Floor Statements

Mr. President, on September 17, 2003, America lost one of its true Ambassadors of Friendship, Mr. Joji Konoshima, President and co-founder of the U.S.-Asia Institute.

Mr. Konoshima was well known at home and abroad for his efforts to promote understanding and dialog between the United States and East Asian nations. His career as an educator, labor organizer, political advisor, and diplomatic mentor spanned more than 40 years.

Born in Tokyo, Japan, Mr. Konoshima immigrated with his family to the United States at the age of six years and settled in California. He was a student at the University of California, Berkeley, when he and his family were evacuated during World War II to the Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming. After the war, he received a Bachelor of arts degree in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1953, and a Master of Arts degree in Education from New York University in 1960. Mr. Konoshima taught social studies and Japanese language in New York City, and was an adjunct assistant professor at New York University for more than a decade.

In 1973, Mr. Konoshima organized the Manhattan teachers' union in backing the successful candidacy of Mayor Abraham Beame. He then served as the labor coordinator for New York gubernatorial candidate Hugh Carey in 1974, and was the union liaison for Governor Carey after his election. In 1974, Mr. Konoshima traveled to Hawaii to organize the teachers' union. In 1976, he became the New York labor coordinator for the Presidential campaign of Jimmy Carter, and went on to join the national Carter-Mondale campaign as labor liaison. After the election, Mr. Konoshima became the National Director of the Asian Pacific Affairs Unit of the Democratic National Committee. He accompanied Vice President Walter Mondale to Japan, and traveled to Japan and Korea with President Carter. He played a key role in the historic visit of Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping to the United States in 1978, traveling with him to New York, Houston and San Francisco.

In 1979, Mr. Konoshima co-founded, with his colleague Esther Kee, the U.S.-Asia Institute, an organization dedicated to fostering better relations between the U.S. and the countries and people of East Asia. During his tenure as President of the U.S.-Asia Institute, Mr. Konoshima personally escorted Members of Congress on visits to the People's Republic of China, as well as delegations of Congressional staff. Mr. Konoshima led more than 85 Congressional staff and trade delegations to China, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei. He also hosted seven international conferences in cooperation with the U.S. Department of State, and a multitude of briefings on issues of interest and concern to the U.S. and East Asian nations. Mr. Konoshima was an advisor to political,

business and diplomatic leaders on both sides of the Pacific.

Joji Konoshima will be missed by all whose lives he touched, but his extraordinary efforts in support of U.S.-Asia relations shall never be forgotten.

Mr. President, one of Hawaii's most widely respected business and community leaders has passed away. Robert J. ``Bobby'' Pfeiffer was, as his friends described him, ``an old sea dog'' who rose from deck hand aboard tugs and steamers to become Chief Executive of one of Hawaii's most important companies, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and of its subsidiary, Matson Navigation Co., Inc.

He was a man of vision who was always in touch with the concerns of all of the people of Hawaii. He often said, ``What is good for the community is good for business.''

I would like to honor the late Mr. Pfeiffer by asking to have the following biography of Mr. Pfeiffer printed in the Record.

The material follows:

Robert J. ``Bobby'' Pfeiffer, March 7, 1920-September 26, 2003

Chairman Emeritus, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.; Chairman Emeritus, Matson

Navigation Company, Inc.

``Old sailors never die, they just drop the anchor,''

Robert J. ``Bobby'' Pfeiffer said over a decade ago as he was

contemplating retirement. Pfeiffer, one of Hawaii's most

renowned sailors and captains of industry, dropped the anchor

on September 26, 2003, at age 83, at his home in Orinda,

Calif., after a lengthy illness

During his 12\1/2\ years at the helm of Alexander &

Baldwin, Inc., Bobby Pfeiffer became practically synonymous

with business leadership in Hawaii. He charted a course of

modernization and diversification, and led A&B through one of

its strongest periods of growth and prosperity. At the same

time he earned a reputation for leadership--personal as well

as corporate--in support of charitable and other community

causes.

Mr. Pfeiffer's maritime and business career spanned 58

years, nearly 38 of them with A&B and its ocean

transportation subsidiary, Matson Navigation Company, Inc.

During that nearly four-decade period, he served as A&B's

chief executive longer than all but two of his predecessors,

and he piloted Matson for 19 years, longer than any of that

company's chief executives since its founder, Captain William

Matson.

