Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. AKAKA

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to take the floor of the U.S. Senate to tell my colleagues and the people of Hawaii and the country about a Hawaii-born unsung hero of World War II. His extraordinary story has never been fully told. In a description of Colonel Sakakida's wartime activities, it is written that today Richard Sakakida is alive and well and living in California. I was deeply saddened by the death last week of Lt. Col. Richard Sakakida near his home in Fremont, CA, after a lengthy illness. Colonel Sakakida, one of America's genuine war heroes, faced death with the same stoicism and dignity as he displayed in facing the dangers of war and the constant pain of his war injuries. Colonel Sakakida will be mourned by the many who knew him personally or by reputation, including the thousands of Japanese-Americans who followed his footsteps to serve in their country during the Second World War. He is survived by his beloved wife of many years, Cherry, to whom I offer my deepest condolences. Colonel Sakakida was a true hero, one whose contributions, tragically, have never fully been recognized by his own Government. His was one of the most amazing stories to come out of World War II. As a United States Army undercover agent and prisoner of war of the Japanese in the Philippines 50 years ago, he endured isolation, privation, disease, shrapnel wounds, the constant threat of discovery, and unspeakable physical torture in carrying out daring intelligence missions for his country. His sacrifices not only resulted in the advancement of the Allied cause during the Second World War, they reflected a great sense of duty and personal courage rarely seen even in that great conflict. As one of the very first Nisei recruited to the United States military service, Colonel Sakakida also helped to pave the way for the thousands of other Japanese-Americans who would make their own contributions to the war effort as members of the famed 100th/442d Regimental Combat Team and the lesser known Military Intelligence Service. Later, though he modestly would have denied this, Colonel Sakakida's achievements opened doors of opportunity in the military and society at large for subsequent generations of Japanese-Americans and other minorities. In death, as they never were in life, Colonel Sakakida's accomplishments deserve to be remembered and honored. To this end, I hope that Members of Congress will actively support efforts to ensure that his military valor is one day recognized by his Government. For the benefit of those who do not know this remarkable solder's story, I ask unanimous consent that a description of Colonel Sakakida's wartime activities as excerpted from ``America's Secret Army: The Untold Story of the Counter Intelligence Corps'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in condemning the situation that has brought us to the point where the Federal Government has shut down. The American public should understand one thing about the shutdown: this budget crisis is completely avoidable. It was manufactured by the House Speaker as a tactic to impose his extreme budget priorities on America. The Speaker's own words illustrate this point. Last April 3, he told reporters that he intended to ``create a titanic legislative standoff with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass legislation.'' With the Speaker at the helm, Republicans have put the Federal budget on a collision course with the iceberg. Congressional Republicans are in the majority in the House and Senate, which gives them the power and votes to keep the Government operating. Instead, they have shut down the Government and are gambling with our economy and credit rating, in a political game to force a heartless budget on the American people. Today we have an opportunity to end the budget impasse. Our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, proposed a temporary funding resolution in an effort to get the Federal Government back to work. This would have extended spending authority through December 22. Unfortunately for the American public, the funding resolution that the Democrats proposed was rejected, and the Government shutdown orchestrated by the Speaker continues. Senator Daschle's amendment provided the best opportunity to end the Government shutdown. This is an amendment that the President can sign. We should pass the Daschle amendment, put an end to this crisis, and begin the important work of negotiating a budget agreement. How many thousands of veterans will be unable to submit new benefit claims because VA offices remain closed? How many Americans will be turned away from Social Security offices around the country because no Government workers are available to process their applications? How many millions of visitors must be turned away from our national parks, museums, and monuments before Republicans in Congress will vote to end this stalemate and approve a clean funding resolution? How many corporations will be unable to conduct business overseas because their executives cannot get their passports renewed? The Republicans, led by the Speaker, have forced a political showdown at the expense of our needy, elderly, and veterans of our country. What's good about telling senior citizens who want to apply for Social Security or veterans trying to get their benefits processed that they'll have to wait until the Government reopens? I think it is important that we review the record of the Republican Congress on spending bills. None of the 13 appropriation bills were passed by the September deadline. All 13 of these bills should have been passed by September 30. Because of this failure, a temporary spending bill is necessary to keep the Government running. Republicans are trying to use this manufactured funding crisis, which they could easily have avoided, to force an increase in seniors' Medicare premiums and to provide tax breaks for wealthy Americans. We should say no to political blackmail and yes to a clean CR. And most importantly, let us get our people back to work.