Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment was considered by the Senate in the authorizing session. It was cleared by the Senate and I ask the Appropriations Committee to incorporate that in the bill. It has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of Senator Mikulski, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, what is the pending order of business?

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further call of the quorum be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask that the Senate stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. If I may, Mr. President, I wish to most vigorously associate myself with the remarks of my chairman. He means what he says. If my colleagues do not have amendments ready, we are ready to go to third reading. This is an important measure and therefore it should not be held up. I hope our colleagues will respond to our chairman's request that amendments be brought up.

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. This letter makes it very clear that: [The] USS Missouri belongs in Pearl Harbor, within site of the USS Arizona, where future generations can come and understand America's involvement in World War II, from beginning to end. Mr. President, the GAO report has been cited. The GAO report makes it very clear that Pearl Harbor won the competition without question. And, more importantly, Hawaii did not lose the competition even if it is based solely on financial and technical issues. Mr. President, I realize that no one relishes the thought of losing. We all want to win. But the human affairs of this Nation would tell us that at times one wins and another loses. And if we are to set a precedent that whenever someone loses that he will come to Congress to appeal his case, the process that we have established for the past decades to determine decisions that are very necessary to our Defense Department, if such be subject to appeal at each turn by the Congress, we will get nowhere. I just hope that those of us here will recognize from this report and from all other reports that this competition was won fairly and impartially and that it is in the public interest and the interests of the Navy and our Nation that this ship be based in Pearl Harbor.

Mr. INOUYE. It says that: The Iowa Class Preservation Association . . . is dedicated to acquiring the museum rights to one of the Iowa Class Battleships currently in storage. * * * * * We personally feel that a berth near the USS Arizona Memorial would be an appropriate place for [the Missouri]. Here we have a letter from the Navy League of the United States. And I ask unanimous consent that this letter, as well as another, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. In part it states: This project has the complete support of the Pacific Area Navy League, which has supplied much of [the] manpower and motivation to move this effort along for the past two years. Mr. President, I have a letter from the American Legion of the Department of Missouri, Inc. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the GAO report makes it very clear that the competition was impartial and fair and that, when all the numbers were counted, Pearl Harbor was the winner because, as the Secretary of the Navy has indicated, it will serve our Nation's interests and the interests of the U.S. Navy to have the Missouri memorialized and made into a monument next to the Arizona so that all Americans from this day on will be able to see in one place the beginning and the end of World War II. But, more importantly, Madam President, this amendment does not involve just the Missouri. It involves the process of competition. If the Congress is to be called upon at each time whenever someone loses, where do we end? Whenever there is a competition for the building of a submarine, should the losing State come forward to the Congress and ask for reconsideration? If they lose a carrier, should the losing State come here and ask the colleagues here for reconsideration? We have competition going on at every moment of the day. Madam President, let us not set a bad precedent. I think the time has come for decision. The merits are clear. The State of Missouri is in favor of their ship being berthed in Hawaii. The American Legion is in favor of that. The Navy League of the Pacific is in favor of that. I think the Nation would prefer to have the U.S.S. Missouri have its final resting place in Pearl Harbor where it belongs. Thank you, very much.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the matter before us goes much deeper than the gallant lady, the U.S.S. Missouri. It involves the process of competition in the U.S. Government. Every day there is some competition. There is a competition between two great manufacturing plants to see whether this plant should build a tank or that plant. There are competitions going on as to what company should build the joint strike fighter or the C-17 or the B-2. Should it be Boeing? Should it be McDonnell Douglas? These competitions are part of the life of the U.S. Government. And if we look upon this measure before us as a simple Missouri amendment, then we have not seen the deeper picture; we will be setting a very, very dangerous precedent, Mr. President. This competition was won fairly and impartially. If the Congress of the United States is to take a step to overturn this decision, then what will happen to all the other competitions that we have been faced with? Whenever there is a contest on who would build that submarine-- should it be Norfolk or should it be Connecticut?