Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to S. 2057 offered by my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. The Reid amendment would strike from the bill an amendment adopted by the Armed Services Committee during its markup of S. 2057. That amendment, offered by Senator Kempthorne, would withdraw 12,000 acres of land from the public domain for use by the United States Air Force for a project known as Enhanced Training in Idaho, or E.T.I. It would ratify the Air Force's recently announced selection of this land--known as the Juniper Butte Range--for addition to an existing 109,000-acre training range. The Air Force plans to invest thirty million dollars to outfit the area for training pilots in electronic warfare, tactical maneuvering and air support. Over the past several years, the Air Force has failed to gain public approval of similar proposals to expand its training area in Idaho to provide more cost-effective training for pilots at Mountain Home Air Force Base. These proposals, like the current Juniper Butte proposal, have been controversial in large part due to their potential impacts on proposed wilderness areas, wildlife, and human populations. These impacts--principally from the anticipated increase in air traffic and the noise associated with it--are significant and very difficult to mitigate. Increased air traffic and noise are of particular concern to the Shoshone-Paiute tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, which straddles the Idaho-Nevada border. Low level overflights of the reservation and sonic booms associated with the existing Idaho training facilities have long been a source of friction between the tribes and the Air Force. As a result of litigation brought by the tribe against the Air Force over these issues, the tribe and the Air Force entered into an agreement concerning training flights in the vicinity of the Duck Valley Reservation. Regrettably, the tribe currently regards the Air Force as being in violation of this agreement. It is therefore not surprising that the Duck Valley tribes view the Juniper Butte proposal as an additional threat to their culture, religion and resources. Nevertheless, I would like to commend the Air Force for entering into a contract to evaluate the impacts of Air Force activities on the cultural practices and sacred sites of the tribes. However, my understanding is that these ethnographic studies are ongoing, and that we at present do not have the benefits of their findings or recommendations. Given the difficult history in the relationship between the Air Force and the tribe, I question the wisdom and the need to move precipitously on the Juniper Butte withdrawal. Typically, when a Federal agency announces a record of decision on a proposal such as the Juniper Butte withdrawal, other Federal agencies have an opportunity to review and comment on it. The Department of the Interior, whose Bureau of Land Management currently manages the Juniper Butte lands, has a wide array of concerns about withdrawing the lands for a bombing range. The department has concerns about potential impacts to some 22 proposed wilderness areas, big horn sheep and other wildlife. In addition, as trustee for the Shoshone-Paiute tribes, the Department is concerned about the potential impacts that adding Juniper Butte to the bombing range would have on the Duck Valley Reservation and its people. While Interior and Air Force representatives have been meeting in an effort to address Interior's many concerns, there has been no effort to address the tribal concerns. Given the past and present concerns about this matter, it is appropriate to ask, ``What's the rush?'' Why is it necessary to short circuit the normal public process of review and comment, of congressional review of a proposal of this nature? While it may be desirable for the Air Force to provide an additional area for training, there is no lack of existing facilities and no crisis that requires hasty action by the Senate. There have been no congressional hearings on the decision to go ahead with the Juniper Butte land withdrawal since the Air Force announced it in March of this year. Accordingly, the Senate has no record of discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the proposal, much less of the need for it. Indeed, a June, 1995, report by the Defense Department's inspector general concluded that ``establishing the Idaho training range would be an exception to the overall DoD attempt to downsize infrastructure''. Anyone familiar with my record in Congress knows that I believe in a strong national defense. I support the desire of the Air Force to have the best possible training facilities so that our pilots will remain the very best in the world. And I have no doubt that the Air Force has labored long and hard to address the various criticisms that have been made of its proposals to expand its training facilities in Idaho. However, I also believe that the Senate has a duty and an obligation to be sure that the questions of need, of costs and benefits, have been answered fully. We also have an obligation to review the adequacy of the measures being proposed to mitigate impacts on the environment, wildlife, and human populations. Until and unless these concerns have been fully addressed, I see no compelling reason to go forward with this project at this time. Accordingly, I support Senator Reid's amendment to strike the Juniper Butte provisions from S. 2057.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I have the sad duty of announcing to this chamber that America has lost a hero, and a friend who had a large impact on my life. On June 20, 1998, Col. James Hanley died in Palo Alto, California after living a life marked by service to his country and commitment to the ideals for which this nation stands. I had the privilege of serving with Col. Hanley in battle during WWII. He was the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, of which I am proud to have been a member. Those trying days seem like yesterday and I can recall Col. Hanley being a source of strength for us. He was admired and respected by his men. The story of the 442nd is rich and dramatic, but mostly it paints a picture of bravery and courage. When America learned of the news that Pearl Harbor had been bombed by the Empire of Japan on December 7, a widespread distrust of anyone of Japanese ancestry began to grow. Despite a prejudice which had many of them and their families incarcerated in concentration camps, brave Japanese American soldiers volunteered for military service following the attack. Those courageous volunteers were kept together and eventually became the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and Col. Hanley became one of its leaders. To give you a flavor for Col. Hanley's leadership, sensitivity, and wisdom, I would like to read for the record a letter he wrote to a newspaper editor when that individual made ethnic slurs against the Japanese. Keep in mind that the letter is dated March 10, 1945, when the war with Japan was at its bloodiest. Dear Charlie: Just received the Pioneer of Jan. 20 and noted the paragraph enclosed. Yes, Charlie, I know where there are some GOOD Japanese Americans--there are some 5,000 of them in this unit. They are American soldiers--and I know where some of them are buried. I wish I could show you some of them, Charlie. I remember one Japanese American. He was walking ahead of me in a forest in France. A German shell took the right side of his face off. I recall another boy, an 88 had been trying