Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I am informed that HHS has recently released funds to the tribes operating their Native Employment Works, NEW, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, programs outside the long-standing interagency fund transfer mechanism used in the Public Law 102-477 demonstration. HHS has told the tribes that they must comply with all HHS requirements for these programs, without any reference to the applicability of the provisions of Public Law 102-477. The language is intended to ensure that HHS respect all the provisions of Public Law 102-477, including the provisions with respect to the single planning, single budgeting and single reporting requirements, which apply to all funds under the programs covered by that law. The language is also intended to make certain that HHS engages in a dialogue with the affected tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as lead agency for 477, and resolves any concerns which it has within the framework of inter-Departmental-tribal partnership which is central to the Public Law 102-477 demonstration initiative. I would also note that there is an existing inter-departmental memorandum of understanding between the Departments of Interior, HHS and Labor which provides for a mechanism to continue the existing practice of transferring funds from HHS and Labor to Interior for obligation to the tribes in agreements specifically crafted for the Public Law 102-477 demonstration.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Will the chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee yield?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee has a long history of support for tropical and subtropical agricultural research due to the limited transferability of agricultural research from the temperate zones of the United States. This reasoning has been most evident in congressional support for the establishment of the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center. The Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center is a welcome addition to the tropical and subtropical agricultural research community in Hawaii and the American Pacific. The increased scientific and technical capacity offered by this center is a significant and vital complement to other institutions in the region. The center's mission of contributing to the region's scientific knowledge base on tropical and subtropical organisms strengthens the foundation for a competitive, diversified agricultural industry in the region. In addition to construction funds for this center, the success of the center is also contingent upon its ability to recruit and deploy scientists and technicians at a rate consistent with completion of construction, and its ability to work in concert with the agricultural research and technology transfer infrastructure at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For these purposes, $900,000 is needed. Of this total, $600,000 has been provided and I recommend that the additional $300,000 be derived from an internal reallocation of funds provided to the University of Hawaii for two other USDA-ARS projects, Non-toxic Control of Tephritid and Other Insects and Environmental Effects of Tephritid Fruit Fly Control and Eradication. This does not deny the importance of these two latter projects but rather the higher priority of providing operating support to assure the success of the center. With this internal shifting of resources, a total of $900,000 would be available for the United States Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, of which $300,000 would be available for the University of Hawaii at Hilo and $300,000 for the University of Hawaii at Manoa for activities complementing the research of the center.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman and my colleague from Mississippi for their support of my recommendation. Sugar Beets

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, out of the rubble of destruction, countless Americans rose and demonstrated great courage and selflessness. One such American was Mr. Isaac Hoopii, a Native Hawaiian who resides in McLean, VA, and is a Pentagon police officer and member of a bomb-sniffing canine police unit. Minutes after a hijacked plane crashed into the Pengaton, Mr. Hoopii raced into the burning building and carried out eight people. His calm resolve in the face of danger equaled his physical prowess. Unable to see the terrified victims, but knowing that they were amid the debris, smoke, and darkness, Mr. Hoopii repeatedly called out: ``Head toward my voice.'' Several people followed his voice and crawled to safety. At least one man who was led by Mr. Hoopii's voice called it the ``voice of an angel,'' and credits it for saving his life. I have had the opportunity to hear Mr. Hoopii's voice. He is a musician with the ``Aloha Boys,'' a Hawaiian musical group that has performed on Capitol Hill. His singing is melodious and resonant, but I believe Mr. Hoopii's voice had never before sounded more beautiful than it did on that September morning. Mr. Hoopii carries with him the true aloha spirit, and I thank and commend him for sharing with the world the aloha of the Hawaiian people, whom I have been privileged to serve.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Administration has taken the first step toward an important safety initiative by limiting carry-on bags to one bag plus one personal item such as a purse or a briefcase. In this context, I would like to mention a special issue that has arisen concerning the safety procedures we promulgate, and the impact they might have on the practice of many musicians and musical artists carrying their instruments with them. I know that many of us have heard from the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Association of Music Education, and the Recording Industry Association of America, among others, about this issue. These organizations have expressed concerns, in light of recent security enhancements, about the ability of their members to continue carrying musical instruments aboard airplanes. Rules promulgated by the Federal Government or by air carriers that would prohibit musicians from traveling with instruments in-cabin would, among other things, severely limit the ability of orchestras to present guest artists, audition musicians, and tour within the United States and internationally, and put at risk valuable, historical musical instruments. Limitations on carry-on bags should not put an undue burden on musicians, consistent with the requirements of safety. I am certain we can make it clear to those charged with the detailed administration of air safety policies that there is obviously a rule of reason and practicality to be observed.