Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INOUYE. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. 9:15?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution which recognizes the valiant military service of Filipino soldiers during World War II. The Philippine Islands were the possessions of the United States from the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 until shortly after the end of World War II in 1946. On December 8, 1941, the Japanese invaded the Philippine Islands. The invasion delayed the islands' independence from the United States for 2 years. On July 26, 1941, 4 months before the invasion of the Philippines, President Roosevelt issued a military order calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army: into the service of the armed forces of the United States for the period of the existing emergency, and placed under the command of a general officer, United States Army * * * all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Philippines * * * On December 18, 1941, General MacArthur issued General Order No. 46 which provided that: Pursuant to provisions of the Proclamation of the President of the United States, dated July 26, 1941, all personnel of the Philippine Army on active duty and all active units of the Philippine Army, less personnel and units already accepted for service with the United States Armed Forces, are hereby called into the service of the armed forces of the United States in the Philippines * * * Among the fierce battles fought was the battle at Bataan, which could not have been maintained without the valiant efforts of Filipino servicemen who constituted more than 75 percent of the troops and incurred a disproprionate number of deaths. During the Bataan Death March and subsequent internment, Japanese brutality toward Filipino solders far exceeded those of American prisoners. For example, approximately one-half of the 60,000 Filipino servicemen died at Bataan in contrast to one quarter of the 10,000 United States servicemen who lost their lives while imprisoned. According to a June 1973 Philipine study entitled ``The Status of Members of Philippine Military Forces During World War II,'' Filipino guerilla resistance movements arose prior to the May 7, 1942, surrender to the Japanese. These movements comprised of personnel from the Philippine Army, the Old Philippine Scouts and other units of the United States Army. These guerilla forces engaged in overly aggressive moves against the Japanese that resulted in heavy losses and the capture of many of the movement's leaders. From his headquarters in Australia, General MacArthur, in March 1943, instructed the guerillas to limit combat contact to the minimum necessary for self-protection, and to concentrate instead of improving organizational and intelligence-gathering abilities. During May 1942 to May 1944, the Japanese could only maintain control over the major cities and towns because guerilla forces controlled the countryside. Without the combat and support contributions of the guerilla forces before and during General MacArthur's return to the Philippines in October 1944, the task of reoccupying the Islands would have been vastly more costly to the United States in terms of time, money, manpower, and casualties. On October 28, 1944, Philippine Commonwealth President Osmena issued Executive Order No. 21, which recognized the military service of guerilla forces as active service in the Philippine Army, the date of entry into such active service being the date of joining a recognized guerilla force. General MacArthur subsequently issued retroactive recognition orders dating back to the times when the various guerilla units began to fight, thereby bringing them within the terms of President Roosevelt's order calling Philippine forces into the service of the United States. Effective June 30, 1946, after cessation of hostilities in the Philippine Islands, the Philippine Army and its recognized guerilla units were released from service in the armed forces of the United States by military order of the President. The Philippine Army and its recognized guerilla units, loyally and valiantly fought, suffered, and in many instances, died in the service of our country, in the same manner as other members of our armed forces during World War II. We must not ignore the recognition they duly deserve as United States veterans. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution which recognizes the valiant military service of the Filipino World War II soldiers.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to transfer jurisdiction over a parcel of land from the Architect of the Capitol to the Department of the Interior. This no-cost transfer would allow this parcel to be used to establish a memorial to Japanese-American patriotism in World War II, since monuments cannot be built on the Capitol Grounds. I am pleased to note that this transfer has the support of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Architect of the Capitol. This memorial, authorized in 1992 by Public Law 102-502 to honor the patriotism of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II, must begin construction by October 24, 1999. It is essential that the land exchange take place as soon as possible in order to begin the formal approval processes for the memorial's design. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure's expedient passage.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to transfer jurisdiction over a parcel of land from the Architect of the Capitol to the Department of the Interior. This no-cost transfer would allow this parcel to be used to establish a memorial to Japanese-American patriotism in World War II, since monuments cannot be built on the Capitol Grounds. I am pleased to note that this transfer has the support of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Architect of the Capitol. This memorial, authorized in 1992 by Public Law 102-502 to honor the patriotism of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II, must begin construction by October 24, 1999. It is essential that the land exchange take place as soon as possible in order to begin the formal approval processes for the memorial's design. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure's expedient passage.