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, had I been present for votes on Thursday, November 9, 1995, I would have voted the following way: Senate vote 564 on House Joint Resolution 115, the continuing resolution, I would have voted ``no.'' Senate vote 565 on House Joint Resolution 115, the continuing resolution, I would have voted ``no.'' Senate vote 566 on House Joint Resolution 115, the continuing resolution, I would have voted ``no.'' Senate vote 567 on House Joint Resolution 115, the continuing resolution, final passage, I would have voted ``no.'' Senate vote 568 on H.R. 2586, the temporary debt limit increase, I would have voted ``no.'' Senate vote 569 on H.R. 2586, the temporary debt limit increase, final passage, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the Senate debates S. 1357, the fiscal year 1996 budget reconciliation bill, I am concerned that the tax changes and spending priorities put forward seek to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens, working families, the working poor, and our Nation's children. The Republican proposal for a $270 billion cut in Medicare, a $182 billion reduction in Medicaid, and a $43 million tax hike for families earning under $30,000 a year to finance $245 billion in tax giveaways--over half to individuals earning over $100,000 annually--clearly outlines the number one priority of the Republican plan: tax relief for a privileged few. The details of the legislation stand in stark contrast to the intended goal of reducing the Federal budget deficit. The fears I expressed during debate on the budget resolution have been confirmed; the brunt of deficit reduction in this bill comes at the expense of our responsibility to make work pay, the education and well-being of our youth, the retirement security of our parents, and our commitment to long-term investments in productivity, education, and job training. This approach is shortsighted and threatens to reverse progress made in genuine deficit reduction and tax fairness over the past years. The tax increases contained in the reconciliation bill hit hardest on working American families. In particular, the $43 billion reduction in the earned income tax credit [EITC] will raise taxes for 17 million working Americans and their families. The most effective way to improve the economic well-being of the middle class and working poor is to promote policies that reward work and lessen dependency. Resources should be focused on economic policies and public investments that enhance productivity, create well-paying, skilled private sector jobs, and restore economic mobility and prosperity to working Americans. Yet the Republican plan cuts the earned income tax credit by $43 billion over 7 years; reversing longstanding bipartisan support for policies that make work pay. The earned income tax credit helps low- and-middle-income working families who have seen their wages decline since the 1980s and serves as a safety net for middle-class families confronted with a sudden loss of income. The EITC helps these families through economic difficulties and encourages policies that make work pay. Mr. President, despite the tremendous number of new jobs created last year and the 2-year decline in the national unemployment rate, the earnings of many Americans have remained stagnant. In fact, over the last decade most working families have seen their standard of living erode. People are working harder and longer to make ends meet. The number of working poor families and individuals living at or below the poverty line continues to grow. The 1993 expansion of the EITC was designed to lift a family of four, in which a parent works full-time, year-round at the minimum wage, to the poverty line. This $43 billion tax increase on millions of working families--many just above the poverty line who are struggling to work, raise their families, and avoid welfare, will destroy an important incentive that encourages work and self-sufficiency. The proposed cut in the EITC would increase Federal income taxes on millions of low- income working families with children. The Treasury Department estimates that 17 million low-income American taxpayers will see an immediate tax increase averaging $281 per year under the Republican proposal. When fully implemented, the Republican proposal would boost the average tax bill for working taxpayers by $457 per year. In 1996, working families with more than one child will see their EITC reduced by $270. A working family with two children earning $20,000 or less would see a $372 tax hike. Working poor families with one child and taxpayers without children also will see a tax increase under the GOP plan. The elderly, disabled, and retired who receive Social Security and have an average income under $10,000 will see their taxes climb by an average of $859 under the Republican plan. Over 1 million low-income working families--and over 2 million children--would suffer as a direct result of this proposal. Working families with children that have low and moderate incomes face three strikes under this bill. The reduction in the earned income tax credit, cuts in Medicaid, and ineligibility for the $500 per child tax credit will hit millions of working families and millions of children hard. Over 30 million children, 44 percent of our Nation's young people, would receive no benefit or only partial credit and not the full $500 proposed. Mr. President, what message are we sending to working men and women? By raising income taxes on millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet and committed to work over welfare and making tax breaks paramount, the Republican reconciliation plan establishes disincentives to hard work and threatens the economic security of millions of American families. I urge the defeat of S. 1357.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank my colleagues for their support in ensuring that the Senate position prevails on this issue.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chairman for his reassurance. Mr. President, finally I would like to ask the Senior Senator from Hawaii, for his support on this matter.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank my good friend and would also like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, whether my understanding on these matters is correct.

