Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I share my colleague's enthusiasm for this excellent program.

Mr. INOUYE. The Army has agreed to release an LMSR to the Marine Corps as long as Congress provides funding in the Fiscal Year 2000 defense budget for the construction of a new ship to replace the one given to the Marines. This presents us with an excellent opportunity to fulfill both requirements.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his kind remarks regarding this Committee's work on the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill. I recognize the importance of investing in logistics technologies that can extend our military capabilities and can lower the logistics burden for the Air Expeditionary Force Deployment concept. I agree with my colleague that development of the PBO fuel cell membrane material is important. The membrane is a critical component of the fuel cell, in terms of its performance and cost. Improvements to the fuel cell membrane will result in direct benefits to our military readiness.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of my leader, I object.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before I proceed, I thank my colleague from Alaska for his very generous remarks. I will take a few moments to discuss the DOD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. Let me begin by congratulating our chairman, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. To meet our Senate leaders' desire, the chairman and his staff expedited the review and preparation time and put this bill together. Then, after they had crafted a very good package, as you know, we were told to reduce this package by $3 billion. We had to go back to the drawing board again. When one takes into consideration how this package was reshaped to meet those very difficult goals, I believe the committee has prepared the best bill that could have been recommended. First of all, if adopted, it will fulfill the committee's No. 1 priority. It will provide adequate funding to ensure that our men and women in the armed services are fairly compensated. It also will provide sufficient funding so that they can be well prepared, trained, and ready to meet the Nation's requirements. This bill funds a 4.8-percent pay raise, the largest percentage increase since the early 1980s. This increase is between 2 and 3 percent more than current forecasts of inflation. The bill also funds changes in the military retirement system and reforms the pay table sought by the administration. The total funding in the bill represents an increase of $1.4 billion above the President's budget request. In addition to fully funding the needs of our military personnel, the bill provides $300 million for additional medical research: As the chairman indicated, $175 million for breast cancer research; $75 million for prostate cancer research, and $50 million to cover many of the high-priority medical research programs of interest to the Members. More than $2.8 billion is added for procurement for two more F-16 aircraft, 15 more Black Hawk helicopters, and a half-billion-dollar downpayment in the next Marine amphibious assault ship, the LXD-8. For research for new technology, the bill is $2 billion over the President's request. This includes $400 million for missile defense and related programs. The bill before us does not match, dollar for dollar, the authorization bill we approved last month, but it is in general quite consistent with the recommendations of the authorizing committee. To my colleagues on my side of the aisle, I realize that the bill provides funds in some areas which you may not all endorse fully. But, in total, the bill offers a good balance between current operations and future modernization. It funds both the needs of the military and the priorities of the Congress. I believe it is a very good bill that we should all support. In closing, may I just add a footnote to my remarks. Senator Stevens and I are two of the few remaining Members who served in World War II, the ``ancient'' war. In that war, over 10 percent of our Nation's population stepped forward to put on the uniform of the armed services. Today, fewer than 1 percent have done so. Today's military force is an All Volunteer Force. But beyond that, there are other vast differences. In my youth, only 4 percent of my regiment had dependents. The remaining 96 percent were single men. Today, the average is about 70 percent with dependents. Therefore, it is essential that we provide in areas that were not considered during World War II, such as day care centers and hospitals. In the hospital in which Senator Stevens and I spent some time, there were just men--men in uniform. It may be of interest to Members to note that today at Walter Reed, 14 percent of the beds are occupied by active-duty personnel, and 86 percent are occupied by dependents and retirees. There are more gynecologists in hospitals today than orthopedic surgeons, and there are more pediatricians than orthopedic surgeons. That is a difference of which most Members of the Senate, and I believe most Americans, are not aware. The largest cost of defense is not missiles; it is not bullets; it is not ships; it is personnel; it is people. If we want the best military, men and women who are willing to step forward in harm's way and, if necessary, give their lives for our Nation, then we should be able to provide the very best--not just in pay, but make certain that their health care and educational system are the finest. We use the phrase ``quality of life'' quite often. If quality of life is not what the people receive, then I don't think we can anticipate the very best of our Nation volunteering to serve. After all, I want my son to go to college; I am certain that a man in uniform wants his son or his daughter to go to college. We should give them the same opportunity.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague from Alaska for the clarification on this provision in the bill. cleanup from spring tornadoes

Mr. INOUYE. I have a few questions for my colleague from Alaska on Section 3021 of the bill which authorizes the Attorney General to transfer funds available to the Department of Justice to pay outstanding claims of Japanese Americans under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and outstanding claims of Japanese Latin Americans under the settlement agreement in the case of Carmen Mochizuki et al .v. United States (Case No. 97-294C, United States Court of Federal Claims). Am I correct that this provision would allow the Attorney General to pay redress of $20,000 to Japanese Americans who were interned by the United States during World War II and who filed a timely claim for redress under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988?

