Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the native Hawaiian Housing Assistance Act of 1997--a measure which seeks to provide housing assistance to those families most in need, both nationally and in my home state of Hawaii--native Hawaiians. Less than 2 years ago, in 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released a report entitled, ``Housing Problems and Needs of Native Hawaiians.'' This report found, astoundingly, that native Hawaiians experience the highest percentage of housing problems in the Nation--49 percent--higher than even that of American Indians and Alaska Natives residing on reservation--44 percent--and substantially higher than that of all U.S. households--27 percent. These findings, taken in conjunction with those of two other reports: The final report of the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and native Hawaiian Housing, ``Building the Future: a Blueprint for Change'' (1992) and the State Department of Hawaiian home lands report, ``Department of Hawaiian Homelands Beneficiary Needs Study'' (1995), document that: Native Hawaiians have the worst housing conditions in the State of Hawaii and are seriously overrepresented in the Stat's homeless population, representing over 30 percent of the homeless population. Among the native Hawaiian population, the needs of the native Hawaiians eligible to reside on lands set aside under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act are the most severe. Ninety-five percent of the current applicants, approximately 13,000 native Hawaiians, are in need of housing, with one half of those applicant households facing overcrowding and one third paying more than 30 percent of their income for shelter; and under the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] guidelines, 70.8 percent of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) lessees and applicants fall below the HUD median family income, with more than half having incomes below 30 percent. Mr. President, I find these statistics deplorable and unconscionable. They are the direct result of a pattern of purposeful neglect on the part of our Federal Government. At the time of the arrival of Captain Cook to Hawaii's shores in 1778, there was a thriving community of nearly 1 million indigenous inhabitants. But over time, introduced diseases and the devastating physical, cultural, social, and spiritual effects of Western contact nearly decimated the native Hawaiian population. In 1826, less than 50 years later, the native Hawaiian population had decreased to an estimated 142,650, and by 1919, this number had dropped to 22,600. In recognition of this catastrophic decline, and of the role the Federal Government played in facilitating such a decline, the Congress enacted The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act [HHCA], which set aside 200,000 acres of CEDED public lands for homesteading by native Hawaiians. As then Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane was quoted in the committee report to the HHCA as saying: ``One thing that impressed me--was the fact that the natives of the islands who are our wards, I should say, and for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers, and many are in poverty.'' Congress thus sought to return the Hawaiian people to the land, thereby revitalizing a dying race. And yet, despite what arguably were good intentions, the Congress subsequently and systematically failed to appropriate sufficient funds for the administration of the HHCA. Faced with no means of securing the necessary funding which would enable the development of infrastructure or housing, the administrators were forced to lease large tracts of the homelands to non-Hawaiians for commercial and other purposes in order to generate revenue to administer and operate the program. Hawaiians were thereby denied the benefits of residing on those very lands set aside for their survival as the indigenous inhabitants of Hawaii. Over the years, I am sad to report, this Government has taken the anomalous legal position that native Hawaiians residing on these home lands must be excluded from access to existing Federal Housing and Infrastructure Development programs because the expenditure of Federal funds to benefit these lands was somehow deemed unconstitutional. While the Clinton administration has reversed this position--arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the home lands were not set aside exclusively for native Hawaiians--there are those who nonetheless seem to want it both ways. They want to deny that any Federal responsibility flows from the provisions of a Federal law, and yet they want to bar native people from their rights of access to existing Federal housing programs. It is this reverse discrimination that I find repugnant and unacceptable. It is a mentality that enables the Federal Government to set aside lands for native Hawaiians, retain certain powers over the administration of these lands, and then deny those native Hawaiians residing on these lands access to programs made available to all others, including Indians residing on reservations, on the basis that the lands set aside by the United States only benefit native Hawaiians. I am happy to report that, with the assistance of outgoing HUD Secretary Cisneros, we have worked to identify and remove some barriers which have prevented native Hawaiians residing on the home lands, from securing access to existing federally-assisted housing programs. For his understanding of and dedication toward these matters, I am most grateful. However, I would be the first to admit that much more remains to be done. When the National Commission of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing issued its report, after full consideration of the deplorable housing conditions native Hawaiian families face, they submitted the following recommendation: That Congress enact a ``Native Hawaiian Housing and Infrastructure Assistance Program'' to alleviate and address the severe housing needs of native Hawaiians by extending to them the same Federal housing assistance available to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This, Mr. President, is exactly what this bill is designed to accomplish. It amends the Native American Housing and Self- Determination Act of 1996 by creating a separate title to establish a parallel housing program for native Hawaiians. This program would not benefit all native Hawaiians, but is limited in scope to those most in need because this Government has consistently denied them access to existing housing programs--those native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the home lands. This bill would provide funding, in the form of a block grant, to the department of Hawaiian Home Lands, to carry out affordable housing activities which are identical to those activities authorized under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. The bill provides that, to the extent practicable, the Department shall employ private nonprofit organizations experienced in the planning and development of affordable housing for native Hawaiians. In addition, the bill authorizes the Secretary to adopt modifications which are deemed necessary in order to meet the unique needs of native Hawaiians. Finally, an additional section of