Mr. AKAKA. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and my good friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, on a matter of very great concern to me--a provision in the House reconciliation bill that is inconsistent with House and Senate Appropriations Committee actions and would eliminate our ability to meet some of the most basic needs in the U.S. affiliated insular areas. What the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs has proposed, and the House has accepted, may appear to many to be relatively noncontroversial--the repeal of a $27.7 million mandatory annual appropriation to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI] for infrastructure improvement projects. The reality, however, is that this recommendation would wreck--before it can even be implemented--a carefully negotiated bipartisan, bicameral agreement made by the Conference Committee on Appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies. After outlining the facts in this case, I would hope and urge that the Senate conferees conclude that this proposal is misguided and must be rejected. In the administration's budget request it was recognized that the needs of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for Federal financial assistance were decreasing due to local economic growth. Therefore, the level of financial assistance could be decreased. However, the Administration and the Appropriations Committees also recognized that there continue to be significant future needs and obligations to be met in other island insular areas. The first of these other obligations is fulfilling the intent of section 103(i) of Public Law 99-239, the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, which obligates the United States to undertake radiation mitigation measures and to resettle the people of Rongelap who were irradiated during the United States' nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. Second, Public Law 99-239 also authorizes immigration from the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the United States and its territories. In recognition of the impact which this immigration would have on social services, particularly in Guam, section 104(e)(6) of Public Law 99-239 authorizes compensation to assist in offsetting the negative impacts of immigration under the compacts. Third, economic development in remote American Samoa is still unable to generate sufficient revenue to meet all of the territory's basic needs. Of greatest concern is the Environmental Protection Agency's estimated $30 million backlog in waste water construction. If these projects are not undertaken, then the community will face an increasing risk of contamination of its groundwater, as well as destruction of its protective and productive surrounding coral reefs. In addition, American Samoa's hospital facilities are nearing the end of their useful life. The Department of the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers estimate renovation or replacement costs for healthcare facilities to be between $20 and $60 million. Finally, the fourth obligation facing the Federal Government with respect to the islands is fulfilling our commitment to the CNMI. In 1992, the previous administration and representatives of the CNMI reached an agreement under which the Federal Government would provide $120 million in financial assistance to the CNMI, to be matched by $120 million from the CNMI, to meet the capital infrastructure needs of their rapidly growing population and economy. From 1993 to 1995 much of these funds were provided to the CNMI under the mandatory appropriation established by section 702 of Public Law 94-241, the Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. However, $77 million remains to be paid under the agreement. Given the extreme pressure on the budget, how were these needs and obligations to the islands to be met? Fortunately, the administration proposed a solution which would allow the appropriations committees to avoid the nearly impossible task of meeting these needs through large annual discretionary appropriations. The proposal, contained in the Insular Development Act (S. 638), was to reallocate the CNMI's $27.7 million mandatory annual appropriation to meet needs among all of the islands. The Energy Committee held a hearing on this bill on May 25, 1995, and the full Senate passed the bill on July 20. The Office of Management and Budget and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees supported the proposal because it would allow for significant discretionary savings. In short, there is a solution to a set of difficult problems. The administration's original concept was adopted and modified to specify priorities and funding levels among these needs. It was then agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the Conferees on Interior Appropriations, who could now also agree to eliminate discretionary funding to meet these needs. Mr. President, it is with the greatest disappointment that I view the House recommendation to repeal the CNMI mandatory appropriation. This proposal completely wrecks the carefully crafted policy to meet the public health needs of Samoa, fulfill our commitment to the CNMI, compensate Guam for the negative social impacts resulting from compact immigration, and to acquit ourselves with respect to our commitments to the nuclear testing victims of Rongelap Atoll. I would like to call on my good friend, the Senior Senator from Louisiana and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to confirm my presentation of the facts in this matter.