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to express my serious concern with language contained in the final fiscal year 1996 appropriations measure which addressed the construction of the Large Binocular Telescope on Mr. Graham in Arizona, which is a sacred place to the Apache Nation and home to the endangered Mt. Graham red squirrel. The Apache tribal and religious leaders have urged the Congress and the administration to protect their historic holy land. They are joined by national Native organizations and by a broad cross- section of the religious and environmental communities internationally. I am also troubled that because there has been no hearing in the Congress on this matter, the Apaches have not been afforded an opportunity to be heard on this important matter of religious freedom. It is my understanding that the administration has stated its position that construction should not proceed until and unless there is full compliance with standard environmental and cultural reviews. This position is consistent with the recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it would appear that the language addressing Mt. Graham telescope contained in the appropriations Act is not contrary to this position. I can only assume that the administration and many of my colleagues who have concerns both for the environment as well as Native American rights have not insisted on the removal of this language because they also read it as allowing for the customary environmental and cultural reviews to be completed before construction on the telescope is allowed to proceed.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is of great importance to the entire international scientific community and to the State of Hawaii. This legislation grants tariff relief to the Gemini project, an international astronomical project. The Gemini project, which is run by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy [AURA] on behalf of the National Science Foundation [NSF] and several foreign nations, consists of two 8-meter optical telescopes to be constructed over the next few years on Mauna Kea, HI, and on Cerro Pachon, Chile. AURA is a private, nonprofit consortium of United States and foreign affiliated education and other nonprofit institutions that operate several world-class astronomical observatories throughout the world. The Gemini project is an international partnership and draws funding from the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Fifty percent of the project's cost is borne by the United States and 50 percent by the project's foreign partners. Because of the international cooperation involved in the Gemini project, the specific partner countries have been assigned work packages and bids for components of the telescope have been requested from both United States and international suppliers. For example, Corning Glass Works in New York produced the 8-meter mirrors required for the telescopes and then shipped them to France for polishing. Once this polishing is completed, the mirrors will be sent to Hawaii for installation. Gemini's international cooperation is a model for major scientific projects in the future. We all realize that we must reduce the Federal deficit, and that will mean belt-tightening across Government. The Gemini model offers an innovative way to do significant scientific research in such a climate because the United States and its international partners share the cost of construction, and, in turn, benefit by shared use of the telescopes once they are constructed. However, this international cooperation has presented a problem for AURA. Although all non-U.S. partner countries have already waived all taxes and duties related to the Gemini project, the U.S. Customs Service has initially ruled that the mirror is subject to duties upon reentry into the United States. The Customs Service classifies the mirror as a component of the telescope. This initial ruling appears to negate the terms of the ``Florence Agreement,'' an international trade agreement from the 1950's which permits scientific instruments duty- free entry when used by a nonprofit organization. The customs duties for the importation of all Gemini project, components basically means that one Federal Government agency--the NSF--will end up paying another Federal Government agency--the U.S. Customs Service--for an import duty which, I believe, clearly violates the terms of the ``Florence Agreement.'' Not only will the Customs Service's tariff ruling cause a problem with cost and schedule for the Gemini project, but it will also threaten future international scientific collaborations because of the potential problem it poses to such a project's cost. It would appear that as these international partnerships become more crucial in this era of ever-tightening budgets, the Customs Service's position will undermine the viability of these kinds of scientific arrangements. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise my colleagues that there is a strong precedent for the Congress to enact legislation that would provide relief for the Gemini project. In the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988--Public Law 100-418, the Congress agreed with the same arguments I have described here today and provided tariff relief for the W.M. Keck Observatory project administered by the California Association for Research in Astronomy. This legislation is comparable in scope to the 1988 provision, except for the fact that the Keck Observatory was a privately funded telescope whereas the Gemini project carries an official designation as a U.S.-owned and operated facility. Time is critical to the successful completion of the Gemini project. Key components of the telescope are scheduled for arrival in the United States early next year, and it does not appear that the U.S. Customs Service will provide any specific relief for the Gemini project. As a result, this legislation is vital to avoiding serious cost or schedule disruption to the Gemini Program. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take up this important legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that the Gemini project may proceed on schedule and within budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is of great importance to the entire international scientific community and to the State of Hawaii. This legislation grants tariff relief to the Gemini project, an international astronomical project. The Gemini project, which is run by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy [AURA] on behalf of the National Science Foundation [NSF] and several foreign nations, consists of two 8-meter optical telescopes to be constructed over the next few years on Mauna Kea, HI, and on Cerro Pachon, Chile. AURA is a private, nonprofit consortium of United States and foreign affiliated education and other nonprofit institutions that operate several world-class astronomical observatories throughout the world. The Gemini project is an international partnership and draws funding from the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Fifty percent of the project's cost is borne by the United States and 50 percent by the project's foreign partners. Because of the international cooperation involved in the Gemini project, the specific partner countries have been assigned work packages and bids for components of the telescope have