Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, almost eight years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.'' That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States. Last year, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer). The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied. For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi. The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th Century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi. In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent two weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession. In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis five million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.'' While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Bank, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent. Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Bank vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Bank ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs. By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 172, the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949. Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band. In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. By the Act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 380, the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provisions of the Act of June 25, 1864.'' In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds. Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britian entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim. In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. C1. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. C1. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. C1. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA. Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim. The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed--is not now denied. Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every one of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide authorization for the establishment of Native American Language Survival Schools. I am pleased to be joined in the co-sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As part of the United States' forced assimilation policies towards Native Americans in the 1880s, the Federal Government initiated a system of off-reservation boarding schools. Native American Children were forcibly taken from their families and transported hundreds of miles to schools were they were subjected to efforts to eradicate all vestiges of their cultural background: their hair was cut notwithstanding the religious importance of hair length in most native cultures; their clothes were replaced with military-style uniforms; they were forbidden to practice their native religions; and they were punished for speaking their native languages. This effort to eradicate Indian culture was unsuccessful and the United States eventually abandoned this policy. However, the long-lasting impacts have separated generations of Native Americans from their native languages. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 officially repudiated the policies of the past and declared that ``it is the policy of the United States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.'' The Native American Languages Act Amendments of 1992 amended the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to establish a grant program to support Native American language projects which would be administered by the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services. This bill would bring the Nation one step closer to assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native American languages by supporting the development of Native American Language Survival Schools. The purpose of this bill is to address the effects of past discrimination against Native American language speakers and to support revitalization of such languages through the development of Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American language Nests. In addition, the bill seeks to demonstrate the positive effects of Native American Language Survival Schools on the academic success of Native American students and their mastery of standard English. An important component in language revitalization is family involvement with the Native American Language Survival Schools, as well as educational exchanges among Native American Language Survival Schools. Furthermore, the bill provides support for Native American Language Survival School facilities and endowments, the development of local and national teaching models, and the creation of a university-level support center system for Native American Language Survival Schools.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribal governments amongst the governmental entities that are consulted with respect to activities carried out by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This bill is entitled the ``Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002'', and I am pleased to be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as well as our colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka, and Senator Maria Cantwell. The amendments proposed in this measure were developed in consultation with the Senate Government Affairs Committee in the last session of the Congress but were not included in the final version of the Act because of the procedural posture of the bill as it came to the Senate from the House of Representatives. There are 260 miles of tribal lands which form our northern and southern borders with Canada and Mexico, and along those border lands, tribal governments are the principal and frequently the only law enforcement presence with the capacity to protect those borders and to assure the safety of our homeland. In addition, there are hundreds of miles of tribal lands that border the waters surrounding the United States, and there too, tribal law enforcement is the first line of defense for purposes of homeland security. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, tribal governments are included in the definition of ``local governments''. As we all know, local governments are political subdivisions of the States. In contrast, tribal governments are recognized as separate sovereigns under the United States Constitution that do not derive their sovereign status from the States, and accordingly, we believe that Federal law should continue to reflect the legal distinction between local governments that are political subdivisions of the States and tribal governments. Accordingly, these amendments would remove tribal governments from the definition of ``local governments'' as currently set forth in the Act, and insert tribal governments in the appropriate and relevant sections of the Act. There can be no doubt that tribal governments have a critical role to play in our Nation's homeland security efforts and the protection of our land and water borders. Thus, this measure also makes clear that for purposes of homeland security, the United States recognizes the inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise jurisdiction currently with the Federal government to assure that applicable criminal, civil and regulatory laws are enforced on tribal lands.