Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my only comment is that I wish we could have provided much more than this.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3392 (Purpose: To provide additional funds for U.S. military operations in Bosnia as an emergency requirement)

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to concur with the amendment.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Gilmore-Lee, a fellow assigned to my staff, be provided floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join my chairman in commending our dear friend. Once again, he has taken the initiative and leadership in this important area. Thank you very much.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I first thank my dear colleague from Alaska for his very generous remarks. It has been a pleasure to work with him for the past 10 years. We hope that together we have been able to present to the U.S. Senate a bipartisan approach to this very important subject. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999, S. 2132, as reported from the Committee on Appropriations. This bill contains funding for the Department of Defense for the upcoming year, excluding amounts for military construction. The total recommended is $250.5 billion. This is about $840 million less than was requested by the administration, but about $2.8 billion more than funded for fiscal year 1998. Within these amounts, the committee has recommended full funding to support our men and women in uniform. This includes a 3.1-percent pay raise as requested by the President. Later today, the chairman will offer an amendment to increase that to 3.6 percent, the amount authorized by the Senate last month. I strongly support this amendment. Also at the chairman's initiative, the committee is recommending $50 million to initiate a new fund for morale, welfare, and recreation. This new appropriation account will support the personnel support needs of our men and women serving on contingency deployments in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. Last May, Senator Stevens led a delegation of members from the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees to Bosnia and Southwest Asia. It was apparent in our discussions with these units that the deployments for these contingencies were beginning to impair the retention of critically skilled individuals and that morale was starting to suffer. The delegation unanimously concluded that we needed to do more to support our troops serving in these areas. The chairman's initiative will help ease the burden of these long overseas deployments and show our men and women in uniform that the Congress has not forgotten them. Mr. President, this is a very good bill, which meets the national security needs of our Nation, but within the fiscal constraints that have been agreed upon in this balanced budget environment. I should point out to my colleagues that this bill does not provide any funding for Bosnia. The President submitted a budget amendment to the Congress requesting an appropriation of $1.29 billion in emergency funding to maintain our troops in Bosnia. When the committee marked up this bill, it was unclear what action the Senate would take on Bosnia. It is my hope that this matter will be resolved in conference or through a supplemental spending measure at a later date. Let me assure my colleagues that the committee will not shirk from our responsibility to support funding for our forces assigned overseas, no matter where they are located. This matter will be addressed at a later date. Mr. President, I want to close by commending our chairman and his staff for the fine work that they have done in putting this bill together. As many of you recognize, this is a huge bill. Nearly half of our Government's discretionary resources are contained in this one appropriations bill. There are an enormous number of programs that must be reviewed and recommended by the chairman and his staff before this measure can be reported to the Senate. That task is made more difficult by the thousands of requests for billions of dollars that are made by the Members of this body. I want to salute the majority staff which really has done yeoman's work in putting this bill together for the Senate. It is a small staff, many have been with the Appropriations Committee for several years. They transcend the political divisions that sometimes divide this Senate. The staff is led by Steve Cortese who has been by the chairman's side for the past decade and it includes, Sid Ashworth, Tom Hawkins, Susan Hogan, Mary Marshall, Mazie Mattson, Gary Reese, John Young, Justin Weddle, and on assignment as a legislative fellow, Ms. Carolyn Willis. Mr. President, the Senate owes them a deep debt of gratitude. Under Chairman Stevens' leadership, the resulting bill is a well- balanced product, crafted in a completely bipartisan fashion. It meets the needs of the military services and also fully considers the priorities of the Senate and the American taxpayers. This is a good bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage. Before ending my presentation, I would like to reflect upon a few things that have just come across my mind in the past few minutes. Chairman Stevens and I are what some of us call dinosaurs of the Senate. Admittedly, we are chronologically a bit old. Both of us served in World War II, the ancient war. I would like my colleagues to recall that in that war 16 million men and women served--16 million. Today, we are calling upon less than 1 percent of our Nation's population--one- half of 1 percent--to stand in harm's way for us, to risk their lives for us. Some have suggested that this is too much spending. As far as I am concerned, if any person is willing to stand in harm's way in my behalf, he or she gets the best. There are many programs that have been carried out at the chairman's initiative that he is too humble to even mention. He has been in the forefront of medical research, and I am proud to say that, working with him, we have been able to come up with a breast cancer program that is being acclaimed worldwide--not just nationally. Scientists from all over the world