Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Yes I do, and I would support such closures, as well as taking aggressive action to address the terrible problem of marine debris in the NWHI, which is harming both the corals and our endangered monk seals. Furthermore, I believe it may be appropriate to identify further precautionary actions that our scientists tell us may be necessary to prevent future harm to these resources. However, no action should be taken on these proposals until they can be evaluated publicly by the people of Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank Senators Snowe and Hollings.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the 106th Congress draws to a close, I stand to pay tribute to a distinguished Navy officer who served as a Congressional Science Detail on my staff during this Congress. Commander Catherine Wilson, United States Navy, was selected for this highly coveted position as a result of her outstanding training, experience, and accomplishments. Her superb performance and impeccable credentials earned her the respect and admiration of the Senate staff. She distinguished herself rapidly as a professional who possessed a pleasant demeanor, tremendous integrity, decisive leadership style, political savvy, and unending energy. The ultimate Naval officer, Commander Wilson is a visionary thinker who has the innate ability to implement these visions. Commander Wilson is the consummate professional and nursing has never had a better ambassador nor patients a more devoted advocate. Commander Wilson forged strong alliances and affiliations with staff from a myriad of Congressional offices, committees, and federal and civilian agencies that fostered a cohesive approach to legislative proposals. She worked closely with staff members on the Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services and Education in support of military health issues and national nursing and health care agendas. As an advocate of Tri-Service nursing and military health issues, Commander Wilson championed independent practice for nurse anesthetists, the continuation of the Bachelor of Science degree as the minimum level of education for entry into military nursing practice, continued funding for a graduate school of nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the Tri-Service Nursing Research Program. She was instrumental in securing appropriations language for a wide variety of health care initiatives including telemedicine, advanced medical technologies, and distance learning. More than fifty years ago, as I was recovering in a military hospital, I began a unique relationship with military nurses. Commander Wilson embodies what I know military nurses to be--strong, dedicated professional leaders stepping to the forefront to serve our country and committed to caring for our Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Soldiers, and their family members during peacetime and at war. Commander Wilson is an officer of whom the military and our nation can and should be justifiably proud: a unique combination of talent and devotion to duty. I want to personally acknowledge my sincere appreciation to Commander Wilson for her exemplary months of service, and to bid her a fond aloha and heartfelt mahalo.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the year 2000 marks an occasion that is worthy of recognition by the Senate. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii celebrates its sesquicentennial, marking the 150th anniversary of its first meeting, on October 15, 1850, of a group of Honolulu businessmen at the behest of Hawaii's King Kamehameha III. They founded the Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce, an organization that would lead the Hawaiian Islands' growth in trade, commerce, economic and social development through the years. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii is the second-oldest chamber of commerce west of the Rockies, and the only American chamber founded under a monarchy. The history of The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii includes many, many accomplishments. I wish to provide a glimpse of their more notable achievements which I believe merit recognition. In 1867, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii initiated negotiations for the first treaty of reciprocity in trade between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii authored the Hawaiian National Banking Act of 1884, allowing the establishment of the banking system that has evolved into Hawaii's current system. In 1898, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii began its successful advocacy for a Hawaii-San Francisco TransPacific cable. The Hawaii Visitors Bureau, today known as the Hawaii Visitors and Conventions Bureau, was founded by the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in 1903. This agency has led the development of Hawaii's visitor industry, which today is the largest sector of Hawaii's economy. In 1907, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii conducted a survey of the Pearl River to facilitate the construction of a harbor and dry dock that is now Pearl Harbor. The United States Pacific Command today provides a strong, forward based U.S. defense in the Asia-Pacific region from this great harbor. In 1919, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii founded Aloha United Way, Hawaii's leading charitable organization which annually collects millions of dollars for the needy in Hawaii. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii became the trustee of Hawaii's Public Health Fund in 1923. The Public Health Fund provides seed money for approximately 20 public health projects each year. In 1928, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii's aviation committee sought out airlines to provide the first interisland air service. In 1929, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii drafted a plan to increase the depth of Honolulu Harbor to accommodate modern ships and facilitate international trade. Today, Honolulu Harbor is our primary port of entry for the vast majority of all goods to Hawaii. In 1941. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii founded the Blood Bank of Hawaii. Later that year, the services of the Blood Bank helped to save many lives when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th, 1941. The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii was an active and vocal advocate for statehood for Hawaii. In 1959, The Chamber joined other local advocates in celebrating Hawaii's statehood. In 1978, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii played a leading role in Hawaii's State Constitutional Convention. Throughout its 150-year history, and continuing today, The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii has helped to support a strong U.S. economic and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. As the economies of the region grow, The Chamber's continued support for a strong, forward based military presence that provides the stability prerequisite to prosperity will be important. The Chamber's continued work to promote economic development in the region will play a vital role in aiding the goals and interests of Hawaii and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. Congratulations to The Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii on its 150th anniversary, and best wishes for continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor Dr. Faye G. Abdellah, RN, Ed.D., Sc.D., FAAN who is currently serving as the Dean of the Graduate School of Nursing at the Uniformed Services University. Dr. Abdellah will be inducted in the National Women's Hall of Fame this weekend. Founded in 1969, the Hall is a national membership organization in Seneca Falls, New York that honors and celebrates the achievements of American women. She will join a list of 157 of the most distinguished women in American history, including Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Helen Keller, Sandra Day O'Connor, Rosa Parks, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Dr. Abdellah is being recognized and honored for her pioneering work altering nursing theory and practice, for the development of the first tested coronary care unit that saved thousands of lives, and for being the first nurse to hold the rank of Rear Admiral (Upper Half) and the title of Deputy Surgeon General for the United States. Dr. Abdellah is the recipient of 79 professional and academic honors. She holds eleven honorary degrees from universities that have recognized her innovative work in nursing research, in the development of the first nurse scientist, as an international expert in health policies, and for making invaluable contributions to the health of our nation. She has authored and co-authored more than 150 publications, some of which have been translated into six languages. Dr. Abdellah worked with the Surgeon General in the formation of national health policies related to AIDS, drug addiction, violence, smoking and alcoholism. She developed the first federal training program for health services researchers, health services administrators and geriatric nurse practitioners. Dr. Abdellah has worked with state and district nursing associations, serving on many work groups and committees developing standards of nursing practice, credentialing activities, and providing workshops in nursing research. As part of her international health outreach role as a nurse and health services consultant, she has been a member of official United States delegations on exchange missions to Russia, Yugoslavia, and France, and designated as coordinator for nursing for the United States-Argentina Cooperation in Health and Medical Research Project. Dr. Abdellah has also served as a consultant to the Japanese Nursing Association on nursing education and research on three separate occasions. I have had the privilege of knowing Dr. Abdellah for many years. Her selfless devotion to duty and extraordinary accomplishments are legendary. It is with pride that I congratulate Dr. Abdellah on her well-deserved induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame. Our nation can be proud of her long and distinguished service to this country.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the estate tax imposes a true hardship on family-owned businesses. When a person dies, the estate tax must be paid within 9 months. Current law permits only a small number of business owners to pay the estate tax in installments. The tax for most closely held businesses, however, must be paid shortly after the owners' death. Often, business assets and even the business itself must be sold to raise the cash to pay the tax. Closely held businesses, however, cannot be sold for their true value within so short a time. To avoid such fire sales, elderly owners will often sell their businesses while still living to get a fair price. Congress, as a matter of policy, should encourage the formation of family businesses and also support their continuation. The estate tax measures that the Senate recently voted on do not fully or immediately respond to the problems of closely held, family-owned businesses. Due to revenue constraints, repeal of the estate tax must be slowly phased in. During that phase-in period, whether the tax rate is 45 percent, 35 percent, 25 percent, or 15 percent, many business owners will still need to liquidate their businesses to pay the tax. The alternative proposal to raise the deduction for qualified family- owned business interests to $2 million fails to answer the basic liquidity problem. These families have all their assets tied up in their businesses. They do not have the cash to pay the estate tax right away. Moreover, the strict eligibility rules and caps restrict the number of family businesses that can qualify for the QFOBI deduction. The 10-year recapture rule, which is also part of the alternative proposal, also