Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the poorest of the poor of this land. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the first Americans of this land, the native American, the Indian. In 1788, our forefathers, the elected representatives of the first nine States of this Union, gathered to ratify and adopt the Constitution of the United States. This noble document has served us for over 200 years. In the first article of this great document is a provision that recognizes the important role and the specific role played by the Federal Government of this United States to carry out obligations that we solemnly promised by treaty and by law. It also recognizes the sovereignty of these people. These were proud people. They numbered at that time in excess of 50 million in North America. Today, I am sorry to say they number less than 3 million. At the moment of the signing of the Constitution, these great people exercised dominion over 550 million acres of land, and we recognized and honored that at that moment. Today, the descendents of these Indians exercise dominion over 50 million acres of land. Because these Indians, who exercise dominion over all these lands--including the land on which we are standing at this moment--we the [[Page S 14600]] people of the United States, because of their granting of title to these lands to us, promised by treaty that as long as the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, we will make certain that their lives will never be placed in jeopardy, that we will provide them with shelter, health, and education. I am sorry to say we have not lived up to these obligations. In fact, our predecessors, the U.S. Senators of the older days, were faced with the ratification of 800 treaties. Of the 800 treaties, our predecessors felt that 430 were not worthy of our consideration. These treaties were signed by the President of the United States, or a proper representative, and signed by the chiefs and great leaders of Indian lands. We said, ``You give us this land, and we will provide you with help.'' Mr. President, 430 are still in the files. The reasons are very simple. After these treaties were ratified and signed by the President and sent to the Senate, they found gold or they found oil or people wanted to settle on their lands. I am happy to say we did ratify some-- 370 of them. History shows that we proceeded to violate provisions in every single one of them. The reasons are easy. Whenever this Nation was confronted with a choice of priorities--what is more important, U.S. attorneys or the plight of the Indians--the Indians always came out at the end. It never failed. That is the history of the United States. So today, instead of owning this land, they have dominion over 50 million acres. Last August, a few weeks ago, it was announced by the Labor Department that the unemployment rate of this land was 5.6 percent; in Indian country, the average is over 40 percent. In some of the reservations, it gets closer to 90 percent. It is a sorry sight, but 13 percent of the families of this land live in poverty below the poverty line; in Indian country, it is 51 percent, half of the families. In most instances, the only legal assistance available in Indian country is through this program, the legal services program. I am not speaking of $340 million. I am not speaking of offsets. I am speaking of $10 million. The Domenici amendment includes $10 million, a program that has paid for the services of 150 lawyers to deal with the problems of Indians throughout this land. There are 33 legal service programs and they service 2 million Indians living on reservations. Without these resources, Mr. President, these tribes and these Indians would have no access to legal assistance. I do not think any of my colleagues would think for a moment that law firms would open up their branches in a Hopi mesa or in some Pueblo Tribe. I cannot think of any law firm opening up their practices in Navajo land. There they are almost always located far away from the urban centers of this country. Lawyers do not find it profitable to go to Indian country; 80 percent are unemployed, 50 percent of the families are below the poverty line-- they cannot pay any lawyers's fee. They have to depend upon legal assistance and legal services program. Mr. President, I rise to support the Domenici amendment because it has the sensitivity to recognize our obligations. It is a small amount, $10 million. I am sorry to say the committee bill does not involve $10 million. I believe a clarification of this point is necessary. The distinguished Senator from Texas noted that this amendment, the committee amendment, was adopted by the subcommittee and adopted by the full committee. Technically, that is correct. In the subcommittee, we were all told, ``Let's not take up matters of controversy.'' That is a practice of the Appropriations Committee. ``Let's not waste our time. Let's not take up matters of controversy. Let's wait until we get to the floor.'' The same thing happens in the full committee. Otherwise, we would still be in that room, S-126, debating this measure. Mr. President, I have no idea, because the votes were not taken, but I have a feeling that if votes had been taken in the full committee, the Domenici amendment would have been adopted. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will not place too much weight upon the statement that this was adopted by the subcommittee and adopted by the full committee. This is where the controversy is debated. This is where the major decisions of the Appropriations Committee are determined. Mr. President, I speak and I rise to support the Domenici amendment. It fulfills our obligations as those who followed our forefathers. I think it is about time we maintain and keep our promises.