Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, which would allow Congress to respond quickly and responsibly to Presidentially declared emergencies. Mr. President, on September 11, 1992, Hurricane Iniki struck the island of Kauai and the Waianae shore of Oahu with the force of a sledgehammer. Sustained winds of 140 miles per hour, with gusts of up to 226 mph, were recorded. In a few nightmare hours, the lives of Kauai's 51,000 permanent residents and thousands of tourists had been radically transformed for the worse. On Kauai alone, 7 people died and over 100 were injured, and $2 billion in damage was recorded in private and public property loss. More than 14,000 residences were destroyed or damaged, leaving thousands homeless or poorly sheltered from the elements. Five thousand utility poles were knocked down, leaving residents without electricity or the ability to communicate with themselves or the outside world. The loss of power also meant that no water could be pumped to faucets. Tons of debris blocked roads, shutting down transportation island-wide. Harbors, schools, offices, and other government infrastructure sustained heavy damage. And the local airport, the island's major link with the rest of the State, was knocked out of commission, preventing immediate relief and evacuation. Today, 2\1/2\ years later, thanks to the quick reaction of Federal, State, and local officials, the energy and enthusiasm of volunteer agencies, and to the courage and fortitude of the people of Kauai, Kauai is slowly recovering. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, and the rebuilding is not complete by any stretch of the imagination, but a semblance of normalcy has returned. Roads are open, the phones are working, and tourists are returning to newly refurbished hotels and beaches. Yet, Mr. President, little of this would have been possible without the $1.2 billion in Federal disaster assistance that Congress appropriated in the months following Hurricane Iniki. That funding ensured that a tiny island like Kauai, and a small State like Hawaii, which on its own would never have been able to raise the necessary funds to avert massive homelessness and unemployment, would in time recover. And this is what the Boxer amendment is all about, Mr. President. It is about helping your neighbor when he is in need. It is about extending a helping hand to those who, through no fault of their own, are struck down by disaster, natural or otherwise. It is about pulling together as a country when the chips are down. It is about Californians helping Missourians cope with floods; it is about Missourians helping South Carolinians rebuild after a hurricane; and, it is about South Carolinians aiding Californians when the Earth shakes. Mr. President, I have previously articulated my opposition to a constitutional balanced budget amendment. But if we must adopt the measure, we must ensure that Congress has the necessary flexibility to respond quickly and responsibly to emergencies that are well beyond the means of localities and States to address. We must avoid the risk of undermining the very reason for the Union itself. Our national motto is and remains United We Stand, not United We Stand, Unless We Run a Fiscal Deficit. So, for the sake of unity and compassion, for the sake of shared responsibility, I urge my colleagues to support this important, prudent, and altogether necessary amendment. Let us not sacrifice our sense of common purpose on the altar of fiscal expediency. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in behalf of myself and Senators Daschle, Wellstone, Inouye, and Jeffords, I am today reintroducing legislation I offered in the last Congress that would make numerous improvements in the organization, policies, and programs known as the vet center program. The Readjustment Counseling Service Amendments of 1995 is similar to legislation I introduced in the 103d Congress, S. 1226, the Readjustment Counseling Service Amendments of 1994, which the Senate unanimously approved last March. The bill I am introducing today is in fact identical to S. 1226 as reported by the Veterans' Affairs Committee on November 3, 1993. As my colleagues know, vet centers are storefront, community-based centers operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] that, in an informal, user-friendly environment, offer counseling services to returned Vietnam-era veterans and post-Vietnam combat veterans. Since the program was first authorized in 1979, it has grown from 87 facilities to 202 today, operating in all 50 States. Together, these centers have helped more than 1.1. million veterans successfully readjust to civilian life, including 94,686 last year. In the process, the vet center program has established leadership in such areas as post-traumatic stress disorder, homelessness, disaster assistance, sexual trauma, alcohol and substance abuse, suicide prevention, the physically disabled, and minority veterans. The Readjustment Counseling Service Amendments of 1995 attempts to ensure that the program remains viable, relevant, and responsive to the needs of today's veterans. It hopes to accomplish these goals by achieving two general aims. On the one hand, it would preserve that which is best in the vet organizational structure and those administrative practices which have hitherto made the program uniquely effective. On the other hand, it would enhance the ability of vet centers to undertake new challenges by expanding eligibility to new categories of veterans and encouraging VA to explore the potential of vet center-based health care and benefits services. Specifically, my legislation would: Codify the current organizational structure of RCS and require that funding for the program be specifically identified in the budget; raise the director of RCS to the Assistant Chief Medical Director level; expand eligibility for Vet Center