Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank my leader for his kind words. I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for his masterful management of this bill. I would like to also note three individuals who have been of great assistance to us by providing timely and correct information regarding the many amendments that have been offered: Bobbie Sherb, an Army lieutenant colonel and a nurse, who has monitored health care matters for the subcommittee; Ryan Henry, a Navy captain on detail with the subcommittee, who has monitored many of the details of this bill; Emelie East of the subcommittee staff; and last, but not least, Charlie Houy. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. I yield back time.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, once again, I note for my colleagues that we have received a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, dated this morning, requesting our support for continued D-5 missile production. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. The committee added $8,500,000 in fiscal year 1995 to continue the GEAR INFAC Program. The funds were included in the research, development, test and evaluation, Army account, effecting the transfer of this program to the Army from the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. disposal of bonaire housing

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Emergency Medical Services for Children [EMSC] Grant Program on its 10th anniversary, and acknowledge the progress it has made in meeting the emergency care needs of our Nation's children. Before the authorization legislation was passed in 1984 most emergency care training focused on adult care while the needs of children were underrecognized. Little was known regarding appropriate drugs and dosages for children, and pediatric equipment was not readily available in emergency departments nor in ambulances. Now, more than 40 States have received funding to improve the emergency care provided to acutely ill and seriously injured children, and training in pediatric emergency health care has been greatly expanded nationwide. It is a tremendous source of pride for me, as I am sure it is for Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, to have introduced this legislation in the Congress a decade ago and to witness the dedication of those who have worked so diligently toward implementation of the various EMSC programs across the country. Few people realize that emergency medical service systems are relatively new--in fact, development of a network of lifesaving resources and technology began a scant 30 years ago. Even fewer realize that these systems initially made no allowance for the unique medical needs of children. During the past 10 years, many people have striven to correct this situation, and EMSC has proven to be an investment in our children that has paid countless dividends in the form of lives saved. Few of us will ever forget the images of innocent people suffering in the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. Our Nation's collective emotion galvanized around the unforgettable image of the limp body of a child being carried by a firefighter. If that tragedy had occurred 4 years earlier, prior to an EMSC implementation grant awarded to the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Services Center, many lifesaving components would not have been in place. Each ambulance that responded to the incident was equipped with pediatric emergency care resources above the national standard. Firefighters, police, doctors, and nurses on the scene were able to assist children effectively because they were trained in pediatric emergency care. All of the these things were possible because of EMSC funding at the Federal level to the State of Oklahoma. Because our children are our most precious resource, our challenge is to take the EMSC infrastructure that now exists and extend it everywhere so that the system works for all children. A recent Institute of Medicine report on pediatric emergency care documented many remaining gaps. Health care providers remain uninformed about emergency pediatric care, many communities lack even the basic elements of a functional system for emergency care, much of the public remains untrained in CPR and bystander care, and many injury prevention technologies have yet to be generally adopted. We still have much to learn. Research and evaluation are critical in identifying problems, assessing how effectively our strategies address those problems, and enhancing every aspect of care. Join me in celebrating this important 10 year anniversary by pledging continued support for EMSC so that the special needs of vulnerable children will be met. I extend my best wishes for the future as EMSC reaches for its goal to serve every region of our country and to provide our children with the highest quality emergency care possible. I would also like to recognize the outstanding contributions of Dr. Jean Athey, the current program administrator, and my long-time friend, Dr. Cal Sia, a visionary among pediatricians, who have been so vital to the success of this invaluable program. Congratulations, EMSC, for 10 years of dedicated service.