--if Connecticut wins, should Norfolk come to the Congress and appeal the case, or vice versa? Mr. President, let me just read once again from the letter from the Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary says--and this is from a letter dated June 10; and it is part of the Record at this moment: I have reviewed the General Accounting Office report . . . and I find that it contains nothing that would warrant reopening the process. The General Accounting Office stated that the Navy ``impartially applied'' the donation selection process, and that all applicants received the same information at the same time . . . I remain confident that my selection of Pearl Harbor was in the best interest of the Navy and our Nation, based on the impartial review of the relative merits of the four acceptable applications. . . . The General Accounting Office also noted, however, that none of the applicants requested clarification on any aspect of these two criteria [that the proponents speak of]. No one complained about the process when it was ongoing. The complaints come at the end of the process. It may interest you, Mr. President, to know that the State of Missouri--and this ship is named after the State of Missouri--by resolution that was passed unanimously by the Missouri Senate, the general assembly, the House of Representatives concurring: . . . memorialize the Congress of the United States, the President of the United States, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Secretary of the Navy to take any appropriate action necessary to permanently locate the U.S.S. Missouri at Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii, next to the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial, for the purpose of serving as a Naval Memorial and Museum. . . . There is another organization, Mr. President. It is the Iowa Class Preservation Association. The U.S.S. Missouri is an Iowa class battleship. I will not read the whole letter, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, briefly, it displeases me to be standing here speaking in opposition to my distinguished friend from Washington. But I think it should be remembered by all of us that under current law, the law that is in place, the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to donate any stricken vessel to any organization which can demonstrate its financial means to support it. The Navy is not required to hold a competition nor is it required to select a winning proposal. However, as my friend from Washington noted, when it became apparent that there were several cities vying for the Missouri, such as San Francisco, Bremerton, and Pearl Harbor, the Secretary determined that he would very carefully examine how he would dispose of the ship. In a lengthy competition, the Navy kept all participants equally informed. Nowhere in the GAO report does it say that any city got favorable treatment. They were equally informed of how it would judge the applicants. It determined that in the unique situation at hand it should ensure that this historic ship should be located where it would best serve the Navy and the Nation. Those were the two additional criteria. I think that even without stating that, that should be the first criteria: How best can the interests of this Nation be served? How will the Navy's interests be served? The Secretary issued these new requirements to all of the applicants. According to the GAO, no one received favorable or preferential treatment. The Navy Secretary then had his staff evaluate the criteria. He chose the best proposal as the winning location. Under the current law the Secretary could have selected the losing proposal, but he did not. He chose the winning proposal. And the winner was Pearl Harbor. Now, those that lost say that is not fair. If one would objectively look at the GAO report, it does not suggest that it was not fair. All applicants operated under the same rules. We did not know that the Navy would change the interests which best served their interests. They argue that the competition should be reopened. What is the basis of this argument? The GAO did not recommend that the competition be reopened, nor did the Secretary recommend that the competition be reopened. Instead, they believe, since none of the parties had enough time to consider how their location was the best location for the ship, that we should go back and redo the competition. Madam President, I believe that is completely unfair to the winning team. We have made countless--hundreds--of decisions of this nature. Did we go back to MacDonnell Douglas and say we are going to reopen the competition for the joint strike fighter because they lost to Boeing? No. Did the Navy reopen the competition of the sealift ship contracts when Newport News and Ingalls lost to Avondale? No. Madam President, the amendment by the Senator from Washington, I believe, is unfair and it is bad for all of us. Each of us has had constituents which won and also lost competitions. If we are to go back and reconsider awards even when the GAO does not recommend reopening matters, then I believe we will be in very serious trouble. I believe that the Pearl Harbor applicants won the contest and competition for one simple reason: The Pearl Harbor applicants did not look upon the Missouri as a mere tourist attraction. We have a very sacred ship in Pearl Harbor at this moment, the Arizona. There are over 1,700 men who are still in the ship. It is a memorial. And it happens that more tourists visit the Arizona than they do the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. But it was not built, Madam President, as a tourist attraction. It was built as a memorial to remind all of us that on this dark morning of December 7, 1941, we were suddenly thrust into a bloody and terrible war. The battleship Missouri is a ship upon which the surrender terms were signed by the representatives of the Imperial Government of Japan. The most logical spot for the location is Pearl Harbor. On one hand, you will see the Arizona where the war began, and down Battleship Row you will see the U.S.S. Missouri where the war ended. It would constantly remind us of the many sacrifices that men and women of the United States were called