For his significant contributions to the mid- and late-

20th-century modernization of American shipping, Bobby

Pfeiffer was recognized with the transportation and maritime

industries' highest honors.

Early Years

The descendent of an eight-generation line of sea captains,

Bobby Pfeiffer was born in Suva, Fiji, in 1920. He came to

Hawaii with his family the following year and spent his early

childhood in Hilo and Ka'u on the Big Island. It was there,

in a mostly Hawaiian community, that he learned to speak

Hawaiian--``otherwise you couldn't eat!'' he would later

explain--and ``developed an affection for the Hawaiian people

that [he] never lost.'' He even learned to dance the hula.

His affection for Hawaiian people deepened when, as a young

man, he worked on interisland steamers with Hawaiian

shipmates. He developed enormous respect for their seagoing

skills and ``friendly, compassionate, generous'' qualities.

Mr. Pfeiffer moved to Honolulu in 1929 with his family, and

he was soon spending all his spare time at the waterfront, in

the holds and on the docks, helping unload freight, checking

cargo, riding forklifts without permission, and learning to

run equipment. By age 12 Bobby Pfeiffer was working summers

for Inter-Island Steam Navigation Company, Ltd. His first

assignment: deckhand on a harbor tug. Within three years he

earned an operator's license for vessels up to 75 feet long

and could legally skipper harbor tugs.

He showed leadership qualities and initiative early. By the

eight grade, already captain of Roosevelt Intermediate

School's junior police squad, Bobby Pfeiffer was chosen

president of all junior police on Oahu. As he entered high

school, his ambition was to attend West Point and make the

Army his career. Knowing that McKinley High School had an

excellent ROTC program, he decided on his own to transfer

from Roosevelt, then one of Hawaii's elite ``English-

standard'' schools. ``I attended McKinley for three weeks

before my parents found out,'' he remembered. He worked his

way up to cadet colonel of the ROTC Brigade and earned an

appointment to West Point. Shortly before graduation in 1937,

however, Bobby Pfeiffer's father lost his job, which prompted

the young man to abandon his plans for West Point.

Instead, Bobby Pfeiffer went to work full-time for Inter-

Island Steam Navigation, starting the day after graduation.

Being a sailor ``was a hard life,'' he said. ``Many times we

collapsed on mail sacks in the 'tween decks to snatch an hour

or two of sleep.'' His hard work was rewarded and he was soon

made an officer. By 1941 he was back ashore, serving as

terminal superintendent.

During World War II, Mr. Pfeiffer served in the U.S. Navy.

At the end of the war, he married a fellow naval officer,

Mary Elizabeth worts, at Koloa Union Church on Kauai. While

he would remain in the Naval Reserve until 1965 (retiring

with the rank of commander), he soon returned to Inter-Island

Steam Navigation, where by 1950 he had risen to executive

vice president. Later that year a U.S. Department of Justice

order split the company in three; Bobby Pfeiffer was picked

to head one of the successor companies, Overseas Terminal,

Ltd. He remained with the company until 1955, when he moved

to Alhambra, Calif., to become vice president and general

manager of Pacific Cut Stone and Granite Co.

Matson

Mr. Pfeiffer began his long association with Matson in

1956, when he was named vice president and general manager of

Matcinal Corporation, a Matson stevedoring and terminal

subsidiary in Alameda, Calif. Except for the two years (1958-

60) that he managed Pacific Far East Line's terminal and

cargo operations division in San Francisco, Bobby Pfeiffer

would spend the rest of his career with Matson and its

corporate parent, Alexander & Baldwin.

Returning to Matson in 1960--as vice president and general

manager of Matson Terminals, Inc.--Bobby Pfeiffer promptly

earned a place in U.S. maritime annals by helping negotiate

the historic labor agreement that made possible the most

significant advance in shipping since steam replaced sail:

containerized cargo. Today the standard method of shipping,

containerized cargo was then in its infancy, having been

pioneered in the Pacific by Matson, beginning in 1958.

The Pacific Maritime Association, the shippers' group, made

Bobby Pfeiffer chairman of its steering committee, charged

with negotiating the ground rules for containerized cargo

with the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's

Union (ILWU), headed by Harry Bridges. Over ``months of

intense negotiations,'' that Bobby Pfeiffer would later call

``labor-management statesmanship at its finest,'' the parties

created the Mechanization and Modernization (M and M)

Agreement. ``The union held a coast-wide caucus to consider

whether to resist [containerization] . . . or to bargain for

a `share of the machine.' '' Bobby Pfeiffer said. ``The

caucus opted to go after a share of the machine.'' The result

was a significant rise in longshore workers' wages and a new

lease on life for the U.S. merchant fleet.