come to work with the Army Research Center. It may not be evident to many of my colleagues, but some of the best research being done on AIDS is being done by the U.S. Army. The same can be said for prostate cancer and other tropical diseases. I began my closing remarks by saying there were 16 million American men and women who served with us in World War II. It was at a time when our population was about 100 million. Today, our population is over 250 million, and we are asking 1.3 million to defend all of us. I concur with my chairman: This is the minimum, this meets the minimum needs of our military. If budgetary constraints were not placed upon us, I am certain we would come forth with something a bit more generous. After all, Mr. President, you and I want our children and our grandchildren to go to college, we want to be able to have a car in the garage, three meals a day. That is part of the American way of life. I believe that men and women in the service should also aspire to the American way of life, and I am sorry to say that this measure may not provide all that is necessary, but we are striving for the best. I ask my colleagues to support this measure. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from Wisconsin for presenting this amendment. I would have to speak against that. It is true that the budget request submitted by the administration for the National Guard had a shortfall for O&M activities in the Guard in the amount of about $770 million. On our chairman's initiative, we placed an amount of $320 million to make up for part of the shortfall. In addition to that, the administration had zero dollars for procurement of new equipment based upon the philosophy that if the regular services, the Regular Army, purchases equipment, some of the leftovers may go for the Guard. We did not concur with that. We appropriated $500 million for the Guard to get new equipment. Having said that, Mr. President, I believe it should be noted that every service, every component of every service, is faced with shortfalls. There is a shortfall in Navy O&M. They would like to have more steaming time. They want their ships to be out there for maneuvers. We can't do that. The Army Tank Corps would like to have more petroleum and gasoline so that the men who drive these tanks may get more experience and be ready for combat, if such is necessary. Artillerymen would like to have more ammunition for firing range practice. Mr. President, we have the sad chore of trying to balance all of the accounts and, at the same time, realizing that if this Nation is to continue being the superpower of this world and thereby deter any nation from any mischievous action, we have to provide funds to modernize. The accounts that may be affected by this amendment would stop the modernization program. Mr. President, although I agree that the Guard should be receiving much more, I will have to concur with my chairman's action when he moves to table this. Thank you. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I realize that standing and speaking in opposition would be condemned by some of my colleagues and my constituents. I also realize that my chairman will rise to table this amendment at the appropriate time. But I believe that something has to be said as to why some of us oppose this amendment. Mr. President, we are blessed to be able to live in a great country. We just celebrated the 222nd anniversary of our birth. We have had a very illustrious and a glorious history. Yet, there are many chapters in our history that we would prefer not to discuss; we would prefer to just pass them over. The countries that we are speaking up against in Southeast Asia and Asia do not have a 222-year history. Yes, they may have been in existence for 4,000 or 5,000 years, but keep in mind that most of these countries have been under the yoke of some European power until just recently. Indonesia, until the end of World War II, was under the control, and therefore a colony of, Holland. China has been controlled by various countries. The Japanese have been there; the British have been there; the French, the Russians--and Americans. North Korea had been under the control of the Japanese up until World War II. The Philippines was our colony until the end of the war. Our country is blessed with resources--all of the minerals that we need, all of the chemicals we need to make us the No. 1 high-tech country in the world, the most powerful military country in the world. These other countries are still struggling. I don't think we can expect these nations who are going through the evolutionary stage of just 50 years, as compared to our 222 years--we cannot impose and demand that our will be carried out. We should remind ourselves that we, the people of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States have said that slavery was constitutional. That wasn't too long ago. And there are many fellow Americans who are still showing the effects of slavery to this day. Well, we pride ourselves on human rights, but hardly a day goes by when we don't see statistics that may not be the happiest. For example, I am vice chairman now of the Indian Affairs Committee. The things we are confronted with on a daily basis in this committee are sickening. For example, the unemployment rate in the Nation is less than 5 percent. The unemployment rate in Indian reservations today is over 50 percent. In some reservations, it is as high as 92 percent. Yes, there are reservations that are doing well--doing very, very well. But most of the 550 tribes are not doing well. When you look at health statistics, they are worse than Third World countries. They are worse in cancer, worse in respiratory diseases, worse in diabetes. And this happens in these United States. And if some other country should condemn us for this, we would stand up as one and say: It is none of your damn business. Well, Mr. President, the question before us is, Do we contain and do we isolate China--a nation with a population of over one-fourth of the world's population? They have problems, as much as we have problems. The question is, Do we ignore them, realizing that they may someday acquire all the