the bill creates a loan guarantee program similar to that which exists for American Indians. Neither of these programs would tap into existing tribal monies, but instead would authorize a separate funding stream. Mr. President, this is a bill whose foundation is a dual one--one based on need, on statistics which show that native Hawaiians face the highest incidence of housing needs in the nation, and that among the native Hawaiian population, those native Hawaiians eligible to reside on the home lands are the most in need, and one based on the special historical relationship between the United States and the native Hawaiian people. While history has shown that the Congress has fallen far short of its commitment to provide sufficient funding for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, let history also reflect, that in this, the 105th Congress, we sought to finally, balance the scales, by creating housing opportunities for native Hawaiians similar to those provided to other native Americans. Mr. President, I thank you for your consideration of this most important measure and ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record in its entirety. I urge my colleagues to act favorably and expeditiously on this measure.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs. Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our public health efforts. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution that is being made by our nation's psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems such as domestic violence, addictions, occupational stress, child abuse, and depression. The participation of students of all kinds is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists, for example, have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because they are more likely to understand or, perhaps, share the cultural background of their clients and are often able to communicate to them in their own language. Also significant is the fact that, when compared with non-minority graduates, ethnic minority graduates are less likely to work in private practice and more likely to work in community or non-profit settings, where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are more likely to seek care. It is important that a continued emphasis be placed on the needy populations of our nation and that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who are most likely to provide services in underserved areas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 was enacted to make naturalization under section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act available to those Filipino World War II veterans whose military service during the liberation of the Philippines makes them deserving of United States citizenship. The naturalization authority to allow the veterans to be naturalized in the Philippines was first granted under Section 113 of the fiscal year 1993 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill. The original intent of Congress in providing the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] with the authority to naturalize applicants in the Philippines was to relieve the unnecessary hardships that section 405 applicants would encounter by having to travel to the United States for an interview and naturalization ceremony, since many are elderly and have no relatives in the United States. The initial period for filing an application under this provision was from November 29, 1990 to November 30, 1992. Section 113 further extended the filing period to February 3, 1995. Unfortunately, the authority to naturalize applicants in the Philippines has now expired. The legislation I am introducing today would immediately restore, for a 5-year period, the authority for the U.S. Embassy in Manila to complete the naturalization process of approximately 12,000 remaining applications which were properly filed under section 405 of the 1990 Act. The legislation does not extend the application period. The legislation also makes clear that naturalization is available only to those applicants who were found by the Recovered Personnel Division of the U.S. Army and the Guerrilla Affairs Division of the U.S. Army to deserve benefits from the U.S. Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to clarify certain provisions of that act as they pertain to Indian tribes and native Hawaiian organizations. This bill is similar to the bill I introduced in the last session of the Congress--a bill which passed this body by unanimous consent on September 13, 1996. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives failed to act on the measure prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress. In 1990, the Congress enacted the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] to address the growing concern among Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian organizations regarding the proper disposition of thousands of Native American human remains and sacred objects in the possession and control of museums and Federal agencies. NAGPRA requires museums and Federal agencies to compile summaries and inventories of human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and cultural patrimony, to notify an Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization that have an ownership or possessory interest in the remains, objects or patrimony, and, upon request, to repatriate those remains or cultural items to the appropriate Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization. NAGPRA further provides a process governing the treatment of human remains or cultural items inadvertently discovered and intentionally excavated from Federal or tribal lands. In the years since the enactment of NAGPRA, native Hawaiians have been at the forefront in the repatriation of ancestral remains and the treatment of ancestral remains inadvertently discovered on Federal lands. Hundreds of native Hawaiian kupuna--ancestors--have been returned to Hawaii--released from the confines of more than 25 museums in the Untied States, Canada, Switzerland, and Austrialia--and returned to the land of their birth. Despite these accomplishments, native Hawaiian organizations have experienced difficulty in ensuring the implementation of the act-- ironically, not abroad, but in Hawaii. In written testimony submitted to the Committee on Indian Affairs by Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawaii Nei, a native Hawaiian organization recognized under NAGRPA, for a December 9, 1995 oversight hearing on the act, a number of concerns were raised--concerns which this bill seeks to address, namely: The lack of written consent where native American remains are excavated or removed from Federal lands for purposes of study; following an inadvertent discovery of Native American remains, the lack of assurances that the process for removal complies with the requirements that are associated with an intentional excavation; and the lack of required notification to native Hawaiian organizations when inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains are made on Federal lands. In addition to amendments which address these concerns, this bill also incorporates two technical amendments requested by the administration: a provision expanding the responsibility of the