In 1962 Mr. Pfeiffer was named president of Matson

Terminals, the first step in an 11-year rise to the

presidency of parent Matson Navigation Company. He was made a

Matson vice president in 1966, in charge of the company's Far

East freight division. In 1970 Matson promoted him to senior

vice president for operations, and in 1971 to executive vice

president. In 1973 he was named Matson president and, at the

same time, senior vice president of its corporate parent,

Mr. President, before I proceed, I wish to commend my chairman, Mr. Stevens, for bringing this conference report to the Senate. In doing so, I commend him for his leadership. I realize Members of the Senate may not be aware of this, but because of the leadership skills and because of the hard work of the staff, the conference committee concluded its work on this important measure in 2 hours. In 2 hours, we concluded a bill that was filled with controversy and issues. At the end, the vote was unanimous.

The conferees recommend $368.7 billion in mandatory and discretionary appropriations for the coming year. It is a huge sum, but it is a sum that is absolutely necessary.

This is nearly half a billion less than recommended by the Senate and $3.6 billion less than requested by the President. We have tried our best to trim what some would call ``fat.''

The reduction to the President's request is not an indication that we believe Defense is overfunded. Instead, it is because we realize that there are so many other underfunded areas of the budget that we had to reduce defense to accommodate these needs. This was a tough conference. Our chairman did an exceptional job--I emphasize ``exceptional''-- representing the Senate position. This is especially true given the reduced allocation.

This agreement provides the funds necessary for the military. It fully funds the pay and allowances for our troops and thereby ensures that we have taken care of the crown jewel of our Defense capability-- the men and women who put on the uniform.

In the interest of time, I will not present all of the details of this massive bill. However, I would like to address two important subjects that the managers of the House and Senate spent many hours discussing.

First, the conferees agreed to include an amended version of House language that would close down the Navy Station at Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.

As we looked into this matter we found that the Navy no longer needed or wanted the base and it could save $300 million annually by closing it. As such, we agreed to close the base. However, the conference agreement ensures that the base will be closed in accordance with existing base closure laws. We did not agree to a new procedure which would have given the Navy all the benefits of the closure and the local population none of the safeguards included in the BRAC legislation.

Second, the Senate bill include language terminating the controversial Terrorism Information Awareness program, TIA. The conferees have agreed to terminate the program and close the Office of Information Awareness in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,

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

Mr. President, it is interesting to note that Senator Nickles says this bill complies completely with the requirements of the Budget Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Beach Recreation and Economic Benefits Act. This measure would require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps, to give recreational benefits the same priority as hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits when justifying beach restoration projects.

The Army Corps performs a valuable service in protecting our nation's beaches against erosion. They have effectively restored and repaired damaged beaches for over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, under current policy, the Army Corps only authorizes and funds beach restoration projects that protect property against storm and hurricane damage. The Army Corps does not recommend authorization or funding of beach restoration projects that only provide recreational benefits.

Beaches help support tourism and serve as an important source of fun for many Americans who seek inexpensive recreation. Many of these beaches are not eligible for beach restoration because they lack sufficient structural development along coastlines to warrant a restoration project solely on the basis of storm or hurricane damage reduction. While local governments and communities have taken proactive measures to avert flood damage, they are being denied the much needed beach restoration assistance by the Army Corps.

In addition, by limiting beach restoration projects to storm and hurricane damage reduction, the Army Corps has established a policy that inadvertently aids more developed shorelines than others. The method for determining storm and hurricane damage reduction benefits is based on the assessed value of the private property and public infrastructure immediately adjacent to the beach. Therefore, the benefits will be much higher for densely developed shorelines than less densely developed shorelines. For example, a high-rise residential condominium or hotel would provide more storm reduction benefits than a single family home.

Accordingly, the National Beach Recreation and Economic Benefits Act will ensure that recreation benefits are accorded the same considerations as storm and hurricane damage reduction benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Beach Recreation and Economic Benefits Act. This measure would require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps, to give recreational benefits the same priority as hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits when justifying beach restoration projects.

The Army Corps performs a valuable service in protecting our nation's beaches against erosion. They have effectively restored and repaired damaged beaches for over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, under current policy, the Army Corps only authorizes and funds beach restoration projects that protect property against storm and hurricane damage. The Army Corps does not recommend authorization or funding of beach restoration projects that only provide recreational benefits.