technology that they need to become a terrible world power? Or do we try to engage them and, hopefully, by practice and by model, convince them that our system is the best? We seem to have done pretty well in doing this with the Soviet Union. We are told that the cold war is over now, that the power the Soviet Union had once upon a time is no more. Why? Because we had a policy of engagement. We continue to talk to them. We continue to exchange views. Yes, we propagandize them and they propagandize us. But because of our attitude, because of our resources, we have prevailed. I think the same can happen elsewhere. Yes, we are dealing with countries that have a short contemporary history--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. These were European colonies. If one looks at the history of these colonies, the treatment was just as bad as the colonies in Africa. And now to suddenly say, ``Now that you have freedom, we expect you to behave like Americans,'' I think is asking too much, Mr. President. We speak of human rights. We will conclude this year the final payment of redress to Japanese Americans who were put in camps. Mr. President, I certainly recall that soon after December 7--on February 19, 1942--an Executive order was issued declaring that Japanese Americans were not to be trusted. Therefore, they had to be rounded up, with 48 hours' notice, and placed in 10 camps throughout the United States--no due process. No crimes were committed. Studies were made, investigations done, and there was not a single case of sabotage, not a single case of un-American activity. In fact, men volunteered from these camps to form a regiment, which I was honored to serve in, and we became the most decorated Army unit in the history of the Army. The United States is finally going to close that chapter. But these things have happened to us. As a personal matter, I resented that when, on March 17, 1942, my Government said I was to be declared 4C. In case people are not aware of what 4C is about, 1A is the Draft Board's declaration that you are physically fit, mentally alert. Therefore, you are qualified to put on the uniform of the United States; 4F, something is wrong with you, physically or mentally; 4C is a special designation for enemy alien. That was my designation. So when one speaks of the history of the United States, there are chapters that we don't wish to look at, because, if we start looking back to these chapters, you will find that we have gone through this painful evolution. So I am telling my colleagues that this is not a simple amendment. It is an amendment that requires deep thought on our part. I hope that we leave it up to those who we rely upon in our State Department to do the best. We can always watch what is going on. Yes, they have forced abortion. I am against that. I am against religious persecution. We try to convince ourselves that there is no religious persecution in the United States. But I am certain we know that there is. Mr. President, I will be voting to table this amendment. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INOUYE. Will the chairman yield? I am now working on an amendment for Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Can I discuss that with you later?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to raise a matter which I believe could revolutionize the way we finance our defense infrastructure, our family housing, barracks and other base facilities. If successful, it would allow us to recapitalize our bases with a much smaller investment than is currently required. In so doing, it could dramatically improve the quality of life of the men and women in uniform. Mr. President often Members rise and offer that theirs is a simple amendment. This is not a simple matter, and it will take some time to describe it, but I want all of my colleagues to understand what it would do for national defense. Several years ago, I sponsored legislation to sell defense property in Hawaii to the State. In return the proceeds were used to build a new bridge to connect the Pearl Harbor Naval Base to Ford Island, a piece of Navy property located in Pearl Harbor. Over the years Ford Island has been the home of Battleship Row, the site of the Arizona Memorial, and just last month it became the final home for the U.S.S. Missouri. It has had a small airstrip on which some of the Navy's earliest aviators trained. It has housed a few sailors and families, and has been the workplace for selected other military activities. But because there was no bridge connecting the island, it could never be fully utilized. The Island comprises 450 acres, about half the size of Pearl Harbor Navy Base, yet it contains less than one tenth of the working and residential population of Pearl Harbor. The only access to the island has been by ferry. For years, boats have shuttled passengers and cargo from the rest of base about once per hour. In short it has been a very inefficient use of space. And for a small State like mine, especially in and around Honolulu, space is a premium. In April of this year, this situation was changed forever. Ford Island was opened to the rest of Oahu by the new Chick Clarey Bridge. Ford Island is now poised to be a more useful part of the Pearl Harbor naval facility. However, as is unfortunately so often the case in these matters, there simply is not enough money in the Navy budget to build the facilities that could make this base more useful. And so, without action, Ford Island will remain underutilized. About two years ago, when he took over as the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral Clemins saw the bridge being constructed and recognized the prospect of developing Ford Island. He began to investigate how he could maximize its vast potential to improve the Navy in Hawaii. He quickly came to the conclusion that there simply was not enough money to build the new facilities the Navy needs. While some might have given up when faced with this obstacle, that is not the Admiral's way. Instead he directed his staff to keep studying this and identify other ways to achieve his objective. The Admiral took to heart what we have often heard coming from the