to get us for some time--finally got him. When they carried him out on a stretcher, the bloody meat from the middle of his thighs hung down over the end of the stretcher and dragged in the dirt--the bone parts were gone. I recall a sergeant--a Japanese American, if you will--who had his back blown in two--what was he doing? Why, he was lying on top of an officer who had been wounded, to protect him from the shell fragments during a barrage. I recall one of my boys who stopped a German counterattack single handed. He fired all his BAR ammunition, picked up a German rifle, emptied that--used a German Lugar pistol he had taken from a prisoner. I wish I could tell you the number of Japanese Americans who have died in this unit alone. I wish I could tell you the number of wounded we have had, the sightless eyes, missing limbs, broken minds. I wish I could tell you the decorations we have won. I wish the boys in the ``Lost Battalion'' could tell you what they think of Japanese Americans. I wish all the troops we have fought beside could tell you what they know. The marvel is, Charlie, that these boys fight at all--they are good soldiers in spite of the type of racial prejudice shown by your paragraph. I know it makes a good joke--but is the kind of joke that prejudice thrives upon. It shows a lack of faith in the American ideal. Our system is supposed to make good Americans out of anyone--it certainly has done so in the case of these boys. You, the Hood River Legion Post, Hearst, and a few others make one wonder just what we are fighting for. I hope it isn't racial prejudice. Come over here, Charlie, I'll show you where ``some good Japanese Americans'' are buried. J.M. Hanley, Hgq. 442nd Inf. APO 758. Mr. President, in conclusion, I offer my deepest sympathy for Col. Hanley's family and his dear wife, Joan. I want them to know of my deepest admiration for him, as they reflect on his significant life.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE. I am most grateful to the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his reasoned argument on the matter before us. In order to further clarify the record, if I may, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 9, 1998, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, with responses to additional questions from Senator Thurmond and Senator Sessions, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend from Utah for his warm and generous remarks. I am most grateful. I yield to my colleague from Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, before I proceed, I thank my dear friend from Utah, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, for reporting out the nomination of Susan Oki Mollway. I also thank my friend from Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Mr. Leahy, for his encouragement throughout this process. And, if I may, I acknowledge and thank the majority leader of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, for scheduling this matter this afternoon. I am certain the people of Hawaii are most grateful for this. Madam President, I am pleased to recommend to my colleagues for their approval the President's nominee to the U.S. district court for the district of Hawaii, Ms. Susan Oki Mollway. Ms. Mollway was nominated to fill a vacancy created more than 3 years ago by the untimely and unexpected death of the Honorable Harold F. Fong. An empty judgeship is considered a judicial emergency after 18 months. This seat has been vacant for more than twice that time. In 1990, under Public Law 101-65, the Congress determined that Hawaii's Federal caseload called for increasing its Federal bench from three to four positions. However, the Honorable Helen Gillmor was not confirmed for that fourth seat until October 31, 1994. Then Judge Fong passed away on April 20, 1995, returning Hawaii to three sitting district judges. Thus, Hawaii has had the benefit of the fourth judgeship for less than 6 months since its authorization in 1990. For the year 1997, the weighted case filings for the three sitting district judges in Hawaii was 706 cases per judge. To give you a sense of what this means, the Federal Judicial Conference's standard indication of the need for additional judgeship is 430 weighted case filings per judge. Ours is 706. Needless to say, Hawaii has justifiably requested that a fifth judgeship be approved. When Judge Fong passed away, Senator Akaka and I undertook the job of interviewing and considering nearly 40 candidates for this judgeship. After personally meeting with these candidates and reviewing their individual backgrounds, Senator Akaka and I were pleased to recommend Ms. Susan Oki Mollway to the President. Ms. Mollway is ready for the position of U.S. district judge, and I believe she is absolutely worthy of your favorable consideration. The majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given her the highest rating of ``well qualified'' for this judicial position. By way of professional background, Ms. Mollway graduated at the top of her class from the University of Hawaii with a degree in English literature. She received later her master's degree in the same field. Then Ms. Mollway went on to Harvard Law School where she graduated cum laude in 1981. For the past 17 years, Ms. Mollway has had a very successful litigation practice with one of the largest and most respected law firms in the State of Hawaii. She has been a partner in that firm's litigation department since 1986. Her impressive litigation experience includes a wide array of areas from Federal labor law to contract disputes to lender liability and appearances before every level of the State and Federal courts, as well as a successful appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994. Ms. Mollway has also taught appellate advocacy at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law and has participated as an arbitrator with Hawaii's court-annexed arbitration program. I have no hesitation in giving my highest recommendation to Ms. Susan Oki Mollway. Questions have been raised about Ms. Mollway's former membership on the board of directorship of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. More particularly, she has been asked to give her personal views on such matters as same-sex marriage, mandatory minimum sentencing, the death penalty, and employee drug testing. Ms. Mollway has responded to these questions and I believe has given a complete account of her own activities with the ACLU. With respect to her personal views, in most instances, Ms. Mollway has stated that she has not formed any personal opinions. More important, as one who may become a Federal trial judge, she clearly understands that her personal opinions are not relevant to the decisions she will make as a judge. Rather, Ms. Mollway has unambiguously and repeatedly recognized in her responses the authority of the Constitution, Federal statutes as passed by the Congress, and case precedent from higher courts. Furthermore, Ms. Mollway has unwaveringly stated that there is nothing whatsoever that prevents her from abiding by and applying applicable law and precedent in cases that may come before her as a Federal district judge. I am certain she will do just that and serve the Federal judiciary and the State of Hawaii with reason, balance, and integrity. Madam President, on a more personal note, I would like to make a few comments about Ms. Mollway's family background, because I have known Susan Oki Mollway virtually all her life. The question that comes before us is why did she join the