Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Barbara Jean Scherb, a member of my staff, be given the privileges of the floor during consideration of this legislation

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I suggest the absence of a quorum?

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. President, speaking in behalf of the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I am happy to report that we have studied this amendment. We find it proper. We accept it.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as one of the managers of this measure, I find this amendment to be most unfortunate. We have not had the opportunity of listening to all of the facts. I have listened very carefully to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I believe all of us should take his sage advice. The committee is about to take up the whole measure of endangered species. This is an appropriations bill, and to have legislation of this sort placed upon it would place the whole measure in jeopardy. I hope we would do something to resolve this matter. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I begin by first commending my distinguished colleague from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hatfield, and my dear friend from Alaska, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, for coming forth with this bill. Difficult decisions had to be made, and they made them. Difficult recommendations have to be made to the Senate, and these recommendations are now being presented. Together they have crafted a bill which balances the needs of the Department of Defense and our committee's desire not to increase the deficit. As the Senator from Alaska indicated, this bill provides $1.9 billion in new appropriations requested by the Department of Defense to cover emergency expenses. However, it is some $600 million less than DOD wanted, but it provides a reasonable amount, considering the committee's goal of offsetting new appropriations with rescissions. But, Mr. President, I think I must inform my colleagues that I am concerned with the guidelines that govern the committee's efforts with this DOD supplemental, and I hope it will not be supplementals. The Budget Enforcement Act requires that, in general, discretionary spending must be constrained to stay within ceilings established in the budget resolution. However, Mr. President, this agreement allows these ceilings to be breached if the President and the Congress agree that these funds are needed to meet emergency requirements. The President submitted his request for DOD funds as an emergency and the House agreed. The House recommended rescissions of $3.2 billion to offset the budget authority it added for DOD so as not to add to the long-term deficit. The Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bill has gone one step further. This bill that we are discussing this moment has dispensed with the emergency designation for the DOD supplemental and, therefore, under Senate rules, the committee must offset both budget authority and outlays recommended in this bill. With this action, I hope that the Senate is not charting a new and hazardous course. The Defense Department does not budget for emergency expenses. On several occasions, the Congress has denied past administrations' requests to establish contingency accounts which could have been used for emergencies and crisis response. The Congress has recommended instead that DOD request supplementals to cover such emergency costs. It has always been anticipated that for expenses necessary to cover emergencies, funds would be added to the current budget, not reallocated from existing resources. In this bill, we are requiring DOD to use its existing resources to cover costs of emergencies. This is contrary to the intent of the budget agreement, and I hope that we are not making a mistake. I am told that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regard this recommendation with grave concern. I do not disagree with the specific rescission recommendations by the committee, though they were difficult to make, because I believe that under the circumstances, they are reasonable and they represent the best options for offsetting the budget authority and outlays contained in the supplemental. However, by rescinding these funds today, there will be few resources available to cover the so-called must-pay bills which we know the Pentagon will face later this year. The Defense Department has already identified nearly $800 million in must-pay bills. It expects this total unfunded requirement to reach about $1 billion. These must-pay bills are not considered emergencies under the terms of the budget agreement. Therefore, they will have to be paid from within available funding. And where is DOD to find these funds if Congress has already rescinded $1.9 billion? Mr. President, I am of the impression that all of us in this body, Democrats and Republicans, are supportive of the need to maintain the readiness of our military forces. By requiring that these unforeseen emergency expenses must be offset, the committee is virtually guaranteeing that when shortfalls occur in other areas of DOD funding, they will have to be made up by cutting readiness spending. Mr. President, I hope I am wrong, but this is a very serious matter. I am greatly concerned that in the future, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs will object to the requests of our civilian leaders to use military forces overseas for crisis response and for emergencies because they believe it will be damaging to the overall readiness of the force. They may realize that if they must pay for these costs out of their own hide, they will have to cut readiness to do so. So I hope that all of us will think hard and long about the decision we are about to make today. I will be supporting this measure, and I do so with a clear conscience, and I will be very proud and happy to say publicly that I rely upon the judgment, the good judgment of my two dear friends from Oregon and Alaska. Mr. President, the chairman of this committee has drafted a good bill under the circumstances, and I look forward to working with him in conference on these issues. Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee brought up a matter which is dear to the hearts of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, the so-called TRP. It should be noted that the House by its action took out $500 million, and though there are many in this body who support the House action, the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee took a courageous stand to say we will cut only $200 million. I know this is not the full amount, but I think under the circumstances it is an amount that we can live with, and so I hope that those who are considering proposing an amendment to restore the funds will think about this because I think the committee made the proper recommendation under the circumstances. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to commend my distinguished colleague from New Mexico for his extraordinary leadership in guiding the TRP policy and program throughout all of these years. I wish to, at this time, provide to my friend from New Mexico my personal assurance that everything possible will be done to maintain the Senate position on this matter. Thank you very much.