Mr. INOUYE. In the case of Carmen Mochizuki et al versus United States, plaintiffs brought a class action against the United States seeking redress for Japanese Latin Americans who were interned by the United States during World War II. The United States settled this case. The settlement provides that each eligible class member would receive a $5,000 restitution payment, to the extent there were funds available in the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. Even though this Fund has now terminated, does this provision also allow the Attorney General to pay restitution to Japanese Latin American individuals who are found eligible under the Mochizuki settlement agreement and who filed timely claims covered by the agreement?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am honored to rise in tribute to Mr. ``Manuel'' Katsumi Oishi who has faithfully served the Territorial Government of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii, Maui County, for 37 years. He unselfishly dedicated his time to improve his community. Born in 1926 and raised in McGerrow Camp, Puunene, Maui, Mr. Oishi is being recognized today at the McGerrow Camp Reunion for the honor that he brings his birthplace. Mr. Oishi's career began with the Territorial government in 1949. In 1951, he started working for Maui County as a Clerk in the Building Department. He was promoted to Clerk for the Transportation Control Committee, then later served as Secretary. Transferred to the Civil Defense Department in 1958, he held the positions of Secretary, then Coordinator, and, in 1961, he became the Civil Defense Administrator. In 1973, while Deputy County Clerk and later as County Clerk, Mr. Oishi ensured that the county operated efficiently and unselfishly gave of his time to assist Maui residents navigate the sometimes bureaucratic maze of government. Because of his love of sports and the youth of Maui, Mr. Oishi pursued a simultaneous career as The Honolulu Advertiser's sports reporter for 38 years. He diligently covered all of Maui's interscholastic sports in the evenings and on weekends. His positive stories encouraged young Maui athletes to take pride in themselves and their sports. The incredibly energetic Mr. Oishi has devoted countless volunteer hours to make life a little easier and better for the residents he so dearly loves. Since graduation from Baldwin High School in 1944, Mr. Oishi has headed the planning of every class reunion. During the last 20 years, he has chaired all of the McGerrow Camp reunions on Maui, which have amassed an attendance of 250 to 300 people. Mr. Oishi's relentless efforts have resulted in former McGerrow Camp residents having a great time and experiencing a deep feeling of friendship and ohana (family). When the Selective Service System went though some trying times, Mr. Oishi volunteered for five years to help push the paperwork through and to answer those pressing questions from anxious young men and their parents. His commitment to the youth of Maui is also evident in his volunteer work with the AJA Baseball League in which he held several positions on the board. In 1991, he received the Tadaichi Fukunaga Dana Award for his ``unselfish services and contributions to (his) temple and to the growth of Buddhism.'' Since 1976, he has been Editor of ``Friends of the Dharma,'' the monthly newspaper for his church, Wailuku Hongwanji Mission. Although Mr. Oishi is retired from government service and The Honolulu Advertiser, he continues his invaluable service to his church and the Maui County Credit Union of which he serves as the Secretary- Treasurer. Mr. Oishi's unfaltering commitment to government service and his sincere devotion to his community and its citizens bring pride and honor to McGerrow Camp. He certainly has earned the love and admiration of the residents of McGerrow Camp, the County of Maui, and the State of Hawaii. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in recognizing ``Manuel'' Katsumi Oishi for his outstanding contributions to Maui County and to the State of Hawaii and send my heartiest aloha to those celebrating the McGerrow Camp reunion.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current fifty percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to gradually restore the tax deduction to 80 percent over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction. The deduction for business meals and entertainment was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Many companies, small and large, have changed their policies and guidelines on travel and entertainment expenses as a result of this reduction. Additionally, businesses have been forced to curtail company reimbursement policies because of the reduction in business meals and entertainment expenses. In some cases, businesses have even eliminated their expense accounts. Consequently, restaurants which previously relied heavily on business lunches and dinners are being adversely affected by the reduction in business meals. For example: Currently, there are 23.3 million business meal spenders in the U.S. down from 25.3 million in 1989. The total economic impact on small businesses of restoring the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent ranges from $8 to $690 million, depending on the state. In Hawaii, the restaurant industry alone employs 47,400 people and generates $2 billion into the state's economy. An increase in the business meal tax deduction from 50 percent to 80 percent would result in a 13 percent increase in business meal spending in the State of Hawaii. One issue of great importance to business travelers is the deductibility of expenses, particularly the business meal expense. Restauranteurs have reported lower business meal sales forcing some restaurants to close during luncheon hours and lay off employees which in turn adversely affects those employed in agriculture, food processing, and any businesses related to the restaurant sector. With sales equaling more than 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and more than 10.2 million persons employed in the industry, the restaurant business is obviously very important to the economic foundation of America. The 50 percent deduction has adversely affected the restaurant and entertainment industry and resulted in detrimental factors for the U.S. economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current fifty percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to