ACLU? People do things because of background or some experience in life. As a young law student, she began to research the life of Japanese- Americans in the United States. And she came across rather strange decisions made by the Court and also by the Congress of the United States. These are chapters in the history of the United States that many of us would like to forget. But I think it might be well if we reviewed them at this moment. Ms. Mollway found out, for example, that in 1922 the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Japanese were not qualified for citizenship; in other words, they were singled out among all the peoples of the United States and said, ``You cannot be a naturalized citizen.'' Everyone else could be. Then in 1924, the Congress of the United States, in enacting the immigration laws, declared that if people are not qualified for citizenship, they may not immigrate to the United States. So once again the Japanese were singled out and told that they may not come here as immigrants. Then we all know that on December 7, that day of infamy, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Soon thereafter, on February 19, 1942, an Executive order was issued authorizing the Army of the United States to establish, throughout the United States, 10 concentration camps and to place in these camps, for the duration of the war, all Japanese, whether they be citizens or not; and the vast majority were citizens. They were never tried. They were never charged with any crime. Due process was totally ignored. But there they were. Then on March 17 of that year, 1942, a strange decision was rendered and made known. The Selective Service System declared that Japanese- Americans would be designated 4-C. Most Americans may not be aware of what 4-C stands for. Madam President, 1-A is that that person is physically and mentally fit to put on the uniform; 4-F is just the opposite. 4-C is the designation for ``enemy alien.'' And so on March 17, 1942, I was declared an enemy alien. Ms. Mollway's father was also declared an enemy alien. But we proceeded to petition the Government, and I am glad to report that, about 9 months later, the President of the United States issued an order saying that Americanism is not a matter of race or color, Americanism is a matter of mind and heart, and authorized the formation of a special combat team of volunteers. The response was astounding to everyone. In Hawaii, over 85 percent of those eligible to put on the uniform volunteered. What is more astounding than that, hundreds of men who were behind barbed wires in these camps also stepped forward to volunteer to be given the opportunity of demonstrating their Americanism and their loyalty. Many Americans may not be aware of this, but this combat team, at the end of the war, was declared to be the most decorated in the history of the United States Army. There is no evidence or history of any subversive activity on the part of any member. Furthermore, in all of the investigations that were held since the end of that war, they could find not one instance of Japanese involvement in sabotage of fifth column activities. Ms. Mollway read these things, and she did research. And it is obvious for any young person who comes across information of that nature to be quite concerned. And she found that the ACLU was an organization that was concerned about the Constitution, to preserve and defend that most sacred of documents of Americans. And she was especially concerned about the Bill of Rights. So it was natural for her, just as I joined the ACLU because of my concern about the Constitution. But that does not make me any less an American. But this chapter in our lives ends with a burst of glory. I am certain Americans will remember that for the first time a mighty nation, a superpower, admitted their wrong and apologized, and apologized to the 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry who were incarcerated without due process of law. I am pleased to tell you that Susan Oki Mollway's father and I volunteered and we served in this regiment. And Susan could have no better role model to guide her life, professionally or personally, than her own father, who happens to be a lawyer also. I am certain that she mirrors her father in her love of country, in her commitment to the Constitution, and in her patriotism. Once again, Madam President, I wish to thank my distinguished friend from Utah, the chairman of the committee, for reporting this measure. I also wish to thank Mr. Trent Lott, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, for scheduling this matter. We will be forever grateful. Thank you very much. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions and I be permitted to yield back the remainder of our time and that at the hour of 5 p.m., a rollcall vote be taken on this matter.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, may I change that to 5:10?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Richard J. Durbin, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Christopher Midura, a legislative fellow with his staff, be accorded privileges of the floor during consideration of both S. 2057 and S. 2132.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Sense of the Congress bill which calls upon the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis (CA-35) that recognizes the courage, fortitude, and heroism displayed by the crew in the face of tremendous hardship and adversity after their ship was torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Sense of the Congress bill which calls upon the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis (CA-35) that recognizes the courage, fortitude, and heroism displayed by the crew in the face of tremendous hardship and adversity after their ship was torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my amendment will provide the Secretary of the Navy with authority to use up to $300,000 in funds available for operations and maintenance in fiscal year 1999 to pay unpaid back wages and benefits to former employees by Airspace Technology Corporation. The 141 employees affected by this case, from Hawaii, California, Guam and Oklahoma, have gone unpaid for their services due to bankruptcy of the corporation and an error in the Navy's disbursement of monies due the corporation. I am introducing the amendment in response to constituent requests. In addition, the Navy is willing to make the payment, but has indicated that legislative authority is needed to disburse the funds.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which calls upon the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis (CA-35) that recognizes the courage, fortitude and heroism displayed by the crew in the face of tremendous hardship and adversity after their ship was torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint resolution which calls upon the President to award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis (CA-35) that recognizes the courage, fortitude and heroism displayed by the crew in the face of tremendous hardship and adversity after their ship was torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Foilcat, Official Number 1063892, be accorded coastwise trading privileges for a fixed duration and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Foilcat was originally constructed in Norway, in 1992, and is a hydrofoil vessel presently under renovation in a U.S. shipyard. It is 84.2 feet in length and is expected to be less than 100 U.S.C.G. registered tons. The vessel is owned by Steven Loui of Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Loui would like to utilize his vessel to evaluate the use of hydrofoil technology in the establishment of a high speed ferry demonstration project. However, because the vessel was built in Norway, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. The Hawaiian islands are exposed to high and rough surf and it is incumbent that we utilize high speed technologies in order to overcome the impediments of high surf and transportation distance requirements. Foilcat utilizes advanced hydrofoil technologies enabling the vessel to travel at high speeds while also providing safe and comfortable passenger ferry service. Should this technology as applied in passenger ferry service, prove successful, a series of these types of vessels will be built in the U.S.