been requested from both United States and international suppliers. For example, Corning Glass Works in New York produced the 8-meter mirrors required for the telescopes and then shipped them to France for polishing. Once this polishing is completed, the mirrors will be sent to Hawaii for installation. Gemini's international cooperation is a model for major scientific projects in the future. We all realize that we must reduce the Federal deficit, and that will mean belt-tightening across Government. The Gemini model offers an innovative way to do significant scientific research in such a climate because the United States and its international partners share the cost of construction, and, in turn, benefit by shared use of the telescopes once they are constructed. However, this international cooperation has presented a problem for AURA. Although all non-U.S. partner countries have already waived all taxes and duties related to the Gemini project, the U.S. Customs Service has initially ruled that the mirror is subject to duties upon reentry into the United States. The Customs Service classifies the mirror as a component of the telescope. This initial ruling appears to negate the terms of the ``Florence Agreement,'' an international trade agreement from the 1950's which permits scientific instruments duty- free entry when used by a nonprofit organization. The customs duties for the importation of all Gemini project, components basically means that one Federal Government agency--the NSF--will end up paying another Federal Government agency--the U.S. Customs Service--for an import duty which, I believe, clearly violates the terms of the ``Florence Agreement.'' Not only will the Customs Service's tariff ruling cause a problem with cost and schedule for the Gemini project, but it will also threaten future international scientific collaborations because of the potential problem it poses to such a project's cost. It would appear that as these international partnerships become more crucial in this era of ever-tightening budgets, the Customs Service's position will undermine the viability of these kinds of scientific arrangements. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise my colleagues that there is a strong precedent for the Congress to enact legislation that would provide relief for the Gemini project. In the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988--Public Law 100-418, the Congress agreed with the same arguments I have described here today and provided tariff relief for the W.M. Keck Observatory project administered by the California Association for Research in Astronomy. This legislation is comparable in scope to the 1988 provision, except for the fact that the Keck Observatory was a privately funded telescope whereas the Gemini project carries an official designation as a U.S.-owned and operated facility. Time is critical to the successful completion of the Gemini project. Key components of the telescope are scheduled for arrival in the United States early next year, and it does not appear that the U.S. Customs Service will provide any specific relief for the Gemini project. As a result, this legislation is vital to avoiding serious cost or schedule disruption to the Gemini Program. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take up this important legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that the Gemini project may proceed on schedule and within budget. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, last month, when the Senate passed the Domenici-Wellstone mental health parity amendment by an overwhelming vote of 68 to 30, during our deliberations on the health insurance reform legislation, it was, in my judgment, a historic occasion. Since President Jimmy Carter established his Commission on Mental Health, it has been clear to a number of us that, eventually, it would be in our Nation's best interest to ensure that those afflicted with mental illness are treated in the same manner as those afflicted with any other physical ailment. Unfortunately, probably primarily due to the stigma long attached to receiving mental health care, this has been a long and difficult process. As I listened to the debate that Thursday evening and watched our colleagues vote, I kept thinking to myself how one individual, Senator Domenici, truly made a difference in the lives of our Nation's citizens. During the years we have served together in the U.S. Senate, I have been very pleased to work closely with him in a number of capacities, for example on the various Senate Appropriations subcommittees and, most recently, on behalf of our Nation's Native Americans. Throughout our deliberations, our colleague has always made explicitly clear the importance of ensuring that the Congress and the administration, and ultimately the private sector, must, in fact, treat those afflicted with mental illness and their families in a humane and compassionate manner. Senator Domenici was willing to share with us his personal family experiences. I have no doubt that his resolve and persistence are the reasons that most of us voted on behalf of this important amendment. I sincerely hope that the House-Senate conferees will ultimately accept the provisions of the Domenici-Wellstone amendment, as it represents excellent public policy. However, at this point, I just wanted to share my appreciation with my colleagues for the Senator from New Mexico's efforts over the years--he is truly the consummate public servant. All of us can learn from his dedication.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the U.S. Senate continues to debate the illegal immigration reform legislation, I would like to make a brief statement on an issue of importance to the State of Hawaii and our Nation. Tourism is the No. 1 industry in the State of Hawaii. The State has expressed an interest in extending the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program to other Asian countries, particularly the Republic of Korea. The current Visa Waiver Pilot Program covers only three countries in the Asia-Pacific region: Japan, New Zealand, and Brunei. New Zealand, Canada, and Guam all have visa waiver agreements with Korea. Since implementing visa waiver agreements with Korea, arrivals increased in the first year by 285 percent to New Zealand, 96 percent to Canada, and 147 percent to Guam. In 1995, the State of Hawaii wecomed over 120,000 visitors from Korea, and the State is anxious to see future growth in visitors from this important emerging market. Travel and tourism also play a major role in reducing the United States unfavorable balance of trade. There is an increasing demand by citizens of the Republic of Korea to visit the United States. In fiscal year 1994, 320,747 nonimmigrant visas were issued to Korean travelers. In fiscal year 1995, 394,044 nonimmigrants visas were