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at the outset, I believe the record should show that a week ago, when this amendment was proposed to the authorization bill, I did support with some reluctance this amendment. Today I stand before my colleagues as one of the managers of the appropriations measure. In the past week, several things have happened which places this amendment in a different light. First, this measure has been voted upon after an 8-hour debate and the vote was close, 51 to 48. Second, the underlying proposition, which is the possible abrogation of the ABM Treaty, is now very seriously negotiated by our leadership, Mr. Dole and Mr. Daschle, by members of the State and Defense Departments, and by the senior members of the Armed Services Committee. At this moment, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Nunn, and Mr. Levin are very seriously discussing this matter. Many of us have been assured that this negotiation process is moving along in a very fruitful fashion; that we can anticipate some sort of resolution. And therefore it is with that understanding that the appropriating committee came forward and presented our bill. There is an understanding that, if a resolution is reached, we would be set aside and the authorizers will come into the picture. Third, this $300 million is for research and development. The amount of $48 billion has been mentioned. The $48 billion is a possibility in the future, if--and I say if--this country should decide to establish an antiballistic missile system, setting up bases all over [[Page S 12138]] the United States. That decision has not been made and I believe that at this stage it is very unlikely that a decision of that nature would be adopted by this Government, or by this Congress. Therefore, I hope my colleagues here will be a bit more patient and wait until the negotiators have concluded their meetings, wait until our Defense and State Department officials have expressed their views, and wait until the authorization measure is taken up in the appropriate fashion and votes are taken to make their final decision. Therefore, I must advise my colleagues that on this vote I will be voting with my chairman which would be against the proposition. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond to the bill that was just submitted by my dear friend from Arizona. First, on the Kaho'olawe Island restoration. Kaho'olawe is an island in the Hawaiian chain. Soon after the election of President Eisenhower, the President felt that the military of the United States required considerable training and upgrading. The Korean war had indicated that our troops were not trained properly and that our Navy was insufficiently supplied. Therefore, he called upon the territory of Hawaii--we were not a State at that time--and requested the use of this island. The Governor of that island and the legislature consented. The President issued an Executive order that said, when we find that we are no longer in need of this island as a target island, we will return it to the people of Hawaii in a habitable condition. That is what it says, ``habitable condition.'' Soon after the island was transferred to the Federal Government for use as set forth in the Executive order, that island was just bombarded with everything from bombs to 18-inch shells, grenades, et cetera. This became the major training area in the Pacific Ocean, and it continued until about 5 years ago. All of our Navy pilots, Air Force pilots, Navy ships, and oftentimes ships from other countries, at our invitation, used this island for target purposes. They were not duds, they were live ammunition. So this island is just inundated with unexploded ordnance. About 5 years ago, the U.S. Government decided that this island was not necessary for target practices. But then they looked over the island and they felt that if we were to return this island to the people of Hawaii in a habitable condition, it would cost possibly a couple billion dollars. And so once again the people of Hawaii said to the Federal Government, we will set aside certain areas of this island and let us clean them up. We realize that to clean the whole island would cost billions of dollars. So this Congress authorized the expenditure of $400 million to partially clean the island. Mr. President, it should be noted that all these years from 1953, our Government used that island and did not pay even $1 a year. No other State would have provided land for that purpose for less than market value. We got no pay. And so now the time comes to return the island, and the Senator says the cleanup should not proceed. Mr. President, it should be also noted that this island just happens to be the most sacred island for our native Hawaiians. The most important temple, Heiau, is located on this island. This island also was the focal island for the trips to Tahiti. Long before Columbus ever set sail in the Atlantic Ocean, Hawaiians were traveling from Polynesia to the Hawaiian Islands, and this island was a focal island. So this is a very important island. This Congress authorized this money. Granted, the authorization was not initiated by the Armed Services Committee. But this Congress did authorize it. The Senator from Arizona also mentioned the brown tree snake. There is $1 million for the eradication of the brown tree snake. I do not see it in the bill, but he mentioned that. The brown tree snake was first discovered on the Solomon islands. Soon after World War II--and this is in the record--a military cargo ship, because it was not appropriately cleaned up, carried a few brown tree snakes when it landed on the island of Guam. The brown tree snake just flourished to the point where six species of birds have been wiped out there. They are no longer in existence because these snakes love birds. They eat eggs and eat birds. [[Page S 12134]] Furthermore, as a result of this colony of brown tree snakes on Guam, the people of Guam experienced brownouts almost every night. These snakes like these electrical towers. There are brownouts all the