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include Indian tribal governments amongst the governmental entities that are consulted with respect to activities carried out by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This bill is entitled the ``Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002'', and I am pleased to be joined in the sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as well as our colleagues Senator Daniel Akaka, and Senator Maria Cantwell. The amendments proposed in this measure were developed in consultation with the Senate Government Affairs Committee in the last session of the Congress but were not included in the final version of the Act because of the procedural posture of the bill as it came to the Senate from the House of Representatives. There are 260 miles of tribal lands which form our northern and southern borders with Canada and Mexico, and along those border lands, tribal governments are the principal and frequently the only law enforcement presence with the capacity to protect those borders and to assure the safety of our homeland. In addition, there are hundreds of miles of tribal lands that border the waters surrounding the United States, and there too, tribal law enforcement is the first line of defense for purposes of homeland security. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, tribal governments are included in the definition of ``local governments''. As we all know, local governments are political subdivisions of the States. In contrast, tribal governments are recognized as separate sovereigns under the United States Constitution that do not derive their sovereign status from the States, and accordingly, we believe that Federal law should continue to reflect the legal distinction between local governments that are political subdivisions of the States and tribal governments. Accordingly, these amendments would remove tribal governments from the definition of ``local governments'' as currently set forth in the Act, and insert tribal governments in the appropriate and relevant sections of the Act. There can be no doubt that tribal governments have a critical role to play in our Nation's homeland security efforts and the protection of our land and water borders. Thus, this measure also makes clear that for purposes of homeland security, the United States recognizes the inherent authority of tribal governments to exercise jurisdiction currently with the Federal government to assure that applicable criminal, civil and regulatory laws are enforced on tribal lands.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide authorization for the establishment of Native American Language Survival Schools. I am pleased to be joined in the co-sponsorship of this measure by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As part of the United States' forced assimilation policies towards Native Americans in the 1880s, the Federal Government initiated a system of off-reservation boarding schools. Native American Children were forcibly taken from their families and transported hundreds of miles to schools were they were subjected to efforts to eradicate all vestiges of their cultural background: their hair was cut notwithstanding the religious importance of hair length in most native cultures; their clothes were replaced with military-style uniforms; they were forbidden to practice their native religions; and they were punished for speaking their native languages. This effort to eradicate Indian culture was unsuccessful and the United States eventually abandoned this policy. However, the long-lasting impacts have separated generations of Native Americans from their native languages. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 officially repudiated the policies of the past and declared that ``it is the policy of the United States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.'' The Native American Languages Act Amendments of 1992 amended the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to establish a grant program to support Native American language projects which would be administered by the Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services. This bill would bring the Nation one step closer to assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native American languages by supporting the development of Native American Language Survival Schools. The purpose of this bill is to address the effects of past discrimination against Native American language speakers and to support revitalization of such languages through the development of Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American language Nests. In addition, the bill seeks to demonstrate the positive effects of Native American Language Survival Schools on the academic success of Native American students and their mastery of standard English. An important component in language revitalization is family involvement with the Native American Language Survival Schools, as well as educational exchanges among Native American Language Survival Schools. Furthermore, the bill provides support for Native American Language Survival School facilities and endowments, the development of local and national teaching models, and the creation of a university-level support center system for Native American Language Survival Schools.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for 22 years in the Navy Nurse Corps: CDR Judi J. Rogers. Commander Rogers began her career as a staff nurse at Naval Medical Center, San Diego, CA. She quickly rose through the ranks and served at Naval bases throughout the world, including Naval Hospital Okinawa, Japan, Naval Hospital Long Beach, CA, National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, MD, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA. Following in her father's footsteps, the late LCDR Kenneth Rogers, USN, Retired, Commander Rogers served aboard combatant ships independently providing anesthesia services as a certified registered nurse anesthetist, CRNA, to the sailors and marines aboard the U.S.S Theodore Roosevelt, CVN-71, and the U.S.S WASP, LHD-1, during all underway periods including two 6- month Mediterranean deployments. She was then assigned as the first woman to serve as the Assistant Group Surgeon for Combatant Amphibious Assault Group Two. In each assignment, Commander Rogers excelled and met every challenge, and was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. Her talent for teaching and mentoring personnel, as well as her creativity and skill in management, were instrumental in providing Military Medicine the cadre of CRNAs serving today. As an advanced cardiac life support, ACLS, instructor, Commander Rogers continually supported mission readiness by providing ACLS courses to hundreds of active duty and reserve troops, and trauma skills and training vital for battlefield survival of our troops. Above all, she is a stellar leader and a compassionate nurse who always put the welfare of her staff and patients first. Commander Rogers is a committed health care professional who has positively influenced the practice of nursing nationally. She is an active member of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, AANA. A faculty member for AANA's Education and Research Foundation since 1988, Commander Rogers personally provided 18 Special Epidural Workshops to 450 CRNAs across the country. She also authored a chapter of AANA's official text, The Clinical Techniques of Regional Anesthesia, titled ``Acute Pain Management.'' Commander Rogers always went the extra mile to serve her country and her fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation to Commander Rogers on behalf of a grateful nation for her dedicated military service. Congratulations and I wish you Godspeed.