the completion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. International protests extended well beyond the nations of the Pacific; the French action drew criticism in the United States and objections from most members of the European Union. The Senate and the Congress joined the international chorus of concern following President Chirac's announcement last summer that France would end its testing moratorium. Last session, the Congress adopted a sense of the Senate resolution I authored calling on France and China to abide by the international moratorium on nuclear test explosions and refrain from conducting underground nuclear tests in advance of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Mr. President, the definitive end to nuclear testing by France is welcome news. It comes after six unnecessary and ill-advised nuclear explosions. However, France's rejoining the global moratorium, pledge to sign the Treaty of Rarotonga, and commitment to pursue a zero-option test ban treaty presents an opportunity to conclude a permanent nuclear test ban treaty and advance nuclear nonproliferation. The challenge we face is to reach agreement among the nations participating in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. In his State of the Union message, President Clinton called for the signing of a truly comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty this year. This ambitious timetable underlines the President's strong leadership in the effort to halt the nuclear arms race, advance nuclear disarmament, and ensure peace and security for all people. President Chirac's intention to play an active role in concluding an international nuclear testing ban should add momentum to efforts now underway in Geneva, Switzerland aimed at resolving remaining disagreements over the text of the treaty. We should encourage all positive contributions toward nuclear disarmament, even those that come from recent converts to the cause. Mr. President, the state visit and address to Congress by the President of the Republic of France has prompted denunciations and calls for action by many citizens and elected officials. This understandable reaction reflects the anger, pain, and offense felt by the people of the Pacific islands over the arrogance and insensitivity with which their objections have been dismissed. This singular opportunity offers President Chirac a forum to embark on a new course to advance nuclear nonproliferation. I encourage President Chirac to pursue reconciliation with the Pacific island peoples and nations. France should not delay its pledge to sign the protocols of the Treaty of Rarotonga, which declare and establish the South Pacific as a nuclear-free zone. I also call on President Chirac to permit independent inspection and evaluation of the test sites and the lagoon and sea surrounding the atolls for environmental damage and radiation leakage. The political and environmental damage wrought by the recently concluded tests cannot be undone. However, the end of the final series of underground nuclear testing by France offers an opportunity and challenge for our countries to cooperate on the successful conclusion and approval of a comprehensive test ban treaty this year. It is with this spirit of hope that I greet the state visit by the President of the Republic of France. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will take the floor in morning business to speak about a concern that has been global.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, are we in morning business?