Daniel Akaka

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Democratic response for funding education and to speak in opposition to the education cuts that are assumed in the Republican budget plan. The resolution reported by the Budget Committee calls for $97 billion in education cutbacks over 7 years, a 33-percent reduction from current service levels. This adverse disregard for our most important long-term asset--the knowledge and skills of our emerging and future workforce--illustrates the failure of the Republican agenda. It reveals that Republicans are willing to destroy the single most important factor that will determine the success of our Nation's future economic viability--educational opportunity. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that their package of spending cuts and tax changes is proof that they are serious about eliminating the deficit. I welcome this expression of fiscal responsibility, if it is genuine; I only wish we heard such oratory in the Reagan-Bush years, when supplyside, trickle-down policies created the fiscal debt we find ourselves in today. But the fact that my colleagues are pondering a massive tax cut for the wealthy at the same time they are proposing massive reductions in social expenditures reveals more about the majority's priorities than their newfound demands for fiscal responsibility. Even if we accept the claim that their priority is not to benefit the rich but to eliminate the deficit, it is obvious that their strategy is fatally flawed. For the proposed education cuts will profoundly affect our future economic viability and our ability to compete internationally. Reducing investment in education, which is already low, will inevitably limit economic growth and undermine the standard of living of middle-class Americans in the twenty-first century. And it will close the window of opportunity for the economically disadvantaged among us who are pursuing the American dream. Mr. President, reducing our commitment to an educated, skilled workforce in the name of deficit reduction is short-sighted and terribly misguided. As this country struggles to find its way in a global marketplace dominated by cheap foreign labor and high technology, withdrawing our investment in education is economic suicide. This budget proves that Republicans are more committed to protecting the interests of the haves than in accommodating the aspirations of the vast majority of Americans who want only to improve the quality of their lives through education. Mr. President, nowhere does the impact of the proposed cuts in education fall more heavily than on two areas, Head Start and Student Loans. impact on head start The resolution reported by the Budget Committee proposes cutting Head Start by $600 million in 1996 and $3 billion over the next 7 years. This means that as many as 100,000 children would be denied the opportunity to utilize the program and to be appropriately prepared for school. Mr. President, it has been fashionable of late to criticize many of the Great Society Programs that were established in the 1960's; some of this criticism is justified. But at least one program, Project Head Start, has consistently received praise for its work. Since its inception in 1965, the program has helped 14 million underprivileged children prepare for school. And this year, Head Start will serve approximately 740,000 kids, roughly a third of all poor children aged 3 to 4. Why is this program so important? Well, statistics demonstrate that children who enter the program score higher than comparable non-Head Start kids in pre-school achievement tests for cognitive abilities; they perform equal to or better than their peers when they enter regular school, and, they experience fewer grade retention and special class placements. Reports also indicate that Head Start has had a positive impact on children's motivation, self-esteem, socialization, and social maturity. In addition, the studies show that participation in the program resulted in lower absenteeism and better health. Head Start has even had a positive impact on the attitudes of parents toward their children and an improvement in their employment and education status. But statistics and reports aside, I think that all of us who are parents understand from personal experience why the Head Start concept works. It is simply this: During the preschool years, children undergo an accelerated phase of learning which is never again duplicated. The rapidity of a child's development is truly amazing. Seemingly, in the blink of an eye, kids are running when they were once crawling, feeding themselves when they were once fed, arguing when they were once crying. They learn to drink milk from a glass rather than a bottle; they begin to use spoons and forks instead of their hands to eat. They learn the alphabet and how to brush their teeth. They learn what a joke is and how to turn on the TV. If they live in a multilingual household, they become fluent in several different languages. They acquire the rudiments of moral and social behavior. In short, well before they enter school, children have acquired the basic motor skills as well as the mental, social, and emotional attributes that they will build on in later years. However, it is clear that the economic and social circumstances of a child's family have an impact on this crucial, peak learning period. If a child is undernourished, if he does not receive proper health care such as immunization from childhood diseases or treatment for a disability, if he is not exposed to books or proper educational materials, if he lacks parental attention or his mother or father are abusive or otherwise lack parenting skills--all of these factors will probably have an adverse effect on his ability to socialize and acquire appropriate knowledge and skills. And once a child has been handicapped in this way, it will be difficult if not impossible for him to catch up with his peers. Head Start's comprehensive approach to child development, which involves education, physical and mental healthcare, nutrition, parental involvement, and social services, has proven to be an effective method of breaking the cycle of poverty that has helped millions of disadvantaged children and has given them the opportunity to achieve their full potential, which in turn has had a salutary effect on our economic well-being. Until this year, Republicans appeared to embrace the goals and philosophy of Head Start, working side by side with Democrats to support the program. Indeed, under President Bush, the program received its single largest funding increase. And only last year, Head Start was reauthorized on a broad bipartisan basis. Yet we are now considering a budget plan that proposes to undermine much of the work of the last 30 years, a plan that balances tax cuts for the wealthy against the future of disadvantaged children, and finds the children wanting. How is it, Mr. President, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can tell us with straight faces that this budget plan is good for the country? How can it be good for America to take away a resource that has the potential to help a hundred thousand poor children grow up to be productive, educated citizens? This is a question that Republicans have yet to answer. reductions in student aid Mr. President, on the other end of the educational spectrum, the budget measure calls for reductions of as much as $20 billion in higher education aid over the next 7 years. Of this amount, $14.5 billion in cuts would be in Student Loan Program cutbacks alone, mostly in the form of eliminating the in-school interest exemption for 4.5 million student who receive Stafford loans. I have been told that this represents the single largest reduction in student financial aid in history. [[Page S7114]] Again, I believe this is a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach that will save us money in the short term but will cause us grief in the long run. Unlike other education programs which are largely financed by the States, postsecondary student aid programs account for 75 percent of all available student aid, $31.4 billion of a total of $42 billion during fiscal year 1994. Thus, education cuts of the magnitude contemplated by the pending measure would have a disproportionate impact on these programs. Mr. President, if the in-school interest exemption is eliminated, the individual indebtedness of Stafford loan recipients could rise to more than $3,000 for undergraduates and thousands of dollars more for those who pursue advanced degrees. In fact, it could increase the total cost of college for students and their families by 20 to 50 percent, depending on the amount borrowed and the length of time a student is in school. According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, this would mean an additional debt burden of $12 million over 5 years for the 4,900 Stafford loan borrowers in my own State of Hawaii. Here, in the District of Columbia, the debt would increase by $186 million. And, in California, the total 5-year debt incurred by students would rise by more than a billion dollars. Mr. President, this is an outrage. Student aid now will be less affordable to lower- or middle-income students, especially when one considers the proposed reductions in the constellation of other student aid programs, including campus-based aid and Pell grants. If