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, much has been said and much has been written about the gentleman from Montana, Mike Mansfield. Books about him have been written, and countless speeches about him have been presented. For many years to come, more books will be written, and more speeches will be made about him. This is to be expected because he was a person worthy of emulating. He was a person we all looked upon without hesitation as our leader. He was a person whose word was always good, reasoned, logical, and fair. He was a rare person, deeply religious, humble to a fault, and flawlessly honest. It is certain that he will be more than a footnote in the history of our great Nation. He helped to lead us out of the quagmire of the Vietnam conflict. His leadership assured the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the following year, he led the fight for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a former school teacher, he became the education leader in the Senate. Medicare became a possibility under his leadership. His contributions are too many to recount. Like many, I was especially intrigued and impressed by Senator Mansfield's military service record. At the age of 14, he became a sailor. When the authorities discovered the age discrepancy, he left and enlisted in the Army. After the Army, he became a Marine. He was especially proud of his title PFC Mike Mansfield. He once remarked that he preferred that title to Senator or Ambassador. Many of us have anecdotes and stories about Mike Mansfield. I, too, have some, but I would prefer to keep them as part of my warm and happy personal memories of my acquaintance with my Leader. Like all who have known him, I will miss him. I know I am a better American for having known Mike Mansfield. It is difficult to say goodbye to a good friend, but in saying goodbye, I wish to assure him that his lessons will never be forgotten. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial piece that appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on October 6, 2001, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank Senator Dorgan for the opportunity to share with our colleagues the impact of the air service restrictions on the delivery of mail in the State of Hawaii. The recent closure of our Nation's air transportation system brought to light a Postal Service practice that I believe should be reevaluated. Hawaii is an island State that is not only geographically isolated from the mainland United States, but that is also geographically divided into seven distinct islands separated by the Pacific Ocean. Hawaii has a population dependent on the air transportation system for the movement of goods and people throughout the State. However, I believe the current Postal Service mail sorting procedure has the potential to exacerbate the harm to my State's economy from the airport closures, the reduced inter- island travel, and the decline in travel to and from my State. The Postal Service in Hawaii has only one centralized sorting office. While I understand that mail service throughout the United States experienced slow-downs and difficulties as a result of the closure of our air transportation system, mail service in Hawaii came to a virtual standstill. The shut down of our airports resulted in the delivery of mail only on the island of Oahu, where the sorting station is located. My constituents on Maui could not mail letters to one another because a letter originating on Maui and addressed to another location on Maui must first be flown to Honolulu for sorting. This hardship was faced by all the residents of Oahu's neighbor islands. With the threat of war upon us and the possibility of further airport closures, I believe we must study alternatives to the current mail sorting system. The problems faced by the neighbor islands as a result of the airport shutdown are expected to continue as tourism to and within Hawaii declines. Aloha Airlines, one of two island air carriers, has announced a 26-percent reduction in flights that will begin next week. Hawaiian Airlines, the other inter-island air carrier has also dramatically reduced its flight schedule. Additional flights will likely be eliminated with the expected continued decline in leisure and business travel. In light of these flight restrictions, I believe the Postal Service should develop a procedure by which mail that originates on the same island to which it is addressed can be kept and sorted on that island. I realize that this would be only a small step toward addressing the many issues resulting from my State's unique geography, but it would be a start. Mr. Dorgan. I thank Senator Inouye for sharing with us the difficulties faced by your State. I agree that the Postal Service should examine the feasibility of implementing procedures that take into account Hawaii's unique geography. Please be assured that I will work with the Senator to help in this endeavor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a proposal by the Broadcasting Board of Governors to enhance and expand service to the Middle East. According to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the mission of U.S. international broadcasting is to promote the open communication of information and ideas in support of democracy, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information, worldwide. In pursuit of this goal, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has proposed a new station, the Middle East Radio Network. Would Senator Boxer care to enlighten us on the current U.S. Government sponsored Arabic language broadcasting in the Middle East?