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished former Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as an original co-sponsor of the Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act. This measure reflects the work of the House and Senate conferees on the comprehensive energy legislation in the last session of the Congress--the tribal provisions of the bill were approved by the conferees and it is those provisions which comprise the measure we introduce today. We believe that the enactment of this measure will afford tribal governments the necessary authorizations and resources that they need to develop energy resources on their lands and thereby make a significant contribution to the Nation's energy needs. We encourage our colleagues to support this measure as they did in the last session of the Congress.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished former Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as an original co-sponsor of the Tribal Energy Self-Sufficiency Act. This measure reflects the work of the House and Senate conferees on the comprehensive energy legislation in the last session of the Congress--the tribal provisions of the bill were approved by the conferees and it is those provisions which comprise the measure we introduce today. We believe that the enactment of this measure will afford tribal governments the necessary authorizations and resources that they need to develop energy resources on their lands and thereby make a significant contribution to the Nation's energy needs. We encourage our colleagues to support this measure as they did in the last session of the Congress.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I do. I would add that I have strongly supported USTTI for a number of years, and have worked successfully with this subcommittee to get funding for it. I would ask the Senator from Vermont if the amount that is provided for USTTI in H.J. Res. 2 is a ceiling, or is it his understanding that USAID may provide additional funding for this organization if it is justified?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend for that clarification and for all of his hard work on this bill.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I want to take a moment to clarify an issue that may lead to some confusion with respect to the intent of section 211 of the Commerce, Justice, State title of this bill. The Statement of Managers incorrectly states that two foreign cruise ships will be allowed to reflag under U.S. registry for operations in the U.S. coastwise trade. This was a drafting error and should have stated, to reflect the bill language, that three ships will be allowed to reflag to U.S. registry. I simply want to confirm with my friend from Alaska that the bill language is controlling.

Mr. INOUYE. I am informed that USTTI is in need of additional funds to accommodate a range of important training programs that it implements. Would Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy support the provision of additional funds to USTTI?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment to the tax code is needed due to a problem that exists in the application of the excise tax. In 1986, the Internal Revenue Services, IRS, issued a Private Letter Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its application of this excise tax. Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust Funds program that is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment. The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point. Hawaii is among a small handful of States where our citizens can enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry for many months into early 2002. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing flights from the air transportation excise tax. A clarifying amendment to the tax code is needed due to a problem that exists in the application of the excise tax. In 1986, the Internal Revenue Services, IRS, issued a Private Letter Ruling in which it exempted one Hawaii-based air tour operator from paying the air passenger transportation excise tax, but has not applied equal treatment to other similarly situated aerial sightseeing tour operators. It is my belief that the IRS should be consistent in its application of this excise tax. Under current law, a variety of excise taxes on air transportation are imposed to finance the Airport and Airway Trust Funds program that is administered by the Federal Aviation Administration. For example, an air passenger transportation excise tax is imposed on users of our nation's airports and airways. The Congress intended that the tax be levied on passengers traveling on scheduled commercial airlines. In addition, for the most part, the tax is imposed on each flight segment. The Congress did not intend to have the tax applied to air tour operators, who utilize our system of airways differently. Our national transportation system receives little or no benefit from aerial sightseeing operations. Air tour operations are not scheduled commercial airlines. They are for entertainment purposes and are circular, in that they begin and end at the same destination point. Hawaii is among a small handful of States where our citizens can enjoy aerial tours of sights that are remote or difficult to reach by land. Aerial sightseeing tours are also enjoyed in Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona, and even New York City. The imposition of the air transportation excise tax on aerial sightseeing flights will significantly raise the consumer price on air tours. Doing so will cause many small aerial sightseeing tour operators, especially in my home state, to lose customers. Many of these small companies have struggled to stay in business after incurring significant losses in the months following September 11, 2001, when our government imposed flight restrictions across the nation. Those flight restrictions prevented many flight operations in all segments of the general aviation industry for many months into early 2002. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain sightseeing trips from the air transportation excise tax. Under my bill, air tour operations would still be subject to the aviation fuel excise tax. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to convey to my colleagues my opposition to this amendment. During the markup of the foreign operations bill by the full Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment to restore full International Military Education and Training to Indonesia. I believe full participation in this important program is essential to maintain our partnership with Indonesia in our global fight against terrorism. The restriction on the participation of Indonesia proposed by my colleague from Wisconsin will harm our relationship and impede our fight against terrorism in one of the front-line countries of this fight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Feingold amendment will send a message to the Indonesians that although we ask for their cooperation in our fight against international terrorism, we will not provide them with the training and tools necessary for that fight and view their country as not worthy of full participation in our international assistance programs. I do not believe this is the message we want to send to one of our critical allies. It is in our national interest to have a stable and democratic Indonesia and that their military is accountable and professional. We can work toward these goals through the participation of Indonesia's military in our IMET program. Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the statement I made when I offered my amendment before the Appropriations Committee be printed in the Record. The statement follows. Introduction of the Amendment to Restore IMET to Indonesia Mr. Chairman, together with my colleagues the senior Senators from Alaska, Kentucky, and Missouri, I offer an amendment to restore full International Military Education and Training (IMET) program participation to Indonesia. In April, Senators Stevens and I traveled to Asia. We visited Indonesia where they had just brought into custody a Muslim cleric who was quoted as having said, ``Osama bin Laden is a lightweight.'' Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population and has only recently embraced democratic principles. We must engage and support this fledgling democracy by supporting reform of the military and helping to build capacity to control and support modern, professional armed forces. We believe that full access to IMET programs will foster the necessary changes. We also believe that the continued restriction on IMET program participation of Indonesia sends a message to the Indonesians. It is a message that they are second class international citizens, unworthy of full participation in our international assistance programs. Is this the message we want to send? I appreciate that this bill provides $400,000 for Expanded (IMET (E-IMET) programs in Indonesia. However, the training provided under E-IMER focuses on administration of the armed forces and the dissemination of international human rights information through the use of Mobile Education Teams that are sent in country. The E-IMET program does provide valuable skills in defense resource management and military justice, but Indonesia needs to focus on professionalizing the military. This can only be accomplished through our assistance via the full IMET program. I IMET program training is provided to all levels of the military, from generals to enlisted personnel. This training, much of which is provided in the United States, builds invaluable connections between the United States and foreign nations that provide long-term benefits. The Department of Defense conducts a variety of activities for foreign military and civilian officials. Formal instruction is offered involving more than 2,000 courses taught at approximately 150 military schools and installations. The program is based upon the premise that active promoting of democratic values is one of the most effective means available for achieving U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives and for fostering peaceful relationships among the nations of the world. I understand that Senator Leahy views IMET as a reward and does not believe it should be afforded to the TNI in light of past abuses and failure to achieve the accountability benchmarks set in last year's Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. This is not a reward. IMET is a vehicle to help TNI achieve those benchmarks. Indonesia has made some progress toward meeting the Leahy conditions, but without recognition of and response to what has been accomplished to date, we will only bolster the arguments of those in Indonesia opposed to reform who believe it is worthless to try to please the United States since we are unwilling to recognize their progress. There are few countries in the world with democratic governments where the rule of law is as firmly established as in the United States. That cannot be our litmus test for provision of assistance. Providing the requested assistance to Indonesia would not be an exception to a well-established rule. Our nation assists countries that are obviously not democracies. Why do we do this? Because, it is in our national interest. Were we helping a democracy when we embarked on Operation Dessert Storm and put up our fortune and our most precious resource, the lives of our soldiers? No, we were not, but we were acting in our national interest. It is in our national interest to have a stable and democratic Indonesia. It is in our national interest that Indonesia develops internal capabilities to address international terrorism. It is in our national interest that Indonesia's military is professional and accountable. We can work toward these goals through the participation of Indonesia's military in our IMET program. Please be assured that I do not advocate lifting the prohibition on the participation of Indonesia in the Foreign Military Financing program. I believe a strong professional and accountable TNI must be established before Indonesia's participation in that program is renewed. However, I believe participation in the full IMET program is vital to reaching that goal, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I yield back my time.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I think we should remind ourselves that not too long ago there was a war we have referred to as the Yom Kippur war that was fought in the Middle East. It was a war that involved the Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel. On Yom Kippur Day, a day of very holy significance in Israel, Egyptian troops went across the river, got into the Sinai, and were on the verge of successfully carrying out the military mission. We received frantic calls from Israel to resupply their troops, because their troops had a 90-day amount of ammo, but because of the intensity of the combat, over half of that had already been used. We, therefore, called upon every American and American company that owned ships on the high seas but under foreign registry. There are hundreds upon hundreds of vessels owned by Americans or American companies that are registered in Panama, Liberia, or in someplace out in the Pacific in the trust territories. They do not pay taxes. They do not hire American crews. But we felt that because they were Americans, they might come to our aid. We wanted ships to carry these military goods to help the Israelis. When the word reached them that the Saudis would look upon this as an unfriendly act, the response from our fellow Americans, to help Americans provide help to their allies, the Israelis, was absolutely zero. Not one ship responded. History shows, as a result, we had to carry out cargo on C-5 aircraft, huge aircraft. Two of them were buzzed by Egyptian fighters. Every time I think of this, I shudder, because if any one of them had been shot down, the question arises, would we have been involved? In all likelihood, we would have been. Therefore, the fact that after the end of World War II we carried 80 percent of all the cargo, and today less than 4 percent, should be of concern to all of us. What if the war many are suggesting might happen does happen and it becomes not a minor war but a major war? Do we have the vessels to carry necessary troops and equipment abroad? I believe that is a good question we should ask ourselves. I do not suggest the Project America provision solves this problem. However, virtually every person engaged in the debate over seafarer readiness would agree that a primary way to address the problem is to promote a viable U.S.