services to all combat veterans, regardless of period of service, and authorize services for all other veterans on a resource- available basis; authorize bereavement counseling provided through vet centers for the families of veterans who died in combat, and authorize such counseling to survivors of veterans who died of other service- related causes on a resource-available basis; establish a statutory Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans; require VA to develop a plan to assign additional employment, training, and benefit counselors at vet centers; require a report on the feasibility and desirability of collocating vet centers and VA outpatient clinics; and, undertake a pilot program authorizing the provision of limited, primary health care services at veteran centers. Mr. President, the provisions of my bill have been variously endorsed by the major veterans service organizations, RCS field staff, and the Department itself at hearings on S. 1226 conducted by the Veterans' Affairs Committee during the last Congress. Indeed, the full Senate effectively endorsed the provisions of the bill I am offering today when it passed S. 1226 early last year. I hope that Senators will once again express support for the preserving and improving the unique vet center program by cosponsoring and supporting enactment of this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we have all been elected to the Senate to make the difficult policy decisions that confront our Federal Government. Every day on the Senate floor, we engage in decisionmaking that is the essence of the legislative process. Some decisions that come before the Senate are rather commonplace, such as how much to spend on scientific research or whether we will build and maintain new highways or ports. Other decisions are much more profound, such as who will become the next Supreme Court Justice, or whether or not our Nation will go to war. No decision a Senator makes it more profound than our vote on an amendment to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is an extraordinary legislative action that has occurred only a few times in our Nation's history. The first 10 amendments, which we know as the Bill of Rights, were proposed and ratified almost immediately after the Constitution itself. In the next 200 years, only 16 amendments were proposed by Congress and ratified by the States. This experience tells us that the balance and compromise crafted during the Constitutional Convention has served us very well. We are governed by a remarkably resilient document, and it is a tribute to our Founding Fathers that the Constitution has been amended so infrequently. I am deeply concerned that the amendment we are now considering will upset the delicate balance of power forged during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The balanced budget amendment would transfer fundamental spending and taxing authority from Congress to the executive branch. By this amendment, we would unravel mechanisms that our Founding Fathers delicately weaved into the fabric of the Constitution to keep the excesses of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches in check. I genuinely fear that the balanced budget And let us remember that domination by the Executive is what caused us to abandon our relationship with England and establish a great democracy. During hearings convened by House and Senate committees, many professors of law and learned constitutional scholars expressed well- founded concerns that, if ratified, the balanced budget amendment would permit the President to impose taxes or fees in order to enforce the amendment. It would also implicitly or explicitly repeal the impoundment control measures contained in the 1974 Budget Act. The notion that the Executive should be allowed to impose taxes without the concurrence of Congress is a radical proposition. It violates the constitutional principle that Congress alone should have the power to lay and collect taxes. Our Constitution is a remarkable document. As ratified by the States, its fundamental elements are now familiar to us all: A government divided into three parts--each part separate and distinct--and each armed with tools to defend against the excesses of the other. Yes, our Constitution has been amended over the years. We have 10 amendments that set forth fundamental rights guaranteed to all. We have a number of housekeeping amendments which establish the electoral college, provide for the election of Senators by popular vote, and establish an orderly process in the event of the death of the President. We have amendments that secure freedom and promote universal suffrage, such as the 13th, ending slavery; 14th, due process, equal protection; 15th, end discrimination; and the 19th and 26th amendments, vote for women and 18-year-olds. But none of these amendments reorders the fundamental structure of power and authority as would occur under the balanced budget amendment. The balanced budget amendment would tilt the balance of power heavily in favor of the Executive, and, as I said earlier, promote an imperial Presidency. There are those who argue that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. After all, if families can balance their budgets, why cannot the Federal Government? Under the proposed amendment, the Federal Government would be required to balance its budget every year. The only time a deficit could occur would be during time of war, or when three- fifths of the House and Senate agree. While it sounds easy, there remains a glaring problem with such a simplistic approach to reducing the Nation's debt. What programs would Congress cut to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, the date on which the amendment would go into effect? What Federal agencies would have their budgets slashed in order to help the Federal Government meet the requirements