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the provisions in the reconciliation bill relating to Medicare and Medicaid. In my judgment, the proposals are a danger to the health of millions of Americans. House and Senate Republicans have called for a reduction of roughly $450 billion in health care expenditures over the next 7 years. They argue that they are merely reducing program growth, not cutting Medicare. But the facts tell us a different story. We have very good estimates of what it will cost to fund the Medicare program over the next 7 years. The fact is that more people will become eligible and we will continue to have health care inflation. The Republican proposal would cut Medicare below both the medical inflation rate and the private sector rate by cutting $270 billion, for tax breaks, from what is needed to fund the Medicare program. We are not just scaling back Medicare, we are eroding its foundation. Medicare experts estimate that keeping part A solvent through the year 2006 requires $89 billion in cuts, not the $270 billion called for under the GOP proposal. Those who want to cut Medicare argue that cuts are necessary to get us to a balanced budget in 7 years. That puzzles me. If the objective of this bill is to balance the budget, why are we simultaneously considering a plan to cut taxes by $245 billion over the same period? Clearly, the vast majority of the cuts are not needed to keep Medicare solvent, but are needed to pay for new tax breaks. I am deeply concerned about the size of the Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and the fact that the savings will be diverted to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. But my foremost concern is the impact these proposals will have on the poor, elderly, and the disabled who will be drastically hurt. Under the Republican proposal, Medicare premiums and deductibles will increase, and the quality and availability of care will be seriously compromised. Seventy-five and eighty-five percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes under $25,000, and the increase in out-of- pocket costs could make Medicare coverage unaffordable for many. Furthermore, the portion of cuts that do not fall on beneficiaries directly will be borne by the providers who deliver Medicare services. These cuts will be shifted to the rest of the population in the form of higher medical bills and higher health insurance costs. I would also like to discuss briefly the provisions of the bill pertaining to the Medicaid Program. In addition to cutting $182 billion in Medicaid over 7 years, the proposal before us replaces the current Medicaid Program with a block grant capped at fixed dollar amounts each year. The bill would offer only minimal coverage and benefits, eliminate all Federal Standards for providers and delivery systems, and abolish the Federal standards set for nursing homes and institutions caring for the mentally retarded. In 1987, national standards for nursing home care were established with broad bipartisan support. These standards were designed to protect nursing home patients because of the horrendous treatment many were receiving and because State regulations were inadequate. Yet the Republican plan to cut Medicaid by $182 billion contains a provision repealing the national standards for nursing homes, even though these standards have improved care substantially. Mr. President, we all agree that we must balance the Federal budget. However, we must do it the right way. We must ensure a basic safety net and make adequate investments for the future. I question the priorities set forth in this legislation. This bill does not safeguard health care for our Nation's elderly, poor, or disabled; it does not ensure proper care of vulnerable people in nursing homes; and it certainly does not make adequate investments in our future. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that we recognize the tremendous benefits these programs have made in our society and urge that we continue the fight for dignity and security for our Nation's most vulnerable as we work to balance the Federal budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend section 3762 of title 38, United States Code. Section 3762 was established under the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 and authorizes a 5-year pilot program to provide direct home loans to native American veterans who live on U.S. trust lands. I am pleased that Senators Rockefeller, Inouye, Wellstone, and Simon are cosponsors of this measure. My bill would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to refinance direct loans made under this unique initiative, known as the Native American Direct Home Loan Program. Under my bill, credit standards for underwriting direct loans to Native American veterans would be the same as those for VA guaranteed loans. The underwriting would be performed by the VA and would allow qualified veterans to refinance existing loans. The Native American Direct Loan Program was established to ensure that veterans who reside on reservations or other trust lands would have the same access to VA loan benefits enjoyed by other veterans. Under the 5-year pilot program, VA is authorized to provide direct loans of up to $80,000 for most areas of the United States, although higher limits were established for certain high-cost regions. Until the program was adopted 3 years ago, Native American veterans who lived on trust lands were denied access to traditional VA guaranteed loans. The inability to take title to trust lands in the event of default, cultural misunderstandings, and the generally poor economic conditions that exist on reservations, dissuaded potential lenders from approving mortgages for housing on such lands. During the guaranty program's half-century of existence, not a single Native American veteran was able to utilize his or her home loan entitlement for housing on trust lands. In contrast, over 13 million other veterans received more than $350 billion in VA guaranties during that period. It was to redress this inequity that Congress enacted Public Law 102-547. Despite the complexities of creating a program that must address the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, each with its own cultural, political, and legal systems, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 30 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations are ongoing with approximately 20 more tribes. To date, approximately 45 loans have been closed, 3 of them with American Indians, the balance with Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders. In addition, the VA has a commitment to close 36 more loans, including American Indians residing on allotted lands. Although the VA has made significant progress in implementing the program, a serious, unanticipated shortcoming has come to light. According to the VA, the Department has no statutory authority to offer refinancing to veterans receiving loans under the program. Thus, native Americans who receive loans under the program cannot take advantage of interest rate reductions to ease their financial burden. [[Page S 15345]] This is in stark contrast to other veterans who use the regular guaranty program. In the period between October 1993 and August 1995, for example, the VA refinanced over 25,000 interest reduction loans with a face value of more than $2 