NAGPRA Review Committee to include associated funerary objects in the compilation of an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains; and provisions providing the Secretary of The Interior with authority to use fines collected to supplement the cost of enforcement-related activities. As one of the original sponsors of the act, it is my view that these amendments are consistent with the original purpose, spirit, and intent of NAGPRA, and are necessary to clarify the existing law. It is my expectation that if adopted, these amendments will ensure better cooperation by Federal agencies in the implementation of the act in the State of Hawaii and the rest of the United States. For while these amendments address concerns raised by the native Hawaiian people, they will also serve to benefit Indian country. The responsibility borne by those who choose, or who are called upon to care for the remains of their ancestors is a heavy one. By acting favorably on this measure, I hope that we can assist these individuals and organizations as they continue in their efforts to bring their ancestors home and provide them with proper treatment when they are disturbed from sacred burial sites. Mr. President, I thank you for this time today, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill when it comes before the Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the test of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry for their work in bringing this bill to passage. By reauthorizing the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, we reaffirm our commitment to the preservation and protection of marine resources and areas of great biological significance in the marine and coastal ecosystem. This bill also amends the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act to reflect some of the concerns raised during the sanctuary review process. Most importantly, the Hawaii provisions of the bill prohibit the imposition of user fees in the sanctuary. The measure also incorporates amendments requested by the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) regarding any future efforts to include the island of Kahoolawe in the sanctuary. The bill provides the KIRC with the authority to request that Kahoolawe be included in the sanctuary. If the KIRC does not make this request, Kahoolawe will not be included. This bill represents bipartisan cooperation on an issue of great importance; the protection of the marine environment. I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, especially Lila Helms, for their role in making this reauthorization a reality.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to discuss the conference agreement for the Department of Defense appropriations bill. This is a very good agreement, one that I believe all Members should support. The conference agreement provides $243.9 billion, an increase of $9.3 billion from the amount requested, and $500 million more than appropriated last year. The amount is nearly $1 billion less than provided by the Senate. While the total bill is lower than that passed by the Senate, the conference agreement protects the priorities of the Senate. I believe as my colleagues review the bill they will see that the conferees, under the leadership of Senator Stevens, forged a compromise which fulfills our constitutional requirement to provide for the common defense. This bill in many ways improves the administration's budget request. First, the bill increases funding for operations and maintenance by $700 million to protect readiness. This includes: $600 million for facilities renovation and repair; $150 million for ship depot maintenance, to fund 95 percent of the Navy's identified requirement; $148 million for identified contingency costs for overseas operations, such as Bosnia; and $165 million for the President's counterdrug initiatives. Second, the bill adds $590 million to fully fund health care costs identified by the surgeons general and DOD health affairs. This will allow our men and women in uniform access to the health care that they deserve. Third, it recommends $137.5 million for breast cancer research, $45 million for prostate cancer research, and $15 million for AIDS research. Fourth, the bill has fully provided for the pay and allowances of our military personnel, including a 3-percent pay raise and a 4 percent increase in quarters allowances. Clearly, these few examples demonstrate that the conferees have responded to the needs of our men and women in uniform. The bill also provides $43.8 billion for procurement of equipment, an increase of $5.6 billion above the request. This increase will provide for many of the high priority needs identified by our commanders in the field. The administration identified several issues in the House bill that it opposes. The conferees have responded to nearly all of its concerns, rejecting restrictive legislative provisions, and funding administration priorities. Chairman Stevens and the managers on the part of the House have done a masterful job in keeping this bill clean. It safeguards our national defense, the priorities of the Senate, and rejects controversial riders. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very good bill. I am strongly in favor of its recommendations and I sincerely believe it should have the bipartisan support of the Senate. Mr. President, I signed the conference report--with reservation. I want my colleagues to understand that I have no reservations regarding the agreement on defense matters. I do have reservations on the process by which several extraneous matters have been added to the DOD conference report. I understand that this was done in the interest of time. However, I must say that I do not think it is appropriate for entire appropriation bills--which have never been brought before the Senate--to be incorporated into a conference report. I intend to vote for this measure because of the many worthy programs funded. I do so with some regret for certain measures which have been incorporated. And I hope that the next Congress will not follow this approach.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, when the full Appropriations Committee marked up H.R. 3755, the fiscal year 1997 Labor/HHS appropriations bill, I was pleased that the committee accepted an amendment to name the new NIH clinical research center, the Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center. This center will be of major importance to our Nation's health and will be named for a man who has dedicated his entire public life to enhancing the quality of all human life. There is no greater tribute to his innumerable contributions in this area than to designate, in his name, a living legacy within whose walls will be state-of-the-art facilities for a combined effort of basic and clinical research--laboratories and clinics side-by-side--to discover interventions and deliver the most effective health care our Nation or any nation has ever known. In his 30 years of Senate service, Senator Hatfield brought to this institution, his great intellect, a quiet decency, and a tenacious advocacy for those who have little voice. He is a true and eloquent spokesman for the protection of our people from the forces of ignorance and illiteracy, social injustice, weapons of mass