of the balanced budget amendment? Estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office call for spending cuts totaling $1.5 trillion by the year 2002. CBO also predicts that if Social Security and defense are exempted from the balanced budget numbers then all other Federal programs would be cut across the board by 30 percent. That of course, is assuming that all cuts are equal and that partisanship is left out of the mix. Although I wholeheartedly support and endorse efforts to balance the Federal budget, I am greatly concerned that the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts needed to meet the goals of a balanced budget amendment by the year 2002 would have a devastating impact on a wide segment of our population. Supporters of the resolution fail to explain where these tremendous budget cuts would fall. Without assurances that Federal agencies and programs would be equitably affected, such a plan is unworkable. I strongly back Democratic leader Daschle's amendment that would require Congress to pass an honest, detailed plan to balance the budget before the balanced budget constitutional amendment goes to States for ratification. It is irresponsible for us to vote on an amendment requiring a balanced budget which would necessitate draconian budget cuts without knowing what we would be cutting and how. We need to know. The American people have the right to know. Let me mention a few more aspects of this balanced budget amendment that concern me. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget could damage the economy more than strengthen it. Greater amounts of deficit cutting would be required in periods of slow growth than in times of rapid growth--an action which economists predict would result in more frequent and deeper recessions. Such an amendment could also limit public investments that are critical to long-term growth because the amendment makes no distinction between investments such as education and training and early intervention programs for children, and other types of government spending. These investments are necessary to ensure the Nation's competitiveness and help the economy grow. Because the amendment calls for a balanced budget every year, regardless of whether economic growth is strong or weak, larger spending cuts or tax increases would be needed in periods of slow growth than in times of rapid growth, further exacerbating an already crippled economy. Mr. President, I know we will have ample time to debate this issue further, and I look forward to the ensuing debate.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to reestablish the Friends of Kaloko-Honokohau, an advisory Commission for the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park located on the big island of Hawaii. Identical legislation passed both Houses during the 103d Congress, but failed to reach the President's desk before adjournment. The advisory Commission was originally authorized for a 10-year period under the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, the bill which established the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. Unfortunately, since the National Park Service did not acquire a sufficient land base for park operations until October 1990, the 10- year period expired without the Commission being established. My bill simply reauthorizes the Friends of Kaloko-Honokohau to complete its original mandate. The Commission will advise the Director of the National Park Service on historical, archaeological, cultural, and interpretive programs for the park. Particular emphasis will be given to the demonstration of traditional native Hawaiian culture. Mr. President, Congress intended Kaloko-Honokohau Historical Park to be dedicated to the preservation and perpetuation of traditional native Hawaiian culture and activities. The reestablishment of Friends of Kaloko-Honokohau is a necessary step in achieving this goal.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide a measure of tax relief to working families throughout America. My bill would restore value to the child and dependent care credit by allowing an annual adjustment of the credit for inflation. Mr. President, economic security is the paramount concern for millions of American families. For the first time in our Nation's history, living standards are not keeping pace with economic growth and new job creation. Median family income, after almost two decades of stagnation, is now declining. Many Americans are working harder and longer to make ends meet for their families. The availability and affordability of adequate child care is an increasingly important consideration for many middle-income working parents. Many families are forced to patch together a network of child care providers to secure care for their children. My legislation responds to the critical need for affordable, quality child-care services without creating costly new Government programs or agencies. It is a simple, flexible solution that will reestablish the full benefit of the child and dependent care credit for millions of working families. The evidence in support of improving the child and dependent care credit is clear. The number of single mothers working outside the home has dramatically increased in recent years. More than 56 percent of all mothers with children under 6 years work outside the home, and over 70 percent of women with children over age 6 are in the labor market. The percentage of Hawaii households in which both parents work outside the home is even higher than the national average. According to projections developed by the Bank of Hawaii based on the 1990 census, 61.8 percent of all Hawaii families have both parents employed, and 71.3 percent of all households have at least two individuals in the work force. labor market and the large number of two-parent families in which both parents work outside the home