Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce the PACE Provider Act of 1997 with my distinguished colleague Senator Grassley. The Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly [PACE] Act of 1997 began in 1983 with the passage of legislation authorizing On Lok, the prototype for the PACE model, as a demonstration program. In 1986 Congress passed legislation to test the replicability of On Lok's success by authorizing Medicare and Medicaid waivers for up to 10 replication sites; and in 1989 the number of authorized sites was increased to 15. The PACE Provider Act of 1997 is the next step in a series of legislative actions taken by Congress to develop PACE as a community-based alternative to nursing home care. Currently PACE programs provide services to approximately 3,000 individuals in eight States: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are also 15 PACE programs in development which are operational, although not involved in Medicare capitation. In addition, a number of other organizations are actively working to develop PACE programs in other States including: Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. PACE is unique in a variety of ways. First, PACE programs serve only the very frail--older persons who meet their States' eligibility criteria for nursing home care. This high-cost population is of particular concern to policy makers because of the disproportionate share of resources they use relative to their numbers. Second, PACE programs provide a comprehensive package of primary acute and long-term care services. All services, including primary and specialty medical care, adult day care, home care, nursing, social work services, physical and occupational therapies, prescription drugs, hospital and nursing home care are coordinated and administered by PACE program staff. Third, PACE programs are cost-effective in that they are reimbursed on a capitated basis, at rates that provide payers savings relative to their expenditures in the traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay systems. Finally, PACE programs are unique in that a mature program assumes total financial risk and responsibility for all acute and long- term care without limitation. The PACE Provider Act does not expand eligibility criteria for benefits in any way. Rather, it makes available to individuals already eligible for nursing home care, because of their poor health status, a preferable, and less costly alternative. By expanding the availability of community-based long-term care services, On Lok's success of providing high quality care with an emphasis on preventive and supportive services, can be replicated throughout the country. PACE programs have substantially reduced utilization of high-cost inpatient services. Although all PACE enrollees are eligible for nursing home care, just 6 percent of these individuals are permanently institutionalized. The vast majority are able to remain in the community and PACE enrollees are also hospitalized less frequently. Through PACE, dollars that would have been spent on hospital and nursing home services are used to expand the availability of community-based long-term care. This bill would expand the number of non-profit entities to become PACE providers to 45 within the first year and allow 20 new such programs each year thereafter. In addition, the PACE Provider Act of 1997 will establish a demonstration project to allow no more than 10 for-profit organizations to establish themselves as PACE providers. The number of for-profit entities will not be counted against the numerical limitation specified for non-profit organizations. Analyses of costs for individuals enrolled in PACE show a 5- to 15- percent reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending relative to a comparably frail population in the traditional Medicare and Medicaid systems. States have voluntarily joined together with community organizations to develop PACE programs out of their commitment to developing viable alternatives to institutionalization. This legislation provides States with the option of pursuing PACE development; and, as under present law, State participation would remain voluntary. As our population ages, we must continue to place a high priority on long-term care services. Giving our seniors alternatives to nursing home care and expanding the choices available, is not only cost- effective, but will also improve the quality of life for older Americans.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I believe that the Senators have expressed valid concerns. This is an important program, and I hope that we will be able to restore a substantial amount of the funding in conference.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce the PACE Provider Act of 1997 with my distinguished colleague Senator Grassley. The Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly [PACE] Act of 1997 began in 1983 with the passage of legislation authorizing On Lok, the prototype for the PACE model, as a demonstration program. In 1986 Congress passed legislation to test the replicability of On Lok's success by authorizing Medicare and Medicaid waivers for up to 10 replication sites; and in 1989 the number of authorized sites was increased to 15. The PACE Provider Act of 1997 is the next step in a series of legislative actions taken by Congress to develop PACE as a community-based alternative to nursing home care. Currently PACE programs provide services to approximately 3,000 individuals in eight States: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are also 15 PACE programs in development which are operational, although not involved in Medicare capitation. In addition, a number of other organizations are actively working to develop PACE programs in other States including: Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. PACE is unique in a variety of ways. First, PACE programs serve only the very frail--older persons who meet their States' eligibility criteria for nursing home care. This high-cost population is of particular concern to policy makers because of the disproportionate share of resources they use relative to their numbers. Second, PACE programs provide a comprehensive package of primary acute and long-term care services. All services, including primary and specialty medical care, adult day care, home care, nursing, social work services, physical and occupational therapies, prescription drugs, hospital and nursing home care are coordinated and administered by PACE program staff. Third, PACE programs are cost-effective in that they are reimbursed on a capitated basis, at rates that provide payers savings relative to their expenditures in the traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay systems. Finally, PACE programs are unique in that a mature program assumes total financial risk and responsibility for all acute and long- term care without limitation. The PACE Provider Act does not expand eligibility criteria for benefits in any way. Rather, it makes available to individuals already eligible for nursing home care, because of their poor health status, a preferable, and less costly alternative. By expanding the availability of community-based long-term care services, On Lok's success of providing high quality care with an emphasis on preventive and supportive services, can be replicated throughout the country. PACE programs have substantially reduced utilization of high-cost inpatient services. Although all PACE enrollees are eligible for nursing home care, just 6 percent of these individuals are permanently institutionalized. The vast majority are able to remain in the community and PACE enrollees are also hospitalized less frequently. Through PACE, dollars that would have been spent on hospital and nursing home services are used to expand the availability of community-based long-term care. This bill would expand the number of non-profit entities to become PACE providers to 45 within the first year and allow 20 new such programs each year thereafter. In addition, the PACE Provider Act of 1997 will establish a demonstration project to allow no more than 10 for-profit organizations to establish themselves as PACE providers. The number of for-profit entities will not be counted against the numerical limitation specified for non-profit organizations. Analyses of costs for individuals enrolled in PACE show a 5- to 15- percent reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending relative to a comparably frail population in the traditional Medicare and Medicaid systems. States have voluntarily joined together with community organizations to develop PACE programs out of their commitment to developing viable alternatives to institutionalization. This legislation provides States with the option of pursuing PACE development; and, as under present law, State participation would remain voluntary. As our population ages, we must continue to place a high priority on long-term care services. Giving our seniors alternatives to nursing home care and expanding the choices available, is not only cost- effective, but will also improve the quality of life for older Americans.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join today with my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, to congratulate Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky and her staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on their outstanding work to date in the World Trade Organization [WTO] action involving the European Union [EU] banana policy. On March 18, 1997, a neutral WTO panel charged with reviewing the banana case issued a detailed interim report finding the EU regime to be in violation of over 20 WTO principles. This represents more violations in a single case than has ever before been found in the history of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and WTO dispute settlement. Although narrow in scope, the one implication I am obliged to mention first relates to U.S. banana production. Hawaii has produced bananas commercially for almost 160 years. Bananas are Hawaii's seventh leading agricultural crop by value and show considerable promise for expansion and export. This growth potential is extremely important as Hawaii makes a critical transition from a large plantation style agricultural base in sugar and pineapple to a diversified crop base featuring a very wide range of tropical and subtropical products. While Hawaii is a small producer of bananas by global standards, the distortions to global banana trade caused by the EU banana import regime have taken a decisive toll on Hawaiian producers in the form of depressed producer prices. If the EU's panel report is adopted as expected, it will have a leveling effect on the prices received by Hawaii banana growers. Other U.S. agricultural interests far beyond the banana sector also stand to benefit if the banana panel ruling is adopted in its present form. Farming interests throughout our country, including in Hawaii, share a widespread concern that international agreements do not adequately protect them against unfair foreign trading practices, particularly against repeat offenders like the EU. With the banana report now out in preliminary form, we are close to having in hand the most favorable, comprehensive findings ever rendered against a single EU agricultural policy. The Journal of Commerce properly described the ruling as ``a welcome signal that the WTO will not simply acquiesce when Brussels requires all member nations to raise their trade barriers to the highest level imposed elsewhere in the union.'' I request that the Journal of Commerce editorial in which that quote appears, entitled ``Ending banana inanity,'' be included in the Record immediately following our remarks today.