this budget is implemented, students of modest means may have to forgo a college education; others who are fortunate enough to achieve their baccalaureates may have to forgo their dreams of pursuing graduate study. And those students who exit college in the future will be saddled with huge debt burdens at the time when they are least likely to be able to afford payments. All of this means that our future workforce is likely to be less educated, less productive, and less well off. This in turn will reduce the Nation's taxbase, placing further upward pressure on the deficit, exactly the opposite effect from the stated purpose of this budget plan. conclusion Mr. President, I have touched on only two areas--Head Start and student loans--that will be impacted by the proposed budget plan. But, as I have indicated, the GOP budget calls for nearly $100 million in total education cuts by the year 2002. This includes cuts in many other important programs, such as GOALS 2000, Title I, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Special Education, and School-to-Work initiatives. This wholesale disinvestment in our most important resource, our young people, is not merely shortsighted, it is blind. Blind to the imperatives of the new global marketplace, blind to the effect that cuts in education will have on our ability to prosper in an increasingly complex world, and blind to the effect it will have on our deficit. But competitiveness, economic viability, and individual opportunity will not be the only victims of the proposed cutbacks in education. Our sense of civil community, of history, of tolerance, the ability to conduct informed, rational discourse--these are also the potential victims of this harsh and ill-conceived budget plan. For education is not just about making enough to feed the kids or to buy a new car or to own a home--it is also about preparing ourselves to carry out the multiple responsibilities of citizenship in the world's oldest and greatest republic. Mr. President, no sane nation embraces ignorance. Yet, this is what the proposed resolution would have us do. I urge my colleagues to reject this war on knowledge by opposing the cuts in education contained in this measure that threaten our future.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want to say good morning to my friend who is now presiding, Senator Inhofe, from Oklahoma, and wish him a good day. I am here to express some of my concerns about some parts of the budget, and particularly Medicare and Veterans' Administration health care programs. Mr. President, earlier this week the Republican-controlled Budget Committees unveiled their 7-year budget resolutions. The House resolution provides a generous tax cut for wealthy Americans. The Senate resolution would allow not one, but two tax cut proposals. The first would be $170 billion in tax cuts once the Congressional Budget Office certifies that the savings from cutting Medicare, education, VA health care, and the other programs targeted for reductions are, in fact, achieved. Further tax cuts would be permitted if the budget is reduced by an amount that is greater than the reductions already proposed by the Senate budget resolution. We can clearly see that Republicans in the House and Senate have laid the foundation for implementing the tax proposals outlined in the Contract With America. To pay for their tax cuts they must reduce programs that help working families and the elderly. The Senate budget resolution proposes a $256 billion cut in Medicare spending over 7 years, but provides no guidelines on how these savings will be achieved. This will be the largest Medicare cut in history, and the impact on beneficiaries and providers will be very painful. If Medicare cuts of this magnitude are approved, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that senior citizen's out-of-pocket expenses will increase by $900 a year, or a total of $3,500 over the 7 years. Eighty-three percent of Medicare benefits go to beneficiaries with incomes under $25,000. It is obvious who will be hurt by these cuts. Our Nation's low-income elderly, who can least afford it, will bear the brunt of the Medicare cuts. In addition, cuts to providers will have serious ramifications on health care costs since they are passed along to other health care consumers. Provider cuts could have a devastating impact on urban hospitals which already bear a disproportionate share of the Nation's growing burden of uncompensated care. Reductions in Medicare payments will also endanger access to care in rural areas. Nearly 10 million Medicare beneficiaries--25 percent of the total Medicare population-- live in rural areas. There is often only a single hospital in their county. Significant cuts in Medicare may force rural hospitals to close or cause more providers to refuse to treat Medicare beneficiaries. The Senate Budget Committee was given the opportunity to restore the cuts in Medicare funding. Two amendments were offered to scrap the tax cut for the rich in order to fund Medicare. Unfortunately, they were rejected on party-line votes. This massive cut in Medicare funding would not be necessary if the majority abandoned their tax cut for the wealthy. Under the Republican plan, the wealthy will gain while our elderly population suffers more pain. Instead of cutting Medicare, we must work to ensure that any effort to maintain the solvency of the Medicare trust fund does not put Medicare beneficiaries at risk. And, we must protect the program for future enrollees. This problem can and should be solved in the context of health care reform. I recognize the critical need to ensure long-term stability in the Medicare Program and I support efforts to balance our budget. However, I am opposed to arbitrarily cutting Medicare to finance a tax break for wealthy Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these important issues. Just as health care benefits are being cut for our senior citizens dependent on Medicare, the freeze proposed on veterans health care programs would be equally devastating for our elderly veterans. At first glance, the majority budget seems to have little impact on veterans health care programs. The chairman's mark shields the Veterans Health Administration from cuts, and freezes funding at the 1995 level. However, if you examine the long-term impact of the proposal, you find that the proposed freeze will have a debilitating effect on health care provided to our Nation's veterans. The budget resolution contains only half of the annual cost-of-living adjustments [COLA], so the Veterans' Administration must absorb the remainder of the increase from a budget that is already being held flat. This will mean that fewer resources will be available to veterans seeking access to veteran health care programs. In fiscal year 1996, the majority's proposal will cut $640 million from the Veterans Health Administration's budget compared to the President's budget request. The options to cope with this cut include the elimination of 8,200 health care providers and support staff or closing Veterans Administration Medical Centers [VAMC] to achieve a total reduction of 1,500 patient beds. In terms of direct care services, 57,000 inpatient and 1,300,000 outpatient visits for 142,000 patients would be foregone in fiscal year 1996 under the Republican proposal. Under their proposal, by the year 2002, 53,000 full-time-equivalent positions would be eliminated or 35 Veterans' Administration medical centers would have to be closed. Over a 7-year period, one-fourth of the current medical care positions would have to be eliminated and 35 of the 159 Veterans' Administration medical centers currently serving veterans across the country would be closed if the Republican proposal is implemented. Health care facilities and personnel are not the only areas which will be affected by the majority's proposal. Medical research within the Veterans' Administration would also be frozen at the fiscal year 1995 appropriation level. This will significantly impact the specialized services the Veterans' Administration provides, including spinal cord and prosthetics research. In fiscal year 1996, over 150 projects would have to be terminated to meet the budget constraints imposed by the majority. The cumulative impact for Veterans Health Administration services over 7 years would decimate the Veterans' Administration health care system as we know it. By the year 2002, the Veterans Health Administration budget would have lost $20.6 billion over 7 years. Over 1.5 million inpatient and 34 [[Page S6845]] million outpatient visits for 3.7 million patients would have been denied under the majority's budget blueprint, and we will have turned our backs on the majority of those who so valiantly served this Nation. Mr. President, this has been our findings in reading through the budget proposal that will be presented today to the Senate. The majority's budget proposals for cuts to Medicare and freezing Veterans' Administration health care programs are simply, in my eyes and in my heart, unacceptable. You cannot single out health care for one segment of the population for cuts without serious consequences. The senior citizens of today, the veterans of today, should not have the rugs pulled out from under them. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject these unwise proposals. I yield the remainder of my time.

