S72 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made 

on behalf of our Nation. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 70 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY 

OF OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL 

DAY. 

(a) DESIGNATION OF LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY.—Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Memorial 

Day, the last Monday in May.’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘Memorial Day, May 30.’’. 

(b) OBSERVANCES AND CEREMONIES.—Section 116 of title 36, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘The last 

Monday in May’’ and inserting ‘‘May 30’’; 

and 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (3); 

(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: 

‘‘(4) calling on the people of the United 

States to observe Memorial Day as a day of 

ceremonies to show respect for United States 

veterans of wars and other military conflicts; and’’. 

(c) DISPLAY OF FLAG.—Section 6(d) of title 

4, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the last Monday in May;’’ and inserting 

‘‘May 30;’’. 

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and 

Mr. AKAKA): 

S. 72. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians; to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to 

introduce a bill to reauthorize Title 

VIII of the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act. Senator AKAKA joins me in sponsoring this measure. Title VIII provides 

authority for the appropriation of 

funds for the construction of low-income housing for native Hawaiians and 

further provides authority for access to 

loan guarantees associated with the 

construction of housing to serve native 

Hawaiians. 

Three studies have documented the 

acute housing needs of native Hawaiians—which include the highest rates 

of overcrowding and homelessness in 

the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing 

rates for Native Hawaiians are 

amongst the highest in the Nation. 

The reauthorization of Title VIII will 

support the continuation of efforts to 

assure that the native people of Hawaii 

may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to 

those now enjoyed by other Americans. 

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 

be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 72 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hawaiian 

Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE. 

Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243) is amended by striking 

‘‘fiscal years’’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘fiscal years 2009, 2010, 

2011, 2012, and 2013.’’. 

SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING. 

Section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 

1715z–13b) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘or as a 

result of a lack of access to private financial 

markets’’; 

(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph 

(2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE HOUSING.—The loan will be 

used to construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 1- to 4-family dwellings that are— 

‘‘(A) standard housing; and 

‘‘(B) located on Hawaiian Home Lands.’’; 

and 

(3) in subsection (j)(7), by striking ‘‘fiscal 

years’’ and all that follows through the end 

of the paragraph and inserting the following: 

‘‘fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.’’. 

SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS FOR TITLE VI 

LOAN GUARANTEES. 

Title VI of the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 

1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191 et seq.) is amended— 

(1) in the title heading, by inserting ‘‘AND 

NATIVE HAWAIIAN’’ after ‘‘TRIBAL’’; 

(2) in section 601 (25 U.S.C. 4191)— 

(A) in subsection (a)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘or tribally designated 

housing entities with tribal approval’’ and 

inserting ‘‘, by tribally designated housing 

entities with tribal approval, or by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,’’; and 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘or 810, as applicable,’’ 

after ‘‘section 202’’ ; and 

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ‘‘or title 

VIII, as applicable’’ before the period at the 

end; 

(3) in section 602 (25 U.S.C. 4192)— 

(A) in subsection (a)— 

(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

by striking ‘‘or housing entity’’ and inserting ‘‘, housing entity, or Department of Hawaiian Home Lands’’; and 

(ii) in paragraph (3)— 

(I) by inserting ‘‘or Department’’ after 

‘‘tribe’’; 

(II) by inserting ‘‘or title VIII, as applicable,’’ after ‘‘title I’’; and 

(III) by inserting ‘‘or 811(b), as applicable’’ 

before the semicolon at the end; and 

(B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘or 

housing entity’’ and inserting ‘‘, housing entity, or the Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands’’; 

(4) in the first sentence of section 603 (25 

U.S.C. 4193), by striking ‘‘or housing entity’’ 

and inserting ‘‘, housing entity, or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands’’; and 

(5) in section 605(b) (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)), by 

striking ‘‘1997 through 2007’’ and inserting 

‘‘2009 through 2013’’. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN: 

S. 73. A bill to establish a systematic 

mortgage modification program at the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

rise today to introduce legislation that 

will limit foreclosures and stabilize 

home values through Federal loan 

guarantees and standardized procedures for mortgage workout agreements. 

The Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act 

would implement the foreclosure prevention plan developed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, 

Chairman Sheila Bair. 

There are three key components of 

this legislation. 

Servicers would be incentivized to 

modify mortgages, receiving $1,000 to 

help cover the costs of each loan modification; the Federal Government 

would share up to 50 percent of any loss 

should the homeowner default after receiving a modification; and participating servicers would be required to 

systematically review and modify all 

suitable loans in their portfolios, applying a standard calculation to help 

expedite loan modifications as cost-effectively as possible. 