hampers the businesses that do qualify. The bill that I and Senator Akaka introduce today would make all closely held businesses eligible for temporary deferral and installment payment of the estate tax. My measure simply raises the number of permissible owners for qualifying closely held businesses from 15 to 75, thereby expanding eligibility for the 4-year deferral and 10-year installment payment of the estate tax. In the subchapter S Act of 1958, the Senate established special income tax rules for closely held businesses. The Senate in the same legislation also decided to collect the estate tax on closely held businesses over an extended payment period. By being allowed to pay the estate tax on the family businesses over 10 annual installments after an initial 4-year deferral, the surviving family members can continue to operate these businesses and use future earnings to pay the estate tax. In 1996, Congress amended subchapter S to allow a small business corporation to have up to 75 owners; this was intended to encourage closely held businesses to give key workers a share in ownership. But the eligibility rules were not changed for estate tax payment. By sharing ownership with workers as encouraged under the 1996 amendments to subchapter S, the owners of closely held businesses lose their estate tax relief. Although these businesses still qualify under subchapter S, they are often no longer eligible for temporary deferral and extended installment payment of the estate tax. The Treasury Department suggests that the qualification rules for subchapter S and for estate tax relief should be made consistent once again. During the debate on estate tax relief, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan acknowledged this problem and pledged to correct it. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations (Co-ops) to convert to condominium forms of ownership without any immediate tax consequences. Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on a transaction that is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernible advantages to society from the cooperative form of ownership, it does not view Federal tax statutes as having the flexibility to allow co-ops to re-organize freely as condominiums. In cooperative housing, real property ownership is vested in a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, that are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholder has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment. As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to condominium ownership regimes. Condominium ownership permits each owner of a unit to directly own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemmas of corporate debt that supersedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns. The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the Nation. I urge my colleagues' consideration and support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations (Co-ops) to convert to condominium forms of ownership without any immediate tax consequences. Under current law, a conversion from cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on a transaction that is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernible advantages to society from the cooperative form of ownership, it does not view Federal tax statutes as having the flexibility to allow co-ops to re-organize freely as condominiums. In cooperative housing, real property ownership is vested in a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, that are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholder has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment. As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to condominium ownership regimes. Condominium ownership permits each owner of a unit to directly own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemmas of corporate debt that supersedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns. The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the Nation. I urge my colleagues' consideration and support for this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the statement of the managers to accompany the conference report on H.R. 4576 included a table to delineate the projects recommended for funding in the Defense Health Program. Unfortunately, the information included in the Congressional Record and printed in House Report 106-754 deleted one line from the recommended list of projects. To clarify the agreement of the conferees, I ask unanimous consent that a table taken from a copy of the official papers which lists the actual agreement be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. I also concur with Chairman Stevens.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Chairman is correct.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to begin by informing the Senate that, at $287.9 billion, this act represents the largest defense spending measure in history. The act is $176 million more than was recommended by the Senate and $706 million below the House level. The conference agreement is a fair compromise between the two Houses. Funding for many items of priority of each of the bodies have been included, but concessions were also required of each Chamber. Our chairman and his House counterpart should be given great credit for this measure. I am confident the funding contained in this act will allow our military to meet their most critical readiness and modernization needs in the coming year. However, Senators should be advised that the bill does not provide a blank check to the Pentagon. It includes reductions in some programs that, such as in the Navy's LPD-17, are behind schedule, over budget, or simply not ready to proceed. In addition, the conferees concurred with the House, terminating the Discoverer II and Sadarm programs. Mr. President, these were difficult decisions, but by making these tough choices the conferees were able to identify sufficient resources to