destruction, and diseases that ravage the mind and body. Throughout his career, he consistently fought to direct our Nation's precious fiscal resources to programs that held promise in eradicating society's ills and improving the human condition. At times, he was a lone voice facing a hostile reception by administrations with different priorities but his dedication did not waiver. Our chairman adheres to no political or ideological boundary but the voice of his own conscience, often placing himself in direct opposition the prevailing winds of the day. Whether fighting major rescissions in social discretionary programs in the early 1980's or in protecting biomedical research funding as recently as in last year's budget resolution, he never lost sight of the importance of maintaining strong national programs for both basic and clinical health research as well as the training of tomorrow's scientists. Our colleague always believed that we would be acting irresponsibly by shortchanging these and other life sustaining efforts, therefore, any immediate savings achieved would be offset by a weakened human condition for decades to come. ``If we fail to provide adequately for the training of future generations of research scientists'', I have often heard him say, ``then we are effectively eating our seed corn.'' In failing to provide necessary annual increases in funds for research grants, he insists, we will ``lose the momentum'' in our capacity to eradicate human suffering at home and world-wide. WHen it is completed, the Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center will be a magnificent structure and a world model. With this amendment, we honor a man who, in his retirement from the Senate, should leave secure in the knowledge that his life's work has made a difference. By creating the opportunity for new discoveries in disease prevention and treatment a more healthy future has been insured for all Americans today and for generations to come.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address section 330 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which amends the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act to preclude the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island from conducting gaming on its lands under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Contained in the general provisions of the bill relating to the Interior Department appropriations and the narrative which accompanies section 330, is a colloquy that I engaged in with Senators Pell and Chafee on September 15, 1988. Should the inclusion of this colloquy in the measure be perceived as an indication of my support for this provision, I feel that I must set the record straight. I believe that the record should show that at the time of our colloquy, there was an underlying premise upon which our discussion was based, which I have since learned, was erroneous. That underlying premise was that there had been no intervening events of legal significance that would warrant any change in the provisions of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act. At the time that the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement was agreed to in 1978, the Narragansett people were organized as a State-chartered corporation. Given that status, it is perhaps understandable that the settlement act provided for the extension of State criminal, civil, and regulatory laws to the settlement lands. But in 1983, the Narragansett Indian Tribe achieved federally- recognized status, and in 1988, a few days before the September 15, 1988 colloquy, the tribe's settlement lands were taken into trust by the United States. These two intervening events are important because federally- recognized status generally confers upon tribes exclusive jurisdiction over their lands, and when their lands are taken into trust, the protections of Federal law are extended to the lands, and the combination of Federal and tribal law and jurisdiction over the lands acts to pre-empt the application of State laws to such lands. Indeed, the legal significance of these intervening events was of such import, that in 1994, the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the provisions of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act were affected by the two events, and that the State no longer has exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement lands. The first circuit held, instead, that the State's jurisdiction was concurrent with that of the Narragansett tribe. Let us be clear about what section 330 of the Omnibus Appropriations measure has as its objective--it will effect a return to the State of the law as it was in 1978, notwithstanding the fact that the tribe is now federally-recognized and would otherwise enjoy the status of other federally-recognized tribes, and notwithstanding the fact that the tribe's settlement lands are now held by the United States in trust for the tribe and would otherwise not be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island. Some might question why this extraordinary action is being taken--why this provision was so important that the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees was circumvented and this amendment to substantive law, which by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriation of funds in fiscal year 1997--was included in this spending bill. The answer, as I understand it, is to prevent the tribe from operating a bingo hall on tribal lands. In my 17 years of service on the Committee on Indian Affairs, in my 8 years of service as the committee's chairman, and for the last 2 years, as the committee's vice-chairman, I have, for the most part, been proud of the manner in which the United States has dealt with the Indian nations on a government-to-government basis. We have attempted to reverse or at a minimum address the effects of some of the darker chapters of our history as a Nation when it comes to our treatment of the indigenous people of this land. We have resolved to consult with them on any law or policy which will affect their lives or their Governments, and indeed, Federal law requires that we do so. But today over the strenuous and adamant objections of this tribe, we are enacting into law a provision that holds the potential to forever change their lives, without the benefit of hearings, in the absence of any record that would serve to justify our action, and without any consultation with the affected tribe. I have advised my colleagues from Rhode Island that I could not support this provision. I also so advised the President of the United States, the minority leader, and the Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. And so, Mr. President, it will come as no surprise to my colleagues, when I state my intention, as I do today, to call for hearings early in the next session of the Congress on this matter. And further, I want to put others on notice that as long as I continue to serve in this body, the action we approve today, will not serve as a precedent for similar action affecting other tribes, nor will it define the manner in which we deal with the Indian people. Mr. President, our constitution establishes a distinctively different framework for our relations with the Indian tribes, and 200 years of Federal law and policy have been constructed on that foundation. We are a Nation which prides ourselves on our honor and integrity in our dealings with all people. We owe no less to this Nation's first Americans.