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may briefly comment on the statement just made, the committee amendment contributes funds to States on the basis of the census. Yes, it does say Indians should get 140 percent more than other Americans. Under the present program, the program that is now in effect at this moment, Indians receive about 5 times what we in Washington, or New York, or Chicago receive. For obvious reasons, Mr. President: 51 percent live in poverty; 80 percent are unemployed. It should be 5 times. If we adopted the committee amendment, it will not be 5 times; it will be less than 2 times. In fact, the present scheme is not sufficient but it is much, much better than what the committee amendment proposes. So I hope my colleagues will support the Domenici amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, to express my concern that by voting for final passage of H.R. 2099, we in the Congress are voting to eliminate funding for the Community Development Financial Institution Fund [CDFI]. The CDFI fund was established in the Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994--an Act which passed the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, this body voted unanimously for the measure, which sought to stimulate community lending and empower local communities by increasing access to credit and investment capital. But Mr. President, I stand before you to offer another perspective on the importance of the CDFI fund, and that is the significant potential it holds for improving the economic conditions in Native American communities. Native American communities face some of the harshest living conditions in this country, leading some to draw comparisons with conditions in Third-World countries. Fifty-one percent of native American families living on reservations live below the poverty line, with unemployment rates on some reservations as high as 80 percent. Moreover, a recent study conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development found that over half of American Indian and Alaska Native families live in substandard housing, compared to the national average of 3 percent; 27 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native households are overcrowded or lack plumbing or kitchen facilities, compared to a national average of 5.4 percent; and approximately 40 percent of Native households were overcrowded, compared to a national average of 5.8 percent. Mr. President, these conditions, under any circumstances, are unacceptable. And it is even more unacceptable that we in the Congress would turn our backs on an innovative program which would stimulate economic activity in these communities by leveraging private sector resources into permanent self-sustaining locally controlled institutions. Each $1 million in the fund would have a substantial impact, and could create 65 to 135 new jobs; provide 100 loans to micro-enterprises and self-employment ventures; assist 20 first-time homebuyers; or construct 20 units of low-income housing. It is my understanding that there are at least 13 Indian controlled financial institutions which would be eligible for assistance from the fund, and an additional 16 tribal entities that have expressed an interest in becoming CDFI's. Earlier this year, I joined Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell and McCain in sponsoring a bill, the Native American Financial Services Organization Act [NAFSO], which emanated from recommendations of the congressionally chartered Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, and from a multi-agency Federal working group with tribal input, and was designed to dovetail with the CDFI fund, with NAFSO serving as a technical assistance provider to a second tier of primary lending institutions, or Native American Financial Institutions. The elimination of funding for the CDFI fund will have devastating ramifications for this NAFSO proposal. Mr. President, I realize full well the climate within which we operate today, and that we in the Congress must exercise great fiscal restraint. And I commend the outstanding efforts of my esteemed colleagues, the chairman of the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Bond, and the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, for producing a bill under these constraints--a bill which attempts in many ways to address the housing needs of Indian country. I only wish to point out that we in the Congress must ever be cognizant of our national responsibilities to the native people of this Nation, and that we must endeavor to improve the conditions under which the vast majority of our Native families live. I feel compelled to take note of the irony that over the last few days, within the context of drastic reductions to funding for Indian tribal governments under the Interior Appropriations bill, that one of the justifications offered for these severe reductions was that tribal governments must become less dependent on Federal resources and more self-sufficient. And yet, today, we are poised to eliminate funding for the Community Development Financial Institution Fund--a fund which could have made tremendous strides in enabling tribal governments to realize greater economic independence. Mr. President, I thank you for this time, and I thank my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, for his leadership on these matters.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the chairman of the full committee and to the Senator from South Carolina for addressing a concern I have been discussing with them for many months, the East-West Center. It is a very important national asset, and I thank them very much. For those not familiar with the East-West Center, it is a world-class American institution dedicated to promoting better understanding and relationships with the countries of Asia and the Pacific. It was created by a bipartisan government 35 years ago that foresaw the need for a better understanding between the United States and the Asia-Pacific region. The importance of the East-West Center is important now more than ever. The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest growing region in the world. Today, over half of the population of the world is in Asia. This region has about 20 percent of the land mass and over 60 percent of the gross product of the world. For every jumbo jet that flies over the Atlantic Ocean, four fly over the Pacific Ocean. Our trade with Asia is four times larger than our trade with Europe. It has become the fastest growing economy. Trade with Asia provides nearly 3 million jobs to Americans and, by the year 2003, our exports to Asia will be more than double those to Europe. I would like to share two concrete examples of the East-West Center's success in the Asia-Pacific. There was a time when our relations with Indonesia were next to nil. Our Ambassador was recalled. There were no exchanges or any formal conversation. Indonesia cut off all ties with the United States. It would not permit any of its citizens to become Fulbright scholars, but it continued to send men and women to the East-West Center. The same thing with Burma. Our relationship with Burma over the years has been hot and cold. At one time, Burma sent our Ambassador home and closed our consulates. But Burma sent students to the East-West Center. It was convinced that this was a unique spot on the globe where men and women could freely discuss issues of the day. The East-West Center now has 42,000 alumni globally; a network of distinguished colleagues in government, business, the media, academia, and the professions. The student degree program, with 4,000 graduates, is a major component of cultural and technical interchange at the Center. As you can see, the East-West Center is a national resource that must be funded at a responsible level. I ask my colleagues to support this national institution.