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, earlier this week House and Senate Republicans unveiled their respective 7-year budget resolutions. The promise of the House resolution--a balanced budget by the year 2002 and tax cuts for wealthy Americans--is being championed by several prominent Senate Republicans. Although the Senate budget resolution contains a Boxer amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that 90 percent of the benefits of potential tax cuts go to the middle class, I have every expectation that the Republican bill will be a windfall for the wealthy. Moreover, the details on how the savings would be achieved are sketchy and are left for authorizing and appropriating committees. The Senate Budget Committee resolution assumes a $256 billion cut in Medicare spending over 7 years, but provides no guidelines to the Senate Finance Committee on how these savings will be achieved. This proposed cut is by far the largest Medicare cut in history, 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 expenses will increase by $900 a year or a total of $3,500 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, yet the budget remains silent on how it will be done. In addition, cuts to providers would have serious ramifications on overall health care costs as cuts in provider reimbursement are often passed along 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. These 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. There is often 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. I was appalled to hear that during markup of the resolution, the Senate Budget Committee, on a party-line vote, rejected two proposals to restore funding to Medicare in lieu of providing tax cuts. Obviously, this massive cut in Medicare funding would be unnecessary if Republicans did not have to pay for a tax cut for wealthy citizens. We must work to ensure that any effort to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund does not put Medicare beneficiaries at risk. And we must protect the program for future enrollees. I support President Clinton's view that the Medicare trust fund must be resolved in the context of health care reform. Mr. President, without comprehensive health care reform, significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will seriously harm beneficiaries and the total health care system as costs will be shifted onto families and businesses. Only by focusing on the entire health care delivery system will be able to address issues within Medicare and preserve access for Medicare beneficiaries and underserved populations. Let me close on this point. While we have heard Members on the other side of the aisle promise to protect Social Security, the GOP budget reaches balance by the year 2002, only by including the Social Security trust funds in the budget calculations. 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. I look forward to working with my colleagues on addressing these important issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in behalf of myself and Senator Rockefeller, I am offering legislation today that would make certain improvements, largely technical in nature, to provisions affecting minority and women veterans that were enacted as part of an omnibus veterans benefits measure (Public Law 103-446) late last year. As my colleagues recall, among other initiatives, Public Law 103-446 established within the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] a Center for Minority Veterans, a Center for Women Veterans, and an Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. These provisions were adopted in order to ensure that VA appropriately addresses the special needs and concerns of veterans who are women or members of minority groups. The measure we are introducing today would make the following modifications to these initiatives: First, it would allow the directors of the Center for Minority Veterans and the Center for Women Veterans to have either career or noncareer status. Under the legislation adopted last year, both directors are required to be noncareer appointees. As the Senate sponsor of the legislation that led to the establishment of the two Centers, I had wanted the Secretary to retain the discretion to appoint either career or noncareer individuals to these jobs and believed that there was agreement on this approach with our colleagues in the House. Unfortunately, the career alternative was not included in the final legislation. The provision in the bill we are introducing today would restore that option so that the Secretary will have the option to appoint directors with career status so as to be able to consider the widest possible field of qualified candidates. Second, it would add an additional function to the list of statutory functions of the Center for Minority Veterans. Specifically, our legislation would require the center to advise the Secretary of the effectiveness of VA's efforts to include minority groups in clinical research and on the particular health conditions affecting the health of minority group members. This provision is consistent with the goals set forth in section 492B of the Public Health Service Act. The Center for Women Veterans is already mandated by law to carry out a similar function with respect to the health of women veterans. Third, it would explicitly require that the Center for Minority Veterans provide support and administrative services to the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. This provision is consistent with the traditional agency role of providing professional and technical support to advisory entities. Again, this provision parallels existing law requiring that the Center for Women Veterans provide support to the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. Fourth, it would define the minority veterans for whom the Center for Minority Veterans has responsibility. Specifically, minority veterans are defined as individuals who are Asian-American, black, Hispanic, Native American--including American Indian, Alaskan native, and Native Hawaiian--and Pacific-Islander-American. This definition is identical to the definition included in current law with respect to the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. Fifth, it would extend the termination date of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans an additional 2 years, from December 31, 1997, to December 31, 1999. This provision is necessary because delays in establishing the Advisory Committee have reduced its potential working life to significantly less than the 3 years authorized by Congress. Extending the life of the Advisory Committee to December 1999 is not unreasonable, given that all other statutory VA advisory boards, including the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, Disabilities Programs, are authorized permanently. Finally, our bill would give the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans and the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the respective activities of the Center for Minority Veterans and the Center for Women Veterans. Insofar as the Advisory Committees were established to oversee all of the activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to minorities and women, they necessarily should be tasked with overseeing the work of the very offices that are chiefly responsible for ensuring that the special needs of minority and female veterans are accommodated by VA. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Noxious Weed Control Improvement Act of 1995. Senators Campbell and Dorgan have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. The objective of this legislation is to curb the wave of noxious weeds that is sweeping over productive rangeland, agricultural land, and native ecosystems across America. I hope my colleagues saw the article on invasive alien species that appeared in the New York Times magazine last November. It vividly described the threats to the tropical ecosystems of Hawaii posed by nonindigenous species. In Hawaii, gorse, ivy gourd, and the banana poka vine are ravaging native forest and rangeland. But Hawaii is not alone in facing this threat. Nearly 200 species of troublesome imported weeds infest the continental United States. We see evidence of this problem within a few miles of the Capitol. Drive to the edge of the Potomac or through Rock Creek Park and you will see impenetrable mats of hydrilla and honeysuckle. Another weed, kudzu, topples grown trees and smothers shrubs and plants. In New England, Oriental bittersweet and porcelain berry vine cause similar damage. Purple loosestrife has decimated wetlands across the country from Maine to Washington. Leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, cheatgrass, thistle, salt cedar, and Medusa-head cover millions of acres of grasslands in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. All of these weeds are foreign to the United States. Some are toxic to livestock. Others are heavy consumers of water, or fuel forest and rangeland fires. These weeds ruin the grasslands for birds, elk, and grizzly bears. In Montana alone, cattlemen suffer millions of dollars of forage losses due to spotted knapweed. At its current rate of spread, Montana's projected losses due to spotted knapweed could exceed $100 million by the year 2000. Another weed, leafy spurge, occupies over 2.5 million acres in 30 States. Nationwide, $100 million in direct and indirect losses to livestock are attributable to leafy spurge. The cost of weed control and losses due to weed infestation are estimated at over $20 billion per year, more than the combined losses for all other pests. Nearly 16 million acres of Federal land are infested with noxious weeds. On Bureau of Land Management lands, weed infestation expands at a rate of 2,000 acres per day. If current trends continue, a quarter of BLM lands in the continental United States could be overrun with weeds by the turn of the century. At least one hundred of our national parks face serious harm to their natural resources as a result of invasive foreign plants. Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve are overrun by the Australian melaleuca tree. More than 400,000 acres of the everglades are infested by this tree, and 50 additional acres are consumed each day. Wildlife habitat and water supplies are also threatened by maleleuca in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Another tree, the Brazilian pepper, is crowding out the mangroves along Florida's southwestern coast. Both of these alien trees make habitat unsuitable for native water birds. Competition from 25 exotic plants threatens the habitat of rare plants in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Among the damaging species are stink tree, multi-flora rose, and an imported grass with a scientific name I won't even attempt to pronounce. River margins and rare desert springs in the beautiful slickrock parks of Utah, including Canyonlands and Zion National Parks, as well as in Death Valley National Park, have become overgrown with tamarisk, a tree which literally sucks the water out of the ground, depriving wildlife and native plants of precious water supplies. Efforts to safeguard private and public land from these threats are grossly inadequate. In 1993, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment called U.S. efforts to counter the effects of invasive exotic species ``a largely uncoordinated patchwork of laws, regulations, policies, and programs.'' The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for preventing noxious weeds from entering the country either accidentally or as intentional imports, as well as for spearheading control efforts for those noxious weeds that have already become established. However, the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 has not been an effective tool to address this problem. Under current law, the Secretary of Agriculture must wait until a weed is an established, documented nuisance before action can be taken. That's like waiting until the cows have run away before you close the barn door. For example, tropical soda apple, a plant in the nightshade family, was introduced from Brazil into pastures in Florida. It was first observed in 1987 and now occupies more than 400,000 acres in Florida. Although cattle cannot eat the plant because of its sharp spines, seeds from this invasive weed easily contaminate hay and other forages. Tropical soda apple presents a particularly difficult control problem because seeds are passed through cattle manure. In Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, more than 20 outbreaks have been linked to cattle purchased in Florida. Tropical soda apple can also be transported in commercially packaged manure used for gardening. Despite the danger and the relative ease of dealing with the original infestation, it took the U.S. Department of Agriculture 8 years to declare it a noxious weed. During that time, the problem has become so widespread that containment may be beyond hope. To correct weaknesses in the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, my bill would grant emergency authority to prohibit the entry of foreign weeds that have not been formally added to the Federal noxious weed list. Weeds could also be added to the list through a petition process. Also, the bill would prohibit the international movement of Federal noxious weeds across State lines except under permit. Finally, this legislation would establish a Noxious Weed Technical Advisory Group to evaluate weed species, develop appropriate classification criteria for noxious weeds, and make recommendations to implement the act. As the hearings that I chaired during the 103d Congress clearly demonstrated, the lack of coordination between Federal agencies that are responsible for the control of alien weeds is a serious problem. Twenty-four Federal agencies located in 8 different Cabinet departments have responsibility for pest control. They enforce more than an dozen major laws, and a host of minor ones. With so many statutes and so many agencies, Federal policy resembles a piece of swiss cheese, and noxious, foreign pests are streaming through the holes in policy and enforcement. Hawaii and other States suffer the consequences of piecemeal Federal enforcement. I ask my colleagues to support the prompt passage of this bill. I hope that we can consider this legislation as part of the 1995 farm bill. All of our constituents will benefit from a stronger and more secure foundation for agriculture and conservation of our natural resources. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Federal Noxious Weed Control Improvement Act of 1995 be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. It is an a amendment that has been agreed to on both sides. I have spoken with Chairman Specter and he agrees with this amendment. By unanimous consent, I wanted to offer the amendment.

Mr. AKAKA. I will take 2 minutes.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the leadership, and I thank my friend, Chairman Specter, for including it in his manager's report. I have an amendment, which will be in the chairman's report, and it would restore partial funding for the $7.9 million rescinded from the Demonstration Partnership Program. My hope is this amendment is agreeable and that it will receive the support of my colleagues. The DPP, administered by the Office of Community Services in the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services, has a highly successful record of employing innovative approaches to increase self-sufficiency for the poor. The program provides grants to community action agencies and other eligible entities of the community services block grant. The objectives of the DPP are to develop tests and evaluate new approaches for overcoming poverty, as well as to disseminate project results and evaluation findings so that successful programs can be replicated elsewhere. I also want to inform my colleagues that there is agreement to offsets for this $3 million, and there is agreement by the staff on both sides of the Appropriations Committee. Therefore, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment and thank Chairman Specter for including it in his report. I yield back any time remaining. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA. If it is in order, I would like to propose an amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act. Our bill is virtually identical to the bill which the Senate Agriculture Committee reported to the floor last year. More than 50 Senators cosponsored last year's legislation, but like many bills during the 103d Congress, we did not take final action before Congress adjourned. This bill is much more than a simple reauthorization of an expiring law. It will stimulate one of the fastest growing components of agriculture in the United States. The bill promotes policies which will allow our country to become more competitive in the expanding global market for aquaculture products. The National Aquaculture Development, Research, and Promotion Act can serve as a road map for America's future success in aquaculture. This legislation addresses some of the most pressing needs of aquaculture farmers, such as research, credit assistance, production and market data, conservation assistance, and better coordination among Federal agencies. But the bill can best be summarized in a simple, three word statement: aquaculture is agriculture. For too long, aquaculture farmers have suffered because of the absence of a consistent Federal policy to promote this important sector of agriculture. Aquaculture has also been limited by an inability to fully participate in many of the farm programs available to dry-land agriculture. The time has come for the Federal Government to recognize that just because the crop you harvest has fins and gills instead of hoofs and horns, it is still agriculture and you deserve to be treated just like any other farmer who works hard for a living. The world market for aquaculture is vast, and the United States is well-equipped to become a leader in aquaculture production and technology. Supported by a national commitment, American farmers have developed the most productive terrestrial agriculture system on earth. A similar effort is needed to help the United States increase its share of the rapidly expanding market