Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all Americans, including those of us in the Congress, are concerned about the destruction of rainforests that is occurring all over the world. The rainforests constitute unique and irreplaceable ecosystems sometimes called the lungs of the Earth. In addition to their function in replenishing the Earth's atmosphere, the rainforests provide essential protection against global warming, contain hundreds of plants found nowhere else on Earth, house many animals unique to the rainforests alone, and provide protection against destruction of coral reefs and marine life. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a unique effort to save these vital systems and to an individual who is being honored for his own efforts to save the rainforests. Gov. A.P. Lutali of American Samoa has been selected to receive this year's Seacology Foundation Award as the Indigenous Conservationist of the Year in recognition of his superb efforts to preserve the rainforest and indigenous Samoan culture. Governor Luitali's successes include leading the effort to create the National Park of American Samoa. He is also responsible for passage of an act to protect the American Samoa Flying Fox. Neither of these achievements would have occurred without Governor Lutali. Seacology Foundation is a nonprofit foundation founded to help protect island ecosystems and island cultures. Seacology scientist include experts in endangered species, island flora and fauna, and island ecosystems. Hundred percent of the money donated to Seacology goes directly to building schools, hospitals, installing safe water supplies, and meeting other needs of the rainforest villagers so that they will not have to sell off the rainforest to survive. Seacology scientists donate their time as well. I congratulate Governor Lutali and the Seacology Foundation for all of their efforts. I ask that the letter from Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D., chairman of the board of Seacology Foundation to Governor Lutali be printed in the Record. The letter follows: The Seacology Foundation, Springville, UT. October 24, 1995. Gov. A.P. Lutali, Office of the Governor, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago, American Samoa. Dear Governor Lutali: On behalf of the Board of Directors and the Scientific Advisory Board of the Seacology Foundation, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that you have selected as the 1995 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year. This award, believed to be the only one of its kind in the world, annually recognizes an indigenous person who has demonstrated heroic efforts in protecting the environment. The Seacology Foundation invites you, at our expense, to attend an award dinner in your honor and a presentation ceremony in Provo, Utah to receive your award, which will consist of an engraved plaque and a cash award of $1,000. Lorraine Clark, Executive Associate Director of the Seacology Foundation, will be in touch with Rob Shaffer from your staff to arrange a convenient date for this event. In making this award, the Seacology Foundation wishes to recognize your personal courage and foresight in protecting the rainforests and wildlife of American Samoa. You have demonstrated your commitment to conservation in many different ways. Examples of your environmental leadership include passage of an act to protect flying foxes, including the rare Samoan Flying Fox, Periopus samoensis, or pe'avao by the Territorial Legislature of American Samoa. Your leadership was crucial in passing this legislation, which is believed to be the first legislation enacted by any Pacific island government to protect flying foxes. Because of your example, many other island governments have now enacted similar legislation. Even more impressive was your visionary foresight in establishing the 50th National Park of the United States of America, the National Park of American Samoa. It was your leadership and your vision that brought together a coalition of Samoan school children, villagers, matai and other traditional community leaders, territorial officials, scientists, conservationists, and U.S. Congressmen to create a new future for the people of American Samoa. You personally held meetings with key scientists and village leaders, you personally hosted a distinguished congressional delegation in Samoa, you personally traveled to Washington, D.C. to testify on behalf of the park and you personally provided leadership at every phase to assure passage of the enabling legislation. You exercised this leadership without any concern for its potential impact on your political future. Because of your selflessness and bi-partisan approach, the American Samoa National Park Bill became one of the first national park bills to pass both houses of the United States Congress without a single dissenting vote. You played a key role in guaranteeing that the aspirations and well being of Samoan villages were paramount in the enabling legislation. Unique land acquisition techniques, revolving around long term leases, were used under your direction. Village chiefs were guaranteed important roles in formulating park policy. The Samoan language and culture are to be highlighted in all park activities. As a result of your foresight, American Samoa will have a national park that will preserve both Samoan wildlife and Samoan culture. Many other examples of your conservation leadership could be cited. The Territorial Division of Wildlife and Marine Resources under your leadership has made important progress in evaluating and protecting the wildlife of American Samoa. Coastal Zone Management has flourished under your leadership. But perhaps most important has been your quiet personal example. You quietly led an effort to re-introduce the rare Samoa toloa or duck to your home island of Annu'u. The crack of dawn has frequently found you on your hands and knees weeding the garden plot in front of the territorial offices. Many have seen you picking up rubbish and doing your own part as private citizen to beautify the exquisite islands of American Samoa. Because of your stellar service, both public and private to conservation, and because of the tremendous example of dedication and courage that you have set for your own people--the Polynesian Islanders--and for indigenous peoples throughout the world, the Seacology Foundation is pleased to bestow upon you the most distinguished award for indigenous conservation in the world by naming you Indigenous Conservationist of the Year 1995. We offer you our sincere appreciation for your tremendous devotion to protecting this planet. Warmest personal regards, Nafanua Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join with my esteemed colleague from Texas Senator Gramm, to introduce this bill for Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense [DOD] for care provided in our military medical treatment facilities to Medicare eligible beneficiaries. When these dedicated men and women made a commitment to a career of service in the Armed Forces, a promise was made to them that upon retirement they and their family members would continue to receive health care for life in our superb Military Health Services System [MHSS]--if they so chose. In fact, approximately 230,000 of the 1.2 million Medicare eligible retirees currently do choose to get their health care at military treatment facilities. Regrettably, as the military downsizes and Defense health budgets are cut, without Medicare reimbursement, the MHSS will no longer be able to provide health care for these retirees. Many of these retired servicemembers and their families made career-long sacrifices based in part on the expectation that they would have guaranteed health care. I believe it is important that our Nation continue its firm commitment and honor the promises made to those individuals and their families. Mr. President, this bill provides an additional benefit to the Nation--more cost effective health care for this population. If the MHSS can no longer provide their health care, 230,000 more retirees who are already Medicare eligible will be forced into the Medicare system-- at a substantially higher cost than that for DOD reimbursement. As a taxpayer, this just makes good business sense. Mr. President, these dedicated servicemembers kept their promise to our nation and now I believe it is right that the Nation keep its promise to them. This bill will enable the MHSS to continue to provide health care services to Medicare eligible retirees and their families as promised for those who choose to receive their care in our military facilities.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, our former Senate Chaplin, the Reverend Dr. Richard Halverson, will be sorely missed, especially by those of us who had the great privilege of knowing him and benefiting from his special ministry. His daily prayers and his words of greeting, whenever we met, were most comforting. History should record that as a result of his guidance, many unfortunate adversarial crises were successfully averted in the Senate. I believe he succeeded to helping maintain the Senate on a even keel. We will miss him. I will miss him.