gradually restore the tax deduction to 80 percent over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction. The deduction for business meals and entertainment was reduced from 80 percent to 50 percent under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Many companies, small and large, have changed their policies and guidelines on travel and entertainment expenses as a result of this reduction. Additionally, businesses have been forced to curtail company reimbursement policies because of the reduction in business meals and entertainment expenses. In some cases, businesses have even eliminated their expense accounts. Consequently, restaurants which previously relied heavily on business lunches and dinners are being adversely affected by the reduction in business meals. For example: Currently, there are 23.3 million business meal spenders in the U.S. down from 25.3 million in 1989. The total economic impact on small businesses of restoring the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent ranges from $8 to $690 million, depending on the state. In Hawaii, the restaurant industry alone employs 47,400 people and generates $2 billion into the state's economy. An increase in the business meal tax deduction from 50 percent to 80 percent would result in a 13 percent increase in business meal spending in the State of Hawaii. One issue of great importance to business travelers is the deductibility of expenses, particularly the business meal expense. Restauranteurs have reported lower business meal sales forcing some restaurants to close during luncheon hours and lay off employees which in turn adversely affects those employed in agriculture, food processing, and any businesses related to the restaurant sector. With sales equaling more than 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and more than 10.2 million persons employed in the industry, the restaurant business is obviously very important to the economic foundation of America. The 50 percent deduction has adversely affected the restaurant and entertainment industry and resulted in detrimental factors for the U.S. economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to a very exciting expedition. In September 1998, Mr. Michael ``Mick'' Bird completed the second leg of an unprecedented 24,000 mile voyage around the world. On August 19, 1997, Mick Bird started rowing out to sea from Fort Bragg, California in his vessel Reach. After 66 days of rowing, on October 23, 1997, Mick arrived in Hilo Bay on the Big Island of Hawaii. After putting the Reach in drydock in Hawaii, Mick returned to his home base in California to raise support and prepare for the next leg of his historic journey. Mick returned to Hawaii last summer and put to sea in Reach on July 18, 1998 rowing for the Gilbert Islands, about 2500 miles southwest of Hawaii and halfway point between Hawaii and Australia. On September 22, 1998, 66 days and more than 2200 miles from Hawaii, Mick made landfall on Majuro in the Marshall Islands, a bit north of his intended destination in the Gilberts. Mick is now happily home in California with his family preparing for his next leg to the north central coast of Australia; another 2500 mile row. Mick Bird, a former U.S. Air Force officer, is of Pacific Island descent and has family ties to the State of Hawaii. His voyage is more formally known as Trans-Oceanic, which is the name of the non-profit organization sponsoring this attempt at the world's first solo circumnavigation of the globe by a rowing vessel. The goals of this expedition are, among others, to explore the limits of the human spirit, to raise awareness about ocean ecosystems, to be an example of individual achievement as well as teamwork, and to generate support for the National Tuberous Sclerosis Association. The expedition is also using its World Wide Web sites (www.naau.com and www.goals.com/ transrow) to create a direct link between Mick's vessel Reach and educators and students to share experiences and practical applications of math, science and geography. I would like to congratulate Mr. Bird on his very impressive accomplishments to this point, and to express my good wishes for the safety and success of the rest of this voyage around the world. I also wish to commend him and Trans-Oceanic for enhancing public awareness and education. I encourage my colleagues to have a look at Trans- Oceanic's web sites and share them with educators at home to follow along with this amazing journey.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would correct an inequity in the current reimbursement rates for health care services provided to low-income Medicaid-eligible American Indians and Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service (IHS) urban Indian health care programs. Mr. President, currently, a 100 percent Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) applies for the cost of services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries by a hospital, a clinic, or other IHS facility, under the condition that the facilities are operated by the IHS, a tribe, or tribal organization. IHS facilities which are predominately located in rural areas are eligible to receive the 100 percent FMAP, while similar services provided through IHS programs located in urban areas receive only 50-80 percent reimbursement depending on the type of service provided. This legislation would address this inequity by extending the Federal medical assistance percentage to payments for IHS facilities to urban Indian health care programs under the Medicaid program, and informal estimates indicate that equalizing the FMAP for IHS programs would cost $17 million over the next 5 years. With few employment opportunities in tribal reservation communities, most Indians are literally forced to relocate and seek employment in cities, and as a result, roughly half of the total American Indian/ Alaska Native population is now residing in urban areas. With that in mind, equalizing the Federal medical assistance percentage for health care provided to Medicaid-eligible Indians through the IHS urban Indian health care programs is essential. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would correct an inequity in the current reimbursement rates for health care services provided to low-income Medicaid-eligible American Indians and Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service (IHS) urban Indian health care programs. Mr. President, currently, a 100 percent Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) applies for the cost of services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries by a hospital, a clinic, or other IHS facility, under the condition that the facilities are operated by the IHS, a tribe, or tribal organization. IHS facilities which are predominately located in rural areas are eligible to receive the 100 percent FMAP, while similar services provided through IHS programs located in urban areas receive only 50-80 percent reimbursement depending on the type of service provided. This legislation would address this inequity by extending the Federal medical assistance percentage to payments for IHS facilities to urban Indian health care programs under the Medicaid program, and informal estimates indicate that equalizing the FMAP for IHS programs would cost $17 million over the next 5 years. With few employment opportunities in tribal reservation communities, most Indians are literally forced to relocate and seek employment in cities, and as a result, roughly half of the total American Indian/ Alaska Native population is now residing in urban areas. With that in mind, equalizing the Federal medical assistance percentage for health care provided to Medicaid-eligible Indians through the IHS urban Indian health care programs is essential. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by Senators Enzi, Sessions, Gramms, Bryan, Lugar, Reid, Voinovich and Brownback, which would impose a moratorium on the Interior Secretary's authority to promulgate final regulations or to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking related to procedures which would provide a means for securing a tribal-state compact governing the conduct of class III gaming on Indian lands. Mr. President, in 1988, I served as the primary sponsor of the bill that was later enacted into law as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That Act provides a comprehensive framework for the conduct of gaming on Indian lands, including a means by which the state and tribal governments, as sovereigns, may enter into compacts for the conduct of class III gaming on tribal lands. The Act further provides that should a state and tribal government reach an impasse in the negotiations that would otherwise lead to a tribal-state compact, a tribal government or a state government could initiate a legal action in a federal district court pursuant to which a court could: (1) rule on the parties' substantive interpretations of law that gave rise to the impasse, thereby resolving the matter; or (2) order the parties to either resume negotiations or enter into a process of mediation. However, in the intervening years, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a state may assert its sovereign immunity to suit if a legal action is initiated by a tribal government, thereby divesting a federal court of its jurisdiction, and that the Congress lacks the authority to waive a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit. Since that time, various members of the Committee on Indian Affairs have proposed an array of alternatives to the Act's compacting process, but each time, either the states or the tribes have opposed these measures. So the Interior Secretary stepped into the breach, and invited comments on his authority to promulgate rules for an alternative means of securing the authority to conduct class III gaming on Indian lands. This has been a constructive effort on the Secretary's part, for which he is to be commended. Mr. President, twenty-one states have entered into compacts with tribal governments over the last eleven years. There are only a few states in which tribal-state negotiations have been frustrated, and this amendment effectively precludes those tribal governments that have yet to secure a compact, from exploring an alternative route, as prescribed by the Secretary, and gives the states an absolute veto power over tribal gaming--a result that the Act was clearly intended to avoid. Not only does this amendment cut off the rights that tribes have under the Supreme Court's ruling in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the amendment ties the Secretary's authority to the submittal of a Commission report that has no legal on these matters. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission was authorized to examine and assess all forms of gaming in the United States, as well as gambling-related issues, including the conduct of state lotteries. Mr. President, there are many of us in the Congress who are opposed to gaming, and as Indian country well knows, I include myself in the ranks of those members. Hawaii is one of only two states in our Union that prohibits all forms of gaming. But I don't see anyone in this body proposing to impose a moratorium on the conduct of state lotteries until eight months after the Commission submits its report to the Congress. Nonetheless, tribal government-sponsored gaming is most analogous to the lotteries operated by state governments. Federal law--the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act--clearly and unequivocally provides that tribal gaming revenues may only be used to support the provision of governmental services by tribal governments to reservation residents-- both Indian and non-Indian. Mr. President, I must take exception to some of the representations that have been made about this amendment. For instance, that the amendment ``protects States' rights without harming Indian Tribes''. A right to conduct gaming free of any State involvement was confirmed by the United State Supreme Court in May of 1997. Let us be clear about this--what this amendment does is take away that right. The proponents of this amendment also assert that their amendment would maintain ``the status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act''. However, we should also equally clear about this--this amendment does not preserve the status quo. Rather it strips tribal governments of rights that have been confirmed by the Supreme Court, and rather than preserving the status quo, it vests the states with a right they never had under the rulings of the Supreme Court or any other Federal law-- namely, a veto power over the conduct of gaming on tribal lands--lands and activities over which the states do not have the right to exercise their jurisdiction. This is what the Supreme Court has ruled. This amendment would subvert the rulings of the Supreme Court in this area, and I believe our colleagues in the Senate should be aware that the amendment does precisely that. I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend and congratulate my colleague from Mississippi for his leadership in this area. Most respectfully and candidly, I must say