issued to Korean travelers. Of this amount, 320,120 were tourist visas. The Republic of Korea is not eligible to participate in the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program. On March 14, 1996, I, along with Senators Murkowski, Akaka, and Stevens, introduced S. 1616, legislation that would establish a 3-year Visa Waiver Pilot Program for Korean nationals who are traveling in tour groups to the United States. Under the program, selected travel agencies in Korea would be allowed to issue temporary travel permits. The applicants would be required to meet the same prerequisites imposed by the U.S. Embassy. The pilot legislation also includes additional restrictions to help deter the possibility of illegal immigration. These are: The stay in the United States is no more than 15 days. The visitor poses no threat to the welfare, health, and safety, or security of the United States. The visitor possesses a round-trip ticket. The visitor who is deemed inadmissible or deportable by an immirgation officer would be returned to Korea by the transportation carrier. Tour operators will be required to post a $200,000 performance bond with the Secretary of State, and will be penalized if a visitor fails to return on schedule. Tour operators will be required to provide written certification of the on-time return of each visitor within the tour group. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General can terminate the pilot program should the overstay rate exceed 2 percent. Accordingly, I urge Senators Simpson and Kennedy to schedule a hearing on this proposal. I also encourage my colleagues to cosponsor S. 1616.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the country of Tunisia which will celebrate its 40th anniversary of independence on March 20, 1996. I would like to congratulate this country, which has made tremendous strides in socio-economic development and in furthering the Middle East peace process. In the last four decades, Tunisia has played a key role in preserving stability and peace in North Africa. Tunisia is also playing a key role in the Middle East peace process. It was the first Arab country to host a United Nations multilateral meeting in the peace process. Tunisia also hosted an official Israeli delegation in Tunis to encourage the dialog between Arabs and Israelis. Most recently, in January 1996, Tunisia and Israel agreed to establish formal diplomatic relations, and interest sections will be opened in Tunis and Tel Aviv by mid-April 1996. Tunisia has been a leader in the struggle against terrorism, intolerance, and blind violence. Tunisia appealed to the world community, within the framework of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Countries, to adopt strict measures in order to combat terrorism and extremism. I would also like to commend Tunisia on its social and economic achievements. Tunisia has devoted the bulk of its resources to improving the quality of life of its people and to the development of its economy. Education is a key issue in Tunisia. The Government appropriates approximately 30 percent of the annual budget to education, social services, housing, and health care. This results in a highly skilled labor force. Today, 23 percent of Tunisian job seekers are university graduates and 42 percent are vocational training school graduates. The private sector is playing a key role in the economic development of Tunisia, and as a result, Tunisians have created a diversified, market-oriented economy. Manufacturing accounts for 21 percent of domestic production, agriculture for 15 percent, and tourism for 7 percent. Domestic growth rates have averaged more than 4 percent per year, and the budget deficit has been halved in the last 4 years. Tunisia welcomes and encourages foreign investment and has preferential access to a number of important regional markets. Tunisia is a member of the World Trade Organization. It enjoys duty free access for Tunisian products in European Union countries and most Arab countries. The United States assisted Tunisian economic growth through focused development programs such as the Generalized System of Preferences. As a result, Tunisia has proudly graduated from United States economic assistance and is now entering an era of economic partnership with the United States. Tunisia has been a close and reliable ally of the United States and has cooperated with the United States in advancing tolerance, openness, peace, and stability. The bonds that have been created over the years between our two countries have continued to improve. I can only share the aspirations of all Tunisians for a prosperous and peaceful future on this, the 40th anniversary of independence.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to rise in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 965, the Commonsense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996. Before I lay out my reasons for objecting to this conference report, I would like to express my dismay that while appointed as a conferee, I was never invited to participate in the conference. I am very disappointed that the legislative process has deteriorated to this level where diverse views are no longer welcome. A critical analysis of the conference report to H.R. 965 reveals that the balance tips in favor of product producers at the expense of injured women, children, retires, and the poor. This measure provides a series of limitations on the ability of victims to recover from the manufacturers of defective products, while it expressly exempts the big businesses who support this bill from those requirements. For example, if company A purchases a piece of factory equipment from company B, and that piece of equipment is defective and explodes, company A can sue company B for all of its lost profits caused by the disruption of company A's business. On the other hand, the family of the poor worker who is operating the machine at the time it exploded must face the limitations in the bill to recover. Further, if the piece of machinery is 15 years old or older, the worker or his family cannot recover at all while the business faces no such limitation. The punitive damage limitation in this bill causes me tremendous concern. I find it ironic that in the punitive damage section of the bill, it clearly indicates that punitive damages may only be awarded in the most serious cases. Yet later in that same section it provides that the amount of damages that can be recovered for these most serious cases is limited to the greater of 2 times the economic and noneconomic damages of $250,000. That same section further limits the ability to recover damages by creating a special rule protecting individuals of limited net worth and business or entities with a small number of employees. The construction of this section is facially inconsistent with its intent. I