The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 

million home loans, worth $444 billion, 

could be modified under this plan, with 

1.5 million foreclosures avoided. 

This legislation is projected to cost 

at least $25 billion; however, no additional spending is necessary. 

This effort would be funded solely 

through the Troubled Assets Relief 

Program, TARP, to ensure that one of 

the core objectives of the bill, assistance to homeowners, is achieved. 

The foreclosure crisis and declining 

housing market remain at the epicenter of the economic challenges we 

face. And, although the Federal Government has taken unprecedented steps 

to address this problem, they have not 

been sufficient. 

Foreclosures are in the best interest 

of no one. 

Neighborhoods are decimated when 

homes are repossessed or left vacant, 

property values decline, local economies suffer, and crime often increases 

in blighted areas. Lenders must sustain 

the costs of foreclosure and are left 

with the burden of reselling properties 

in a distressed market. 

Homeowners are forced to give up on 

the American dream, and in some 

cases, tenants are forced out of homes 

they have been renting. 

To date, no TARP funds have been allocated by Treasury to directly address 

the foreclosure crisis. 

This must change, and it must 

change now. 

According to the FDIC, the pace of 

loan modifications continues to be very 

slow, with only 4 percent of troubled 

mortgages being modified to prevent 

foreclosures each month. 

A systematic approach is needed to 

expedite this process. The FDIC has 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S73 

implemented such a program successfully at Indy Mac Federal Bank, to reduce mortgage payments as low as 31 

percent of monthly income. 

Loan modifications are based on interest rate reductions, extended loan 

terms, and principal forbearance. 

Unfortunately, banks that have received TARP funds have not been compelled to implement foreclosure reduction measures, and adequate incentive 

structures are not in place. 

This legislation provides prudent and 

cost-effective steps to improve assistance for struggling homeowners while 

also stabilizing the housing market. 

Foreclosures have had a devastating 

impact on our national economy, and 

the damage in my state has been particularly severe. 

California accounts for 1/3 of all foreclosure activity in the United States. 

Roughly 800,000 foreclosures will be 

filed in my state in 2008—a 70 percent 

increase over 2007, when 481,392 foreclosures were filed in California. 

The foreclosure rate in California is 

the fourth highest in the Nation, with 

one foreclosure filing for every 218 

households. 

In fact, 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas 

with the highest foreclosure rate in the 

Nation are in California. 

This includes: Merced—one out of 

every 76 homes in foreclosure; Modesto—one out of every 93 homes in 

foreclosure; Stockton—one out of every 

94 homes in foreclosure; Riverside and 

San Bernardino—one out of every 107 

homes in foreclosure; Bakersfield—one 

out of every 129 homes in foreclosure; 

and Vallejo and Fairfield—one out of 

every 133 homes in foreclosure. 

And, the situation is only getting 

worse. 

Property values have plummeted 

across California, making it difficult 

for many residents with adjustable rate 

mortgages to refinance into more stable, fixed rate products. 

One California community is in a 

special category of need: the city of 

Stockton, which has been referred to as 

‘‘America’s foreclosure capital.’’ 

The foreclosure crisis has devastated 

this city of more than 260,000 residents. 

Home foreclosures impact neighbors 

and reduce property values. 

But, the spillover effect in Stockton 

has been overwhelming. 

Jobs: The downturn in the construction industry has contributed to an unemployment rate of 11.9 percent in San 

Joaquin County, well above the national average. 

Schools: Foreclosures have displaced 

many students who were forced to 

change schools or leave the area when 

their families lost their homes. 

The student population of Stockton 

Unified School District, the biggest in 

San Joaquin County, was down about 

200 students last year. 

Student displacement has a direct 

impact on school budgets, which are 

linked to student attendance. 

Most unfortunately, the emotional 

impact on children being forced to 

switch schools in the middle of the 

year can be tremendous. 

Public Services: High foreclosure 

rates have taken a toll on the city of 

Stockton’s budget. 

Stockton now faces a nearly $25 million budget deficit. 

City officials have been forced to 

consider voluntary buyouts for municipal employees and mandatory 10-day 

furloughs to help close the gap. 

Because property values have fallen— 

due to foreclosures and increased inventory—Stockton also is facing lower 

tax revenues, which are depended upon 

to fill the city’s $186 million general 

fund. 

This could have a dramatic effect on 

the city’s emergency services; about 75 

percent of Stockton’s general fund 

pays for police and fire services. 

It is essential that we not forget 

communities such as Stockton. We 

cannot sit idly by and watch them fall 

through the cracks. 