Mr. INOUYE. I concur in the comments of my colleagues about the importance of the enhanced programming in the Middle East proposed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. It is my hope that the proposed service will help disseminate news and information throughout the region. I am pleased that the Broadcasting Board of Governors has committed to providing this much-needed service and look forward to working with my colleagues to support the Middle East Radio Network.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friends from New Hampshire and Vermont for their interest in this issue. The satellite ``local-into-local'' problem is indeed a problem in our states, but we are far from alone. A new watchdog group, Equal Airwaves Right Now!, or EARN, recently released a study which projected that DBS carriers will not carry any local TV stations in 17 states next January, when the must-carry obligation takes effect. Ten more states will find that less than a quarter of their stations are carried by DBS. All told, 80 percent of all television markets will not have any local TV service via satellite. This is indeed a problem that the FCC should address as soon as possible. So I will concur with the sentiments of my colleagues and reiterate once again to the FCC that we expect the agency to make a determination on these long-pending license applications before the year is over. Only one company has satisfied the statutory directive to demonstrate through independent testing that its terrestrial service will not cause harmful interference to DBS. Thus, on this ground alone, it would appear that the FCC cannot hold a spectrum auction, because, with only one qualified applicant, there can be no finding of mutual exclusivity. I'm also concerned about any further postponement of the deployment of this service that would deny consumers the immediate savings that would come about with the entry of a new competitor in the marketplace, which some have estimated will total $1 billion. For all of these reasons, I think it is more than realistic for the FCC to issue licenses for this new service by the end of this year without resorting to an unnecessary and inappropriate auction. I believe the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee would also like to add some comments. He is particularly well qualified on this as he is also a member of the Commerce Committee, which like the Judiciary Committee, had jurisdiction over the SHVIA.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Fine.

Mr. INOUYE. Point of inquiry: Will this matter be voted upon at 5:30?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska be given 10 extra minutes to present his statement.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, two of my most distinguished colleagues, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, have offered this amendment to the measure before the Senate. I will share my thoughts on this amendment and the reasons why I oppose it. While listening to my colleagues' speak, I was reminded that a few days ago I was called upon by one of my dear friends in the Senate, advising me that I should not be involved in this matter; that it would be, without question, an amendment of high emotions, and that it would revive memories of a distant past, black memories. Like some of my colleagues, I am old enough to recall those dark days in our history. Like some Members, I was involved in that ancient war, World War II. Sometimes I have my personal nightmares. There is no question that none of us here would ever condone any of the actions taken by the Japanese in the Bataan death march. Being of Japanese ancestry becomes a rather personal matter. Who knows, one of my cousins could have been the one with the bayonet and rifle. I have no way of knowing. But those men who mistreated our men were of the same ancestry. Therefore, I stand before the Senate not with any great pleasure but because I feel it must be done. Two days ago, officials of our Nation and the high officials of Japan gathered in the city of San Francisco to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco which ended the hostilities of Japan in World War II. This treaty was a farsighted document designed very deliberately to eliminate the possibility of further Japanese aggression by paving the way for an enduring peace between our two countries. Central to this goal was the recognition by the United States that it had a responsibility to rebuild war-torn Japan so that it could regain its economic self-sufficiency. The economic abandonment of Germany after World War I by the victorious nations of Europe and its horrific consequences were enough to convince the President and the Congress of the United States to avoid inviting a repetition in the Pacific. Accordingly, the provisions of the San Francisco treaty were specifically aimed at protecting the recovering economy of Japan, and among the most important of these was article 14(b) of that treaty. I think we should read this article 14(b) once again: [E]xcept as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war[.] It was clear that this language was intended to waive, unless otherwise provided in the treaty, all claims of the