would also like to debunk the myth that punitive damage awards threaten the viability of many business. The evidence indicates otherwise. Punitive damages are rarely awarded in product liability cases. In ``Demystifying the Functions of Punitive Damages in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of a Quarter Century of Verdicts'' (1991), author Michael Rustad concludes that consumer products are responsible for an estimated 29,000 deaths and 30 million injuries each year. Between 1965 and 1990, punitive damages were awarded in only 353 product liability cases--91 of which involved asbestos claims. In addition, he states that approximately 25 percent of these awards were reversed or remanded upon appeal. It is apparent that punitive damage awards do not threaten the viability of businesses. In addition, this measure discriminates against women, children, and retirees. Women are most likely to be victims of such dangerous products as Dalkon shields, Copper-7 intrauterine devices, high estrogen birth control pills, super-absorbent tampons and silicone gel breast implants. These products all were justly held liable for punitive damage awards and were removed from the market. Had this bill been in effect, punitive damage awards in these cases would have been severely limited and the impetus for these companies to remove these dangerous products from the market may not have been as strong. H.R. 956 also makes noneconomic damages more difficult to recover. Again, women, children and the poor are disproportionately impacted. It fundamentally alters the traditional concept of joint and several liability by eliminating joint liability. H.R. 956 places the harm caused by defective breast implants, or a women's loss of her ability to bear children, or the disabling of a child, in a secondary position to that of the lost salary of a corporate executive. The corporate executive who misses work because of an injury caused by a product is unfettered in his ability to recover millions because he can easily establish his economic damages. However, if a young woman loses her ability to ever become a mother because of a defective contraceptive device, she is made to endure additional difficulties to recover compensation and, under the bill, faces the risk of not being able to collect her damages at all since these are noneconomic. This is inherently unfair. On a very personal note, if I may, Mr. President, thank God that provisions of this law were not part of the American military laws at the time I had the privilege of serving this country in uniform. On May 30, 1947, I was retired, not as a general, not as a colonel, but as a small captain. I was awarded at that time the sum of $175 a month for the loss of my arm. I would like to believe that my arm is worth much more than that. But Uncle Sam did not forget us. That amounted to $2,100 per year. Today, Uncle Sam, understanding the rising cost of living, is now awarding me $19,140 a year tax free. In addition to that, Uncle Sam sees to it that if I desire, I can receive medical services for the rest of my life. The same thing for my spouse. I have received free education as a result, receiving my law degree. If this provision was in effect at that time, I would end up receiving $175 a month, if I am lucky, for the rest of my life. In other words, Mr. President, Uncle Sam has paid me in damages, and never once did they ask me, is this the most serious of cases? They did not ask me about strict liability. It made no difference whether I fell off a jeep or was struck by a shell. I received in excess of $383,000. I think the least that can be done is to do the same for fellow citizens.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would establish a Visa Waiver Pilot Program for Korean nationals who are traveling in tour groups to the United States. I am joined in this effort by Senators Murkowski, Akaka, and Stevens. According to the 1995 National Trade Estimate Report entitled ``Foreign Trade Barriers,'' in 1994, the United States trade deficit with the Republic of Korea was $1.6 billion, or $718 million greater than in 1993. United States merchandise exports to the Republic of Korea were $18 billion in 1994, up $3.3 billion from 1993. United States imports from the Republic of Korea totaled $19.7 billion in 1994, 14.8 percent more than in 1993. The Republic of Korea is the sixth largest trading partner of the United States. Travel and tourism play a major role in reducing the United States' unfavorable balance of trade. There is an increasing demand by citizens of the Republic of Korea to visit the United States. In fiscal year 1994, 320,747 nonimmigrants visas were issued to Korean travelers. In fiscal year 1995, 394,044 nonimmigrant visas were issued to Korean travelers. Of this amount, 320,120 were tourist visas. The Republic of Korea is not eligible to participate in the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Thus, Koreans are required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States. Unfortunately, U.S. visas can not be processed in a reasonable time frame. There is often a 2 to 3 week waiting period to obtain tourist visas. Although the Secretary of State has attempted to address the problem by including additional personnel in the consular section at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, visa processing delays do continue. The legislation we are introducing today would establish a 3-year pilot program that would waive the visa requirement for Korean nationals traveling as part of a group tour to the United States. Under the program, selected travel agencies in Korea would be allowed to issue temporary travel permits. The applicants would be required to meet the same prerequisites imposed by the United States Embassy. The pilot legislation also includes additional restrictions to help deter the possibility of illegal immigration. These are: The stay in the United States is no more than 15 days. The visitor poses no threat to the welfare, health, and safety, or security of the United States. The visitor possesses a round-trip ticket. The visitor who is deemed inadmissible or deportable by an immigration officer would be returned to Korea by the transportation carrier. Tour operators will be required to post a $200,000 performance bond with the Secretary of State, and will be penalized if a visitor fails to return on schedule. Tour operators will be required to provide written certification of the on-time return of each visitor within the tour group. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General can terminate the pilot program should the overstay rate exceed 2 percent. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would establish a Visa Waiver Pilot Program for Korean nationals who are traveling in tour groups to the United States. I am joined in this effort by Senators Murkowski, Akaka, and Stevens. According to the 1995 National Trade Estimate Report entitled ``Foreign Trade Barriers,'' in 1994, the United States trade deficit with the Republic of Korea was $1.6 billion, or $718 million greater than in 1993. United States merchandise exports to the Republic of Korea were $18 billion in 1994, up $3.3 billion from 1993. United States imports from the Republic of Korea totaled $19.7 billion in 1994, 14.8 percent more than in 1993. The Republic of Korea is the sixth largest trading partner of the United States. Travel and tourism play a major role in reducing the United States' unfavorable balance of trade. There is an increasing demand by citizens of the Republic of Korea to visit the United States. In fiscal year 1994, 320,747 nonimmigrants visas were issued to Korean travelers. In fiscal year 1995, 394,044 nonimmigrant visas were issued to Korean travelers. Of this amount, 320,120 were tourist visas. The Republic of Korea is not eligible to participate in the current Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Thus, Koreans are required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States. Unfortunately, U.S. visas can not be processed in a reasonable time frame. There is often a 2 to 3 week waiting period to obtain tourist visas. Although the Secretary of State has attempted to address the problem by including additional personnel in the consular section at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, visa processing delays do continue. The legislation we are introducing today would establish a 3-year pilot program that would waive the visa requirement for Korean nationals traveling as part of a group tour to the United States. Under the program, selected travel agencies in Korea would be allowed to issue temporary travel permits. The applicants would be required to meet the same prerequisites imposed by the United States Embassy. The pilot legislation also includes additional restrictions to help deter the possibility of illegal immigration. These are: The stay in the United States is no more than 15 days. The visitor poses no threat to the welfare, health, and safety, or security of the United States. The visitor possesses a round-trip ticket. The visitor who is deemed inadmissible or deportable by an immigration officer would be returned to Korea by the transportation carrier. Tour operators will be required to post a $200,000 performance bond with the Secretary of State, and will be penalized if a visitor fails to return on schedule. Tour operators will be required to provide written certification of the on-time return of each visitor within the tour group. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General can terminate the pilot program should the overstay rate exceed 2 percent. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on May 17 of last year, this Senate voted 96 to 3 to create a special committee to investigate the so-called Whitewater affair. This bipartisan vote established the special committee with its primary purpose to get all the facts on Whitewater to the American people. This bipartisan Senate vote imposed a February 29, 1996, deadline for the committee to complete its work to ensure that the facts were presented to the American people in a balanced and timely manner and before the country entered the politically charged atmosphere of a Presidential campaign. Yet, as I listen intently to the ongoing debate, much of the bipartisan spirit which this body exhibited on May 17 no longer exists. Regretfully and sadly, it appears that the Republican majority has now chosen to forego bipartisanship in an effort to indefinitely extend the special committee's mandate, at a cost of $600,000, and prolong the investigation into the 1996 Presidential campaign. This Republican extension request is unprecedented, and it is unreasonable. The U.S. Senate has never before conducted an open-ended political investigation of a sitting American President during a Presidential election year. During the course of this debate, reference has been made to the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings. The committee was able to complete its investigation in a 10-month period within the deadline set by the Congress. The Iran-Contra affair was an international event that had major consequences beyond our shores. It involved the constitutional relationship between the executive and legislative branches in the shaping of foreign policy. It involved the credibility of our foreign policy. It involved our relations with other countries and it involved the actions of our intelligence service and some of our Nation's most closely held secrets. Because of the profound issues in question, we in Congress were compelled to investigate the episode, and for precisely the same reason we were compelled to ensure that the Iran-Contra investigation was conducted in an atmosphere free of partisanship and theatrics. I strongly believed then, as I do now, that the Nation would be ill- served by a congressional panel wantonly weakening a President for presumed political benefit. The Iran-Contra Committee was obligated to investigate the conduct of the highest Government officers, and we were determined to let the facts lead us to where they willed. But we did not perform this task in a way that suggested to our adversaries that we were a nation divided. I believed we avoided this impression because of the lessons learned during the Watergate investigation. The Senate committee that investigated Watergate, on which I served, had the same mandate as do today's select committees: to seek the facts about the event in question and propose legislation to prevent a repetition. The structure of the Watergate Committee encouraged partisanship. There were majority and minority lawyers, majority and minority investigators, majority and minority secretaries and clerks. Even the committee's budget was divided into Democratic and Republican portions. After the conclusion of the investigation, the committee's minority counsel and now our very distinguished colleague, Senator Fred Thompson, wrote that loyalty to the Republican minority was ``one all- important criterion'' for hiring his staff. ``We are going to try our best to have a bipartisan investigation, but if it comes down to the question of us and them, I don't want to worry about who is us and who is them.'' Mr. President, my one condition for assuming the role of chairman of the Senate Iran Committee was that there would be no majority and no minority staffs but a unified staff whose members reported to the committee as a whole and not to Democrats or Republicans. Our chief counsel, Mr. Arthur Liman, regarded all members of the committee as his clients, and, under his direction, our staff members worked side by side unconcerned whether their neighbor was one of