protect those programs which are truly critical to the support of our military forces. I want to assure my colleagues that the No. 1 priority in this bill is to protect near-term readiness. The men and women willing to go into harm's way to protect the rest of us simply must be provided the tools they need to defeat any threat. To help meet our readiness requirements, the conference agreement includes the following among its many accomplishments: (1) Fully funds a 3.7 percent military pay raise; (2) Provides an increase of more than $400 million for real property maintenance; (3) Provides an increase of $234 million for depot maintenance; and (4) Provides funding for a new pharmacy benefit for our older retirees. At the same time, the bill provides sufficient funding for modernization programs so that future readiness will also be protected. We must continue to invest for the future to ensure we are never caught unprepared. I am particularly pleased that the conferees were able to provide nearly $1.4 billion in support the Army's newest initiative commonly referred to as ``transformation.'' These funds will allow the Army to begin to outfit its first two interim combat brigades with new equipment to test out this revolutionary concept. This is the highest priority of the Army Chief of Staff and is critical to supporting our Army. Mr. President, these are but a few of the many items included in this bill to ensure that our defense forces remain second to none. Mr. President, this is a very good compromise agreement. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, a process of this nature, which involves appropriations in excess of $275 billion, is a result of many hours and many days of collaboration and consultation with hundreds of people, including the President, the various Secretaries, committee staff members, Senators, and Representatives. A measure of this magnitude, obviously, will be supported by some and criticized by others. One can never come forth with a ``perfect'' bill. It is just not possible. However, I believe it is important that certain clarifications be made. I know, for example, that my dear friend from Arizona spoke of the Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense Program and suggested that the House had not sought the funds, and neither did the President of the United States nor the Senate of the United States. However, I am certain the Senator would have noted, if he studied the report carefully, that this was debated on this floor for very many minutes. It was debated in the House, it was debated in the Appropriations Committee and in the authorization committee. The only difference was that the House provided $130 million to be designated for very specific purposes. In the Senate, for the same program, we provided $50 million for the whole program itself. When the compromise was reached, we decided to let the Department of Defense make its allocations. So we drew a new line item. The new line item obviously was not requested by the President, nor by the House, nor by the Senate. But the matters debated and compromised were fully debated by this body. That can also be said for many other programs. I wish to advise my colleague that as far as I am concerned, this measure is a good one. It addresses the needs of our military. It provides the funds that are necessary to feed, clothe, and adequately and appropriately arm our men so they can stand in harm's way with some confidence that they will be protected. I commend my chairman, the Senator from Alaska, for his leadership on this matter. It is not easy. I am the first to admit that there must be some waste in a measure of this magnitude. There are some that we may disagree with as to its merit and it relevance to do defense. But that is my view. Others may disagree with me. But I think overall this is a fine bill and it is worthy of support by the Members of the Senate. I yield the remainder of my time. sar facility

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at my request, the conferees added a $2 million item to match a program that the House had included. This program, under the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy Appropriation, is listed under the Human Systems Technology Program as ``Maritime Fire Training/Barber's Point''. This funding is to be available to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to meet its civilian crewing demand and assist in maintaining a cadre of qualified seafarers for times of national emergencies. The Department of Defense is facing a significantly smaller pool of Merchant Mariners than existed in the past. In recent Senate testimony, Vice Admiral Gordon Holder, Commander of the Military Sealift Command, identified the issue of Merchant Mariner availability as a key issue to his command. Admiral Holder testified that ``MSC's difficulty in recruiting and retaining a professional cadre of civil service merchant mariners also extends to the U.S. Commercial Merchant Fleet.'' Moreover, a recent study by the National Defense Transportation Association has identified potential merchant mariner shortages. The new requirements of the standards of training, certification, and watchkeeping will have an impact on our ability to maintain a qualified pool of seafarers. The Pacific Theater is the fastest growing sector for civilian U.S. Merchant Mariners, with at least 2,500 civilian seafaring jobs coming online over the next three years. To assist the Department of Defense in meeting its civilian merchant mariner requirements, the conferees provided this funding. It is contemplated that the funds will be used for a maritime fire training facility at the Hawaii National Guard Facilities at Barber's Point. The facility will be used to train service component and civilian merchant mariners.

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. I thank my colleagues. I share their concerns. I am hopeful that in bringing affected parties together we can resolve these differences.