for aquaculture products. Such a national commitment is essential to the future success of aquaculture in the United States. America has the finest research institutions in the world. We simply need to redirect some of our research energy toward new, promising technologies like aquaculture. Efforts to expand the U.S. aquaculture industry will not go unrewarded. The United States imports 60 percent of its fish and shellfish, seafood. If we could reduce our seafood trade deficit by one-third through expanded aquaculture production, we would create 25,000 new jobs. That is what this aquaculture bill is about--creating jobs and putting Americans to work in new, promising industries. By the year 2000, nearly one-quarter of global seafood consumption will come from fish farming. In order to keep pace with the rising demand for seafood, world aquaculture production must double by the end of this decade and increase sevenfold in the next 35 years. This estimate is based on current population projections and assumes a stable wild fishery harvest. The important question is whether U.S. aquaculture will share in this explosive growth. Aquaculture is a diverse industry that affects all regions of the country. More than 30 States produce at least two dozen commercially important aquaculture species. Yet it is disturbing that the United States ranks 10th among nations in the value of its production. China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, Norway, Thailand, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union, all enjoy a larger share of the global aquaculture market. As we work to resolve this problem with our balance of trade, aquaculture can be part of the solution. Nowhere is the opportunity for aquaculture more promising than in Hawaii. We have a skilled labor force, access to Asian and North American markets, and a climate that permits harvesting throughout the year. Aquaculture can strengthen our employment base and help fill the gaps caused by the decline in sugar. Aquaculture farming is capable of supporting more jobs per acre than plantation agriculture, and these are usually high-wage and high-technology jobs. With the right encouragement, aquaculture can become a cornerstone of diversified agriculture in Hawaii. More than 100 Hawaiian production and service businesses generate annual aquaculture sales of $25 million from the production of 35 different aquaculture species. Over the last 15 years, the State has spent $15.7 million to grow our aquaculture industry. This investment has helped generate cumulative revenues of $315.9 million during the period. The industry in Hawaii, like many other regions in the United States, is poised to increase production, sales revenues, and generate new employment opportunities. However, the legislation I have introduced today was not designed merely to promote aquaculture in Hawaii. The bill was drafted with one basic principle in mind; namely, to assist all aquaculture farmers equally. It would be wrong to promote any segment of the industry-- whether it is marine or fresh water aquaculture farming, or a particular species of fish or shellfish--over another. In summary, this bill has the potential to diversify our agricultural base, strengthen rural economies, increase worldwide demand for U.S. agricultural commodities, and thereby reduce the U.S. trade deficit. I hope that we can consider this legislation as part of the 1995 farm bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 678 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Menjin be granted the privilege of the floor while I give a statement regarding the introduction of a bill. Mr. Menjin is a Congressional Fellow in my office.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those of my distinguished colleagues in the Senate to pay tribute to our colleague, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama who announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of this Congress. I too will miss him, not only as a U.S. Senator, but as a very dear friend. The Senate will not be the same without Howell Heflin. He brought the highest dignity, integrity, and diligence to this body along with his unique sense of humor. Mr. President, he is a big man with a big heart; his life is marked with patriotism and service to mankind; clearly Howell Heflin has led an unselfish life dedicated to leading and helping people. He was twice wounded in World War II as a marine captain while leading his troops in battle on Guam. He was awarded two Purple Hearts and the Silver Star for bravery. As a young trial lawyer in Alabama, he was known as one of the best. His reputation as an excellent lawyer led to his eventual election as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. It just made sense that the ``Judge'' would eventually become a member of this distinguished body. As a Member of the Senate, Howell Heflin brought great wisdom, and he used this wisdom for 13 years as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee and for two periods he served as its chairman. He has always fought for what was right for the country and for his constituents in Alabama. Mr. President, people may not agree with Howell Heflin's decisions all the time but they did respect them. Mr. President, I could speak at length about Howell Heflin's many accomplishments. But for myself, I will always cherish the close friendship we have enjoyed over the years. Mr. President, the Senate will never be the same without Howell Heflin. The people of Alabama and the people of this country have benefited from the service of the ``Judge,'' one of the most outstanding Members to have served in this body. I look forward to working with him in the remaining months of the 104th Congress. My wife Millie and I wish both his lovely wife ``Mike'' and Judge Howell all of God's blessings. Mahalo for being such a good and faithful servant. Well done, Judge.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would allow the Department of Defense to provide transportation for children with disabilities seeking medical treatment in the United States. I am pleased that Senator Inouye has joined me in cosponsoring this measure. The Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children in Honolulu currently provides free medical treatment for disabled children. However, many of these children must wait several months before funds are available for them to travel from their homes in the Pacific to Hawaii. As of February 28, 1995, Shriners Hospital had 177 Pacific rim children with disabilities seeking medical treatment. The legislation I am introducing authorizes the Department of Defense to offer transportation, on a space available basis, to a disabled child seeking free medical treatment. The children would come from United States territories, such as American Samoa and Guam, and from countries with historic ties to the United States, including the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Saipan, Palau, Western Samoa, and the Philippines. Providing transportation for disabled children from these Pacific rim countries and territories will enhance the United States relationship with these entities. The goodwill generated by this initiative will contribute to our efforts to be ``good neighbors'' in the Pacific. The cost of this measure would be nominal since transportation would be on a space-available basis. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to make this request. On rollcall No. 124, I voted ``yea''. It was my intention to vote ``nay''. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to rise today to honor, congratulate, and extend my very best wishes and aloha to a dear, and very close friend to me and my family, Mr. Robert J. ``Bobby'' Pfeiffer, on his retirement as Chairman of the Board of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. His life represents a true American success story, a self-made man who started as a deck hand, rose to president of Hawaii's largest navigation company, and later made it to the board room of one of Hawaii's largest corporations. Bobby Pfeiffer will conclude 57 years of exemplary service on March 31, when he resigns as chairman of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (A&B), a Fortune 500 company. Mr. Pfeiffer has a long and distinguished record of contributions to his company, and because of the leadership he has provided, he has been unanimously elected to the post of chairman emeritus. Mr. Pfeiffer has enjoyed a 37-and-a-half year career with A&B, including longer service as CEO than any other individual in the company's 124 year history except John Waterhouse, son-in-law of A&B founder Samuel T. Alexander. Mr. Pfeiffer, who stepped down as A&B's chief executive officer on March 31, 1992, indicated that because he wanted his retirement to be complete, he also wished to leave his current positions as director and chairman of the board of both of A&B's principal subsidiaries, A&B- Hawaii, Inc. and Matson Navigation Company, Inc. the A&B-Hawaii and Matson directors, at their January meetings, unanimously elected him chairman emeritus of those boards as well. Mr. Pfeiffer was Matson CEO longer than anyone except Captain