This legislation is a much-needed 

step forward to provide relief to Main 

Street. 

Millions of Americans have lost their 

homes to foreclosure, and millions 

more are at risk of losing their homes 

in the coming months. 

Part of this problem was driven by 

abusive and predatory lending practices. 

Part of the problem can be attributed 

to lax underwriting standards and regulators who were asleep at the wheel. 

Part of this problem was due to individuals who made bad choices. 

But, this is a problem that now impacts—either directly or indirectly—all 

hard-working American families. 

These are significant challenges we 

face, and innovative solutions are required. 

This bill will serve as a companion to 

legislation introduced in the House by 

my colleague from California, Representative MAXINE WATERS. 

I look forward to working with her, 

and my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle, to pass this important legislation 

as soon as possible. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 73 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Systematic 

Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act’’. 

SEC. 2. SYSTEMATIC FORECLOSURE PREVENTION 

AND MORTGAGE MODIFICATION 

PLAN ESTABLISHED. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Chairperson of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall 

establish a systematic foreclosure prevention and mortgage modification program 

by— 

(1) paying servicers $1,000 to cover expenses 

for each loan modified according to the required standards; and 

(2) sharing up to 50 percent of any losses 

incurred if a modified loan should subsequently re-default. 

(b) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.—The program 

established under subsection (a) shall include the following components: 

(1) ELIGIBLE BORROWERS.—The program 

shall be limited to loans secured by owneroccupied properties. 

(2) EXCLUSION FOR EARLY PAYMENT DEFAULT.—To promote sustainable mortgages, 

government loss sharing shall be available 

only after the borrower has made a minimum of 6 payments on the modified mortgage. 

(3) STANDARD NET PRESENT VALUE TEST.—In 

order to promote consistency and simplicity 

in implementation and audit, a standard test 

comparing the expected net present value of 

modifying past due loans compared to the 

net present value of foreclosing on them will 

be applied. Under this test, standard assumptions shall be used to ensure that a consistent standard for affordability is provided 

based on a 31 percent borrower mortgage 

debt-to-income ratio. 

(4) SYSTEMATIC LOAN REVIEW BY PARTICIPATING SERVICERS.—Participating servicers 

shall be required to undertake a systematic 

review of all of the loans under their management, to subject each loan to a standard 

net present value test to determine whether 

it is a suitable candidate for modification, 

and to modify all loans that pass this test. 

The penalty for failing to undertake such a 

systematic review and to carry out modifications where they are justified would be disqualification from further participation in 

the program until such a systematic program was introduced. 

(5) MODIFICATIONS.—Modifications may include any of the following: 

(A) Reduction in interest rates and fees. 

(B) Forbearance of principal. 

(C) Extension of the term to maturity. 

(D) Other similar modifications. 

(6) REDUCED LOSS SHARE PERCENTAGE FOR

‘‘UNDERWATER LOANS’’.—For loan-to-value ratios above 100 percent, the government loss 

share shall be progressively reduced from 50 

percent to 20 percent as the current loan-tovalue ratio rises, except that loss sharing 

shall not be available if the loan-to-value 

ratio of the first lien exceeds 150 percent. 

(7) SIMPLIFIED LOSS SHARE CALCULATION.— 

In order to ensure the administrative efficiency of this program, the calculation of 

loss share basis would be as simple as possible. In general terms, the calculation shall 

be based on the difference between the net 

present value, as defined by the Chairperson 

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of the modified loan and the amount of 

recoveries obtained in a disposition by refinancing, short sale, or real estate owned 

sale, net of disposal costs as estimated according to industry standards. Interim modifications shall be allowed. 

(8) DE MINIMIS TEST.—To lower administrative costs, a de minimis test shall be used to 

exclude from loss sharing any modification 

that does not lower the monthly payment at 

least 10 percent. 

(9) 8-YEAR LIMIT ON LOSS SHARING PAYMENT.—The loss sharing guarantee shall terminate at the end of the 8-year period beginning on the date the modification was consummated. 

(c) REGULATIONS.—The Corporation shall 

prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act and prevent 

evasions thereof. 

(d) TROUBLED ASSETS.—The costs incurred 

by the Federal Government in carrying out 

the loan modification program established 

under this section shall be covered out of the 

funds made available to the Secretary of the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

Treasury under section 118 of the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

(e) MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM.—The 

Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation may make any modification to 

the program established under subsection (a) 

that the Chairperson determines are appropriate for the purpose of maximizing the 

number of foreclosures prevented. 

(f) REPORT.—Before the end of the 6-month 

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall 

submit a progress report to the Congress 

containing such findings and such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, 

Mr. VITTER, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. 