--using U.S. workers. Mr. Loui is planning to invest almost three times the amount of the vessel's purchase price in repairs and upgrades in a U.S. shipyard. My reflagging request would be for a limited time period, which would provide adequate time to evaluate the use of this technology in the establishment of inter and intra-island passenger ferry service. The owner of the Foilcat is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel to evaluate high speed technology in passenger ferry service. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Foilcat to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Foilcat, Official Number 1063892, be accorded coastwise trading privileges for a fixed duration and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Foilcat was originally constructed in Norway, in 1992, and is a hydrofoil vessel presently under renovation in a U.S. shipyard. It is 84.2 feet in length and is expected to be less than 100 U.S.C.G. registered tons. The vessel is owned by Steven Loui of Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Loui would like to utilize his vessel to evaluate the use of hydrofoil technology in the establishment of a high speed ferry demonstration project. However, because the vessel was built in Norway, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. The Hawaiian islands are exposed to high and rough surf and it is incumbent that we utilize high speed technologies in order to overcome the impediments of high surf and transportation distance requirements. Foilcat utilizes advanced hydrofoil technologies enabling the vessel to travel at high speeds while also providing safe and comfortable passenger ferry service. Should this technology as applied in passenger ferry service, prove successful, a series of these types of vessels will be built in the U.S.--using U.S. workers. Mr. Loui is planning to invest almost three times the amount of the vessel's purchase price in repairs and upgrades in a U.S. shipyard. My reflagging request would be for a limited time period, which would provide adequate time to evaluate the use of this technology in the establishment of inter and intra-island passenger ferry service. The owner of the Foilcat is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel to evaluate high speed technology in passenger ferry service. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Foilcat to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on the evening of May 6th, I had the honor of being in the audience to witness the presentation of the 1998 James Forrestal Memorial Award by the National Defense Industrial Association to the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Ted Stevens. The first recipient of this impressive award was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, followed by a number of most distinguished citizens who were personally involved in helping our nation during difficult times, and who guided the development of a close working relationship between our government and private industry toward the requirements of National Security. I have had the privilege of working with Senator Stevens for nearly 30 years. It is no secret that I admire and deeply respect our colleague. Our nation is truly fortunate to have as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, an individual as dedicated to public service and to the maintenance of military strength and readiness. Upon receipt of this award, Senator Stevens shared with the audience his views on the status of the military and our nation's future. These, perhaps provocative, but, definitely profound remarks should be studied and restudied by all who believe in the importance of our military forces. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Stefvens' address be printed in the Record. The Address follows: Address by Senator Ted Stevens As one who admired Sec. James Forrestal, it is a great honor to receive this award which bears his name. The name of a great leader who responded with vision and insight to the defense organizational, and leadership, needs of our Nation after World War II. Indeed, Secretary Forrestal, serving as Secretary of the Navy, demonstrated great courage and wisdom as an advocate for a restructuring of the Department of War and Department of Navy--a restructuring we all know led to today's Department of Defense. The Forrestal Award is especially meaningful coming from your organization--NDIA. By insuring that industry has a strong, clear voice on defense issues, NDIA serves our Nation well. Secretary Forrestal's visionary leadership established a national security structure which has seen us through over fifty years of peace and war. With only modest adjustments, the course he charted allowed us to navigate through the cold war. Some of Secretary Forrestal's observations from 1947 provide a thoughtful perspective on current defense issues. In testimony on the National Security Act of 1947, Secretary Forrestal said the bill ``provides an organization which will allow us to apply the full punitive power of the United States against any future enemy. It provides for the coordination of the three armed services, but what is to me even more important than that, it provides for the integration of foreign policy with national policy, of our civilian economy with military requirements.'' Just as our Nation faced a ``Post World War'' environment in 1947, we now prepare for the 21st century and military contingencies which differ greatly from the cold war. Tonight I will focus on some common themes which motivate us, like Secretary Forrestal, to ponder the need for adjustments in the current defense establishment. After World War II, the nation had to devise a new military-industrial structure to prepare us for an uncertain future. In 1947 testimony, Secretary Forrestal outlined his thinking--he said: ``First, there is a need, apparent during and since the war, for the planned integration of all of the elements, energies, and forces in our Nation which have to be drawn upon to wage successful war. In these categories come not merely the Army and Navy and the State Department, but industry, and by `industry' I mean industrial management, which I regard as one of the keystones which produce success in war.'' All these concerns are valid today, but the facts underlying the need he discussed will be significantly changed. DOD will be buying in a less competitive environment than ever--requiring careful attention to ensure that innovation and foresight are not lost. Further, today's defense systems are more complex, take dramatically longer to develop and build, and cost significantly more to acquire, maintain and operate. In the first nine months of 