United States and allied nationals against Japan and Japanese nationals arising from World War II. No one can deny the pain and the atrocities suffered by American citizens who were prisoners of war in Japan, and by agreeing to article 14(b), our Nation did not intend to turn its back on its own citizens. I have had the privilege and the great honor of serving in the Congress now for nearly 42 years and during that time I believe my record is very clear when it comes to the support of the men and women in uniform. At this moment, I find myself in some disagreement with the great leaders of this Senate as to how the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee's bill should be handled. I have always maintained that we cannot do enough for men and women in uniform. Less than one-half of 1 percent of this Nation has stepped forward to indicate to the rest of us that they are willing to stand in harm's way and, if necessary, at the risk of their lives. How can anyone say this is not something worthy of our support? So my support for the men in uniform, I hope, will not be questioned by any one of my colleagues. When we signed the treaty and when we passed the War Claims Act of 1948 soon thereafter, our Nation assumed the responsibility of making reparations to our people using the proceeds of Japanese assets ceded by Japan under the treaty. We thought it was important enough at that moment in our history to take over that responsibility. I do not stand before you to present any rationale or apology for Japanese war crimes because history has shown that during the war, as in many great wars, officers and men of competing armies oftentimes resort to treatment of prisoners so cruel and inhumane as to seem barbaric. There are no good people in a war. Those of us on the committee, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, have one thing in mind--to prevent wars--because many of us have seen what war can do. There is no question that American prisoners in the hands of the Japanese suffered much. I think the evidence is rather clear, as pointed out by the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Iowa. However, when the officials of our nations met with representatives of the defeated nation, Japan, these atrocities were recognized and taken into account in the consideration and ratification of the treaty of San Francisco. Moreover, the Government of Japan has acknowledged the damage and suffering it caused during World War II. Last Saturday, September 8, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Tanaka, reaffirmed Japan's feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apologies that had been previously expressed in 1995 by then-Prime Minister Murayama. Unfortunately, the amendment presented by my two distinguished colleagues attacks a central provision of the treaty by making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Departments of Justice and State to intervene in reparations suits and assert article 14(b) of the treaty. I think we should remind ourselves that article II of the Constitution of the United States makes it very clear that it is the President of the United States who has the responsibility of negotiating treaties and making certain that the provisions of the treaties are carried out. It is not the right of any State or any individual, nor is it the right of this Congress. Thus, if this amendment is approved by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, it would announce our intention to abrogate a central term of the treaty of San Francisco. This action will abrogate that treaty. Some have suggested it might be a slap in the face of the Japanese. Yes, it might be, but, more importantly, it will abrogate a treaty. We who have stood on this floor time and again condemning other nations for slight deviation of their treaties are now coming forth deliberately to say that we are prepared to abrogate this treaty. This would be contrary to U.S. foreign policy because it would signal to the world that the United States cares little for its treaty obligations. It would be also contrary to U.S. national security policy because the San Francisco treaty is the cornerstone of U.S. security arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region. In addition to the foreign and security policy considerations, this amendment might also encourage other nations to facilitate lawsuits against the United States, and against U.S. companies and the U.S. Government and its officials for actions by U.S. military and those who support such actions. This is not farfetched. It could expose our Nation and our Nation's citizens to millions, if not billions, of dollars in claims. The administration of President Bush, in its policy statement issued through the Department of State, concurs with this analysis and strongly opposes the amendment. Indeed, the administration additionally objected to the amendment because it would impair the executive branch's ability to carry out its core constitutional responsibility relating to treaties, article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, reopening this issue as the amendment now proposes would have very serious negative consequences for United States-Japan relations, and, sadly, would sow doubt about America's word among other allies. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and I hope all of my colleagues will carefully consider the points that I have raised. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe all of us will agree that the atrocities committed and the inhumane treatment of our war prisoners cannot be condoned and cannot in any way be justified. We condemn those atrocities. It is not a question of Japanese corporations versus American heroes. What is involved is the Constitution of the United States. Article II makes it very clear that treaties are to be negotiated by the President or the executive branch of this country-- not by any State, nor by any individual, nor by the Senate. It will be by the executive branch. There is no question about that. The document that my dear friend from New Hampshire has referred to which was arranged by our then-Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, should be praised and not condemned. I would like to explain. I believe the references to this arrangement is a bit misleading. I say so most respectfully. This arrangement which was engineered by Secretary Dulles was simply a side agreement designed to address a domestic issue for the Dutch and thereby enabling the Dutch to sign on as a signatory to the treaty of peace in San Francisco. It does not in any way change the terms of the treaty. My colleagues from New Hampshire and Iowa have read the documents. But somehow we have slid over certain words. If I may, very carefully I will quote from their document. However, the Japanese Government points out that under the treaty allied nationals will not be able to obtain satisfaction regarding such claims. Although, as the Netherlands government suggests, there are certain types of private claims by allied nationals which the Japanese Government might wish voluntarily to deal with. We have somehow skimmed over that word ``voluntarily.'' At this moment, Mr. President, if you wanted to sue me and I said to you, I voluntarily open myself up to you, we need not go to court, no one is going to fuss over that. If at this moment a prisoner of war of the United States should decide that he wants to sue the Japanese Government or a Japanese national notwithstanding the treaty, and if that Japanese national or the Japanese Government should say, yes, they voluntarily expose themselves, we don't have to break the treaty. But if the Japanese Government or the Japanese national should resist and challenge that claim, then I say the executive branch of the Government of the United States should have every right to intervene in such a suit because it does impact upon the treaty of San Francisco. I think we should read this again: There are certain types of private claims by allied nationals which the Japanese Government might wish voluntarily to deal with. This amendment is not necessary. If you want to sue the Japanese Government or its national at this moment, and the Government and the national said to you, yes, they will voluntarily enter into an agreement with you to compensate you for whatever claims you may have, no one is going to complain. But this amendment will without question impact upon the treaty. It will abrogate the treaty. Then other countries will begin to doubt our good word. Is our word good? Are the promises made by the United States good? We are constantly criticizing other nations for violating, if I may say, provisions of treaties. This is very simply an attempt on the part of the United States to violate a provision of a treaty. I hope that my colleagues will not lead us down this very dangerous path. If we violate, how can we be critical of other nations violating provisions of their treaties? So I hope this matter will be settled. And accordingly, if I may, Mr. President, I move to table the Smith amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. I assumed the Senator had finished.

Mr. INOUYE. I am sorry.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier this afternoon, it was certain that this debate would become a highly emotional one. A few of us were involved in that ancient war, and we know what the Bataan Death March was all about. We do not condone that; we condemn it. We are not here to justify or provide a rationale for the actions taken by the Japanese troops; far from it. But we are here to maintain the integrity of our country and our treaties. Yes, we have provided provisions in the appropriations bill stopping our Departments from suing on certain issues, but never on a treaty. This one will break a treaty. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will go along in support of my motion to table.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. INOUYE. I yield back the remainder of our time and move to table the Smith amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on July 31, 2001, at 10 a.m. in room 485, Russell Senate Building, to conduct a business meeting on pending committee business, to be followed immediately by a hearing on Indian Health Care Improvement Act focusing on urban Indian Health Care Programs. Those wishing additional information may contact committee staff at 202/224-2251.