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to honor three extraordinary gifted individuals who share many things in common: love of country and an undying commitment to serve their fellow citizens. Shim and Kinji Kanazawa and our beloved colleague, the late Spark M. Matsunaga are to be commended for the time, effort and many years of outstanding service that they have given to improving the quality of life for the people of Hawaii. They are indeed role models that many can only hope to emulate. The eldest of 11 children of Torazo and Saki Rusaki, Shimeiji, or Shim as she is more familiarly known, was born in Kamuela, HI. She attended schools in Waimea, Hilo, and Boston. At the time when World War II broke out, Shim assisted the Swedish Vice-Consulate, which had the responsibility for protecting the interests of resident Japanese aliens. She advised the Vice-Consulate to provide a variety of services including assistance with business and personal affairs, reuniting internees with their families, arranging for transportation, and escorting many to the faraway camps. The American Red Cross later awarded Shim a special citation for the care and compassion she displayed to those she assisted. In 1946, while working for the Veterans Administration, Shim met her husband, Kinji. The following year they were married and immediately moved to Boston where Kinji attended law school and Shim studied at the Chamberlain School of Design and Retailing. Upon completion of their studies, they returned to Honolulu and Shim continued her work for the betterment of the community. Shim served as an active volunteer member of many organizations including the Lawyers Wives Club, for which she served as president, and the Commission on Children and Youth. Shim was the first nisei woman to serve on the board of Aloha United Way, and the first woman director and chair to serve on the board of Kuakini Medical Center. She was appointed by former Gov. William Quinn to chair the Life and Law Committee to study laws affecting family life and youth, which spearheaded the creation of the Family Court. Shim actively participated on the Elder Affairs Policy Advisory Board and chaired the Commission on Aging. She was also the driving force in the planning of Hawaii's participation in the White House Conference on Aging, serving as chair in 1981 and 1995, and for more than 10 years, Shim has been an active board member of the Moiliili Community Center. In 1990, on behalf of the Moiliili Hongwanji Mission, Shim applied for a grant from the National Federation of Interfaith Volunteer Caregiver and founded Project Dana, which developed into a very successful program of volunteer caregiving for the frail elderly. Today, she serves on the Robert Wood Johnson Faith in Action National Advisory Committee and is a trustee/treasurer of the National Federation of Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers. Shim's extraordinary efforts to care for and serve the community has earned her many honors. On May 13, 1990, the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii at Manoa bestowed upon her the honorary degree of Humane Letters for her deep concern and humanitarian efforts to improve the quality of life for all people. On April 12, 1995, our State Senate honored Shim for her devoted and exemplary service to the people of Hawaii, and on May 11, 1995, the Public Schools Foundation honored her for her more than 20 years of continuous service as a full time executive volunteer at the local and national level. Kinji Kanazawa is the son of Sakijiro and Haru Kanazawa. He was born and raised in Moiliili with his twin brother Kanemi and five older sisters. Kinji attended Kuhio Elementary, Washington Intermediate, McKinley High School, and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Kinji worked in real estate, and during World War II, for the Federal War Housing Administration which built about 1,000 temporary homes in Manoa Valley. After the war, he attended Boston University Law School. Kinji headed the State Real Estate Commission, taught at the University of Hawaii, and operated his own real estate school where he trained over 6,000 agents. On April 3, 1995, he was duly admitted as an Attorney and Counselor of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Kinji is credited with saving the Moiliili Community Center during World War II, when most Japanese-owned land was confiscated by the Government under martial law. The military governor refused to allow the Moiliili Community Association to acquire the Japanese Language School unless the Japanese Board of Directors was replaced by caucasians. Kinji persuaded several caucasian community leaders to become board members. As soon as the emergency was over, they willingly resigned to enable the former Moiliili leaders to become board members. Kinji and I recently co-chaired the Capitol Fund Drive to construct the Weinberg Building which is now the Thrift Shop. He has continuously led the board of trustees of the Moiliili Community Center for the past 50 [[Page S 17790]] years. Kinji has also served the Moiliili Hongwanji Mission as the president of the temple organization for over 22 years. The late Spark M. Matsunaga was born on October 8, 1916, on the Island of Kauai, to Kingoro and Chiyono Matsunaga, who had emigrated from Japan to work on a sugar plantation. He worked at many jobs through high school and graduated with honors from the University of Hawaii, where he received a degree in education. At the time World War II broke out, Spark was a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. When President Roosevelt permitted the formation of all- Japanese units, Spark became a member of the 100th Infantry Battalion, which later became a part of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Whatever assignments Spark received, he performed with skill and bravery. He fought in the historic battles of Monte Cassino, Anzio and the liberation of Rome. He was wounded twice and earned the Bronze Star Medal for heroism. Using the GI bill, Spark went to Harvard Law School and received his law degree. He went to work as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Honolulu and was elected to the Territorial House of Representatives from 1954 to 1959, and serving as majority leader in 1959. In 1962, Spark came to Washington and served in the U.S. House of Representatives for seven terms. In 1976, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. He served with much distinction as a member of the Finance Committee, where he was a ranking member, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management; on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and chairman of its Subcommittee on Aging; and on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Spark will always be respected for his outstanding legislative record that fulfilled his visions of peace, international cooperation, and assistance to those in need. He had always wanted to be remembered as a friend of peacemakers. He never forgot the horrors of war. He was determined that our Nation would devote itself to the pursuit of peace. In 1984, Spark's 22 years of lobbying efforts resulted in the establishment of the U.S. Institute for Peace. As a ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Spark's imprint could be seen on virtually every major bill that passed the committee. In 1987, he engaged in efforts to establish a veterans medical center in Hawaii, to care for the aging and ailing military veterans. At that time, I committed myself to carrying on Spark's endeavor and ask that the veterans hospital would forever bear his name, in remembrance of his contributions on behalf of our Nation's veterans. I am pleased to report today, the Congress has appropriated approximately one-third of the total funds to establish the Spark M. Matsunaga Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and I remain hopeful that Spark's endeavor will someday become a reality. Spark was indeed a voice of compassion for the homeless, as well as the physically and mentally ill. When it may have been unpopular to do so, he waged a campaign for justice for Americans of Japanese ancestry who were interned during World War II. Spark went from office to office seeking cosponsors for a measure authorizing an apology and monetary reparations for Japanese-Americans whose patriotism was questioned. This measure was enacted in 1988. I will always remember Spark for these achievements, his friendly personality and love of Japanese poetry. Shim and Kinji Kanazawa's and the late Spark M. Matsunaga's extraordinary lifelong contributions to the State of Hawaii and to our Nation will not be forgotten.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Pursuant to the consent agreement, I am pleased to yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the conference report is before the Senate for its consideration because of the extraordinary leadership and wisdom demonstrated by our chairman, the Senator from Alaska. If it were not for his leadership I think we would still be back in H-140, the conference room. Madam President, this is a good bill. But before I proceed with my statement, pursuant to the consent agreement reached by this body, I am pleased to provide 20 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. [Nunn], is unable to be with us this afternoon because of circumstances beyond his control, and he has requested that his statement be made a part of the Record. Before I submit the statement, I would like to read from his second paragraph, and I quote: This is a good bill, Mr. President, and I believe the Senate should support it and the President should sign it. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have produced a conference report which addresses our national security needs in a fiscally responsible manner. (At the request of Mr. Inouye, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record):

