Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

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

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 share the opinion of the Senator from Alaska in response to the question from the Senator from Louisiana. The Chemical Weapons Demilitarization Program is a sequential construction program which depends very heavily on transmitting what is learned at one facility to the rest of those facilities in the complex. Program integration, environmental permitting, facility oversight and public outreach are all integral parts of that mission. Given that fact, the Army has every right to avail itself of the waiver provisions of FASA.

Mr. INOUYE. It would be mine as well.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his remarks on this important issue. I want to assure him that I continue to support a strong bomber force. A strong bomber force is vital in today's world, and we should not unnecessarily give up the highly cost-effective combat capability of our B-52 force. As the Senator for North Dakota noted, the subcommittee this year was working under tight budgetary restrictions and was unable to provide funding in the Senate bill for additional B-52s. I am pleased that the House was able to do so, and I can assure the Senator from North Dakota that I will work hard in conference to make sure that the final bill that goes to the President has sufficient funding to maintain a highly capable B-52 bomber force which can accomplish its assigned missions.

Mr. INOUYE. No objection.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2397

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment appeared in the authorization bill. There is no opposition.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2415

Mr. INOUYE. This has been approved.

Mr. INOUYE. I have an explanation.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2414

Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be adopted.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2405

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table 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. 2411

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is an amendment to eliminate the Project ELF.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment denies pay and allowances for military prisoners and provides authority for the Department of Defense to provide for their dependents. We have discussed this matter. There are no objections.

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

Mr. INOUYE. No objection.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2417