upon to make during that terrible war. I have visited Bremerton. It is a nice place. But I am certain that my colleagues realize that Bremerton is also looked upon by Navy personnel, and others, as the graveyard of ships, where dozens upon dozens of destroyers and cruisers are parked and put in cover hoping that someday they can be used. The Missouri deserves much more than a graveyard, Madam President. The Missouri should be respected with dignity; it should be revered as a memorial. So, Madam President, I hope that my colleagues will follow the suggestions of the GAO. The GAO said it should stand as is. The Secretary of the Navy said his decision stands. Why go through the misery again of spending countless dollars to come up with the same result? I thank the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest that to call upon the Navy as being unfair and not objective is not fair. There is nothing in the record to suggest that they have been less than objective or less than fair. I think it should be pointed out that the GAO report stated that no one received preferential treatment, no one received advance notice. It was objective, it was fair to all, and the Secretary of the Navy just recently stated he stands by his decision, and the GAO report itself says the decision should be left where it is. It should not be reopened. So I hope my colleagues will defeat this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated June 10, 1997, from the Secretary of the Navy to the Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Member of the House of Representatives, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of a most important and timely of resolutions proposed by my distinguished colleague, Senator Pete Domenici. Senate Joint Resolution 100, which was introduced on June 17, 1996, goes to the very heart of a matter of utmost concern--the education of American Indian and Alaska Native children and youth. In exchange for millions of acres of the vast landscape which ultimately formed the very foundation of our Nation, the United States undertook certain responsibilities to those who were here before us. We entered into over 800 treaties with Indian tribes, many of which contained provisions for the education of Indian children. But as we know, this history is a less than honorable one--not only did we violate provisions in almost every single treaty--but we entered into a dark chapter where education meant the forced removal of Indian children from their families and communities. This nearly century-long Federal policy began in 1819 when the Congress enacted a law establishing a civilization fund for the education of Indians. This fund was turned over to religious groups that established mission schools for the education of Indian children. In the late 1840's, the Federal Government and private mission groups combined efforts to launch the first Indian boarding school system, and in 1860, the first nonmission federal boarding school was established. Richard Henry Pratt, the founder of the Carlisle Indian School and considered to be the father of Indian education, believed that in order to transform a people, you must start with their children. This attitude was also expressed by the Federal Superintendent of Indian Schools in 1885 when describing his duty to transform Indian children into members of a new social order. By the end of the 19th century, this pattern of forcibly removing Indian children from their homes and families and sending them to faraway boarding schools had become so pervasive that the Congress enacted legislation in 1895 which made it a crime to induce Indian parents by compulsory means to consent to their children's removal from their environment. And so, for nearly a century, under the guise of education, the Federal Government sought to cleanse Indian children of their Indianness by separating them from their families and communities for many years, by forbidding them to speak their native language and practice their cultural traditions. The ramifications of such policies are still being felt today, and are still remembered in the minds of once-young children, now in their eighties and nineties. While this dark chapter has long since been brought to a close and we have distanced ourselves from such practices, in some respects, I believe we have not come far enough. Indian students today have the highest drop-out rates, the lowest high school completion rate, and the lowest college attendance rates of any minority group. Nearly 38 percent of Indian children above the age of five live in poverty. Such statistics are unacceptable. We simply have not done enough, and we, as a collective body, must agree that more should be done and that we must act accordingly. Mr. President, that is precisely what this measure before us does--it declares the sense of the Senate that the Federal commitment for the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives be affirmed through legislative actions of this Congress to bring the quality of Indian education up to parity with the rest of America. Mr. President, this is about capacity building, about school repairs so that Indian children can learn in safe environments, and about sufficient funding for the operation of 184 Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. It is about addressing Indian adult literacy needs and special education, disability and vocational education needs. It is about using that same educational system which once sought to strip native people of their Indianness, and using it instead to strengthen Indian people and their communities. Mr. President, I am proud to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor of this resolution, and I urge each and every Member of this Chamber to do the same.