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress draws to a close, I stand to pay tribute to a distinguished Army officer who served as a congressional science fellow on my staff during this Congress. Col. Barbara Scherb, U.S. Army, was selected for this highly coveted fellowship as a result of her outstanding training, experience, and accomplishments. She is the prototype of what nursing leadership should be. Her impeccable credentials and superb performance earned her the respect and admiration of the Senate staff. She distinguished herself rapidly as a professional who possessed an infectious demeanor, tremendous integrity, decisive leadership style, political savvy, and unending energy. The ultimate Army officer, Colonel Scherb is a visionary thinker who has the innate ability to implement these visions. Colonel Scherb is the consummate professional; nursing never had a better ambassador nor patients a more devoted advocate. Colonel Scherb forged strong alliances and affiliations with a myriad of congressional offices, committees, and Federal and civilian agencies to present a cohesive approach to legislative proposals. She worked closely with staff members on the Senate Armed Services and Labor and Human Resources Committees and Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittees in support of military health issues and national nursing and health care agendas. As a champion of tri-service nursing and military health issues, Colonel Scherb was instrumental in the clarification of the board certification pay statutes to include certain military nurse specialists; establishment of equitable disbursement of incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; authorization to establish a graduate school of nursing at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS]; and authorization to establish a tri-service nursing research program at USUHS. Her dynamic leadership provided the driving force behind legislation that enabled any qualified officer in the military health system to be appointed as Surgeon General, and promoted the development of leadership opportunities for nurses and other nonphysicians to include command and general officer promotion. Colonel Scherb wrote legislative language enabling the Services to distribute their field grade end- strength equitably ushering in a new era of equality for military medicine. Colonel Scherb actively pursued codification of Army and Air Force chief nurse appointments as general officers. She championed telemedicine initiatives including advanced medical technologies, digitized radiography, computerized patient records, teleconsultation, and remote distance learning. As a recognized authority on health care, Colonel Scherb's expertise was in constant demand as a speaker and writer. At significant personal sacrifice, she eagerly sought each and every opportunity to advance nursing, and the health care goals and vision of America. Colonel Scherb is now attending the Army War College. Based on her splendid performance and exceptional leadership while in my office, I am confident that she will excel in this new endeavor. Colonel Scherb is an officer of whom the military and our Nation can and should be justifiably proud; a unique combination of talent and devotion to duty. I want to personally and publicly acknowledge my sincere appreciation to Colonel Scherb for her dedicated months of exemplary service and to bid her a fond aloha and heartfelt mahalo.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding American health care hero. Ms. Gail Walker is a registered nurse and the executive director of the Hamakua Health Center in Honokaa, HI. She was recently honored by the Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program for her outstanding commitment to providing residents of the Hamakua area with continuing access to health care. She was 1 of 10 health care heroes selected from a national pool of 720 candidates and the recipient of a $100,000 award for her community cause. This is truly an outstanding life-time achievement. Ms. Walker was born in Honokaa, HI and raised on a cattle ranch in Kukaiau, a community just east of Honokaa, where her father worked as a cowboy and mechanic. Her mother is a retired nurse. Leaving her native home for a formal nursing education and several years of work experience, she returned to excel in the health care industry on Oahu. In 1989 she returned to her home to take the position of director of nursing at the Hamakua Medical Center. In 1991, she became the executive director of that health center, the only medical clinic in the district. Ms. Walker quickly reorganized this clinic, instituting an appointment process, thus expediting medical care to the beneficiaries. In 1992, disaster struck the area when the Hamakua Sugar Co. filed for bankruptcy. Her friends and neighbors were without jobs and their families without support. Without the innovation, dedication, energy, and personal sacrifice of Ms. Walker these people would have lost not only their security, but their health care as well. Ms. Walker organized a task force of local residents, politicians, and department of health representatives. Financing the clinic's operation through her own funds, she had to manage the health care of a community with one tenth of her normal budget. Over the next 2 years, Ms. Walker engineered support initiatives with the insurance companies, local banks, local private donors, and the State Legislature. This resulted in the restoration of the health care system, a life line for the 7,500 residents of this 900-square-mile poverty-stricken area. In 1995 the State of Hawaii built a 7,000-square foot rural health clinic with a staff of 32 dedicated physicians, nurses, and support personnel in Honokaa. This new facility provides an expanded array of medical and social services never seen before in this rural, plantation community. These services include primary care, mental health, disease prevention, an indigent medication program, a nurse certification training program, and a School-to-Work Nurse's Aide Training Program for high school juniors. Ms. Walker will use funds from this award to establish a new urgent care program thus expanding the health care services in the community even further. It is hard to overstate the benefits these services provide the community of Honokaa, HI. Ms. Walker's ability to overcome enormous obstacles to provide modern health care in her native community attests to her strength of character, her compassion, and vision. I want to personally and publicly acknowledge my sincere appreciation to Ms. Walker for her dedicated years of exemplary leadership and service to her community and to bid her a heartfelt mahalo.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, although the Harkin measure has much merit, I must advise my colleagues that we have not had a hearing on this measure. If that amendment is made part of the bill, I feel that at this lateness it might be the death knell of the measure. So I move to table.