billion. Mr. President, this situation runs contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting the Native American Direct Home Loan Program three years ago. In creating the program, Congress intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, Native American veterans would have the same opportunity as other veterans to achieve the American dream of home ownership. Insofar as refinancing is an important element of other VA home loan programs, it is just and reasonable that veterans who receive benefits under the direct loan program be accorded an opportunity to refinance. Mr. President, the legislation I am offering today would correct this oversight by providing VA with specific refinancing authority under the direct loan program. My bill also includes a provision for a special fee that would cover all refinancing costs thus making the bill revenue neutral. Mr. President, I believe this legislation will significantly enhance VA's ability to provide native American veterans with equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. It would reduce the costs of home ownership for those presently receiving benefits under the program, possibly reducing the risk of default and the costs associated with foreclosure. Perhaps most importantly, it would encourage eligible Native American to come forward to take advantage of the program's benefits. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that the measure I am offering today will be supported by colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend section 3762 of title 38, United States Code. Section 3762 was established under the Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992 and authorizes a 5-year pilot program to provide direct home loans to native American veterans who live on U.S. trust lands. I am pleased that Senators Rockefeller, Inouye, Wellstone, and Simon are cosponsors of this measure. My bill would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to refinance direct loans made under this unique initiative, known as the Native American Direct Home Loan Program. Under my bill, credit standards for underwriting direct loans to Native American veterans would be the same as those for VA guaranteed loans. The underwriting would be performed by the VA and would allow qualified veterans to refinance existing loans. The Native American Direct Loan Program was established to ensure that veterans who reside on reservations or other trust lands would have the same access to VA loan benefits enjoyed by other veterans. Under the 5-year pilot program, VA is authorized to provide direct loans of up to $80,000 for most areas of the United States, although higher limits were established for certain high-cost regions. Until the program was adopted 3 years ago, Native American veterans who lived on trust lands were denied access to traditional VA guaranteed loans. The inability to take title to trust lands in the event of default, cultural misunderstandings, and the generally poor economic conditions that exist on reservations, dissuaded potential lenders from approving mortgages for housing on such lands. During the guaranty program's half-century of existence, not a single Native American veteran was able to utilize his or her home loan entitlement for housing on trust lands. In contrast, over 13 million other veterans received more than $350 billion in VA guaranties during that period. It was to redress this inequity that Congress enacted Public Law 102-547. Despite the complexities of creating a program that must address the needs of hundreds of different tribal entities, each with its own cultural, political, and legal systems, VA has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 30 tribes and Pacific Island groups, and negotiations are ongoing with approximately 20 more tribes. To date, approximately 45 loans have been closed, 3 of them with American Indians, the balance with Hawaiian Natives and Pacific Islanders. In addition, the VA has a commitment to close 36 more loans, including American Indians residing on allotted lands. Although the VA has made significant progress in implementing the program, a serious, unanticipated shortcoming has come to light. According to the VA, the Department has no statutory authority to offer refinancing to veterans receiving loans under the program. Thus, native Americans who receive loans under the program cannot take advantage of interest rate reductions to ease their financial burden. [[Page S 15345]] This is in stark contrast to other veterans who use the regular guaranty program. In the period between October 1993 and August 1995, for example, the VA refinanced over 25,000 interest reduction loans with a face value of more than $2 billion. Mr. President, this situation runs contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting the Native American Direct Home Loan Program three years ago. In creating the program, Congress intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, Native American veterans would have the same opportunity as other veterans to achieve the American dream of home ownership. Insofar as refinancing is an important element of other VA home loan programs, it is just and reasonable that veterans who receive benefits under the direct loan program be accorded an opportunity to refinance. Mr. President, the legislation I am offering today would correct this oversight by providing VA with specific refinancing authority under the direct loan program. My bill also includes a provision for a special fee that would cover all refinancing costs thus making the bill revenue neutral. Mr. President, I believe this legislation will significantly enhance VA's ability to provide native American veterans with equal access to services and benefits available to other veterans. It would reduce the costs of home ownership for those presently receiving benefits under the program, possibly reducing the risk of default and the costs associated with foreclosure. Perhaps most importantly, it would encourage eligible Native American to come forward to take advantage of the program's benefits. Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that the measure I am offering today will be supported by colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, would the Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the VA, HUD, and Indepdent Agencies Subcommittee, yield a few moments for me to address an issue of great important to the people of Hawaii and the Pacific?