William Matson, who founded the company 112 years ago. Born in Fiji in 1920, Pfeiffer came to Hawaii the following year. He graduated from McKinley High School in 1937 and went to work as a deckhand for the Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., of which he later became president. He served as an officer in the U.S. navy during World War II. Mr. Pfeiffer's career with Alexander and Baldwin began in 1956. He worked for Matcinal Corporation, a Matson subsidiary and a stevedoring and terminal company in the San Francisco Bay area, as vice president and general manager. In 1962 he was promoted to president of Matson Terminals, Inc., another Matson subsidiary. He was appointed Matson president and CEO in 1973; he has served as Matson's chairman continuously since 1979. At Matson, he guided the company through a period of tremendous growth and success and in the process transformed it into one of the world's most efficient, modern ocean transportation companies. Mr. Pfeiffer was named to A&B's board of directors in 1978; he was appointed president of A&B the next year. He assumed the posts of chief executive officer and chairman of the board in 1980. Under his leadership, A&B has grown, modernized, and diversified. Mr. Pfeiffer also earned the company a solid reputation for involvement in philanthropic activities and community affairs, both in Hawaii and California, its two principal places of business. Today, the Alexander and Baldwin Foundation, which he created, has established a level of giving in excess of $1 million a year. Mr. Pfeiffer has served on many corporate, professional and non- profit boards and organizations, often in leadership positions. These include First Hawaiian, Inc.; First Hawaiian Bank; the Conference Board; the Hawaii Business Roundtable; the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii; the American Bureau of Shipping; the Maritime Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences (as chairman); the Containerization & Intermodal Institute; the International Cargo Handling Coordination Association (as chairman); the Propeller Club of the United States, Port of Honolulu (as president) and Port of San Francisco; the National Association of Stevedores (as president); the National Cargo Bureau, Inc.; the Hawaii Maritime Center; the McKinley High School Foundation; the University of Hawaii Foundation (as chairman); the Aloha Council, Boy Scouts of America; the Girl Scout Council of the Pacific; the Pacific Aerospace Museum; and the Research Round Table of the American Heart Association, Alameda County Chapter. Mr. Pfeiffer's community and professional leadership earned him numerous honors. The latest was on January 25th when he received the Charles Reed Bishop Medal from Honolulu's Bishop Museum, which cited his ``leadership and personal example'' in making A&B ``a leader in corporate citizenship *** through its exemplary support of community organizations ***'' In 1986 the Aloha Council of the Boy Scouts of America honored him with its Distinguished Citizen of the Year Award. In 1985 the United Seamen's Service gave him its Admiral of the Ocean Sea award in New York. Mr. Pfeiffer has been granted honorary doctorates by the Marine Maritime Academy, the University of Hawaii, and Hawaii Loa College. Mr. Pfeiffer's professionalism, corporate citizenship, and commitment to the highest standards throughout his career have inspired many. I ask my colleagues to join my wife Millie and me in wishing Bobby Pfeiffer the very best, God's blessing on his retirement, and mahalo for a job well done.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would ensure that all former prisoners of war [POW's] receive outpatient care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Under current law, POW's with service-connected disabilities are entitled to outpatient medical services. However, POW's with less than 30 percent disability may be provided outpatient services at the discretion of VA. This distinction is unfair to many POW's and fails to recognize the trauma and brutality of imprisonment endured by all former POW's. I am pleased to have Senators Craig, Rockefeller, and Campbell join me as original cosponsors of this measure. Mr. President, the need for this legislation is clear. All of America's POW's deserve to be treated equally. Americans would agree that those who served in defense of our Nation and were imprisoned by the enemy deserve special consideration. Some may feel this legislation is unnecessary because VA has been providing outpatient services to POW's. But, when times get tough and funding becomes tight, POW's without service-connected disabilities, or with a lower disability rating, may be denied outpatient care. This is exactly what happened in 1990. Due to budgetary reasons, two midwestern VA medical centers began denying outpatient services to former POW's. Fortunately, through congressional intervention, this policy was reversed and POW's continued to receive ambulatory care. Although we are facing a lean fiscal climate, accountants should not determine whether our POW's receive outpatient care. This bill only seeks to ensure that VA will continue to provide outpatient services at all times to POW's. As of January 1, 1995, there were only 62,676 former U.S. POW's, 94 percent of whom served in World War II. As we observe the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of World War II, this bill provides a fitting tribute to the sacrifices made by POW's on behalf of our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in behalf of myself and Senator Inouye, I am re-introducing today legislation I offered in the previous Congress for the private relief of Richard Motoso Sakakida of Fremont, CA. My bill would require the military to review whether the retired lieutenant colonel deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, or Silver Star for actions related to his service in the Philippines during World War II. Despite many courageous and daring actions he undertook as an Army undercover agent before and during the Japanese occupation of the islands, Colonel Sakakida has never been officially recognized for his service there, largely because much of his work was classified, and therefore unknown, until well after the war. Despite efforts undertaken in his behalf by fellow veterans and Members of Congress to accord him the honors he deserves, the Army has refused to consider his case, citing a statute limiting the Medal of Honor or Distinguished Service Cross to those whose recommendations are received within 2 years of the act justifying the awards, or, in the case of World War II veterans, by 1951. Mr. President, I believe a brief review of Colonel Sakakida's wartime exploits will convince my colleagues of the need to enact this legislation. In March 1941, 9 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Richard Sakakida, the son of Japanese parents who immigrated to Hawaii at the beginning of the century, and another nisei from Hawaii became the first Japanese-Americans recruited to the Army's Counter Intelligence Police [CIP]. This unit would later become the Army Counter Intelligence Corps, or CIC. Sworn in as a sergeant. Sakakida was sent to the Philippines, then an American possession; his mission was to spy on Japanese with possible connections to the Japanese military. There, Sakakida was able to masquerade as a draft evader from Hawaii and talk himself into being admitted to an all-Japanese residential hotel in Manila. Under cover of a prearranged job, and without any prior training or experience, he succeeded in establishing a clandestine intelligence collection operation out of his hotel room. As a measure of the success of his penetration of the Japanese community, Sakakida was even offered a post with the Japanese consulate in Mindanao. The outbreak of war abruptly ended that possibility. Instead of returning to the American side, Sakakida was asked to stay with the Japanese community to continue his work. He relied on sheer resourcefulness to talk his way past unwitting American and Filipino security guards at the gate to the emergency Japanese relocation compound, where Japanese nationals were fact that only a few men were aware of his secret work. In fact, he was eventually arrested on spy charges by the Philippine Constabulary and subjected to punishing interrogation at Bilibid Prison. Throughout the ordeal Sakakida maintained his cover story, as he was later able to do with his Japanese captors. Fortuitously, he was eventually recognized by a Filipino agent who was aware of his undercover status; unfortunately, this also compromised his cover among Philippine authorities. A ruse involving his return to the Japanese compound and unceremonious arrest by American agents was staged in an attempt to maintain his cover in the Japanese community, but the rapid advance of the Japanese Army ended hopes for his return to the Japanese. For the first time since he arrived in the islands, he reentered the American fold. Back in military uniform with the CIP, Sargent Sakakida was tasked with interrogating Japanese civilians and POW's in Manila, Bataan, and Corregidor. He translated Japanese diaries and