Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. There is no further business?

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement, this amendment will be discussed on Tuesday at 4:30. Mr. President, if I may, during the time available, respond to the amendments as submitted by Senator Grassley, many critics of the U.S.- flag merchant marine have suggested that the U.S. military rely on foreign-controlled and foreign-flag vessels for sealift because they maintain that to ship goods on foreign vessels would be less expensive. However, I would like to suggest that to do this would subject our Armed Forces to a highly unreliable source of sealift and supply. This would leave the United States at the mercy of price gouging by foreign- flag vessels who would have a captive client. For example, in the recent war in the Persian Gulf, 80 percent of the cargo was carried on American flags. We had to pull out ships from all over the seven seas. But we cannot provide 100 percent coverage of all cargo. It was not possible. Our fleet was not large enough. Therefore, to carry the remaining 20 percent, we had to rely on foreign vessels. These statistics that I am about to present, Mr. President, have been confirmed by the GAO and confirmed by the Department of Defense. The average cost of Desert Shield-Desert Storm shipping by foreign flag was $174 per ton. The average cost for Desert Shield-Desert Storm shipping by U.S. flagships was $122 per ton. It was $52 per ton cheaper on American ships. When shipping was particularly essential, when the demand for shipping space became an urgent matter, foreign-flag vessels began to gouge the U.S. military. And I am going to read examples of this. During this period, the vessel Green Lake, which is an American vessel, was paid $31,500 per day to charter. The vessel capacity was 400,416 square feet. For each dollar that we paid, we carried 12.71 square feet. We were able to purchase 12.71 square feet for $1. In the case of the Italian vessel Jolly Smeraldi, we paid a $29,000 per day charter cost. The vessel capacity is 97,427 square feet. And for each dollar that we provided this Italian ship, it provided us 3.35 square feet as compared to the American at 12.71. The Saudi Riyada, we paid that company $25,000 per day. The Saudi Riyada evidently is owned by the Government of Saudi Arabia. The vessel capacity is 141,000. And for each dollar that we paid the Saudi Riyada, we were able to use 5.64 square feet. I could go on and read dozens of cases of this sort. But in each case we got a bargain from American steamship companies, whereas, on the other hand, these companies, these foreign vessels, were gouging us. For example, it might interest Americans to know that the Norwegian vessel Arcade Eagle was given $16,000 per day by charter, and they carried 55,000 square feet of cargo which comes down to 3.43 square feet per dollar. The usual charge of the Arcade Eagle would be $8,000 per day for charter. But in this case, because they knew that the United States had no choice but to rely upon foreign vessels, they doubled their cost. And in each case, whenever we called upon foreign vessels to help us carry cargo to this war zone, they jacked up the price because they knew we had no choice. What I am trying to say is that notwithstanding the criticism we might hear, we get a better deal from American vessels than from any foreign-flag vessel. In the case of the U.S. ship Green Lake, for example, for $1 we had more than 12 square feet of cargo space. For the Panamanian ship Takoradi, for each dollar we paid that company, we got 2.85 square feet of cargo space. Second, one of the amendments would require that any cargo carried by American vessels must continue on into the war zone. This would take away the military flexibility that is so necessary to the military leaders for one reason. Not all harbors are deep enough. Most of the American ships are the larger ones, the tankers, the huge tankers that can carry a large amount of cargo, and they require deep harbors. These are deep draft ships. These are not small ships. For example, it would be impossible for the Green Lake to go to Somalia. That was one of the war zones. It would be impossible for the Green Lake to go into the harbor in Bosnia. Therefore, the Green Lake would carry the cargo to the nearest major port, in the case of the Bosnian war, in Italy and there place the cargo on smaller American or foreign vessels to finish up the journey. And so this amendment which would require military leaders to charter ships that will carry a cargo from point of departure to point of arrival without any stoppage would take away the flexibility that military leaders require. These amendments just make no sense, Mr. President. And finally, the amendment proposed relating to campaign contributions and educational programs. The amendment says that if any company receives subsidies, that company may not involve itself in providing campaign contributions or involving themselves in political campaigns. There are many subsidy programs in the United States. Farmers