time. Obviously, the people of Hawaii fear the brown tree snake, and we have found that the few brown tree snakes that have been located on Hawaii have come through the military, through the aircraft. We recently found one in Scofield barracks. Mr. President, we pride ourselves in being the home for many of the exotic birds. The few that remain on this globe are found in Hawaii. If this brown tree snake ever found a home there, then the endangered species program we have would have to be set aside because they will just wipe our birds out. Mr. President, there is $1 million to the military, and they want this so that they can set up a program to make certain that these snakes do not travel from Guam to Hawaii. The other measure that my friend from Arizona mentioned, which is not here, is the Pacific missile range facility. This program was requested by the Navy. The title, the name and designation of this facility is misleading. It says ``missile range.'' The major purpose of this facility is a submarine training and target facility. Up until recently, it was a highly classified activity. You do not see much of it because it is under water. All of our training facilities to date are deep-water facilities. The Pacific missile range is deep water, but it is also shallow water. It is the only shallow-water testing and targeting facility in the United States. In today's possible warfare, we must excel in the skill of fighting in shallow waters. This is what it is. It is true, it was not authorized by the Armed Services Committee, but it was requested by the military, and we believe that request was justified. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. I concur with my colleague, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee. The Defense Department has the authority to proceed with this worthwhile project, once the requirements contained in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act are met.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Senator in this process. This is a continuation of [[Page S 12128]] the process that was started last year, and we commend the author.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes. That is correct.

Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INOUYE. I ask my colleague to add Bobby Scherb and Ryan Henry to that list.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let me first begin by congratulating my subcommittee chairman, Senator Stevens, for recommending this bill to the Senate. And I would like to also thank my colleague from Alaska for his very generous comments. The bill that is now being presented to the Senate by the Appropriations Committee will protect critical military readiness programs. We hear much about readiness. This bill addresses that. It will fully fund the needs of our men and women in uniform and also provide a much needed increase in the modernization of our forces. In the long tradition of the Appropriations Committee, this bill was crafted in a bipartisan, or as the chairman has noted, a nonpartisan manner. I have had the privilege of working closely with Chairman Stevens in formulating this bill, as we have in the past. In some areas, the committee was constrained by authorization limitations which caused Chairman Stevens and I to recommend less than some of our colleagues might have wanted for certain programs such as defense conversion, the Seawolf submarine, or the B-2 bomber. But the chairman and I agreed that we would live within the limitations recommended by the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I want to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that this bill provides no policy statement on the ABM Treaty. I think that should be repeated. This bill does not contain any language or any policy statement on the ABM Treaty, nor does it have any limitation on the President of the United States in foreign affairs, and no other major policy issues. Adhering strictly to the rules of the Senate, this bill addresses spending priorities, not legislation. In fact, my colleagues should know that the chairman stripped 90 legislative provisions from the defense bill that was passed by this body last year. This is a very clear bill, a very clean bill, which addresses the spending needs of the Defense Department. And, Mr. President, I am proud to support it. The bill before the Senate provides nearly $80 billion for operations and maintenance to protect the readiness of our forces. 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 allowance substantially--all consistent with authorization recommendations. The bill also raises procurement spending by nearly $6 billion, up to $44.5 billion. To those who suggest that the bill provides too much for modernization, I note that even with these increases, we are still spending less than half of the amount the Senate recommended for procurement 10 years ago. I might add that 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 matched these requirements. The bill funds a very robust ballistic missile defense program, adding $300 million for national missile defense research and development. While some might disagree with this recommendation, it is the same amount already approved by the Senate; and it is $150 million less than recommended by the House. Research and development spending in total will increase by more than $1 billion compared to the present request. Mr. President, I believe it is essential that we invest in the readiness, quality-of-life, and modernization programs funded by this bill. As my colleagues know very well, only a very small percentage of Americans served in the military. Less than 1 