Congress, that we need to revolutionize the way the Pentagon does business. He agreed that we have to become more efficient, more like the private sector. He noted that public/private venture legislation had been approved by the Congress at the request of former Secretary of Defense William Perry for a few family housing projects and he suggested that a similar but expanded approach was needed for Ford Island. At every step there were those that told him why he couldn't do this. Some said it would cost billions, others that the State would not support developing Ford Island, still others raised technical arguments on our arcane accounting practices in the Government. But, the Admiral kept after it. While the lawyers raised legal concerns, and the Navy staff and others raised objections, every decision maker, the leaders of the Navy, State, and local governments, and business leaders always had the same response. This is a good idea, we must figure out how we can do it. That was the reaction of the Commander in Chief of The Pacific Command, Admiral Prueher. Recently he testified to the Appropriations Committee that he has reviewed the legislation and believes it is the right approach to solving some of the critical housing and facility shortfalls for the Navy. But, because of the difficulty of moving the legislative proposal within the bureaucracy, the measure was not included in the President's formal budget request. Still the Fleet Commander and CINCPAC were undeterred. Admiral Clemins brought the idea to Washington directly, where he quickly won support from the uniformed Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations gave the proposal his approval. He then received personal support from the Secretary of the Navy. His arguments even won the informal support from the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Finally, the Navy gave the proposal its official blessing. And after many, many months, the legislation was finally forwarded unofficially to the Congress. Unfortunately, all of this took time and the delays in winding through the internal chain of command did not allow the Senate's Armed Services Committee time to review this matter prior to its mark up. I offered this same amendment to that bill and it was adopted. However, there are some in the House that do not agree with the Navy, DOD and the Senate Armed Services Committee and they hope to gut the proposal. This amendment requires DOD to report on the current legislative proposal and to submit legislation to carry out the proposal by December 1, 1998. That will provide sufficient time for the authorization committee to pass judgement on the matter next year. The amendment does not mandate any specific terms for the Defense Department to follow, but offers several Navy ideas to be considered. What the Navy seeks to do, as a pilot project only for this one base, is to provide authority to the Secretary of the Navy to use his resources in conjunction with the private sector to develop Ford Island. The plan would examine whether it is feasible to provide incentives and other guarantees to businesses to carry out this idea, and establish a framework to carry it out. It is important that we understand how this differs from our current system and how it might work. Under our normal course of operations, the Navy would identify how much the development of Ford Island would cost, and it would develop a spending plan. It is estimated that the costs of developing the island under normal procedures could be as much as $600 million. Judging from the military construction budget it would probably require 15 to 20 years to identify sufficient funds to pay for this. That means a whole generation of Navy sailors would enlist, serve and retire, before the base could be completed. This is simply unacceptable to Admiral Clemins as it should be to all of my colleagues. By relying on a joint venture, the Navy can use resources gained by leasing, exchanging, or selling property that it currently holds in Hawaii and use those assets and revenues to leverage development of the island. It is like taking out a long term loan. The Navy can put down the down payment using its property or newly generated cash resources, and, as is the case under the family housing pilot program, the sailors housing allowances can be used to make the mortgage payments. In theory, the Navy might offer a commercial developer the opportunity to establish a few small commercial facilities--like parking garages, child care facilities, shops and restaurants--on the base to support the families, and in return the private concern would be responsible for developing additional Navy facilities. In each case, the Secretary of the Navy would have to approve the specific uses and the Congress would have to allow the funding to be used for the proposed purpose. This means that sufficient oversight would exist at all levels to ensure that the project stayed on course. Let me tell my colleagues that the business community in my State is very excited about this proposal. They are positive that the legislation will provide a mechanism for creating a public-private partnership to develop the island. From Congress' viewpoint, the development will involve very few taxpayer dollars which is exactly what is needed in today's tight budget environment. Most important is what this will do for the men and women in the Navy. Today in Hawaii, the Navy is spread out throughout the island of Oahu at a number of small posts and with large numbers of military families living in poor conditions a long way away from their jobs at Pearl Harbor. The development of Ford Island will allow the Navy to move many of its sailors right to the base to live and work. This will cut down on their commutes, and it will keep them on base. It will also help ease what has become a very congested rush hour on the highways in the area. For many what was an hour commute will now become minutes. For families disconnected from the Navy community, they will now be living and working in a quality family environment--a nice home in a beautiful location, with the working spouse only minutes away. For our commanders this means many more