receive large amounts of subsidy. They join the Farm Bureau. Does this mean that the Farm Bureau can no longer participate in political campaigns? Does it mean that it cannot make political contributions? If this amendment were to be applied to all subsidy recipients, and many subsidies are for research grants--just about every university in the United States receives some sort of grant. Some are large; some are small. Does this mean that the professor who is conducting the research program is denied his constitutional right to make a campaign contribution? These amendments at first glance may appear to be reasonable, rational, and very American, but when one analyzes the amendments, they begin to bring up problems that I do not think the author intended. So I hope that when the time comes on Tuesday to determine whether to accept or to deny these amendments my colleagues will vote against them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Senator Lott, the distinguished former chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, for his commitment to the cause of reformulating our maritime policies, and also welcome Senator Hutchison, who was recently appointed chairman of the subcommittee. I also wish to commend my colleague from Alaska for once again coming to the front and distinguishing himself in managing this bill before us. Mr. President, the measure before us truly represents a bipartisan effort, and I urge all of the Members of this body to support this bill. In recent years, we have spent a great deal of time and effort in evaluating and discussing maritime policy. Unfortunately, to date, this evaluation and discussion has not resulted in action. It is time to step forward and to ensure the continuing presence of U.S.-flag vessels. This country, the sole remaining superpower, cannot be put in a position of relying on the goodwill of foreign nations to transport vital military cargo. And, we cannot rely on the goodwill of foreign nations to achieve the transportation of cargoes vital to our economic interests. It is not an acceptable or prudent national policy. One of the issues that the Department of Defense [DOD] was forced to confront in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf conflict was the inadequacy of U.S. sealift assets. While the logistical efforts put forth by the military in the gulf war were truly astounding, including the sealift of more than 10 million tons of surge and sustainment materiel by sea, it was evident that U.S. forces could not have accomplished this sealift alone without the support of foreign nations. While the Persian Gulf conflict unified international opposition to the actions of the Iraqi government, and allowed for the international coordination of sealift, we cannot expect international support for every conflict. We must be able to ensure that U.S.-flag shipping is available to bring materiel and ammunition to soldiers who are defending our interests on foreign soil. One only has to look as far as the recent developments in Iraq. Our allies were less than forthcoming in efforts to provide assistance. If we need to proceed on a unilateral basis we must have the requisite sealift. We must also remember that the United States is a maritime nation. As a Senator from the only island State in the United States, I appreciate the importance of ocean shipping. The continued disintegration of the U.S.-flag transportation fleet greatly concerns me. I fear the possibility of being completely reliant on foreign corporations and foreign nations for transportation service. A study of history will reveal the cyclical patterns of U.S. maritime development. Historically, the U.S.-flag fleet has suffered through long periods of neglect and disregard, only to reemerge. Reemergence usually occurs in times of national emergency, and usually only after the Government has spent considerable sums in reestablishing our fleet. Today we cannot afford to repeat this cycle again. Once more we are approaching a precipice. But this time it is one from which we may not be able to turn back. We are facing the total elimination of the international presence of U.S.-flag carriage. After the end of the Civil War, interest in maritime activities waned, leaving waterborne commerce and shipbuilding mainly in the hands of foreign countries. In 1914, with the onset of World War I, ocean shipping rates rose 300 to 400 percent. In 1916, the U.S. Government realized the need for a strong U.S.-flag merchant fleet and began a massive shipbuilding campaign. However, most of these ships were not complete by the end of the war and throughout the war, the United States depended largely on foreign shipping to support American soldiers. Unfortunately, little was learned from this, and most of these ships were allowed to fall into disuse within only a few years. In 1936, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act which would revolutionize American shipping. It provided a workable basis for building and maintaining a strong U.S.