1945, we accepted delivery 5,111 P-51 Fighters. Now, at the peak rate, we will build 36 F-22's and 48 F-18 E/F's, both with long lead times greater than 33 months. Not only are there fewer prime defense contractors, but each one is moving to be more efficient; inevitably this process will limit or eliminate excess production capacity. The speed and success of Desert Storm demonstrated the new role for industrial management in a ``come as you are'' war. I remember visiting Joint Stars in Saudi Arabia--a system in the demonstration/validation phase of development, but being used in the overall Desert Storm operation--while still under industry control and support. Indeed, we rarely hear discussion now about raw material shortages or industrial surge capacity. And we are no longer an Island Nation--this Nation's military industrial base is now part of a global economy. This industrial challenge has parallels in our military command structure. Secretary Forrestal, intimately familiar with the demands of World War II, enunciated what others often think when he said--``Military strength today is not merely military power but its is economic and industrial strength.'' Today we continually find ourselves in peacekeeping and other contingency missions--missions for which our soldiers and leaders are not necessarily trained or equipped. Instabilities are more likely to call for a response to terrorism, civil war, and ethnic strife, instead of territorial invasion. Future battles may take place in urban environments with political constraints on collateral damage, difficult conflict conditions for any military commander. Deploying military force should not be the solution to every regional, ethnic or humanitarian crises. No forces should deploy overseas unless we establish mission objectives that our political and military leadership can plainly articulate. A second similarity to the challenges faced by James Forrestal is the confidence of the Nation in the weapon systems and combat platforms within the military inventory. Secretary Forrestal concisely outlined his thoughts in words I believe ring true today--``Men fight not for abstractions, but for the concrete things they can visualize in terms of their own country.'' Following World War II, this Nation felt confident in its ability and the then-existing ``Tools of war''. Following operation Desert Storm, the United States was equally confident in our weapons. I saw first hand during the gulf war the impact that ``early'' generation precision guided weapons and information technologies, such as JSTARS, had on our decisive victory in that conflict. The entire world saw those advances also--we now need new technologies to assure that our ``cutting edge'' is sharp. We must implement those technologies rapidly. Obviously, we also need new tactics, new systems, and a modernized command, control, and communications management concept. And, there are new threats--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical and biological weapons, information warfare, and space-based sensors and systems. These resonate Secretary Forrestal's comments on the need for a ``planned integration of all of the elements, energies, and forces in our Nation.'' These new threats call into question the traditional weapons of war as well as the accepted practice of splitting budget resources among the military services. Just as aircraft technology spawned a new military service, the new technology forces which will influence future warfare demand that we look at our research and development priorities and the allocation of procurement funds. The last parallel to 1947 I cite is one I deal with most directly as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee-- that is the pressure of a substantially decreased budget. As each of you know, the defense budget today has reached dangerously low levels. Defense spending has fallen far faster than any other category of Federal spending--dropping 39% since 1985. In constant dollars, it is lower than 1939. Yet, the budget agreement, as well as current public sentiment, makes it most likely that defense spending will be flat through 2002. The pressures on this flat budget are as great as I have ever seen, and probably greater than the pressures faced by our leaders in 1947. One basic fact is that neither Congress nor DOD have much flexibility in the Defense budget. Force structure determines the level of military personnel spending--presently about one-third of our budget. Second, these forces must be trained and ready which consumes roughly one-third of the Defense budget devoted to operation and maintenance. Finally, the remaining one-third is left to modernize and develop the next generation of military systems which will ensure no adversary can match U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. However, this remaining ``one-third'' for modernization is not what it used to be. In constant 1998 dollars, procurement has declined from $104 billion in FY 1988 to $49 billion in FY 1998 and R&D declined from $48 billion to $36.5 billion. That decline is exacerbated by on-going contingency operations in Bosnia and Iraq. The $10.5 billion committed to Bosnia alone from 1995-1999 will consume all the savings achieved by tough base closure and force structure decisions, while also reducing our investment in modernization and R&D. To meet these challenges, we can no longer afford business as usual at DOD. This brings our discussion back to my first point--future conflicts will stress our current military and defense industrial establishment. These entities will have to work together to consolidate functions, precisely define missions, eliminate redundancy and assure victory through perfection of planning and execution through total use of command, control, communications and intelligence functions. The challenge before us today is to look towards a new national defense establishment for a new century in a new millennium--a structure which will allow our great Nation to organize, plan, and maintain peace and security. Secretary Forrestal once said, ``The greatest economy is in preventing war. The best insurance against war is national preparedness and an effective coordination of our foreign and our military policy.'' These are the goals we continue to strive to achieve. I solicit help from each of you in defining new ideas needed to carry this Nation securely into the 21st century. Knowing I will be working with all of you in the days ahead, I am honored to be recognized by this group with the Forrestal Award.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on May 2-4, 1998, more than 1200 students from across the nation will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that a class from Lahainaluna High School from Lahaina, Maui will represent the State of Hawaii. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning competitions in their home state. The distinguished students representing Hawaii are: Iao Eisenberg, Tiffany Fujiwara, Jasmine Hentz, Erin Lockhart, William Myers, Leah Nakamura, Ryan Ott, Michael Prieto, Julie Reed, Sal Saribay, Justin Serrano, Jeffrey Shelton, Yee Ning Tay, Kerry Tsubaki. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Ms. Ruth Hill, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The district coordinator, Ms. Jane Kinoshita, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help these students reach the national finals. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing whereby students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary constitutional issues. The simulated congressional hearing consists of oral presentations by the students before panels of adult judges. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program, has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students nationwide. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. The We the People . . . program is designed to help students achieve a reasoned commitment to the fundamental values and principals that bind Americans together as a people. The program also fosters civic dispositions or traits of public and private character conducive to effective and responsible participation in politics and government. I wish to extend my best wishes to these constitutional scholars in the upcoming We the People . . . national finals and commend them for their great achievement of reaching this level of competition.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in support of the Hutchison amendment to S. 414, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. I believe that this amendment further improves upon the bill as reported out of the Commerce Committee and takes into account and alleviates many of the concerns raised by interested parties who may be affected by the bill. As is true with all compromises, you cannot please everybody. Nonetheless, I believe this amendment represents a workable solution to the regulation of our waterborne foreign commerce and should serve us well for many years to come. I would like to commend my Chairwoman, Senator Hutchison, for her effort in moving this bill forward, and also thank Senators Breaux, Lott, and Gorton for their invaluable imput into the process. I am pleased to note that the bill preserves antitrust immunity for the conference system which has been an integral part of our ocean transportation regime since 1916. While it may be best for everyone if the antitrust laws were applicable on a global basis, it is unrealistic to believe that we could achieve a global recognition of the value and utility of the Sherman Act. However, the Shipping Acts of 1916 and 1984 balanced the inability to apply our antitirust laws to foreign corporations, with a realistic approach allowing us to operate in comity with international shipping regulatory practices, and the need to protect our citizens from potential abuses brought on by a lack of antitrust law enforcement. This bill, however, makes several changes to the conference system to make it more ``user-friendly'' for its shipper customers. For example, the bill requires shipping conferences to allow their members to offer rates that are different than those of the conference--so-called ``independent action.'' As a result, individual conference carriers can offer their own service contracts unimpeded by conference action. I am further pleased that the notice requirement for all independent action has been reduced from 10 business days to five calendar days. This will ensure that independently negotiated rates or service contracts will quickly become effective. I also support the prohibition against conferences requiring their members to disclose service contract negotiations. The bill as reported out of committee treated all service contracts equally. Subsequently, there were several attempts to develop a bifurcated treatment for service contracts, with one set of rules governing carrier agreement service contracts and another dealing with individual carrier contracts. I am pleased that the current amendment returns to a version more closely resembling that which was reported out of committee and, more importantly, treating all service contracts the same. While there was some merit to the bifurcated treatment approach, it may have been very difficult to have implemented in practice. The amendment will require that all service contracts be filed confidentially with the Commission, that they contain certain essential terms, and that a limited number of those terms be published and made available to the general public. I believe that this compromise represents the best approach to service contracting. It allows carriers and shippers a certain degree of confidentiality with respect to the bargains they have struck, while at the same time informing the general public of the types of arrangements being made for certain commodities, for certain minimum volumes, in specific trade lanes. I also believe that the continued filing of the actual contracts with the Federal Maritime Commission ("FMC") will enable it to monitor them and take appropriate action if necessary. It will also help the U.S. port community in monitoring trade developments and reacting accordingly. Like many of you, I am particularly pleased to see that the amendment maintains the FMC as an independent agency overseeing the ocean transportation industry. The Commission has time and again proven its worth in administering Congress' system of regulation and combating unfair foreign shipping practices, most recently in Japan. And the Senate unanimously backed the FMC in its action to address the unfair practices of Japan in passing S. Res. 140. The Commission has developed considerable expertise in implementing the Shipping Act of 1984. It will now be able to bring this expertise to bear on the new era of ocean shipping reform engendered by this bill. Another aspect of this bill that is particularly commendable is the new provision dealing with the disclosure of certain terms of service contracts to labor organizations. A labor organization which is party to a collective bargaining agreement that includes an ocean common carrier now has a mechanism for obtaining information concerning movements of cargo within port areas and the assignment of certain work within those areas. It is my understanding that this type of information is especially relevant to labor organizations and this bill should ensure that they will have easy access to it. This information will enable them to make sure that the terms of their collective bargaining agreement are complied with. This amendment, in my opinion, achieves a balance in S. 414 which provides the best possible compromise among the broad array of interests in shipping. It has not been easy to balance the many disseparate interests involved, but I think that we have reached an approach which accomodates many of these interests. It fosters one of the bill's primary goals of stimulating U.S. exports through a more efficient and market-reliant ocean transportation system. It provides for a more effective system of industry oversight, regulating where we need to and not regulating where we do not. And it keeps the FMC as an independent agency, unfettered by political or other influences as it performs its critical international trade functions. I support this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Pediatric Emergency Medical Services Program was enacted into public law on a truly bipartisan basis on October 30, 1984. Children are not ``merely little adults.'' They have their own unique health care needs, respond to illness and trauma in their own individualized manner, and although children constitute between 20 to 35 percent of hospital emergency department services, too often their families are not really considered an integral component of their treatment and eventual rehabilitation. When President Reagan signed Public Law 98-555, a new era of hope and opportunity had arrived. Over the years, I have been very pleased with the steady growth this program has experienced. The landmark 1993 Institute of Medicine report