sailors housed right on base and readily available if needed. It will probably come as a surprise to my colleagues to learn that my State has some of the worst housing in all the Defense Department. The Army says its worst barracks anywhere in the world are in Hawaii. Some of the Navy's housing is so bad that it is an embarrassment to the service. Several years ago, Mrs. Margaret Dalton, the wife of Navy Secretary John Dalton visited Hawaii and was taken on a tour of some family housing units. The conditions were so deplorable that she was very troubled. When she returned to Washington she insisted that the Navy provide her with a full briefing on its housing rehabilitation plans for the State. Single handedly she moved the Navy forward. Since then, the Navy has made great strides toward improving living conditions. But it has become painfully clear, that there simply isn't enough money to do what is required. There are many areas that still need to be torn down and rebuilt. Or, that property could be turned over for a new use by the private sector. Mrs. Dalton will long be remembered by the sailors who serve in Hawaii as the person who started to turn around the Navy's living conditions in my State. This proposal will provide us a means to expand upon her work, but this time without enormous investment in this constrained budget environment. The benefits of the proposal to the Navy and my State are enormous. I am sure many are now thinking this sounds good, but if it is that simple why hasn't it been done before. To that I would say, it is not simple. It will require great leadership and management by the Navy to work with the local authorities and business community to carry this out. But, I am confident that we have the right man for the job in Admiral Clemins. He was demonstrated his skills as both a warrior and as a manager and he has the skills necessary to accomplish this task. This approach has not been tried before, because no one put the time and energy into working through all the details to formulate a legislative plan to achieve this goal. Furthermore, how many opportunities arise when a military department, for all practical purposes, receives what amounts to a land grant adjoining a base? This is in some ways a unique opportunity because of the location of Ford Island and the new bridge. That is why a pilot proposal is proper. It could also serve as a model for other revitalization efforts at other bases, perhaps not on this grand a scale, but using elements from this approach. My colleagues all know that there will come a time when the Defense Department will want to establish a new base somewhere. This public private venture could be the method where building new bases could become affordable. Mr. President, this is an excellent idea, that has been shepherded this far by the Navy because they recognized that it is the only way that we can take Ford Island and develop it in a timely and cost effective manner. Ten years from now, we can be discussing how we will get enough money and authority to proceed to develop Ford Island for the Navy, or we can be discussing how this model pilot program established a method whereby we have begun to recapitalize our defense infrastructure affordably. This is our choice, there is only one answer, we need to approve this legislation to get the ball rolling. I think my colleagues for their attention, and I urge all to support this measure. Amendment no. 3430 (Purpose: To reduce funds available for Navy S-3 Weapon System Improvement program and to provide funds for a cyber-security program) On page 99, insert in the appropriate place the following new general provisions: Sec. 8104. Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', the amount available for S-3 Weapon System Improvement is hereby reduced by $8,000,000: Provided, Within the amounts appropriated under Title IV of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', the amount available for a cyber- security program is hereby increased by $8,000,000: Provided further, That the funds are made available for the cyber- security program to conduct research and development on issues relating to security information assurance and to facilitate the transition of information assurance technology to the defense community.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment that would clarify the eligibility of small businesses to participate in the Indian incentive payment program. Mr. President, I can assure my colleagues that in establishing this program, it was our intent to provide incentives to Defense contractors who would enter into subcontracts with Indian tribal government- chartered entities and tribal enterprises. Mr. President, it was not our intent to exclude from the Indian incentive payment program, those small businesses that might enter into contracts with the Department of Defense. It is my understanding that because the original authorizing language which established the Indian incentive payment program refers to a subcontracting plan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d), the Department of Defense has interpreted that provision to exclude small businesses from participation in the Indian incentive payment program. Senator Dorgan's amendment would simply strike the reference to a subcontracting plan pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 637(d), to make clear that small businesses who enter into contracts with the Department of Defense may participate in the Indian incentive payment program by entering into subcontracts with tribally-chartered entities or tribal enterprises. Mr. President, I believe we should include Senator Dorgan's amendment in S. 2132. I ask unanimous consent to have two pertinent letters printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment which proposes to limit the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) general counsel and staff director to a term of 4 years unless four of the six Commissioners vote to renew their terms. The Commission is composed of six members--three Republicans and three Democrats. Consistent with the FEC's overall statutory scheme, requiring a majority decision to take official