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am concerned that the disaster needs of the Pacific are not being adequately addressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]. In particular, I am concerned that FEMA lacks adequate staffing for its Pacific Area Office, located in Honolulu, to address fully this mitigation, training, and emergency response needs of this large and diverse area. As the Senator from Missouri knows, FEMA's Region IX, based in San Francisco, is currently responsible for administering emergency management assistance programs and responding to disasters throughout the Pacific--including American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, the Federated State of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands--as well as in California, Arizona, and Nevada. It is by far the largest of FEMA's regions, covering an area greater in size than the U.S. mainland. But the current grouping of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands within Region IX results in the Pacific islands receiving less than adequate attention. The Pacific insular states are seven different jurisdictions that are culturally, economically, and politically distinct from mainland states. The estimated 110 FEMA employees who staff the San Francisco office are too remote, both geographically and culturally, to provide the full range of disaster-related assistance to the unique Pacific insular states. Quite understandingably, they are preoccupied by the vast emergency needs of the populations who live closer at hand, in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The Republic of Palau, for example, is 5,500 miles from San Franscisco--a 2-day journey from the continental U.S. by jet. Moreover, when FEMA officials finally arrive at the scene of a disaster that has occurred in the Pacific, they must contend with major differences in language, facilities, food, climate, and communications not to mention the idiosyncrasies of local political systems and administrative practices. The establishment of the Pacific Area Office in Honolulu 2 years ago vastly improved FEMA's ability to respond quickly to disasters in the central and South Pacific, if only because the facility is located thousands of miles closer to potential disaster sites. And, while the office has made a serious effort to maintain ongoing contact with the more remote insular jurisdictions, it is seriously limited in its ability to provide critical training, technical assistance, and hazard mitigation services that could significantly minimize loss of life and property. So, given the foregoing, I might ask the Senator from Missouri if he would consider the Pacific's emergency needs when the pending measure goes to conference.

Mr. AKAKA. The Senator from Maryland has ably summarized the essence of this issue. I appreciate her comments as well as her key role in originally establishing the Pacific Area Office.

Mr. AKAKA. That is my request. The vital assistance provided by such staff could save millions of dollars in property and economic activity, not to mention human lives. I would underscore the fact that I am not proposing the establishment of a new regional office, only that the existing satellite office in Hawaii be provided with the resources to meet the full range of our emergency management obligations in the Pacific.

Mr. AKAKA. After extensive consultation with emergency management officials and representatives of the Pacific insular states, I have determined that the service limitations I have described can only be overcome by augmenting the Pacific Area Office with a minimum of twelve (12) additional permanent staff. Of these, six, (6) are needed in the Pacific Area Office itself to support preparedness training, planning, mitigation, and logistical functions, and six (6) others are required as permanent liaison officers assigned to, and physically based in, each of FEMA's insular Pacific jurisdictions.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the managers of the bill for their thoughtful consideration of this matter. Any accommodation that can be achieved in conference regarding the emergency management needs of the Pacific would be very much appreciated. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Hawaii, the senior Senator from Utah, the senior Senator from Alaska, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, and the chairmen of the subcommittee and full committee, in offering this amendment to restore funding for the East-West Center. Over the past 35 years, the East-West Center has established its reputation as one of the most respected and authoritative institutions dedicated to the advancement of international cooperation throughout Asia and the Pacific. The Center plays a key role in promoting constructive American involvement in the region through its educational, dialogue, research, and outreach programs. The Center addresses critical issues of importance to the Asia-Pacific region and United States interests in the region, including international economics and politics, energy and natural resources, population, the environment, technology, and culture. The achievements of the East-West Center bear repetition. Since its creation by Congress in 1960, the Center has welcomed over 53,000 participants from over 60 nations and territories to research, education, and conference programs. Scholars, statesmen, government officials, journalists, teachers, and business executives from the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific have benefited from studies at the Center. These government and private sector leaders comprise an influential network of East-West Center alumni throughout the Asia-Pacific region. I continually encounter proud Center alumni in meetings with Asian and Pacific island government officials and business leaders. The success of the Center as a forum for the promotion of international cooperation and the strength of the positive personal relationships developed at the Center are reflected in the prestige it enjoys in the region. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, and other American allies in the region--over 20 countries in all--support the Center's programs with contributions. The Center has also received endowments from benefactors in recognition of its contributions and value. Mr. President, the countries of Asia and the Pacific are critically important to the United States and our political and economic interests into the next century. By the year 2000, the Asia-Pacific region will be the world's largest producer and consumer of goods and services. The markets for energy resources, telecommunications, and air travel are fast becoming the world's largest. Future economic growth and job creation in the United States is closely linked to our ability to identify and secure opportunities in the world's fastest growing economies. The East-West Center provides leadership and advice on economic issues, including APEC [Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation] and the U.S.-Pacific Island Joint Commercial Commission. Mr. President, given the strategic and economic importance of the Asia-Pacific region to U.S. interests, and the credibility and trust enjoyed by the East-West Center in the region, I believe it is unwise to slash funding for the Center. We have closed, or are in the process of closing, AID offices in the region. These actions are sending signals to our friends and others in the region that our interest is waning. For over 3 decades we have invested in the East-West Center, creating an important resource that promotes regional understanding and cooperation, provides expertise on complex regional issues, and advises U.S. foreign policy decisionmaking. If we fail to provide [[Page S 14505]] the Center adequate funding and a reasonable transition period to self- sufficiency, we will discard a valuable resource--a first-class institution that has earned an international reputation for its research scholarship and academic programs. Given the increasing significance of Asia and the Pacific islands to our interests and security, such action is short-sighted and ill-advised. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee action. I commend my colleague for taking this issue forward, and I thank the committee for its considerations. I stand today just to impress the Senate with the fact that the Aloha State, the State of Hawaii, has needed a veterans hospital for many years. Since 1987, our predecessor in the Senate tried to establish a veterans hospital in Hawaii. Hawaii is one of two States that has no veterans hospital. Although the VA operates 172 medical centers throughout the Union, including a hospital in Puerto Rico, the Department has never established a medical center for veterans in the 50th State, and this is the reason why my colleague and I have been pressing for this. Under the circumstances, we will certainly accept the committee's action. And again I wish to thank the committee for what they are doing. This is a step in that direction, and we will be back to ask for more help for our veterans. We have 130,000 veterans in the Pacific, 120,000 from Hawaii and another 10,000 in the Pacific from Guam and Samoa. We take care of these veterans, and we still do not have a hospital there. So, Mr. President, I look forward to a day when we can come back and seek a full-blown hospital that will help the veterans of the Pacific. I thank my colleague and the committee for their efforts. I yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is an honor and privilege for me to rise in the well of the Senate today in recognition of Special Agent Robert A. Aiu of the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], Honolulu, who has been named the 1995 National Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. This is a singular honor which is awarded to but one out of the thousands of law enforcement officers of Federal enforcement agencies, [[Page S 13672]] including the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the CIA. Agent Aiu has the further distinction of being the first to be so honored in the DEA. Special Agent Aiu, who has served in the DEA since 1970, has been recognized and honored for his outstanding service in marijuana eradication, seizure, and forfeiture of assets derived from drug trafficking, and for the assistance he has provided to the U.S. Marshals Service in the apprehension of fugitives. Like many other law enforcement officers, he puts his life on the line in the performance of his duties and we are deeply grateful to him for his continuing efforts to make our society a safer and better place for all of us. In behalf of the people of Hawaii and our country, I commend Special Agent Robert A. Aiu of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Honolulu, 1995 National Law Enforcement Officer of the Year, and express our deep and heartfelt gratitude to him for his exemplary performance, and selfless and untiring dedication to duty. Congratulations and mahalo, Bob. Well done.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, on September 5 and 6, 1995, I missed several votes because I was attending a memorial service in Hawaii. Were I present on September 5, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 397, final passage of S. 1087, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. On September 6, I missed rollcall votes No. 398 and No. 399. Were I present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 398, the Nunn amendment pertaining to our Nation's missile defense policy. I would have also voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 399, final passage of the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, every American schoolchild can recite President Kennedy's famous challenge to reach the Moon before the decade of the 1960's ended. The success of our country's space program has become a source of great national pride. Far less attention has been given to the speech President Kennedy gave that same year in which he challenged Americans to explore the ocean depths. Well, we have reached the Moon and our spacecraft have explored the solar system. Today, we know more about the surface of planets located millions of miles from Earth than we know about much of the ocean floor, which is the Earth's own basement. We have maps of Venus that are better than the map of our own exclusive economic zone [EEZ]. A recent Time magazine cover story on the mysteries of the deep raised similar concerns about how little we