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at the request of President Clinton, I rise to introduce legislation which directs the Secretary of the Interior to plan for the design and construction of a permanent addition to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR] Memorial. The FDR Memorial Commission was organized in 1955 for the purpose of considering and formulating plans for the design, construction, and location of a permanent memorial to President Roosevelt. I have had the distinct pleasure of serving on the Commission for 27 years along with our former colleague, Senator Mark O. Hatfield. The FDR Memorial will be dedicated on Friday, May 2, 1997. This memorial represents a plan and design that has undergone extensive review and study by the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Congress. After 23 years, and three design competitions, one of which bestowed a $50,000 award, the final design for the memorial was approved in 1978. Approximately 2 years ago, after all design plans were approved, all funding appropriated by the Congress, and the construction of the memorial was well underway, the disabled community made a demand that the Commission add another statue of FDR in a wheelchair. In the early days, the children of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt made it clear they wanted no statue showing President Roosevelt in a wheelchair. I might add that during the approval process no member of the disabled community came forth to request the Commission amend the design plans for the memorial. However, in an effort to be sensitive to their concerns yet historically accurate, the Commission agreed to display an exact replica of one of President Roosevelt's wheelchairs in the entry building of the memorial. It was determined that existing wheelchairs are too fragile to be loaned to the memorial. Consequently, Senator Hatfield and I instructed the National Park Service to prepare for display an exact replica of one of President Roosevelt's wheelchairs. A cabinetmaker is building the chair and other wooden parts, a wheelmaker is producing 18-inch rims and tires and a metalsmith is assembling the completed chair. In addition, in the memorial's entry building there will be a display of mounted photographs of President Roosevelt, including one of the two known photographs of him in a wheelchair. The photograph to be displayed will be 12 inches tall and 9 inches wide. Also included in the memorial is a time line of the major events of FDR's life, carved in granite, which states: ``1921 stricken with poliomyelitis--he never again walked unaided.'' The Commission tried its best to ensure that the initial wishes of the Roosevelt family were carried out, along with the design plans approved by the Commission of Fine Arts. The Commission has also tried to be sensitive to the concerns of those citizens having to spend their lives in a wheelchair. It is true that the depiction of President Roosevelt in a wheelchair will inspire the tragically afflicted. It may very well be a more honest way to depict President Roosevelt. Accordingly, at President Clinton's request, I am pleased to introduce this legislation which directs the Secretary of the Interior to plan for the design and construction of a permanent addition to the FDR Memorial, and I thank my colleagues for their support and in the Senate acting expeditiously.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I request that the statement entitled ``Peace! Where Art Thou?'' written by my constituent, Ruben Ortiz-Paez, be printed in the Congressional Record. I encourage my colleagues to read this thoughtful essay. The statement follows: ``Peace! Where Art Thou?'' (By Ruben Ortiz Paez) At a meeting to discuss World Peace, its Chairman closed the meeting with the following remarks: ``After considerable effort, we are still groping like the Blind to come up with a significant dialogue which would contribute to the cause of Peace.'' After slight applause, he offered to field questions. A blind man raised his hand and he was recognized. He stood up and this is what he had to say: ``Mr. Chairman and Members: I really don't have a question, but if you will bear with me, I do have a few words to say. ``The Chairman approved and he continued: ``I don't think that it s fair to suggest that we haven't come up with solutions; the best minds in the world are devoted to finding Peace, and so far, they have come up with Zilch! ``Peace has always been desired, but there are leaders among nations who seem to derive Satanic pleasure in obstructing or derailing Peace initiatives! How then in Heaven's name, could Peace be expected to flourish? Here's a splendid suggestion: A sure way, is for us to embrace and spread The charity of Love! For Peace is Love's God-child, and it will flourish wherever Love and compassion dwell in the Hearts of Men! ``I know that it's difficult to understand; and some would dare to say that it's just a pipe-dream! But not so, if my logic is considered with an open mind; reinforced with the Undeniable Truth, that Love is more contagious than all of the deadly viruses, so far identified by medical science and research! ``Here then, Mr. Chairman, I humbly offer the following, which I hope you may be able to consider as an acceptable contribution to the cause of Peace. It will probably be dismissed as an illusion by the skeptics, due to it's spiritual connotation, but I ask you sir, what other choice do we have? ``It takes just one person who's a `carrier' to start an epidemic! So what are we waiting for? Let's be the `carriers' to start an epidemic of Love! It isn t all that difficult, all that it takes is for us to shed our shyness; our fear that our affection could be misunderstood! It will be well worth it, and surely the Prince of Peace, will bless us for it, since his exhortation ``Love your neighbor as yourself'' means not only the one next door, but all with whom we share the Earth! ``Dear Members: If I can visualize all these things despite my blindness, just try to imagine, the great and wonderful things that you will be able to accomplish with God's gift of sight and optimism, in a world firmly determined to live in Peace, in the fast-approaching New Millennium! ``Thank you for allowing me to express my pent-up emotions and my layman's assessment of such a pressing and complex subject. May God bless you!'' The blind man received a standing ovation and the applause was deafening!

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there have been many supportive comments on the remarks I presented last week on the need to acquire nine additional B-2 global precision strike aircraft. There is one response, in particular, which I wish to share with my colleagues. Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia served the Senate for many years. Through dedicated work and thoughtful analysis, Senator Nunn came to be regarded as a national authority on defense issues. I now ask that a letter in support of additional B-2 procurement, which Senator Nunn sent to Congressman Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Committee on National Security, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, be printed in today's Record. I believe that all Senators will benefit from a close and thoughtful reading of former Senator Nunn's letter. The letter follows: King & Spalding Washington, DC, March 10, 1997. Hon. Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Committee on National Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for asking me to provide testimony for your March 12, 1997, hearing on bomber force structure. As you know, I have been a strong supporter of the B-2 bomber program since its inception as the Advanced Technology Bomber in the early 1980's. I continue to believe that 21 B-2 bombers will not constitute an adequate force level to deal with many likely future contingencies and crises, and that no other military systems in existence or on the drawing boards can adequately substitute for the capabilities the B-2 offers. Therefore, I strongly endorse the Subcommittee's reconsideration of the future bomber force structure to include the issue of resuming production of the B-2 bomber. I believe the Subcommittee needs to carefully consider the following points in its deliberations. * For the foreseeable future, two major hot spots will remain in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula. Yet these set-piece scenarios should not be the only scenarios against which the adequacy of our forces (and our military strategy) are tested. * Potential enemies have learned several valuable lessons from Iraq's experience during Operation Desert Storm don't give the U.S. time to deploy forces and their support to the theater, do focus on disrupting U.S. air operations, do target strategic objectives that allies will be reluctant to counterattack (Seoul, Saudi oil field, etc.) and plan to seize them rapidly, before U.S. power can be brought to bear. * Future conflicts are likely to confront the U.S. with a race against time and the advance of enemy forces toward important strategic objectives (think how different it might have been if Saddam's troops had not stopped after taking Kuwait.) * U.S. contingency planning, including the BUR analyses and the JCS ``Nimble Dancer'' wargames (and the widely criticized 1995 DOD Heavy Bomber Study), assumes the U.S. will enjoy two weeks of actionable warning prior to an enemy attack-- valuable time during which our military plans to deploy forces from CONUS and Europe, and more important, to start the sealift bridge from CONUS to the theater. * This sealift link is crucial to U.S. performance in 1990, the U.S. needed six months in which to build up forces levels and to establish the sealift pipeline to support those forces during high-intensity conflict. Yet, the adequacy of logistics support has never been adequately modeled in JCS wargames. * In 1994, Iraq suddenly mobilized troops and sent them to the border with Kuwait The U.S. response capability raises serious questions. U.S. planning assumes two carriers in the Persian Gulf, yet there were none, U.S. planning assumes deployment of many hundreds of tactical aircraft to the theater in the first week, yet only about one hundred arrived, U.S. planning assumes prepositioned equipment aboard ships berthed at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean are important assets, yet these ships did not arrive until after the crisis was ended, U.S. planning assumes many precision munitions, yet supplies in the theater were low. * If an important class of future contingencies will be those in which U.S. forces are trying to prevent an enemy surprise attack from seizing high-value targets, then U.S. forces will have to place a premium either on combat-ready forces stationed within the theater or on forces that can reach the theater and conduct effective operations in a timely fashion. * We cannot count on having stationed forces in the right place at the right time, all the time. This suggests the importance of long-range assets, to provide the flexibility to respond rapidly from CONUS to trouble spots around the globe. The B-2 can reach any point on the globe from just three bases--Guam, Diego Garcia, and the U.S. * Once in the theater, U.S. assets must be both survivable and highly effective against an invading enemy force. The B-2 bomber has a combination of range, payload, and stealth that is unmatched by any other system. And, precision munitions are continuing to enhance the value of all tactical aircraft, including the B-2 bomber. * The value of stealth for conducting operations in a high- threat environment has been clear ever since the air operations against Iraq began in early 1991. The F-117A Stealth Fighter conducted countless missions over Baghdad without any loses and are widely cited for the success of the air war. Yet the F-117A has many operational limitations--it is a medium altitude attack platform capable of effective operations only at night in clear weather. * The B-2 is an all-altitude, all-weather platform that is more stealthy than the F-117A and that carries many more individually-targetable weapons. The B-2's advanced capabilities go well beyond those of the F-117A or any other non-stealthy bomber. * A number of recent analytic studies have shown that against many plausible invading forces, 20 or 21 B-2 bombers are simply not enough force to stop enemy invaders short of their important strategic objectives. * The cost of additional B-2's is high relative to non- stealthy, short-range tactical aircraft. But so is the cost of failing to stop a determined enemy short of his strategic objectives. The inherent flexibility and capability of the B- 2 bomber will be most important in those cases where we are surprised, where an enemy doesn't do what we had expected, and/or where we did not plan to have to fight. I commend these points to the attention of your Subcommittee, and would urge you to undertake a searching review of the assumptions and assertions that underlie present U.S. military contingency plans. I thank you for inviting me to submit these thoughts for the Subcommittee's consideration and for your Subcommittee's careful attention to these important questions for national security. Sincerely, Sam Nunn.