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Senators Gorton, Kerry, Murray, and Breaux to promote the use of marine ferry and high-speed marine ferry services. The marine ferry system of the United States provides an invaluable component to the transportation requirements of our Nation. As a Senator from an island State, I appreciate the need for passenger/ vehicle ferry services. In general, marine ferries require minimal costs as compared to the costs of new infrastructure such as highways, bridges, and tunnels. In addition, marine ferries are one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation. In coastal urban centers, marine ferry service can provide low-cost, environmentally friendly transportation to areas suffering from congestion. In rural coastal areas, such as barrier islands, marine ferries have been utilized as the sole source of transportation to connect coastal communities to the mainland. While States with marine barriers such as rivers or lakes have utilized marine ferries as low- cost alternatives to highway bridges or additional roadways. Marine ferries have also been used to provide transportation in areas devastated by natural disasters and floods. Ferries were used in the aftermath of the earthquakes in northern California to provide transportation across San Francisco Bay. States such as Washington, Alaska, North Carolina, and Delaware have invested, with great success, in State-run marine ferry services. While other States such as New York, New Jersey, and my own State of Hawaii, are exploring incentives to induce private ferry operations in order to fulfill certain transportation objectives. Private ferry operations and high-speed marine passenger vessels used for dinner cruises and tour excursions, have contributed to the tourism potential of certain areas as well. I am particularly hopeful that the Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine Ferry Act will help us to fulfill our Nation's potential for high-speed marine technology. In the early 1970's, Boeing Marine pioneered the development and construction of commercial passenger hydrofoils capable of operating at 45 knots. Boeing built 25 hydrofoils for high-speed use on the Hong Kong-Macau route before licensing production to Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Japan in the early 1980's, and by 1989, only one high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferry of significant size was in operation. The international and domestic high-speed marine passenger vessel market has recently seen a dramatic expansion, and currently over 60 high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferries are in service or under construction. Fast ferries, until recently, have been primarily used in short sea services on protected routes, but recent advances in design and materials have allowed for the construction of larger vessels capable of being operated on longer open sea routes. New technologies have also opened possibilities for high-speed cargo-carrying operations. The United States has benefited from a number of recent high-speed projects, and from the establishment of a shipyard specifically designed for high-speed marine passenger vessel construction. The Maritime Administration's ``1996 Outlook for the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry'' indicates: New orders for ferries should also continue to provide work for the second-tier shipyards. The enactment of ISTEA continues to provide a significant boost to new ferry projects. In addition, MARAD has a Title XI application pending for the construction of two passenger/vehicle ferries for a foreign owner, valued at more than $171 million. Demand will come from continued promotion of states of ferries for use in their tourist industries, as well as in transportation/commuting, as an alternative to building infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges. The recent award of a $181 million contract to Todd Seattle for three 2,500-passenger ferries and the solicitation for proposals for two additional 350-passenger ferries by the State of Washington, is an added sign that the ferry industry is strong. On the private sector side, there is a demand for the deployment of high-speed, high-tech ferries in the passenger excursion industry. The Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine Ferry Act will build on previous enactments aimed at promoting marine ferry operations. The bill would reauthorize section 1064 of ISTEA, at levels consistent with past years, to allow State-run ferry programs to apply for Federal grants for the construction of ferries, and/or related ferry infrastructure. The bill would also initiate a new program to help provide loan guarantees for private marine ferry operators. A number of States have decided not to operate their own ferry vessels, but instead, have encouraged the private sector to establish marine ferry operations. The provision of loan guarantees to qualified applicants will allow private sector operators to contribute to legitimate public sector transportation needs by providing favorable financing through federally guaranteed loans. The bill would also require DOT to report on existing marine ferry operations and to make recommendations on areas that could benefit from future marine ferry operations, and directs DOT to meet with relevant State and local municipal planning agencies to discuss the marine ferry program. The bill also directs the Marine Board to study high-speed marine technologies, and potential utilization of such technology. I hope my colleagues can join in to continue our support of marine ferry operations. For a relatively small investment, we can leverage State and private operations to address our pressing infrastructure demands.