Beaches help support tourism and serve as an important source of fun for many Americans who seek inexpensive recreation. Many of these beaches are not eligible for beach restoration because they lack sufficient structural development along coastlines to warrant a restoration project solely on the basis of storm or hurricane damage reduction. While local governments and communities have taken proactive measures to avert flood damage, they are being denied the much needed beach restoration assistance by the Army Corps.

In addition, by limiting beach restoration projects to storm and hurricane damage reduction, the Army Corps has established a policy that inadvertently aids more developed shorelines than others. The method for determining storm and hurricane damage reduction benefits is based on the assessed value of the private property and public infrastructure immediately adjacent to the beach. Therefore, the benefits will be much higher for densely developed shorelines than less densely developed shorelines. For example, a high-rise residential condominium or hotel would provide more storm reduction benefits than a single family home.

Accordingly, the National Beach Recreation and Economic Benefits Act will ensure that recreation benefits are accorded the same considerations as storm and hurricane damage reduction benefits. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 17, the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators Dorgan, Lott, and others that would repeal rule changes recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission that, if allowed to go into effect, could dramatically alter the shape of the American media landscape.

The foundation of our democracy is based on the free flow of information guaranteed by the first amendment. As the Supreme Court explained more than 50 years ago, the first amendment ``rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the people.'' Unfortunately, the FCC's recent changes to its broadcast media ownership rules call into question that agency's commitment to this fundamental principle.

On June 2 of this year, the FCC voted to significantly relax rules that protect the American people from the ill-effects of concentrated media power. Already, in television and in print, large media conglomerates control an alarming amount of what Americans see, read, and hear. In fact, 75 percent of what Americans watch during prime time and 90 percent of the top 50 channels on cable are controlled by just 5 media companies.

Against this backdrop, the FCC's decision to allow greater concentration of ownership is clearly a step in the wrong direction. If allowed to go into effect, these rules will result in fewer creative outlets for independent television and content producers; higher ad rates for large and small businesses; fewer antagonistic sources of news and opinion; and less air time for community groups. In addition, there may be growing reluctance by local station operators to take on network executives in rejecting nationally produced programming that violates community standards.

Some Members contend that ``[t]here should be reasoned debate on each of the rules'' rather than disapproving the entire package. I fully agree that there should be reasoned debate on each of the rules. That is exactly what I, along with 14 other Senators, asked FCC Chairman Michael Powell to do--to given Americans the opportunity to review and comment on the specific rule changes before any final decision by the FCC. Our request was denied.

While recent action by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in staying the implementation of these new rules is an encouraging sign that these changes may not survive judicial scrutiny, we in Congress should not rely on court action. Instead, we must act decisively to protect the public interest and to rescind these recently adopted rules.

Will the chairman of the subcommittee yield for a question?

First, I would like to compliment the chairman and the ranking member, Senator Harkin, for their leadership in developing an excellent bill for consideration by the Senate. As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee for many years I understand the challenge faced by the subcommittee each year in developing a bill that adequately funds all the outstanding programs in the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. The chairman and the ranking member have done an admirable job and they set a fine example of working in a bipartisan manner to meet the health, education and workforces priorities of the Nation. I would also compliment the dedicated staff who support this effort. We would not have such good bills for the Nation without their counsel and hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to highlight one NIH-related matter that despite our best efforts remains largely unresolved. This year again the Committee's report urges the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to fund basic behavioral research. The Committee report states the following:

Behavioral Research.--The Committee believes that NIGMS has

a scientific mandate to support basic behavioral research

because of the clear relevance of fundamental behavioral

factors to a variety of diseases and health conditions. The

Committee encourages the NIGMS to incorporate basic

behavioral research as part of its portfolio, especially in

the areas of cognition, behavioral neuroscience, behavioral

genetics, psychophysiology, methodology and evaluation, and

experimental psychology.

This is excellent language. The Committee has had similar language in fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, but little has yet been done to implement the Committee's recommendation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee's NIGMS report language from fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of our remarks.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the NIGMS statute, which states in Public Law that one of the purposes of NIGMS is to conduct and support behavioral research, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of our remarks.

Would the chairman and ranking member join me in helping ensure that the NIH complies with the wishes of the subcommittee on this matter?

