Search Form
Now choose a category »
 

Daniel Inouye's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
Daniel Inouye refused to tell citizens where he stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Issue Positions

In response to the increasing unwillingness of candidates to answer issue questions, Project Vote Smart has researched Presidential and Congressional candidates' public records to determine candidates' likely responses on certain key issues. These issue positions, from the year 2010, are provided below as a courtesy to voters.

Pro-choice Inferred Answer Abortion Issues: Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 2321 to S 1692. 106th Congress. To express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 21 October 1999. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 3330 to S Amdt 3325 to HR 3043. 110th Congress. To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 18 October 2007. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 3896 to S Amdt 3899 to S 1200. 110th Congress. To modify a section relating to limitation on use of funds appropriated to the Service. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 26 February 2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Planned Parenthood. 2008. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 100 percent in 2008. (votesmart.org)
  • NARAL Pro-Choice America. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • National Right to Life Committee. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 0 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S 3. 108th Congress. A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 21 October 2003. (votesmart.org)
No Inferred Answer Budget, Spending, and Tax Issues: Do you support the elimination of the federal estate tax? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • National Taxpayers Union. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 5 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. HR 8. 108th Congress. Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 14 July 2000. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Inouye Opposes "Trifecta" Minimum Wage/Estate Tax/Tax Extenders Bill. 3 August 2006. "U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye voted "no" on a Motion to Invoke Cloture to limit debate on a Motion to Proceed to consideration of a three-part bill, which includes a minimum wage increase, estate tax reduction and extends expiring tax credits. Senate Majority Leader Frist failed to secure the 60 votes necessary to proceed. The vote was 56 - 42. Senator Inouye stated, "At a time when we in the Congress are struggling to provide adequate funding to support basic education, health care, and affordable housing programs; at a time when our nation's taxpayers are being called upon to continue to support the ever escalating cost of war in Iraq, I could not in good conscience agree to an estate tax cut for the very wealthy at a cost of about $267.5 billion over six years, beginning in 2010. I realize that family businesses and family estates in Hawaii will be impacted by this vote; however, the provisions of the 2001 Tax Relief Act will remain in place until 2010, providing additional time for meaningful debate of the issue." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Budget, Spending, and Tax Issues: Do you support using government funds in an effort to stimulate and improve the economy? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Club for Growth. 2008. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the Club for Growth 3 percent in 2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. HR 1. 111th Congress. Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 13 February 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 - Conference Report. 13 February 2009. "Mr. President, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I believe, is a good bill. It is not perfect. It may have imperfections, but I believe it deserves our support. Many compromises were made, and the final compromises that we made in conference were very difficult. There is no doubt those of us on this side of the aisle had to make some very difficult decisions and some painful cuts to programs that I personally believe would have been of great benefit to the American people. But in the end, I remain convinced we have gained far more than we have lost, and this bill is essential in beginning the task of turning our economy around. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create more than 3.5 million jobs. This is nothing to sniff at. It will provide tax cuts for working families, aid to our States, and will allow us to invest in our future by rebuilding our roads, schools, and mass transit systems." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Inouye Comments on Our Economic Crisis. 22 September 2008. "It is important that we move as quickly as possible to stabilize our financial markets. We need to ensure that whatever plan is put into place, it must have sufficient and appropriate safeguards to protect taxpayers, and not just financial institutions. I am concerned about working families and couples on the verge of retirement. It would not be fair if the administration's proposed bailout only makes whole those financial institutions and executives that took unnecessary risks. The plan we undertake must not only be fair, it must be transparent. It must include regulatory reforms to prevent another such financial meltdown. It must not be open-ended because already the price tag on the administration's plan - some $700 billion - is staggering." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Tax Extenders Act Of 2009. 