Bataan, and Corregidor. He translated Japanese diaries and combat documents, prepared propaganda leaflets in Japanese, and called upon the Japanese to surrender in loudspeaker broadcasts. He also monitored Japanese air- ground communications and deciphered enemy codes. At Bataan, he singled out and translated a key captured Japanese document that led to the destruction of a large battalion-size force that was attempting a landing there. It was one of the few, perhaps only, major American battlefield successes in a string of setbacks that led to the downfall of Bataan. When the final surrender of the Philippines became imminent at Corregidor in 1942, General MacArthur ordered Sakakida's evacuation to Australia. In spite of the prospect of certain imprisonment, possible torture, and perhaps execution at the hands of the Japanese, he chose to give up his seat on one of the last escape aircraft to a nisei lawyer. Sakakida was aware that the lawyer had a family and for various reasons would have faced serious reprisals had he been captured. As a result, by his own hand, Sakakida became the only Japanese-American to be captured by the Japanese forces in the Philippines. Sakakida spent 6 months in a Manila prison, where he would be mercilessly interrogated and tortured. His situation was compounded by the fact that, under existing Japanese law, everyone of Japanese ancestry was considered a citizen of the empire; thus, Sakakida was viewed as a traitor. He was strung up by the arms in such a way that his shoulders were literally dislocated. His captors forced water into him, and struck his swollen stomach repeatedly; they also burned his body with lighted cigarettes. Incredibly, through it all, Sakakida would adhere to his story that he was a civilian forced to work for the U.S. Army. After being tortured, Sakakida spent more time in Bilibid Prison, where he underwent more interrogation for alleged treason. When treason charges against him were dropped, he was assigned to work for the Japanese judge advocate of the 14th Army Headquarters, although Japanese counter-intelligence agents continued their attempts to elicit his true identity through trick questions and other stratagems. He took advantage of his position to aid secretly a number of allied prisoners of war who were being held there for trial for attempting to escape; Sakakida smuggled food to them and imaginatively interpreted for them during their trials. One of these men, a naval officer who was later to become an Oklahoma supreme court justice, believes he escaped execution only through Sakakida's intervention and assistance during the trial. During this time, he established contact with the Filipino guerrilla underground, through which he funnelled important Japanese troop and shipping information to MacArthur in Australia. Sakakida's reporting from Manila also contributed to the destruction of a major Japanese task force headed for Davao by American submarines that lay in wait for the convoy. The huge Japanese setback abruptly ended the Japanese advance toward Australia, saving it from an invasion. Sakakida then engineered a daring prison break from Mantinlupa Prison that freed the guerrilla leader Ernest Tupas and 500 of his men. Sakakida himself chose to remain behind in order to continue his intelligence activities from the enemy's midst. Thereafter, Sakakida was able to relay additional tactical information to MacArthur through the guerrillas. After American forces invaded the Philippines, Sakakida escaped from the retreating Japanese forces at Baguio. During a firefight between American and Japanese troops, he suffered shrapnel wounds in the stomach. For the next several months Sakakida wandered alone in the jungle, living off the land, debilitated by his wound. He finally happened upon American troops, whom he eventually convinced of his identity. At that point, he was informed that the war was over. Mr. President, this is a thumbnail sketch of Richard Sakakida's record of service in the Philippines. Naturally, it cannot do justice to the full tale of his courage, daring, sacrifice, and endurance. I have omitted many other incidents that displayed Sakakida's courage and fortitude. In fact, for a variety of reasons, including the secrecy surrounding his intelligence activities, his story has never been told in its entirety until relatively recently. Mr. President, because Sakakida's activities were classified, few were in a position to recommend him for the Medal of Honor or other high award for valor. Much of what we know is largely anecdotal, because circumstances dictated that the presence of any official records would be damaging not only to his personal safety but also to the diplomatic and military efforts of the United States. Now, time has lifted the veil of secrecy, but many of the records of his activities are missing or were never kept; in addition, many witnesses who could have spoken of his exploits were either killed during the war or have since passed away in the period between the end of the war and the vitiation of the official blackout on Sakakida's operations. In spite of this catch-22 situation, I believe that ample evidence exists to support the awarding of the Congressional Medal of Honor to Colonel Sakakida. I believe this especially in view of the fact that the whole of his activities is informed by a supreme consistency, validated by objective events, that only the truth bears. Nevertheless, after Colonel Sakakida's story was publicly revealed several years ago, and his record formally brought to the Army's attention by fellow veterans as well as by my Hawaii colleague, Representative Patsy Mink, the Army's Military Awards Branch refused to consider him for the Medal of Honor. The Army, citing the statute I have referred to earlier, stated that Sakakida's recommendation must have been submitted through official military channels shortly after the end of the war, by 1951. The Army refused to consider the special circumstances surrounding Sakakida's case, namely, that the nature of his intelligence work prevented his story from being appropriately considered prior to the delimiting date. In fact, as I have alluded to before, he was officially enjoined from talking about his intelligence activities during World War II until 1972, more than 20 years after the statutory deadline, when they were declassified and he was no longer bound by his secrecy oath. As a result, Colonel Sakakida's contributions to the allied victory have been overlooked by history and by his country. This is a tragic oversight. Colonel Sakakida has been inducted into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. He has been honored repeatedly by his Japanese-American comrades-in-arms, notably members of the all- Nisei Military Intelligence Service and the 100th Infantry Battalion/ 442d Regimental Combat Team. At least one book, and chapters in many others, has been devoted to his wartime accomplishments. And, he has been awarded four different medals by the Philippine Government, including the Philippine Legion of Honor Award. Thus, it seems that everyone but our own Government has recognized Colonel Sakakida's heroic military service in the Philippines. Indeed, the Army has never accorded Sakakida a single award or commendation for bravery associated with his undercover work in the archipelago. Sakakida's ethnic heritage has had something to do with this slight. While the Army apparently does not keep statistics on the ethnic breakdown of valor awards, one could make the case that Japanese- Americans have been underdecorated with respect to the Medal of Honor. According to the book, ``Nisei: The Quiet Americans,'' by Bill Hosokawa, no Japanese-American had been awarded a Medal of Honor at the end of World War II. It was only when a member of the all-Nisei 100th/ 442d, the most highly decorated military unit in American history made this known to Congress that the medal was awarded posthumously to one of its members. Hosokawa noted that a number of the Japanese-Americans in the 100th/ 442d were recommended for the Medal of Honor, but in each case, somewhere along the line, the request was denied and the lesser, Distinguished Service Cross presented instead. As of the late 1960s, according to Hosokawa, only one other Japanese-American received the Medal of Honor, for his service in the Korean war. I have been unable to find data on Vietnam or post-Vietnam conflicts, which is significant in itself. I have no doubt Nisei like Colonel Sakakida suffered racial prejudice at the onset of hostilities with Japan; the unjust internment of Japanese-Americans is proof enough of this. There have been other allegations of discrimination in the medal awarding process. Apparently, only one black American received the Medal of Honor for World War I service, and that happened only after the Army conducted research to determine if there had been any barriers to black soldiers in the medal recognition process. And, recently, a retired lieutenant colonel who is African-American alleged he was denied the Medal of Honor for his heroics in Korea because of discrimination. The Army has contracted a second study on black winners of the Medal of Honor in World