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which amends title 38, United States Code, to restore full veterans' benefits, by reason of service to certain organized military forces of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Philippine Scouts. On July 26, 1942, President Roosevelt issued a military order that called members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the U.S. Forces of the Far East. Under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, our Filipino allies joined American soldiers in fighting some of the most fiercest battles of World War II. From the onset of the war through February 18, 1946, Filipinos who were called into service under President Roosevelt's order were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service in our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, on February 18, 1946, the Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946 (now codified as section 107, title 38, United States Code), which states that service performed by these Filipino veterans is not deemed as active service for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges, or benefits. On May 27, 1946, the Congress extended the limitation on benefits to the new Philippine Scouts units. Interestingly enough, section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for nonservice connected disability, and denied them other benefits such as pensions and home loan guarantees. Additionally, section 107 limited the benefits received for service- connected disabilities and death compensation to 50 percent of what was received by their American counterparts. As a result, Filipino veterans sued to obtain relief from this discriminatory treatment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on May 12, 1989, in Quiban versus U.S. Veterans Administration, declared section 107 unconstitutional. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed that ruling and the veterans did not file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, the Congress is the only hope for rectifying this injustice. For many years, Filipino veterans of World War II have sought to correct this injustice by seeking equal treatment for their valiant military service in our Armed Forces. We must not ignore the recognition they duly deserve as U.S. veterans. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would restore full veterans' benefits, by reason of service, to our Filipino allies of World War II. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which amends title 38, United States Code, to restore full veterans' benefits, by reason of service to certain organized military forces of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Philippine Scouts. On July 26, 1942, President Roosevelt issued a military order that called members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the U.S. Forces of the Far East. Under the command of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, our Filipino allies joined American soldiers in fighting some of the most fiercest battles of World War II. From the onset of the war through February 18, 1946, Filipinos who were called into service under President Roosevelt's order were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service in our Armed Forces. Unfortunately, on February 18, 1946, the Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946 (now codified as section 107, title 38, United States Code), which states that service performed by these Filipino veterans is not deemed as active service for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, privileges, or benefits. On May 27, 1946, the Congress extended the limitation on benefits to the new Philippine Scouts units. Interestingly enough, section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for nonservice connected disability, and denied them other benefits such as pensions and home loan guarantees. Additionally, section 107 limited the benefits received for service- connected disabilities and death compensation to 50 percent of what was received by their American counterparts. As a result, Filipino veterans sued to obtain relief from this discriminatory treatment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on May 12, 1989, in Quiban versus U.S. Veterans Administration, declared section 107 unconstitutional. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed that ruling and the veterans did not file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, the Congress is the only hope for rectifying this injustice. For many years, Filipino veterans of World War II have sought to correct this injustice by seeking equal treatment for their valiant military service in our Armed Forces. We must not ignore the recognition they duly deserve as U.S. veterans. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure which would restore full veterans' benefits, by reason of service, to our Filipino allies of World War II. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I want to address a very serious issue, which is at the heart of the defense of our Nation's interests. I want to address the need to acquire a meaningful long- range-strike weapons system. I want to address the procurement of nine more B-2 bombers, which are needed to complete a three-squadron fleet that will have the means to deter, the capabilities to defend against, and the power to defeat threats to our national interest. I speak today in support of America's most capable long-range-strike aircraft, the B-2 bomber. The B-2 is not just a bomber. When most people think of bombers, they think of World War II airpower films, with scores of bombers flying in tight formation, dropping strings of iron bombs on rail lines and oil refineries. The B-2 is more than a bomber. It is a long-range-strike aircraft, capable of reaching anywhere in the world and releasing highly sophisticated, explosive weapons with uncommon precision on specific targets. Unlike the bombers of old, which often missed their targets by miles, the B-2 strike aircraft can hit as many as 16 separate aim points, with deadly accuracy, in a single pass. Mr. President, it defies convention to think of the B-2, with its high sticker cost, as a cost-effective weapon. Only when we stop thinking of the B-2 as a bomber, and instead think of it as a long- range-strike weapons system, do we realize that it is, indeed, the most cost-effective weapons system in our Nation's arsenal which can realistically be used to protect our citizens, our interests, and our allies around the world. It is the only weapons system that combines long-range, large payload, modern precision weapons, and stealth--a revolutionary and powerful combination. Since the end of the cold war, we have come to recognize that we no longer live in a bipolar world. Threats to our national security have taken on both familiar and unfamiliar forms: renewed territorial aggression, simmering regional and ethnic conflicts, state-sponsored terrorism, and now, for the first time since the Middle Ages, stateless terrorism. We send our forces abroad to protect air bases and oil fields and our sons and daughters are attacked by religious zealots. We all vividly recall the loss of life at our military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It was attacked, not by the Iraqi forces we seek to deter, but by nameless terrorists from Iran, or from Lebanon, or from internal Saudi opposition groups, or from God knows where. With the B-2, the forward air bases would not be needed; the oil fields could be protected from afar. What happened when Saddam Hussein attacked the U.N.-protected Kurdish safe zone in northern Iraq? We attacked Baghdad and southern Iraq. Because the leadership in Jordan, in Saudi Arabia, in Turkey, and in other countries, where we have shorter range aircraft, was concerned with stirring up public opinion, United States forces were denied the freedom to launch counter strikes from air bases on their territory. With the B-2, we could have struck Saddam Hussein's forces in the North, from bases in the United States. The Secretary of Defense stated in his annual report for fiscal year 1996: ``Because potential regional adversaries may be able to mount military threats against their neighbors with little or no warning, American forces must be postured to project power rapidly to support United States interests and allies.'' Clearly, the most appropriate weapon in our arsenal for rapid power projection is the B-2 long-range- strike aircraft. Yet, because of legislation--which has now been repealed--we currently have only two squadrons of B-2's. In order to meet effectively our basic strategic objectives, just nine more B-2's, bringing the total to three squadrons, are essential. Mr. President, we must restart this program; we must provide funding for the B-2 this year. The B-2--a long-range, precision-strike aircraft--is the best, and perhaps only, option available to us to counter emerging threats in our security environment. We are not able to spend as much for defense as we have in the past, causing us to decrease our presence abroad and base more of our forces here at home. This, in turn, limits our forward presence and ability to rapidly respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world. In addition, access to foreign bases, closer to theaters of conflict, has become more and more uncertain. And above all, weapons of mass destruction and accurate delivery systems are becoming more prolific, possibly held by rogue states and organized terrorists alike. These chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons could be used with devastation to attack American ground, naval, and air forces based within a theater of conflict. How does the B-2 respond to these challenges? The B-2 uses stealth technology, technology more effective than that employed on F-117 fighter bombers in the gulf war. As you recall, these planes were the key to securing the advantage immediately in the air war and remained impossible for the Iraqis to stop. However, the B-2 is a more powerful and flexible weapon, and offers several advantages over the F-117. First, it is a long-range system. The B-2 can fly anywhere in the world, from bases in the United States, with only one refueling. These factors also make the B-2 an important tool for deterrence, allowing the President the ability to strike anywhere in the world immediately. Thus, a counterstrike can be launched from the United States, as soon as the threat is apparent, without reliance on foreign bases, or troop buildup. Second, the B-2 carries a bigger, more accurate payload than the F- 117. The precision bombs carried by the B-2 use GPS-aided targeting systems, and GPS-aided munitions [GATS/GAM], which enables up to 16 independent points to be targeted with extreme accuracy, in 1 pass. This precision is an important counter to the mobile and relocatable nature of many of our new potential enemies, such as scud missiles or terrorist encampments. The local release of a strike allows last minute adjustments to account for local conditions, or target movement. This is not possible with cruise missiles. In addition, delivering a strike via bomber also allows difficult targets, like the dark side of a mountain, or underground bunkers, to