CORNYN, and Mr. ENSIGN): 

S. 74. A bill to provide permanent tax 

relief from the marriage penalty. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the 

marriage penalty—the most egregious, 

anti-family provision in the tax code. 

One of my highest priorities in the 

United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. 

We have made important strides to 

eliminate this unfair tax and provide 

marriage penalty relief by raising the 

standard deduction and enlarging the 

15 percent tax bracket for married 

joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were 

changed, 42 percent of married couples 

paid an average penalty of $1,400. 

Enacting marriage penalty relief was 

a giant step for tax fairness, but it may 

be fleeting. Even as married couples 

use the money they now save to put 

food on the table and clothes on their 

children, a tax increase looms in the 

future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was 

restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 

2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a 

taxable event and a significant number 

of married couples will again pay more 

in taxes unless we act decisively. Given 

the challenges many families face in 

making ends meet, we must make sure 

we do not backtrack on this important 

reform. 

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk 

down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and 

should not be discouraged by the IRS. 

Children living in a married household 

are far less likely to live in poverty or 

to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less 

likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in 

married families, and married mothers 

are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. 

We should celebrate marriage, not 

penalize it. The bill I am offering 

would make marriage penalty relief 

permanent, because marriage should 

not be a taxable event. I call on the 

Senate to finish the job we started and 

make marriage penalty relief permanent today. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 74 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Permanent 

Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF. 

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax 

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 

sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not 

apply to— 

(1) sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief), and 

(2) sections 101(b) and 101(c) of the Working 

Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (relating to 

marriage penalty relief in the standard deduction and 15-percent income tax bracket, 

respectively). 

By Mr. KOHL: 

S. 75. A bill to amend title XVIII of 

the Social Security Act to require the 

use of generic drugs under the Medicare part D prescription drug program 

when available unless the brand name 

drug is determined to be medically necessary; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Generics First 

Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government’s Medicare Part D 

prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, unless 

a brand-name drug is determined to be 

medically necessary by a physician. 

Modeled after similar provisions in 

many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the 

high costs of the new prescription drug 

program and keep seniors from reaching the current coverage gap, or 

‘‘donut hole,’’ by guiding beneficiaries 

toward cost-saving generic drug alternatives. 

We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a financial strain on seniors, families, and 

businesses that are struggling to pay 

their health care bills. According to 

the National Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs 

totaled $227.5 billion in 2007. People 

need help now and we must respond by 

expanding access to generic drugs. 

Generics, which on average cost 60 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution 

to health care costs that are spiraling 

out of control. 

Generic drugs that are approved by 

the FDA must meet the same rigorous 

standards for safety and effectiveness 

as brand-name drugs. In addition to 

being safe and effective, the generic 

must have the same active ingredient 

or ingredients, be the same strength, 

and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In 

other words, generics perform the same 

medicinal purposes as their respective 

brand-name product. 

We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of 

dollars and curb health spending for 

the Federal Government, employers, 

and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is just 

one part of a larger agenda I’m pushing 

to remove the obstacles that prevent 

generics from getting to market, and I 

urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 75 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Generics 

First Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. REQUIRED USE OF GENERIC DRUGS 

UNDER THE MEDICARE PART D PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–2(e)(2) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

102(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(C) NON-GENERIC DRUGS UNLESS CERTAIN

REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term does not include a drug that is a nongeneric drug unless— 

‘‘(I) no generic drug has been approved 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act with respect to the drug; or 

‘‘(II) the nongeneric drug is determined to 

be medically necessary by the individual prescribing the drug and prior authorization for 

the drug is obtained from the Secretary. 

‘‘(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph: 

‘‘(I) GENERIC DRUG.—The term ‘generic 

drug’ means a drug that is the subject of an 

application approved under subsection (b)(2) 

or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for which the Secretary has made a determination that the 

drug is the therapeutic equivalent of a listed 

drug under section 505(j)(7) of such Act. 

‘‘(II) NONGENERIC DRUG.—The term ‘nongeneric drug’ means a drug that is the subject of an application approved under— 

‘‘(aa) section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or 

‘‘(bb) section 505(b)(2) of such Act and that 

has been determined to be not therapeutically equivalent to any listed drug.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall apply to drugs 

dispensed on or after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

By Mr. INOUYE: 

S. 76. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act 

to revise and extend that Act; to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise 

today, again, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health 

Care Improvement Act. Senator AKAKA

joins me in sponsoring this measure. 

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 

1988, and has been reauthorized several 

times throughout the years. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE