Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor Brigadier General Linda J. Stierle as she retires after twenty- nine years of active duty service in the United States Air Force. General Stierle culminates her distinguished career as the Director of Medical Readiness and Nursing Services in the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General. She is the first Nurse Corps officer to be appointed as the Director of Medical Readiness for the Air Force Medical Service. Under her direction, the medical readiness doctrine has been reengineered to be faster, lighter, and more responsive to the needs of the fighting force. Thanks to her extraordinary leadership, the Air Force Medical Service is positioned to fully support the Air Force's new Expeditionary Air Force structure in meeting current and future contingencies. General Stierle's distinguished career began in 1970 when she received a direct commission in the Air Force Nurse Corps as a second lieutenant. Highlights of her diverse and challenging career include serving as Director of the Department of Nursing at two of the Air Force's largest medical centers--David Grant USAF Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, California, and Wilford Hall USAF Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. Prior to her current position, she served as the Command Nurse, Office of the Command Surgeon, Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, where she provided leadership and oversight of nursing services for 12 medical treatment facilities and the worldwide Aeromedical Evacuation System. Mr. President, more than fifty years ago, as I was recovering in a military hospital, I began a unique relationship with military nurses. General Stierle embodies what I know military nurses to be--strong, professional leaders who are committed to serve their fellow comrades in arms and their country. General Stierle's many meritorious awards and decorations demonstrate her contributions in a tangible way, but it is the legacy she leaves behind for the Air Force Nurse Corps for which we are most appreciative. It is with pride that I congratulate General Stierle on her outstanding career of exemplary service.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning the recent passing of Mr. Chafee. Mr. Chafee was one of a kind. His life was a life of service. He served in two great wars--World War II and the Korean conflict, rising from private to captain. He served Rhode Island as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and as Governor, then as its United States Senator. He has left a most positive legacy for the citizens of this land to emulate. But his greatest legacy was a legacy of decency. It mattered very little to Mr. Chafee whether a proposal was made by the Democrats or the Republicans. His only question was: Is this program or project in the best interest of this nation? Our nation has lost a great leader and a most dedicated public servant. The State of Rhode Island has lost its most brilliant star. But for many, many of us--we have lost a friend. I will miss him.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka, that would provide for the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Education Act. First enacted into law in 1988 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act provides support for the education of native Hawaiian students in furtherance of the United States' trust responsibility to the native people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I am sad to report that while these programs are beginning to demonstrate an improved pattern of academic performance and achievement, we still have a way to go, as the following statistics would indicate. Education risk factors continue to start even before birth for many native Hawaiian children, including late or no prenatal care, high rates of births to unmarried native Hawaiian mothers, and high rates of births to teenage parents. Native Hawaiian students continue to begin their school experience lagging behind other students in terms of readiness factors such as vocabulary test scores; Native Hawaiian students continue to score below national norms on standardized education achievement tests at all grade levels; Both public and private schools continue to show a pattern of lower percent ages of native Hawaiian students in the uppermost achievement levels and in gifted and talented programs; Native Hawaiian students continue to be over-represented among students qualifying for special education programs provided to students with learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, emotional impairment, and other such disabilities; Native Hawaiian continue to be under-represented in institutions of higher education and among adults who have completed four or more years of college; Native Hawaiian continue to be disproportionately represented in many negative social and physical statistics indicative of special educational needs, as demonstrated by the fact that-- Native Hawaiian students are more likely to be retained in grade level and to be excessively absent in secondary school; Native Hawaiian students have the highest rates of drug and alcohol use in the State of Hawaii; and Native Hawaiian children continue to be disproportionately victimized by child abuse and neglect; and In the 1988, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Hawaiian fourth graders ranked 39 among groups of students from 39 States in reading. Mr. President, because Hawaiian students rank among the lowest groups of students nationally in reading, and because native Hawaiian students rank the lowest among Hawaiian students in reading, it is imperative that greater focus be placed on beginning reading and early education and literacy in Hawaii. Mr. President, there was a time in the history of Hawaii when there were very high rates of literacy and integration of traditional culture and Western Education among native Hawaiians. These high rates were attributable to the Hawaiian language-based public school system established in 1840 by King Kamehameha III. Mr. President, if we are to reverse the course of these downward trends in educational achievement and academic performance of native Hawaiian students, it is critical that the initiatives authorized by the Native Hawaiian Education Act be reauthorized. Mr. President, I respectfully request unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, on behalf of myself and Senator Akaka, that would provide for the reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Education Act. First enacted into law in 1988 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Native Hawaiian Education Act provides support for the education of native Hawaiian students in furtherance of the United States' trust responsibility to the native people of Hawaii. Mr. President, I am sad to report that while these programs are beginning to demonstrate an improved pattern of academic performance and achievement, we still have a way to go, as the following statistics would indicate. Education risk factors continue to start even before birth for many native Hawaiian children, including late or no prenatal care, high rates of births to unmarried native Hawaiian mothers, and high rates of births to teenage parents. Native Hawaiian students continue to begin their school experience lagging behind other students in terms of readiness factors such as vocabulary test scores; Native Hawaiian students continue to score below national norms on standardized education achievement tests at all grade levels; Both public and private schools continue to show a pattern of lower percent ages of native Hawaiian students in the uppermost achievement levels and in gifted and talented programs; Native Hawaiian students continue to be over-represented among students qualifying for special education programs provided to students with learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, emotional impairment, and other such disabilities; Native Hawaiian continue to be under-represented in institutions of higher education and among adults who have completed four or more years of college; Native Hawaiian continue to be disproportionately represented in many negative social and physical statistics indicative of special educational needs, as demonstrated by the fact that-- Native Hawaiian students are more likely to be retained in grade level and to be excessively absent in secondary school; Native Hawaiian students have the highest rates of drug and alcohol use in the State of Hawaii; and Native Hawaiian children continue to be disproportionately victimized by child abuse and neglect; and In the 1988, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Hawaiian fourth graders ranked 39 among groups of students from 39 States in reading. Mr. President, because Hawaiian students rank among the lowest groups of students nationally in reading, and because native Hawaiian students rank the lowest among Hawaiian students in reading, it is imperative that greater focus be placed on beginning reading and early education and literacy in Hawaii. Mr. President, there was a time in the history of Hawaii when there were very high rates of literacy and integration of traditional culture and Western Education among native Hawaiians. These high rates were attributable to the Hawaiian language-based public school system established in 1840 by King Kamehameha III. Mr. President, if we are to reverse the course of these downward trends in educational achievement and academic performance of native Hawaiian students, it is critical that the initiatives authorized by the Native Hawaiian Education Act be reauthorized. Mr. President, I respectfully request unanimous consent that the text of this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to add my support to H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. I believe the conference report presents an agreement that is very much in keeping with the bill that passed the Senate and I would encourage all my colleagues to support it. This was a tough conference. That is an understatement. The recommendations of the House and the Senate were different in many areas. Both sides felt strongly about their respective views. As noted by my chairman, nowhere was this more evident than in the case of the F-22. For that reason, and because of the importance of this program, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the situation facing the conferees and the final outcome. For 16 years, the Air Force has been researching and developing a new generation air superiority aircraft, called the F-22. The administration's budget request called for the aircraft to enter production in fiscal year 2000. The House was divided in its view on this matter. The Defense authorization bill, as passed by the House and the conference agreement which followed, supported the program without adjustment. The House Appropriations Committee took a different view. The committee recommended, and the House concurred in the Defense appropriations bill, that production should be ``paused'' for at least 1 year to allow for additional testing. The House eliminated all production funding for the program--an amount in excess of $1.8 billion--and reallocated these funds to other programs. Many of these were very meritorious, but they were lower priority in the view of the Defense Department. The Senate fully supported the F-22 as requested and authorized. In conference, the House was adamant that production should not begin this year. The Senate understood the House's desire for additional testing on the program, but pointed out repeatedly that there was nothing in the initial phases of this program that would warrant slowing it down to await additional testing. In addition, the Senate voted that a pause would be very costly. Contracts would have to be renegotiated. Subcontractors expecting to begin production would have to stop work on the project. Restarting it would be costly even if the pause were only to last 1 year. The F-22 is a highly sophisticated new aircraft with revolutionary capabilities. Those facts are not in dispute. But, these capabilities make it a very expensive program. The Senate conferees were concerned additional costs caused by delays would be so large as to force the Defense Department to cut or even cancel the program. It is ironic that after 16 years just when we are ready to begin production that some would now argue it was time to slow down the program. The differences between the two bodies were so strongly felt that it was extremely difficult to reach an agreement. Finally, our chairman, acting with the advice of the leadership of the Defense Department, crafted a compromise that all parties embraced. The compromise provides $1.3 billion for the F-22. I for one would like to have seen more provided for this program, but that was the maximum to which the House would agree. We have been told by the Air Force that this sum is sufficient to allow for the program to stay on track in the coming year. The conferees understand that the funds will be merged with other research and development funding to allow the Air Force to purchase another six F-22 aircraft as planned. It will also allow the Air Force to buy materials to produce 10 additional aircraft in fiscal year 2001. There is language in the agreement that requires the Air Force to get approval from the Defense Acquisition Board before proceeding to purchase these aircraft. There is also language that would require the Air Force to complete certain testing before it purchases aircraft in 2001. However, that language, as noted by our chairman, would not have any effect until after the expiration of this act. The conferees believe the Air Force should conduct adequate testing of the aircraft before it goes into full rate production. The precise level of that testing is an issue to be reexamined at a later date. The Senate owes a debt of gratitude--a great debt of gratitude--to our chairman, Senator Stevens. This was a tough conference. Our chairman was up to the task of defending the positions of the Senate. At the same time, he was most respectful of the views of the House. He worked tirelessly to try to reach an accommodation on this, as well as hundreds of other items. A second matter that requires clarification is the overall spending in this bill. The Senate bill provided $264.7 billion in budget authority, with the estimated outlays of $255.4 billion. The House bill was nearly $4 billion higher. In conference, the Senate agreed to increase the spending by $3.1 billion in budget authority and $200 million in outlays. The conferees also agreed to label $7.2 billion in budget authority as emergency spending. In so doing, the committee was able to reallocate $4.1 billion more than the original Senate allocation and $8.1 billion more than the House allocation for other discretionary domestic programs. Many have stated that this bill is more than $17 billion above the amount recommended in fiscal year 1999. However, it should be noted that the Congress added $16.6 billion for Kosovo, Bosnia, and other emergency requirements in fiscal year 1999 that are not included in that calculation. In comparing ``apples to apples,'' this bill is a little over $1 billion more than provided in fiscal year 1999. I, for one, would argue that this increase is very modest for the coming year. Especially when one realizes we have provided funding for an expanded pay raise, an enhanced retirement system, and additional target pay increases for many members of the military, this increase is very modest, indeed. This is a good conference report. While one can find one or two things one might not support, on balance I believe it is a good compromise package. So I most respectfully urge all my colleagues to support it. In closing, I would like to give a word of commendation for two members who are not Members of the Senate, but we think they are members of our family: Steve Cortese and, this man, Charlie Houy. So, Mr. President, with the help of these two special staff members, we were able to craft this agreement we present today. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 1812

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this coming weekend a long time friend of mine, Mr. K. Patrick Okura, will be celebrating his 88th birthday. For the past decade, Pat has been extraordinarily active in guiding the Okura Mental Health Leadership Foundation in order to ensure that young Asian Pacific American health professionals, representing a wide range of disciplines, will have the skills and experiences necessary to eventually achieve leadership roles throughout our nation's health and human services agencies. Pat obtained his baccalaureate and master's degrees in psychology from the University of California at Los Angeles and has long been a member of the American Psychological Association which recently published a special article highlighting his monumental accomplishments. He is currently on the Board of Directors of the National Mental Health Association, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the Japanese American National Museum. He is a past-President of the Japanese American Citizens League and founder of the National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse. In July of 1971, during the Presidency of Richard Nixon, Pat assumed the position of Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH. For the next decade, he remained at a high level policy position within the NIMH, shepherding to fruition numerous innovative mental health initiatives. He was an active participant in the deliberations of President Carter's landmark Mental Health Commission. For many of us in the U.S. Congress, those were the glory days for mental health. There was a sense of genuine excitement and optimism. Our nation was finally beginning to understand and appreciate the social and cultural aspects of health care, not to mention the importance of ensuring that all Americans should receive necessary care. Under Pat's leadership, our nation truly committed itself to the far reaching ``deinstitutionalization movement,'' an effort which would eventually bring mental illness out of the closet and ensure that all of our citizens would retain their individual civil liberties, notwithstanding any particular diagnosis, lack of economic resources, or lack of immediate family. During the mid-1980s, Pat went on to serve as Special Assistant to the President of Hahnemann University, once again with a unique focus on those projects and events that made the university the great educational institution that it was. As I have already indicated, for the past decade Pat has continued to ``give back'' to our nation by ensuring that future generations of Asian Pacific American health professionals will begin to appreciate their potential for excellence in leadership. Having had the opportunity of personally meeting with his Fellows as they come to Capitol Hill each year, I must say that I have always been extraordinarily impressed by their dedication and commitment to our nation. Pat Okura has truly been a visionary role model for all of us and the ultimate public servant. I wish him the best on this truly special occasion.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. nox SIP call

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee has a strong history of support for the behavioral and social science research programs of the National Science Foundation, NSF, dating back to the beginning of this decade. Basic behavioral and social science research, which ranges from research on the brain and behavior to studies of economic decision making, has the potential to address many of our Nation's most serious concerns, including productivity, literacy, violence, and substance abuse, as well as other diverse issues such as information systems, artificial intelligence, and international relations. Under his leadership and that of our colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, the subcommittee strongly, encouraged the establishment of a separate directorate for these sciences at NSF and was instrumental in encouraging that directorate to pursue a basic behavioral science research agenda known as the Human Capital Initiative. Most recently, this subcommittee expressed strong support for the planned reorganization of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate's single research division into two separate divisions, a Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division, and a Social and Economic Sciences Division. This reorganization was necessary to accommodate the explosive pace of discovery in the behavioral and social sciences and to promote partnerships with other disciplines. Basic research in these sciences has contributed to the Nation's economic prosperity and national security. Given the critical importance of these fields to the national interest, and recognizing the enormous strides being made in these sciences, I seek your clarification because the report language included in your committee report may be interpreted to question the value of NSF's programs in these areas. I am also concerned that the language undermines a valuable scientific enterprise. Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee report's intent is to express the committee's belief that NSF's core mission includes support for behavioral and social science research?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee yield for a question?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, with the greatest respect for my friend from Florida, I rise in opposition to the amendments he proposes to the Interior appropriations bill. As similar amendments have done in prior years, this amendment seeks to prevent Indian tribal governments from engaging in activities that have been authorized by the U.S. Congress and sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States. My colleagues know well that there has been a serious impasse in the operation of federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act--IGRA--since 1996. In that year, the Supreme Court concluded that the means by which tribal governments could have recourse to the Federal courts if a State refused to negotiate for a tribal-State compact violated the states' eleventh amendment immunity to suit. Thus, while there are presently over 128 tribal-State compacts as many as 24 States, in those States where tribal-State compact negotiations had not been brought to fruition by 1996, the Court's ruling gave those States a trump card in the negotiations. Those States--and there are only a few--now had a means of avoiding compliance with the Federal law altogether. They could refuse to negotiate any further, or refuse to negotiate at all, with the knowledge that tribal governments had no remedy at law and no recourse to the Federal courts. We have tried to address this matter through legislation, and indeed, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, currently has a bill pending in the Senate which specifically addresses this matter and establishes a process for resolving this impasse. In the interim, the Secretary of the Interior has stepped into the breach--first by soliciting public comment on his authority to promulgate regulations for an alternative process if tribal-State compact negotiations should fail, and then by following the administrative procedures to assure that everyone with an interest had an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. That was the open and public and well above-board process that was followed, and it seems to me only fair that if a State refuses to negotiate with a tribal government,--that there be some other means by which an indian government can secure its right under Federal law to conduct gaming activities. Mr. President, if there were a proponent of this amendment that could tell us what equitable alternative they would propose for those tribal governments that will be directly affected by this amendment, I would give that alternative my earnest consideration. But all that I see going on here is an effort to assure that the windfall enjoyed by those States that had not entered into compacts by 1996, never have to do so. I suggest that if what we are about here is to render the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act a nullity, then let's be direct and forthright about it. Let's repeal the Federal law. Let's have the Supreme Court's ruling in Cabazon be the order of the day and of every day to come. I, for one, will not be party to this obvious effort on the part of some States to evade the mandates of the Federal law. There is nothing constructive being advanced today. There is no effort to assure some balance in the positions of the respective sovereigns, tribal and State governments, and as such, I must strongly and respectfully oppose the adoption of this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. At the request of Mr. Gorton, the following statement was ordered printed in the Record:

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I be recognized?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr President, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on the 35th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and on the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System. When the Wilderness Act was being debated on the Senate floor in 1963, I was a freshman Senator. Following Hawaii's admission to the union in 1959, I served one partial and one full term in the House of Representatives and then was elected to the Senate in 1962. So, in early April of 1963, I was a 39-year-old freshman Senator in the first year of my first term in the Senate. The Wilderness Act, however, was not new to the Senate when it came to the floor in April 1963. The first wilderness proposal was introduced late in the 84th Congress in 1956. Following extensive hearings, testimony, debate and revisions, a wilderness bill was passed by a wide margin in the Senate on September 6, 1961. However, it was not until my freshman year in the Senate that we passed a wilderness bill that ultimately went on to become law the next year in 1964. Just prior to the vote in the Senate on April 9, 1963, one of the floor managers of the bill, the Honorable Frank Church of Idaho, said, ``the Senate is about to vote on the question of the passage of a bill which, if enacted into law, will be regarded as one of the great landmarks in the history of conservation.'' You can imagine the effect of such far reaching and nationally significant discourse on a young man from a new state in the middle of the Pacific. I have been around for a while. Yesterday was my 75th birthday. But I am not so jaded as to have lost sight of the important principles upon which the Wilderness Act was founded. The bill was ultimately signed into law on September 3, 1964. To me, it seems like just yesterday, but a lot has happened since then. The Wilderness system was originally endowed with 9.1 million acres of national forest lands. In 35 years, that has grown to more than 104 million acres managed by four federal land management agencies. Hawaii, obviously a very small State, has just 142,370 acres of federally designated wilderness area. This is about 1/10 of 1% of the total designated wilderness area in the country. However, let me tell you about Hawaii's wilderness and other natural areas. Hawaii is the only State with bona fide tropical rain forest. Although over half of Hawaii's original native rain forest has been lost or replaced by introduced species, planted landscapes, or development, a great deal remains. Perhaps 3/4 of a million acres of rain forest is left in Hawaii. Rain forest is just the start, however. There are actually about 150 distinct ecosystem types in Hawaii. These ecosystems are so distinctive that the Hawaiian Islands constitute a unique global bio-region. These ecosystems range from 14,000-foot snowy alpine deserts, to subterranean lava tube systems with eyeless creatures, to windswept coastal dunes. All told, perhaps half of the 150 ecosystem types in Hawaii are considered in trouble, imperilled by human-related changes in the landscape. Most of the loss has occurred along the coasts and in the lowlands, where the majority of human habitation exists today. Hawaii is also considered to be the extinction capital of the United States. About 90% of Hawaii's native plants and animals occur nowhere else in the world, and nearly 1000 different kinds of Hawaiian plants and animals are threatened by extinction. Approximately 75% of the recorded extinctions in the United States are from Hawaii. Also, about 40% of the birds and 30% of the plants presently on the U.S. endangered species list are native to Hawaii. One of Hawaii's federal wilderness areas is the 19,270-acre Haleakala Wilderness Area on the Island of Maui, which was designated in 1976. This area is part of the 28,655-acre Haleakala National Park. During the August recess, I participated in the dedication of 1,500 acres of pristine tropical habitat, which was added to Haleakala National Park thanks to the support of my Congressional colleagues who approved funds last year for its acquisition. So, Haleakala continues to grow. The major feature of this park is the dormant, though not extinct, Mount Haleakala and its volcanic crater within. Stretching from an elevation of 10,000 feet to the sea, the park also includes unrivaled native forest and stream habitat, and abundant Native Hawaiian historical and cultural features. The other Federal wilderness area is the 123,100-acre Hawaii Volcanoes Wilderness Area, which is part of the larger 230,000-acre Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island of Hawaii. This park, established in 1916, displays the results of 70 million years of volcanism and rises from sea level to the summit of the earth's most massive volcano, Mauna Loa at 13,677 feet. Within the park is the world's most active volcano, Kilauea, which offers scientists insights into the birth of our planet and visitors views of dramatic volcanic landscapes. Molten lava from the Puu Oo vent, on the flank of Kilauea volcano, flows seven miles through a lava tube to the coast where it enters the ocean, causing the sea to actually boil. Volume of flow averages about 400,000 cubic meters per day continuously adding new land to the island. 1999 is 16th year of this ongoing eruption of Kilauea. More than just these designated federal wilderness areas, Hawaii has a total of 270,000 acres in the national park system; 35,000 acres in federal fish and wildlife refuges; and 109,000 acres in state natural area reserves. Added to this are other areas managed privately for conservation purposes, including approximately 25,000 acres managed by The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Wilderness is defined in the law as areas ``where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' With all of the unique and imperilled species and habitat in Hawaii, I certainly understand the value of protecting our wild and natural areas, whatever the definition might be. The message that I would like to leave with my colleagues as we think about the 35th anniversary of the Wilderness Act is that we all wish to be environmentalists. We often differ on the details of environmentalism; sometimes greatly. Some of the most impassioned discussions in this body have to do with environmental issues. Some of us do not receive the highest score from the League of Conservation Voters. However, I do not think any of my colleagues would say that environmental conservation is a frivolous pursuit. It is merely a question of degree. So where does that leave us? I know we will continue to debate so- called anti-environmental riders, the future of the Endangered Species Act, and maybe even reforms to the 35-year-old Wilderness Act. But let us not close our minds to our perceived adversaries, nor lose sight of what I believe we all agree upon. Our natural environment is a finite resource that needs to be protected and nurtured for generations to come. There are no simple solutions, but with this common goal in mind, we will make progress.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on August 21, 1999, the State of Hawaii celebrated its 40th anniversary as the 50th State of this great Nation. Statehood for Hawaii was not a sudden or impulsive idea. During the debate on statehood for Hawaii in the House of Representatives in March 1959, there were no fewer than 88 bills pending that would have, if enacted, admitted Hawaii as a State. The people of Hawaii, through our territorial legislature, had petitioned the Congress for statehood on 17 different occasions. Back in the fifties, times were very different. In those days, the concept of statehood for a group of tiny islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean seemed far-fetched to many. However, the admission of Alaska removed the doubts of those who felt the United States should be one contiguous land mass. After nearly 40 years of Congressional debates, investigations, hearings, and visitations, we achieved what so many of us in the Territory of Hawaii deeply desired. The State of Hawaii has come a long way since 1959 and I am very proud of the achievements of the people of Hawaii. I believe Hawaii has proven to be a credit to our Nation. I would like to take this opportunity to give my colleagues some insight into the tremendous changes that have taken place in the 50th State over the past 40 years. Hawaii has the reputation of being the ``Health State,'' and that reputation is well deserved. We lead the Nation in providing access to health care with more than 96 percent of the Hawaii population having health insurance. Hawaii leads the Nation with the lowest number of deaths from breast cancer, and ranks second in the Nation for the lowest number of deaths due to all cancers, heart disease, and diabetes. Our territory of 600,000 American citizens in 1959 has more than doubled in 40 years. No territory, with the exception of Oklahoma, ever possessed a population as large as Hawaii's at the time it sought statehood in the Union. Consider these facts. In 1959, Hawaii contributed into the U.S. Treasury $166 million in taxes, putting Hawaii ahead of 10 States in taxpayer contributions. The per capita income of Hawaii was $1,821, ranking it 25th amongst the States, and the total income was more than in eight States. Current per capita income is more than 14 times that original amount, ranking Hawaii 15th amongst the States. Further, last year the people of Hawaii contributed $2.7 billion to Federal coffers in the form of taxes. In 1959, sugar was king; 974,000 tons of sugar were produced in Hawaii. Though sugar is no longer king in Hawaii, agricultural has and continues to be a significant contributor to the state's economy providing nearly $3 billion in sales and more than 40,000 jobs. Sugar remains an important crop and pineapple production has been stable for many years. Additionally, diversified agriculture, including flowers, fruits, vegetables, macadamia nuts, coffee, and livestock, is a very bright spot in our State's economy. It is one of the few economic sectors experiencing growth. In 1987, diversified crops surpassed sugar in farm fate value in Hawaii and never looked back. After its pristine beaches and warm tropical waters, Hawaii's attraction lies in its green space. Without agricultural production, much of this lush green environment, many come to expect of Hawaii, would be lost. With sugar's downsizing, Hawaii is taking advantage of an opportunity that has been available in the islands in 150 years, that is, agricultural land is available in large quantities. The State is now taking an unobstructed look at agriculture in its broadest sense. Beyond traditional products, Hawaii and its year-round growing capability is ripe for development of high value products like herbal dietary supplements, cosmetics, ethical drugs, specialized fruits and vegetables, and natural industrial products. There is also potential for agriculture as a service industry in the areas of bioremediation of contaminants, carbon sequestering forest production, seed testing and propagation for use worldwide, and development of innovative pest management strategies. The State of Hawaii has become a world class player in the science and technology arena. Manua Kea, on the Island of Hawaii, is known internationally as the best site for optical, infrared, and millimeter/ submillimeter astronomy. It is the chosen site for all four of the new generation of 8- or 10-meter class telescopes now under construction in the Northern Hemisphere. The observatories include: the Gemini project, the Keck Observatory, Canada-France-Hawaii, the Joint Astronomy Center, Subaru, Smithsonian, and the California Institute of Technology. Eight nations are represented atop Manua Kea with the United States' presence most prominent. The Maui Research and Technology Park is fast earning a reputation as one of the world's most sophisticated high technology centers. MRTP is home to the Maui High Performance Computing Center, the newest of 12 national supercomputing resource centers. The University of Hawaii's successful cloning of three generations of mice from adult cells stunned the international scientific community and has brought significant prestige and attention to the University and the State. Forty years ago, when the Members of Congress debated the suitability of Hawaii as a state, questions were raised about our Americanism. During World War II, the loyalty and patriotism of Americans of Japanese ancestry living in Hawaii were called into question. When we finally received the call to duty in early 1943, 1,500 Hawaii volunteers were sought by the U.S. Army. In less than a week, 15,000 had volunteered, and Hawaii was not yet a State. We continue our strong commitment to military service. Hawaii is home to all the services, and we continue to demonstrate our support for our nation's military as a member of our Hawaii community. We are home to the USS Missouri and the USS Arizona memorials which symbolize the beginning and end of World War II, and pay tribute to the many brave men and women who have their lives for our nation. Hawaii has been bestowed with this high honor of stewardship that we will proudly uphold. Tripler Army Medical Center is a leader in medical care, medical education, and research. It has also earned national recognition for its work in telehealth technology applications, most appropriately called AKAMAI which in Hawaiian means ``brilliant or smart.'' The state-of-the-art Spark M. Matsunaga Veterans Medical Center will open in early 2000 at Tripler, and the two agencies have worked collaboratively to integrate services and information systems, providing both active duty personnel and veterans with the best medical care available anywhere. We are also very proud of the Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance, a military-civilian partnership that facilitates joint disaster response operations through research, education, and information management. It is clear that none of the concerns expressed in those years preceding statehood have become reality. Hawaii did not fall to communism. Hawaii's distance has not diminished the strength of the United States, but in fact has enhanced its military and economic power into the Asia-Pacific region. Further, Hawaii remains one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace. I have had the privilege of serving the people of Hawaii in the U.S. Congress since statehood. Over these years, the people of Hawaii have proven their unfailing loyalty and devotion to America's ideals. Hawaii's achievements are a testament to our desire to continually share the best of who we are and what we have to offer our fellow Americans. So, as we celebrate 40 years of statehood, Hawaii looks toward the new millennium with pride, dignity and the hope for an even brighter future.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the eloquence and wisdom of the statement of my friend from Louisiana. Thank you very much.