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in June 1992 the Journal of Commerce had an editorial in support of this program, this bill. In March 1994, a much stronger editorial was found in the Journal of Commerce supporting this measure before us. In 1995, the Journal of Commerce was purchased by the Economist, a British publication, and now in 1996 we find that the Journal of Commerce is opposed to this measure before us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 2, 1996, from Assistant Secretary of the Navy John W. Douglass supporting this measure be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a letter dated April 9, 1996, from Deputy Secretary of Defense John White, supporting this measure be printed in the Record, along with a letter from the Secretary of Transportation, the Hon. Federico Pena, supporting this measure.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to table the Harkin amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues in the Senate, a very special story about an immigrant family. This article was written by Mr. Don Chapman, and appeared in the Wednesday, September 4, 1996, issue of the Midweek. This story is of three young men, whose parents traveled 4,800 miles to begin a new life in the Hawaiian Islands. The name of the sons were, Albert, Herman and Wallace. The Teruya brothers were extraordinary young men. Like most immigrants, they worked long hours with low wages, but they had great faith in our country. With their meager earnings, they first opened a small restaurant, Times Grill at 635 Kapiolani Boulevard, offering 24-hour service. I have had the privilege of knowing these brothers for over 50 years. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Herman and Wallace volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army. They served with the most decorated infantry regiment of World War II--the 442d Regimental Combat Team. Sgt. Herman Teruya, while charging up an Italian hill occupied by crack German soldiers made the supreme sacrifice. His valor is legendary in our regiment. After the war, Wallace returned to Honolulu to resume his activities that began before the war. Together, the remaining brothers decided to take the big step and established a supermarket; it was called Times Supermarket. Today, 47 years later, Times Supermarket is the largest supermarket chain in the State of Hawaii. It is a household name. We must keep in mind that we are all descendants of immigrants. This is the success story of the Teruya family, where the values of hard work and sacrifice have enabled them to live the American dream. Mr. President, I ask that this special story of the Teruya brothers be printed in the Record. The article follows: The Teruyas (By Don Chapman) This is why people have always come to America, and why a teeming mass still strains to reach our shores. This is the American Dream, equal parts sweat and sacrifice, and if you're lucky a place in the sun and chickenskin on the Fourth of July. It's about immigrant kids starting out dirt-poor on a plantation, taking a chance in the big city, working long and hard, living frugally and saving, serving their country in war even as their peers are rounded up into concentration camps, losing a brother in that war and then making his dream come alive. It is timeless Americana. And it is the true story of the Teruyas of Times Supermarkets, which today operates 13 stores on Oahu and employs nearly 1,000 people. ``It's hard to imagine taking that risk, leaving your home to go to a foreign country to look for opportunities,'' says Wayne Teruya, who 2 years ago took over the company that his father and uncle founded in 1949. ``But that's what my grandparents did. They came from Okinawa to work on the plantations.'' The Teruyas have been trying bold, new things ever since. The first Times, for instance, was the first retail store in Hawaii to offer air-conditioning (1949). The Liliha store was the first to be integrated into a condominium complex (1975). The Waialae store was the first to use a bar-code scanner at the checkout counter (1979). Today, Times is the leader in supermarket pharmacies. The Times story really begins with Albert Teruya, Wayne's uncle. Seeing no opportunity to improve his bleak life on the Wailea plantation, he left Maui in 1929 at the age of 15 and caught a steamer to Honolulu. Two years later, his brother Wallace joined him. ``They started out working in restaurants,'' Wayne says. The Great Depression was on, and one benefit of restaurant work was that it provided room and board plus wages. The brothers worked 14 hours a day, but the enthusiasm of youth fueled by a dream of something better kept them going. In 1936, they pooled their savings and bought the lunch counter at a downtown drug store for $600 and named it the T&W Lunchroom. Three years later, in partnership with their cousin, Kame Uehara, with whom Albert had first lived in Honolulu, they opened Times Grill at 635 Kapiolani Boulevard, offering 24- hour service. Albert says the name Times, which they took with them to the grocery business, expresses the company's progressive attitude: ``Keeping up with the times.'' Two other reasons they chose that name 57 years ago: Times was easily pronounced by non-English speaking immigrants and it fit easily on a small sign. Two years later, Pearl Harbor was attacked. Wallace and another brother, Herman, put their dreams on hold and enlisted in the 442nd. In Italy, Sgt. Herman Teruya gave the ultimate sacrifice. While charging an enemy position, the young infantryman was killed. Wallace returned from the war with Herman's dream still alive. ``My uncle Herman had been interested in opening up a grocery store,'' says Wayne Teruya, son of Wallace. ``My father and uncle decided to pursue that route. They thought there was more opportunity in the grocery business. The restaurant business is long hours, even after-hours, and there's bars and drinking involved. So they decided to try the supermarket business. They got involved in different aspects of the business, working for suppliers, working for another supermarket, learning all the aspects of the grocery business so when they opened their own business, they had a broad perspective of all the different departments.'' Selling groceries is far different today than it was when Albert and Wallace first opened the doors in 1949. ``In those days you didn't have too many choices, but in today's marketplace you have too many choices,'' Teruya says with a laugh, then turns serious. ``It's not only the other supermarkets, but Longs, Walmart, K-Mart, as well as the Costcos and convenience stores. We know you have your choice of going anyplace. We know you don't have to come to Times Supermarket to do your shopping. It's not just that you have to eat so you come to our store. We have to deserve your business. ``We're still struggling with the Costcos and Sam's Clubs. The impact of them is that many of our customers go [to discount markets] for their big bulk buys. If they're having a big party, they may decide to go there. So our effort is still to give good customer service and give them good reasons to come into our store.'' One innovation that sets Times apart is its pharmacies. ``We have the opportunity in the supermarket industry in the state of Hawaii to be the front-runners,'' Teruya