Mr. INOUYE. I concur in the views of my colleagues, and add that the 1994 Act has been implemented without the benefit of any regulations for the past six years. Accordingly, I can imagine no undue hardship would come to the Department if the final regulations are silent as to eight of the hundreds of issues addressed in the draft regulations. As to these eight so-called ``impasse'' issues, I would encourage the Department to simply not issue any regulatory provisions that touch upon these objectionable issues. As I understand it, the ninety-five percent of the remaining regulations that deal with other issues are acceptable to the Indian tribes. The Department should publish those as final and withhold from publication of the eight provisions that are objectionable. I would inquire of the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs as to the nature of the eight objectionable provisions.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Nickles that Congress should have oversight of this issue and that decisions made about the research station should be made based on the merits of the work performed there rather than political considerations. If one day Fort Reno is declared surplus or excess property by USDA, I hope that the Cheyenne and Arapaho's interest in the land will be considered. I believe they have a legitimate case in their pursuit of that land, and I look forward to working further with Senator Nickles on this issue.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I would like to offer a special tribute to the oldest university student exchange forum between Japan and the United States, the Japan-America Student Conference (JASC). Founded sixty-six years ago at the initiative of a group of Japanese students who were concerned about deteriorating U.S.-Japan relations, the month-long Conference has since convened on fifty-two annual occasions, alternating between the two countries. This year, the Conference will open on July 21st at Tokai University's Honolulu campus, then move on to the University of North Carolina, Washington, DC, and New York City, and will conclude at the Reischauser Institute for Japanese Studies at Harvard University on August 21st. The sixty-two delegates, half from each country and, representing some thirty-four university campuses, will address such topics as: business practices, environmental issues, philosophy and religion, historical perspectives, and third world policies, against the thematic backdrop of ``Developing New Approaches to Promote Social Change.'' JASC is completely designed and implemented by students. Delegates elect Japanese and American Executive Committees at the conclusion of each Conference who manage, plan, and select delegates for the next year's event. Many alumni of the conference have gone on to distinguish themselves in the business, academic, and governmental arenas of their respective societies. Most notable among them is Kiichi Miyazawa, former Prime Minister and current Finance Minister of Japan, who participated in the 1939 and 1940 Conferences, and Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, who participated in the 1951 Conference. A common denominator among the highly diverse delegate community is a deep interest in knowing more about the U.S. and Japan, which can lead to careers relevant to the bilateral relationship. Thirty intense days of travel and dialogue with each other foster better understanding and trust between the cultures, and, more importantly, friendships that endure for decades. As one delegate observed, ``JASC is not a destination; it is a journey that does not conclude.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I would like to thank the Chairman from Washington State for his support. I look forward to working with him to secure the resources necessary to institutionalize and maintain trust management improvements in the future. red mountain project

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, resolving Indian trust management issues should be one of the foremost priorities of this Congress. Ever since the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, serious problems have plagued the Federal government's trust management efforts. Due to recent congressional interest and support, the Department of the Interior has been able to make significant progress in reforming its trust management systems. Working in collaboration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee are: Instituting a national, state of the art, trust asset management system; Implementing a revised Trust Management Improvement Project High Level Implementation Plan; and Instituting improvements in systems, operations, and policies that will help ensure that the Federal government meets its fiduciary obligations to Indian Tribes and individual American Indians. The subcommittee's efforts to provide full funding for the Trust Management Improvement Project under the Office of the Special Trustee should be applauded. However, I am very concerned that the Senate mark does not fully fund the Bureau of Indian Affair's trust services programs. All of our efforts to reform trust management could become meaningless if BIA can't sustain these reforms by providing the funding and staffing to properly manage the trust land that produces trust income, to produce accurate and timely land title information, and provide timely closing of long open estates. I would like to work with the gentleman from Washington, Senator Gorton, and other concerned members, as the budget process continues, to provide additional resources for BIA's trust programs if funds become available.