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

Mr. INOUYE. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. President, I realize I cannot say much in a minute, but just to remind ourselves, about 30 years ago as a result of the debate of this nature the Congress appropriated a few dollars, a few million dollars, and as a result came up with this business called laser. Up until then, lasers were just theory. Since then, the laser has been helpful in medicine, in mathematics--it has been a boon for mankind. I just hope that we will not have to use this in warfare. As I have indicated, as others have, we have not arrived at the millennium, so sadly we must prepare ourselves that if such a time should come, we are prepared. This is for research; it is not to build the systems. I hope that my colleagues will oppose this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States states the following: Congress shall have the Power To *** raise and support Armies * * * To provide and maintain a Navy; To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. Mr. President, I cite the Constitution because in the debate today we have heard on several occasions that the President did not approve this or the President did not ask for appropriations, that the President did not have this in his budget request. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States does not say that the President shall have the power to raise and support armies or that the President has the power to provide and maintain a navy. It is the Congress that has the power. And what we are doing today, and this evening, is to exercise that power and authority that has been granted to the people of the United States and to their representatives in the House and the Senate. If we abide with some of the suggestions made by my colleagues, I would say the Constitution should read that the Congress of the United States will be the rubberstamp of the President. I do not believe that was ever the intention of our Founding Fathers. Second, throughout the debate today, the sum of $7 billion has been heard on several occasions. It represents sums of moneys that this committee has recommended for the purchase of certain equipment. It is true that what I am about to list were not specifically requested by the President. But in the exercise of our authority as set forth in article I, section 8, of the Constitution, we felt that the best interests of this Nation would be served if we did exercise this authority. So, if I may, I would like to go down the list so my colleagues will know what is involved. The so-called master plan of the Department of Defense states that, by the year 2000, we will purchase 15 DDG-51 destroyers. These are the latest destroyers, the most powerful on the seven seas. The President requested two. We decided for the sake of economies, we should have four. In the scheme of contracting and building, I think it is common knowledge that if one purchases in larger quantities the purchase price would be less--$1.4 billion. Before we made this decision we conferred with the Chief of Naval Operations, we conferred with the Secretary of the Navy. They considered this to be of high priority. Just a few moments ago this Congress, this Senate, by a vote of 72 to 27, approved the appropriation of $1.3 billion for the purchase of an LHD-7 amphibious assault ship. That ship was not requested by the President of the United States, but it is part of the master plan of the Department of Defense. It is scheduled to be purchased in about 3 years. But, in checking with the shipyards of this Nation, we found that this year would be the year to make that contract. This is one of the highest priorities for the U.S. Marines. We call upon the Marines almost every year, unfortunately, to send their men in harm's way. They are the first on the beach. They are the first to shed blood. And they want to make certain, if they are going to be first, they do so with the best of equipment, best of survival facilities--and this ship will provide that survivability. Mr. President, $770 million for the National Guard. The President of the United States did not request $770 million for the National Guard equipment, but every adjutant general of the 50 States begged the Congress for assistance in this area. It is common knowledge among us that, up until now, the National Guard gets all the leftovers. When the regular services get new equipment, they get the old equipment. When the M1A2 tank comes out, they will get the M1A1 tanks. They put up the sand bags for floods. They are involved in Bosnia. They were in Desert Storm. They were in Somalia. And they will be going to the next place wherever it is. And if we are calling upon the National Guard, the citizen soldiers, to stand in harm's way, I think it is only reasonable for the Congress to provide them with the necessary equipment. That was $777 million. This bill has 12 FNA-18 aircraft, $484 million. The master plan calls for the purchase of 24. The administration had requested 12. We added 12. Here again, it was a matter of economies, and by economies I am talking about big economies. By doing this, we would have saved over $250 million. A high priority for the military are the F-15's and F-16's; $370 million for 12 of them. A few hours ago this Senate, by an overwhelming vote, approved the funding of $300 million for the national missile defense research and development. That was not requested by the President. We added the $300 million. We also added $300 million for the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, as you know, Mr. President, is funded through the Department of the Treasury. They are not part of the Defense Department. For all intents and purposes, the Coast Guard is now part of the U.S. Armed Forces. They were deeply involved in Desert Storm. They suffered casualties like all the other services. They are presently involved in the blockade in Bosnia. They are also involved very deeply working with the Navy in drug interdiction. So the Treasury Subcommittee came to us, and they did so about 3 years ago, to provide a helping hand with the Coast Guard. And we have been doing this. The Senate knows that, the House knows that, and the President knows that. The sum of $174 million for the Comanche helicopter; if one should look over the whole appropriations measure--and I say so as a former Army person--the Army was the one that was shortchanged. The Navy got their ships, and the Air Force got their aircraft. This is the one thing that the Army wanted, the Comanche helicopter, $174 million. This bill also has $250 million for five hurricane aircraft. Mr. President, they were not requested by the President of the United States. But I hope my colleagues will be able to confer with the Governors of the coastal States and the gulf States and ask their opinion--all of those. Every moment at this time of the year there is some hurricane popping around in the Caribbean or in the Atlantic. And we have heroic men and women 24 hours a day up in the air checking these things out. The least we can do is to give them adequate equipment and the best of aircraft. This will provide it, Mr. President. There is no pork in here. Listening to the debate, one gets the impression that this is all waste, this is all pork. And as I said earlier this day, I do not wish to sound personal and parochial. But there is not a single item in here that is made in Alaska or Hawaii. There is no pork in here for our two States. But we feel as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee that these are absolutely essential. We know that this is a very painful period, Mr. President. I, too, would like to see more money being spent for the homeless, for the poor, and the hungry, and for those who are not receiving appropriate education. But we have not arrived at the millennium that we pray for. There are still people outside our borders and inside our borders that would relish the thought of destroying us. This is not paranoia, Mr. President. This is the real world. So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will look over the list that I have just set forth for you, sir. And if they can tell us that they do not need the destroyer, they do not need the hurricane aircraft, they do not wish to have the National Guard fully equipped, they do not wish to have the [[Page S 12175]] Coast Guard better equipped, then we might think otherwise. But no one has come forth telling us to cross out the F-22, cross out the F-15, cross out the F-15 and the F-16. No. Mr. President, it has been $7 billion. I do not often speak on the floor. But I just want my colleagues to know that making decisions such as this is not an easy chore. I can assure you that this is a lean and mean defense bill. If there is fat, it is almost negligible. And it is not in this list, sir. Thank you.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that reflects the culmination of a 4-year effort which has examined the feasibility of and has clearly documented the need for the establishment of the entity that this bill addresses. Mr. President, over the course of the last few months, as the Senate has given consideration to broad reform proposals, we have once again found ourselves confronted with the challenge of securing accurate information with regard to the manner in which such proposals would affect Indian country. For instance, in the context of welfare reform, we quickly learned that there was no central source from which we could secure the relevant information with regard to the Indian proportion of the population served by programs that are the subject of block grant proposals or with respect to unemployment rates in the respective reservation communities. Nor is there a central source of data with regard to program administration or service delivery systems in Indian country, so that we might ascertain how best to assure that Federal programs which are block granted to the States address the social and economic conditions in Indian country. In light of a 200-year history of a Federal Indian government-to-government relationship that for the most part does not involve the State governments, how should the Congress provide for the administration of programs in Indian country under a State block grant system? To effectively answer this question, we should have a range of policy and programmatic options to consider, but there is no existing body with the expertise and knowledge of Indian country that we can call upon to identify and analyze such options. Mr. President, in most of Indian country policy-related information is very scarce. If tribal governments are to effectively participate in the decisonmaking process associated with reform proposals and other Federal actions, they too must have access to information and analyses that will assist them in doing so. It is these imperatives that this bill seeks to address. The central purpose of the American Indian Policy Information Center that would be established under the bill would be one of making information and analyses available to agencies of the Federal Government, to the Congress, and to tribal and other governments that are not otherwise readily available to them. In addition to providing information collected from a variety of sources, the policy information center would be authorized to conduct or commission research to meet policy information needs and to conduct or sponsor forums to identify and explore policy issues. The bill would establish a successor to the demonstration project now authorized as the National Indian Policy Center, and the activities proposed are among those that have been carried out as elements of the demonstration. The bill is a revision of a bill approved by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs during the 103d Congress, but it has been modified on the basis of the experience of the current demonstration. In revising this measure, I have also drawn upon a bill drafted during the 103d Congress by Senator Craig Thomas. Mr. President, I am hopeful that my colleagues will give this measure their careful consideration and will join me in seeking its approval by the full Senate.