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I seek a few moments in order to seek clarification from my esteemed colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska, with regard to language that is contained in an amendment proposed by my colleague. When the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary met to consider H.R. 2076, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, Senator Stevens proposed an amendment to the amendment proposed by the esteemed chairman of the full committee, Senator Hatfield, relating to the provision of legal services as it affects Native American households.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to express my deep appreciation to my colleague from Alaska for his efforts in this area, and for recognizing that the significant needs for legal assistance in Native American communities span a broad range of issues, from housing and sanitation to health care and education. In my own State of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians comprise less than 13 percent of the population, but represent more than 40 percent of the prison inmate population. Native Hawaiians have twice the unemployment rate of the State's general population and represent 30 percent of the State's recipients of aid to families with dependent children. Over 1,000 Native Hawaiians are homeless, representing 30 percent of the State's homeless population. Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy, the highest death rate, and the highest infant mortality rate of any other group in the State. Moreover, they have the lowest education levels and the highest suicide rate in Hawaii. Mr. President, in my State, we have the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. [NHLC], a nonprofit organization established to provide legal services to Native Hawaiian community. NHLC has a 20 year history of providing exemplary legal assistance to Native Hawaiians, and it has long been affiliated with the Native American Rights Fund. Fifteen percent of NHLC's annual funding comes from the Native American portion of the Legal Services Corporation budget. It is my understanding that the language proposed by my esteemed colleague from Alaska is to ensure the continued provision of legal services to Native Americans that are currently being provided through a separate Native American allocation of the funding provided to the Legal Services Corporation. My question of my colleague from Alaska is whether it is his intent that Native Hawaiians would continue to be eligible to receive funds appropriated for the provision of legal services under your amendment, consistent with the current situation under the Legal Services Corporation?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from Alaska, for clarifying this matter for me. I am certain that the native Hawaiian community will be most appreciative of the Senator's clarification.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Will the Chairman of the Veteran's Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows, starting in fiscal year 1991, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee urged the creation of a new Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation. This was led by our colleague Senator Barbara Mikulski. The subcommittee also was instrumental in encouraging the new NSF Directorate to pursue a program called the Human Capital Initiative, which supports basic behavioral research aimed at some of our most serious national problems--such as education, substance abuse, violence, productivity, problems of aging, health, and others. This year, for fiscal year 1966, the subcommittee has had to make some hard choices among programs to live within their 602(b) allocations. The chairman has been fair and even-handed in his efforts to craft a bill within the spending total available to him. Is it the chairman's intention that this fairness will also carry over when final allocations are made at NSF, and that NSF's programs in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate will receive equitable treatment with other research disciplines?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a very simple, forthright amendment. It calls for the completion of the Spark M. Matsunaga Medical Center in Honolulu. It provides for $38 million. Mr. President, there are 127,600 veterans residing in the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii is one of only two States in our Union without a VA hospital. The other State is the State of Alaska. Per capita spending in the State of Hawaii is the lowest in the Nation. At the same time, Hawaii has the highest ratio of veterans per capita and the highest proportion of disabled veterans over 65 years of age or older. In World War II, the State of Hawaii, which was then a territory, 50 years ago, had more volunteers per capita than any other State or territory of our Union. While serving far fewer veterans, the State of Montana and the State of Wyoming have two VA hospitals apiece. We have more veterans, but we have none; they have less veterans, but they have two apiece. In the case of Wyoming, the veteran population is less than half of the State of Hawaii. South Dakota, with 42,000 fewer veterans than Hawaii, has three VA hospitals. We are still waiting for our first VA hospital. The current system in Hawaii is a fragmented one. It is costly. It is inefficient and places the quality of care rendered to veterans at a great risk. We receive fine service from Tripler Army Hospital, our major military facility in Hawaii. Inpatient care at this great institution is dependent upon space availability. If there is no space, we are the lowest priority. The veterans are the lowest priority, and understandably so. Mr. President, as we downsize our military, that downsizing will also affect Tripler Army Hospital. What does that mean? Fewer beds, fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and with the veterans as the lowest priority, I do not think I need to draw a picture for my colleagues. Today, many of