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Akaka, and I wish to engage the floor managers of the bill--the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan--in a discussion on the eventual compromise for estate tax relief. As the distinguished floor managers and all Senators are well aware, the present strategy in this election year is for the Senate to pass H.R. 8 without any change. The majority will vote down all amendments and pass the bill in the exact form as received from the House. the Senate can thus avoid a conference with the House and send the bill immediately to the President to be vetoed. The President repeatedly has said that he will veto H.R. 8 in its present form. But the President has added that he is willing to work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to enact appropriate estate tax relief for small businesses and family farms. So, if any estate tax relief is to be enacted this year, it will occur as part of an eventual compromise on an omnibus legislative, tax, and spending package in September. Senator Akaka and I have raised with the distinguished floor managers the need to expand eligibility for deferral and installment payment of the estate tax. Current law allows qualifying estates a 4-year deferral followed by 10-year installment payment of the estate tax liability arising from certain qualified interests in closely held businesses. The estate tax is not avoided or reduced but only deferred. The Treasury will receive the same amount of tax with a discounted rate of interest, but the family gets a longer period to pay the tax. This relief has proven successful in that closely held and family businesses can continue to operate and keep their workers employed while using business earnings to pay off the estate taxes. The present deferral and installment payment relief was part of the Subchapter S Act of 1958. Congress in that Act used the same eligibility requirement for Subchapter S tax treatment of closely held businesses and for estate tax relief. Years later, eligibility was broadened for qualification under Subchapter S, but not for estate tax relief. Current eligibility for estate tax relief is too narrowly restricted. When the expected year-end negotiations between Congress and the President turn to estate tax relief, would the distinguished bill managers seek to widen eligibility for deferral and installment payment for closely held businesses?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from New York for their kind response.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today as I have in prior years to oppose the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator Sessions, related to Indian gaming. I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Indian Affairs for 20 years now. Over the course of that time, I have learned a little bit about the state of Indian country, and the pervasive poverty which is both the remnant and result of too many years of failed Federal policies There was a time in our history when the native people of this land thrived. They lived in a state of optimum health. They took from the land and the water only those resources that were necessary to sustain their well-being. They were the first stewards of the environment, and those who later came here, found this continent in pristine condition because of their wise stewardship. Even after the advent of European contact, most tribal groups continued their subsistence way of life. Their culture and religion sustained them. They had sophisticated forms of government. It was so sophisticated and so clearly efficient and effective over many centuries, that our Founding Fathers could find no other better form of government upon which to structure the government of our new Nation. So they adopted the framework of the Iroquois Confederacy--a true democracy--and it is upon that foundation that we have built this great Nation. Unfortunately, there came a time in our history when those in power decided that the native people were an obstacle, and obstruction to the new American way of life and later, to the westward expansion of the United States. So our Nation embarked upon a course of terminating the Indians by exterminating them through war and the distribution of blankets infested with smallpox. We very nearly succeeded in wiping them out. Anthropologists and historians estimate that there were anywhere from 10 to 50 million indigenous people occupying this continent at the time of European contact. By 1849, when the United States finally declared and end to the era known as the Indian Wars, we had managed to so effectively decimate the Indian population that there were a bare 250,000 native people remaining. Having failed in that undertaking, we next proceeded to round up those who survived, forcibly marched them away from their traditional lands and across the country. Not surprisingly, these forced marches--and there were many of these ``trails of tears''--further reduced the Indian population because many died along the way. Later, we found the most inhospitable areas of the country on which to relocate the native people, and expected them to scratch out a living there. Of course, we made some promises along the way: That in exchange for the cession by the tribes of millions of acres of land to the United States, we would provide them with education and health care and shelter. We told them, often in solemn treaties, that these new lands would be theirs in perpetuity--that their traditional way of life would be protected from encroachment by non-Indians and that we would recognize their inherent right as sovereigns to retain all powers of government not relinquished. Their rights to hunt and fish and gather food, to use the waters that were necessary to sustain life on a reservation and the natural resources, were also recognized as preserved in perpetuity to their use. But over the years, these promises and others were broken by our National Government, and our vacillations in policies--of which there were many--left most reservation communities in economic ruin. It might interest my colleagues in the Senate to know that the Government of the United States entered into 800 treaties with Indian nations, sovereign nations. Of the 800 treaties, 470 were filed. I presume they are still filed in some of our cabinets. Three hundred seventy were ratified. Of the 370 treaties ratified by this Senate, we found it necessary to violate provisions in every single