War II that will presumably throw additional light on this sensitive subject. However, I also understand there are no plans to study Asian-Americans or any other ethnic group. In any event, Mr. President, whether Colonel Sakakida is a victim of discrimination, an outdated law, or merely circumstance, his record is compelling enough to warrant formal review. My bill would accomplish this by authorizing the President to award the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, or Silver Star to Colonel Sakakida. The award would be made on the basis of a positive review of his military records by the Secretary of the Army, free of any statutory time restrictions that may pertain to these awards. Let me stress that this bill does not direct the President to award the Medal of Honor to Colonel Sakakida outright, but to do so only if a review of his records determines that he is indeed deserving of the Nation's highest military decoration. This bill has the strong support of the Japanese-American veterans organizations as well as the Japanese-American community at large. I also have a letter of support from the Philippine Embassy for this effort. I ask unanimous consent that these messages of support, as well as a copy of the bill, be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, I do not offer this legislation entirely in Richard Sakakida's behalf. For Richard Sakakida is already amply bestowed with badges of honor--in the scars that deface his body, in the medication he takes to dull the constant pain he suffers from his wounds, and in the silent knowledge that he rendered extraordinary services to the Nation in its time of need. Rather, I offer this legislation in our collective behalf. For, in honoring individuals such as Richard Sakakida, we honor ourselves--by reaffirming the value of the freedoms that men and women like him have sacrificed so much to preserve. In closing, I should note that since I last introduced this bill, Colonel Sakakida has suffered serious health problems. It is therefore important that Congress act with dispatch, if Colonel Sakakida is to be appropriately honored for his courageous actions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill for the relief of the family of Sadae Tamabayashi. In 1941, Mrs. Tamabayashi was the owner of Paradise Clothes Cleaning Shop in Honolulu, HI. On the fateful morning of December 7, she and her family lost everything that they owned. The attack on Pearl Harbor not only had national repercussions, it affected the lives of many individuals as well, especially those who lived in Hawaii at the time. For Sadae Tamabayashi and her family, the bombing was devastating to their livelihood. On the morning of December 7, Paradise Clothes Cleaning Shop was destroyed by fire which started as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent retaliatory shots by U.S. Armed Forces. The entire building and its contents, which included the Tamabayashi's family quarters, were destroyed. The Tamabayashi family attempted to seek compensation through the War Damage Corporation Claims Service Office in 1942. Their efforts were to no avail. Their claim for reparations was denied by the corporation because Mrs. Tamabayashi was a Japanese national. However, Mrs. Tamabayashi was prohibited from becoming a citizen under the Immigration Act of 1924, which excluded persons of Japanese descent. It was not until 1952, 7 years after the end of World War II, that the 1924 Immigration Act was repealed, and Asians were finally given equal citizenship status in this country. The family of Sadae Tamabayashi seeks fair treatment of their mother's losses. I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to bring to a close this sad chapter in the lives of the Tamabayashi family.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may use time from that under Senator Daschle's control.

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

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, last year, Congress spent an enormous amount of time considering health care reform. After the debate came to a close, after all the posturing, speeches, and amendments, we failed to produce a health care bill. The greatest disappointment of the 103d Congress was our failure to enact health care reform. Millions of Americans are without health care, millions more are underinsured, and countless others are only a paycheck away from losing health care coverage. The crisis in our health care system will simply not go away. Thirty-nine million Americans are uninsured. Last year, an additional 1 million Americans lost health insurance. If we don't enact legislation this Congress, the number of uninsured will continue to rise. I commend the Demcratic leader, Senator Daschle for recognizing this dire need and for leading the U.S. Senate into the crafting of some form of health insurance for the people of America. In Hawaii, we have solved the problems of affordability and access. Hawaii has achieved the American health care dream--near-universal health care coverage for its citizens at a cost that is 25-30 percent below the national average. For 20 years, Hawaii has maintained a model health care system. We have one of the healthiest populations in the Nation. A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Hawaii has one of the lowest infant mortality rates. Deaths from chronic health problems such as cancer, heart disease, and lung disease are also among the lowest in the Nation. Nearly everyone in Hawaii has some form of health insurance, so these life threatening conditions are detected earlier, which reduces premature death and shortens hospital visits. Because our population has ready access to a primary care physician, we use hospital emergency rooms only half as often as other States. There is no reason why the rest of the Nation should settle for anything less than what Hawaii enjoys. Americans do not want a Band-Aid approach to health care reform. They do not want a medisave program or a savings account approach to health care. They want real, tangible health care that gives coverage when they need it. By developing a bipartisan consensus, we can take major steps to contain costs, expand choice, and increase access to care. Hawaii has enjoyed its health care program, and we hope that we can extend this to the rest of the Nation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. AKAKA

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia which seeks to protect our Nation's veterans from the cataclysmic impact of the balanced budget amendment. The bill currently under consideration requires the Federal budget to be balanced each year, beginning in the year 2002. If Congress is unable to balance the budget each year, across-the-board cuts would probably be implemented to meet this balanced budget mandate. If this occurs, veterans programs, especially the Veterans Administration [VA] health care programs, would be decimated. On October 6, 1994, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown testified that an across-the-board cut in veterans programs would result in a decrease of 44,000 VA medical personnel. In addition, 250,000 veterans could no longer be treated at VA hospitals, 5.4 million outpatient visits could not be provided, and many of the VA medical facilities would have to be shut down. Other programs, including treatment of Persian Gulf veterans and veterans with PTSD, would not be receiving the level of quality care they currently receive. Thousands of veterans who are leaving the services due to the reductions and budgetary cut-backs would not be able to receive transitional services, which have been successful in integrating our Nation's veterans back into the civilian work force. More importantly, however, is the devastating impact the effects of the balanced budget amendment would have on our Nation's service- connected disabled veterans. Over 2,000 VA personnel, who counsel veterans and process claims, including service-connected disabilities and pensions, would have to be terminated. The current claims backlog will only escalate without resources, which will directly impact the service-connected benefits entitled to our disabled veterans. Disabled veterans, often times, our most vulnerable citizens who barely live above the poverty level would experience the greatest impact. The balanced budget amendment would result in dramatic decreases in health care service and financial assistance to our service-connected disabled veterans. This would result in many disabled veterans and their survivors to live below the poverty level. Those who were wounded defending our Nation deserve better treatment--they deserve our appreciation and support. We should not be taking away their service-connected benefits in their time of need. We need to balance our budget, however, I do not believe we need a balanced budget amendment to do so. We must make difficult policy decisions to reduce our spending and eliminate our deficit. We should not do so on the backs of our Nation's service-connected veterans. As a cosponsor, I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller amendment. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.