reminded us, however, that much more still needs to be done. ``Each year, injury alone claims more lives of children between the ages of 1 and 19 than do all forms of illness. . .. Overall, some 21,000 children and young people under the age of 20 died from injuries in 1988. . .. Clearly, preventing emergencies is the best `cure' and must be a high priority, but as yet, prevention is far from foolproof. When prevention fails, families should have access to timely care by trained personnel within a well-organized emergency medical services (EMS) system. Services should encompass prevention, prehospital care and transport, ED and inpatient care at local hospitals and specialty centers, and assistance in gaining access to appropriate follow-up care including rehabilitation services. For too many children and their families, however, these resources have not been available when they were needed. . ..'' I would suggest that the Institute of Medicine has raised a very critical issue for all of us in our nation, and particularly for the well-being of our families. This year, the Administration in its Fiscal Year 1999 budget requested $11 million to continue the Pediatric Emergency Medical Services Program. This figure represents a decrease of $2 million from last year and we might be somewhat distressed by the recommendation. However, I am very pleased that in this time of significant budgetary constraints, Secretary Shalala requested funding. And, I am confident that again this year our colleagues serving on the Appropriations Committees, on both sides of the aisle and in the House and Senate, will enthusiastically respond to the truly pressing needs of our nation's children. I am also confident that we will continue to have the vocal support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Children's Hospitals. But for their active support in the past, it is fair to say that Congressman Bill Young and I would not have been able to be as effective as we have wished. The Department's budget justification continues to point out all too graphically the real need for this program. They point out that: ``Each year over 20,000 children die from injuries. Another 31,447,000 children and adolescents are seen in emergency departments, accounting for $8.6 billion per year in medical costs. Government sources pay all or part of 40 percent of the pediatric emergency department visits, or about $3.4 billion. . ..'' Without question, having appropriate and high quality care available in a timely fashion is an investment in our nation's future. Every one of us should be aware that there is still much to be accomplished in our efforts to protect the lives and future of our loved ones. Even today, only two states require that Basic Life Support vehicles carry all the equipment needed to stabilize a child and only five states require all such equipment for Advanced Life Support ambulances. 34 percent of EMTs and paramedics report that they still do not feel comfortable treating children. In 1996, 66 percent of persons who failed the national EMT exam did so because they failed the pediatric/OB section. A recent study found that paramedics' skills and knowledge for treating critically ill or injured children completely decayed by six months post-training; yet no state requires even annual retraining in pediatric care. Children with special health care needs present major complications for emergency treatment. Yet, only six states have approved continuing education courses that address this topic. Only nine states have the capacity to produce reports on pediatric emergency medical services care using statewide emergency medical services data. Perhaps most significantly, however, is the finding that LESS THAN HALF (46 percent) of hospitals with emergency departments have necessary equipment for stabilization of ill and injured children, and only 40 percent of our nation's hospitals with emergency departments have written transfer agreements with a higher level facility to ensure that children receive timely and appropriate hospital care when they need it. Many public policy experts have also raised the issue of how pediatric emergency care is being covered under managed care programs. Earlier, I referred to the impressive report which the Congress had received from the experts at the Institute of Medicine. In my judgment, perhaps the most critical Institute of Medicine recommendation is that the Congress should provide $30 million annually for this special program. Those of us from Hawaii truly appreciate on a first-hand basis the many far reaching health policy recommendations that have been made over the years by our visionary pediatrician, Dr. Calvin Sia. I, as one U.S. Senator, shall continue to do my best to implement Dr. Sia's recommendations. Our nation's children and families deserve no less.

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, as Chairman Campbell of the Committee on Indian Affairs has observed, I believe it is very important that our colleagues have a clear understanding of the context in which this amendment is being offered. I say this because one might infer that the Secretary of the Interior is pursuing a course of action that is either unwarranted or one which the Congress would never sanction, and I believe it is critically important that we understand that drawing such inferences would be wrong. As Senator Campbell has indicated, in 1988 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted into law. It followed a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1987 in which the Court once again reaffirmed one of the fundamental principles of Federal Indian law; namely, that the civil regulatory laws of the State do not apply in Indian country. In so ruling, the Court concluded that the State of California could not regulate gaming on Indian lands. As often happens, the Congress responded with the enactment of a law that gave to the States that which they did not have after the Court's decision--an ability to enter into a compact with a tribal government under which State laws might apply if the parties so agreed. That law has proven to work well. In fact, twenty-three of the twenty-eight States in which Indian reservations are located, have elected to enter into compacts with the tribal governments in their respective States. Thus, it is clear that the law is working. However, in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled again. The Court found that while the Congress intended to enable the parties to go to a Federal court to resolve any outstanding questions of law relative to gaming activities permitted within each State, or relative to tribal-state compact negotiations, the Congress could not waive the States' eleventh amendment immunity to suit. The result was that if a State refused to negotiate a tribal-state compact for the conduct of gaming, there is no Federal forum to which the parties can go to secure the assistance of the courts in reaching a resolution. So the Secretary of the Department of the Interior--as the Federal official to whom authority has been delegated to manage matters of Indian affairs--took the next step and did what many believe was the responsible thing to do. In the fall of 1996, the Secretary invited comments from the public as to how he should proceed. He posed a question--``should the remaining tribal governments--those that did not have compacts before the Supreme Court's ruling--be precluded from conducting gaming on their lands if a State elects not to enter into compact negotiations?'' Taken