action, four votes are currently needed to remove the general counsel or staff director from office. If this amendment is adopted, four affirmative votes would be required for these officials to retain their position. That means three Commissioners from the same party voting as a block could force the termination of either the general counsel or the staff director and hold hostage either of the two top career officials at the FEC. This amendment injects partisanship into the carefully balanced bipartisan structure at the FEC. Further, this could cause the staff to make recommendations based on partisan considerations in order to protect their jobs. These consequences would be extremely detrimental to the administration of the FEC and the enforcement of our campaign finance laws. There appears to be little question that the purpose of this provision is to retaliate against the general counsel, Lawrence Noble, for certain actions. The general counsel recently made several controversial recommendations to the Commission. In response to 1997 rulemaking petitions filed by President Clinton and others, Mr. Noble recommended that the FEC seek public comment on a proposal to prohibit the use of soft money in connection with federal elections. Acting on the general counsel's recommendation, the Commission also pursued cases in court that have received negative reactions from some Members. A review of Mr. Noble's record indicates that he has been nonpartisan, balanced and fair. Mr. Noble has aggressively pursued enforcement of campaign finance laws against Democrats and Republicans alike. In a year in which the need for campaign finance reform has received so much attention, Congress would be sending the wrong message if it passes a provision designed to weaken the very agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws. I urge you to oppose this amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to address some of the statements that were made in our debate last evening on Senator Craig's amendment on Senator Kyl's amendment on internet gaming. First, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the amendment we propose absolutely would not exempt Indian tribal governments and Indian gaming from the purview of the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act. Rather, the amendment allows only the conduct of those games with the application of technology--not internet technology--but the application of television and satellite-generated technology that we envisioned could be used for the conduct of bingo or games that are subject to a tribal-state compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The language on page eleven of Senator Kyl's amendment makes it abundantly clear that each person placing or receiving or otherwise making a bet or wager must be physically located on Indian land and that class III games must be conducted consistent with a tribal-state compact and only in the state to which the compact applies. So we are not proposing to exempt Indian gaming from the internet gaming prohibitions outlined in Senator Kyl's amendment. Secondly, I would want my colleague from Arizona to know that as we read it, there is an ambiguity in the amendment. States are authorized to enforce the provisions of this amendment, should it become law, for violations by a person. The term ``person'' includes ``any government''--which must refer to tribal governments, because all other levels of government are specifically mentioned. Thus, while one section of the bill would restrict state authority to what is provided in tribal state compacts, another section of the bill gives states broad authority to enforce the act as it may relate to the conduct of tribal governments. Senator Craig's amendment would simply preserve the status quo and maintain the integrity of the pervasive federal regulatory scheme in which federal criminal laws are enforced by the United States on Indian lands--a framework, which as I said last evening, has been in place for over one hundred years. I thank my colleague from Idaho and I wish to assure my colleague from Arizona that I look forward to continuing to work with him as this bill proceeds to conference to address these two matters that I have outlined.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Craig's second-degree amendment to the amendment proposed by Senator Kyl. Mr. President, I am privileged to represent the State of Hawaii together with Senator Akaka. The State of Hawaii is one of two States-- Utah being the other--where all forms of gaming, gambling, are prohibited. To play bingo in Hawaii would be a crime. I support Hawaii's position. There have been countless attempts made to introduce gaming into our islands, but in each case I am happy to report that the political leaders of Hawaii have opposed it and we have prevailed. So it may sound strange to some of my colleagues to see me standing here supporting the second-degree amendment of Senator Craig. Eleven years ago, there was a very important decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, the so-called Cabazon case. The decision in the Cabazon case was a most important one, because it once again declared clearly that Indian nations were sovereign. Our Constitution declares that Indian nations are sovereign. The laws of our land and the laws that we have passed in this Chamber have consistently indicated that Indian country is sovereign, whether we like it or not. The Cabazon decision was a simple one. It said if a State does not prohibit gaming, then it cannot prohibit gaming in Indian reservations. California did not prohibit gaming. Therefore, the Cabazon Tribe had the authority to do that. Immediately, many of us in this Chamber saw the potential for utter chaos in the United States if all of the Indian reservations rose as one to claim their right under Cabazon to conduct gaming in the various States. There would be no regulation, no supervision. Therefore, we took it upon ourselves to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and we did so not by consultation but by advice and by the recommendation of how the law should read, from the States, the Governors, and the