have made the dependent care credit one of the most popular and productive tax incentives ever enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, the value of the credit has declined significantly over the years as inflation has slowly eroded the value of this benefit. Measured in constant dollars, the maximum credit of $2,400 has decreased in value by more than 45 percent since it was enacted in 1981. The maximum amount of employment-related child care expenses allowed under current law--$2,400 for a single child, and $4,800 for two or more children--has simply failed to keep pace with escalating care costs. Unlike the earned income tax credit [EITC], the standard deduction, the low-income housing credit, and a number of other sections of our Tax Code, the dependent care credit is not adjusted for inflation. The purpose of this credit is to partially offset the expense of dependent and child care services incurred by parents working outside the home. While the cost of quality child care has increased as demand exceeds supply, the dependent care credit has failed to keep up with the spiraling costs. The bill I introduce today corrects this problem by automatically adjusting the dependent and child care credit for inflation. Under this legislation, both the dollar limit on the amount creditable and the limitation on earned income would be adjusted annually. Mr. President, in the past 12 years, the average middle-class family with children has seen its income fall 5 percent, almost $1,600 after inflation. A family of four earning $35,000 a year has seen its tax burden increase since 1981. In part, this is due to the diminished value of the child and dependent care credit. In 1981, the flat credit for dependent care was replaced with a scale to give the greatest benefit of the credit to lower income working families. Since that time, neither the adjusted gross income figures employed in the scale, nor the limit on the amount of employment-related expenses used to calculate the credit, has been adjusted for inflation. Our bill provides a measure of much needed relief to working American families. It would index the child and dependent care credit and restore the full benefit of the credit. The average cost for out of home child care exceeds $3,500 per child, per year. Child care or dependent care expenses can seriously strain a family's budget. This burden can become unbearable for single parents, almost invariably single mothers, who must balance the need to work with their parental responsibilities. Numerous economic studies have shown that the economic policies of the 1980's had a disastrous impact upon the incomes of middle-income families. Inflation adjusted wages for the median worker fell 7.3 percent from 1979 to 1991. Working Americans have been losing ground in their struggle to preserve their standard of living. To compensate, American families have been forced to work longer hours, deplete their life savings, and go deeper into debt. There is an urgent need to enact changes in our Tax Code that are pro-family and pro-children. The Working Families Tax Relief Act meets both of these goals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I reintroduce legislation to exclude the Hawaii Income Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA. As we have witnessed during the opening weeks of the session, reinventing Government will be a major legislative theme for the 104th Congress. In the months ahead, Congress will examine unnecessary restrictions that the Federal Government imposes on States. Hawaii's experience with ERISA is an excellent example of a Federal restriction that should be curtailed so the State can improve access to affordable health care. ERISA is the major constraint on Hawaii's ability to improve health care coverage. My bill would give the State the flexibility it needs to find creative and cost-effective ways of delivering high-quality health care. Ensuring that all Americans will have access to affordable health care is the most profound challenge facing our country. As the cost of providing care is growing at an alarming rate, the number of uninsured or underinsured individuals continues to rise. State governments have a major stake in financing and providing health care. A growing portion of State budgets are devoted to health care. But budgetary problems are not the only constraints facing the States. Federal laws and regulations often conspire to make health care more expensive or less universal. A case in point is the State of Hawaii's experience with the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act and ERISA. In 1974, Hawaii became the first State to require employers and employees to share responsibility for the cost of health insurance when it enacted the Prepaid Health Care Act [PPHCA]. By dramatically reducing the number of uninsured, this measure allowed Hawaii to implement a system of near-universal health care coverage. In a 1980 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that ERISA preempts the State from enacting minimum health care requirements for employers governed by ERISA. The court determined that in the absence of an expressed exemption for the Hawaii statute, Federal law governs. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling, and concluded that relief could come only from Congress. Soon thereafter, I sponsored legislation to grant an exemption for the Hawaii statute. After considerable congressional debate, a limited ERISA exemption was signed into law on January 14, 1983. However, the exemption was not prospective, and only permitted Hawaii to require the specific benefits set forth in the State's 1974 statute. An unfortunate consequence of these events is that the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act has been frozen in time, and the State is prevented from making changes other than those that would enhance effective administration. In recognition of Hawaii's determined effort to provide universal health care, my bill would exempt the State's prepaid health care act from restrictions contained in ERISA. Such an exemption would give Hawaii greater flexibility to improve both the quality and scope of health coverage for working men and women and their families. Among other things, the State could reevaluate the employer-employee cost sharing levels, examine the feasibility of requiring dependent coverage, and explore measures to assist businesses in providing health benefits. Since 1974, Hawaii has had a mandated employer health benefits program, the first and only one of its kind in the United States. Nearly all of Hawaii's employers are required to provide employee health insurance, with the employee paying up to half the premium cost, but no more than 1.5 percent of monthly wages, and the employer providing the balance. Eligible employees must work at least 20 hours a week. Employers may offer one or two basic plans--a fee-for-service plan or a designated health maintenance organization plan. The results of Hawaii's innovative approach are impressive. Hawaii has led the Nation in ensuring that basic health care is available to all its people. This system delivers high-quality care at relatively low cost, despite a cost of living that is 30 to 40 percent higher than the rest of the country. Of all the States, Hawaii is the closest to achieving universal health care coverage. The Hawaii State Department of Health estimates that between 2 and 4 percent of Hawaii's residents lack health insurance. This compares with national estimates that between 14 and 17 percent of U.S. residents are not covered. Today, Hawaii has one of the lowest infant mortality rates and one of the highest life expectancy rates in the Nation. Although the incidence of chronic diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, is similar to that of other States, the death rates from these diseases are lower. The substantial investment Hawaii has made in the prepaid health care law has clearly paid off. Yet, there is an urgent need to bring the State statute up to date. We need to allow a State that has been at the forefront of innovative approaches to health care to make changes which better reflect the needs of today's population and their employers. Hawaii should not have to resort to back-door approaches in order to ensure basic health care to its citizens. My legislation will permit the State to address these issues and upgrade its successful health care programs for the 1990's and beyond. Although we must continue the quest for national health care reform, we should not allow a dynamic State like Hawaii to remain hobbled by Federal limitations on a truly innovative program with a proven record of success. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for some time now, the State of Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State have been deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric power projects on State waters. The question of who should be responsible for hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very contentious. It has not been a high- visibility issue, however, because until now, the debate has occurred away from the public view. Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that continued Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our freshwater resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Whenever a hydroelectric power project is proposed, a number of environmental considerations must be weighed before approval is granted. Important issues must be evaluated, such as whether the proposed dam or diversion will impair the stream's essential flow characteristics, or what effect the hydropower project will have on the physical nature of the stream bed or the chemical make-up of the water. Will a dam or diversion diminish flow rates and reduce the scenic value of one of Hawaii's waterfalls? Will it harm recreational opportunities? These, and other questions, must be answered. The effect of a new dam or diversion on the State's disappearing wetlands must be weighed. Wetlands provide vital sanctuary for migratory birds, as well as habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds. They serve as reservoirs for storm water, filtering water-borne pollutants before they reach fragile coastal habitat, and providing a recharge area for groundwater. In Hawaii, historic resources often come into play. When Polynesians first settled our islands, Hawaiian culture was linked to streams as much as it was linked to the sea. The remnants of ancient Hawaiian settlements can be found along many of the State's rivers. Will the Federal Government give adequate attention to stream resources that have unique natural or cultural significance when it issues a hydroelectric license or permit? Most important of all, hydropower development must be compatible with preserving native aquatic resources. Hawaiian streams support a number of rare native species that depend upon undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable of these species is the gobie, which can climb waterfalls and colonize stream sections that are inaccessible to other fish. These are some of the complex factors that must be considered during federal hydropower decision-making. A number of Federal agencies that have responsibility for fish, wildlife, and natural resource protection have raised questions about the State of Hawaii's commitment to protecting stream resources. They assert that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better equipped than the state to protect environmental values. However, the evidence supports precisely the opposite conclusion. FERC has a poor history of protecting aquatic species. And while the Federal hydropower review process requires that FERC consult with other