know about the last great unconquered place on Earth. As the article points out: More than 100 expeditions have reached Everest, the 29,028- foot pinnacle of the Himalayas; manned voyages to space have become commonplace; and robot probes have ventured to the outer reaches of the solar system. But only now are the deepest parts of the ocean coming within reach. The U.S. exclusive economic zone covers more than 2.5 billion acres, an area slightly greater than that of the United States. Our EEZ is the largest under any nation's jurisdiction and contains a resource base estimated in the trillions of dollars. It is a vast, new ocean frontier. Because 85 percent of these waters are in the Pacific, Hawaii will play a central role in EEZ research and development. Unfortunately, our new frontier remains largely unexplored. After 10 years, the United States has performed a detailed reconnaissance of less than 5 percent of our EEZ. Today Senator Lott and I have introduced legislation to encourage the investigation of the world's oceans, stimulate our country's scientific and economic growth, and further our Nation's industrial competitiveness. Our bill would accelerate exploration, research, and assessment of the Nation's marine resources. Under this legislation, the Secretary of the Interior would foster partnerships among industry, government, and academia to explore our exclusive economic zone. These partnerships would act as incubators for the commercialization of the advanced technologies necessary to explore and develop responsibly our marine resources. The bill responds to a 1992 report by the National Research Council which noted that the systematic exploration of the EEZ will require technologies that are fundamentally different from those used in the initial phase of EEZ reconnaissance. The National Research Council identified a need for new ships, advanced instrumentation, and remotely operated underwater vehicles that can be equipped with multiple [[Page S 12396]] data collecting sensors capable of mapping our EEZ resources with unprecedented speed. Knowledge of our ocean and its resources has always grown in direct proportion to the tools available for marine exploration. As these tools have evolved and improved, our ability to explore, evaluate, and capitalize on our ocean resources has also advanced. If we want to comprehend fully the potential of our EEZ, the technology of ocean exploration must take another leap forward. The deployment of a new generation of undersea research vehicles with advanced data gathering equipment will be necessary to permit reconnaissance on a scale that begins to match the vastness of the ocean and its seafloor. The potential payoffs associated with the development of these ocean technologies will be very great. In addition to improving our research capabilities, technology associated with ocean exploration can spawn new opportunities for economic development. We have seen major advances in our ability to survey, map, probe, sample, and monitor the ocean floor during the past decade. With the end of the cold war, the market for these systems is rapidly changing from military to civilian uses. Advances in unmanned underwater vehicles and imaging systems are being employed to perform environmental monitoring of sewage outfalls, underwater pipelines, ocean dumping, and industrial and non-point source pollution. The ability of these technologies to facilitate environmental remediation and cleanup may soon follow. These technologies will also have broad application for deploying and repairing communications and electric power cables, or in other areas of scientific research and technology commercialization. The opportunities for economic development from ocean resources and technologies cannot be taken for granted, however. The United States seriously risks being left behind other nations that are aggressively investing in the commercialization of ocean technologies. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, Japan, the United Kingdom, and France have major institutions devoted to developing ocean technologies. They have extensive private industry support and have government planning mechanisms to clearly define national ocean policies. In an increasingly competitive world, countries which lead in the rapid development, commercialization, and application of new technologies will enjoy greater economic growth, higher employment, and better living standards. Nowhere will this principle have greater significance than in the field of ocean resources. Given the magnitude of potential economic opportunity, the United States must strengthen its commitment to ocean R&D. We need only look to the space program for an appreciation of the economic opportunities generated from technology development. In the past 30 years, the U.S. space program has been the basis for more than 30,000 secondary products--better known as spinoffs, in health and medicine, food and agriculture, energy, the environment, recreation, and construction. Some of the research has been adapted for use in monitoring and diagnosing illnesses. Devices such as electroencephalographs [EEGs], electrocardiograms [EKGs], rechargeable pacemakers, and medical scanners were developed from equipment built for the space program. Solar energy, which was pioneered for the space program, has found wide use in heating, cooling, and the generation of electricity. The heat shield developed for the Apollo mission is now providing energy savings as insulation for homes and office buildings. Remote sensing imagery developed for satellite surveys of the Earth is used by land managers today for long-term management and conservation of our natural resources. Although estimates vary, applications in industry were found to contribute $22 billion toward the sale of new or improved products and nearly $316 million in savings. Rewards even greater than that derived from the space program may be realized from ocean research. A commitment to ocean research and assessment embodied in this legislation can create new job opportunities, strengthen our scientific and industrial competitiveness, and produce economic benefits that far exceed the dollars invested. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Time article be printed in the Record.