be attacked and destroyed. One of the most important points to make about the B-2 is that it will reduce the number of American soldiers put in harm's way, and ultimately reduce casualties. Because the President can choose to respond immediately, or preemptively, engagement in a conflict or its escalation, may be avoided. Because the aircraft is launched from outside the theater, all support personnel and equipment are also outside the theater of conflict. Because the B-2 utilizes stealth, the need for escort aircraft, which are also theater-based, is eliminated. I have read several estimates about the value of stealth and precision weapons, and one that sticks in my mind is that one B-2 bomber has the combat power of 75 non-Stealth aircraft. This last statistic illustrates another important factor in our consideration to build nine additional B-2's: the program will provide cost savings in the long run. This may be hard to believe, when we are talking about aircraft that cost $850 million each to build, but as I have explained--the B-2 requires less support; is more precise, requiring fewer sorties to accomplish the task; and, may reduce the need for further massive troop and aircraft involvement. Air Force analysis shows that, operating independently, free of the requirement for fighter escorts, electronic jamming aircraft, and tankers, a single B-2 with two crew members can accomplish missions currently requiring 75 tactical aircraft and 147 crew members. The B-2's ability to penetrate air defenses, without the usual armada of support aircraft, means that we can, in some mission areas, replace dozens of aircraft with one bomber, potentially saving billions of dollars over the long run. Mr. President, the American bomber force currently relies most heavily on two aging conventional bomber aircraft--the B-52 and the B- 1. In order to maintain mission safety while attacking specific, above ground targets, these bombers must use cruise missiles. These missiles are more expensive--the 44 cruise missiles fired against Iraq during the gulf war cost more than $100 million--over 100 times more expensive than what an equivalent number of precision, direct-attack weapons, delivered by the B-2, would cost. Moreover, these missiles are less effective--current-generation cruise missiles cannot be used against mobile or heavily hardened targets. The B-2 long-range-strike aircraft is cost effective. Mr. President, the last B-52 was built 35 years ago. It has been a very successful aircraft, but it will not last forever. As we look to the future, with the retirement of B-52's and the withdrawal of the B-1 from active service, the B-2 will be the only long-range aircraft in the Air Force inventory. That is why the B-2 program also represents an important opportunity for the United States to maintain superiority in a critical field of production. This program is the only remaining component of the combat aircraft manufacturing industry in California. By building the remainder of the third squadron, the production lines would stay open another 10 years. Not only would this sustain American know-how in this important industry, but would also save tens of thousands of jobs within aerospace and related industries. When we buy the B-2 we are not only buying the best long-range-strike aircraft in the world, we are also investing in the industrial capacity to produce them. We preserve the industrial base, while preserving the ability to project power anywhere in the world to protect American interests. Another important cost factor to consider is what we have already invested in this revolutionary weapons system. If we do not have the foresight to approve the remaining nine bombers now, the costs to restart this program will be much greater in the future, as the need becomes more critical. Planning ahead will allow us to get more value from the money and effort already committed to this project. Mr. President, earlier, I mentioned Saddam Hussein's aggression against the Kurds last fall, as an example of new threats to our national security. This is especially true since administration officials have stated that we should expect to contend with Saddam on a yearly basis from now on. In response to Saddam's movements against the Kurds, on September 3, 1996, we attacked targets in the southern regions of Iraq. It would have been more effective to strike the Republican Guard, which was the actual threat to the Kurds in the north, or the hardened command and control centers of the Iraqi leadership in Baghdad. However, our insufficient response to Saddam's assault resulted from a lack of options available to us. Because Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey each indicated that they would not permit American aircraft from launching air strikes from bases in their countries, we were forced to use other options not dependent on foreign governments: carrier airpower, bombers, and cruise missiles. The inherent limitations of each of these options imposed constraints on where and what we could attack--the northern targets were out of range of carrier-launched missions and, because the targets were mobile, cruise missiles could not be used. The most important targets in Baghdad were too heavily protected for conventional, non- Stealth aircraft delivering cruise missiles that, in any event, could not penetrate underground bunkers. Thus, we had to choose targets that were easier to attack: fixed targets, which were above ground and not hardened and, therefore, vulnerable to cruise missile attacks within range of carrier-based aircraft in the southern no-fly zone. In order to more effectively attack Saddam and punish his aggressive actions, we would have had to use a stealth weapon to elude detection by Iraqi air defense; a long-range weapon, not based in a foreign country; and a precise weapon to strike the mobile and hardened targets presented in Iraq. Our B-2 is this weapon. It is the only tool in our arsenal that allows us to respond to the new threats we face in an unequivocal and decisive fashion. What about those who say we don't need any more B-2 bombers? The issue of our bomber capacity was addressed in the Department of Defense Heavy Bomber Force Study. This study concluded that our current force would be sufficient through sometime around 2015. I was very disappointed with the conclusions of this study, not only because I believe the study was fundamentally flawed and based on unrealistic assumptions, but also because I believe the B-2 is the most vital weapon of our future. The study utilizes a scenario of two regional conflicts, but assumes that our enemies would be incredibly considerate of our needs. It was assumed that we would have a 14-day advanced warning of an enemy attack, allowing time to deploy our forces; that the two regional conflicts would not be simultaneous, so our bombers could be used in both conflicts; and that no weapons of mass destruction would be used to poison the ground and air in the area where we would intend to deploy our troops. These were the assumptions. I ask my colleagues, with the furor aroused in the American populace by the gulf war syndrome and the conflicting stories which have emerged from the Pentagon, is there anyone who still believes that we would deploy forces into an area where we suspect the enemy has released chemical or biological weapons? What is to prevent an enemy from discharging chemical or biological agents in an area prior to the initiation of open hostilities? Would our troops be able to deploy into the theater of conflict without interference? Could they set up and operate air bases and troop reception centers while under the threat of chemical or biological weapons? I am confident that the answers point to the urgent need for long-range-strike aircraft and support the acquisition of nine more B-2 aircraft. The heavy bomber study also made some broad assumptions about other factors that may or may not be in our control. The study assumes that we will be able to move our troops and equipment faster than we ever have before; that all of our allies will be on board and welcome foreign troops into their bases and ports; that our forward locations will also be conveniently located near the regional conflicts; and that our current equipment, including bombers built in the 1950's and 1960's, will be available and fully functional. Altogether, these are awfully big leaps of faith to make about uncertain enemies and unlikely conditions in the future. If any one of the unrealistic assumptions does not hold true, the B-2 becomes our primary weapon and our only practical option. It is the only system that is not vulnerable to surprise attack. It is the only system that is independent of support aircraft based in the theater of conflict. It is the only system that is capable of operating beyond the range of weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, we have also learned that our allies do not always cooperate readily with our requests to use bases in their countries, or fly through their airspace, when answering aggression--again, examples are the United States raid on Libya in 1986 in response to terrorist bombings and the attack on Iraq last year when organized Iraqi forces attacked Kurds in northern Iraq. To give the President the best option to protect American interests and citizens, while reducing to a minimum the risk to American soldiers, we need to have the most effective tool available--an independent, global, precision strike system. We need to give him this option and take advantage of the most advanced technology available; we must approve funding in order to complete the third squadron of B-2's. Mr. President, I am no military expert. But those whom I know and trust, men such as retired Air Force General Charles Horner, who ran the air campaign in the gulf war, have determined that three squadrons of B-2's represent the minimum operational capacity required to meet our basic military objectives. In order to halt an invasion from bases at home, and to conduct a strategic air campaign, like that of the gulf war, from bases at home, the Air Force needs three squadrons of B-2's. These three squadrons are also critical to neutralizing weapons of mass destruction and theater ballistic missiles; establishing air superiority and attacking enemy airfields; and suppressing enemy air defenses; all of which then enable the deployment of forces to the theater when necessary. Mr. President, history shows us that surprise attacks, both strategic and terrorist, do happen and are very effective--Pearl Harbor and Korea, as well as the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, and on our installation in Dhahran--are poignant examples of our past failures. We dare not fail again. We need to plan for surprise--to equip our military forces with the ability to blunt or defeat an attack anywhere, at any time, and with weapons that we will actually use and which others believe we will actually use. That means conventional explosives delivered with great accuracy and with immediacy and with little risk of U.S. casualties. That means the B-2 long-range-strike aircraft. Mr. President, with the B-2, our ability to respond effectively to diffuse global threats, through the projection of American power, is secure; without it, our foreign policy is one of dependence on others, our interests are hostage to public opinion in foreign countries, and our soldiers, whom we send to defend our interests abroad, are needlessly imperiled. Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to support the acquisition of nine more B-2 aircraft, to establish the minimal, militarily effective force of three squadrons.