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs today, in the introduction, for purposes of discussion, of a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Mr. President, the impetus for the amendment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act arose a little under 3 years ago when a number of Governors of the several States called upon the President and the Congress to address the rulings of Federal district courts interpreting the act within the context of various State laws. In response, Chairman McCain and I initiated a dialog involving Governors, attorneys general, and tribal leaders that we hoped would lead to a consensus with regard to the manner in which the act would be amended. Although the dialog did not yield that consensus, it did provide us with considerable guidance in formulating the amendments that we advance today for the consideration of all affected parties. In the interim, there have been a number of rulings from the circuit courts of appeal that have clarified what has become known as the scope-of-gaming issue, and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in litigation raising the issues associated with the 11th amendment and the doctrine of Ex parte Young. Nonetheless, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments Act sets forth a process that does not entail litigation between State and tribal governments. In an effort to address the 10th amendment concerns of the States, the bill we introduce today removes any requirement for good-faith negotiations and provides for tribal-State compacting only if a State elects to engage in negotiations leading to a compact. As Chairman McCain has indicated, the 1995 Amendments Act provides authority for the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the regulation of Indian gaming, including background investigations, internal control and licensing standards. The States and the tribes would participate in the development of recommendations of these standards through an advisory committee, and the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission would hold hearings on those recommendations and promulgate regulations. It is in the capacity of assuring compliance with minimum Federal standards that the Commission will have a greater role to play in the area of class III gaming. This is a matter that I believe bears some emphasis. Under existing law, the National Indian Gaming Commission's responsibilities lie primarily in the area of class II gaming. Class III gaming is regulated by the State and tribal governments. Thus, when comparisons are made by some between the regulatory capacity of Nevada or Atlantic City to the regulatory authority of the National Indian Gaming Commission, they are comparing two regulatory systems that oversee those activities that are typically associated with large casino operations with a regulatory system that is designed to monitor tribal regulation of bingo halls. I would hope that as the debate in the Congress on matters of Indian gaming proceeds, this stark disparity in the type of operation being regulated will not be lost. Finally, in an effort to address the constitutional concerns associated with the Interior Secretary's authority to take land into trust for gaming purposes, the bill authorizes the Secretary to consult with the Governor of the State in which the land is located. Chairman McCain and I wrote to all parties in December of last year to advise them of our intent to introduce a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act early in the 104th session of the Congress, and to request their comments on the substitute amendment to S. 2230, a bill we introduced in the 103d session of the Congress. The National Governors Association [NGA] requested that we delay introduction of a new measure, and we indicated that we would delay introduction until March. Unfortunately, at the scheduled time of introduction, the committee has not had the benefit of the Governors' views on these matters--and so the bill we introduce today is substantially lacking in that respect. However, as Chairman McCain has indicated, we look forward to working with all of the affected governments--Federal, State, and tribal--in the further refinement of this measure. In conclusion, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs for his kind comments, and to commend him on his leadership of the committee in the 104th session of the Congress.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act. I am joined by Senator Hatfield, Cochair of the FDR Memorial Commission, Senators Levin and D'Amato, FDR Memorial Commissioners, and Senators Akaka, Cochran, Dodd, Grassley, Hatch, Heflin, Hollings, Kennedy, Mikulski, Moynihan, Robb, and Simon. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Commemorative Coin Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 500,000 half dollar silver coins bearing the likeness of our great leader, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in the year 1997, to celebrate the public opening of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial in Washington, DC. A surcharge of $3 will be applied to each coin. Proceeds from the sale of the coin will be used to finance the construction of the memorial. In 1992, the Congress mandated the FDR Memorial Commission to raise $10 million in private funds to supplement the Federal appropriations for the memorial. The American people are deeply indebted to Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his leadership in America's struggle for peace, well-being, and the assurance of human dignity. Personally, I will never forget the pride I felt in looking to President Roosevelt as my Commander in Chief as he led us in the worldwide struggle for freedom during World War II. All Americans enjoy more secure lives and a higher standard of living because of this great President. The Civilian Conservation Corps helped restore America's forests and land; the National Rural Electric Cooperative gave farmers a decent life; the Federal Highway Program developed a national system upon which the automobile and the trucking industries depend; the Works Progress Administration built schools and hospitals throughout the country and every American who receives Social Security owes a debt of gratitude to President Roosevelt. The commemorative coin will do more than honor one of our greatest Americans; it will also help ensure that an extraordinary era of our Nation's history will live on as a legacy for future generations. I want to assure my colleagues that this bill will not place any burden on the American taxpayer. The profits generated by the sale of this coin will cover all costs incurred by the Department of the Treasury. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which will honor one of America's greatest Presidents by establishing a magnificent and historic national memorial in our Nation's Capital. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from California is deserving of most serious consideration because nature's work and God's work are unpredictable, for one thing. In the case of Hurricane Iniki, if that hurricane had proceeded just one-quarter of a degree to the west, it would have devastated the city of Honolulu. And the cost of that would have been astronomical. It would not have been $1 billion, $2 billion, or even $3 billion. It would have exceeded $50 billion. To suggest that this is not an unusual cost item would seem rather strange. Thank you very much.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, even though technical correction bills are ordinarily not drafted until late each session of Congress, I cosponsor a bill, introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator John McCain of Arizona, to make a one word technical correction to the Indian title in the Improving America's Schools Act. I do so because the Department of Education is now drafting regulations to implement new provisions of the Indian Education Act, and unless corrected promptly, the program for Indian children will be limited in ways that the 103d Congress did not intend. Let me provide a context for the technical correction to Public Law 103-382 that would be accomplished by enactment of this bill. Among other things, the Indian Education Act provides for formula grants to schools to enable them to operate small supplemental programs for Indian children. In its version of the reauthorization, the House of Representatives would have required that a school have 20 Indian children or that the Indian children make up 25 percent of the student body of the school. The Senate, on the other hand, would have required a minimum of 10 children or that they make up 25 percent of the student body of the students or 25 percent of the school's enrollment. Mr. President, the issue before the conferees was only whether a minimum of 10 or 20 Indian children would be required for eligibility. The conjunction ``or'' was not ever an issue, and that it was not is testified to by the side-by-sides prepared for the Senate and House conferees. But, the final document prepared by the Senate Legislative Counsel substituted the word ``and'' for ``or.'' And that final document was enacted into law. What this bill would do is correct the technical error. I have consulted conferees and their notes verify that the word ``or'' was in both House and Senate versions of the bill. The effect of the bill I am introducing would be to restore language intended by both the House and Senate. Mr. President, if this bill should not be enacted, hundreds of classrooms with Indian children would lose the supplemental programs, all because of a drafting error. In reauthorizing the Indian Education Act, this was emphatically not the result intended by the Congress, and I hope that I may count on my colleagues to support enactment of this technical corrections bill.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have known Robert J. Pfeiffer, the outgoing chairman of the Board of Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. for many years. He is an acknowledged and respected leader in the shipping industry in Hawaii and in our Nation. I wish to join the people of Hawaii in wishing him a happy and rewarding retirement. Bob Pfeiffer was born in Fiji in 1920. As a very young child he came to Hololulu, was educated at McKinley High School and became a deckhand for the Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., of which he later became president. Bob Pfeiffer's career with Alexander & Baldwin [A&B] began in 1956 when he joined its subsidiary, Matson Navigation Co., Inc. Matchinal Corp., a Matson off-shoot, was a stevedoring and terminal company in the San Francisco Bay area, which Bob Pfeiffer joined as vice president and general manager. In 1962 he as 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. Bob 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. Bob 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 & Baldwin Foundation, which he created, has established a level of giving in excess of $1 million a year. Bob Pfeiffer has served on many corporate, professional and non-profit boards and organization, often in leadership positions. These include First Hawaiian, Inc.; First Bank; the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii; the American Bureau of Shipping; the Maritime Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, as chairman; and many others. Bob Pfeiffer's community and professional leadership earned him numerous honors. The latest was the presentation to him on January 25, 1995, of the Charles Reed Bishop Medal by 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 the Distinguished Citizen of the Year Award and in 1985 the United Seamen's Service gave him its Admiral of the Ocean Sea Award in New York. Bob Pfeiffer has been granted honorary doctorates by the Marine Maritime Academy, the University of Hawaii, and Hawaii Loa College. His outstanding contributions to the State of Hawaii and to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. As the Treasury Department's analysis indicates, a balanced budget amendment alone would reduce annual Federal grants to Hawaii for Medicaid, highways, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, education, job training, environmental protection, housing and other programs by $328 million. Combined with the proposed tax cuts in the Contract With America, this figure rises to $450 million in lost Federal grants annually. Hawaii would also lose another $1 billion annually in other Federal spending for Medicare, housing assistance, student loans, veterans' benefits and other programs. The Treasury Department's analysis further shows that Hawaii State taxes would have to be increased by over 9 percent to make up for lost Federal funding and to continue these programs. The American public and our constituents have a right to know about the impact of the proposal before us on their lives. Without a provision setting forth the nature and amounts of budget cuts, the balanced budget amendment measure before us would be grossly unfair to our States and our taxpayers. Why are the Republican who are the authors of this balanced budget amendment afraid to let the people know? Don't they trust their fellow Americans? The logical and appropriate way to make decisions is to know all the facts. Our constituents--the American taxpayers--and our State legislatures should be entrusted with and have the benefit of the facts before this balanced budget amendment is considered for ratification. The Senate is unique because it is where ideas and concerns can be freely and fully expressed. I hope that every Member of this body will express themselves freely. I hope that all of us will participate openly in this debate. As this joint resolution stands today, I will most certainly oppose it and do everything in my power to defeat it. Exhibit 1. The Impact of a Balanced Budget Amendment and the Contract With America on the State of Hawaii\1\ I. A Balanced Budget Amendment would reduce annual Federal grants to the Hawaii state government by $328 million: [[Page S2023]] \1\For all calculations, a balanced budget is achieved by FY 2002 through across-the-board spending cuts that exclude defense and social security. Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, January 12, 1995. $117 million per year in lost funding for Medicaid. $62 million per year in lost highway trust fund grants. $24 million per year in lost funding for welfare (AFDC). $125 million per year in lost funding for education, job training, the environment, housing, and other areas. Hawaii would have to increase state taxes by 6.8 percent across-the-board to make up for the loss in grants. II. A Balanced Budget Amendment combined with the ``Contract with America'' tax cuts would require even deeper spending cuts, thereby reducing annual Federal grants to the Hawaii state government by $450 million: $161 million per year in lost funding for Medicaid. $85 million per year in lost highway trust fund grants. $32 million per year in lost funding for welfare (AFDC). $172 million per year in lost funding for education, job training, the environment, housing, and other areas. Hawaii would have to increase state taxes by 9.3 percent across-the-board to make up for the loss in grants. III. A Balanced Budget Amendment and the ``Contract with America'' tax cuts would reduce other annual Federal spending in Hawaii by $1.0 billion: $296 million per year in Medicare benefits. $716 million per year in other spending including housing assistance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and grants to local governments.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, as my constituents know, I do not give speeches on every issue addressed by the U.S. Senate. However, I felt that on a matter as significant to the American people as an amendment to United States Constitution, I had to share my thoughts. In no way is my speech delivered to stall these proceedings. I wish to address the Senate because I am genuinely distressed about several serious deficiencies in the balanced budget amendment measure now before the U.S. Senate, not the least of which is the fact that the American public, ourselves included, does not have a full and fair understanding of how this balanced budget amendment will truly impact our lives. While the proponents tell us that they will balance the budget, while cutting taxes, increasing defense spending and protecting Social Security, we are also told that to meet all these goals, the Congress will have to cut spending by $1.5 trillion before the year 2002. In addition, estimates by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that if Social Security and defense spending are not cut, all other programs must be cut across the board by 30 percent. I believe the people of America should be told in advance where these cuts will occur. The new leadership of the U.S. Senate is determined to pass this measure almost as expeditiously as the House of Representatives. With only 2 days of consideration on the House floor on House Joint Resolution 1, debate was, at best, limited. On a matter of this significance, the least we can do is not only fully acquaint ourselves with the matter before us and its effects, but also provide the same information to the citizens of this Nation so they may know its impact on their lives. This should not be part of a contest to see who can pass a bill faster. The proponents of this measure seem to wish to move with undue haste, without responsibility for the consequences of their actions, only to let the American people and the States unknowingly deal with the unpleasant realities at a later date. Our constituents have a right to know and understand the real impact of this balanced budget amendment. The concept of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is nothing new to this body. In 1980, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a vote of 9 to 8. In 1982, the U.S. Senate actually passed a balanced budget amendment. That measure, Senate Joint Resolution 58, would have only allowed deficit spending or an increase in the Nation's debt ceiling upon a three- fifths vote of the Congress. Though passed by the Senate, Senate Joint Resolution 58 died in the House of Representatives. Many of us in the U.S. Senate consider the balanced budget amendment before us with deep concern because underlying the measure is an implication or suggestion that we who are elected by our people are incapable of doing our work. I believe even a cursory study and analysis of the past 2 years will clearly assure the citizens of our Nation that we are capable of and are, in fact, doing our job. Our work together with the Clinton administration has produced significant accomplishments over the last 2 years that no one can dispute. Over 5.6 million new jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has dropped from 7.3 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent as of December 1994, the lowest rate in over 4 years. Inflation has dropped to 2.7 percent, the lowest since 1986. Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act passed by the Congress in 1993, the Federal deficit has been reduced by $87 billion between 1992 and 1994. This is the first time the deficit has dropped 2 years in a row in over 20 years, and it is the largest 2-year drop in history. The deficit is projected to fall another $27 billion in 1995. Many of us, together with eminent economists, are convinced that the path we have laid will further decrease our deficit and improve our economy. The United States Constitution is a document of permanency. If sets forth the basic principles, ideals and philosophy of this country and our society. It is not a document which should be tinkered with lightly. The Constitution of this great Nation was signed on September 17, 1787. Delaware was the first State to ratify the document on October 7, 1787. Other States ratified the Constitution during the course of 1788, and the Constitution took effect on September 13, 1788. There are currently 26 amendments to the Constitution. Since the 1st Congress in 1789, 10,736 Constitutional amendments have been proposed in the Congress. We have been rightfully very reluctant to pass Constitutional amendments. Measures of this magnitude and import must be approached with great care and consideration. It took the U.S. Congress somewhere on the order of 30 years to pass Medicare legislation. Medicare was first debated in Congress in the 1930's with the social reforms of the New Deal. Medicare was not considered seriously again until the mid 1950's. In 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy featured Medicare in his Presidential campaign. However, Medicare was not enacted by the Congress until 1965. Congressional debate to end the Vietnam conflict began in the early 1960's, but the Congress did not set a date certain for the end of the war until 1973--the same year the War Powers Act was passed. The Family and Medical Leave Act was first introduced in the 99th Congress, vetoed by President Bush in both the 101st and 102d Congresses, and finally signed into law by President Clinton in the opening days of the 103d Congress. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, ordering the racial May 31, 1955. However, not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the Congress give the Attorney General the power to initiate civil actions to achieve desegregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was debated in the Senate for 83 days. Each of these measures was fully debated in both Houses of the Congress, and they were not even amendments to the Constitution of the United States. I submit that a proposed constitutional amendment demands a significantly higher level of scrutiny and debate wherein the American people are fully informed of all of the amendment's implications. Every household in our Nation tries its best to balance its individual family budget. However, in contemporary times this task is much more difficult than that faced by my grandparents. Now we have an innovation known as the credit care that allows us to buy now and pay later. As of November 1994, our citizens' revolving loan debt was $334.4 billion. Living with debt is part of the economy of every country. Such debt is generally categorized into the types of accounts: operating expenses and capital improvements. It is good fiscal policy for a country to work to keep operating expenses current. Similarly, the American family should try to stay current in its everyday expenses. On the other hand, very few Americans would be included to purchase a home with cash. That home is acquired with credit in the form of a mortgage loan. This is not so different from a government obtaining financing to fund capital improvements. Presently, the total amount of our Nation's home mortgage debt is $3.3 trillion. The supporters of this balanced budget amendment proposes to consider both operating expenses and capital improvements as one account, lumped together as debt. Economists will tell you that this is not sound fiscal policy. It is a relatively simple matter when balancing the family budget to be fully cognizant of what must be cut and what operational costs are essential and cannot be curtailed. Unlike this household budget balancing, the balanced budget amendment currently before the Senate intentionally and almost deliberately does not inform the American public of what is going to be done to achieve the goal of a balanced Federal budget. The American people have a right to know this information. Merely telling our constituents that we will increase defense spending, lower taxes, not touch Social Security, and hope that the economy is going to improve is simply not sufficient. In July of 1981, similar words were uttered by President Ronald Reagan, and the Congress adopted ``Reaganomics,'' also known as supply side economics. When this process began in July 1981, the Federal budget deficit amounted to $79 billion. When Ronald Reagan left office in 1988, the Federal deficit had increased to $155 billion. Under the Republican administration's budget policies, the upward trend continued through George Bush's administration with the deficit topping out at $290 billion in 1992. Proponents of this balanced budget amendment refuse to acknowledge that the problems we address today began in July 1981. I believe that the American people have the right to know exactly how the Congress plans to put this balanced budget amendment to work. For example, health care costs currently amount to 14 percent of Federal spending. Every study indicates that by 1988, this figure will increase dramatically such that 24 percent of Federal spending will be on health care. One-half of that amount will be spent on Medicare alone. I would think that the people of this country would like to know now whether the balanced budget amendment will result in cuts to Medicare. Will Medicaid funding face reductions, and will research programs for the treatment of breast cancer, AIDS, heart disease, and mental illness be reduced or eliminated? How will highway funds, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, job training and veterans' benefits, and other grants to States be impacted? Further, if States felt that these programs were essential, I would think that our constituents would want to know just how much it would cost them as State taxpayers to continue these programs. I am also deeply concerned about the provision in House Joint Resolution 1 which provides that the balanced budget requirement may be waived if there is a declaration of war, or the United States is engaged in military conflict which threatens the national security of our country. Would the United States' humanitarian mission in Somalia come within this provision? What about United States peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia? What about Haiti, Desert Storm, Vietnam and Korea? Some would argue that the Korean war was a police action, not the result of a declaration of war, therefore, not a war. Further, how will we deal with the financial impact of natural disasters over which we have no control--Hurricanes Andrew, Iniki and Omar, floods in the Midwest and California, and the earthquakes in California, to name a few. The American people deserve to know the answers to these questions. At the request of the National Governors' Association, the U.S. Department of the Treasury recently prepared a report on the likely effects on the States of a balanced budget amendment alone, as well as accompanied by the tax reductions proposed by the Republican Contract With America. As proposed by the proponents of the balanced budget amendment, the Treasury Department assumed that there would be no cuts to defense or Social Security, not tax increases, and that deficit reduction would be achieved by the year 2002. According to the Treasury Department, even if phased in gradually between now and the year 2002, deficit reduction cuts will be severe in 2002. A balanced budget amendment will require reducing Federal grants to States, for programs such as Medicaid and highway funds, by a total of $71.3 billion in fiscal year 2002. Other Federal programs that directly benefit State residents, such as Medicare and housing assistance, would have to be cut by $176.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. However, these figures grow significantly if Republican-sponsored tax reductions in the Contract With America are taken into account. Cuts totalling $97.8 billion in grants and $242 billion in other programs that directly benefit State residents would be required in fiscal year 2002 under a balanced budget amendment combined with the proposed Contract With America tax reductions. For the benefit of my constituents, I would like to highlight the impact on the State of Hawaii based upon an analysis prepared by the Treasury Department. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Treasury Department's analysis on the impact of the balanced budget amendment and Contract with America tax reductions be included in the Congressionall Record following my remarks. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on January 31, Richard Collins of the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee retired. Mr. Collins has served the committee and the Senate for the past 20 years. It has been my pleasure to have worked closely with Richard throughout that period. Richard served as the clerk and staff director of the two subcommittees I had the fortune to chair in the 1980's and 1990's, Foreign Operations and Defense. In each of these positions Richard has served me and the Senate professionally and faithfully. I will miss his knowledge and counsel in the days and years ahead. I can take some solace knowing that Richard plans to remain in the Washington, DC, area. And, I know we shall call upon him often to provide the type of guidance that we have counted upon for the past 20 years. Last Thursday night, the friends of Richard Collins gathered to wish him a farewell and happy retirement. On that occasion, Richard spoke eloquently about his career in the Senate, his many and varied experiences, and what it meant to him to be a staff member for this body. He spoke of his affection and reverence for the institution, the relationship between Members and their staff and the importance of staff in the operation of the Senate. I know that many of my colleagues were in attendance that evening and had the good fortune to hear this gentleman's farewell remarks, but I believe the colleagues. Therefore, today I have risen to place Mr. Collins' address in the Record. Mr. President, there are some 5,000 congressional staff members serving the House and Senate. They are bright, hard working, and virtuous. Richard Collins has been one of the finest for many years. The Senate will miss him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Richard Collins' address be included in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman John McCain of the Committee on Indian Affairs in introducing legislation which would provide for the creation of an assistant administrator for Indian Lands within the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. President, in 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] adopted an Indian policy. In the ensuing 10 years, major environmental statutes have been amended to recognize the importance of tribal governments in the administration of environmental regulatory activities on Indian lands. Its record of action makes clear that the Environmental Protection Agency is committed to achieving the goals of its Indian policy. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator Carol M. Browner, for initiating efforts to improve communications with Indian tribal governments through the recent establishment of the new Indian Environmental Office in EPA. However, although we have accomplished a great deal working together, it is also clear that our work is not complete. This legislation will be a key to the continued successful implementation on the Environmental Protection Agency's Indian policy by ensuring that the Agency develops a national infrastructure to protect and ensure equitable treatment for Indian tribal governments comparable to the treatment afforded the programs that are administered by the several States. Mr. President, one of the obstacles to effective implementation of EPA's Indian policy has been the lack of involvement, including line authority, in decisionmaking processes. The solution is to authorize critical positions in the chain of command. The process of reviewing Agency actions for their consistency with EPA's Indian policy must be institutionalized; it must become second nature to all levels of the Environmental Protection Agency organizational structure. Mr. President, I believe that the creation of an assistant administrator for this problem. The assistant administrator would have responsibility for ensuring that the decisions and actions of the central or regional offices are consistent with EPA's Indian policy in areas ranging from major policy and legislative initiatives to the most basic programming decisions. This legislation will continue to move the Environmental Protection Agency in a direction that will enhance environmental quality on reservation lands and help build strong tribal governmental capacity for the management of the environment in Indian country. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give their careful consideration to this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want the people of this Nation to know about the passing of Thomas Yagi, a caring and passionate man who sparked Maui's labor movement nearly a half century ago. He was a good friend and one of Hawaii's great native sons. I ask unanimous consent that the following editorial from the Maui News, dated January 12, 1995, entitled ``Tom Yagi: A True Giant of His Times,'' be submitted for inclusion in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and counseling psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration [VHA]. The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who have served their country in the Armed Forces. It is certainly fitting that this should be done. Recently a quite distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans has come to my attention. In particular, the recruitment and retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has become a significant problem. The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions from which a significant portion of our veterans suffer. For example, programs related to homelessness, substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] have received funding from the Congress in recent years. Certainly, psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the successful implementation of these programs. However, the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA--over 11 and 18 percent, respectively, as reported in one recent survey-- might seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient care in the VHA. Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of factors including a pay scale not commensurate with private sector rates of pay as well as by the low number of clinical and counseling psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]. Most new hires have no postdoctoral experience and are hired immediately after a VA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes up to 6 months or more. Retention of psychologists in the VA system poses an even more significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA psychologists had 5 years or less of postdoctoral experience. Without doubt, our veterans would benefit from a higher percentage of senior staff who are more experienced in working with veterans and their particular concerns. My bill provides incentives for psychologists to continue their work with the VHA and seek additional education and training. Several factors are associated with the difficulties in retention of VHA psychologists including low salaries and lack of career advancement opportunities. It seems that psychologists are apt to leave the VA system after 5 years because they have almost reached peak levels for salary and professional development in the VHA. Furthermore, under the present system compensated for excellence or for taking on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs. In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with behavioral disorders and mental health problems are deserving of better psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are currently receiving. A hybrid title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems in several ways. The length of time it takes to recruit psychologists could be abbreviated by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated by the Office of Personnel Management. This would also facilitate the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VA interns by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position. It is expected that problems in retention of behavioral science experts will be greatly alleviated with the implementation of a hybrid title 38 system for VA psychologists, primarily through offering financial incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development with the VHA. Achievements that would merit salary increases under title 38 should include such activities as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the effectiveness and/or efficiency of patient care, making significant contributions to the science of psychology, earning the ABPP diplomate status, and becoming a fellow of the American Psychological Association. Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care providers in the VHA who are not included in title 38. This is, without question, a significant factor in the recruitment and retention difficulties that I have addressed. Ultimately, an across-the-board salary increase might be necessary. However, the conversion of psychologists to a hybrid title 38, as proposed by this amendment, would provide relief for these difficulties and enhance the quality of care for our Nations' veterans and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the statements made by Bell Atlantic and others concerning the so-called privatization of public broadcasting. In my view, the so-called privatization of public broadcasting could bring an end to the system of public broadcasting as we know it. While this may be the goal of certain legislators, this is not what the American people want. Three recent polls have concluded that the overwhelming majority of Americans support continued funding for public broadcasting. I have always supported efforts to make public broadcasting more efficient and less costly. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill calling for a freeze in the authorized levels of funding for public broadcasting. Placing public broadcasting in the hands of private, corporate entities, however, would simply turn public broadcasting into more of the same advertising-driven, profit-motivated commercial broadcasting that we have today. Americans already receive too much violence and profanity on the commercial broadcast stations. What America needs is more educational programming, more children's programming, more family-oriented programming. This is what public broadcasting provides. There is no substitute for the programming provided by public broadcasting today. Cable television is received by only 60 percent of Americans, while public broadcasting reaches 98 percent of the American public. Almost twice as many children watch public television than watch similar programs on cable. Congress spends only $1 per American per year on public broadcasting. This is a small price to pay for the education of our Nation's children and adults.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. vote on amendment no. 142

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to restore the business meals and entertainment tax deduction to 80 percent. I am joined by Senators Hatch, Bryan, Reid, Smith, Coats, Johnston, Faircloth, Shelby, Stevens, and Hollings. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of the food service, travel and tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of this reduction. All are major industries which employ millions of people, many of whom are already feeling the effects of the reduction. The deduction for business meals and entertainment was reduced from 80 to 50 percent under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Five months later, the American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Conducted research between May 16 and June 17, 1994, to obtain an early indication of whether companies were aware of the new tax law and whether it was likely to impact on their spending on business meals. Telephone interviews involving 154 small size, 1 to 100 employees, and 152 mid-sized 101 to 1,500 employees, companies were made to travel and entertainment policy decisionmakers. Of those interviewed, 68 percent of the small size and 74 percent of the mid-sized companies indicated that they have either taken or anticipate taking some action that could potentially reduce restaurant spending. Some companies were prompted to change its policy and guidelines on travel and entertainment expenses as a result of the tax reduction in the business meals and entertainment expenses deduction. Corporate businesses have also been forced to curtail their company reimbursement policies because of the reduction in the business meals and entertainment expenses deduction. In some cases, businesses have eliminated their expense accounts. Consequently, restaurant establishments, which have relied heavily on business lunch and dinner services, are being adversely affected by the reduction in business meals. For example: Jay's Restaurant in Dayton, OH, was forced to close its lunch service because of the decline in business. This decision was based on 2,005 fewer lunch customers from January through June 1994 as compared to the same period in 1993. The result was a loss of 17 to 20 jobs. Bianco's in Denver, CO, closed its lunch service in April 1994 because of the decline in business. Staff was reduced from 26 to 15 employees. The Wall Street Restaurant in Des Monies, IA, has seen a 40-percent decline in revenues since the beginning of 1994. Staff was reduced from 50 to 35 employees. In Middlesex County, NJ, the Boca Restaurant averaged 40 to 60 lunches per day prior to the beginning of 1994. The restaurant now serves between 5 to 15 lunches per day. Staff was reduced from 18 to 14 employees. Le Grenadin, located in the garment district of Manhattan, averaged 60 to 70 lunches a day prior to the beginning of 1994. Lunch business has now declined by 30 percent. Staff hours have been reduced from a 5- to a 3-day workweek. I sincerely hope that the business meals reduction to 50 percent does not become a Luxury Tax Two, in which the Congress moves toward restoration only after the damage has been done and huge job losses have occurred. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is my sad duty to inform the Senate that one of the giants of American aviation history, Mr. Ben Rich, the long-time director and spirit of the famed Lockheed Skunk Works, passed away on January 5, 1995, in Ventura, CA. Ben Rich was the driving creative force behind the most potent and successful aircraft created by man, including the U-2 and the SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft, the workhorses of the cold war, and the F-117, or Stealth fighter, the backbone of our air campaign in the Desert Storm operation. Ben Rich's life was synonymous with the great achievements of post- World War II advanced military American aviation. He joined Lockheed in 1950, and participated in the aerodynamic, propulsion, and design aspects of the F-104, U-2, A-12, SR-71 Blackbird and numerous other programs that have earned the Lockheed Skunk Works unparalleled international recognition. In 1975, he was named Lockheed vice president in charge of this talented advanced development projects organization, and from 1975 until his retirement in 1991, he led the Skunk Works through an intense period, including the U-2 production restart, the Stealth fighter development and production and the F-22 advanced tactical fighter prototype development, among other programs. Following his retirement, he continued in aviation as a consultant for the Rand Corp., Lockheed, and other defense contractors and organizations. Anyone who was privileged even to briefly meet with Ben Rich personally could not help but be affected by his infectious enthusiasm, boundless energy, and persistent can do attitude. It was an attitude which carried the greatest aircraft developments in the world through daunting engineering challenges at the very edge of the envelope of engineering design and system development. Unquestionably, his most notable recent achievement during his years as the Chief Skunk was the creation of the Stealth F-117 fighter program. He organized a research and development program to respond to the Nation's need for new fighter aircraft featuring low observable technologies. These included a revolutionary faceted external design, new inlet and exhaust nozzle concepts, advanced radar absorbing materials and structures, and unique antennas and apertures. Even with this range of new technologies, they were all put together in a winning system to achieve initial operational capability in just 5 years. Furthermore, his team was able to keep the existence of the aircraft totally secret, in the black, until its existence was formally acknowledged by the Air Force, from 1970 until 1988. The great value of the Stealth fighter was amply demonstrated during Desert Storm when a small force of some 42 aircraft had a major impact on the war. The F-117, according to unofficial sources, destroyed 40 percent of all strategic targets with only 2 percent of the total of all Allied Forces tactical aircraft. It was the only aircraft to attack heavily defended Baghdad, unescorted, delivering laser-guided weapons with unprecedented accuracy, with minimum collateral damage and civilian casualties. Ben Rich's many achievements have been recognized repeatedly in the aerospace industry. In May 1994, Secretary of Defense William J. Perry presented him with the Distinguished Public Service Award. Among his other awards, he and his team were awarded the 1989 Collier Trophy by the National Aeronautic Association for the Stealth fighter. This award is given annually for the most outstanding achievement in aeronautics and or astronautics. With Ben's passing, we as a nation are poorer for out loss, but I am certain his spirit and achievements will continue to inspire a new generation of aerospace designers and engineers to new heights in one of America's premier industries. On behalf of myself and, I know, all my colleagues, I wish to convey our sincere condolences to his wife, Hilda, his son, Michael, and daughter, Karen.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have known Goro Hokama, the outgoing chairman of the county council of the County of Maui, for over 40 years. In the spring of 1954, I recall meeting with him to discuss whether we should consider public service as our life's career. For 40 years, Goro Hokama has served the people of Maui County as a member of the county council and also chairman of that same body. I wish to share with you and my colleagues the following editorial from the Maui News, dated December 20, 1994, entitled ``Goro Hokama: 40 Years of Service.'' I believe it expresses the sentiment of many of us who have had the privilege of calling him friend, and the many who have benefited form his leadership. I wish to join the people of Maui County and all of Hawaii in commending and thanking Goro Hokama for his 40 years of dedicated public service. The editorial follows: [From the Maui News, Dec. 20, 1994] Goro Hokama: 40 Years of Service 1994's end will officially bring down the curtain on Goro Hokama's 40 continuous years of public service to Maui County. It's impossible to overstate the contributions he has made to this community, and in fact, to the entire state of Hawaii. The departing Maui County Council chairman was first elected to office in 1954, the year of the great political revolution that saw the Democrats snatch the reins of power from the Republicans and by proxy from the big landowners. Hokama was Hawaii's lone remaining elected county official who had a hand in that historic housecleaning, a staying power made ever more remarkable by his having to face election every two years. U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye is the only person remaining from the 1954 sweep who has served in elected office as long as Hokama, but even he did not have to win 20 straight times to do so. Hokama did. And Hokama won without ever sacrificing his principles, even when it meant risking the loss of longtime supporters. For all of his 40 years on the County Council, or its predecessor, the Board of Supervisors, Hokama held the Lanai residency seat. In more than one election he trailed his opponent when the ballots on Lanai were counted, but with countywide voting he would prevail anyway because of his broad appeal to residents throughout the county. Seeing himself as more than just a Lanai councilman, Hokama clearly understood his role as a county councilman, and his actions reflected that understanding, even if not always to his benefit back home. He learned early, however, not to be frightened off by the odds, working as a union organizer among the pineapple workers on Lanai in the 1940s when unions were a poison to the ruling political and financial powers. And neither was he frightened off nearly 50 years later when the ILWU shockingly refused to endorse him, one of its own, in the election of 1992 because of differences he had with the union leadership over the course of development on Lanai. He won anyway. That was an occasion when he opposed development, and he drew the wrath of labor. On other occasions he supported development, and he drew the wrath of environmentalists. On all of those occasions, however, Hokama acted upon what he believed was right, not on what may have been politically expedient. Maui has repeatedly been cited by economists as the county with the firmest financial footing in the state, and that is due in no small part to Goro Hokama. Fiscally conservative by nature, he nonetheless was a leader in the bold gambles that paid off in the developments of Kaanapali, Wailea and bear on Maui's economy. That economic success story is certainly his chief legacy. His first and only election loss came in November when his bid for mayor was turned back by Linda Crockett Lingle. Hokama again found himself bucking the odds by taking on the popular Republican incumbent, but as always he showed his resolve not to be cowed by the odds. He waged an aggressive and tireless campaign from day one, the only difference being that this time he lost. That he didn't lose in any of the 20 elections before this one is both a tribute to the man Goro Hokama and a profit to the County of Maui.