3 March 2010. "Last week, the Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--released a report on the impact of those stimulus funds which have already been spent. The Congressional Budget Office report notes the extremely beneficial impact from this act. The report states that the stimulus funds are responsible for an increase of somewhere between 1.5 and 3 percent in the gross domestic product during the last quarter of 2009, and with an estimated increase in this first quarter of up to 3.9 percent. Moreover, the CBO states that the stimulus bill accounted for an increase of at least 1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009, and possibly as many as 2.9 million jobs. This is something to ponder. The one thing the American people all agree upon is that we need to be doing more to create jobs. The American Recovery Act is doing just that. CBO estimates that the level of jobs created through 2010 from stimulus funds could be as high as 3.4 million jobs. That would mean a decline in unemployment of 1.8 percent in this country. No other action by this Congress has provided this kind of positive impact on the job market. So what possible logic is there in rescinding funds from this act which is providing so many benefits to the American people? Why would we support an amendment to cut funding from the act which is clearly helping to reduce devastating job losses? No one can argue that the stimulus bill isn't working. The proof is at least a million jobs created last quarter. It has had an immensely favorable impact on our economy. I know some of those who oppose the bill don't want to hear it, but that is reality. The numbers from CBO tell the story." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Business and Employment Issues: Do you support privatizing elements of Social Security? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Despite exhaustive research, Project Vote Smart was unable to find information about this candidate's position.
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Crime Issues: Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants. 2005-2006. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants 86 percent in 2005-2006. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 1204 to S 1607. 103rd Congress. To provide for imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of release rather than imposition of the death penalty. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 11/17/93. (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Education Issues: Do you support federal education standards and testing requirements for K-12 students? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Daniel Inouye. HR 1. 107th Congress. To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 18 December 2001. (votesmart.org)
  • Home School Legal Defense Association. 1999-2000. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the Home School Legal Defense Association 40 percent in 1999-2000. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Hawaii Wins Race to the Top funding. 24 August 2010. "The state of Hawaii will receive a grant not exceeding $75 million from the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top program, announced U.S. Senators Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye. Hawaii is one of nine states and the District of Columbia to receive funding in the final phase of Race to the Top. The actual amount of the grants will be finalized after discussions between the grantees and the Department of Education..."I am extremely pleased to learn that Hawaii has been selected to receive a Race to the Top grant," said Senator Inouye. "Educating our children is the greatest investment we can make in our future. This competitive grant will allow us to improve our schools for our students, teachers, principals, and support staff. After experiencing such a difficult and challenging school year, furloughs are finally over and Hawaii no longer has the shortest school year in America. These funds will help fortify an education system that needs all the help we can provide." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Environment and Energy Issues: Do you support enacting environmental regulations aimed at reducing the effects of climate change? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 4825 to S 3036. 110th Congress. In the nature of a substitute. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YESfor cloture on 6 June 2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Environment America. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of Environment America 100 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Inouye Leads Commerce Committee Approval of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Legislation. 4 December 2007. "Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued the following statement upon Commerce Committee approval of three bills on climate change and ocean acidification from carbon emissions. "Today as world leaders are meeting in Bali, Indonesia for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee approved three bills which would improve how the United States addresses climate change and ocean acidification. "The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act provides for a coordinated federal research program on ocean acidification. The Global Climate Change Research Improvement Act improves the basic research and products that the federal government develops on climate change and its impacts. The third bill, the Climate Change Adaptation Act, calls for the federal government to develop a strategic plan for dealing with the effects of climate change. "The time has come for the United States to show the world that it is serious about curbing the effects of global climate change." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Senators Press President on Climate Change. 6 December 2005. "We would also like you to be aware that a bipartisan majority of the United States Senate has now agreed that human-induced climate change is real and that "mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere...As this Sense of the Senate Resolution makes clear, the Senate intends, at some future date, to require a program of mandatory greenhouse gas limits and incentives for the . Moreover, that system will be designed to ensure comparable action by other nations that trade with the . This system, therefore, will build on the actions of the and other countries in implementing the UNFCCC. It is only a matter of time before Congress takes such action. The United States Senate is on the path towards requiring mandatory commitments and reductions of greenhouse gases and supports working through and alongside the Framework Convention process. The Administration should remain mindful of that key fact in its negotiations with all Parties and comport any discussions about future obligations accordingly." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Gun Issues: Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. 2003. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 71 percent from 1988 and 2003. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 1067 to S Amdt 1058 to HR 627. 111th Congress. To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 12 May 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. HR 1025. 103rd Congress. To provide for a waiting period before the purchase of a handgun, and for the establishment of a national instant criminal background check system to be contacted by firearms dealers before the transfer of any firearm. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 20 November 1993. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 1152 to S Amdt 1151 to S 1607. 103rd Congress. To restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 11/17/93. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 362 to S 254. 106th Congress. To regulate the sale of firearms at guns shows. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 20 May 1999. (votesmart.org)
  • Gun Owners of America. 2010. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. In 2010 Gun Owners of America gave Daniel Inouye a grade of F. (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Health Issues: Do you support a publicly-administered health insurance option? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • American Public Health Association. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 100 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Letter To The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader Of The Senate. 9 October 2009. "Dear Majority Leader Reid: We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that -- absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option -- health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option. As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable. We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform -- the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee -- have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats -- every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus. The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program. Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance -- rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee's approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people -- patients and taxpayers alike -- not the profit margins of insurance companies. Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Letter to The Honorable Edward Kennedy, Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and The Honorable Max Baucus, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance. 6 May 2009. "As members of key committees and leaders on health care issues, we write to support a public plan option as a core component of this reform. There is no reason to believe that private insurers alone will meet the public purpose of ensuring coverage for all Americans at an affordable price for taxpayers...We understand that there are many ways to design a public insurance option for uninsured Americans, and we stand ready to work with you to design this option as part of overall health reform. Health reform must include checks and balances, including public and private insurance options for the Americans we serve. We agree with you that the needs of the American citizens must take precedence over special interest groups in this critical debate." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye's Position On Health-Care Overhaul. 9 November 2009. "A civilized, democratic society like ours should help maintain the health and welfare of all our citizens. No one should be denied medical care or lose coverage because they can't afford to pay to see a medical professional. Our system as it stands today is broken. Insurance premiums are rising out of control, thousands are losing coverage every day and millions of Americans are unable to attain basic health-care for themselves and their families. Meanwhile health insurance providers are reporting record profits while their executives receive multimillion dollar bonuses. It is outrageous and we in the Congress are working to remedy the situation by passing bipartisan legislation that overhauls the current system in a manner that the public can comprehend. Any measure that emerges should increase the competition among insurance companies and ensure access to all necessary services." "Hawaii has long been ahead of the rest of the nation in terms of formulating and implementing policy mandating employer provided health-care. We've requested the exemption to ensure that whatever bill emerges from the debate, Hawaii's employer mandated health-care law would not be rolled back. Hawaii has one of the highest rates of insurance in the country and hopefully the national law that emerges will be beneficial to those uninsured who require access to medical care. Hawaii is also one of the healthiest states in the country, partly because of access." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer Immigration Issues: Do you support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Daniel Inouye. S Amdt 4087 to S 2611. 109th Congress. To modify the conditions under which aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States are granted legal status. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted YES on 23 May 2006. (votesmart.org)