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to an excellent article by Warren Dean that appeared in the March 11, 1997 edition of the Journal of Commerce, which so eloquently states the reasons why it would be foolish to weaken or repeal the Jones Act. I am a longstanding supporter of the Jones Act and of the American- flag Merchant Marine. But it is important for those Members who are less familiar with the Merchant Marine to consider Mr. Dean's article. Mr. Dean is a senior partner in a Washington law firm, and an adjunct professor of transportation law at Georgetown University Law Center. In his column, Mr. Dean spells out clearly and succinctly the reasons America stands to lose if foreign-flag ships and foreign crews are allowed to take over our domestic waterborne commerce, and why it would be unfair not only to America's maritime industry but also to our trucking, rail, and pipeline industries as well. If the Jones Act is eliminated, all these industries would have to abide by U.S. laws and regulations, and pay U.S. taxes, while their foreign competitors in our Nation's domestic market would not. Those who claim they want to deregulate domestic shipping and reform the Jones Act would do well to read this article. It explains just how poorly thought out and unfair such actions would be. Mr. President, I request that the full text of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: Dissecting the Jones Act (By Warren L. Dean) Congress is facing an old and tired issue this year--the Jones Act Reform Coalition's clamor to ``deregulate'' domestic deep-water transportation services by repealing the Jones Act. This putative controversy speaks volumes about how poorly Washington understands what it is doing. The Jones Act reserves for qualified U.S. corporations the right to carry domestic waterborne cargoes of the United States. The coalition wants to allow foreign-flag vessels to carry cargoes between points in the United States, such as New York and Miami. Those vessels, however, do not operate subject to U.S. law--and would not, under the coalition's proposals. In an effort to keep the Jones Act Reform Coalition from wasting its members' money, and to help the U.S. government understand the difference between trade in goods and trade in services, I will offer a few thoughts. First, the Jones Act regulates domestic transportation services. Companies in those industries pay U.S. income and excise taxes, employ workers who pay taxes, comply with fair labor standards and other employment laws, meet environmental and safety requirements and face tort and other liabilities. Foreign companies that get involved in U.S. markets usually do so through U.S. affiliates established for that purpose. What the reform coalition is pushing, however, is permission for foreign flag-of-convenience operators to participate in domestic interstate commerce, while taking a pass on as many of the laws applicable to domestic commerce as possible. Just repealing the Jones Act won't do the job, however. What the Jones Act reform coalition is really advocating is a repeal of a variety of U.S. tax and labor laws that are at the heart of the U.S. economy. Under international law, the applicable law on a vessel is that of the ship's registry. So, for example, to allow foreign seamen working for foreign-flag operators to work in U.S. interstate transportation, we would have to waive our tax, immigration, minimum wage, collective bargaining, workplace safety and unemployment laws, among others. We would have to pre-empt state laws in these areas as well. Admittedly, some laws--particularly in the environmental area--currently apply to both U.S. and foreign-flag vessels, and would continue to do so under the coalition's proposal. But what's really going on here is that the coalition is out to create a whole new list of economic preferences--in effect, subsidies--for foreign-flag vessels to ``compete'' in our domestic commerce. The only reason that other domestic transportation industries have not yet objected to this nonsense is that they aren't persuaded that anyone in Washington is that stupid. Their confidence may be misplaced. There actually is a federal agency that spent taxpayer's money to publish a report in 1993 proving that it doesn't have the foggiest idea where its money comes from. It's the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates allegations of damage to U.S. industries caused by trade. The ITC report estimated that ``the economy-wide effect of removing the Jones Act is an economic welfare gain to the economy of approximately $3.1 billion.'' The ITC's main source for this conclusion was its own 1991 study that found the 1989 cost to the economy of the Jones Act ranged from $3.6 billion to $9.8 billion. The ITC staff developed these estimates by figuring the difference between U.S. and world shipping rates, and saying the higher U.S. costs are a sort of ``tariff'' charged to shippers using Jones Act vessels. But the flaw in the ITC's analysis is that it took the rates charged by foreign-flag operators using ``flag of convenience'' registry in countries such as Panama, Liberia or the Bahamas. Those nations have either nonexistent or very low rates of taxation and regulation. The ITC then concluded that shippers could obtain world- rate savings in the waterborne domestic commerce of the United States by allowing in competitors who are free of the burdens of U.S. taxation and regulation, and who could compete with land and air modes of transportation that are subject to U.S. regulation and taxation. That premise is, of course, fatally flawed as a matter of law and policy. The ITC doesn't understand the difference between importing shoes and importing transportation services. With shoes, the producer's costs, including associated tax and regulatory burdens, are incurred in the exporting state. With most services, the producer's costs, including associated tax and regulatory burdens, are incurred in the importing state. But the reform coalition wants to change that with respect to domestic maritime transportation, and preserve the law of the flag of registry. The reason is simple: If U.S. tax and regulatory costs were extended to all competitors in domestic trades, whether U.S. or foreign flag, then the savings to shippers from repealing the Jones Act would range from $0 to nearly $0--setting aside the separate cost of building vessels in U.S. yards. There's not much fuel for reform there.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, it is with great pleasure and appreciation, mixed with a certain measure of sadness, that I rise to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. James D. Bond on the occasion of his retirement from a long and distinguished career on the staff of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. For the past 20 years, Mr. Bond has served the Senate on the staff of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Agencies as either the clerk or the minority staff director. Throughout this time, his expertise and leadership have proven invaluable to the committee's work on appropriations and oversight of the economic and military assistance programs of the United States. Senators on both sides of the aisle are indebted to him for his sage advice, honest counsel, and tireless effort. His contributions to legislation on American foreign policy have been numerous, including his original drafts of laws ranging from Israeli loan guarantees to the creation of the Development Fund for Africa. On foreign operations matters, Jim Bond has been the key liaison with Members of the House of Representatives; officials within the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency, and other agencies of the U.S. Government; as well as international organizations, including multilateral development banks and U.N. agencies; and public interest groups. Mr. President, the breadth of his grasp and the depth of his understanding of the process and the issues is unparalleled; he will be sorely missed. Prior to his service with the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Mr. Bond worked as the minority staff director for the Subcommittee on HUD and Space Science, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Public Works, and the Subcommittee on the Interior. He also served on the staff of our former colleague, Milton Young, as a legislative assistant. After 25 years of work in the Senate, I know that he is highly respected by staff and Senators alike. I and many of my colleagues are proud to call him our friend. Mr. President, a man who is called friend by Pat Leahy and Jake Garn, by Mitch McConnell and Mac Mathias, by Ted Stevens and Howard Metzenbaum--such a man is remarkable indeed. Mr. Bond's public service is not limited to his work with the Senate. For several years, he has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, teaching a course on the appropriations process in the Graduate Public Policy Program, as well as lecturing at Marquette University's Les Aspin center and the American University's Washington Semester. Through his teaching, Mr. Bond shares his knowledge and experience with America's future leaders. Jim Bond began his service to our country during the Vietnam war, when he served in the infantry with the 101st Airborne Division, 327th Infantry Battalion. For his service and heroism, he was awarded the Bronze Star and Combat Infantryman's Badge. Mr. President, Jim Bond has served this institution with honor and conviction. He has served the citizens for whom we all work in an exemplary fashion. Our work has been enhanced by his contributions. I am confident that Mr. Bond will continue his commitment to American government and will utilize his knowledge and experience toward the betterment of our foreign policy and trade relations. I am sure he will continue his humanitarian work for the poor of the world. I know he will continue his efforts to sustain American prosperity in an era of increased competition. Mr. President, I wish Jim Bond well as he leaves the Senate. I know our paths will cross again and I will welcome him. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Bond for his service and congratulating him on his retirement from the staff of the U.S. Senate. Aloha Jim.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor a measure to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Native American Programs Act to extend the authorization of appropriations for programs administered by the administration for Native Americans within the Department of Health and Human Services to fiscal year 2000. In 1974, the Native American Programs Act was enacted by the Congress to assist tribes and other Native American entities with developing social, economic, and governance strategies in order to become viable and economically self-sufficient communities. In the decades since its enactment, hundreds of tribes, reservation communities, and native organizations have benefited from the programs funded under this act. In fiscal year 1994 alone, the administration for Native Americans provided 215 grants for governance, social, and economic development projects, several dozen grants to assist with tribal recognition efforts, 26 grants for projects to assist tribes in their capacity to meet environmental requirements, 18 grants to support projects assisting the survival and preservation of Native American languages, and funds to support the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. These projects have served to improve the quality of living for thousands of Native American families and communities. Over 2 years ago, on March 7, 1995, Senators McCain, Campbell and I introduced S. 510, a bill which reauthorized programs under the Native American Programs Act. On May 11, 1996 this body passed S. 510, as amended in committee, by unanimous consent, but the bill was subsequently not acted upon by the House prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress. The bill being introduced today is substantially similar to S. 510, as introduced in the last Congress. I am pleased that once again, the chairman, as his predecessor did, is willing to consider the inclusion of provisions that would reauthorize for a period of 1 year, the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. Mr. President, the programs authorized in this measure are critical to fostering Native American social and economic self-sufficiency--a goal shared by this Congress as we move toward greater fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to act favorably and expeditiously on this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor a measure to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Native American Programs Act to extend the authorization of appropriations for programs administered by the administration for Native Americans within the Department of Health and Human Services to fiscal year 2000. In 1974, the Native American Programs Act was enacted by the Congress to assist tribes and other Native American entities with developing social, economic, and governance strategies in order to become viable and economically self-sufficient communities. In the decades since its enactment, hundreds of tribes, reservation communities, and native organizations have benefited from the programs funded under this act. In fiscal year 1994 alone, the administration for Native Americans provided 215 grants for governance, social, and economic development projects, several dozen grants to assist with tribal recognition efforts, 26 grants for projects to assist tribes in their capacity to meet environmental requirements, 18 grants to support projects assisting the survival and preservation of Native American languages, and funds to support the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. These projects have served to improve the quality of living for thousands of Native American families and communities. Over 2 years ago, on March 7, 1995, Senators McCain, Campbell and I introduced S. 510, a bill which reauthorized programs under the Native American Programs Act. On May 11, 1996 this body passed S. 510, as amended in committee, by unanimous consent, but the bill was subsequently not acted upon by the House prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress. The bill being introduced today is substantially similar to S. 510, as introduced in the last Congress. I am pleased that once again, the chairman, as his predecessor did, is willing to consider the inclusion of provisions that would reauthorize for a period of 1 year, the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. Mr. President, the programs authorized in this measure are critical to fostering Native American social and economic self-sufficiency--a goal shared by this Congress as we move toward greater fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to act favorably and expeditiously on this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Susan Nan Hoechstetter, a social worker with whom I have been privileged to work with for many years. Throughout her 13 years of employment with National Association of Social Workers [NASW], Sue Hoechstetter tenaciously promoted the social work profession and advocated for social policy that recognizes the responsible role of government in assisting individuals, families, and communities to work together and address their common needs. When Sue first began representing the interests of social workers before the U.S. Congress, very few Federal statutes directly acknowledged the significant role of professional social workers in providing health, mental health, and counseling services. Now, however, through Sue's able leadership, all Federal insurance programs that authorize the provision of mental health care services, including Medicare, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, recognize the ability of clinical social workers to independently diagnose and treat mental illness. Additionally, clinical social workers are now identified as health professionals through title VII of the Public Health Service Act, and school social workers are acknowledged as key members of the pupil services team through various educational programs. During Sue Hoechstetter's tenure, the National Association of Social Workers also provided leadership in promoting progressive social policy. Family and medical leave, health care reform, improved staffing and training in the child welfare system, and the development of Federal managed care standards are just a few of the proactive policies that NASW advocated under her direction. In recent years, Sue and the association have devoted considerable energy in an attempt to preserve the entitlement for children under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, as well as to preserve the financial and program integrity of the Medicaid and Medicare Programs. Sue Hoechstetter has never represented a high-powered firm, has never enjoyed the luxury of having a host of assistants to support her work, and has never received great financial reward for her efforts. I suspect that Sue would not recognize an alligator shoe if she saw one. Yet, I believe it is absolutely essential that Sue Hoechstetter and others who share Sue's values continue their work educating the Congress. Our representative form of government requires the active engagement of competing interests in the formulation of Federal policy, and I am very glad that professionals like Sue Hoechstetter promote social policies that support the common good and help people in need participate in the process. I am deeply saddened that Sue will no longer be representing the interests of the National Association of Social Workers. Her contribution to the association has been considerable. However, I am very pleased that Sue will continue to pursue her interests in increasing citizen participation in the political process. I wish her the very best.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, as a cosponsor of legislation that he has authored which proposes an increase in the funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program and which would improve the quality of Indian roads by directly including Indian tribes in Federal transportation service programs. Indian reservation roads are the lifeline of tribal economic and social wellbeing, with about 50,000 miles of roads serving Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages nationwide. Over 90 percent of these roads are comprised of State and county roads and roads constructed and maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' road system includes approximately 21,000 miles of roads which comprise about 42 percent of all roads serving Indian country. The overwhelming majority of these Bureau of Indian Affairs' roads--about 89 percent--are rated as being in poor condition. This is an alarming statistic which this legislation is designed to remedy. Historically, funding for the construction and maintenance of Bureau of Indian Affairs' roads has failed to keep pace with tribal transportation needs and the result has been inferior Indian road conditions. In the 1950's, BIA funding reached a high of $10 million per fiscal year. By 1979, funding levels rose to $80 million per year. Thereafter, BIA funding significantly declined. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 made the Indian Reservation Roads Program eligible for support from the Highway Trust Fund at $100 million for fiscal years 1984 to 1986. Between 1987 and 1991, funding from the Highway Trust Fund decreased to $80 million. In 1992, funding rose to $159 million and from 1993 to 1997, funding for Indian roads increased to $191 million. Although funding for Indian reservation road construction and maintenance improved, the increases were nonetheless woefully inadequate to meet tribal construction needs and to improve Indian roads so that they might be able to meet national standards. Furthermore, the current funding level of $191 million falls well short of the estimated national tribal transportation need of $300 million annually. Unless funding is increased, tribal roads will continue to fall behind national standards to the economic and social detriment of Indian tribes. The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 includes necessary funding increases and significant changes to the Indian Reservation Roads Program and to relevant Federal transportation programs that will provide Indian tribes with greater opportunities to meet their transportation needs. The improvements to Indian transportation include the following: One, funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program would be increased from $191 million annually to $250 million for fiscal year 1998, $275 million for fiscal year 1999, and $300 million for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. Funds are primarily to be used for the design and construction of roads in the BIA system. Two, identified as high priority by tribes, the bill includes Indian reservation road maintenance as an eligible activity for funding under the Indian Reservation Roads Program. For BIA roads, Indian Reservation Roads Program funds would be used to supplement the nominal funding provided for road maintenance. Three, to encourage donee States to fund public land highway projects that serve Indian country, the bill exempts funds expended on a public land highway constructed on an Indian reservation from the apportionment adjustment hold harmless requirement which has in the past had the effect of decreasing a State's surface transportation program allocation by the amount a State expended on a public land highway located on or running through an Indian reservation. Four, this bill would establish a 1-percent set-aside of funds allocated for the National Scenic Byway Program for the development of an Indian scenic byway program to enhance access to scenic areas for economic development and other purposes with funding to be distributed through competitive grants. Five, currently, tribes qualified to meet the requirements of direct certification in order to operate their own Federal highway programs are not eligible to do so. The bill overcomes this impediment by authorizing the eligibility of Indian tribes for certification by the State or tribal highway department to directly operate Federal highway programs. For example, certified tribal governments will have direct access to Federal highway safety funds and be able to manage the highway safety programs. Six, to promote tribal highway enhancement activities on Indian roads, including bus transfer points and highway lighting, the bill authorizes the transfer of 1 percent of the funds available to States for transportation enhancement for competitive grants to Indian tribes. Seven, in order to remedy the inefficient distribution of Indian bridge funds, the bill would establish a national Indian bridge program by consolidating the 1 percent of funds the States set aside for Indian bridges. The Secretary of Transportation would distribute the funding with priority given to bridges with the highest level of deficiency as determined by the BIA National Bridge Inspection Standards. This process efficiently allocates Indian bridge funds based on demonstrable need. Eight, to enhance the capability of Indian tribes to improve their transportation systems and qualify for direct certification, $1 million per fiscal year is authorized for each of six Indian technical centers where tribal members receive training in areas including highway planning, construction, and maintenance. Nine, finally, to address the inability of Indian tribes to apply directly for mass transportation funds and to meet increasing transit needs, the bill provides authority for a 1-percent set-aside of mass transportation funding for tribes with the allocation formula to be established by the Secretary of Transportation following negotiations with the tribes. In addition, the bill authorizes the conversion of up to 3 percent of Indian reservation road funds to provide mass transportation services to Indian tribes. The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 will significantly improve surface transportation service on or near Indian Reservations--improvements that will provide greater mobility for tribal members, increase economic opportunities for the tribe, including much-needed employment, and improve the overall quality of life. Mr. President, I want to recognize the outstanding leadership demonstrated by Senator Pete Domenici in developing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, the Honorable Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Pete Domenici, and me in acting favorably on this bill when it comes before the Senate for consideration.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, as a cosponsor of legislation that he has authored which proposes an increase in the funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program and which would improve the quality of Indian roads by directly including Indian tribes in Federal transportation service programs. Indian reservation roads are the lifeline of tribal economic and social wellbeing, with about 50,000 miles of roads serving Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages nationwide. Over 90 percent of these roads are comprised of State and county roads and roads constructed and maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' road system includes approximately 21,000 miles of roads which comprise about 42 percent of all roads serving Indian country. The overwhelming majority of these Bureau of Indian Affairs' roads--about 89 percent--are rated as being in poor condition. This is an alarming statistic which this legislation is designed to remedy. Historically, funding for the construction and maintenance of Bureau of Indian Affairs' roads has failed to keep pace with tribal transportation needs and the result has been inferior Indian road conditions. In the 1950's, BIA funding reached a high of $10 million per fiscal year. By 1979, funding levels rose to $80 million per year. Thereafter, BIA funding significantly declined. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 made the Indian Reservation Roads Program eligible for support from the Highway Trust Fund at $100 million for fiscal years 1984 to 1986. Between 1987 and 1991, funding from the Highway Trust Fund decreased to $80 million. In 1992, funding rose to $159 million and from 1993 to 1997, funding for Indian roads increased to $191 million. Although funding for Indian reservation road construction and maintenance improved, the increases were nonetheless woefully inadequate to meet tribal construction needs and to improve Indian roads so that they might be able to meet national standards. Furthermore, the current funding level of $191 million falls well short of the estimated national tribal transportation need of $300 million annually. Unless funding is increased, tribal roads will continue to fall behind national standards to the economic and social detriment of Indian tribes. The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 includes necessary funding increases and significant changes to the Indian Reservation Roads Program and to relevant Federal transportation programs that will provide Indian tribes with greater opportunities to meet their transportation needs. The improvements to Indian transportation include the following: One, funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program would be increased from $191 million annually to $250 million for fiscal year 1998, $275 million for fiscal year 1999, and $300 million for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. Funds are primarily to be used for the design and construction of roads in the BIA system. Two, identified as high priority by tribes, the bill includes Indian reservation road maintenance as an eligible activity for funding under the Indian Reservation Roads Program. For BIA roads, Indian Reservation Roads Program funds would be used to supplement the nominal funding provided for road maintenance. Three, to encourage donee States to fund public land highway projects that serve Indian country, the bill exempts funds expended on a public land highway constructed on an Indian reservation from the apportionment adjustment hold harmless requirement which has in the past had the effect of decreasing a State's surface transportation program allocation by the amount a State expended on a public land highway located on or running through an Indian reservation. Four, this bill would establish a 1-percent set-aside of funds allocated for the National Scenic Byway Program for the development of an Indian scenic byway program to enhance access to scenic areas for economic development and other purposes with funding to be distributed through competitive grants. Five, currently, tribes qualified to meet the requirements of direct certification in order to operate their own Federal highway programs are not eligible to do so. The bill overcomes this impediment by authorizing the eligibility of Indian tribes for certification by the State or tribal highway department to directly operate Federal highway programs. For example, certified tribal governments will have direct access to Federal highway safety funds and be able to manage the highway safety programs. Six, to promote tribal highway enhancement activities on Indian roads, including bus transfer points and highway lighting, the bill authorizes the transfer of 1 percent of the funds available to States for transportation enhancement for competitive grants to Indian tribes. Seven, in order to remedy the inefficient distribution of Indian bridge funds, the bill would establish a national Indian bridge program by consolidating the 1 percent of funds the States set aside for Indian bridges. The Secretary of Transportation would distribute the funding with priority given to bridges with the highest level of deficiency as determined by the BIA National Bridge Inspection Standards. This process efficiently allocates Indian bridge funds based on demonstrable need. Eight, to enhance the capability of Indian tribes to improve their transportation systems and qualify for direct certification, $1 million per fiscal year is authorized for each of six Indian technical centers where tribal members receive training in areas including highway planning, construction, and maintenance. Nine, finally, to address the inability of Indian tribes to apply directly for mass transportation funds and to meet increasing transit needs, the bill provides authority for a 1-percent set-aside of mass transportation funding for tribes with the allocation formula to be established by the Secretary of Transportation following negotiations with the tribes. In addition, the bill authorizes the conversion of up to 3 percent of Indian reservation road funds to provide mass transportation services to Indian tribes. The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 will significantly improve surface transportation service on or near Indian Reservations--improvements that will provide greater mobility for tribal members, increase economic opportunities for the tribe, including much-needed employment, and improve the overall quality of life. Mr. President, I want to recognize the outstanding leadership demonstrated by Senator Pete Domenici in developing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, the Honorable Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Pete Domenici, and me in acting favorably on this bill when it comes before the Senate for consideration.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Proctor Jones on his retirement from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Proctor Jones, a most distinguished professional staff member, has served the Senate Appropriations Committee honorably since 1971. During my many years of interaction with Mr. Jones, I have observed that his attention to detail and superb performance under pressure have earned him the respect and admiration of Senators and Senate staff alike. He distinguished himself rapidly as a professional who possessed an infectious demeanor, tremendous integrity, decisive leadership style, political savvy, and boundless energy. Mr. Jones forged strong alliances and affiliations with a myriad of congressional offices, committees, and Federal and civilian agencies to present a cohesive approach in drafting a responsible energy and water appropriations bill each year. Mr. Jones has had an opportunity to serve under a number of distinguished Appropriations Committee chairmen: Senators Russell, Ellender, McClellan, Magnuson, Stennis, Byrd, and most recently Hatfield. Mr. Jones served as deputy staff director of the committee under Senators McClellan and Stennis. Since 1973 he has been the Staff Director, Subcommittee on Public Works for Water and Power Development, and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriations, which was renamed the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in 1977. In addition to handling the annual appropriation bill, he has been in charge of numerous continuing resolutions, supplemental appropriations bills, rescission bills, and other measures relating to the appropriations process. I understand Mr. Jones will be working here in Washington, with former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, with whom he has been associated for over 20 years. I know his expertise, professionalism, and dedication will serve him well in his new position. I want to personally and publicly acknowledge my appreciation to Mr. Jones for his exemplary service to this great institution and to bid him a fond aloha and heartfelt mahalo.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the retirement of Mr. Clarence Taba of Hawaii after 22 years of service as executive director of the Hawaii Bankers Association. During World War II, Mr. Taba was one of the young men who enlisted and became a member of the 442d Regimental Combat Team--an infantry unit composed of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Mr. Taba's courage was prominently displayed during the rescue of the Texas ``Lost Battalion''--141st Infantry of the 36th Division--in France, for which he earned a Silver Star and two Bronze Star Medals for leadership and gallantry in combat, and three Distinguished Unit Citations with 5 battle stars, for his participation in pivotal battles in Italy and France. As a veteran, Mr. Taba served as the first State commander of the Hawaii Disabled American Veterans. Mr. Taba is well known and well respected within Hawaii's financial community. His financial career commenced shortly after the end of World War II, when he organized a Federal credit union for his 442d Regimental Combat Team comrades. Mr. Taba became the first American to qualify as a certified credit union executive, and was also the first American to be awarded the Edward Filene Award for Volunteer Achievement. He also served the Hawaii financial community as the mortgage operations officer for Bank of Hawaii, cashier for City Bank of Honolulu during its organizing years, Senior vice president and operations officer for the State of Hawaii's largest savings and loan at that time, and senior bank examiner for the State of Hawaii. Mr. Taba was appointed as the first executive director of the Hawaii Bankers Association in September 1975. Throughout the years, he has diligently worked to bring the local banks together, especially on significant issues such as the recodification of Hawaii banking laws, and the passage of such bills as the Credit Sales Contract Act and the Industrial Loan Act. He also spearheaded the many projects traditionally undertaken by the Hawaii Bankers Association throughout the calendar year, including the annual convention, installation luncheon, and various seminars. The Hawaii congressional delegation is extremely grateful for the assistance and guidance Mr. Taba has provided throughout his tenure at the HBA to ensure that Hawaii's interests were addressed. The Hawaii Bankers Association continues to be a key player in the State of Hawaii's economy. Despite stiff competition, the different banks always work together in the spirit of aloha and harmony. Mr. Taba, in his own special way, has ensured all of that. I wish to join the banking industry and the people of Hawaii in thanking Clarence Taba for his dedicated efforts over the years on behalf of the State of Hawaii and our Nation, and to wish him a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commemorate, with very deep patriotic pride, the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Pacific Command. On January 1, 1947, the U.S. Pacific Command was established to unify with the