-flag fleet. My provision does just that. With international tensions rising, I believe we must do all we can to support the Nation's military readiness. My legislation would do that by creating desperately needed American seafaring jobs that will support a military sealift. To summarize, let me be clear what this section does. First, no Federal funds may be used to complete the Project America hulls. No Federal loan guarantees may be issued by the U.S. Government to perform work on these ships. The preference in the original Project America law that was criticized as limiting competition among the islands of the State of Hawaii does not apply to these ships. At this moment, if any American company wishes to build a ship in the United States and carry on the business in Hawaii or, for that matter, in any other port of the United States, that company may do so. Or if that company has a foreign flag vessel and believes that vessel should be reflagged to an American flag and would come before us, as we have in the past, it we may do so. This does not close that door. It just gives it a jump start. We need something to be done. As I pointed out, Federal safety and health inspections on the proposed reflagged vessel must occur in the United States shipyard, not abroad. All future maintenance on these cruise ships and any repairs needed in order to register the vessel in the U.S. must occur in our shipyards. The U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations will govern ship operations, and U.S. mariners operating the vessel will be subject to Coast Guard licensing. The U.S. Maritime Administration will oversee the implementation of this legislation and recapture that cost from the cruise line operators. I want to stress to my colleagues and those in the maritime industry that this provision will not adversely impact the Jones Act cargo trades where the fleet is vibrant and growing. It is strictly limited to the large oceangoing cruise ships and then only those operating in the regular Hawaii service where there are no U.S.-flag operations. I would also like to stress I continue to support U.S. domestic shipping requirements that mandate U.S.-built, operated, and crewed vessels. I recognize that in certain circumstances, some degree of relaxation of these requirements may be necessary to stimulate growth in the United States maritime industrial base. While this particular provision is intended to fulfill the completion of Project America, and promote the use of large U.S.-flag passenger vessels in Hawaii, I have supported legislation that will provide similar flexibility for large passenger vessels throughout the United States. This legislation was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I will continue to support such proposals that are crafted to strengthen our U.S. maritime industrial base. However, I feel we need to move forward expeditiously with this proposal to ensure we can realize some of the benefits of the original Project America legislation. Planning requirements and operational changes necessary to complete this project to allow for the use as a U.S.-flag vessel must be made shortly or the vessels will be completed for use under a flag of convenience or foreign flag. Yes, some $185 million in Federal funds have already been invested in this project as a result of the Maritime Administration loan guarantees that were called upon when AMCV went bankrupt. A U.S.-based cruise company has taken the risk of purchasing the hull and related materials from Project America with no assurance that legislation could be enacted to obtain coastwise privileges. Instead of simply building the ships overseas for operation under a foreign flag with foreign crews or seeking product exemptions to the Passenger Vessel Services Act to operate these ships, NCL has stepped to the plate and is willing to hire American crews, be subject to American laws, and achieve some of the original benefits of Project America. I will be the first to admit that the original Project America failed. There is no U.S.-built cruise ship ready for delivery on January 23, 2003, which was supposed to have been the delivery date of the first Project America ship. There is no work proceeding on a second U.S.-built cruise vessel, and the Federal Government is out $185 million for the title XI loan guarantee. While the economic downturn resulting from September 11 was the final nail in the lid of the Project America coffin, the troubles, as noted by my colleague from Arizona, began well before that catastrophic event. No one will dispute that U.S. shipyards are inexperienced in constructing large oceangoing cruise ships. We recognized this and, through the original Project America, provided the incentive necessary for an $880 million fixed price contract to build modern state-of-the- art cruise ships in the United States. Throughout the process, the shipyard experienced significant problems in construction of ships. For example, within the first year of construction, the yard was experiencing a projected delay in delivery of approximately 1 year and an escalation in the price of outfitting the interior of the ship by as much as $76 million. Eventually a negotiated settlement was reached, extending the delivery dates, increasing the price, and requiring additional project equity. After the vessel owner's bankruptcy brought the work on Project America to a halt, the partially completed vessels were auctioned. The successful bidder, NCL, offered the Ingalls shipyard an opportunity to bid for completing the vessels, but Ingalls declined. The yard handled predominantly military construction and was not interested in completing the vessels. Instead, the yard retooled its operation to handle an increased order book for Navy ships. U.S. shipyards predominantly build Navy ships. Based on past experience, the Government is more willing than the private sector to absorb increases in the price tag or delays in delivery of the vessel. A commercial company requires more stringent pricing and schedule discipline to ensure that projects are economical. With Project America, that discipline did not exist, and the shipyard opted to concentrate its efforts on government contracts. Other shipyards were in the same situation, with orderbooks filled with government vessels. I remain committed to our U.S. shipyards and believe they have an important role to play in the future of the U.S. cruise ship industry. My provision will give shipyards additional business that they may not otherwise get--any conversion work necessary for certification of the new cruise ships, and any future non-warranty repairs and maintenance must be done in U.S. shipyards. If Section 211 is not adopted, the Federal Government will lose all future benefits from its $185 million investment. My provision gives America another opportunity to jump-start a U.S.-flag cruise industry that will bring the Government a return on its investment. NCL is the only cruise line willing to step up to the plate today and commit to a U.S.-flag, U.S. crewed operation. We can choose to write off the Project America investment by not acting, and watching as these completed hulls are introduced into the booming U.S. cruise market under a foreign flag, with foreign crews, operated by foreign corporations without direct benefit to the U.S. economy or American workers. But if we are to make good on any of that investment, we must act now to generate real and lasting economic benefit to our economy--and to restore pride in the fact that the Stars and Stripes will once again fly on modern oceangoing passenger cruise ships. By taking action now on Project America, we will begin to recover the investment our nation has made in these hulls both through revenues to the U.S. Treasury in the form of individual income taxes, Federal and State corporate income and payroll taxes, and a broad range of other Federal and State taxes paid by the cruise industry--not to mention the broader benefits this legislation will bring to our military preparedness and to our sagging economy. No further Federal funds are required, nor are Government financial guarantees permitted. This legislation simply allows for the completion of Project America and for this company to set a shining example as a proud employer of U.S. seafarers and as a proud operator of U.S. flag ships. I urge my colleagues to support this effort so that we can revive our U.S.