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this past month, Major General Nancy Adams, Commander of the Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI participated in the Congressional Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Telehealth Demonstration and Briefing. I have been pleased to work closely with General Adams for a number of years, including during her earlier tenure as Chief, United States Army Nurse Corps. I am extraordinarily pleased to have her selected to command Tripler. She is the first female commander of our facility and the first two- star nurse in the history of the United States Army. Mr. President, I ask that her opening remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks of MG Nancy R. Adams, Department of Defense at the Congressional Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Telehealth Demonstration and Briefing on ``Information Technologies for Healthcare: Government, Industry and Academia Working Together'', 23 June 1999 Good Morning and aloha from Hawaii. I am Major General Nancy Adams. I am privileged to offer the opening remarks on the accomplishments and challenges the Department of Defense (DOD) is addressing in information technologies for healthcare. In my current assignment as the Commanding General, Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and the United States Army Pacific Command Surgeon, I am somewhat in awe at being designated as the DOD spokesman. However, I am very pleased to have the opportunity because telemedicine and telehealth initiatives are vital to the mission of my medical center. To say that I am the DOD spokesperson does exaggerate my accountability with the Department. So to be safe, I should at this point go with the standard disclaimer, which says my information does not necessarily reflect the views of the Department or the Secretary of Defense. I am most pleased to be participating in the congressional Ad Hoc Committee on Telehealth forum. This event acknowledges the vision and support congressional representatives have offered to enhance the applications of information technology to healthcare in general with special emphasis on clinical practice. Within the Department of Defense, and most particularly in the Pacific, there are significant distances, time zone disparities, and geographic boundaries that present challenges to the delivery of patient care. In the Pacific, a variety of both public and private sector agencies are involved in health care services, with the overall goal to transcend time, distance, and structural barriers to provide quality healthcare to Department of Defense beneficiaries. Because of our global role, it is incumbent that the Department of Defense work collaboratively to afford responsive health care services, and this challenge can only be addressed with innovative technology and telecommunication solutions. Hence, I would like to illustrate a few examples from my Hawaii experience, on how the linkage between information, knowledge, and technologies have enhanced access to health care services and improved the quality of care rendered. Tripler Army Medical Center is the only Department of Defense tertiary care medical treatment facility in the Pacific. Tripler serves the health care needs of more than 750,000 active-duty military, their families, military retirees, retiree families and other Pacific island beneficiaries. Using the systems developed through Department of Defense, such as the Composite Health Care System II, or CHCSII, Corporate Executive Information System or CEIS, AKAMAI, and the Pacific Medical Network or PACMEDNET, have enabled us to improve the quality of care and access to health services for our beneficiaries. Healthcare information systems and telehealth applications within the Department of Defense strive to accomplish the following 5 goals: Keep Active Duty forces on the job; Reduce the Military Health System skill mix and size in staffing model; Increase productivity of the direct care component; Enhance and measure health and fitness of beneficiaries, and lastly, Promote and measure customer satisfaction with Information Technology. The healthcare information management initiatives within the Department of Defense focus on research and the value of information and telehealth applications along with implementation of automation support to enhance patient care delivery. I can attest that information management support provided by systems such as the CHCSII, CEIS, and the telehealth support from Akamai and PACMEDNET, have provided significant readiness and humanitarian implications for regional care in the Pacific. Being responsible for delivery of healthcare to a region as big as the Pacific--which encompasses 70 countries and 14 time zones--requires me to use and support the development of technology tools. These technology tools and clinical capability offer tremendous opportunities for reuse by other federal agencies, as well as transferability to private sector agencies. As stated earlier, healthcare information technologies are an essential element of health care services within the Department of Defense because of the need to overcome the dispersion of beneficiaries over great distances. The telehealth possibilities are highly opportunistic and provide a window on the future. Our technology is a means of demonstrating US engagement in other nations by providing a telepresence in other than US military medical treatment facilities. Specific benefits healthcare technology has offered Tripler Army Medical Center and the Pacific include: Ability to provide a health profile for a person that will facilitate decision making by a provider who doesn't have access to a complete medical record. We can integrate patient administrative and clinical data between multiple and diverse healthcare systems. The same network and technology that provides information for diagnosing and treating patients can also be utilized for teaching via distance learning techniques. Use of the Internet and web-enabled solutions has fostered a sense of community amongst clinicians and consumers by enabling information sharing, education, and collegial relationships. From my perspective as a military medical center commander and the Command Surgeon, healthcare information technologies contribute to the readiness and health care delivery mission. I mention this as a single mission because the role of military medicine is to stay trained and ready for contingency operations that directly support the US military. The business of health care in and of itself is not our focus. It is the link between readiness and health care delivery that makes military medicine vital to our nation. The linkage between readiness and health care is good business for the military. Through the application of information systems and telehealth technologies, the quality of care and utilization of scarce medical resources are positively effected thereby improving both military readiness and health care delivery. Utilization of information systems and telehealth applications provides immediate access even when specialists are not on site. For example, Tripler will be interpreting echocardiograms from Yokoto, Japan and Guam. This can be life saving information if you are talking about the patient's need for surgery or the functioning of the heart after a heart attack. These technologies also project medical specialty expertise without deploying them from the medical center. This saves significant dollars by not taking the medical specialist away for a minimum of two days travel to do a day's work. In addition, for those clinicians who are forward deployed, this access to specialists decreases their professional isolation and improves their decision-making ability. In some cases there is the added benefit of eliminating the need to air-evac patients for definitive care and continuity of care is maintained at their home station. Healthcare information technologies are good new stories for the Department of Defense but the potential is in its infancy. Only by working with our partners in other government agencies, industry, and academia, will we be able to maximize the investment in technology by increasing its utility and clinical efficacy. In closing, my goals for attending the congressional Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Telehealth Demonstration and Briefing are twofold: To communicate the reality of the technological solutions currently available within the Department of Defense to provide quality health care and improve access; And second, to encourage networking among the congressional supporters, speakers, attendees, and exhibit presenters to further maximize our capabilities. As we share information and establish relationships with one anther I am sure our collective efforts will produce more and better applications of the technology than what is already here. Ideas for future integration and information management technologies should be the most valuable outcome of today's activities. I hope most of you will be staying through the day and spending time in the exhibit area. Many of the leading edge health care technology companies have displays, as well as Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, and Indian Health Service enterprises. Individually as well as together we are all involved in re-engineering health care processes to incorporate emerging technologies! I am very pleased to be sharing the podium with distinguished leaders from Congress, the military, government service, and industry. Those of us in the military know that it is only through the vision and support of Congressional representatives that the Department of Defense has progressed to our current level of sophistication in healthcare information technologies and telehealth. Ladies and Gentlemen, I challenge you to continue to exploit the capabilities in healthcare information technologies; to capitalize on the improvements it can offer the business practice of patient care, and to nurture the positive and sustained impact of technology on enterprise value. I encourage you to take advantage of the sense of community the Internet enables by sharing your ideas and solutions with fellow government, industry and academic colleagues.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1999. The measure would increase the disability compensation for those Filipino veterans residing in the United States. These veterans currently receive compensation at the ``peso-rate'' standard which is 50 percent of what is received by their American counterparts. Second, the measure would make all Filipino veterans residing in the United States eligible for veterans' health care. Like their American counterparts, these Filipino veterans would be subject to the same eligibility and means test requirements in order to qualify for health benefits. Third, the measure would provide outpatient care and services to veterans, Commonwealth Army veterans, and new Philippine Scouts residing in the Philippines for the treatment of service-connected and non-service connected disabilities at the Manila VA Outpatient Clinic. The measure further restores funding to provide healthcare services to American military personnel and all Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines. Many of my colleagues are aware of my advocacy on behalf of Filipino veterans of World War II. Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures on their behalf to correct an injustice and seek equal treatment for their valiant military service. Members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army were called to serve the United States Forces of the Far East. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, they joined our American soldiers in fighting some of the fiercest battles of World War II. Regretfully, the Congress betrayed our Filipino allies by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946. The 1946 Act, now codified as 38 U.S.C. 107, deems the military service of Filipino veterans as non-active service for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges or benefits. The measure I introduce today will not diminish my efforts to correct this injustice. As long as it takes, I will continue to seek equal treatment on behalf of the Filipino veterans of World War II. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1999. The measure would increase the disability compensation for those Filipino veterans residing in the United States. These veterans currently receive compensation at the ``peso-rate'' standard which is 50 percent of what is received by their American counterparts. Second, the measure would make all Filipino veterans residing in the United States eligible for veterans' health care. Like their American counterparts, these Filipino veterans would be subject to the same eligibility and means test requirements in order to qualify for health benefits. Third, the measure would provide outpatient care and services to veterans, Commonwealth Army veterans, and new Philippine Scouts residing in the Philippines for the treatment of service-connected and non-service connected disabilities at the Manila VA Outpatient Clinic. The measure further restores funding to provide healthcare services to American military personnel and all Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines. Many of my colleagues are aware of my advocacy on behalf of Filipino veterans of World War II. Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures on their behalf to correct an injustice and seek equal treatment for their valiant military service. Members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army were called to serve the United States Forces of the Far East. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, they joined our American soldiers in fighting some of the fiercest battles of World War II. Regretfully, the Congress betrayed our Filipino allies by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946. The 1946 Act, now codified as 38 U.S.C. 107, deems the military service of Filipino veterans as non-active service for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges or benefits. The measure I introduce today will not diminish my efforts to correct this injustice. As long as it takes, I will continue to seek equal treatment on behalf of the Filipino veterans of World War II. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this month marks the 50th anniversary of the Air Force Medical Service. On July 1, 1949, the Air Force Medical Service was created, beginning a strong and rich tradition of providing health care to military personnel and their families. Since the Korean War, the Air Force Medical Service has provided aerospace medicine support to our aviators. From ensuring pilots are physically fit to stand the rigors of flight to bringing physiological expertise to the design of fighter jet aircraft, aerospace medical personnel have maximized the performance and safety of our pilots. Aeromedical evacuation of casualties proved valuable during World War II, and became the preferred mode of casualty evacuation during the Korean War. The Air Force Medical Service is responsible for fixed wing aircraft evacuation and manages a world-wide system for peacetime and wartime aeromedical evacuation. Today, the Air Force Medical Service operates 37 medical center and hospitals and 41 clinics around the world, providing health care to a wide range of beneficiaries. When the Air Force Medical Services was created, only 4 percent of military troops had dependents. However, seventy percent of military personnel serving today have families. These dynamic changes have broadened the needs and expectations for medical services. In recent years, constrained resources and the initiation of TRICARE have added to the challenges. The Air Force Medical Service has always found innovative ways to ensure the mission was accomplished. I congratulate the 52,000 men and women of the Air Force Medical Service on this milestone. I am confident that the proud traditions of the Air Force Medical Service will continue as its men and women provide the best combat medical support, aeromedical evaluation of the sick and injured, and health care to Air Force communities.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on the evening of Tuesday, May 18, 1999, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and my good friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, received the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute's annual Leadership Award in recognition of his outstanding lifetime accomplishments. This is indeed an honor Ted richly deserves. Ted has dedicated his life to public service, and embodies the values, commitment and integrity that were the hallmark of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is an honor to work with such an able legislator, particularly on the Senate Appropriations Committee, where Ted's leadership has earned him the respect of his Senate colleagues. Ted is a great American and serves this institution well. I was delighted to be part of the evening's festivities. I would like to share with my Senate colleagues and all Americans, Senator Ted Stevens' remarks upon the acceptance of the Eisenhower Leadership Award. I ask that the full text of Senator Stevens' remarks be printed in the Congressional Record. The remarks follow. Senator Ted Stevens' Remarks at the Eisenhower WordD Affairs Dinner Upon Receiving the Eisenhower Leadership Prise, May 18, 1999 This is a very unexpected honor. Thanks to Rocco Siciliano and to my departed friend, Al McDermott, who served as Assistant to Ike's Secretary of Labor--a special friend who would be pleased that his wife, Krieks, is here. Al, under Ike's command, drove his LCT to Omaha Beach in Normandy on D- Day. Alaska's small population seems to be here--the effort all Alaskans made to come so far to share this night means a lot to me. Catherine and I are especially pleased that Lily, soon to be on the Farm at Stanford, is here, together with Catherine's sister, Judi. This evening overwhelms me. Friends are here from almost every phase of my life. Russ Green and I met in California when we were 14. We traveled far to be with each other for brief periods during WWII. Russ still lives in California--he was our best man in 1952 when Ann and I were married. George Reycraft has been a companion since 1947, when we started law school. Catherine, Lily and I have spent Thanksgiving with George since 1980. Roemer McPhee and Burton Wood were with us at law school. Bill Ewald served in the Interior Department before going to the White House to become Ike's biographer. Donna DeVarona and I were on President Ford's Commission on Amateur Sports-- she encouraged me and assisted me when Congress enacted my Amateur Sports Act. Sandra Day and John O'Connor are Arizonans from a ranching family like Catherine's mother, Ellie. Tony Motley and Judy--Tony and I survived a Lear Jet crash in 1978--that's a bond that is never broken. My constant companions in Alaska--and anywhere the fishing is good--are my brother-in-law Bill Bittner, Chuck Robinson, Bill Allen and my long-time friend and traveling companion, Marshall Coyne. General Joe Ralston and Dede have been close friends since he commanded our 11th Air Force in Alaska--they too are Alaska residents. Throughout this room are members of the Senate staff with whom I have worked. I thank each of you for coming. And, I thank Senators Bennett, Inouye, Specter and Warner-- and Elizabeth Letchworth, Secretary to the Majority, who made certain there were no votes tonight. I am filled with awe and trepidation when the list of past recipients of this award is read. I was a foot soldier in Ike's battle to ``Wage Peace.'' To follow President Bush, Colin Powell, Bob Dole, Lloyd Bentsen, and Brent Scowcroft is an honor that takes my breath away. Those previous recipients spoke much about Ike. George Bush said: ``I think every person in my generation, certainly every product of WWII, who witnessed his dedication to duty and the devotion with which he undertook his many weighty responsibilities, feels exactly the same way I do. In a sense, Eisenhower was like a guardian to us. Certainly, he was a hero figure before he became President of the United States.'' Bob Dole remembered that of ``the four federal balanced budgets in the last half of this century, Ike gave us three of them''. Colin Powell told us of the Eisenhower Corridor in the Pentagon where, among the President's treasures, is his portrait and as Colin said the ``simple, but oh so eloquent, final words Ike spoke before his death, `I've always loved my wife. I've always loved my children. I've always loved my grandchildren. I've always loved my country.' '' I have made many statements on the Senate Floor about President Eisenhower. After Ike died in 1969, my comments as a freshman Senator reminded Americans the President held a special place in the hearts of Alaskans. To our 34th President, statehood for Alaska was a matter of simple justice. And, when he listed the accomplishments of his administration, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii appeared first. Alaska first sought statehood in 1913. Two world wars interrupted our quest. After WWII, Hawaii joined the fight. Congress considered Hawaii's bill first, but proponents of Alaska amended their bill and added Alaska, resulting in the defeat of both. Democrats in Congress were certain Alaska would be a solid state for them; Republicans knew Hawaii was certain to be solidly for