  • National Latino Congreso. 2007-2010. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the National Latino Congreso 100 percent in 2007-2010. (votesmart.org)
  • Federation for American Immigration Reform. 2007-2008. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 33 percent in 2007-2008. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Statement by Senator Daniel K. Inouye on Immigration Reform. 7 June 2007. "When the Senate again focuses on this important issue, I will continue to do my best to ensure that the legislation that emerges is practical and fair, and strongly supports family reunification. During the two weeks of immigration debate, I supported amendments that strengthen family reunification, including one that exempts the children of certain Filipino veterans of World War II from numerical visa limits, thereby allowing sons and daughters to care for their aging parents. I also believe immigrant families help our nation to flourish. They bring an entrepreneurial spirit, and a willingness to work hard. As a result, immigrants become productive members of our society. "Furthermore, I want to be certain that immigrants who have followed all the legal and proper procedures to become U.S. citizens have the first opportunity to become citizens of our great country. They have waited patiently for many years, and must not be pushed to the back of the line. "We must also find a reasonable way to deal with the 12 million people who are in the United States illegally. They cannot be ignored. Some 70,000 of their sons and daughters have served in the U.S. Armed Forces. That is clear evidence of their patriotism and support of the United States." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye Comments on Immigration Reform. 28 June 2007. "We are confronted by the reality of 12 million immigrants who have entered the United States without going through the proper and legal channels. Compounding this situation is the fact that many are parents whose children were born in the United States. As a result, their children are U.S. citizens. "Many of my colleagues have been soundly criticized as favoring ‘amnesty' because they supported the immigration reform bill. But a careful reading of the proposal reveals that it is far from being an ‘amnesty' measure. "The question now is: What do we do now? Are critics suggesting that we conduct a massive roundup of all who are here illegally? If so, what happens to their children? "I am especially concerned about the young children who, because of their parents' immigration status, must live in the dark shadows of the United States. This is not the way to raise young boys and girls. "The Immigration Reform Bill was not perfect. It was easily subject to nitpicking. But it was a compromise solution that would have allowed us to address aspects of this crucial issue. "It did not completely address all of my concerns, such as a family reunification. But I would have voted for it because it would have been a step forward. We would still have had opportunities in the future to address immigration reform. "I remain in favor of immigration legislation that is practical and fair, and that strongly supports family reunification. I also believe that the immigrants who have followed all the legal and proper procedures should have the first opportunity to become citizens of our great country. They have waited patiently for many years." (votesmart.org)
Yes Inferred Answer International Policy Issues: Do you support United States military action in Afghanistan? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Peace Action West. 2009. Project Vote Smart: Interest Group Ratings. Daniel Inouye supported the interests of Peace Action West 60 percent in 2009. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Statement Of Senator Daniel K. Inouye Following The President's Briefing To Congressional Leaders On The Increase In Troops For The War In Afghanistan. 1 December 2009. "I support the President's plan and I left the briefing convinced that he had presented a good, workable strategy and that it should be supported by all Members of Congress....I believe our ultimate goal is to leave Afghanistan with security and governance in place that can successfully carry on the activities of a sovereign nation. It would be ill-advised to suddenly leave Afghanistan knowing that chaos would follow." (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye's Statement Following His Fact Finding Trip To Afghanistan And Pakistan. 13 October 2009. "It is my firm belief that if we leave now, the Government of Afghanistan will not survive and the consequences will be detrimental to the region and will ultimately threaten the security of the United States. For these reasons, I will continue to work with President Obama and the military to ensure that our troops on the ground have the resources they need to succeed in their ultimate objective of a secure and stable Afghanistan." (votesmart.org)
Unknown Position Unknown Answer Social Issues: Should marriage only be between one man and one woman? View Citations

Vote Smart's Research

  • Daniel Inouye. S J Res 1. 109th Congress. Same Sex Marriage Resolution. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 7 June 2006.. (votesmart.org)
  • Daniel Inouye. HR 3396. 103rd Congress. To define and protect the institution of marriage. Project Vote Smart Summary: Daniel Inouye voted NO on 10 September 1996. (votesmart.org)

Key

Candidate Answer

Official Position: Candidate had the Political Courage to address this issue directly.

Inferred Answer

Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue directly, but Project Vote Smart inferred this issue position based on the candidate's public statements, voting record, and evaluations from special interest groups.

Unknown Answer

Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue.

Project Vote Smart's Research: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position.

Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as the candidate has submitted it. Project Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Skip to top
Back to top