-flag cruise industry, increase our military preparedness, stimulate the economy, and create thousands of good jobs for Americans. Exhibit No. 1 [From Defense Week, Nov. 12, 2002] Force Protection Is Top Concern for Sealift Commander (By Nathan Hodge) Protecting vulnerable cargo ships has become the main worry for the three-star admiral in charge of the fleet that is moving weapons and materiel in support of a U.S. military buildup in the Middle East. In an interview with Defense Week, Vice Adm. David Brewer, commander of Military Sealift Command (MSC), said that force protection is MSC's ``No. 1 priority.'' At some point, that could possibly mean embarking armed guards aboard foreign-flagged ships that move sensitive U.S. military cargo. Asked if that was the case, he simply said, ``We're still working that issue,'' and declined to elaborate. MSC operates a fleet of 120 noncombatant ships to deliver a wide range of supplies to U.S. and allied forces around the globe. In event of a major war, ships controlled by MSC would move as much as 95 percent of the military's fuel, food, ammunition and spare parts. The command augments its own fleet by contracting with commercial shippers. According to U.S. Transportation Command, the United States military relies on commercial ships--many under foreign flag-to meet as much as two-thirds of its sealift requirements. In an ideal world, said Brewer, the U.S. military would move all its cargo under U.S.-flagged ships. But he added: ``Right now, we don't have enough. We've seen a steady decline in U.S. flag shipping over the last 10 years. I think . . . there's less than 125 U.S.-flagged [commercial] ships now.'' That means increased reliance on foreign-owned ships for military sealift, an issue that has prompted concern in policy circles. In a July report, the General Accounting Office said the Defense Department ``relinquishes control'' of sensitive military cargo when it contracts out to foreign ships. When the U.S. military hires foreign-flagged vessels, there are no armed U.S. guards on board. When the U.S. military hires U.S.-flagged ships, sometimes there are guards on board. But when GAO reviewed many shipments of weapons on U.S.-flagged vessels, it found them unguarded. Brewer stressed that U.S. cargo preference laws favor U.S.- flagged shippers, who get the first opportunity to bid on any of MSC's contracts for cargo movement. And he said that MSC very closely scrutinizes all the commercial vessels, including foreign ones, that carry military cargo. ``If we cannot find a U.S. flag, we sometimes will embark cargo or equipment on a foreign flag,'' he said. ``But in a perfect world, we want a U.S. flag.'' When MSC does embark equipment aboard a foreign-flagged ship, Brewer said, ``We watch those ships very closely and in some cases embark our personnel aboard those ships to make sure the cargo is secure.'' Asked if that included armed cargo supervisors, called supercargoes, Brewer said: ``We're still working that issue. Armed supercargoes is an issue we're still working.'' investing in upgrades An attack last month on an oil tanker off the coast of Yemen spotlighted the vulnerability of commercial ships. In an incident reminiscent of the attack on the USS Cole (DDG 67) in 2000, a small watercraft laden with explosives struck the French supertanker Limburg, crippling the ship. Brewer said MSC takes the threat to merchant vessels as seriously as it takes the threat to military transport ships and said his command would be investing more money over the next several years to upgrade security on board its own ships. ``We're dedicating significant resources to, number one, providing . . . force protection in terms of training and equipment to budgeting a significant amount of money actually through fiscal 2009 to make sure not only that we not only install the latest technology in terms of hull-perimeter lighting, intrusion detection systems, things of that sort, but also to make sure that we have aboard ships any technology that may be available in the future,'' he said. ``So we are investing a lot of money.'' The technology upgrades are particularly important because military transport ships, unlike Navy combatants, have small crews. ``MSC ships are `manned to mission,' '' he said. ``So that means they're minimally manned. Therefore there's not extra people on board our ships to be armed.'' Much of the money that MSC will invest is in equipment and training. And Brewer said he was working closely with the Navy's fleet commanders in terms of developing an across-the- board force-protection policy for Navy ships. ``So we're investing quite a bit of time and money into force protection and we're working with the fleet in terms of developing and refining force-protection policy,'' he said. beans and bullets to mideast Meanwhile, MSC continues to charter vessels regularly to move equipment and supplies. Earlier this month, MSC hired out two commercial ships to move a large shipment (284 containers full) of ammunition along with 28,000 square feet of rolling stock (including armored vehicles). The ships were headed for unspecified destinations in the Middle East, said Marge Holtz, a spokeswoman for the command. Brewer would not comment directly on deployments in support of military operations or the destination of cargoes. But he suggested that his command was keeping pace with the Navy's increased operational tempo, including the recent deployment of carrier battle groups to the Persian Gulf region. ``Our workload has increased in the sense that we are operating with the increased operational tempo with the battle groups,'' he said. ``But basically we satisfy the fleet's basic needs.'' Asked whether he is confident that his command can easily be put on a war footing, Brewer said: ``Ramping up, because of the planning we've put forth, . . . is not a problem.'' However, he did suggest that a full mobilization might put a strain on the Ready Reserve Force, a fleet of 76 government-owned ships kept in reserve by the Maritime Administration to meet surge shipping requirements for the military. ``Where that would put a strain on the maritime industry is if we have to activate the Ready Reserve Force ships,'' Brewer said. ``And with the decrease in U.S.-flagged ships, there's a concomitant decrease in U.S. mariners. So we're working with the Maritime Administration and the unions in making sure that if we have to go to war and activate the Ready Reserve Forces, there are enough mariners to man those ships.'' Most of those ships are kept in a ``reduced operating status,'' with small crews aboard for maintenance. ``If we have to take those ships to a full operating status, there is some concern there, but we're working this issue very diligently with the Maritime Administration and the maritime unions and we feel we could satisfy any wartime requirements,'' he said. That point, he said, further reinforces the desire of the government, the shipping industry and unions to increase the number of U.S.-flagged ships. In general, said Brewer, ``I want to see more U.S.-flagged ships. Period. More U.S.-flagged ships, number one, will be good for the economy. We are a maritime nation. More importantly, it is essential for our national security. Because [it means] the less we have to depend on foreign- flagged shipping today.''

