Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have another amendment to send to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, to meet the requirements of the chairman of the committee, I have an amendment to offer. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask it be laid aside for further consideration.

Mr. AKAKA. I ask it be set aside for further consideration, and I yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1996 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to review the need for the Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) for infantry reservists. Due to the Army's agreement which placed all CONUS-based infantry units in the National Guard system, the famed 100th Battalion in Hawaii is the only remaining infantry unit in the Army Reserves. The 100th Battalion has been designated as a round-out unit--one of the units that constitutes the 29th Infantry Enhanced Brigade. As part of the enhanced brigade, the 100th Battalion is required to recruit and retain 125 percent of the required personnel end-strength. Currently, the 100th Battalion is 157 enlisted soldiers short of their required strength. The lack of the SRIP for reservists in the Career Management Field (CMF) 11 has contributed to this shortfall. As a result, the 100th Battalion has been placed at a disadvantage in competing for qualified personnel. Mr. President, my amendment directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to review this situation to ensure that the only infantry reserve unit left in the Army Reserves is treated fairly. I appreciate the support of the managers of this bill, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and their staffs, particularly Mr. Charlie Houy and Ms. Sid Ashworth, for their assistance.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, my amendment to the Defense appropriations bill is similar to a sense of the Senate resolution I introduced last month regarding France's decision to conduct a series of eight underground nuclear explosions in the South Pacific. This action by France is in contravention of the current international moratorium on nuclear testing. The amendment I offer today expresses the sense of the Senate that the Republic of France should abide by the current international moratorium on underground nuclear testing. I am offering this amendment to S. 1087 because I believe it is imperative that the Senate go on record on this issue before the August recess. News reports over the past few days indicate that France has readied four of the eight nuclear devices to be exploded in the Pacific, and it is likely that the first device will be detonated later this month. My original resolution, Senate Resolution 149, is cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Kerry, Jeffords, Feinstein, Levin, Simon, Harkin, Leahy, Lautenberg, Moseley-Braun, Kassebaum, Bumpers, Exon, Bingaman, Daschle, Thomas, Murray, Wellstone, Stevens, Hatfield, and Graham. I am grateful for the positive response I have received in a short period of time from so many of my colleagues. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their courtesy in entertaining this amendment. I would note that they are both cosponsors of Senate Resolution 149, and I appreciate their support on this issue. I would also like to acknowledge the Members of the other body who have taken the lead on this issue, including Congressmen Eni Faleomavaega, Ben Gilman, chairman of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Ed Markey, and Congressman Jim Leach. To briefly review events, on June 13, 1995, French President Jacques Chirac announced that the Republic of France planned to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific. A series of eight underground tests are planned, ending in May, 1996, at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. Following the French announcement, I contacted the White House to urge President Clinton to convey the concerns of the United States and the Pacific island nations to France over its [[Page S 12194]] resumption of nuclear testing. We in the Pacific, more than any other region in the world, know the ramifications of nuclear testing. We only have to look at what happened to Bikini, Enewetak, or Rongelap Atolls in the Marshall Islands to understand the long-term damage to humans and the environment that can occur as a result of nuclear testing. Earlier last week, the 19-nation ASEAN Regional Forum, which includes the United States as a dialogue partner, called for an immediate end to nuclear testing during its security conference in Brunei. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and other Asian and Pacific rim nations have strongly condemned the resumption of nuclear testing. International protests by government, business, civic and community groups continue to accelerate and proliferate as the first testing date approaches. France is reaping the whirlwind of international indignation, extending far beyond the nations and people of the Pacific and Asia, for it decision. Governments and world opinion recognize how the continuation or resumption of nuclear testing jeopardizes international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Mr. President, this past May, the world's five declared nuclear powers--the United States, France, Russia, China, and Britain-- persuaded all NPT-member nations to extend indefinitely the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. To win that consensus, the five countries promised to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the end of next year. Yet, less than 2 months after pledging to exercise utmost restraint, the French Government reneged on its commitment to the NPT. The French decision to resume testing seriously undermines the credibility of the NPT and complicates international efforts to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States, recognizing that the benefit of nuclear testing is outweighed by the harm it would cause our leadership on nonproliferation issues, has extended or ban on testing through September of 1996. We cannot ignore the resumption of nuclear testing by France. By adopting this resolution, the Senate will strongly encourage France to abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear testing and refrain from proceeding with its announced intention of conducting a series of nuclear tests in advance of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator very much and yield back my time.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New York for the time. Mr. President, this week, we begin consideration of legislation to overhaul our welfare system. As we reform welfare, we must take action to encourage work and promote personal responsibility. However, we must also ensure that adequate resources are available to achieve these objectives. Without adequate resources to implement essential components of any welfare reform proposal--such as work requirements, reduction of teen pregnancy, child care, and child support enforcement--welfare reform cannot succeed. I am seriously concerned about the adverse impact of the legislation currently pending before us. Although I am troubled by a number of provisions, including the lack of sufficient resources for child care, the lack of national standards, and the restrictions on assistance for legal immigrants, I would like to focus my remarks on some very basic flaws of the Republican proposal. [[Page S 11815]] First, it seems that the driving force behind Republican reform efforts is the potential Federal budget savings that may accrue as a result of changes in current law. I believe our primary goal should be to lessen dependency on welfare programs by enabling individuals to become self-sufficient while reducing Federal spending on welfare programs. However, the legislation before us fails to address the difficult problem of moving individuals into the work force. Although the work requirement has been refined to actually require work, it is an empty requirement. By increasing the number of welfare recipients required to spend time outside the home, but not increasing funds for child care, the Republican plan places significant additional burdens on States that are trying to comply with the bill. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that States would need to spend $6.9 billion more in fiscal year 2000 than projected under current law in order to meet the work requirements but would receive $3.6 billion less in funding for the temporary family assistance block grant. Over the 7- year period, States would need to spend an additional $23.7 billion on work services and child care but would receive $21.2 billion less in funding from the temporary family assistance block grant. Indeed, the Republican plan has the potential to shift huge costs to local governments as the block grants provide no assurance that local governments will be provided with sufficient program funding. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle recall, earlier this year, the Senate passed the unfunded mandates legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. The new law, signed by the President on March 21, 1995, was designed to make it more difficult for Congress to pass future unfunded mandates. Now, before that law takes effect, some of my colleagues want to enact welfare reform legislation which has the potential of passing huge additional costs on to the States. Another serious problem with the Republican proposal is that it would eliminate the safety net for millions of children living in poverty. The block grant locks State governments into a fixed funding level for five years based on each State's current share of Federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children. The block grants in the proposal contain virtually no adjustments for inflation, recession, or increases in child poverty within States. Under the Republican approach, which rips away the entitlement status of welfare, needy children may or may not get help, depending on local economic conditions and the discretion of local officials. Based on these and other concerns, Senate Democrats, under the leadership of Senator Daschle, have crafted an alternative package that contains real reforms. I support the Work First plan because it requires work and personal responsibility, it provides resources and incentives for moving recipients into the work force, it is estimated to save $20 billion in the next 7 years, and of paramount importance, it protects children at every stage. In contrast to the Republican proposal, the Work First plan maintains the entitlement status of welfare assistance programs as all individuals who meet the eligibility requirements and who abide by the rules will receive assistance. Instead of shifting costs to States and localities, the Work First plan provides resources and tools to the States to help move individuals into the work force. This is, in large part, a primary reason why the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed the Work First plan. As we consider welfare reform legislation, a carefully constructed approach must be taken--one that balances flexibility for States with the need for a national framework, accountability for outcomes, and effective protection for our Nation's children and families. As President Clinton stated in his speech to the National Governors Association on July 31, ``There is common ground on welfare. We want something that's good for children, that's good for the welfare recipients, that's good for the taxpayers, and that's good for America.'' I could not agree with his comments more, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact welfare reform legislation that benefits all Americans. I urge my colleagues to consider the Work First plan of the Democrats.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 1026, the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense authorization bill. The amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to review the service records of Asian-Americans and Native American Pacific Islanders who received the Distinguished Service Cross to determine whether the award should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor. Under the direction of then-Acting Secretary John Shannon, the Army is reviewing all Distinguished Service Cross [DSC] awards given to African-American soldiers during World War II to determine whether any of these cases merited an upgrade to the Congressional Medal of Honor [CMH]. Mr. President, I offer my amendment to ensure that the Army conducts a similar study for Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders who served during World War II. I am deeply concerned that this group of Americans may have also been discriminated against in the awarding of the CMH. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is a clear indication of the bias that existed at the time. This hostile climate may have impacted the decision to award the military's highest honor to Asians, particularly Japanese-Americans. The famed 100th Infantry Battalion/442 Regimental Combat Team, which performed extraordinary deeds in Europe, still has the unique distinction of being the most highly decorated unit of its size in American history. In fact, 47 individuals of the 442d Regimental Combat Team received the DSC. However, only one Japanese-American who served during World War II received the CMH; this award was given posthumously after the war only when concerns were raised that not one American of Japanese descent who served in World War II had received the medal. Mr. President, my amendment only serves to ensure fairness for Asian- Americans and Pacific Islanders who so gallantly served their country during World War II. As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Allied victory over the Axis powers, I think it is timely and appropriate that we undertake such a initiative. I hope that my colleagues will support this important amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would improve section 543 of the pending measure, which concerns awards and decorations for military intelligence personnel. As my colleagues are aware, recommendations for the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, and other awards must be submitted and acted upon within a certain time frame. For example, for the Army and Air Force, the Medal of Honor must be recommended within 2 years of an act, and awarded within 3; for the Navy, the applicable dates are 3 years and 5 years, respectively. These limits were imposed by Congress to ensure that an award, and particularly the Medal of Honor, would be based on the most contemporaneous, and thus accurate, documentation. While these time limits may be appropriate in the vast majority of cases, they are not always appropriate in the case of military intelligence personnel who, because of the secrecy of their missions, could not be considered for the Medal of Honor or other awards within the 3 or 5 year statutory period. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center, which administers the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame, cites a number of individuals who are members of the Hall who are in precisely this situation. One example is the legendary COL Car Eifler, who performed extraordinary service during World War II, notably as the leader of the famous Detachment 101 of the Office of Strategic Services in Burma. Under his command, the secret commando unit operated behind enemy lines, harassing Japanese troops and organizing and training Burmese natives in espionage and sabotage. During the course of the war, Detachment 101 cleared the enemy from a 10,000 square mile area, sabotaged the Japanese railway system, and gathered important intelligence about enemy activities and capabilities. COL Eifler displayed extraordinary personal courage on numerous occasions, including one instance in which he commanded a small, unarmed vessel through 450 miles of Japanese controlled waters to rescue 10 crewmembers of a downed B-24 bomber in the Bay of Bengal. While COL Eifler received several citations, the covert conditions under which he operated prevented his being nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service Cross, either of which he clearly merits. Another example is LTC Richard Sakakida, who served as an Army undercover agent in the Philippines during the Second World War. LTC Sakakida was captured by the Japanese shortly after the fall of Corregidor and subjected to excruciating torture; incredibly, he steadfastly refused to divulge his mission as an American intelligence agent. Later, after gaining the confidence of his captors, he established a spy network within Japanese Army headquarters and was able to send important combat intelligence to the Allies through Filipino guerrillas whom he had recruited as couriers. Some of this information may have led to the destruction of a major Japanese naval task force preparing to invade Australia. During this period, he also engineered the escape of hundreds of Filipino guerrillas from prison, yet he himself remained behind in order to continue his intelligence activities. Today, because his mission was undertaken in complete secrecy, and because his direct superiors died or were killed during the war, he was never considered for an award for valor. Yet, now that his full story has become known, he is ineligible for awards such as the Medal of Honor or DSC because of the statutory deadlines that apply to such awards. Mr. President, these are but two examples of military intelligence operatives whose courageous deeds have never been fully acknowledged. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center has [[Page S 11312]] identified other deserving individuals who were overlooked because of secrecy. Undoubtedly there are others, less well known, who have never been recognized for their intelligence-related accomplishments. Earlier this year, Mr. President, I had the pleasure of working with members of the Armed Services Committee on an initiative to assist deserving individuals such as COL Eifler and LTC Sakakida. Due largely to the efforts of my friend and colleague, Senator Coats, the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, the committee approved a provision in the pending measure, section 543, that attempts to address this issue. In brief, section 543 expresses the sense of the Senate that the military services should conduct a 1-year review of the records of military intelligence personnel to determine if they were prevented by the secrecy of their missions from being appropriately considered for the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, and other awards. Based on the review, section 543 authorizes the services to approve awards for deserving individuals notwithstanding the statutory time limitations governing such awards. However, since the provision was reported from committee, a number of technical shortcomings have been pointed out to me by the military services as well as by military intelligence veterans organizations. I have assembled their suggestions for improving section 543 in the pending amendment. My amendment does several things: First, it would require, rather than urge, the services to undertake the proposed review. Making the review mandatory is important because many of the affected individuals are veterans of World War II or Korea who are in their 60's, 70's, and 80's and not in the best of health. Mandating that the review be undertaken and completed by a date certain rather than leaving it to the military's discretion, would ensure that the cases of these older veterans will be considered before age takes its toll. Second, rather than requiring the military services to review the records of all military intelligence personnel, which would involve examining potentially millions of documents and files--a monumental, perhaps impossible task--my amendment would simply require the services to review only the records of those individuals for whom recommendations have been received by the services during the 1-year period. That is to say, the onus would be on the individual, or his or her supporters, to apply for consideration during the review period. This would considerably ease the administrative burden, and cost, that section 543 as currently drafted would impose on the military. Third, my amendment would allow the service Secretaries to reject an application or recommendation if there is a justifiable basis for concluding that the application is specious. Again, the purpose of this particular provision is to make the services' task easier by giving them the authority to reject at the outset any recommendation for an award that is, on its face, without merit. Fourth, it would require the services to take reasonable steps to publicize the opportunity to apply for awards during the 1-year review period. It would be a sad state of affairs, Mr. President, if certain deserving individuals were not to take advantage of the review opportunity through lack of notification. The services have an obligation to ensure that potential awardees are informed of the opportunity to apply for an award or decoration. Fifth, my amendment would require the services, upon completion of the review, to make any legislative or administrative recommendations to improve award procedures with respect to military intelligence personnel. These recommendations will be important in helping Congress and the services develop policies that will obviate problems of the kind which makes this legislation necessary. Finally, I should note that my amendment is almost identical in form and substance to another provision in the committee bill, section 542, which concerns awards for service during the Vietnam era. Thus, I believe there is ample justification and precedent for the amendment I am offering. Certainly if Vietnam veterans deserve a chance to be reviewed for acts of heroism, military intelligence officers from other wars whose heroism has been long-overlooked should be accorded a similar opportunity. Mr. President, we will soon be commemorating the 50th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II. I can think of no better way to honor the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who served our country as military intelligence officers during that conflict and in subsequent wars than to enact this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Coats and Senator Byrd, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee, Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn, for their understanding and assistance on this matter. I would also like to recognize the efforts of their staff, including Andy Effron, P.T. Henry, and especially Charlie Abell, for the tremendous support they provided my staff. I ask unanimous consent that copies of letters in support of this initiative from the commander of the U.S. Army Intelligence Command and the presidents of the Veterans of the Office of Strategic Services and the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the bill before us today contains amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. However, I want to address my remarks to title II of the bill which contains the text of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and as the author of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act during the 103d and 104th Congresses, I would like to speak for a few moments about the process and mechanisms that this legislation would institute. My purpose in doing so is to establish legislative history which will better enable Federal agencies to implement the legislation. First, let me offer some historical background. More than 70 years ago, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole issued an urgent plea to the Federal Government expressing concern about the plight of native Hawaiians. During the late 19th century and the early part of this century, the number of native Hawaiians declined dramatically and there was a significant disintegration of Hawaiian culture and society. The Secretary of the Interior, Franklin Lane, responded to Prince Kuhio by recommending that the Federal Government establish a homesteading program for native Hawaiians. In his testimony before Congress on the Hawaiian homes legislation, Secretary Lane stated that the United States has a ``moral obligation to care'' for the native Hawaiian people. Secretary Lane went on to say that ``the natives on the islands who are our wards, I should say, and for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers and many of them are in poverty.'' In response to this appeal, legislation was drafted to help rejuvenate the Hawaiian people by establishing a home lands to promote housing and agricultural opportunities. The resulting legislation, known as the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, set aside 203,000 acres for this purpose. Homesteading opportunities would allow native Hawaiians to, once again, enjoy their traditional lifestyle. Regrettably, the enlightened program that Secretary Lane envisioned fell far short of expectations. One of the more significant provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act set aside land for native Hawaiians in perpetuity. The act permitted the transfer of home lands only in exchange for lands of equal value. Unfortunately, the prohibition against alienation of land was overlooked or ignored by the Federal Government. During Hawaii's territorial period, the Federal Government acquired Hawaiian home land in violation of the statutory prohibition against alienation. The Federal Government still retains 1,400 acres of these lands. During hearings conducted by the Energy Committee on this issue, the committee received a report prepared by the General Accounting Office on the Hawaiian Home Lands Program. The most significant finding of the GAO report is that land was withdrawn from the home lands by executive action on 37 occasions during Hawaii's territorial period. These withdrawals were in clear violation of the provision of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which prohibits the transfer of land unless the home lands receives land of equal value in exchange. Native Hawaiians have always contended that territorial withdrawals violated the 1920 act, and the GAO report confirms this fact. The Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act seeks to redress this issue by authorizing the transfer of Federal lands to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in exchange for Hawaiian home lands retained by the Federal Government. Although the term ``exchange'' is used in this legislation, there is no expectation that DHHL will relinquish land to the Federal Government. DHHL need only relinquish any remaining claim it may have to former home lands now controlled by the Federal Government. The bill would also provide compensation for lost use of Hawaiian home lands controlled by the Federal Government. In advance of land being conveyed to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands under sections 203(b) and 203(f) of the bill, the Secretary of the Interior is required to determine the value of lands currently controlled by the Federal Government that were designated as available lands under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. It is important to note that section 203(a)(1)(A)(i) states that this determination is to be made based upon the HHCA, as enacted. Thus, the valuation shall include lands designated as home lands under the 1920 Act that are not currently part of the home land inventory, whether the withdrawal occurred as a result of executive action, or through an act of Congress. The Secretary is also required to determine the value of the lost use of lands currently controlled by the Federal Government so that this, too, can be compensated. The valuation required by the legislation is not intended to be a unilateral action by the Secretary. On the contrary section 203(a)(2)(A) requires the use of a valuation method that is acceptable to the Chair of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and, most importantly, is in the best interests of the beneficiaries. These two conditions exist regardless of whether the Secretary uses an appraisal or non-appraisal method of valuation. Section 203(a)(2)(A) requires the Secretary to be an advocate for the best interests of Hawaiian home beneficiaries in reaching a determination of value. Thus the Secretary has a fiduciary responsibility for seeing to it that the beneficiaries receive the maximum possible compensation. Under section 203(a), the Secretary need not determine the value of land and lost use by appraisal. The committee included a provision allowing valuation by a method other than appraisal in order to promote a speedy resolution of this longstanding conflict. The committee considers valuation by mutual agreement to be far preferable to the burdensome process of appraisal. During our hearings on this legislation, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was advised that the State of Hawaii had appraised most of the Federal properties in question. The GAO, in their report to the committee, analyzed and the state appraisals and found the appraisal methodology used by the state was appropriate and that proper accounting principles were employed. The state appraisals therefore supplant the need for a separate appraisal by the Department of the Interior. In the unfortunate event that the Interior Department decides to proceed with an appraisal, a number of specific safeguards have been instituted to ensure that the Department properly discharges its fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the Hawaiian home beneficiaries. These include a guarantee that the Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands shall have opportunity to present evidence of the value of the home lands that were lost as well as the value of the lost use of these lands, the right to review and comment on a preliminary copy of the appraisal, and most importantly, the requirement that the Secretary give full consideration of the evidence of value presented by DHHL. Given the responsibility under section 203(a)(2)(A) that the Secretary represent the best interests of the beneficiaries, the requirement in section 203(a)(4)(B) is not ephemeral. When construed together, these provisions require the Secretary to give great weight to the recommendations of the DHHL on matters of value, especially if the interests of home land beneficiaries would be advanced by doing so. In addition to all these protections, the Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has the right to dispute the determinations of value for land and lost use. Thus it is unmistakably clear that the Secretary and the Chairman of DHHL must mutually consent to the values to be determined under section 203 of the bill. Section 203(b) authorizes the conveyance of land to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as compensation for lost lands, and the lost use of home lands retained by the Federal Government. This section further authorizes the head of any Federal agency to transfer land and structures to the Secretary of the Interior for subsequent conveyance to DHHL. I want to contrast the two-step conveyance process described in section 203(b)(5) with the authority for the General Services Administration or the Department of Defense to convey property directly to DHHL under Section 203(f)(6) of the bill. A section 203(f)(6) conveyance [[Page S 11347]] would be a direct transfer of title, without intervention by the Department of the Interior, whereas the Interior Department would act as a transfer agent for conveyances executed under section 203(b)(5). Let me point out, however, that although jurisdiction and control of land would be transferred to the Interior Department under a section 203(b)(5) conveyance, the Interior Department's responsibility in completing the transfer is nothing more than a ministerial function. In this case the agency serves as a conduit for consummating the transfer of title to the DHHL. Section 203(f) of the bill establishes a second means of conveying lands to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands by allowing DHHL to obtain lands that are excess to the needs of individual Federal agencies. Subsection (f) places the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in the same, or better, status as a Federal agency for the purpose of being notified of excess property and for obtaining the property from the excessing agency. Under no circumstances should the land that has been selected by the Chairman for appraisal under section 203(f)(2), and possible conveyance under section 203(f)(5), be transferred or otherwise disposed of by any Federal agency until the opportunity of the DHHL to obtain the land has expired. Finally, let me comment on section 207 of the bill. This section establishes a cost sharing for Bureau of Reclamation projects on Hawaiian home lands that is the same as the cost sharing authorized for projects on Indian lands.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I join my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, in introducing legislation to encourage the development of a fuel for the future--hydrogen. Hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy carrier that can be obtained using conventional or renewable resources. There is growing evidence that hydrogen can be a solution for America's long- term energy needs. Our Nation's economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Eighty- nine percent of our primary energy base consists of oil, natural gas, and coal. These fossil fuels are nonrenewable and eventually will be exhausted. U.S. energy consumption has risen steadily for more than a decade and will continue to rise over the next 20 years. From 1983 to 1992, our Nation's consumption of energy from primary sources rose 17 percent. Recent projections by the Energy Information Administration suggest that the United States' consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal will increase by more than 1.0 percent each year through the year 2010. I want to point out that last year, for the first time ever, more than half of the oil used in our country came from foreign sources. Steadily rising demand for these finite energy resources dictates the need for research on alternatives such as hydrogen. Now is the time to increase research efforts to develop a new source of energy if we are to make a smooth transition to the next generation energy source. Growing evidence points to hydrogen as the fuel to resolve our energy problems and satisfy a wide variety of the world's energy needs. One advantage of hydrogen is that it can be produced from renewable resources through biomass conversion. Biomass conversion uses crops and forest product residues to produce hydrogen. Ultimately, the direct generation of hydrogen from water will provide us with a continuous supply of the fuel. Hydrogen as a fuel is not a new concept, but technical progress towards this goal has been slow. For more than two decades there has been continuing worldwide interest in hydrogen as a renewable fuel. The Library of Congress reported in ``Hydrogen: Technology and Policy'' that large quantities of hydrogen are being produced each year for nonenergy uses, however, it would be difficult or impossible to meet future energy demands with today's hydrogen technology. Some of the problems facing the development of hydrogen as a fuel are the high cost of production, storage, and distribution. More economical methods of producing hydrogen are urgently needed. Currently, the cost of producing pure hydrogen from water by electrolysis is prohibitive, unless cheap electricity is available. The vast majority of the hydrogen produced today is transported only a short distance before use. An integrated production, storage, and distribution system will also be required. These are only a few of the barriers to making hydrogen fuel commercially viable. Our Nation needs an active and systematic research, development, and demonstration program to make the breakthroughs necessary so that hydrogen can become a viable alternative to fossil fuels. ``The Green Hydrogen Report'' to be published by the Secretary of Energy's Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel this summer will detail a research agenda for the fuel. My predecessor, Senator Spark Matsunaga, was one of the first to focus attention on hydrogen by sponsoring hydrogen research legislation. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Act, as this legislation came to be known, was designed to accelerate development of a domestic capability to produce economically renewable hydrogen in sufficient quantities to reduce the Nation's dependence upon conventional fuels. As a result of Spark Matsunaga's vision, the Department of Energy is conducting research that will decrease the costs of producing, storing, and using hydrogen. But Congress's continued support for this program is needed. The bill introduced today expands the current research program efforts under the Matsunaga Hydrogen Act. This new initiative acknowledges the potential of hydrogen; the need for a strong partnership between the Federal Government, industry, and academia; and the importance of continued support for hydrogen research. It fosters collaboration among Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and industry. It encourages private sector investment and cost-sharing in the development of hydrogen as an energy source and associated technologies. Hydrogen holds tremendous promise as the long-term solution to our Nation's energy problems. We urge our colleagues to support the Hydrogen Future Act of 1995.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now considering S. 641, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency, CARE, Reauthorization Act of 1995. In 1990, Congress enacted the Ryan White CARE Act, named in honor of the young hemophiliac who devoted enormous energy educating Americans about the need for a compassionate response to people living with AIDS. The Ryan White CARE Act is the cornerstone of Federal funding for AIDS-specific care and has played a critical role in improving the quality and availability of medical and support services for individuals with HIV and AIDS. Since its enactment, the CARE Act has provided life-sustaining services to over 300,000 people with HIV/AIDS, including primary health care, prescription drugs, home health care and hospice care, dental care, drug abuse treatment, counseling, case management, and assistance with housing and transportation. I commend the sponsors of this legislation, Senators Nancy Kassebaum and Edward Kennedy, for their leadership on this issue of national importance. S. 641 would amend the CARE Act and extend authorization of the grant programs, which expire on September 30, 1995. As AIDS is the leading cause of death of young adults, we cannot let reauthorization of the CARE Act be delayed any longer nor diluted through negative amendments. I am a cosponsor of this legislation and believe that it will strengthen the CARE Act and enhance our ability to be responsive to the evolving nature of this epidemic. The measure, which enjoys bipartisan support, was favorably reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee by a unanimous vote on March 29, 1995. The sponsors of this legislation recognize that the changing demographics of the AIDS epidemic require a more equitable distribution of funding in order to balance the needs of people across this country living with HIV and AIDS. Accordingly, S. 641 builds on the program's strengths and makes significant improvements by modifying the funding formulas to reflect the changing nature of the AIDS epidemic. The legislation before us would assure a more equitable allocation of funding as it restructures formulas based on an estimation of the number of individuals currently living with AIDS and the costs of providing services I urge my colleagues to support, without amendment, S. 641, the Ryan White Care Reauthorization Act of 1995. I yield the floor.