the united hospital services such as cardiology, orthopedics, ophthalmology--severe limitations and restrictions are placed upon veterans in Hawaii. For example, at this moment, VA cardiology and orthopedic patients are evaluated by visiting [[Page S 14227]] Palo Alto, CA, VA physicians. They come around about twice a year. As a result of that evaluation, they are shipped to a facility on the west coast, usually in the State of California. Mr. President, I think all fairness and equity would lead us to conclude that to ask our veterans to undergo long, long, separations from their families 2,500 miles from home is not acceptable. I think all physicians would suggest that from the standpoint of long-term care, that is not acceptable. In 1993, 950 qualified veterans were denied service in Hawaii; in 1994, 1,300 qualified war veterans were denied inpatient service in Hawaii. This year, through the month of May, because of the lack of eligibility and lack of services, 582 war veterans were denied service. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am fully aware of the problems we have. I am fully aware of the budgetary constrictions that we are required to live under. I know that my chairman, the Senator from Missouri and the ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, have done their utmost in their effort to accommodate the veterans of the State of Hawaii. As it is commonly said, one cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. It is not my desire to do that. Reluctantly, I will be withdrawing this amendment with the hope that my colleagues from Missouri and Maryland will sit down and work together with the veterans of Hawaii to see if something can be done. This can be a national disgrace. We have the highest per capita veteran population, the lowest per capita spending, the highest per capita disabled veterans, highest per capita volunteers, and no hospitals. Other States with less than Hawaii have three or two. All we are asking for is one. And the one we are asking for is not a hospital. It is a medical center, which is one grade below a hospital. Mr. President, I hope that my patient colleagues from this subcommittee will join with me in trying to work out a solution for this. I would be glad to do that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to withdraw my amendment.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his very understanding and sensitive response to our concerns. We look forward to working with him to someday come up with a solution that will be mutually acceptable for all of us. But in the meantime, the amendment, I think, will serve our veterans very well.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily society aside.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Maryland for her very sensitive and generous concern. But much as I would be most proud to wear a Congressional Medal of Honor, my medal is one notch below, the Distinguished Service Cross. But I thank my colleague.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention a book written by Mr. Chuck J. Masters entitled, ``Glidermen of Neptune, The American D-Day Glider Attack.'' The book portrays the American soldiers who flew in the ``flying coffins'' of the D-Day invasions of Europe. Unarmed, these gliders carried a brave group of World War II soldiers known as glidermen. One of these brave soldiers was Senate President pro tempore Strom Thurmond. I commend this book to you so you may become better acquainted with Senator Thurmond's contribution to our Nation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, for his leadership and for his wise counsel in sponsoring this amendment. I hope that the Senate will adopt the amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this measure, we should remind ourselves that, first, Indians are sovereign. Second, there is a unique relationship existing between Indian nations and the Federal Government of the United States, a trust relationship. There is no special relationship existing between States and Indian country. The Constitution sets forth this relationship. The Supreme Court has upheld it on numerous occasions. I support the Daschle amendment. I hope we will continue to maintain the unique relationship that exists between Indians and the Federal Government.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it does not give me any pleasure to speak in opposition, because my friend is always eloquent and impressive. But most sincerely, I believe my friend is not correct in this instance. First of all, there is no buildup in the U.S. nuclear forces; 8 years ago, when we began our drawdown, we also retired a few of our submarines. In fact, we retired 50 of them. As a result, 30 Poseidon and Trident I submarines are now in drydock. Second, one would conclude that from this presentation there must be cost savings. This amendment calls for the deletion of $150 million. It is a whole lot of money, but if this amendment is adopted then we will have to add $250 million to close up the production and to provide for replacement parts--$250 million. Is the D-5 necessary? I have a letter dated August 11, 1995, from the Department of the Navy, Secretary of the Navy, and I am going to read the last paragraph: The D-5 missile, currently in production, has greater range, better reliability, much improved accuracy and most importantly, twice the design life of its predecessor, the C- 4, which ceased production in 1987. Even with an aggressive and expensive sustainment program, the C-4 cannot be expected to last the projected life of the submarines which carry them. Therefore, the C-4 will require substantial and costly life extension efforts or replacement by another missile. The most sensible and cost-effective approach to this issue is to continue procurement of D-5 missiles and continue planning for backfit for four submarines. Your continued support is appreciated. John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy. If we end the production, it could also reduce incentives for Russia to implement both START and START II. While there is every indication that START I and START II will ultimately enter into force, I think it is both premature and unwise to make major force structure decisions, such as immediately stopping D-5 missile production. Terminating production of the D-5 at this time will severely degrade the capability of our strategic forces. The D-5 missile provides for better accuracy, as the Secretary stated and, therefore, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support the management of the bill.