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in 1997 Congress, as noted by my colleague from Arizona, enacted the U.S.-Flag Cruise Ship Pilot Project in an attempt to ``jump start'' the redevelopment of a U.S.-flag cruise industry. As some of our colleagues know, the large oceangoing cruise ships, so familiar in Miami and other United States ports, all operate under foreign flag. This may be a startling fact when one considers that after the Second World War, U.S. flag ships carried some 80 percent of the world's ocean borne cargo and most of America's seagoing passengers. Today, in stark contrast, less than 4 percent of all the world's international cargo moves on ships flying the U.S. flag, and not a single large oceangoing passenger cruise ship in the world operates under U.S. registry. The enactment of what has become known as the ``Project America'' legislation more than 5 years ago was intended to reestablish a U.S.- flag cruise ship industry. The benefits of creating a U.S.-flag cruise ship industry have long been obvious. Such an industry would maintain America's preparedness for a national emergency by developing a pool of qualified seafarers, help sustain a fleet of U.S.-flag vessels to support our military vessels and a maritime industrial base for times of national emergency, create tens of thousands of seagoing and shoreside American jobs, and stimulate the development of a U.S.-flag cruise ship tourism business with commensurate benefits to the U.S. tax base, the U.S. economy, and U.S. employment. These were among the guiding principles and objectives of our legislative efforts to restore a U.S.-flag cruise ship industry through the Project America legislation in 1997. Under the terms of that legislation, the re-flagging of one foreign-flag cruise ship was permitted contingent on the operator contracting for construction of two new U.S.-built cruise ships--the first such vessels to be built in the U.S. in more than 40 years. The project, while proceeding with considerable difficulty, including delays and increased costs in construction, ultimately became a victim of the September 11 attack on our Nation. The terrorist attacks dramatically impacted the U.S. economy, and caused financial difficulties for the entire travel industry. In fact, passenger bookings for American Classic Voyages Co.--AMCV--the company that undertook Project America, decreased by as much as 50 percent, and cancellations of bookings increased by as much as 30 percent in the weeks after the attacks. Ultimately, as a result, AMCV filed for bankruptcy, and construction on the two Project America ships was halted. The re-flagged vessel, the m/v Patriot, was transferred out of U.S. registry. As a result of these events, thousands of seagoing and shoreside jobs were lost including more than 1,000 crewmembers and cruise ship service providers. Passengers experienced disruptions and lost fares. Yet, the U.S. government paid $185 million on a Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee for the two cruise ships under construction at Northrop Grumman Ingalls Shipbuilding-- Ingalls--in Mississippi. Project America came to an abrupt halt. At the time the Senate considered the Project America legislation, there were concerns, and in some cases opposition, expressed about Federal funds being spent for the construction of these ships and a proposed preference in market access for AMCV to serve the coastwise trade among the islands that comprise my State. But no one--not one member of the Senate--voiced an objection to the goal of further developing a U.S. flag cruise industry that would ultimately provide thousands of seafarer and shoreside jobs for Americans. Those jobs, along with the development of a qualified pool of seafarers that this country could rely upon in times of national emergency, should not become the permanent victims of the terrorist attacks. As our Nation restores the buildings and facilities that bore the brunt of that attack, we must also assist in the recovery of economic causalities. Since the demise of Project America, I have searched for a solution that would permit most of the objectives of the original legislation to be accomplished, but without any further expenditure of Federal funds, without any Federal loan guarantees, and without the need for the market preference in the 1997 law. Last year, the U.S. Maritime Administration and Ingalls put the partially constructed Project America ships up for sale. While the sale was open to any offeror, Norwegian Cruise Line--NCL--the longest established of the U.S.-based cruise lines, placed a bid on the Project America ships that far exceeded all others. After NCL committed to acquiring the hulls, I met with company officials to discuss the possibility of completing Project America in a way that would achieve most of the main objectives of the original legislation without any further expenditure of Federal resources or any Federal loan guarantees. It is my hope that over time the United States will reap the benefits of its investment. In the course of those discussions, completing the vessels at Ingalls did not seem possible. NCL asked Ingalls to bid on completing the vessels in Mississippi; however, the yard did not bid because it was preparing to build new ships for the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, NCL's only option was to complete the ships elsewhere. In the meantime however, more than 250 workers in Mississippi worked on the partially completed hull over the summer to make it seaworthy for towing overseas for completion in another shipyard. It has become apparent that further legislation is necessary to reestablish the project to achieve most of the Project America goals, and to respond to concerns expressed by my colleagues about the original legislation. Therefore, this provision in the Omnibus Appropriations bill will amend the original Project America authority. This provision, like the original Pilot Project, will apply only to cruise ships operating in regular Hawaii service. It was done that way because other areas did not want to have this competition. My provision would allow for the completion of the first hull, with an option to complete the second hull, from the material acquired in conjunction with the Project America ships that were under construction at Ingalls. Either or both of these ships may be completed in a non-U.S. shipyard experienced in cruise ship construction for operation under the U.S. flag in regular coastwise service. These new U.S.-flagged cruise ships will be required to operate with American crews, be subject to all U.S. laws, including tax, labor and environmental laws, and be owned by a U.S. corporation with United States citizens serving as chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, and with U.S. citizens controlling the board. Like the original Project America legislation, this bill permits increased foreign equity involvement in the enterprise. While under this new provision, the ultimate beneficial owner need not be a U.S. citizen, the requirement that the vessels be owned by an American company ensures that the ships' operations will be subject to all U.S. laws and that the vessel assets of the U.S. company will be available to our Nation in times of national emergency. Consistent with the original Project America legislation, the U.S. corporate owner would have the right to reflag a modern foreign-built vessel under U.S. flag for operation in the coastwise trade to facilitate a cost-effective and timely transition to U.S. registry. Like the newly built ships, the reflagged vessel must have a U.S. crew and be subject to all U.S. laws. Before operating under U.S. registry, however, two conditions must be met. First, the reflagged vessel must undergo a complete inspection to ensure compliance with all relevant Federal safety and public health laws of the United States that are applicable to U.S.-flagged cruise ships. Further, any refurbishing or remodeling that may be necessary to assure compliance with these Federal laws must occur in a United States shipyard. Second, the reflagged vessel may commence operating only after the first Project America ship enters service. The U.S. Maritime Administration will be charged with overseeing the implementation of this bill, but reimbursement for costs associated with this oversight shall be obtained from those who operate cruise ships under this new authority. The result of this provision would be the introduction of multiple modern U.S.