one of them. The cumulative effects of our treatment of the native people of this land have proven to be nearly fatal to them. Poverty in Indian country is unequaled anywhere else in the United States. The desperation and despair which inevitably accompanies the pervasive economic devastation that is found in Indian country accounts for the astronomically high rates of suicide and mortality from diseases. Within this context, along comes an opportunity for some tribal governments to explore the economic potential of gaming. It doesn't prove to be a panacea, but it begins to bring in revenues that tribal communities haven't had before. And then the State of California enters the picture by bringing a legal action against the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians--a case that ultimately makes it to the Supreme Court. Consistent with 150 years of Federal law and constitutional principles, the Supreme Court rules that the State of California cannot exercise its jurisdiction on Indian lands to regulate gaming activities. This is in May 1987, and in the aftermath of the Court's ruling, attention turns to the Congress. Mr. President, it was now in the 100th session of the Congress that I found myself serving as the primary sponsor of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. There were many hearings and many drafts leading up to the formulation of the bill that was ultimately signed into law. Intially, our inclination was to follow the well-established and time-honored model of Federal Indian law--which was to provide for an exclusive Federal presence in the regulation of gaming activities on Indian lands. Such a framework would be consistent with constitutional principles, with the majority of our Federal statutes addressing Indian country, and would reflect the fact that as a general proposition--it is Federal law, along with tribal law, that governs most all of what may transpire in Indian country. But representatives of several States came to the Congress--demanding a role in the regulation of Indian gaming--and ultimately, we acquiesced to those demands. We selected a mechanism that has become customary in the dealings amongst sovereign governments. This mechanism--a compact between a State government and a tribal government--would be recognized by the Federal Government as the agreement between the two sovereigns as to how the conduct of gaming on Indian lands would proceed. This Federal recognition of the agreement would be accompanied when the Secretary of the Department of the Interior approved the tribal- State compact. In an effort to assure that the parties would come to the table and negotiate a compact in good faith, and in order to provide for the possibility that the parties might not reach agreement, we also provided a means by which the parties could seek the involvement of a Federal district court, and if ordered by the court, could avail themselves of a mediation process. That judicial remedy and the potential for a mediated solution when the parties find themselves at an impasse has subsequently been frustrated by a ruling of the Supreme Court upholding the 11th amendment immunity of the several States. Thus, while there are some who have consistently maintained that sovereign immunity is an anachronism in contemporary times, in this area at least, the States still jealously guard their sovereign immunity to suit in the courts of another sovereign. In so doing, the States have presented us with a clear conflict, which we have been trying to resolve for several years. Although 24 of the 28 States that have Indian reservations within their boundaries have now entered into 159 tribal-State compacts with 148 tribal governments, there are a few States in which tribal-state compacts have not been reached. And the conflict we are challenged with resolving is how to accommodate the desire of these States to be involved in the regulation of Indian gaming and their equally strong desire to avoid any process which might enable the parties to overcome an impasse in their negotiations. The Secretary of the Interior is to be commended in his efforts to achieve what the Congress has been unable to accomplish in the past few years. Following the Supreme Court's 11th amendment ruling, the Secretary took a reasonable course of action. He published a notice of proposed rulemaking, inviting comments on his authority to promulgate regulations for an alternative process to the tribal-State compacting process established in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Thereafter, he followed the next appropriate steps under the Administrative Procedures Act, inviting the input of all interested parties in the promulgation of regulations. When the Senate acted to prohibit him from proceeding in this time- honored fashion, he brought together representatives of the National Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the tribal governments, to explore whether a consensus could be reached on these and other matters. In the meantime, my colleagues propose an amendment that would prohibit the Secretary from proceeding with the regulatory process. Once again, there have been no hearings on this proposal--no public consideration of this formulation--no input from the governments involved and directly affected by this proposal. Last year, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior made clear his intention to recommend a veto of the Interior appropriations bill should this provision be adopted by the Senate and approved in House- Senate conference. I suggest that it is unlikely that the Secretary's position has changed in any material respect--particularly in light of all that he has undertaken to accomplish, including frank discussion amongst the State and tribal governments. As one who initiated a similar discussion process several years ago, I am more than a little familiar with the issues that require resolution. However, in the intervening years, court rulings have clarified and put to rest many of the issues that were in contention in that