says. ``All but two of our 13 stores have pharmacies. Safeway only has three. Star has two. ``Pharmacy is one of the departments that makes us different among the supermarkets, and one where we're not really challenged. Longs, a regular drug store, is our major competition. With Payless out of the market now, as far as chain pharmacies in Hawaii, it's Longs and Times Supermarkets.'' Teruya adds that with the Baby Boomer generation turning 50--as he will next year--and becoming senior citizens, a period in human lives that often requires more medical attention and more medicines, Times' pharmacies are in a position to both take advantage of that demographic situation and to help customers: ``If they have diabetes, for example, you can suggest to them food products that will help them in their diet to control the diabetes. We're working on programs where we can give advice on diet needs which crosses over to our foods. Drug cost is a small component of a person's overall health care cost, so if we can do a better job in the pharmacy, the overall medical cost can come down.'' Teruya says Times is working on the other innovations in the tradition of Albert and Wallace, but doesn't want to tip his hand just yet. As he looks forward, Teruya glances in the rearview mirror of life. He considers the risks taken by his immigrant grandparents and the hard work of his industrious father and uncle: ``Yes, it does make you feel good to come from people like that. And I feel a responsibility to continue it.'' Sometimes when you look in that rearview mirror, some objects appear larger than life. It must be that way for the Teruyas. In 1947, Wallace, Albert and Kame sold Times Grill--to a former employer at the Kewalo Inn who had just returned from a California internment camp--and began methodically learning the grocery business. Wallace worked in Amfac's grocery warehouse and at Tom, Dick and Harry's market on Kapahulu. Albert worked at Sears, where he learned how a big company operates and about customer service. On April 29, 1949, with the help of friends and family who helped stock shelves, they opened the first Times Supermarket, the McCully store at 1772 South King Street. That first store was small by today's standards, but it was modern, well-stocked and air-conditioned. And, says Teruya, it featured Albert and Wallace's basic philosophies that continue to guide the company: ``High-quality merchandise, competitive prices, excellent service. And the customer is always right.'' ``My father was more customer relations, my uncle was more administration, looking at the overall operation,'' says Wayne Teruya. ``They were a good balance.'' They still are, even in their 80's. ``They've never really retired,'' Teruya says. They still come into the office every day, still visit the stores. You'll never get the business out of their blood.'' Their tradition of innovation remains a part of the company. ``We always try to do that, we're always looking for new ways of doing things,'' says Teruya. ``But we're not afraid to copy a good idea, either. If we see something that our competitors are doing and it's working, then yeah, we'll follow.'' He recalls that when his father took his wife, Ethel, and their four children on vacation to the Mainland, part of the itinerary was always checking out supermarkets. ``My father would drive and no matter where we were going, if we passed a market, he'd pull into the parking lot. Sometimes we all went in, sometimes we stayed in the car, and he'd go in to see if he could get any new ideas. He's still curious to see what things are working.'' Wayne, 49, was 2 when the first Times opened. He has no recollection of that big day in family history, but has plenty of other memories of growing up around groceries: ``I remember running around in our McCully store as a little kid, going upstairs, visiting the offices. The store was closed on Sundays, but a lot of times my father would go to the store on Sunday and take us along and we'd work, either stocking shelves or pulling out merchandise.'' He is the second of four children--older brother Raymond is chairman of the Times board. Wayne's first real job was a bag boy at Times: ``I must have been 14-15. I had fun bagging groceries. Then after a few summers, I trained to be a cashier, which I really enjoyed--that's where you get the direct contact with the customers. We always tried to see who could pull in the biggest loads (ring up the most sales). And those were not the automatic scanning days like now. We punched those big NCR (National Cash Register) machines with rows and rows of keys.'' Was it tougher being the son and nephew of the bosses? ``I don't think so,'' Teruya says. ``The problem is I was never sure of how good of a job I was doing because maybe people didn't want to tell me I was doing something wrong because of who I was. But hopefully I never did anything wrong.'' He graduated from Mid-Pacific Institute and the University of Hawaii, where he majored in accounting. ``I worked for a CPA firm just for a little while at the end of my college years and right after I graduated,'' he says. ``But then I had the opportunity to get into the Times accounting department.'' He rose to vice president of sales and executive vice president before being named president and CEO two years ago. It was during his UH years that he met his wife, Sharon. They are the parents of three sons: Weston, 19, a sophomore at Pomona University in California; Wade, a high school senior and Wyatt, a high school sophomore. So far, Wade is the only third-generation son who has expressed any interest in the grocery biz. ``If they ever get interested, fine,'' Teruya says. ``I don't want to push them into the business. My father didn't push us into the business. I worked part-time and after a while I decided it was fun.'' He met Sharon, he says, ``at a beach party at Ala Moana. Nowadays, it's kind of spooky down there at night; I'd never want my kids doing that. But it was love at first sight--for me, not for her. I had to chase her for a while. But we just had our 25th anniversary.'' His advice for staying together long enough to celebrate a silver anniversary: ``Don't get upset when you have fights. You have to expect to have disagreements. And you have to discuss each other's point of views, so you understand where you're both coming from. And just stick in there because you'll have your ups and downs.'' That sounds a lot like his business philosophy, too.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let the record indicate that we began this debate on this amendment last evening. So what I say may be a bit repetitive but I believe it must be repeated. In World War II, 700 merchant marine ships were sunk, and most of them are now resting, hopefully peacefully, at the bottom of either the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. When these ships went under nearly 6,000 men, civilians who were carrying military cargo, went down with the ships. The casualties that exceeded 6,000 in World War II was second only to that experienced by the U.S. Marine Corps. There is a difference. This amendment would suggest that merchant mariners should receive the same combat pay as our GI's suggesting that merchant mariners are overpaid for standing in harm's way. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues are aware, I had the great honor of serving my country in uniform. And for serving in harm's way I received combat pay, which was a token amount. I believe at that time it was $10 a month. But we were not in the service for pay purposes. However, at the end of the war because of my injuries I receive a lifetime pension; a very generous one. I have a lifetime privilege of hospitalization and medical care. And that privilege also extends to my dependent, my wife. I received education under the GI bill of rights. And, as a result, I received my law degree and my baccalaureate. I can, if I wish to, purchase goods at the PX, or at the commissary. There are many privileges. For example, when I die the Government will pay for my coffin, and will pay for my headstone. On the other hand, for the man who serves in the merchant marine, if he should be wounded in action he will not receive a lifetime pension, nor will his wife receive hospitalization for the rest of her life. He will not get a tombstone; a headstone. He will not receive the benefits of the GI bill of rights. We are not talking about apples and apples, Mr. President. We cannot compare the merchant marine and a man on a naval vessel. I can understand why the merchant marine decided after World War II that something had to be done to bring about equity. In World War II, none of the benefits were available. Now, this small amount, $12,000 a month, for standing in harm's way and risking death is not much. As my colleague from Alaska pointed out, we were not providing that war bonus. It was by the coalition forces. Whatever it is, this amendment is demeaning to the merchant mariners--to suggest that merchant marine seamen are mercenaries. They are not mercenaries. In Desert Storm, many of the countries that were asked to deliver goods to our fighting forces refused to enter the Persian Gulf. Sixteen ships refused to go into the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, our American seamen, all of them, without hesitation, went into the most dangerous of waters. Yes, it is insulting to suggest that they are mercenaries. They are not. They are good, patriotic, dependable Americans. Mr. President, I will support the motion to table this amendment. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Not at this time.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], I send to the desk an amendment to the Grassley amendment No. 5393, and this is offered in the second degree.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may comment upon the very eloquent statement made by my colleague from Alaska on cargo preference. Cargo preference is not new. In fact, every nation on this globe that has a maritime fleet has cargo preference. The United States was the last nation to adopt cargo preference as part of its economic policy. How does cargo preference operate? Whenever we buy oil from Saudi Arabia, the requirement is if you are going to buy Saudi oil, it will be shipped on Saudi ships, and the only time an American ship may carry that Saudi oil is when there are no Saudi ships available. We have no say as to how much they are going to charge for the shipment of that crude oil. Whenever we buy automobiles from Toyota, Mitsubishi, and God knows what else, they come in on Japanese ships, not on American vessels, because that is part of the cargo preference agreement. Our cargo preference laws are very limited. It applies only to humanitarian goods, agricultural products. For example, when starvation was rampant in Ethiopia, the United States, like most other nations, responded by sending food. Under our laws, it says that 50 percent of those products must be shipped on American vessels; the other 50 percent on foreign vessels. We are not like other countries that would say every pound of grain must be shipped on American vessels. We say 50 percent. There are those who are suggesting either to wipe this out or bring it down to 25 percent. What are the consequences? Imagine American grain on a Russian vessel shipped to Ethiopia--and this is not a hypothetical, Mr. President, it is done--with the red flag. And you can just hear the stevedores unloading American grain, an American gift and saying, ``Thank you, Soviet Union.'' ``Thank you, Russia.'' That is how it appears. By cargo preference, we are keeping our fleet alive. Mr. President, I think we should remind ourselves that at the end of World War II we were the superpower when it came to shipping. No other nation came close to us. The British fleet was at the bottom of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. The Russian fleet was nonexistent. The German fleet was nonexistent. The Japanese fleet was nonexistent. We were the shipping nation of the world. Today, Mr. President, we have less than 350 ships. We are No. 15. The Chinese have more ships, the Greeks have more ships, the Italians have more ships, the British have more ships. In order to bring down the cost of running this Government and taking off the burden from our taxpayers, we have strange laws. This might interest you, Mr. President. The mail that is now being carried from our shores to our NATO allies, that is, in Europe, one would assume would be carried on American vessels. Russian mail from Russia comes in on Russian ships. British mail from England would come in on British ships. Japanese mail would come in on Japanese ships. So you would think that American letters from here to Europe and from Europe to America would be on American ships. No, it is not so. We open it up to bid. The lowest bidder will carry the cargo and the ships and the mail. The shipping company that carries our mail is the Polish Steamship Company. It is owned by Poland. It is not a private steamship company. It is owned by the Government of Poland, fully subsidized. How can you expect any American vessel to bid against the Polish Steamship Company? At one time it was the Russian Steamship Company. These steamship companies are either fully subsidized or partially subsidized by their nation. The United States has to compete in that playing field. So the small amount that we set aside for cargo preference is not only wise, it is not only prudent, it is absolutely necessary because without that you will find that many of our ships would decide to go out of business. I think we should also keep in mind that our ships, unlike those ships of other countries, pay good wages. I do not suppose Americans would expect our merchant seamen to work for minimum wage. I do not suppose that we American taxpayers want our merchant seamen to have no health benefits, no pension programs. I think they are entitled to pension programs like other workers. They are entitled to at least a minimum wage like other workers. Most of the sailors on foreign vessels do not match our minimum wage. And we expect, under this amendment, to have our ships pay a rate that would require the companies to pay our merchant fleet seamen less than minimum wage? It is outrageous. It is demeaning. Mr. President, I hope that we will join our chairman from Alaska to oppose all of these amendments. Cargo preference is not bad. It makes good sense. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

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