together, the responses, I assume were that the Supreme Court and the Congress have recognized the right of tribal governments, as sovereigns, to conduct gaming activities on their lands--and that if the process set forth in the act was no longer workable, then another process ought to be put in place. And so the Secretary proceeded to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, once again inviting comments from the public. Put another way, this whole process that the Secretary has pursued has been conducted in the full light of day, with maximum input from all interested parties. There was ample opportunity provided for everyone to weigh in and have their voices heard. And, because we have yet to enact a legislative remedy to the problem created by the Supreme Court's ruling--it was a necessary and proper action for the Secretary to take. Nonetheless, my colleagues felt it necessary to propose an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, last fall, that would prevent the Secretary from proceeding any further. I was opposed to that amendment, because I believe that through our passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, we have clearly sent a message to Indian country. That message is that we recognize the right to Indian country to seek a means--other than a reliance on Federal appropriations--to foster economic growth in their communities--communities, which have historically been plagued with poverty, the highest rates of unemployment in the Nation, not to mention the sorry state of housing, health care, and education. My colleagues' amendment seeks to send a message to those tribes that have yet to secure compacts--that if for one reason or another, you don't have a compact with a State--you will never have any other way to have gaming activities authorized on your lands. That you will be permanently foreclosed from the one activity that has proven to hold any potential for the economic well-being of Indian communities. That if your tribal economy has been devastated--if there are no jobs to be had on your reservation--that is just too bad. Mr. President, I don't think we can--in all clear conscience--send that message to Indian country. It isn't as though Indian reservations are located on another planet. The strength of tribal economies is every bit as important to our national economy as those of the States and local governments. If there are no jobs on the reservations, people will be, as they have been forced to do in the past, become increasingly more dependent on Federal programs. And this just flies in the face of all good sense and sound judgment. For the past 28 years, our national policy has been to support tribal governments in their quest to become economically self-sufficient. My friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, could give us chapter and verse as to the scarcity of Federal dollars when it comes to meeting the needs in Indian country. For 28 years, we have been saying to the tribes--``get on your feet economically--we will do whatever we can to support you. Like you, we want to see the day when you are self-determining people who no longer need to have your lives dominated by the actions or inaction of the Federal Government.'' The adoption of this amendment will send a decidedly different message. That message is that--``we will cut off Your right, as sovereigns, to determine whether gaming is something you want to employ as an economic tool to lift your communities out of the economic devastation and despair that has plagued Indian country for so long.'' Mr. President, my colleagues know that I am not one who supports gaming. Hawaii is one of two States in the Union that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming. But I have seen what gaming has brought to Indian country and I support gaming for Indian country because I believe that it is one of their Rights as sovereigns within our system of government to determine how to develop the economic base of tribal communities. So while I do not question the good intentions of my colleagues, I would suggest to them and to my other colleagues, that this simply is not a matter that has to be or should be addressed in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The better course of action, in my view, would be to address this matter either in the authorizing committee or as part of the regulatory process. I am advised that the National Governor's Association has already notified the Department that it will be requesting a 30-day extension of the rulemaking procedure--which would take us into the end of May. Finally, the administration has sent up a statement of administration policy on this amendment which makes abundantly clear that the Department of the Interior will recommend a veto of the emergency supplemental appropriations bills, should this amendment be included in the bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It does not involve an emergency situation--there are other forums in which this matter is more appropriately addressed. There is more than sufficient time to take action, if it is necessary, before the rulemaking process is complete. Clearly, we would not be acting today if there were not victims who are desperately in need of the emergency assistance that this bill will make available. I don't think we can responsibly tell them that the help that is so critical to them will not be forthcoming because this bill was vetoed. And we knew that it would be--simply because of an Indian gaming amendment that so obviously did not need to be treated as if it were an emergency and thereby addressed in this bill. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would note that each of my colleagues who spoke in support of this amendment yesterday, all made one and the same assumption--the assumption that States have a right to consent to the conduct of gaming on Indian lands. However, under the Supreme Court's ruling in Cabazon, the States do not have such a right. This is what the Court explicitly held. It is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that carved out a role for the States to play in Indian gaming. In my view, if a State elects not to avail itself of this role-- either by refusing to negotiate for a compact or by asserting it's eleventh amendment immunity to suit--then the State is knowingly opting out of its prerogatives under the act. In so doing, a State has voluntarily passed the responsibility back to the Federal Government. All that the Interior Secretary is doing here is fulfilling his role as trustee by assuring that the action on the part of a State does not abrogate the rights of the tribal governments. When my colleagues suggest that the statute does not envision the Secretary acting without the consent of a State--it is because the statute is premised upon a simple assumption. In 1988, the States aggressively pursued having a role to play in Indian gaming. It was and is then natural to assume that they would act in conformance with what they said they wanted. If a State doesn't want this role, then I would suggest that a State would be hard pressed to object to the Federal Government fulfilling its responsibilities in lieu of the State. This is simple equity. We can always repeal this law. But let us all be clear about what the state of the law would be in the absence of this statute. Tribal governments could conduct gaming on their lands without regard to State law and without the consent of any State. Mr. President, I don't think that is what my colleagues want.