-flagged cruise ships in regular Hawaii service. The ships would employ as many as 3,000 U.S. seamen, and all would be subject to U.S. labor, tax, and environmental laws, unlike the major foreign cruise lines. In short, these proposed changes to the original Project America legislation will still allow many of the original principles and objectives to be achieved, without additional cost to the American taxpayer. While the legislation is limited to Hawaii, at the request of other areas, the benefits go far beyond the shores of my home State. In addition to the thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity generated nationwide, this provision will strengthen our U.S. Merchant Marine. The ships operating under U.S.- flag will be assets available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency, and these U.S.-flagged cruise ship operations will significantly expand our pool of qualified seafarers that man civilian- crewed military ships such as the Ready Reserve Fleet, a fleet of 76 U.S. Government-owned ships used to meet surge sealift. The Department of Defense relies heavily on U.S. mariners to crew a large number of non-combatant vessels to deliver a wide range of supplies to United States and allied forces around the globe. In fact, as much as 95 percent of the military's fuel, food, munitions, and spare parts would move by these ships in the event of a major war. The media have chronicled the concerns of our Nation's military and maritime officials about the Nation's ability to crew these non- combatant ships because of shortages in the numbers of civilian American seafarers. Most recently, in Defense Week, VADM David Brewer, Commander of Military Sealift Command, expressed ``concern'' that the lack of qualified seafarers might ``strain'' activation of the Ready Reserve Fleet. CAPT Bill Schubert, Administrator of the Maritime Administration, the agency charged with ensuring a viable Ready Reserve Fleet, has been even more blunt in his assessment of the circumstances last year in a Baltimore Sun article entitled, ``Shipping Crew Deficit Called Wartime Risk,'' where he said: This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed now--today . . . I'm not comfortable right now that we have the ability to respond to an emergency. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Defense Week and Baltimore Sun articles be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act of 2003. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities. Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care. This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practices nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics. In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act of 2003 recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program. First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized. Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues. Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved. While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment. Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems. Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly detained or interred by a hostile government do not receive the recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 to give our country the opportunity to right a wrong committed decades ago by providing Philippine-born veterans of World War II, who served in the United States Armed Forces, their hard-earned, due compensation. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded from Spain following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10-year time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines, including the right to call all military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces. On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. Under this order, Filipinos were entitled to full veterans' benefits. More than 100,000 Filipinos volunteered for the Philippine Commonwealth Army and fought alongside the United States Armed Forces. Shortly after Japan's surrender, Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending American troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. A provision included in the Recruitment Act called for the enlistment of Philippine citizens to constitute a new body of scouts. The New Philippine Scouts were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of the New Philippine Scouts continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946. Despite their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946 and declaring the service performed by the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans as not ``active service,'' thus denying many benefits to which these veterans were entitled. On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which included a provision to limit veterans' benefits provided to Filipinos. This provision duplicated the language that had eliminated veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act, and placed similar restrictions on veterans of the New Philippine Scouts. Thus, the Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II were precluded from receiving most veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status. The Congress tried to rectify the wrong committed against the Filipino veterans of World War II by amending the Nationality Act of 1940, to grant the veterans the privilege of becoming United States citizens for having served in the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. The law expired at the end of 1946, but not before the United States had withdrawn its sole naturalization examiner from the Philippines for a nine-month period. This effectively denied Filipino veterans the opportunity to become citizens during this nine-month window. Forty-five years later, under the Immigration Act of 1990, certain Filipino veterans who had served during World War II became eligible for United States citizenship. Between November, 1990, and February, 1995, approximately 24,000 veterans took advantage of this opportunity and became United States citizens. Although progress has been made, we must, as a nation, correct fully the injustice caused by the Rescission Acts by providing equal treatment for the service and sacrifice by these brave men. The Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 will compensate eligible veterans by providing a number of needed benefits: Dependency and Indeminity Compensation to surviving widows of service-connected veterans living in the United States; a payment increase to New Philippine Scouts and survivors residing in the United States from 50 percent to the full dollar amount for service-connected disability compensation; authorization of non-service connected disability pensions for veterans residing in the Philippines, but at a rate of $100 per month, which matches the amount of the veterans' pension received by them from the Philippine government; access to veterans hospitals for non-service connected disabled veterans in the same manner as United States veterans; and $500,000 per year to the Outpatient Clinic in Manila. Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, so let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Many of the Filipinos who fought so hard for our nation have been honored with American citizenship, but let us now work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans' benefits they have earned. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.