that I have been a bit surprised and saddened by the attacks made upon this measure. This bill, in my mind, is a wake-up call. It is telling all of us that there is a threat. Anyone who studies North Korea, anyone who looks at the Soviet Union, anyone who has taken time to study the situation in Iraq and Iran, would have to conclude that there is a threat. This measure does not deploy any ballistic missile defense system. It just tells us it is about time we begin looking to the possibility of deploying a system. As the author of this measure has pointed out very clearly, we would have to go through the regular process of authorization. This Senate and this Congress will have an opportunity to have a full-scale debate, to debate whether we have the funds, whether the threat is real, whether there is a necessity for this system. Then it will have to go through the appropriations process. At each level, the President of the United States will have an opportunity of either concurring or vetoing our efforts. We are not in any way short-circuiting the process that has been laid down by our Founding Fathers. We are following the process. But we are, in essence, telling our Nation: Wake up. There is a threat, and it is about time we look at it seriously. I am proud to be a cosponsor, not only of the amendment but of the bill itself. It is about time somebody took the leadership to do what Senator Cochran has been doing. So I hope my colleagues will reconsider their opposition, look at it very objectively, and I am certain they will concur with us. For those who have been criticizing that this is going to be a very expensive bill, there is not a single dollar in this measure--not a single dollar. That will have to be determined at a later time if the Congress so decides. I hope my colleagues on my side will join us when the final vote is taken to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the courage and bravery and love of country that my friend, Bob Kerrey, demonstrated 30 years ago in Vietnam is obviously still alive. For that, I salute you, sir. Thank you.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to direct your attention to a milestone soon to be celebrated by one of America's oldest friends and allies. On March 20, 1999, Tunisia observes its National Day, the 43rd anniversary of freedom from foreign control. Tunisians have many reasons to be proud of their progress during these last four decades. We as Americans should share that satisfaction, because we have important common values and a long history of strong, mutually beneficial relations. In fact, when Tunisia was still governed by Pasha Bey of Tunis, as a unit of the Ottoman Empire, Tunisia became one of the first treaty partners of the newly independent United States. The two nations signed a ``Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation'' in 1797. The pact provided for ``perpetual and constant peace'' between the parties. If all our treaties were as faithfully observed as this one, our foreign relations would be more serene. Whether protecting Mediterranean shipping lanes against Barbary pirates, opposing the Nazi war machine in North Africa, or supporting Western interests during the Cold War, the U.S. could count on Tunisia. More than 30 years ago, Tunisia displayed great courage in urging other Arab nations to seek an equitable settlement with Israel. Tunisia later built on that pioneering stand by playing an important role as an honest broker at delicate points in the peace process. You do not see many headlines or television footage about Tunisia. The reason is that news coverage of Africa and the Middle East is dominated by conflict, extremism, famine, and other calamities. Tunisia, by enviable contrast, is a quiet success. On a recent visit to Tunisia, Undersecretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, called Tunisia a ``model for developing countries.'' He was correct. During these last 43 years, Tunisia has built a stable, middle class society. Tunisia has adopted progressive social policies that feature tolerance for minorities, equal rights for women, universal education and a first- rate public health system, and avoided the pitfall of religious extremism that has tormented so many other developing nations. Under President Ben Ali's leadership, Tunisia has undertaken political reforms toward political pluralism and become the first nation south of the Mediterranean to formally associate itself with the European Union. These are only some of the accomplishments of this small, resilient, forward-looking nation. We should be mindful of this enviable record. We should also take satisfaction that, 43 years ago, the United States welcomed Tunisia's independence and provided both moral and financial support. If all our investments abroad paid such dividends, the world would be a more peaceful place.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to remember an extraordinary and respected individual. I join the multitude of people who noted the passing of Morris K. Udall on December 13, 1998 with much sadness. He will be sorely missed, especially by those of us who had the great privilege of knowing him and benefiting from his goodwill and humanitarianism. As a distinguished Member of the United States House of Representatives for more than 30 years, Morris K. Udall's leadership, diligent efforts and commitment to his duties have added a measure of integrity to the Congress. History should record that throughout his career, Morris K. Udall was of great intellect and a champion for those who had little voice. He was an eloquent spokesman for the rights of Native Americans, a leader in education and environmental protection, and a true advocate for all Americans who suffer from Parkinson's disease. The people of Arizona have lost a true son and great friend. We will miss him. I will miss him.