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to this conference report. The conference agreement is a good compromise between the interests of the House and Senate. It is truly a bipartisan effort in the long tradition of the Appropriations Committee. Chairman Stevens and I worked together with Chairman Bill Young and the ranking member, Jack Murtha, of the House National Security Subcommittee in formulating the final conference agreement. It has been a long journey, but the end result is a bill that warrants the support of all my colleagues. The conference agreement under consideration has three priorities: It protects critical military readiness programs, it fully funds the needs of our men and women in uniform, and also provides a much-needed increase for modernizing our forces. In total, the conference agreement recommends $243.3 billion for the Department of Defense, an increase of $6.9 billion compared to the President's request. Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, that this bill is consistent with the administration's policy objectives. It does not legislate changes in the ABM Treaty or the Missile Defense Act. It contains no limitation on the President in his conduct of foreign affairs. One of the most contentious issues to be resolved by the conferees was abortion. On September 29, the House voted against the first conference agreement because of abortion language. For the past 6 weeks we have worked hard to reach a compromise which can pass both Houses. The conferees agreed last night to incorporate language mirrored on that which both the House and Senate passed yesterday on the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. The language would allow for abortions to be performed in military hospitals when the life of the woman was endangered or in the case of rape and incest. Most of my colleagues will remember that both the chairman and I have voted against this policy many times over the past two and a half decades. We are recommending it now because it reflects the policy already agreed to by both bodies. The bill before you provides $81.5 billion for operation and maintenance to protect the readiness of our forces. This amount is $700 million more than requested by the President. It supports the military personnel levels requested by the President; it funds a 2.4 percent pay raise for our military personnel and increases their basic allowances substantially--all consistent with Senate recommendations. The bill also raises procurement spending by nearly $6 billion, up to $44 billion. To those who suggest that the bill provides too much for modernization I would note that, even with these increases, we are still spending less than half of the amount the Senate recommended for procurement 10 years ago. Throughout this year, Chairman Stevens and I asked each of the military Chiefs of Staff to meet with the Defense Subcommittee to review the needs of their respective services. The recommendations for procurement spending match these requirements very closely. Let me also point out that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reportedly seeking an increase of an additional $60 billion for procurement in future budgets. That amount is $16 billion higher than we recommend in this bill. I think my colleagues should realize that recommendations on procurement in this bill are the minimum that must be provided. Mr. President, there have been reports that the White House might veto this bill. I hope that this is not correct. The conferees have gone a long way to resolving the objections that were raised by the President when the bills passed their respective Houses. The policy statements on Bosnia, and abortion have been eliminated. Funding eliminated by the House for technology reinvestment, for cooperative threat reduction, and the Seawolf submarine have been restored as requested by the President. The conferees have reduced funds from the House-passed level for missile defense. In each case these recommendations are consistent with White House wishes. Mr. President, I believe it is essential that we invest in the readiness, quality of life, and modernization programs funded by this bill. I am in full support of this legislation. It is a good, fair, and very important bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I just wish to spend 9 minutes commenting on statements made by my colleagues in this debate. One of my illustrious colleagues stated that he sees no threat on the horizon; why are we spending all of this money, which reminded me of the early days of a war that was fought 50 years ago. Five days ago, we gathered to commemorate the end, the victorious end of this war, but I also recall those years just before December 7. I was young enough to remember that, Mr. President. A year before December 7, because Members of the Congress did not see the threat which many of us thought was just obvious, we nearly defeated the Selective Service law. It passed by one vote. At the moment of its passage, our merchant vessels were being sunk in the Atlantic Ocean by German submarines, the Germans were rampaging all over Europe, London was being bombed, the Japanese were rampaging all over China, Nanking was being raped, Peking was falling and we saw no threat. And December 7 came as a brutal surprise to many of us. Not to me, Mr. President, and thank God for that one vote, we had the draft. Two years before December 7, the very famous general from Virginia, General Patton, reported for duty at Fort Benning in Georgia. He was told to organize an armored division. When he got there, he saw 375 tanks. At least they looked like tanks. The only trouble is that over half of them would not roll. They were not operational. This may sound facetious, but it is not. He called up the War Department and said, ``I need some money because these tanks need parts, otherwise they won't move.'' And the War Department said, ``Sorry, sir, we have no money.'' Fortunately, General Patton was one of the wealthiest men in the United States at that time. He took his checkbook, went to Sears, Roebuck in Atlanta, GA, and bought parts, and that is how we developed the 1st Armored Division in the United States. Thank God somebody had a checkbook. One of my colleagues also said that some of these activities that we have [[Page S 17170]] funded in this bill were not authorized, were not requested by the President, were not requested by the Senate. Mr. President, the freedom to criticize, the freedom to disagree, the freedom to discuss, to debate and make decisions are very important in this democracy. This is not a dictatorship. The President does not tell us I want that ship and nothing else. I want to review history, recent history. We have been told that the most important weapon system in Desert Storm was the F-117, the Stealth fighter bomber, and if it were not for that, we would have lost lives, many lives, because this Stealth bomber was the one that was able to knock out all of the radar stations, which made it possible for our fighter planes and bombers to go in. It might interest you to know, and I think we should remind ourselves, that the administration and the Pentagon opposed building the F-117. This Congress persisted. I am certain the chairman of the committee remembers that. Let us take another weapon system that was most important in Desert Storm, the Patriot. If it were not for the Patriots, the casualties on our side would have been at least double. The Patriots were able to knock out the Scuds. Thank God we had the Patriot. The administration opposed it, the Pentagon opposed it, but we in the Congress and in this committee insisted upon it. In 1978, the President of the United States vetoed a defense appropriations bill that carried the Nimitz-class nuclear carrier. It is the most powerful weapon system we have today. Thank God the Congress persisted, and we overrode that veto. There is another aircraft that my colleague from Alaska is the most knowledgeable expert on, the V-22 Osprey. The Pentagon did not want it. The White House did not want it. This committee insisted upon it. Now everyone wants it. So, Mr. President, much as we would like to suggest that we are the repository of all wisdom, it is not so. The democracy that we cherish here is made up of many minds, and the wisdom from all of these many minds, hopefully, will reach the right decision. And we would like to believe, Mr. President, that the decision we present to you today is the right decision. I cannot tell you, in all honesty, that there is no pork in this bill. But those who advocate and those who have fought and supported these provisions in their belief that it is essential to our democracy. And, also, I am certain all of us agree that when one enters into a conference, you cannot hope to get everything you want. You can get some of it. You will have to give in to some. This is the compromise that we have reached. It was not easy, Mr. President. But I think we have done a job that we can stand before our colleagues and say that we have done our best, and we are presenting our best to the Senate of the United States. I notice that my time is up. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to pay a tribute to three individuals who were named the 1995 Women of Distinction by the Girl Scout Council of Hawaii. These women, Gladys Ainoa Brandt, Carole Kai Onouye, Gretchen R. Neal, as well as Sibyl Nyborg Heide, the Girl Scout Council of Hawaii's 1995 Living Treasure, have impressive records of service to the community that more than justify this great honor. They are outstanding role models for young women in the State of Hawaii. Gladys Ainoa Brandt, an outstanding educator and community volunteer, has committed herself to improving the quality of education in Hawaii. Ms. Brandt held a wide range of positions in the field of education, from classroom teaching to chairwoman of the University of Hawaii Board of Regents. She has exemplified the very best in public education. Carole Kai Onouye, an inspirational champion of Hawaii's charities, devotes herself to improving the quality of life in Hawaii. Ms. Onouye serves on the boards of the Variety School, the Girl Scout Council of Hawaii, the Great Aloha Run, and Hawaii Maritime Center, and the USO Golf Tournament. Gretchen R. Neal is a dedicated health care provider. Ms. Neal, whose goal from childhood was to be a nurse, was the first female to enter the Health Services Administration masters program at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She has been actively involved with the Girl Scouts throughout her life. Sibyl Nyborg Heide is an important benefactor in the local community. She, too, has been actively involved with the Girl Scouts throughout her life. For all that they do for the community, and especially for young women, these four women deserve our respect and admiration.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on August 14, 1945, Japan signed a declaration of surrender, facilitating the end of World War II. This year we celebrated Victory Over Japan Day, to commemorate those who valiantly fought for humanity and those who were the victims of unspeakable acts of racism, hate, and violence during World War II. We must also remember those who were forced to endure Japanese occupation during World War II. For nearly 3 years, the people of Guam endured war-time atrocities and suffering. As part of Japan's assault against the Pacific, Guam was bombed and invaded by Japanese forces within 3 days of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, Guam was administered by the U.S. Navy under the authority of a Presidential Executive order. It was also populated by then-American nationals. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign power invaded U.S. soil. In 1952, when the United States signed a peace treaty with Japan, formally ending World War II, it waived the rights of American nationals, including those of Guamanians, to present claims against Japan. As a result of this action, American nationals were forced to seek relief from the Congress of the United States. Today, I rise to introduce the Guam War Restitution Act, which would amend the Organic Act of Guam and provide restitution to those who suffered atrocities during the occupation of Guam in World War II. The Guam War Restitution Act would establish a Guam Restitution Claims Fund, which would provide specific damage awards to those who are survivors of the war, and to the heirs of those who died during the war. The specific damage awards would be as follows: First, $20,000 for the category of death; second, $7,000 for the category of personal injury; and third, $5,000 for the categories of forced labor, forced march, or internment. This act would also establish a Guam Restitution Trust Fund to provide restitution to the heirs of those individuals who sustained injuries during the war but died after the war. Eligible heirs would receive restitution in the form of postsecondary scholarships, first- time home ownership loans, and grants for other suitable purposes. In addition, the trust fund could provide research and public educational activities to honor and memorialize the wartime events of Guam. The U.S. Congress previously recognized its moral obligation to the people of Guam and provided reparations relief by enacting the Guam Meritorious claims act on November 15, 1945 (Public Law 79-224). Unfortunately, the claims act was seriously flawed and did not adequately compensate Guam after World War II. [[Page S 16824]] The Claims Act primarily covered compensation for property damage and limited compensation for death or personal injury. Claims for forced labor, forced march, and internment were never compensated because the Claims Act excluded these from awardable injuries. The enactment of the Claims Act was intended to make Guam whole. The Claims Act, however, failed to specify postwar values as a basis for computing awards, and settled on prewar values, which did not reflect the true postwar replacement costs. Also, all property damage claims in excess of $5,000, as well as all death and injury claims, required congressional review and approval. This action caused many eligible claimants to settle for less in order to receive timely compensation. The Claims Act also imposed a 1-year time limit to file claims, which was insufficient as massive disruptions still existed following Guam's liberation. In addition, English was then a second language to a great many Guamanians. While a large number spoke English, few could read it. This is particularly important since the Land and War Claims Commission required written statements and often communicated with claimants in writing. The reparations program was also inadequate because it become secondary to overall reconstruction and the building of permanent military bases. In this regard, the Congress enacted the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (Public Laws 79-225 and 79-583) as a means of rehabilitating Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act provided the means of exchanging excess Federal land for resettlement purposes, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million to construct permanent facilities for the civic populace of the island for their economic rehabilitation. Approximately $8.1 million was paid to 4,356 recipients under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. Of this amount, $4.3 million was paid to 1,243 individuals for death, injury, and property damage in excess of $5,000, and $3.8 million to 3,113 recipients for property damage below $5,000. On June 3, 1947, former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes testified before the House Committee on Public Lands relative to the Organic Act, and strongly criticized the Department of the Navy for their ``inefficient and even brutal handling of the rehabilitation and compensation and war damage tasks.'' Secretary Ickes termed the procedures as ``shameful results.'' In addition, a committee known as the Hopkins Committee was established by former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in 1947 to assess the Navy's administration of Guam and American Samoa. An analysis of the Navy's administration of the reparation and rehabilitation program was provided to Secretary Forrestal in a March 25, 1947 letter from the Hopkins Committee. The letter indicated that the Department's confusing policy decisions greatly contributed to the programs' deficiencies and called upon the Congress to pass legislation to correct its mistakes and provide reparations to the people of Guam. In 1948, the U.S. Congress enacted the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-896), which provided reparation relief to American prisoners of war, internees, religious organizations, and employees of defense contractors. The residents of Guam were deemed ineligible to receive reparations under this act because they were American nationals and not American citizens. In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted the Guam Organic Act (81-630), granting Guamanians American citizenship and a measure of self-government. The Congress, in 1962, amended the War Claims Act to provide for claimants who were nationals at the time of the war and who became citizens. Again, the residents of Guam were specifically excluded. The Congress believed that the residents of Guam were provided for under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. At that time, there was no one to defend Guam, as they had no representation in Congress. The Congress also enacted the Micronesian Claims Act for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but again excluded Guam in the settlement. In 1988, the Guam War Reparations Commission documented 3,365 unresolved claims. There are potentially 5,000 additional unresolved claims. In 1946, the United States provided over $390 million in reparations to the Philippines, and over $10 million to the Micronesian Islands in 1971 for atrocities inflicted by Japan. In addition, the United States provided over $2 billion in postwar aid to Japan from 1946-51. Further, the United States Government liquidated over $84 million in Japanese assets in the United States during the war for the express purpose of compensating claims of its citizens and nationals. The United States did not invoke its authority to seize more assets from Japan under article 14 of the Treaty of Peace, as other Allied Powers had done. The United States, however, did close the door on the claims of the people of Guam. A companion measure to my bill, H.R. 2041, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood. H.R. 2041, however, includes a provision assessing a 0.5 percent fee on the sale of United States military equipment to Japan. My bill does not include the fee provision because, in my view, it would cause U.S. manufacturers to be less competitive with other foreign manufacturers. Imposing such a fee could lead to the loss of American jobs, which is of concern in light of the decline in defense spending. The issue of reparations for Guam is not a new one for the people of Guam and for the U.S. Congress. It has been consistently raised by the Guamanian Government through local enactments of legislative bills and resolutions, and discussed with congressional leaders over the years. The Guam War Restitution Act cannot fully compensate or erase the atrocities inflicted upon Guam and its people during the occupation by the Japanese military. However, passage of this act would recognize our Government's moral obligation to Guam, and bring justice to the people of Guam for the atrocities and suffering they endured during World War II. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on August 14, 1945, Japan signed a declaration of surrender, facilitating the end of World War II. This year we celebrated Victory Over Japan Day, to commemorate those who valiantly fought for humanity and those who were the victims of unspeakable acts of racism, hate, and violence during World War II. We must also remember those who were forced to endure Japanese occupation during World War II. For nearly 3 years, the people of Guam endured war-time atrocities and suffering. As part of Japan's assault against the Pacific, Guam was bombed and invaded by Japanese forces within 3 days of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, Guam was administered by the U.S. Navy under the authority of a Presidential Executive order. It was also populated by then-American nationals. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign power invaded U.S. soil. In 1952, when the United States signed a peace treaty with Japan, formally ending World War II, it waived the rights of American nationals, including those of Guamanians, to present claims against Japan. As a result of this action, American nationals were forced to seek relief from the Congress of the United States. Today, I rise to introduce the Guam War Restitution Act, which would amend the Organic Act of Guam and provide restitution to those who suffered atrocities during the occupation of Guam in World War II. The Guam War Restitution Act would establish a Guam Restitution Claims Fund, which would provide specific damage awards to those who are survivors of the war, and to the heirs of those who died during the war. The specific damage awards would be as follows: First, $20,000 for the category of death; second, $7,000 for the category of personal injury; and third, $5,000 for the categories of forced labor, forced march, or internment. This act would also establish a Guam Restitution Trust Fund to provide restitution to the heirs of those individuals who sustained injuries during the war but died after the war. Eligible heirs would receive restitution in the form of postsecondary scholarships, first- time home ownership loans, and grants for other suitable purposes. In addition, the trust fund could provide research and public educational activities to honor and memorialize the wartime events of Guam. The U.S. Congress previously recognized its moral obligation to the people of Guam and provided reparations relief by enacting the Guam Meritorious claims act on November 15, 1945 (Public Law 79-224). Unfortunately, the claims act was seriously flawed and did not adequately compensate Guam after World War II. [[Page S 16824]] The Claims Act primarily covered compensation for property damage and limited compensation for death or personal injury. Claims for forced labor, forced march, and internment were never compensated because the Claims Act excluded these from awardable injuries. The enactment of the Claims Act was intended to make Guam whole. The Claims Act, however, failed to specify postwar values as a basis for computing awards, and settled on prewar values, which did not reflect the true postwar replacement costs. Also, all property damage claims in excess of $5,000, as well as all death and injury claims, required congressional review and approval. This action caused many eligible claimants to settle for less in order to receive timely compensation. The Claims Act also imposed a 1-year time limit to file claims, which was insufficient as massive disruptions still existed following Guam's liberation. In addition, English was then a second language to a great many Guamanians. While a large number spoke English, few could read it. This is particularly important since the Land and War Claims Commission required written statements and often communicated with claimants in writing. The reparations program was also inadequate because it become secondary to overall reconstruction and the building of permanent military bases. In this regard, the Congress enacted the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (Public Laws 79-225 and 79-583) as a means of rehabilitating Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act provided the means of exchanging excess Federal land for resettlement purposes, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million to construct permanent facilities for the civic populace of the island for their economic rehabilitation. Approximately $8.1 million was paid to 4,356 recipients under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. Of this amount, $4.3 million was paid to 1,243 individuals for death, injury, and property damage in excess of $5,000, and $3.8 million to 3,113 recipients for property damage below $5,000. On June 3, 1947, former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes testified before the House Committee on Public Lands relative to the Organic Act, and strongly criticized the Department of the Navy for their ``inefficient and even brutal handling of the rehabilitation and compensation and war damage tasks.'' Secretary Ickes termed the procedures as ``shameful results.'' In addition, a committee known as the Hopkins Committee was established by former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in 1947 to assess the Navy's administration of Guam and American Samoa. An analysis of the Navy's administration of the reparation and rehabilitation program was provided to Secretary Forrestal in a March 25, 1947 letter from the Hopkins Committee. The letter indicated that the Department's confusing policy decisions greatly contributed to the programs' deficiencies and called upon the Congress to pass legislation to correct its mistakes and provide reparations to the people of Guam. In 1948, the U.S. Congress enacted the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-896), which provided reparation relief to American prisoners of war, internees, religious organizations, and employees of defense contractors. The residents of Guam were deemed ineligible to receive reparations under this act because they were American nationals and not American citizens. In 1950, the U.S. Congress enacted the Guam Organic Act (81-630), granting Guamanians American citizenship and a measure of self-government. The Congress, in 1962, amended the War Claims Act to provide for claimants who were nationals at the time of the war and who became citizens. Again, the residents of Guam were specifically excluded. The Congress believed that the residents of Guam were provided for under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. At that time, there was no one to defend Guam, as they had no representation in Congress. The Congress also enacted the Micronesian Claims Act for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but again excluded Guam in the settlement. In 1988, the Guam War Reparations Commission documented 3,365 unresolved claims. There are potentially 5,000 additional unresolved claims. In 1946, the United States provided over $390 million in reparations to the Philippines, and over $10 million to the Micronesian Islands in 1971 for atrocities inflicted by Japan. In addition, the United States provided over $2 billion in postwar aid to Japan from 1946-51. Further, the United States Government liquidated over $84 million in Japanese assets in the United States during the war for the express purpose of compensating claims of its citizens and nationals. The United States did not invoke its authority to seize more assets from Japan under article 14 of the Treaty of Peace, as other Allied Powers had done. The United States, however, did close the door on the claims of the people of Guam. A companion measure to my bill, H.R. 2041, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood. H.R. 2041, however, includes a provision assessing a 0.5 percent fee on the sale of United States military equipment to Japan. My bill does not include the fee provision because, in my view, it would cause U.S. manufacturers to be less competitive with other foreign manufacturers. Imposing such a fee could lead to the loss of American jobs, which is of concern in light of the decline in defense spending. The issue of reparations for Guam is not a new one for the people of Guam and for the U.S. Congress. It has been consistently raised by the Guamanian Government through local enactments of legislative bills and resolutions, and discussed with congressional leaders over the years. The Guam War Restitution Act cannot fully compensate or erase the atrocities inflicted upon Guam and its people during the occupation by the Japanese military. However, passage of this act would recognize our Government's moral obligation to Guam, and bring justice to the people of Guam for the atrocities and suffering they endured during World War II. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that a recently published book, ``Managing Plurality: Beyond Diversity to Effective Organizational Changes,'' by the past president of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Donald E. Fox, and his colleague, Dr. J. Renae Norton, sensitively explores issues relating to diversity in the labor force and affirmative action. I agree with their contention that affirmative action is not really the problem; but, rather it is the manner in which it is implemented and managed that seems to cause the most difficulties. I have observed over the last 3 or 4 years that criticisms of affirmative action programs have increased and some people are even calling for their complete elimination. Historically, affirmative action has been particularly beneficial in bringing women and minorities into the work place. Today affirmative action is needed more than ever to insure that all individuals have equal access to opportunities for advancement and positions of more responsibility. We would all readily admit that when affirmative action is implemented as a numbers game that merely counts how many women or minorities are employed, it works against the needs of business as well as the people it was designed to help. However, our society is changing so rapidly that a diverse work force is becoming the rule rather than the exception. For example, it is estimated that in the very near future, 85 percent of the new jobs in the labor force will be filled by women, minorities, and immigrants. Organizations that are looking to their future will have to evaluate the impact that diversity in our society will have on the marketing of their products or services. What better way for an organization to ensure innovation than through the cultivation of a diverse work force. For example, in my own State of Hawaii, cultural diversity is the rule, not the exception. This diversity is not only accepted, but sought after by organizations seeking to compete in the international market. Projections show that as the labor pool becomes more diverse, the number of people with technical skills will shrink. It would, therefore, seem logical that the contributions of every employee should be maximized. Organizations would benefit from recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest employees that are in the available labor pool. It should then be easy to see that diversity is not something that organizations create, but something that occurs naturally in every organization. Frequently, when organizations introduce programs to manage or value diversity, the programs have a tendency to promote group differences rather than exploring the mutual interests of the individuals within the organization. Although I am not a psychologist, in my judgment, it would seem that an organization would do substantially better if they would encourage individuals to maintain their cultural differences and individuality while participating in and contributing to the goals of their organization, and thus hopefully creating a pluralistic work environment. If the organization uses its diversity to its benefit by managing plurality, it can focus on common goals and experiences rather than on the differences among groups, and at the same time address bottom-line business issues. The experience of the military over the past 40 years has, I believe, demonstrated the value of cultural diversity--especially as the military deploys into nations throughout the world on various missions. So, simply stated, it makes eminent sense to me that with proper management, diversity is an asset to the organization and affirmative action is a part of the solution, not the problem.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I agree that debate and open scrutiny of the Sugar Program is important this year. I would like my position to be clear. [[Page S 16104]] Though I accept that some level of reform to the program is inevitable and necessary, I do not believe emasculation or outright elimination is wise. My grandfather and grandmother emigrated from Japan to work at McBryde Sugar Co. on the Island of Kauai in 1899. In my office here in Washington I have a framed copy of the contract on which my grandfather, Asakichi Inouye, placed his ``X.'' The contract includes a photograph of this brave young man and his wife, and a little baby boy they are holding. My father. Nearly a century later, Asakichi Inouye's grandson is proud to be representing the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Senate. McBryde Sugar is phasing over to coffee production, but sugar is still the biggest agricultural activity in Hawaii. Sugar is still the third biggest business in Hawaii, trailing only tourism and defense spending. I am proud to represent the 6,000 men and women in Hawaii who still work directly or indirectly for the sugar industry, and their families. All these people's livelihoods are at risk if the U.S. sugar policy is eliminated. I am proud to represent agricultural workers who are among the world's most productive. Hawaii produces more sugar per worker, and per acre, than anywhere in the world. Our workers have enjoyed collective bargaining for decades and are rewarded for their productivity with good wages, with some of the best health care benefits in the country, and with generous benefits for insurance, retirement, and in many cases, housing. Their safety and their health are bolstered by some of the strictest worker protection rules and highest environmental standards in the nation, and possibly in the world. These workers, many of whose families have been in sugar for three or four generations, lead comfortable, but by no means extravagant lives, can put their children through college, and can look forward to a decent retirement. Sadly, Hawaii sugar production has dropped nearly in half in just the past 7 years as half our sugarcane plantations have shut down. Why have these farms closed? Because producer prices for sugar have been flat, or even declining, for the past decade. Despite their extraordinary productivity, these farmers cannot reduce costs rapidly enough to cope with inflationary prices for their inputs and flat or declining prices for their output. In the absence of U.S. sugar policy, an abrupt decline in U.S. producer prices for sugar is a virtual certainty. If U.S. producer prices for sugar decline further, Hawaii's remaining sugarcane farms will close. Thousands more of my constituents will lose their livelihoods. This sad situation will not be unique to Hawaii if we lose the Sugar Program. Similar scenes will be played out in the many rural areas of this country dependent on the sugar industry. Let me say, however, that I would not object to the elimination of the Sugar Program if other nations also eliminated any and all measures to favor their domestic sugar producers, processors and consumers. However, we must consider the realities of world market conditions such as the sugar price support in the European Union, which is 35 percent higher than that of the United States. A U.S. Sugar Program is a necessary response to generous production and export subsidy programs in other countries. Opponents of the Sugar Program say that it costs Americans over a billion dollars annually and point to the low world price of sugar, which hovers around $0.14 per pound, as the savior of the American sugar consumer. However, this fictitious world price is created by the direct financial subsidies and export incentives provided to foreign producers by their own governments, which in turn allow these producers to dump excess sugar on the supposed world market at substantially below production cost. If we think there is an endless supply of this dump-priced sugar, we are fooling ourselves into relinquishing control of our domestic market to foreign producers. I believe that if we had a level playing field, we could play at the highest level of competition with anybody. While the GATT, the NAFTA, and the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement are moving us in that direction, I do not believe we are there yet. I would also ask, ``How has the U.S. Sugar Program fared as a domestic public policy?'' While there are several dimensions to such an evaluation, I focus on three particular aspects: impact on the American consumer, impact on the innovativeness of the producing and processing components of the U.S. sugar industry, and impact on the Federal Treasury. Under the U.S. Sugar Program, American consumers have enjoyed a retail price of refined sugar that is lower than that paid by consumers in other developed countries. On average, sugar prices paid by Americans are nearly 30 percent lower than in other developed nations. In April of this year, the average retail price of a pound of sugar in developed nations was $0.54; the price was only $0.39 a pound in the U.S., but over $1.00 in Japan and about $0.69 in France. Relative to other developed countries, U.S. consumers save approximately $2.6 billion annually on purchases of sugar and products sweetened with sugar. However, besides price, American consumers demand consistent quantity and quality. In other words, when consumers go to the grocery store to purchase sugar, they expect a high quality product that is safe and contaminant free, and identical with every purchase. They also expect to find such products on the shelf whenever they want to buy them. This is exactly what the American consumer gets from the U.S. sugar industry--so much so that we take it for granted. However, one need only recall the shortages in the former Soviet Union to know that this is not a universal occurrence. Thus, from a consumer viewpoint, I give high marks to the sugar program as domestic public policy. Another aspect of public policy is how well it stimulates innovation in the production and processing components of the industry. Simply looking at the increasing productivity of domestic sugar producers and processors will clearly signal the fact that the sugar program has not stifled innovation. You do not get the deserved reputation as one of the most efficient sugar producing nations in the world by suppressing innovation. Support of domestic sugar production and processing has been maintained at a level to protect against unfair competition, but not at a level to preclude fair competition. Thus, from the innovation-encouraging perspective, I give high marks to the sugar program as domestic public policy. Finally, Federal law requires that the sugar program operate at no cost to the Federal Treasury. U.S. sugar growers receive absolutely no subsidy from the Government. The only payments are from the producers to the Government. In fact, through a congressionally mandated marketing assessment, the U.S. sugar industry actually contributes more than $30 million annually to the Federal Treasury. So, considering its benefit to the Federal Government's economic condition, I again give high marks to the Sugar Program as domestic public policy. Let me close by saying again that I am not opposed to necessary and useful reform to the U.S. Sugar Program this year; though I do not think that unilateral disarmament is the solution. The sugar industry has committed itself to supporting an elimination of the Sugar Program if and when other sugar producing nations take the same action. I will make this commitment as well. Until we reach that time, however, we must protect our industry, our market, and our consumers from subsidized competition from abroad.