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Senators Gorton, Kerry, Murray, and Breaux to promote the use of marine ferry and high-speed marine ferry services. The marine ferry system of the United States provides an invaluable component to the transportation requirements of our Nation. As a Senator from an island State, I appreciate the need for passenger/ vehicle ferry services. In general, marine ferries require minimal costs as compared to the costs of new infrastructure such as highways, bridges, and tunnels. In addition, marine ferries are one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transportation. In coastal urban centers, marine ferry service can provide low-cost, environmentally friendly transportation to areas suffering from congestion. In rural coastal areas, such as barrier islands, marine ferries have been utilized as the sole source of transportation to connect coastal communities to the mainland. While States with marine barriers such as rivers or lakes have utilized marine ferries as low- cost alternatives to highway bridges or additional roadways. Marine ferries have also been used to provide transportation in areas devastated by natural disasters and floods. Ferries were used in the aftermath of the earthquakes in northern California to provide transportation across San Francisco Bay. States such as Washington, Alaska, North Carolina, and Delaware have invested, with great success, in State-run marine ferry services. While other States such as New York, New Jersey, and my own State of Hawaii, are exploring incentives to induce private ferry operations in order to fulfill certain transportation objectives. Private ferry operations and high-speed marine passenger vessels used for dinner cruises and tour excursions, have contributed to the tourism potential of certain areas as well. I am particularly hopeful that the Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine Ferry Act will help us to fulfill our Nation's potential for high-speed marine technology. In the early 1970's, Boeing Marine pioneered the development and construction of commercial passenger hydrofoils capable of operating at 45 knots. Boeing built 25 hydrofoils for high-speed use on the Hong Kong-Macau route before licensing production to Kawasaki Heavy Industries of Japan in the early 1980's, and by 1989, only one high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferry of significant size was in operation. The international and domestic high-speed marine passenger vessel market has recently seen a dramatic expansion, and currently over 60 high-speed marine passenger/vehicle ferries are in service or under construction. Fast ferries, until recently, have been primarily used in short sea services on protected routes, but recent advances in design and materials have allowed for the construction of larger vessels capable of being operated on longer open sea routes. New technologies have also opened possibilities for high-speed cargo-carrying operations. The United States has benefited from a number of recent high-speed projects, and from the establishment of a shipyard specifically designed for high-speed marine passenger vessel construction. The Maritime Administration's ``1996 Outlook for the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry'' indicates: New orders for ferries should also continue to provide work for the second-tier shipyards. The enactment of ISTEA continues to provide a significant boost to new ferry projects. In addition, MARAD has a Title XI application pending for the construction of two passenger/vehicle ferries for a foreign owner, valued at more than $171 million. Demand will come from continued promotion of states of ferries for use in their tourist industries, as well as in transportation/commuting, as an alternative to building infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges. The recent award of a $181 million contract to Todd Seattle for three 2,500-passenger ferries and the solicitation for proposals for two additional 350-passenger ferries by the State of Washington, is an added sign that the ferry industry is strong. On the private sector side, there is a demand for the deployment of high-speed, high-tech ferries in the passenger excursion industry. The Marine Ferry and High-Speed Marine Ferry Act will build on previous enactments aimed at promoting marine ferry operations. The bill would reauthorize section 1064 of ISTEA, at levels consistent with past years, to allow State-run ferry programs to apply for Federal grants for the construction of ferries, and/or related ferry infrastructure. The bill would also initiate a new program to help provide loan guarantees for private marine ferry operators. A number of States have decided not to operate their own ferry vessels, but instead, have encouraged the private sector to establish marine ferry operations. The provision of loan guarantees to qualified applicants will allow private sector operators to contribute to legitimate public sector transportation needs by providing favorable financing through federally guaranteed loans. The bill would also require DOT to report on existing marine ferry operations and to make recommendations on areas that could benefit from future marine ferry operations, and directs DOT to meet with relevant State and local municipal planning agencies to discuss the marine ferry program. The bill also directs the Marine Board to study high-speed marine technologies, and potential utilization of such technology. I hope my colleagues can join in to continue our support of marine ferry operations. For a relatively small investment, we can leverage State and private operations to address our pressing infrastructure demands.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask this matter be temporarily set aside for final disposition.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this modification has been cleared and approved by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], and the distinguished managers of the measure.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for immediate consideration of my measure.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.