Mr. President, the children of the United States lost a great champion on July 25 when Dr. James. S. Seidel died at the age of 60. Dr. Seidel was a professor of pediatrics at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine and was chief of the Division of General and Emergency Pediatrics at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

He was an excellent teacher and researcher, but he was also a tenacious advocate for children. Through his students, residents, and fellows, he leaves behind a legacy of energetic inquiry and dedicated service to children and their families. Through his advocacy work, he leaves behind a much improved system of care, particularly emergency care, for children. While we will all miss the man, we will continue to benefit from his work.

A major concern of Dr. Seidel, and a concern I share, was the challenge our Emergency Medical Services system faces in appropriately caring for the emergency needs of children. The system responds well to adult needs but is not always so successful in meeting the needs of children. He was a driving force behind the Emergency Departments Approved for Pediatrics, EDAP, system in California, but he also recognized that a national problem such as this required national support if it was to be solved. Along with my good friend, Dr. Calvin Sia, and a small group of pediatric emergency care advocates, Dr. Seidel worked with Senators Hatch, Weiker, and myself to help us enact in 1984 the Emergency Medical Services for Children, EMSC, program. This modest program has made a tremendous difference in the lives of many children and their families in every State and Territory. Dr. Seidel was a driving force in shaping the direction of the EMSC program, and was one of the program's first grantees. He maintained his interest and advocacy as the program matured. There is almost nothing in EMSC that was not influenced by Dr. Seidel. Dr. Sia received the first National Heroes Award for Lifetime Achievement in emergency medical services for children. In 2000, Dr. Seidel received the second. It was an honor well deserved.

In 1991, Dr. Seidel edited Emergency Medical Services for Children: A Report to the Nation. He asked me to write the Foreword. In it, I said, ``History has repeatedly shown that persistence is most often the key to success. We must persist in our advocacy for those most vulnerable children of all: the ill and the injured.'' Dr. Seidel's life is a testimony as to how persistence will lead to success. We still have a long way to go, but we are much further down the road thanks to remarkable people such as James S. Seidel.

Mr. President, August 11, 2003, will mark the 25th Anniversary of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.

I am proud to have served as one of nine original co-sponsors of this Act, joining Senators Abourezk, Goldwater, Gravel, Hatfield, Humphrey, Kennedy, Matsunaga and Stevens to introduce the Joint Resolution on December 15, 1977.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act states that it is the policy of the United States to preserve and protect the traditional religions of the American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos and Native Hawaiians. It was necessary to declare this policy to begin to counter the ill effects that stemmed from the policy of the 1880s to the 1930s that sought to ban the exercise of Native American traditional religions.

With the American Indian Religious Freedom Act policy in place, Congress built on this foundation to develop more specific legislation in 1989 and 1990 to provide for the repatriation of Native American human remains, sacred objects and items of cultural patrimony that were taken from Native Americans during the time of that Federal policy attempted to eliminate the practice of their religions.

From time to time, the Congress has also returned certain sacred lands to Native Americans for their traditional religious use.

The Committee on Indian Affairs has been conducting a series of oversight hearings on Native American sacred places and has found that many of these areas are being systematically damaged and destroyed, and Native Americans have no specific statutory authority that would enable them to defend their traditional religious areas in court.

I believe that this twenty-fifth anniversary year of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act is a fitting time for Congress to amend the Act, to assure that Native Americans have the legal means to protect their places of worship.

I believe it is time that we join together in enacting legislation that will fulfill the policy promise of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

Mr. President, August 11, 2003, will mark the 25th Anniversary of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.

I am proud to have served as one of nine original co-sponsors of this Act, joining Senators Abourezk, Goldwater, Gravel, Hatfield, Humphrey, Kennedy, Matsunaga and Stevens to introduce the Joint Resolution on December 15, 1977.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act states that it is the policy of the United States to preserve and protect the traditional religions of the American Indians, Aleuts, Eskimos and Native Hawaiians. It was necessary to declare this policy to begin to counter the ill effects that stemmed from the policy of the 1880s to the 1930s that sought to ban the exercise of Native American traditional religions.

With the American Indian Religious Freedom Act policy in place, Congress built on this foundation to develop more specific legislation in 1989 and 1990 to provide for the repatriation of Native American human remains, sacred objects and items of cultural patrimony that were taken from Native Americans during the time of that Federal policy attempted to eliminate the practice of their religions.