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand Senator Kohl is expected to offer an amendment that would restore the business meals deduction from 50 to 80 percent for workers using Department of Transportation [DOT] hours-of-service regulations. The amendment specifically targets only the segment of middle-income Americans who, due to the nature of their employment, must eat away from home. Such individuals include truckers, busdrivers, and some railworkers. The deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 to 50 percent under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and went into effect on January 1, 1994. I support Senator Kohl's efforts to restore the business meals deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. However, I strongly believe that the amendment should go further than the transportation segment of the population. I, along with Senator Hatch and others, have introduced S. 216, which would restore the business meals deduction to 80 percent of all industries. The restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of the food service, travel and tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of this reduction. All are major industries employing millions of people, many of whom are already feeling the effects of the reduction. Contrary to what many might believe, most individuals who purchase business means are small business persons: 70 percent have incomes below $50,000, 39 percent have incomes below $35,000, and 25 percent are self-employed. Moreover, 78 percent of business lunches and 50 percent of business dinners are purchased in low to moderately priced restaurants. The average amount spent on a business meal, per person, is about $9.39 for lunch and $19.58 for dinner. The business meal deduction is hardly the exclusive realm of the fat cats. Again, I commend Senator Kohl for his efforts to restore the business meals deduction to 80 percent for workers on DOT service hours. I urge my colleagues to also support my bill, S. 216, which would restore the business meals deduction to 80 percent for all industries.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. It comes as a great disappointment to me that just as the United States was finally coming to a resolution on how to meet its obligations on these issues, the House has proposed to repeal the source of funding that had been agreed upon. I stand with my colleagues on the authorizing and appropriations committees in urging that the Senate insist on its position in conference--that the CNMI's mandatory funding be preserved in order to implement the bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reallocate these funds as set forth in the Interior Appropriations conference report.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Donald S. Brown, who throughout his exceptional career dedicated himself to public service. Mr. Brown has been a pioneer in the field of economic development. He worked tirelessly to help the poor around the world achieve a better way of life. He has also been instrumental in shaping the agenda of both bilateral and multilateral development institutions, encouraging them to focus closely on the needs of the people. For the last 12 years, Don Brown has served as the vice president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD], a specialized agency of the United Nations in Rome. As the most senior American in the organization, he has been an innovator of new and creative ideas that IFAD has implemented effectively on the ground. He has helped sharpen the focus of IFAD, which is the only international agency which devotes all of its resources to the rural poor. Most recently he has worked diligently, with other senior IFAD officials, to streamline IFAD, increase its efficiency, and reduce its administrative costs. Don Brown has labored unselfishly to promote development and reduce poverty and has been an inspiration to all of us working for a better world. Mr. Brown also ably served in the U.S. Government for over 20 years. He willingly accepted very difficult assignments in various U.S. Agency for International Development [U.S. AID] posts throughout Africa and the Near East. During this time he held the position of mission director to Morocco and Zaire. In his last field assignment, Mr. Brown served as the director of the U.S. AID Mission to Cairo, Egypt, one of AID's largest missions. Mr. Brown also served at AID headquarters in Washington as the Deputy Assistant Administrator of AID to help formulate U.S. development policy. He also was the Executive Director of the Commission on Security and Economic Assistance, established by the Secretary of State. Throughout his career, Don received numerous awards recognizing his outstanding achievements. His colleagues both within international organizations and the government found his sound advice and the many insights gained from his rich experience invaluable to their work. We and they will always remember him as someone who was ever willing to lend a helping hand or a word of comfort. Mr. Brown is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and dedicated individual who touched many of our lives and who made an enormous contribution to the lives of many poor people around the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Don Brown and in wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that would authorize the repurchase of surplus real property by native American trust organizations. This measure is unusual in that it not only serves the objective of restoring to such organizations--real property that was acquired by the United States should such property be deemed to be surplus to the need of the federal government--but also provides for the repurchase of the property at today's fair market value, which will enable the United States to recapture the original value of the property, as well as any associated appreciation in value which has accrued since the time of acquisition. Mr. President, this measure also authorizes the establishment of a trust fund in the United States Treasury, in which would be deposited that amount which represents the appreciated value of the reacquired property. For each property so repurchased by a Native American Trust Organization--the amount associated with the appreciated value of such property--would be added to the corpus of the trust. In turn, the income accruing on the investment of the trust corpus funds would be expended for the purposes of health and education authorized under existing federal law.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that would authorize the repurchase of surplus real property by native American trust organizations. This measure is unusual in that it not only serves the objective of restoring to such organizations--real property that was acquired by the United States should such property be deemed to be surplus to the need of the federal government--but also provides for the repurchase of the property at today's fair market value, which will enable the United States to recapture the original value of the property, as well as any associated appreciation in value which has accrued since the time of acquisition. Mr. President, this measure also authorizes the establishment of a trust fund in the United States Treasury, in which would be deposited that amount which represents the appreciated value of the reacquired property. For each property so repurchased by a Native American Trust Organization--the amount associated with the appreciated value of such property--would be added to the corpus of the trust. In turn, the income accruing on the investment of the trust corpus funds would be expended for the purposes of health and education authorized under existing federal law.