us or one of them. The structure of the staff would have been meaningless if the members of the committee were determined to make the Iran-Contra investigation a partisan matter. This did not happen. Our colleague, former Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and vice chair of this Senate Iran-Contra Committee, was empowered to make decisions in my absence. We collaborated on everything, and we divided the responsibility for witnesses among all members of the committee so the hearings became a collective matter. At no time during our closed committee meetings did any member raise political issues or hint at a Democratic attempt to smear the President or a Republican scheme to cover things up. In comparison, nearly 17 months had elapsed from the date the Senate created the Watergate Committee until the committee report was published. The Watergate hearing itself dragged on for more than 8 months. The Iran-Contra Committee worked hard to accomplish its work within a 10-month period, hearings included. Yes, there were requests by Democrats and Republicans that we seek an indefinite time limit on the hearings, but the chairman of the House committee, Representative Hamilton, and I, in conjunction with our vice chairs, strongly recommended against an open-ended investigation. We sought to ensure that our investigation was completed in a timely fashion to preserve the committee's bipartisanship and to avoid any exploitation of President Reagan during an election year. The Special Committee on Whitewater has had 41 days of hearings, five public meetings, and now has made an unprecedented and unreasonable request to indefinitely extend the special committee's mandate. It will be a $600,000 tab, and I suppose it will prolong the investigation into the Presidential campaign with a possibility of politically damaging and embarrassing the incumbent President. Mr. President, the Democrats are committed to ensuring that the American people know the facts on Whitewater but that it be done in the same bipartisan fashion as the Iran-Contra hearings, and not for the exploitation or for the embarrassment of the sitting President. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my alma mater, the George Washington University, chartered by the Congress of the United States 175 years ago, on February 9, 1821. Those of us who have a George Washington University degree--whether it be in law, medicine, engineering, education, business, or international affairs--have reason to celebrate this occasion. What was once merely a university of convenience usefully located in the Nation's capital, has in our own time taken its place among the premier institutions of higher learning in the country. Among this illustrious company, few have had such unpromising beginnings. Some universities come into being endowed by land grants or can boast a distinguished founder like a John Harvard or a Thomas Jefferson. The George Washington University--or Columbian College, as it was called when the Congress chartered it in 1821--owed its origins to an obscure Baptist clergyman named Luther Rice. Today, 175 years later, it has achieved a name recognition that is international in scope, drawing students and scholars from all quarters of the globe. The university takes great pride in its distinguished graduates, among them: John Foster Dulles, J. William Fulbright, Gen. Billy Mitchell, Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. John Shalikashvili, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, to name a few. I had the privilege of receiving my law degree from the George Washington University. My experiences during my legal studies were largely responsible for my decision to enter public life and run for elective office. I am grateful that I had the opportunities that come from studying and living in the Nation's capital as a young man. It is with great pleasure that I submit today a resolution in celebration of the 175th anniversary of the George Washington University's illustrious role in our Nation's academic and political lives.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to a real American hero and a dedicated public servant who recently passed away. Gunner's mate first class Wayne A. Simmons, U.S. Navy retired, died on December 14 at the age of 72 at a hospital in Birmingham, AL, where he was undergoing treatment for a vascular ailment. Mr. Simmons, who lived in College Park, MD, was born in Minnesota and moved to the Washington, DC area as a child. In 1940, he dropped out of McKinley High School in DC to enlist in the Canadian Army to serve in World War II. When it was discovered that he was underage, he was sent home. On his 17th birthday, with the permission of his parents, Wayne Simmons enlisted in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Simmons was stationed at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese force attacked the base and ushered the United States into World War II. He served in the Pacific during the war, including service aboard the light cruiser, Reno, and was recognized for his efforts in saving the ship from sinking after an enemy torpedo attack. Following the war, Mr. Simmons served on several more ships and stations until he was medically retired from active duty as a gunner's mate first class in 1953. Following his Naval career, Mr. Simmons settled back in the Washington, DC area, and earned both a bachelor of science and master's degree in accounting from Benjamin Franklin University while working for Gateway Finance in Mount Rainier. He joined the Department of Agriculture in 1968, where he was a food program specialist until his retirement in 1982. Mr. Simmons attended Berwyn Baptist Church in College Park, MD, for 40 years and served as a deacon in his church. He was a member of the American Legion Post No. 33 in Washington, DC and the Birmingham Masonic Lodge in Beltsville, MD. Mr. Simmons's family includes his lovely wife of 46 years, Patricia W. Simmons of College Park, MD; two daughters, Patricia S. Bradshaw of Silver Spring, MD, and Peggy E. Wagner of Crownsville, MD; two sons, Wayne S. and Michael L. Simmons, both of Bowie, MD; and eight grandchildren. Mr. President, Wayne Simmons's life was one of service and devotion-- exemplary service to the U.S. Navy and this great Nation of ours and unwavering devotion and love for his wife, his family, and his church. He will be sorely missed by all who knew and loved him.