From time to time, the Congress has also returned certain sacred lands to Native Americans for their traditional religious use.

The Committee on Indian Affairs has been conducting a series of oversight hearings on Native American sacred places and has found that many of these areas are being systematically damaged and destroyed, and Native Americans have no specific statutory authority that would enable them to defend their traditional religious areas in court.

I believe that this twenty-fifth anniversary year of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act is a fitting time for Congress to amend the Act, to assure that Native Americans have the legal means to protect their places of worship.

I believe it is time that we join together in enacting legislation that will fulfill the policy promise of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. I am joined by my good friends, Senators Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran, as cosponsors of this measure. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

The business meals and entertainment expenses deduction was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Its results have been detrimental to small businesses, the self-employed, and independent and traveling sales representatives. Research conducted by the National Restaurant Association (NRA) indicates that the great majority of business meal users are small businesses and of such businesses, one- fifth are self employed. On an average, business meal costs for small businesses is less than $15 per lunch. These groups rely on one-on-one meetings, usually during meals, for their marketing strategy, and the reduction of the business meals and entertainment deduction has impacted their marketing efforts.

An increase in the meal deduction would have a significant impact on the overall economy. Accompanying my statement is the NRA's State-by- State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. I am joined by my good friends, Senators Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran, as cosponsors of this measure. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

The business meals and entertainment expenses deduction was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Its results have been detrimental to small businesses, the self-employed, and independent and traveling sales representatives. Research conducted by the National Restaurant Association (NRA) indicates that the great majority of business meal users are small businesses and of such businesses, one- fifth are self employed. On an average, business meal costs for small businesses is less than $15 per lunch. These groups rely on one-on-one meetings, usually during meals, for their marketing strategy, and the reduction of the business meals and entertainment deduction has impacted their marketing efforts.

An increase in the meal deduction would have a significant impact on the overall economy. Accompanying my statement is the NRA's State-by- State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I can assure my distinguished colleague from Connecticut that we will do our utmost in convincing the House conferees to accept this.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I stand with much reluctance to speak against the amendment proposed by the good Senator. But I would like to commend him first for bringing this matter to our attention.

I think it should be noted that as of this moment this Nation has spent over $15 billion primarily in research. If this was a case where we had a vaccine or we had some drug or some medicine that could cure global AIDS and that we were not purchasing it in a sufficient quantity, that would be another issue. Then one could say this is an emergency and we need more drugs or we need more vaccines. But we are still in the process of developing this vaccine.

Experience has shown us that by merely appropriating money does not find solutions with these problems. One must train technicians. One must take time to do research. Men and women who are experts in this area and who have a schedule are much more knowledgeable to tell us at this stage whether we should be spending so much. Finally, when we hopefully reach that moment when we can tell the world we have found the vaccine and we have found the drugs that can do it, then we can spend huge amounts.

We have spent over $15 billion. It is not an easy problem. To say that it is complex would be an understatement.

If this amount suggested by my friend and mentor would cure the problem, I think all of us here would be supporting it. But I think all of us realize we are still at the development stage.

If you study the process followed by other development programs, you will note that we always start small and then grow up to a point where we can do the huge spending. But we still must develop the vaccine. We still must develop the medicine. And just spending money is not going to do that.

Much as I want to support my dear friends, I find that I will be supporting my chairman in the motion to table.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1280 Withdrawn

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I send to the desk 16 amendments as part of the managers' package and ask unanimous consent for their immediate consideration en bloc.

They are: Senator Feinstein amendment on secure cell phones; Senator Boxer amendment on Shortstop, an Army program; Senator Durbin amendment on the 932nd Airlift Command; Senator Mikulski amendment on Project Ancile; Senator Mikulski amendment on knowledge management fusion; Senator Schumer amendment on Large Energy National Shock Tunnel; Senator Dorgan amendment on ultra-low-power battlefield sensor system; Senator Biden amendment on nuclear debris collection; Senator Bayh amendment on M1A1 tank transmissions; Senator Inouye amendment on civil rights history in the Army; Senator Harkin amendment on airplane parts; Senator Wyden amendment on Iraq reconstruction contracts; Senator Boxer amendment on travel expenses; Senator Biden amendment on C-5s; Senator Schumer amendment on Iraq report; Senator Byrd amendment on travel credit card checks.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I would be happy to join in that assurance.

ec-130j modifications

Mr. President, I would also expect the Department to give full consideration to supporting this worthwhile project.