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, six thousand miles from where I am standing today, The Queen's Health System of Hawaii is providing health care services that benefit the residents of all the Hawaiian Islands. This year, approximately 18,000 inpatients and more than 200,000 outpatients will seek health care from The Queen's Health Systems. The organization maintains an open emergency room; admits Medicare and Medicaid patients; operates a 536-bed accredited teaching hospital; operates Molokai General Hospital; operates clinics on various islands; provides home health care; supports nursing programs at Hawaiian colleges and universities; and promotes good health practices in many other ways. In 1885 Queen Emma Kaleleonalani, wife of King Kamehameha IV, bequeathed land which in large part composes the assets of The Queen Emma Foundation, a non-profit, tax-exempt, public charity. The Foundation s charitable purpose is to support and improve health care services in Hawaii by committing funds generated by Foundation-owned properties to The Queen's Medical Center, the Queen's Health Systems and other health care programs benefiting the community. Much of the land bequeathed by Queen Emma to the Foundation is encumbered by long-term, fixed rent commercial and industrial ground leases. As these leases expire, the land and improvements revert back to the Foundation. The existing, aged improvements thereon will need to be upgraded in order to enhance and continue the revenue-generating potential of the properties. However, the Foundation's available cash and cash flow are insufficient to implement these improvements which would result in increased financial support to The Queen's Medical Center, The Queen's Health Systems and other health care programs benefiting the community. If the Foundation borrows the funds, any income generated from those improvements would be subject to the debt- financed property rules of the unrelated business income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Since the income would be taxed at the corporate rate, the amount ultimately available to The Queen's Health System would be greatly reduced. Consequently, the generosity and intent of Queen Emma more than 100 years ago are being frustrated by federal tax provisions intended to prevent abuses. I am sure the Congress never intended the unfortunate consequences these provisions are having on what is virtually the sole source of private financial support for this sound and unique system of providing and delivering health care to the people of Hawaii. Current law already allows an exception from the debt-financing rules for certain real estate investments of pension trusts as well as an exception for educational institutions and their supporting organizations. The legislation I am introducing today grants similar relief to institutions like The Queen Emma Foundation which provide and deliver health care to the people of our nation. I request unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, for nearly three years, the people of Guam endured war time atrocities and suffering. As part of Japan's assault against the Pacific, Guam was bombed and invaded by Japanese forces within three days of the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, Guam was administered by the United States Navy under the authority of a Presidential Executive Order. It was also populated by then-American nationals. For the first time since the War of 1812, a foreign power invaded United States soil. In 1952, when the United States signed a peace treaty with Japan, formally ending World War II, it waived the rights of American nationals, including those of Guamanians, to present claims against Japan. As a result of this action, American nationals were forced to seek relief from the Congress of the United States. Today, I rise to introduce the Guam War Restitution Act, which would amend the Organic Act of Guam and provide restitution to those who suffered atrocities during the occupation of Guam in World War II. There are several key components to this measure. The Restitution Act would establish specific damage awards to those who are survivors of the war, and to the heirs of those who died during the war. The specific damage awards would be as follows: (1) $20,000 for death; (2) $7,000 for personal injury; and (3) $5,000 for forced labor, forced march, or internment. The Restitution Act would also establish specific damage benefits to the heirs of those who survived the war and who made previous claims but have since died. The specific damage benefits would be as follows: (1) $7,000 for personal injury; and (2) $5,000 for forced labor, forced march, or internment. Payments for benefits may either be in the form of a scholarship, payment of medical expenses, or a grant for first- time home ownership. This Act would also establish a Guam Trust Fund from which disbursements will be made. Any amount left in the fund would be used to establish the Guam World War II Loyalty Scholarships at the University of Guam. A nine member Guam Trust Fund Commission would be established to adjudicate and award all claims from the Trust Fund. The United States Congress previously recognized its moral obligation to the people of Guam and provided reparations relief by enacting the Guam Meritorious Claims Act on November 15, 1945 (Public Law 79-224). Unfortunately, the Claims Act was seriously flawed and did not adequately compensate Guam after World War II. The Claims Act primarily covered compensation for property damage and limited compensation for death or personal injury. Claims for forced labor, forced march, and internment were never compensated because the Claims Act excluded these from awardable injuries. The enactment of the Claims Act was intended ``to make Guam whole.'' The Claims Act, however, failed to specify postwar values as a basis for computing awards, and settled on prewar values, which did not reflect the true postwar replacement costs. Also, all property damage claims in excess of $5,000, as well as all death and injury claims, required Congressional review and approval. This action caused many eligible claimants to settle for less in order to receive timely compensation. The Claims Act also imposed a one-year time limit to file claims, which was insufficient as massive disruptions still existed following Guam's liberation. In addition, English was then a second language to a great many Guamanians. While a large number spoke English, few could read it. This is particularly important since the Land and War Claims Commission required written statements and often communicated with claimants in writing. The reparations program was also inadequate because it became secondary to overall reconstruction and the building of permanent military bases. In this regard, the Congress enacted the Guam Land Transfer Act and the Guam Rehabilitation Act (Public Laws 79-225 and 79-583) as a means of rehabilitating Guam. The Guam Land Transfer Act provided the means of exchanging excess federal land for resettlement purposes, and the Guam Rehabilitation Act appropriated $6 million to construct permanent facilities for the civic populace of the island for their economic rehabilitation. Approximately $8.1 million was paid to 4,356 recipients under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. Of this amount, $4.3 