Federal agencies--just as the State does--FERC retains the power to override requests by the State, as well as by Federal agencies, to protect environmental values. The landmark case in this area, California versus FERC, affirmed FERC's authority to reduce instream flow rates below the level that the State determined was the minimum necessary to maintain aquatic wildlife. Although FERC has never licensed a project in Hawaii, Federal agencies have an unfounded belief that State regulation of hydropower would be a danger to the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to protecting stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a stream protection and management task force. Meanwhile, FERC has played no role in stream protection other than to grant a preliminary permit to a hydropower developer on the Hanalei River. This is the same river that the Fish and Wildlife Service is fighting to preserve. From an environmental perspective, FERC is clearly off to a poor start. The experience with the proposed Hanalei hydropower project raises serious questions about the appropriateness of Federal efforts to regulate hydropower in Hawaii. Our rivers and streams bear no resemblance to the wide, deep, long, and relatively flat rivers of the continental United States. Hawaiian streams generally comprise groups of short riffles, runs, falls, and deep pools. Only 28 of them are 10 miles or longer in length. Only 11 have an average flow greater than 80 cubic feet per second. By comparison, the mean discharge of the Mississippi River is nearly 20,000 times the mean annual flow of the Wailuku River. The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river systems of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific location. When it comes to regulating hydropower in Hawaii, FERC is a fish out of water. In response to these concern, I am introducing legislation to terminate FERC's jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh waters of the State of Hawaii. This legislation passed Senate during the 103d Congress as part of an omnibus hydropower bill, but the House and Senate could not resolve their differences on the bill. I will continue to fight for the passage of this legislation during the 104th Congress. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

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 each of the previous two Congresses. During the 104th Congress, I will aggressively work to see this legislation enacted into law. The objective of my bill can be summed up 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 would be able 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 ships delivering petroleum to Hawaii 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 can tell you, 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 actually 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 one time. While Hawaii waited for emergency supplies to arrive, oil inventories could run dry and our economy could grind to a halt. Last year, 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.'' I ask that a summary of the report be placed in the Record following my remarks. I will also place a copy of Energy Secretary O'Leary's letter in support of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act in the record following my remarks. 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 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% 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% 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 the 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 would take as long as 53 days. That exceeds the state's average commercial working inventory by 23 days. As Mr. Wilson's research demonstrates, an oil supply disruption is Hawaii's greatest nightmare. Opponents of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act insist 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 for a gallon of gasoline than consumers pay on the mainland. And when a crisis hits, our energy prices could easily 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material 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 each of the previous two Congresses. During the 104th Congress, I will aggressively work to see this legislation enacted into law. The objective of my bill can be summed up 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 would be able 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 ships delivering petroleum to Hawaii 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 can tell you, 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 actually 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 one time. While Hawaii waited for emergency supplies to arrive, oil inventories could run dry and our economy could grind to a halt. Last year, 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.'' I ask that a summary of the report be placed in the Record following my remarks. I will also place a copy of Energy Secretary O'Leary's letter in support of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act in the record following my remarks. 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 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% 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% 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 the 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 would take as long as 53 days. That exceeds the state's average commercial working inventory by 23 days. As Mr. Wilson's research demonstrates, an oil supply disruption is Hawaii's greatest nightmare. Opponents of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Act insist 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 for a gallon of gasoline than consumers pay on the mainland. And when a crisis hits, our energy prices could easily 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.