earlier process. I have continued to talk to Governors and attorneys general and tribal government leaders on a weekly, if not daily basis, and I believe, as the Secretary does, that the potential is there for the State and tribal governments to come to some mutually acceptable resolution of the matters that remain outstanding between them. I believe the Secretary's process should be allowed to proceed. I also believe that pre-empting that process through an amendment to this bill could well serve as the death knell for what is ultimately the only viable way to accomplish a final resolution. The alternative is to proceed in this piecemeal fashion each year--an amendment each year to prohibit the Secretary from taking any action that would bridge the gap in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that was created by the Court's ruling and which will inevitably discourage the State and tribal governments from fashioning solutions. This is not the way to do the business of the people. There are those in this body who are opposed to gaming. As many of my colleagues know, I count myself in their numbers. I am opposed to gaming. Hawaii and Utah are the only two States in our Union that criminally prohibit all forms of gaming, and I support that prohibition in my State. But I have walked many miles in Indian country, and I have seen the poverty, and the desperation and despair in the eyes of many Indian parents and their children. I have looked into the eyes of the elders--eyes that express great sadness. I have met young Indian people who are now dead because they saw no hope for the future. And I have seen what gaming has enabled tribal governments to do, for the first time--to build hospitals and clinics, to repair and construct safe schools, to provide jobs or the adults and educational opportunities for the youth--and perhaps most importantly, to engender a real optimism that there can be and will be--the prospects for a brighter future. It is for these reasons, and because of their rights as sovereigns to pursue activities that hold the potential for making their tribal economies become both viable and stable over the long term, that I support Indian gaming. And it is for these reasons, that I must, again this year, strongly oppose the efforts of my colleagues to take from Indian country, what unfortunately has become the single ray of hope for the future that native people have had for a very long time.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor Lieutenant General Ronald B. Blanck as he retires from the United States Army after more than thirty-two years of active duty service. For the last four years, General Blanck has served as the United States Army Surgeon General and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command General. During his tenure, he had significant oversight of eight Department of Defense activities as well as the management of the Army's $6.6 billion, worldwide integrated health system. Beginning his career as a general medical officer in Vietnam, General Blanck went on to hold a variety of executive positions that include: professor and teaching chief in graduate medical education at the Uniformed Services University; medical consultant to the Army Surgeon General; Commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command; and finally as the U.S. Army's 39th Surgeon General. General Blanck has met every challenge with enthusiasm and zeal. His team-building, compassion, and vision have resulted in greater cooperation among the Federal Health Services and improved delivery of medical care to our nation's military, past and present. General Blanck guided the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) through a period of re-engineering and instituted collaborative missions with the Department of State, Department of Treasury, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, National Aeronautic and Space Administration, National Transportation and Safety Board, and the Veterans Administration. These partnerships have fostered unparalleled advances in science and facilitated the reputation of AFIP as being known as the ``People's Institute.'' He re-energized the Army Medical Department and instituted best business practices to ensure the provision of comprehensive, quality healthcare to service members, retired and active, and their family members. Faced with a military medical end-strength reduction of 34%, a reduction in Army medical treatment facilities of 45%, and medical force structure requirements reduction of 77%, General Blanck met the challenge. His brilliant leadership, compassionate vision and unprecedented achievements will guide the Army Medical Department and the entire federal health care system into the new millenium. General Blanck's contributions to Persian Gulf Illness and Anthrax programs, his interactions with Congress and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), and his commitment to the delivery of world-class medical care in support of contingency operations, national emergencies, and potential weapons of mass destruction scenarios are unsurpassed. Mr. President, while General Blanck's many meritorious awards and decorations demonstrate his contributions in a tangible way, it is the legacy he leaves behind for the Army Medical Corps, the United States Army, and the Department of Defense for which we are most appreciative. It is with pride that I congratulate General Blanck on his outstanding career of exemplary service.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I, too, am concerned about the situation on the Fort Berthold Reservation. In the Indian Affairs Committee, my colleagues and I struggle with how to meet the many responsibilities that the federal government has to Indian tribes across the nation. There is a mounting crisis in Indian country in a range of areas and transportation is among the critical needs of tribes. Including the Four Bears Bridge in this bill as requested by the President is vital to addressing the emergency needs on the Fort Berthold Reservation.