million was paid to 1,243 individuals for death, injury, and property damage in excess of $5,000, and $3.8 million to 3,113 recipients for property damage of less than $5,000. On June 3, 1947, former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes testified before the House Committee on Public Lands relative to the Organic Act, and strongly criticized the Department of the Navy for its ``inefficient and even brutal handling of the rehabilitation and compensation and war damage tasks.'' Secretary Ickes termed the procedures as ``shameful results.'' In addition, a committee known as the Hopkins Committee was established by former Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal in 1947 to assess the Navy's administration of Guam and American Samoa. An analysis of the Navy's administration of the reparation and rehabilitation programs was provided to Secretary Forrestal in a March 25, 1947 letter from the Hopkins Committee. The letter indicated that the Department's confusing policy decisions greatly contributed to the programs' deficiencies and called upon the Congress to pass legislation to correct its mistakes and provide reparations to the people of Guam. In 1948, the United States Congress enacted the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-896), which provided reparation relief to American prisoners of war, internees, religious organizations, and employees of defense contractors. The residents of Guam were deemed ineligible to receive reparations under this Act because they were American nationals and not American citizens. In 1950, the United States Congress enacted the Guam Organic Act (81-630), granting Guamanians American citizenship and a measure of self-government. The Congress, in 1962, amended the War Claims Act to provide benefits to claimants who were nationals at the time of the war and later became citizens. Again, the residents of Guam were specifically excluded. The Congress believed that the residents of Guam were provided for under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act. At that time, there was no one to defend Guam, as they had no representation in Congress. The Congress also enacted the Micronesian Claims Act for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but again excluded Guam in the settlement. In 1988, the now inactive Guam War Reparations Commission documented 3,365 unresolved claims. There are potentially 5,000 additional unresolved claims. In 1946, the United States provided more than $390 million in reparations to the Philippines, and more than $10 million to the Micronesian Islands in 1971 for atrocities inflicted by Japan. In addition, the United States provided more than $2 billion in postwar aid to Japan from 1946 to 1951. Further, the United States government liquidated more than $84 million in Japanese assets in the United States during the war for the specific purpose of compensating claims of its citizens and nationals. The United States did not invoke its authority to seize more assets from Japan under Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace, as other Allied Powers had done. The United States, however, did close the door on the claims of the people of Guam. A companion measure to my bill, H.R. 755, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Robert Underwood. The issue of reparations for Guam is not a new one for the people of Guam and for the United States Congress. It has been consistently raised by the Guamanian government through local enactments of legislative bills and resolutions, and discussed with Congressional leaders over the years. The Guam War Restitution Act cannot fully compensate or erase the atrocities inflicted upon Guam and its people during the occupation by the Japanese military. However, passage of this Act would recognize our government's moral obligation to Guam, and bring justice to the people of Guam for the atrocities and suffering they endured during World War II. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would allow Filipino World War II veterans to receive 75 percent of their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits after moving back to the Philippines. The reduced benefits reflect the lower cost of living and per capita income in the Philippines. In order to be eligible, Filipino veterans must be receiving SSI benefits as of the date of enactment of this legislation, and must have served in the Philippine Commonwealth Army and recognized guerilla units during World War II before December 31, 1946. Under current law, individuals who receive SSI benefits must relinquish those benefits should they choose to reside outside the United States. There are approximately 25,000 Filipino veterans who became naturalized citizens under the Immigration Act of 1990. Due to their age, the 1990 Act was subsequently amended to allow these veterans to be naturalized in the Philippines. It is unclear how many Filipino veterans reside in the United States as a result of the 1990 Act. However, some veterans came with the expectation of receiving pension benefits and a recognition of their military service. Instead, many are on welfare, living in poverty-stricken areas, and financially unable to petition their families to immigrate to the United States. Passage of this measure would help provide for these veterans upon return to their families in the Philippines. As some of my colleagues know, I am an advocate for the Filipino veterans of World War II. I have sponsored several measures on their behalf to correct an injustice and seek equal treatment for their valiant military service in our Armed Forces. Members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army were called into the service of the United States Forces of the Far East, and under the command of General Douglas MacArthur 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 not 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, the law of the land, specifically section (1) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, declares that the United States shall have a merchant marine sufficient to, among other things, carry a substantial portion of our international waterborne commerce and to serve as a fourth arm of defense in time of war and national emergency. The importance of these requirements has been dramatically illustrated by the vital role of our merchant marine in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and most recently in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. While the privately owned and operated U.S.-flag merchant marine has performed so magnificently and effectively in times of crisis, it has also made extraordinary efforts to ensure that a substantial portion of commercial cargo bound to and from the United States moves on U.S. vessels. Given the chronic overtonnaging in international shipping, cut-throat competition, and the competitive edge our trading partners give their national flags, this has not been easy. In addition to competition with subsidized foreign carriers, U.S.-flag carriers are forced to complete with flag of convenience carriers. Over two-thirds of the international vessels operating in commerce are operating under flags of convenience. Flag of convenience registries include such major maritime powers as Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, and Vanuatu. These registries only require their vessel owners to pay registration fees. Shipowners are not required to pay tax on revenues earned and employees do not have to pay income tax. Further, the shipowner has little or no obligation to comply with the law of the nation of registry. Nevertheless, if our commercial fleet is to continue to be an effective auxiliary in times of war or national emergency, it must first be commercially viable in times of peace. Otherwise, there will be no merchant fleet when the need arises. I think we all would agree that there is a substantial national interest in promoting our merchant fleet. I think, also, that we would all agree that U.S. national security and economic security interests should not be held hostage by insufficient U.S.-controlled sealift assets. Given the diminution of the flag fleets of our NATO allies it will be more important in the future to sustain a viable U.S.-flag presence. Indeed, several laws of our land recognize that national interest and spell out specifically how the U.S. government is to go about promoting it. Federal laws require that U.S. military cargo, cargo purchased with loan funds and guarantees from the Export-Import Bank, 75 percent of concessionary agricultural cargo, and at least 50 percent of all other international ocean borne cargo generated directly or indirectly by the federal government be carried on U.S.-flag vessels. The alarming news is that according to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) the total volume of cargo moving under these programs is declining and will continue to do so. According to a report by Nathan Associates, Inc., the 1992 economic impact of cargo preference for the United States was 40,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs; $2.2 billion in direct, indirect and induced household earnings; $354 million in direct, indirect and induced federal personal and business income tax revenues--$1.20 for every dollar of government outlay on cargo preference; and $1.2 billion in foreign exchange. It is, therefore, imperative that U.S.-flag vessels carry every ton of cargo which these programs and the law intend, and in fact require, them to carry. This brings me to the reason for the resolution I am submitting today. These are two substantial problems which threaten the viability of these programs and, therefore, the viability of our merchant fleet. Several agencies administering cargo reservation programs continue to evade the spirit and letter of the reservation laws by finding the law inapplicable to a particular program or employing other loopholes. This problem of evasion and uneven confidence led the Congress to amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 to centralize monitoring and compliance authority for all cargo reservation programs in the MARAD. Nevertheless, the problem remains. Critics of the MARAD maintain the agency is too timid, and does not discharge its obligation aggressively. The MARAD, on the other hand, says it has limited enforcement powers over those government agencies which are not in compliance. Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an unopposed order upon consideration of the joint motion of the parties in Farrell Lines Incorporated versus United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Sea-Land Service, Inc. The order affirms the appropriate roles of the MARAD in administering the cargo preference laws with respect to Food for Progress and Section 416(b) programs, and the USDA in complying with those laws and the MARAD's policies and regulations implementing them. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today expresses the sense of the Senate that all of these federal agencies must fully comply with both the intent and purpose of existing cargo reservation laws, and that the MARAD should provide directions and decisions to these agencies to ensure maximum compliance with these laws.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would allow Filipino World War II veterans to receive 75 percent of their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits after moving back to the Philippines. The reduced benefits reflect the lower cost of living and per capita income in the Philippines. In order to be eligible, Filipino veterans must be receiving SSI benefits as of the date of enactment of this legislation, and must have served in the Philippine Commonwealth Army and recognized guerilla units during World War II before December 31, 1946. Under current law, individuals who receive SSI benefits must relinquish those benefits should they choose to reside outside the United States. There are approximately 25,000 Filipino veterans who became naturalized citizens under the Immigration Act of 1990. Due to their age, the 1990 Act was subsequently amended to allow these veterans to be naturalized in the Philippines. It is unclear how many Filipino veterans reside in the United States as a result of the 1990 Act. However, some veterans came with the expectation of receiving pension benefits and a recognition of their military service. Instead, many are on welfare, living in poverty-stricken areas, and financially unable to petition their families to immigrate to the United States. Passage of this measure would help provide for these veterans upon return to their families in the Philippines. As some of my colleagues know, I am an advocate for the Filipino veterans of World War II. I have sponsored several measures on their behalf to correct an injustice and seek equal treatment for their valiant military service in our Armed Forces. Members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army were called into the service of the United States Forces of the Far East, and under the command of General Douglas MacArthur 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 not 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.