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President and my fellow Americans, during the past 4 years, Americans have gathered in cities and towns and villages throughout this land and in strange places with strange names like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Anzio, Normandy, Guam, and in many other places to honor the 299,131 American men and women who stood in harm's way and gave their lives on our behalf. Thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens participated in parades and festivities, and many inspiring speeches were heard. As a veteran of that war, I am grateful to America for the many honors bestowed upon our fallen comrades; but, most respectfully, I feel that these glorious parades and inspiring speeches may have missed the real essence of why we were victorious, what made us win. I remember the thousands upon thousands of schoolchildren scouring the countryside looking for scrap metal, tons of scrap metal that found its way to the front lines as bullets and bombs. I remember the many thousands of victory gardens in every village, hamlet and town, gardens that produced over one-third of all the vegetables that we Americans consumed during that war. I remember the long lines of citizens to give blood and to buy war bonds. I remember the 866 American ships, merchant ships, that were sunk by submarines, carrying our cargo and the nearly 7,000 American seamen who rest at the bottom of the sea. I remember those gallant ladies, wives and sweethearts who rolled up their sleeves and took over the places of their loved ones at the assembly lines and took over the tractors and the farms until the men returned. And I recall that, at that moment, the productivity of our Nation rose by over 25 percent in less than a month. The record shows that these sweethearts of America helped to build over 60,000 tanks, over 120,000 ships and over 300,000 aircraft. And I recall that in the early days of this war, when the days were the darkest, more than 6 million men and women, our fellow citizens, volunteered. High among this list of volunteers were Native Americans, our first citizens, the Indians, who volunteered in larger numbers per capita than any other group. Something happened to America at that time. I am not wise enough to know what it was, but it was the strange, strange power that our Founding Fathers experienced in those early uncertain days. Let's call it the spirit of America, a spirit that united and galvanized our people. We were ready for any challenge, any obstacle. My fellow Americans, today the obstacles and challenges are many, but I ask where is that spirit? Eight days ago, a verdict was announced in a Los Angeles courtroom, and experts throughout this land sadly suggested that our land was divided. All of us know that, or at least we should know that, that our land is dangerously divided and dangerously polarized. What are we, the elected voices of America, doing? Sadly, what most Americans hear are the sounds of dissension, discord and division on Capitol Hill. Instead of the great and grand voice of reason, they hear angry shouts. They see party leaders congratulating themselves on party line votes in the Congress. Americans need not go to Los Angeles to see division. They can just watch the Congress. If we are to appropriately remember and honor those 299,131 men and women who gave their lives in the defense of freedom and in that great war, let us begin by discarding those sounds of division. Let us begin by demonstrating that we are capable of calm and resolute leadership. Let us begin the process of restoring that spirit of America that blessed us at the time of our Revolution and the Great War. We can do no less.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the last 4 years, much has already been said and done to pay tribute to our Nation's veterans of World War II. However, because this tribute is so special, I come forward today to bring to the attention of this body the late Judge Maurice Sapienza's poem, ``This is V-J Day.'' The late Judge Sapienza was born on October 10, 1915, and died on April 6, 1991. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Judge Sapienza was not only a distinguished legal scholar, but a noted poet who edited several anthologies of verse. Judge Sapienza composed ``This is V-J Day'' in 1945, and dedicated it to the memory of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was read over the radio on September 2, 1945, and subsequently published. As we come to the end of the period of commemorating the 50th anniversary of World War II, I think it is very appropriate for this body to contemplate Judge Sapienza's moving words. Therefore, I ask that Judge Sapienza's poem be printed in the Record. The poem follows: This Is V-J Day (By Maurice Sapienza)

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. No.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas for providing this clarification. It should be pointed out that the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate and the National Security Committee of the House of Representatives, in response to taxpayers' concerns about the high cost of the operation differential subsidy, came forth with the Maritime Security Act. In the Senate, it is S. 1139; in the House, H.R. 1350. This year, by a unanimous vote in the Senate committee and a unanimous vote in the House committee, this act was passed--unanimous vote. It is a bipartisan measure. In the U.S. Senate, the chairman of the subcommittee is the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. I have the great privilege of serving as the senior Democrat on that committee. As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State just noted, the amounts we are requesting are much, much less than what has been requested by the President of the United States or what it has cost the taxpayers in the past. It has been suggested that all we would need is 20 vessels, and in so doing, cite Desert Storm as an example. We, together with our allies, were exceedingly fortunate because the man in charge of Iraq did not have the good sense to do what any military commander would have done. He gave us over 6 months to prepare ourselves, and that is why we were able to ship goods in a rather leisurely manner to the Persian Gulf. We were lucky. I think at this juncture I should just briefly point out the history of our merchant marine industry. At the end of World War II, we controlled the seven seas. The Russian fleet was in the bottom of the ocean. The British fleet did not exist. The German fleet was gone. The Japanese had none. The Chinese had none. No one had ships. We controlled the ocean. If the Japanese wanted to ship anything, it had to be on an American ship. If the British wanted to ship anything, it had to be on an American ship. We controlled the seas. But because of our belief in free trade, because of the massive program we instituted, the Marshall Plan and other programs, we helped to build the economies of other lands, including our former enemies. As a result, at this moment, the U.S. fleet carries less than 4 percent of our foreign cargo. We carried over 90 percent and now we carry less than 4 percent. And if you think that 20 would be enough, may I remind my colleagues about the Yom Kippur war. During the Yom Kippur war, the Egyptians nearly overran the Israeli forces. They were pushed back to their borders across the Sinai. And in 30 days, they used up the ammunition that they had stored for 6 months. We had an agreement with the State of Israel to provide ammunition and supplies. And so we looked around for our ships. Our ships were busy. So we looked to American citizens. There were hundreds of American citizens who owned ships registered in foreign lands, like Liberia and Panama. Most of the ships registered in Liberia and Panama belong to Americans, hundreds of them. So we called upon them to say that we have an emergency and we must supply the Israeli forces, please provide your ships, make them available to our Defense Department. Mr. President, do you know how many ships responded? Do you know how many loyal American citizens responded? Zero. Zero. As a result, we had to use our C-5 tankers, the new C-5, and flew cargo into Israel. This is not classified now, but two of those C-5s were nearly shot down. Imagine what would have happened if they were shot down. What I am trying to suggest is that Desert Storm was a good war for us, if you want to put it in ``good and bad.'' It was easily discerned as to who was bad and who was good. All the allies were with us. Even the Arabs were with us. They made their ships available very happily. Even the Japanese came down to the Persian Gulf to help us. But we may get involved in something that is not popular, that may not be considered a good war. And then what would happen? Finally, may I say that every country with a fleet would insist that their mail--postage--be carried by their ships. The British carry their mail to the United States. The Germans carry their mail to the United States. The Russians carry their mail to the United States on their fleet. The Japanese insist on that. Even the Arabs insist on carrying their mail on their ships. We believe in free trade. We put our mail carriage on auction, on bid. Who do you think carries our mail across the Atlantic ocean? The American fleet? The Polish Steamship Company. I hope we are proud of that. One would think that we would be proud enough to insist that our mail with our postage stamps be carried by our fleet. But because we insist upon slowly but surely tearing down our merchant fleet, the day will come when this great and powerful Nation will be blackmailed by all these other countries. The day will come and they will say, sorry, folks, we do not want to get involved in this conflict. See, what happened during the Yom Kippur war, Saudi Arabia sent word to Liberia and Panama and told the Liberian and Panamanian government, ``If ships in your register are used to carry cargo to Israel, we will consider this an unfriendly act.'' That is why zero. That could happen to us again, Mr. President. This is a small investment. One part of this is the title I one loan guarantee program. A $25 million investment will generate $500 million in ship building. It is about time we revived our ship building industry. Mr. President, this is a bargain. This has bipartisan support. That is why the chairman of this committee, Mr. [[Page S 14666]] Gramm, wisely counted the votes, because it is a popular program. It is an American program, Mr. President. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.