percent of us have come forward to say that they are willing to stand in harm's way for the Nation. And so I believe it is our responsibility to make certain that we provide these dedicated men and women fair pay, decent living conditions, and the best equipment available. Those who choose to serve are our best deterrent of war and the means if necessary to defeat any adversary and safeguard our freedoms. And so we must support their needs, and I believe that this measure does just that. Mr. President, may I repeat that I am in full support of this legislation. It is a good, a fair, and a very important bill, and so I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. One of the major issues in this measure will be the increases that this committee has recommended in procurement. Yes, these are some programs that were not requested officially by the President of the United States, but these decisions were reached as a result of our consultation with the senior military officers and the senior civilians responsible for our defense. [[Page S 12125]] For example, we have added two DDG-51 destroyers at a cost of $1.4 billion. The question may be asked, Why did we do this? The President's program calls for four destroyers. However, it calls for two at this moment and two at a later time, about 3 years from now. If we followed the administration's recommendation, that amount, $1.4 billion, would be increased by nearly $400 million. We can get a better deal by purchasing four at this time. There is another large item, the LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. It is $1.3 billion--a whole lot of money--but even this is in the program that the Defense Department has. We have decided to procure these items at this moment and not at a later date so that we can avoid the peaks and valleys that we usually experience. We have tried to level off our spending programs so that we will not be faced suddenly 2 years from now with a huge peak and then 2 years after that with a valley. We have added, as the chairman noted, $777 million for National Guard equipment. These are requested by the adjutants general of the 50 States. Yes, there was a time when National Guard troops were riot- control experts, or they filled sandbags for flood control, they did civilian work. But today, as they did in Desert Storm, we have men piloting aircraft in the Bosnia theater. In Desert Storm, there were thousands of National Guard officers, men and women. So they are no longer local troops that take part in our national endeavors. We also added 12 F/A-18 Navy fighters, $487 million. This is beyond the President's request, but here again, the President's program, the Defense Department program, calls for the acquisition of these aircraft at a later date. And if you want to have a better contract deal, now is the time to purchase this. There is $300 million for Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has now gone beyond just guarding our coast. They have participated in Bosnia, and they still do; they participated in Desert Storm, and on top of that, we have directed the Coast Guard to conduct certain missions that were not heretofore part of their responsibility. They have a major responsibility in drug interdiction. The Coast Guard account, which is in the Treasury account, is not quite sufficient to meet all the payments, so we decided in the defense bill, because it is true defense work, to pick up part of the tab. We are appropriating $241 million to purchase a WC-130 Hurricane aircraft. I hope that my colleagues will be able to convince our friends who live in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas that this aircraft is not necessary. This is the aircraft that gives citizens of these areas advance notice that something horrendous is coming along. Yes, it is expensive, but we need this aircraft. The Army asked for one thing. It was not in the President's request: Comanche, $174 million. This is a helicopter program. What I have listed represents about 6 billion dollars' worth. Mr. President, if my colleagues carefully study what we have done, I am certain they will go along with the subcommittee. This is not fat, this is not pork, and if I may be a bit parochial and personal about this, none of these items are purchased in Alaska or Hawaii. We do not have the plants that build the fighter planes. We do not have the plants and the shipyards that build these ships and destroyers. The chairman and I believe that this equipment is absolutely essential at this time if we are to modernize our forces and to present to them the best we can in equipment. If these men, representing less than 1 percent of our population, are willing to step forward and say to us, ``We are willing to risk our lives and shed our blood for you,'' the least we can do is to provide them with the best protection. This will do it. So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will go along with the recommendations that Senator Stevens and I are now presenting. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the language proposed by my friend from Alaska.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2403

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. There are no objections to this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2406.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2409

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I have been advised the Senator from Connecticut wished to be recognized to speak against the amendment. Does the Senator from Connecticut wish to be recognized? Mr. President, may I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.