them. Neither state has followed such predictions. In 1950, General Eisenhower said, ``. . . quick admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood would show the world that America practices what it preaches.'' However, in ``Eisenhower the President,'' Bill Ewald reported, ``One day in Ike's first term, Orme Lewis, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, cautiously entered the Oval Office with Secretary Douglas McKay. `What do you want to talk to me about?' The President asked. `Statehood for Alaska,' McKay replied. `Well, it better be goddamn good,' the President shot back.'' Ike was under Department of Defense pressure to oppose Alaska statehood. Explaining that his 1950 statement endorsing Alaska statehood was made before he had Presidential responsibility, in his first term Ike urged that Hawaii be admitted, but not Alaska. This was at the height of the Cold War. Many WWII veterans went north to find a new life, including my wife Ann and me. Only 206,000 people, including military, lived in our Territory. Anyone could enter Alaska without a passport, but when we went to the ``South 48,'' our own Immigration Service demanded a passport from everyone, or at least a birth certificate and we, like Americans before us, found taxation without representation downright un-American! It was demeaning to those of us who had fought WWII. We wanted Congress to listen to Ike and show America does practice what it preaches. Alaskans called a Constitutional Convention; we adopted a Constitution for a new state and we also adopted the ``Tennessee Plan.'' Tennessee, when it sought statehood, elected two Senators and a Congressman, then sent them to Washington, D.C. to demand statehood. In mid-1956, I arrived back in Washington, D.C. to become Legislative Counsel at the Interior Department. President Eisenhower had just appointed as Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton, Publisher of the Hastings Tribune, who had served briefly as one of Nebraska's Senators. Alaska's newspaper publishers, particularly my friends Bill Snedden of the Fairbanks News-Miner and Bob Atwood of the Anchorage Times, knew Fred well and urged me to accept the appointment. In many ways, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii was a triumph for newspaper publishers. Snedden and Atwood visited almost every news entity in the United States from Bill Hearst to Henry R. Luce of Time, Inc. From hundreds of daily, weekly and monthly newspapers and magazines, editorial and even financial support poured in. Seaton's own Western Farm Life, plus his papers, radio and television stations in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska, were all active in this endeavor. Alaskans found their national champion for statehood in Fred Seaton. His maiden speech on the Senate Floor was an impassioned plea for immediate action on the Alaska bill. (I've always believed it was ghostwritten by Bill Snedden.) At Interior, I joined friends with whom I had worked here in D.C. as a volunteer in Ike's 1952 campaign, preparing position papers on natural resource and western issues. Later, at the 1956 Republican Convention, working behind the scenes with Fred Seaton, Alaskans and Hawaiians obtained a provision in our Platform pledging action on both statehood bills. During the campaign, on September 11, 1956, the President said: ``Now, Alaska is a very great area, there are few people in it, and they are confined almost exclusively in the southeast corner. ``Could there be a way worked out where the areas necessary for defense requirements could be retained under Federal control in the great outlying regions and a State made out of that portion in which the population is concentrated, it would seem to be a good solution to the problem. ``But, the great and vast area is completely dependent upon the United States for protection, and it is necessary to us in our defense arrangements.'' That statement led Secretary Seaton and me to meet in 1957 in Fred's hospital room with General Nate Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of Ike's favorite military advisors. With Twining was Jack Stempler, then in charge of legislation for DoD. Jack told me just this past week, ``Legislation is spawned in many places in D.C., but I wonder how many legislative solutions came from a hospital room?'' Secretary Seaton was in traction because of a bad back. We showed him and General Twining the map upon which Ike had drawn a rough line, North and West of which Ike believed there were special defense problems. Twining, who had commanded in Alaska, explained the military reasons for Eisenhower's reservations, particularly the need for unfettered access along the Northern and Western shores of Alaska, obviously defense strategy for opposing the Soviets. The General pointed out Ike remembered that part of Alaska's Aleutian Islands were occupied by the Japanese in World War II and that Alaska's Little Diomede Island in the North Pacific was just two miles from the Soviet's Big Diomede Island. We developed a concept to meet Ike's military concerns, while at the same time admitting the whole territory as a state, drafting a provision to give the President power to make defense withdrawals, in essence creating martial law, taking over all aspects of government in the area North or West of Ike's line. No such power exists in any other state. The Tennessee Plan members--Bill Egan, Ernest Gruening, and Ralph Rivers--later agreed, and Bob Bartlett presented the concept in the House. This was not an easy decision. House Rules Chairman Howard Smith was a dedicated opponent of Alaska. Alaska's statehood bill bypassed his Rules Committee under an old, seldom-used House Rule, which allowed statehood bills to be taken directly to the House Floor. The strategy worked. Alaska's bill passed the House despite repeated attacks from Republicans and Southern Democrats. Senate strategy was to avoid amendments. Had an amendment been adopted, the bill would be returned to the House where Chairman Smith would bury it. In the Senate debate, our provision, known as Section 10, was the principal target of statehood opponents. Senator Eastland, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, led the charge saying: ``I submit that the reservation contained in section 10 is such a condition imposed upon the new State of Alaska as a price for admission in of the Union of States that it does violence to the equal footing doctrine, whereby all the preceding states entering into this Union all entered on equal footing. ``The President of the United States is authorized without a declaration of martial law, to withdraw sovereignty from over half of the area of the State of Alaska.'' Senators Thurmond and Russell spoke at length, leaving Majority Leader Mansfield to wonder out loud if there was a filibuster going on. Senator Thurmond objected to any unanimous consent agreement. I remember loud sighs then from Alaskans in the Senate gallery, knowing as we did Strom's capability for long debate. And Strom did speak extremely long and eloquently. Senators Monroney, Fulbright, and Stennis each made motions; all failed. Then Senator Russell, an absolute powerhouse in the Senate, joined Stennis in seeking to refer the bill to the Armed Services Committee. This also failed. Thurmond moved to eliminate a portion of the land in Alaska subject to section 10. That failed by a vote of 16-67. That vote showed enough votes to cut off debate. Soon thereafter, our bill passed, unamended, by a vote of 64-20. I later served in the Senate with those Senators who opposed Alaska vigorously. Each was not only a good friend, but worked hard to help me and our new state. Bill Ewald, when commenting on the passage of the Alaska bill in ``Eisenhower the President,'' rightfully concluded Seaton was a zealot on the subject--and I was a fanatic. Bill also said: ``. . . in the end . . . the greatest glory must go to Eisenhower. He chose his lieutenants, gave them the freedom to think and to innovate, backed them to the hilt despite his qualms, and thus produced an outcome that, in retrospect, remains a triumph of his administration. ``They worked in his name; and history will, and should, honor him for what they did.'' The privilege of being near Ike in those days is hard to describe. It wasn't just a battle for Alaska--ten years after Ike approved our Statehood Act, oil was discovered in Alaska. Now 25 percent of all oil produced in the U.S. comes from our North Slope and Cook Inlet. Over 50 percent of all fish landed in the U.S. comes from waters off our shores. Alaska has the highest educated population in this nation. Air Force pilots train above our vast tundra, and our joint Army/Air Force exercises give our defense forces the finest training in the world. Bryce Harlow, the President's assistant for legislative affairs, held weekly meetings every Saturday for the liaison assistants from every Department, reviewing the past week, and planning strategy for the week ahead. Ed McCabe and Roemer McPhee attended some of those meetings. General Jerry Pearson joined us once in a while. Ike often stopped by Harlow's meetings; he'd joke a little, take time to clearly and simply explain what his priorities were, and would always end with a plea to get our work done and go home to our families. Once he told us, ``If you are ever at a dinner here in Washington that lasts beyond ten p.m., go to your hostess and tell her the President needs to see you!'' Ike firmly believed in ``early to bed and early to rise.'' I'm sure you join me in saying how happy we are to be with members of the Eisenhower family again--David and Julie, Mary Jean and Susan. Ike's legacy of family love is obviously a code for each of them. In 1982, on the Senate Floor, I discussed Bill Ewald's speech to the Eisenhower Old Guard dinner that year. Bill commented about Ike's calm as the President discussed his decision to send troops into Lebanon just eight days after he signed the Alaska Statehood Bill. Ike told Bill, ``Look, when you appeal to the force, there's just one thing you must never do--that's lose. There's no such thing as a little force. When you use it, you use it overwhelmingly.'' Bill closed that speech with a comment with which we all agree: ``Not often in the story of mankind does a man arrive on earth of steel and velvet. Peace unspeakable and perfect. ``Something like that resided in the mind and heart and soul of Dwight Eisenhower. In the midst of many threatening clouds it brought us a beautiful golden season of Eisenhower weather. ``For what he did, and above all for what he was, we thank God from the bottom of our hearts tonight.'' President Eisenhower's Covenant for Total Peace is known to many of you. It was read by Charlton Heston on the anniversary of D-Day, June 6th 1998, in Philadelphia. Americans who didn't know Ike personally should read it--and know what he did for us, and for the world. I enlisted in General Eisenhower's crusade 50 years ago. And as a member of the Eisenhower Administration, I joined the President in the battle for Alaska statehood. His admonition that ``there is one thing you must never do-- lose'' is a principle which continues to guide my public life. Ike will always be my Supreme Commander. His devotion to duty, country, honor have shaped my nearly 50 years of public service. I view the world and my responsibility to it through his prism. Whether it's continuing the battle to ensure the promises of statehood are kept or working side by side with my partner, Dan Inouye, to maintain the strong national defense that Ike helped build, I am honored to continue as a foot soldier in his battle to ``wage peace.'' The Crusade I want to join is obvious: In my mind Dwight David Eisenhower must be named the Person of the Twentieth Century. My question is: where do I enlist?