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for his clarifications and for his expertise and leadership on this historic revision of our telecommunications law. Today's local marketplace is characterized by an abundance of media outlets that were not present or contemplated when the rule was last revised, and the FCC should take this development into consideration. This new competition, such as from clustered cable systems offering advertisers the same buy as local broadcasters (but on multiple channels), threatens the very viability of free, over-the-air programming. Broadcasters have searched for creative solutions to these marketplace changes, and one proven solution has been Local Marketing Agreements. These LMAs are innovative joint ventures which enable separately owned stations in the same market to find economies of scale through combined operations. The need to relax the duopoly rule is illustrated by broadcasters' experience with LMAs. These joint ventures have generated substantial rewards for both competition and diversity, and improved the quality and quantity of free local programming. In Hawaii, an LMA has made possible a significant increase in local programming, including an in- depth local news program at 9 p.m., extensive coverage of the University of Hawaii's sporting events, weekly programs on Hawaiian culture and local issues, and a doubling of children's programming. It is my understanding that Sec. 202(g) allows LMAs currently in existence to continue as long as they are consistent with FCC rules. These LMAs give stations the flexibility to meet the challenge of the multi-channel marketplace. Again, I thank the ranking member of the Commerce Committee for clarifying the intent of the conference report regarding the duopoly rule.

Mr. INOUYE. I'd appreciate my colleague's help in clarifying the conference report's effect on the Hawaiian television market. No one needs a geography lesson to learn that my state is located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As such, interference with adjacent television markets is not a concern and, unlike every other market in the United States, every VHF channel is utilized somewhere in Hawaii's market. I'd ask of the gentleman, when the FCC considers the duopoly rule, does he agree that the FCC should strongly consider that Hawaii's unique situation represents an example of compelling circumstances that could permit the combination between two VHF stations in that market?

Mr. INOUYE. The conference report directs the FCC to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify or eliminate its duopoly rule, which prevents ownership of more than one television station in a market. Is it the intent of Congress that in reviewing the duopoly rule the FCC should consider whether broadcasters are able to compete fairly with other media providers while ensuring that the public receives information from a diversity of media voices?

Mr. INOUYE. Will the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, yield for a colloquy?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is my sad duty to advise my distinguished colleagues of the passing of a great friend of our Nation and a great leader of the people of American Samoa. On January 30, 1996, Paramount Chief Punefu-ole-motu Letuli Toloa peacefully passed away at his home after over four decades of public service. Since 1989 until his untimely death, Chief Letuli Toloa served as president of the senate of American Samoa. He was a retired U.S. Coast Guardsman, after more than 20 years of service. He served as governor of his district from 1974 to 1977 and was appointed commissioner of public safety for American Samoa in 1978. In 1981, Chief Letuli Toloa became a senator from his district and 8 years later was elected by his peers to be senate president. As a cultural and government leader, Chief Letuli Toloa did his utmost to protect the culture of American Samoa from the negative aspects of western influence and culture. This difficult task was carried out with great diplomacy. The fa'aSamoa continues to survive because of great leaders like Chief Letuli Toloa. In addition to his distinguished government service, Chief Letuli served for many years as deacon elder for his church. He will be remembered as a kind and gentle man who was noted for his great skill as a peacemaker in his extended family, in government, in his village and in his district. Though endowed with great power, he was always humble, and never succumbed to arrogance or vanity. I have had the pleasure of working with the son of Chief Letuli, who mirrors the many virtues and strengths of his great father. Paramount Chief Letuli Toloa is survived by his wife, Saolotoga Savali Letuli, 6 children, and 10 grandchildren. American Samoa has lost a great leader, and America has lost a good friend.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the country of Sri Lanka which will celebrate its 48th anniversary of independence on February 4, 1996. I would like to congratulate a country which during the last four decades has made tremendous strides in socio-economic development in a democratic system. Democracy in Sri Lanka has deep roots. Its people have maintained a functioning democracy since independence against great odds. There have been regular national elections in Sri Lanka where voter turnout has been remarkably high. At a free and fair Parliamentary election held in August 1994 and observed by an international team including United States nationals, the people of Sri Lanka elected a new Government defeating a political party that was in power for 17 years. This was followed by a Presidential election in November 1994 at which Ms. Chandrika B. Kumaratunga was elected President with a 62-percent mandate. The voter turnout at both these elections was above 70 percent. I would like to congratulate the people of Sri Lanka for their commitment to democracy and improving human rights. Over the years the United States and Sri Lanka have developed close bilateral relations. Sri Lanka has long hosted a Voice of America station on its territory and a project is well underway to upgrade the station. The United States is Sri Lanka's largest trading partner. The bilateral trade exceeds $1.4 billion. We have signed a bilateral investment protection treaty and an agreement to protect intellectual property rights. Sri Lanka has been a pioneer in the South Asian region by liberalizing its economy and following market oriented economic policies. Free Trade Zones have been set up and incentives have been provided for foreign investment. I am pleased to note that there are many United States companies and banks currently operating in Sri Lanka and that the American Chamber of Commerce in Sri Lanka organized a successful United States Trade Fair in 1995. Sri Lanka's drive for economic development which showed much promise in the early eighties has been restricted by the ongoing ethnic conflict which escalated in 1983. However, growth rates have averaged 5 percent per year. I am encouraged by the newly elected President's stated priority in finding a lasting political solution to the conflict. I can only share the aspirations of all Sri Lankans that peace will return soon to this beautiful country.