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution which expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the Republic of France's intention to conduct a series of underground nuclear test explosions despite the current international moratorium on nuclear testing. On June 13, 1995, French President Jacques Chirac announced that the Republic of France planned to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific. A series of eight underground tests are planned beginning September, 1995 and ending in May, 1996 at the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls located in French Polynesia. Following the French announcement, I contacted the White House to urge [[Page S 9811]] President Clinton to convey the concerns of the United States and the Pacific island nations to France over its resumption of nuclear testing. We in the Pacific, more than any other region in the world, know the ramifications of nuclear testing. We only have to look at what happened to Bikini, Enewetak, or Rongelap Atolls in the Marshall Islands to understand the long-term damage to human lives and the environment that can occur as a result of nuclear testing. I have visited these atolls and I can attest to the plight of the native peoples in these areas. The U.S. nuclear testing between 1950 and 1960 resulted in epidemic-like outbreaks in these communities, including damage to the nervous system, paralysis, impaired vision, and increased rates of cancer. Even a half century later, the effects are still being felt. To this date, clean up efforts have been difficult and slow, and some residents have not been able to return to their homelands. In May, the world's five nuclear powers--the United States, France, Russia, China, and Britain--persuaded the rest of the world to indefinitely extend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To win that consensus, the five countries promised to sign a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the end of next year. The resumption of French nuclear testing seriously undermines these international efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We cannot ignore the resumption of nuclear testing by France. By adopting this resolution, the Senate will strongly encourage France to abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear testing and refrain from proceeding with its announced intention of conducting a series of nuclear tests in advance of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, shortly after the Senate returns from the Fourth of July recess, I plan to introduce the Federal Disaster Preparedness and Response Act of 1995. This bill will be very similar to the measure I offered in the 103d Congress with Senator Glenn and Graham of Florida. It is very appropriate to announce my intention to reintroduce this legislation as we debate the conference report on the supplemental disaster bill. We are all aware of the tremendous costs incurred during a natural disaster. What many of us are unaware of is the need to combat fraud against victims of Federal disasters. The legislation I plan to introduce would make it a Federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally declared disaster. Because of instant media coverage of the destruction caused by these catastrophic events, we are able to see first-hand the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing out blankets and food and citizens travelling hundreds of miles to help rebuild strangers' homes. Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these catastrophes, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on trusting and unsuspecting victims. This measure would criminalize some of the activities undertaken by these unprincipled people whose sole intent is to defraud hard-working men and women. Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice-- first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets from $60 a month to $60 a day! In other flood-hit areas, carpet cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-rated charities. Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered South Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. After Hurricane Iniki devastated the Island of Kauai, a contractor promising quick home repair took disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without completing promised construction. While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, my legislation would make it a Federal crime to fraudulently take money from a disaster victim and fail to provide the agreed upon material or service for the cleanup, repair, and recovery. The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is the responsibility of the States to impose restrictions on price increases prior to a Federal disaster declaration, Federal penalties for price gouging should be imposed once a disaster has been declared. I am pleased to incorporate in this measure an initiative Senator Glenn began following Hurricane Andrew to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods and services. There already is tremendous cooperation among the various State and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer protection issues and it is quite common for these fine men and women to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-State during a natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions has created a strong support network. However, a Federal remedy is needed to assist States when a disaster occurs. There should be a broader enforcement system to help overburdened State and local governments during a time of disaster. The Federal Government is in a position to ensure that residents within a federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. Federal agencies should assist localities to provide such a support system. In addition to making disaster-related fraud a Federal crime, this bill would also require the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop public information materials to advise disaster victims about ways to detect and avoid fraud. I have seen a number of anti-fraud material prepared by State consumer protection offices and believe this section would assist States to disseminate anti-fraud related material following the declaration of a disaster by the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues in enacting this legislation.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last week, House and Senate Republican conferees reached an agreement on the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution, which in my mind, is more damaging then the original 7-year budget resolution that the Senate adopted last month. The compromise budget resolution still promises tax cuts for wealthy Americans financed by a $270 billion cut in Medicare. Medicaid also lost out on the Republican proposal and will be cut an additional $7 billion, for a new total of $182 billion. Stricken from the resolution is the Boxer amendment that expressed the sense of Congress that 90 percent of the benefits of potential tax cuts go to the middle class. I also note that my Republican colleagues call the cuts to entitlement programs such a Medicare and Medicaid a way of restricting growth. Well, Mr. President, I don't know how my [[Page S 9401]] colleagues define the word restricting, but I know a budget cut when I see one. The Senate Budget Committee resolution assumed a $256 billion cut in Medicare spending over 7 years, by far the largest Medicare cut in history. Well, Mr. President, it appears that the Republican budget conferees want to go even further and the adverse impact on beneficiaries and providers is clear. If Medicare cuts of this magnitude are approved, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that senior citizens' out-of-pocket medical expenses will increase by $860 a year or a total of $3,345 over the 7 years. As 83 percent of Medicare benefits go to beneficiaries with incomes of $25,000 or less, it is obvious who will be hurt by these cuts. In addition, cuts to providers would have serious ramifications on overall health care costs as cuts in provider reimbursement are often passed on directly to other payers. Provider cuts could also have a potentially devastating impact on urban safety-net hospitals which already bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's growing burden of uncompensated care. Not all the pain will be felt in urban areas, however. The reductions in Medicare payments could also endanger access to care in rural areas. Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries--25 percent of the total--live in rural areas. Often there is only a single hospital in their county. Significant cuts in Medicare have the potential of causing rural hospitals to close or increase the number of providers that refuse to treat Medicare beneficiaries. Under the conference agreement, Medicaid would be turned into a block grant and cut by $182 billion. As I mentioned, this cut is $7 billion more than the Senate-passed version and $5 billion less than the House. States would likely have to reduce the number of people served by an average of 7.6 percent, affecting nearly 3.5 million people. While I fully recognize the critical need to ensure long-term stability in the Medicare Program and support efforts to balance our budget, I am opposed to using arbitrary cuts in the Medicare Program to finance a tax break for wealthy Americans. Just as health care benefits are being cut for our senior citizens dependent on Medicare, the new GOP budget would also pay for tax breaks for the rich by making unprecedented cuts in education. During last months's debate on the Senate budget resolution, a bipartisan amendment passed which reduced cuts to the student loan program by closing tax loopholes for the rich. The conferees chose to ignore this bipartisan action and cut education even more. Under the new GOP resolution, millions of children and college students nationwide will be affected. Five hundred fifty thousand pre- schoolers could be dropped from the Head Start Program; 3,000 schools across the Nation will lose funds to implement reform efforts to better prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century; and 4 million college students from middle-class families will have their college costs increase by over $3,000 since the GOP budget eliminates the in- school interest exemption on student loans. Mr. President, the impact will be tremendous. The Republicans would eliminate 33 percent of the Federal investment in education by year 2002, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A good example of the devastating impact can be seen in the $30 billion cut in Federal aid to college students over the next 7 years. Given the fact that half of all college students receive Federal financial aid, and that 75 percent of all student aid comes from the Federal Government, it is obvious how this cut will affect our students' futures. Mr. President, the Republican cut in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other social programs are simply, in my eyes and in my heart, unacceptable. You cannot single out health care for one segment of the population without serious consequences. Nor should we broker the future of our country's youth in order to satisfy the Republicans' Contract With America. The senior citizens of today and the leaders of tomorrow should not shoulder balancing the budget alone. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject the conference report on the budget resolution. faa/atc reform

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to change my June 20, 1995, vote on the motion to table the Lautenberg amendment, vote No. 270, relating to highway speed limits during the debate on S. 440, the National Highway System designation bill. I had inadvertently voted in support of the motion to table the amendment. I wish to be recorded as having voted against the motion to table the Lautenberg amendment. This change in vote will not alter the outcome of the original vote.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to change my vote on final passage of H.R. 1058, vote No. 295, the Securities Reform Act of 1995. I voted in favor of the passage of the bill. It was my intention to vote ``no.'' This change in vote will not alter the outcome of the vote.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle as a cosponsor of the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act of 1995. This legislation would provide direct Medicaid reimbursement to nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists for services they provide within their scope of practice, regardless of whether these services are performed under the supervision of a physician. With the current shortage of primary health care services in our Nation, millions of Americans are without essential health services. Medicaid recipients are particularly vulnerable. By allowing direct Medicaid reimbursement to nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, I believe that this legislation will not only improve access to much needed health care services, but will strengthen our health care delivery system. A number of recent studies have documented the important roles that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists play in providing cost-effective, quality health care services. For example, a December 1986 study by the Office of Technology Assessment detailed the significant contributions nurse practitioners have made in reducing health care costs, improving the quality of care, and increasing the accessibility of services. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will enhance access to [[Page S 9179]] cost-effective, quality care for individuals with limited access to health care services.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation I offered last year, but in simpler and improved form, that is designed to mitigate the impact of commercial air tour flights over units of the National Park System. The National Parks Airspace Management Act of 1995 would create a new statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on park units. Briefly, my bill would: specify the respective authorities of the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in developing and enforcing park overflight policy; establish a process for developing individualized airspace management plans at parks experiencing significant commercial air tour activity; provide for the designation of those parks which did not experience commercial air tour activity as of January 1, 1995 as flight-free parks; establish a new, single standard governing the certification and operation of all commercial air tour operators that conduct flights over national parks; require a variety of safety measures, such as improved aircraft markings, maintenance of accurate aeronautical charts, installation of flight monitoring equipment, and an air tour database; and, establish a National Park Overflight Advisory Council. As my colleagues are aware, aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas such as national parks have been increasing in scope and intensity for a number of years, sparking significant public debate and controversy about the safety and environmental impact of such activity. The focus of much of the debate, and much of the controversy, has been the commercial air tour sightseeing industry, which has experienced explosive growth in some areas, most notably at the Grand Canyon and in my own State of Hawaii. The air tour industry has become a $500 million business nationwide. Fully half of that revenue is generated by the 800,000 flightseers who annually view the Grand Canyon area by aircraft. In 1994, the Hawaii air tour industry, which is centered around tours of Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks, provided tours to more than 500,000 passengers, generating approximately $75 million in revenues. [[Page S8110]] Apart from parks in Arizona and Hawaii, significant commercial air tour activity has also been developing in such widely dispersed locations as Glacier National Park in Montana, the Utah national parks, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, and the Statute of Liberty and Niagara Falls in New York. In fact, at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, commercial air tour overflights have fostered such opposition that the State of Tennessee has passed legislation to restrict such flights. Thus, the problems that my bill attempts to address are national, not merely local, in scope and interest. I would venture to say that every Member of this body has, or will soon have, a park in his or her State that is impacted to a greater or lesser degree by commercial air tour operations. Mr. President, the legislation I am offering is not the first attempt to deal with this issue through legislation. In 1987, Congress passed the National Parks Overflights Act, Public Law 100-91, which established certain flight restrictions at three parks which were experiencing heavy air traffic. Flights below-the-rim at Grand Canyon were permanently banned and Special Federal Aviation Regulation [SFAR] was established creating flight-free zones and air corridors. The act established less stringent temporary altitude restrictions for Yosemite in California and Haleakala in Hawaii. The act also required that a comprehensive study be conducted by the Park Service, with FAA input, to determine appropriate minimum altitudes for aircraft overflying national parks. Completed and submitted to Congress in September 1994, the study evaluated the impact of aircraft noise on the safety of park system users and on park values and offered numerous recommendations to Congress and the administration on ways to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise, including incentives to encourage use of quiet aircraft technology, flight-free zones and flight corridors, altitude restrictions, noise budgets, and limits on times of air tour operations. Unfortunately, the minimum altitude restrictions mandated by Public Law 100-91 have not fully addressed the noise and safety problems at Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and particularly Haleakala, given the explosive growth in air tour activity at these parks. And, of course, the act did not establish mitigation measures for other parks experiencing high levels of air traffic. And, to date, none of the noise and safety mitigation measures recommended by the Park Overflights Study have been implemented. Since October 1, 1988, there have been 139 air tour accidents in the United States, resulting in 117 fatalities. It saddens me to report that my home State of Hawaii has experienced a disproportionately high number of these tragedies. During that period, 34 of those accidents occurred in Hawaii, resulting in 35 fatalities. Concern over the high incidence of air tour accidents in Hawaii's skies compelled the FAA, in March 1994, to initiate a comprehensive review of the operations and maintenance practices of the Hawaii air tour industry. This review culminated in the implementation of an emergency regulation--SFAR-71--which imposed numerous safety measures upon Hawaii's commercial air tour operators, including a 1,500-foot above-ground-level minimum altitude restriction. To date, the FAA's emergency rulemaking actions generally appear to have been effective in providing short-term solutions to many of the safety problems associated with commercial air tour operations in Hawaii. Similarly, in 1992, when the FAA implemented SFAR-50-2 governing airspace over Grand Canyon National Park, a significant improvement in air safety was effected there also. Unfortunately, however, short-term, emergency measures such as SFAR's 71 and 50-2 have not, and cannot be expected to, addressed the full range of safety problems that have attended the explosive growth of the commercial air tour industry in this country. In addition to safety issues, the rapid growth of the air tour industry has fostered environmental concerns as well, largely centering on noise problems. The Clinton administration has made a good faith effort to address the noise and environmental impacts of commercial air tour overflights through existing regulatory authorities and mechanisms. The interagency working group formed in 1993 by Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Pena has demonstrated that limited cooperation between the FAA and Park Service is attainable in addressing this issue. Nevertheless, while some progress has been made, the pace has been painfully slow and tangible results so far are not readily evident. In the meantime, the number of air tour flights has continued to grow, serving to exacerbate existing environmental and safety problems. This experience has shown us that only Congress, through legislation, can produce lasting, effective policy on this matter. The simple truth is, the complex problems associated with park overflights cannot be fully resolved administratively. This is largely due to the fact that the FAA and the Park Service, the two agencies with the greater responsibility in this area, are governed by vastly different statutory mandates. On the one hand, the FAA is responsible for the safety and efficiency of air commerce; on the other, the Park Service is charged with protecting and preserving park resources. At some point--in this case the regulation of airspace over noise sensitive areas--their interests are mutually incompatible. Only by modifying or clarifying their statutory responsibilities with respect to the management of park airspace can the two Federal agencies be expected to work together to address the overflights problem. Mr. President, the legislation I am proposing today would address this and other barriers to the development of a comprehensive park overflights policy. My bill deals with the commercial air tour overflights issue in a national context, since the safety and environmental concerns which are being debated so vociferously in Hawaii are being echoed at park units scattered throughout the National Park System. At the outset, my bill establishes a finding that National Park Service policy recognizes the importance of natural quiet as a resource to be conserved and protected in certain park units. Toward that end, my bill creates a new statutory framework for minimizing the environmental effects of air tour activity on units throughout the National Park System. The bill articulates a regulatory scheme under which the Park Service and the FAA are required to work in tandem to develop operational policies with respect to the overflights problem. It provides for joint administration in many areas while clearly denoting the FAA's primacy on matters related to safety and air efficiency and the Park Service's lead role in identifying the resources to be protected and the best means of protecting them. The bill requires the development, with public involvement, of individually tailored park airspace management plans for units significantly affected by overflight activity, as determined by the director of the Park Service. It calls for good faith negotiations between commercial air tour operators and both the Park Service and the FAA to reach agreement on flights over park areas. It provides for the Park Service to recommend to the FAA the designation of individual units as flight-free parks for those units which, as of January 1, 1995, experienced no overflights by commercial air tour operators and where air tour flights would be incompatible with or injurious to the purposes or values of those parks. It also mandates the development by the FAA or a generic operational rule for commercial air tour operations at all units of the National Park System, subject to modification at individual park units based on negotiations among air tour operators, the FAA, and the Park Service. My legislation requires the FAA to implement a single standard, through a new subpart of part 135, title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, for certifying commercial air tour operators. Such a uniform standard, which has been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], will substantially enhance safety by providing essential consistency in such areas as pilot qualifications, training, and flight and duty time limitations. It mandates commercial air tour safety initiatives recommended by the monitoring system and the use of identification markings unique to a commercial air tour operator, the development of aeronautical charts which reflect airspace management provisions with respect to individual park units, and the development of a national data base on air tour operations. Last but by no means least, the bill establishes a National Park Overflight Advisory Council which would provide advice and recommendations to the Park Service and the FAA on all issues related to commercial air tour flights over park units and serve as a national forum for interest groups--including representatives of the air tour industry and the environmental community--to constructively exchange views. It is significant to note that my bill will not affect emergency flight operations, general aviation, military aviation, or scheduled commercial passenger flights that transit National Park System units. Furthermore, recognizing the special needs for air travel in Alaska, this bill will not affect the management of park units or aircraft operations over or within park units in the State of Alaska. Mr. President, I believe that the legislation I am offering today will give us the tools to minimize the adverse effects of commercial air tour flights on park resources as well as on the ground visitor experience, while at the same time enhancing the safety of such flights. I believe it is a balanced measure that, through extensive opportunity for public involvement, attempts to accommodate the legitimate concerns of all park users, including air tour operators and passengers. Indeed, I strongly believe that under certain well- regulated conditions, air tourism provides an important service to millions of elderly, disabled, or other visitors who might otherwise never enjoy the wonders of our national parks. Nevertheless, my bill's central premise is that the 367 park units of the National Park System were created because of their exceptional natural or cultural significance to the American people. All of the provisions of the National Parks Airspace Management Act are therefore designed with the protection of park resources as their essential, if not exclusive, goal. For it is self-evident that a park whose values have corrupted is a park ultimately not worth visiting, by air or land. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution recognizing the contributions of Father Damien, a very special person who lived in Hawaii during the late 1800s, for his service to humanity. Senators Inouye, Daschle, Kennedy, Simon, and Murkowski have joined me as cosponsors of this measure. Father Damien is best known for his tireless efforts to provide material and spiritual comforts for leprosy patients at Kalaupapa, Molokai, during the latter half of the 19th century. Beloved by the people of Hawaii and the country of his birth, Belgium, his life serves as a model for all mankind. In recognition of his heroic acts, the Roman Catholic Church began the consideration of Father Damien's beatification in 1955. The State of Hawaii, in 1965, selected Father Damien as one of its distinguished citizens and his statue was installed in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall. I am pleased to announce that Father Damien will be beatified by Pope John Paul II on June 4, 1995, in Brussels, Belgium. Mr. President, lessons from the life of Father Damien extend beyond religious beliefs and considerations. My resolution recognizes Father Damien's life for his overall service to humanity. Indeed, his life was not that of an ordinary man. Born in Belgium in 1840, Father Damien arrived in Hawaii in 1864 to join the Sacred Hearts Mission in Honolulu. After several years of serving isolated communities on the island of Hawaii, Father Damien became concerned that many of his parishioners had been sent to Kalaupapa, Molokai, a settlement established for leprosy patients in 1865. In 1873, his request to serve the people of Kalaupapa was granted. For 16 years, Father Damien labored to bring material and spiritual comfort to Kalaupapa's leprosy patients, building chapels, water cisterns, and boys and girls homes. His selfless devotion to the patients was evident when in 1876, he told a U.S. medical inspector, ``This is my work in the world. Sooner or later I shall become a leper, but may it not be until I have exhausted my capabilities for good.'' Father Damien died of leprosy, at the age of 49, on April 15, 1889. While his death was a devastating loss, the spiritual foundation that he established for the community of Kalaupapa would forever be remembered by the people of Hawaii. Out of concern that Father Damien's legacy and Kalaupapa's rich history not be forgotten, the Kalaupapa National Historical Park was established in 1980, with a provision that former leprosy patients may remain as long as they wish. While the common use of sulfone drugs since the 1940s had rendered leprosy, or Hansen's disease, controllable, and the 1969 repeal of Hawaii's isolation law allowed greater mobility for former leprosy patients at Kalaupapa, many continued to face discrimination and banishment from their families and the community at large. To show how the stigma of leprosy impacted everyday lives, I would like to share with you the words expressed by a 70-year old woman who had lived at Kalaupapa for 46 years. In part, she said, ``I was finally paroled in 1966. My mother was still alive, so I wrote to her and told her I was finally cured. I could come home. After a long while, her letter came. She said, ``Don't come home. You stay at Kalaupapa.'' I wrote her back and said that I wanted to just visit, to see the place where I was born. Again, she wrote back. This time she said, ``No, you stay there.'' You see, my mother had many friends and I think she felt shame before them. I was disfigured, even though I was cured. So she told me, her daughter, ``Don't come home.'' She said, ``You stay right Kalaupapa.'' Mr. President, such testimony is not uncommon. For years, former patients from Kalaupapa struggled for respect and dignity. Though attitudes have changed over the years, much more needs to be done. We must take every opportunity to educate our Nation on Father Damien's life and the history of Kalaupapa. The history of Kalaupapa holds a universal lesson that is still valid as we deal with social issues of today, be it homelessness, AIDS, disabilities, or cultural differences. While my resolution honors Father Damien, it also honors the people of Kalaupapa as a living American legacy of human spirit and dignity. It celebrates the achievements of modern medicine in combating the once-dreaded leprosy. And it remembers the victims of this disease that still suffer social banishment in many parts of the world. I ask my colleagues for their support in the adoption of my resolution.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the budget resolution, I am concerned about Republican spending proposals that will balance the budget on the backs of children, middle-class families, the working poor, and the Nation's veterans. The more I study it, the more I realize that the majority's budget resolution will be a very bitter pill for hard-working American families to swallow. The budget resolution preserves special interest tax loopholes and other forms of corporate welfare. The wealthy will continue to receive billions of dollars in tax breaks and the proposed budget promises an additional $175 billion in future tax relief. The most troubling feature of the Republican budget proposal is the $21 billion cut in the earned income tax credit. During the past decade, working families suffered a slow, steady erosion in their standard of living. Families simply had to work harder and longer to make ends meet. Despite their hard work and long hours, the number of working poor families and individuals living at or below the poverty line continues to grow. 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. That is why the earned income tax credit was established. The earned income tax credit helps parents in low-income families remain in the work force. It also acts as a safety net for middle-class families confronted with a sudden loss of income. Despite long-standing bipartisan support for policies that make work pay, the majority budget resolution would cut the earned income tax credit by $21 billion over 7 years. Congress recently expanded the earned income tax credit to lift a family of four with a full-time working parent to a level at least equal to the poverty line. The Republican budget proposal abandons this policy. Their proposed cut in the earned income tax credit would increase Federal income taxes on millions of low-income working families with children. Under the majority proposal, the Treasury Department estimates that 7.8 million working families with more than one child will see their earned income tax credit reduced by $270. A working family with two children earning $20,000 would see a $290 reduction in their credit. Mr. President, only $1 billion of this $21 billion cut would result from the adoption of the Clinton administration proposal to deny the earned income tax credit to undocumented workers and implement procedures to reduce errors and fraud in the program. The remaining $20 billion cut represents a tax increase for millions of working families, many of which live just above the poverty level. Why raise taxes on individuals who are struggling to work, make ends meet, and avoid welfare? What message are we sending to America's working men and women? The last thing we need is a budget that raises the income taxes on Americans who are committed to work, rather than collecting welfare. To add insult to injury, the Republican budget proposal cuts job training assistance by 25 percent. This cut will make it more difficult for our youth and adults to receive the technical training and job assistance necessary to gain employment in a technology-driven, global marketplace. Without job training and education programs, displaced, first-time, and entry-level workers will be relegated to low-wage, low- skill service sector jobs with no chance for economic or educational advancement. Has any consideration been given to the impact of a 25- percent cut in job education and training on long-term productivity and prosperity or on blue-collar families and their communities? I don't think so. These cuts will deprive workers of educational opportunities which could increase their earning power and productivity, along with the productivity and prosperity of businesses and the country. A rising tide lifts all boats, but only if the boats are seaworthy. Mr. President, the budget plan also calls for the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act. Repeal of Davis-Bacon would jeopardize the provision of fair, prevailing wages and labor standards on construction projects. For over six decades, the Davis-Bacon Act has assured local construction workers and contractors a fair opportunity to bid competitively on Federal construction projects. I believe dismantling the act would adversely impact local workers and contractors, and as a consequence, reduce the quality of construction on Federal projects. In addition, Davis-Bacon ensures that workers on low-skill, low-wage jobs can participate in training programs to improve their skills and qualifications for better paying positions. Repeal of the law would remove most incentives for contractors to provide these workers such training opportunities. Programs and agencies that promote safe and healthy working conditions and procedures also face drastic cuts. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and other workplace safety agencies face a 50-percent reduction in funds which are necessary to ensure a safe working environment for working men and women. Mr. President, the Republican budget dismantles the safety net for millions of working Americans and eliminates or cuts programs that are investments for a brighter, more competitive, and prosperous future for American families and our country. It is nothing more than a promise of a golden parachute for our wealthy. targeting the poor under the gop budget resolution

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to rise today on the floor of the Senate to honor my dear friend and college classmate, Prof. Richard ``Dick'' S. Lum, on his retirement from the University of Hawaii after a lifetime of dedicated service to the students and people of Hawaii. He retires after a distinguished 25- year tenure as director of bands at the university and professor of music, emeritus. Professor Lum's contribution to concert and band music has brought him many well-deserved accolades and honors. In the span of his long musical career, he has earned and garnered more awards and has been recognized by more organizations than any other person I can think of. Mahalo, Dick, for your complete commitment to music. Professor Lum has been rightfully credited for building our State's concert and marching bands into nationally recognized organizations. He laid the foundation for the McKinley High School Band to gain national prominence and is the person primarily responsible for the growth of band programs in Hawaii. His vision, hard work, and grooming of young band directors made possible the tremendous growth of the many fine programs that exist today. Dick served as president of the Hawaii Music Educators Association and is the founder and past president of the Oahu Band Directors Association. He was also State chairman of the College Band Directors National Association and the National Band Association. He has guest conducted the United States of America Armed Services Bicentennial Band from Ft. Meade, MD, the University of Tennessee Band, the Arizona State University Band, and other outstanding university bands. In 1971, Richard was invited to membership in the American Bandmasters Association, and in 1973, was inducted into the prestigious Phi Beta Mu as honorary national member. In 1978, he was selected by the School Musician Magazine as one of the outstanding conductors in the United States and Canada for the school year 1974-75. In 1979, he was selected by the All-American magazine as Band Director of the Year. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me, his family, friends, and peers in honoring Prof. Richard S. Lum for this outstanding contribution to music in our State and country. Mahalo, Dick, for everything you have done for music in your lifetime, and your excellence in service. Thank you for a job well-done and may God's blessing be with you and your family.