Alaskan and Far East commands. As the largest of nine unified commands within the Department of Defense today, the U.S. Pacific Command interacts daily with foreign military and civilian leaders, serving as a key link for the United States in the most dynamic region of the world--a region that contains 44 countries, two-thirds of the world's population, and 7 of the world's largest armed forces. During the past 50 years, the Asia-Pacific theater has grown from a war-torn region recovering from the devastation of World War II to the most dynamic economic region in the world. The importance of the United States' interest in the Asia-Pacific theater is best illustrated by the pivotal role of East Asia's economies in the world's economic order. The Asia-Pacific gross national product surpassed the European Union in 1990, and today, our trans-Pacific trade now exceeds $503 billion per year. Fostering peace, providing security, and meeting the challenges within an area totaling more than half of the Earth's surface, the U.S. Pacific Command is represented by more than 300,000 trained and highly dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Mr. President, after World War II, our Nation's military leaders recognized the importance of unity of forces worldwide. On December 14, 1946, President Truman approved the first unified command plan, and on January 1, 1947, the U.S. Pacific Command was established. During the past 50 years, the U.S. Pacific Command's responsibilities have expanded to include the west coast of the United States, the eastern shores of Africa, all points in Asia, and the Arctic to the Antarctic. Mr. President, during the past 50 years, U.S. Pacific Command Forces have been engaged in three major conflicts and numerous military actions. During the Korean conflict, Vietnam conflict, and the Gulf war, the United States Pacific Command Forces have fought bravely. The United States Pacific Command provided forces to support the United States, Far East and U.N. Commands during the Korean conflict. These support forces were primarily in the form of naval assets which conducted patrolling missions and aided amphibious operations by providing naval gunfire, sealift and airstrikes from carrier task forces. The naval airstrikes were an integral part of the overall air campaign. The United States Pacific Command oversaw our involvement through all phases of the Vietnam conflict--from the build-up and military actions to the withdrawal of United States combat forces. However, Mr. President, as many will sadly agree, memories of the Vietnam conflict were not over for the United States Pacific Command. The command became deeply involved in the emotional repatriation of American prisoners of war during Operation Homecoming. Additionally, the United States Pacific Command assisted with the movement of Vietnamese nationals to the United States and the airlift of Vietnamese children during Operation New Life and Operation Babylift, respectively. During Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the United States Pacific Command Forces provided vital ground, sea, and air assets in support of U.S. Central Command Operations conducted in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and off-shore in the Arabian Sea. The United States Pacific Command deployed forces to Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy and continues to deploy forces in support of the United States' interests in the European and Middle Eastern theaters. Today Mr. President, the U.S. Pacific Command's mission is to foster peace, deter aggression, and rapidly respond to crisis. If necessary, they will fight to maintain security and stability throughout the Asia- Pacific region. In order to maintain security in the vast Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. Pacific Command has the U.S. Army Pacific, the Pacific Fleet, the Pacific Air Forces, and the Marine Forces Pacific as its service components. Additionally, its sub-unified command includes United States Forces Korea, United States Forces Japan, the Alaskan Command, and the Special Operations Command, Pacific. The U.S. Pacific Command leads two task forces. The Joint Task Force Full Accounting was established to achieve the fullest accounting of Americans still missing in Southeast Asia as a result of the Vietnam conflict. Through the task force's efforts, more than 2,000 investigations have been completed and 350 sets of remains repatriated. The Joint Interagency Task Force West, the second standing task force, brings DOD resources to bear in support of law enforcement agencies to disrupt international drug traffickers from Southeast and Southwest Asia. Mr. President, most recently and at my urging, the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies was established to strengthen existing bilateral relationships through the multilateral study of security, economic, social, and political issues in the Asia-Pacific region. This further compliments the U.S. Pacific Command's mission of building bilateral and multilateral bonds within the Asia-Pacific region. Annually, the command conducts more than 400 exercises, and other bilateral and multilateral training events. The command assists 29 different nations with humanitarian and civic assistance funds and provide more than $12 million in equipment to developing and emerging nations. The U.S. Pacific Command also responds to natural disasters. The command has provided needed assistance in the wake of devastation caused by the earthquake in Kobe, Japan, the destructive winds of Hurricane Omar on Guam, and the earthquake and flooding in China, and helped their neighbors on the Island of Kauai following Hurricane Iniki. The U.S. Pacific Command actively engages our friends and allies through training exercise participation, military contacts, humanitarian aid, and disaster relief. Mr. President, since its establishment, the U.S. Pacific Command has remained a beacon of democracy and freedom in the region. Today, it is an active living embodiment of U.S. security to the Asia-Pacific area. It is a commitment which has been maintained during the past 50 years-- and a commitment I am confident they will fulfill well into the 21st century. It is indeed a pleasure for me to salute the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilian employees, both past and present, of the U.S. Pacific Command on its 50th anniversary. Thank you for your many contributions--lives saved, lives improved and enhanced for a better tomorrow. This was achieved, on occasion, at the cost of U.S. lives and U.S. blood spilt. We honor the memory of those brave men and women who made the supreme sacrifice for the sake of peace and stability in the region. Adm. Joseph W. Prueher has the distinct honor of leading the U.S. Pacific Command on its 50th anniversary. I have no doubt that he will lead the command forward with the same valor and distinction as those who have come before him. Congratulations and best wishes to all.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the law of the land, specifically section (1) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, declares that the United States shall have a merchant marine sufficient, among other things, to: Carry a substantial portion of our international waterborne Commerce; and to serve as a fourth arm of defense in time of war and national emergency. The importance of these requirements has been dramatically illustrated by the vital role of our merchant marine in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and most recently in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. While the privately owned and operated U.S. flag merchant marine has performed so magnificently and effectively in times of crisis, it has also made extraordinary efforts to ensure that a substantial portion of commercial cargo bound to and from the United States moves on U.S. bottoms. Given the chronic overtonnaging in international shipping, cut-throat competition, and the competitive edge our trading partners give their national flags, this has not been easy. In addition to competition with subsidized foreign carriers, U.S.-flag carriers are forced to compete with flag of convenience carriers. Over two-thirds of the international vessels operating in commerce are operating under flags of convenience. Flag of convenience registries include such major maritime powers as Panama, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, and Vanuatu. These registries only require their vessel owners to pay registration fees, and shipowners are not required to pay tax on revenues earned, nor do employees have to pay income tax, and the shipowner has little or no obligation to comply with the nation's law. Nevertheless, if our commercial fleet is to continue to be an effective auxiliary in times of war or national emergency, it must first be commercially viable in times of peace. Otherwise, there will be no merchant fleet when the need arises. I think we all would agree that there is a substantial national interest in promoting our merchant fleet. I think, also, that we would all agree that U.S. national security and economic security interests should not be held hostage for lack of U.S.-controlled sealift assets. Given the increasing diminution of the flag fleets of our NATO allies it will be more important in the future to sustain a viable U.S.-flag presence. Indeed, several laws of our land recognize that national interest and spell out specifically how the U.S. Government is to go about promoting it. Federal laws require that all U.S. military cargo, cargo purchased with all loan funds and guarantees from the Eximbank, 75 percent of concessionary agricultural, and at least 50 percent of all other international ocean borne cargo generated directly or indirectly by the Federal Government, be carried on U.S. flag vessels. The alarming news is that according to Maritime Administration [MarAd] the total volume of cargo moving under these programs is declining and will continue to do so. According to a report by Nathan Associates, Inc., the 1992 economic impact of cargo preference for the United States is 40,000 direct, indirect, and induced jobs, $2.2 billion in direct, indirect, and induced household earnings, $354 million in direct, indirect, and induced Federal personal and business income tax revenues--$1.20 for every dollar of Government outlay on cargo preference, and $1.2 billion in foreign exchange. It is, therefore, imperative that U.S. flag vessels carry every ton of cargo which these programs and the law intend them to carry. This brings me to the reason for the resolution I am introducing today. There are two substantial problems which threaten the viability of these programs and, therefore, the viability of our merchant fleet. Several agencies administering cargo reservation programs continue to do their almighty best to evade the spirit and letter of the reservation laws, that is, find the law inapplicable to a particular program, or employ other loopholes. Because of this problem of evasion and uneven confidence, the Congress amended the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 to centralize monitoring and compliance authority for all cargo reservation programs in MarAd. Nevertheless, the problem remains. Critics of MarAd maintain the agency is too timid, and does not discharge its obligation aggressively. MarAd, on the other hand, says it has limited enforcement powers over those Government agencies which are not in compliance. In light of recent proposals to consolidate the Department of Transportation's operating divisions, I believe it is more important than ever for the Congress to reiterate its support for our cargo reservation laws, so that their administration and enforcement will not suffer from any departmental reorganization. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today merely expresses the sense of the Senate that all of these Federal agencies do what they are supposed to be doing now, under existing law.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II. Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.