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish an American Indian Education Foundation. I am joined by Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Conrad, Bingaman, Johnson, Daschle and Akaka as sponsors of this measure, because we believe that this foundation will help American Indian and Alaska native students immeasurably in the years to come. The foundation will be a charitable, non-profit corporation that would be authorized to: (1) encourage, accept, and administer private gifts in support of the bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Office of Indian Education; (2) conduct activities that will further educational opportunities of American Indians and Alaskan natives attending BIA schools; and (3) assist Federal, State, tribal, and individual entities that will further the educational opportunities of American Indians and Alaskan natives attending BIA schools. Similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have been extremely successful over the past several years. This foundation is modeled after those foundations. Indian children are the most important resource in native America. And while the bureau's elementary and secondary education facilities and curricula have improved over the past few years, there is still much that can be done to make the learning environment a better place for Indian students. We want to motivate tribal students to look forward to school every day. We want them to be eager about learning. But realizing these objectives is difficult when students are forced to learn in dilapidated buildings with outdated books and broken-down or no computer equipment. The foundation will be a start in helping to address these problems. There are many Americans who have asked how they can contribute to the education of Indian students, but currently, there is no formal mechanism that would enable private resources to be dedicated to the support of the bureau schools. The foundation would serve as a means for channeling private resources to provide that much-needed support. Considerable thought has gone into the composition of the foundation. The board will consist of eleven directors who must be knowledgeable and experienced in American Indian education. The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs will both serve as ex officio non-voting members. The foundation would be based in the District of Columbia and will meet at least once annually. The foundation will submit an annual report of its proceedings and activities to the Congress. Mr. President, we feel that the foundation will provide greatly- needed opportunities to American Indian and Alaskan native students, and would urge our colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to establish an American Indian Education Foundation. I am joined by Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Conrad, Bingaman, Johnson, Daschle and Akaka as sponsors of this measure, because we believe that this foundation will help American Indian and Alaska native students immeasurably in the years to come. The foundation will be a charitable, non-profit corporation that would be authorized to: (1) encourage, accept, and administer private gifts in support of the bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) Office of Indian Education; (2) conduct activities that will further educational opportunities of American Indians and Alaskan natives attending BIA schools; and (3) assist Federal, State, tribal, and individual entities that will further the educational opportunities of American Indians and Alaskan natives attending BIA schools. Similar foundations, such as the National Park Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation have been extremely successful over the past several years. This foundation is modeled after those foundations. Indian children are the most important resource in native America. And while the bureau's elementary and secondary education facilities and curricula have improved over the past few years, there is still much that can be done to make the learning environment a better place for Indian students. We want to motivate tribal students to look forward to school every day. We want them to be eager about learning. But realizing these objectives is difficult when students are forced to learn in dilapidated buildings with outdated books and broken-down or no computer equipment. The foundation will be a start in helping to address these problems. There are many Americans who have asked how they can contribute to the education of Indian students, but currently, there is no formal mechanism that would enable private resources to be dedicated to the support of the bureau schools. The foundation would serve as a means for channeling private resources to provide that much-needed support. Considerable thought has gone into the composition of the foundation. The board will consist of eleven directors who must be knowledgeable and experienced in American Indian education. The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs will both serve as ex officio non-voting members. The foundation would be based in the District of Columbia and will meet at least once annually. The foundation will submit an annual report of its proceedings and activities to the Congress. Mr. President, we feel that the foundation will provide greatly- needed opportunities to American Indian and Alaskan native students, and would urge our colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the outstanding service to our nation of General Charles Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps who is about to retire. General Krulak is completing 35 years of active service in the Marine Corps since he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1964. During his service, the General obtained a Masters Degree in Labor Relations from George Washington University. He is also a graduate of the Amphibious Warfare School, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the prestigious National War College. General Krulak's illustrious career included command of a platoon and two rifle companies during two tours of duty in the Vietnam conflict. He has been a battalion commander, Commanding General of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade, and the Assistant Division Commander of the 2nd Marine Division located at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He later was assigned duties as the Commanding General of the 6th Marine Expeditionary Group and Commanding General of the 2nd Force Service Support Group. He served as the Commanding General of this Force Service Support Group during Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf. In addition to these command assignments, General Krulak's professional career has included a wide variety of other command and staff assignments including a tour of duty in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House. In June 1989, General Krulak received his first star and, three years later, he was promoted to Major General and assigned to the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia. One year later, he was promoted to Lieutenant General. This was followed by a transfer to Hawaii and assignment as Commander, Marine Forces Pacific. It was in this role that I became personally acquainted with this Marine's remarkably high degree of professionalism. Four years ago, General Krulak became the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps, during which he led our Marines admirably and set a high degree of professionalism not only in basic training, but also throughout the entire Marine Corps. He established, demanded and obtained a high degree of moral conduct from his Marines as a direct result of his exemplary leadership. However, the General's positive attributes do not stop there. He has demonstrated a remarkable ability to visualize and plan for the weapons, equipment, doctrine, tactics, and techniques the Marine Corps will be using for decades ahead. It is an honor for me to recognize the high quality of leadership this General has given our Marines these past four years. Our nation has been fortunate in having him as Commandant of the Marine Corps. I know the members of the Senate will join me in paying tribute to General Krulak and wishing him and his lovely wife, Zandi well in their retirement. We will sorely miss them. In addition to expressing our fond farewell to General Krulak, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James L. Jones. General Jones is no stranger to the U.S. Senate. He served here in the U.S. Marine Corps Liaison office from August 1979 until July 1984. I am confident General Jones will serve our nation as Commandant in a comparable manner as his predecessor. Welcome aboard General Jones.