AGs of the States, who told us how they wanted this law to be passed. The law that is now regulating Indian gaming is the creature of the States. We took away a bit of Indian sovereignty to bring this about because, as we all know, the sovereignty of Indian country results in a trust relationship between our Government and an Indian government; it is not a relationship between Indian government and State government. This Kyl amendment has an ambiguity because, on one hand, it says the Feds will implement the law in Indian country, but there is another provision that says the State government will enforce the provisions of this amendment in Indian country. What we have tried to do here is to simply carry out the intent of the amendment as set forth by Senator Kyl. I was very encouraged by the statement made in Senator Kyl's recent ``Dear Colleague'' letter in which he stated his amendment ``will neither explicitly or implicitly amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.'' Mr. President, Senator Craig's amendment is a very simple one. It would simply accomplish what Senator Kyl has indicated as being his intention. The amendment will accomplish two objectives: First, make clear that gaming, which is lawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, would not be rendered unlawful by the Kyl amendment. Secondly, the amendment would conform the enforcement of Federal laws on Indian lands to the Federal regulatory scheme that has been in place for over 100 years; namely, that the United States is, and will continue to be, responsible for the enforcement of Federal criminal laws on Indian lands. The Craig amendment is necessary because the Kyl amendment will otherwise shift the responsibility for the enforcement of this new Federal criminal statute to the States. Mr. President, I don't think that was the intention on the part of Senator Kyl. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment submitted by Senator Craig, because that will assure that there is no unintentional effect of our action on the provisions of the Kyl amendment on the lawful conduct of gaming on Indian lands. Mr. President, if I had my way, I would recommend that gaming be outlawed. With the Craig amendment, I will be supporting the Kyl amendment to make certain that Internet gaming is not made wild and widespread throughout this whole Nation and world. I urge my colleagues to look upon the Craig amendment with seriousness. We do believe in what our Constitution says and what the Supreme Court decision has so declared. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Chairman Gregg and Senator Hollings on their leadership in crafting the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, and State, the judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill. Given the broad reach of this measure and our budgetary constraints, this was no easy task. From a parochial standpoint, I wish to thank the Chairman and Senator Hollings for their sensitive consideration of programs of importance to the State of Hawaii, including the East-West Center, Hawaiian monk seal recovery, endangered sea turtle research, and coral reef research, assessment, monitoring and management, to name a few. I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding work of the staff: Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Dana Quam, Vasiliki Alexopoulos, Lila Helms, and Emelie East. Finally, I would like to thank Scott Gudes for his many years of dedication to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and in particular, the Defense and Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittees. Throughout the years, Scott worked tirelessly and conscientiously, and garnered the deep respect of Members and staff who had the privilege of working with him. Scott recently left the Senate to become Deputy Under Secretary at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I wish him much success and fulfillment in this new endeavor. Amendment No. 3227 (Purpose: To establish a prohibition on commercial distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to minors, to persons under 17 years of age)

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Daniel K. Akaka, I would like to say a few words about Mr. Kenji Sumida who is retiring next month from the post of President of the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. The East-West Center is a national education and research institution established by the United States Congress in 1960 to promote better relations and understanding among the nations of Asia, the Pacific and the United States. During his tenure as President of the East-West Center, Mr. Sumida effectively led the Center through a particularly difficult period of reduced funding and budget cuts while maintaining and building upon the Center's reputation as the premiere United States institution dealing with major issues in the Asia-Pacific region. He substantially increased the visibility of the Center in Washington, DC and reached out to the Center's many alumni in the United States and throughout the Asia-Pacific region. In addition to his leadership role at the East-West Center, Mr. Sumida has served his native State of Hawaii in numerous other capacities, including high-ranking administrative posts at the University of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii, and City and County of Honolulu; director of administration of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research; and chief of staff and commander of the Hawaii Air National Guard, retiring with the grade of Brigadier General. His long-standing involvement and commitment to numerous community service activities is commendable. In all of his pursuits, Kenji Sumida has worked tirelessly and conscientiously to create bonds of friendship, respect and mutual understanding in his home state and the nation, as well as with our neighbors in Asia and the Pacific. We would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to Kenji Sumida for an outstanding career of service to our great nation and to extend our best wishes in his retirement.

Mr. INOUYE

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