-flag merchant marine. This act came at precisely the right time--with the onset of World War II just a few years later. In this war, once again, one of the most critical shortages was merchant shipping, but the United States was prepared and able to construct many vessels. By the end of the war, the United States had used over 4,000 war-built merchant ships. The U.S.-flag merchant marine was vital to war efforts and suffered great casualties. At the end of the war more than 700 U.S.-flag vessels had been sunk and more than 6,000 civilian merchant mariners had lost their lives. Their casualty rate was second only to the U.S. Marine Corps. In 1950, the private U.S.-flag merchant marine was comprised of 1,170 ships totaling 14.1 million deadweight tonnage. With this surplus of ships, once again, the merchant marine was allowed to become stagnant and shipbuilding was greatly reduced. In 1970, the U.S.-flag merchant marine comprised 793 ships totaling 14.4 million deadweight tons. The number of ships had been greatly reduced, but, because of new, larger vessels, tonnage was increased by 300,000 tons. The United States was then ranked No. 8 in the world in deadweight tonnage. As we all know, in 1945, at the end of the Great War, we were No. 1. It may interest you to know we are at this moment No. 14. The superpower of this planet is No. 14 when it comes to shipping. Today our merchant fleet has fewer than 350 vessels, although our tonnage capacity is over 20 million deadweight tons as U.S. operators use larger, more efficient vessels. Although the United States has many of the most innovative ships in the world in its fleet, it still is increasingly difficult for American vessels to compete in the international trades against foreign subsidies, state-owned fleets, and the tax advantages and lack of meaningful foreign regulation of foreign vessels. In addition, we have seen the promulgation of the operation of vessels under flags of convenience. Flag-of-convenience vessels have nominal connection to the country whose flag it flies. They sail under the Liberian flag, Panamanian flag and, believe it or not, under the Swiss flag. There are no harbors in Switzerland, but they have a fleet which, incidentally is larger than ours. They do not pay taxes, nor do their workers pay tax to the nation whose law they operate under. In fact, they do not even employ citizens from the host nation, and they may never even visit that nation. In the last decade many U.S. shipping companies have begun placing their vessels under flag-of-convenience registries. The high cost of doing business under the American flag--paying full U.S. taxes, abiding by all U.S. laws and the numerous rules and regulations imposed by the Federal Government--have contributed greatly to this movement. The simple fact is that today, if these trends continue, the U.S.- flag fleet will disappear from the sealanes of the world in less than 10 years. We cannot allow this to happen. This is why we must act now. In the early 1990's, the Persian Gulf war once again proved the importance of a strong, vital U.S.-flag merchant marine. This conflict proved that the only reliable choice is to use American vessels with American crews. Too often during the Persian Gulf war, foreign-flag ships with foreign crews refused to enter the war zone. We did not see this on our front pages, but on 16 different occasions foreign-flag vessels with our cargo declined to provide transportation service into the Persian Gulf. But we were fortunate in the Persian Gulf war. Saddam Hussein did not attack Saudi Arabia. Why he hesitated we have no idea. We had the time to get the job done with a unified coalition. We may not be so lucky in the future. We must, therefore, have in place a modern, capable, and reliable U.S.-flag fleet with the same loyal Americans to crew them whose predecessors have never let us down in the more than 200 years of our Nation's history. The Maritime Security Act of 1995 is essential to the military security of our Nation. Specifically, this legislation will do the following: It will guarantee a pool of American citizen crews and a 50-ship fleet of militarily useful U.S.-flag commercial sealift vessels for our national security; it will also provide that the companies' entire intermodal logistical support systems--containers, rail cars, computer tracking, port operations, and management--will be available to the DOD when needed; it will guarantee the availability of American mariners to crew the DOD's sealift fleet of fast sealift ships, prepositioned ships and Ready Reserve Force vessels; and it will ensure that military supplies are on reliable U.S.-flag ships with patriotic, dependable American citizen crews. Many people are unaware that even our DOD reserve fleet vessels are operated by civilian merchant marines, because they cost less to operate than vessels directly controlled by the Navy. This Maritime Security Act will cut costs by more than 50 percent compared to today's program. It will reduce burdensome Government regulations that hamstring U.S.-flag operators which give competitive advantage to foreign-flag companies. And it will save the Defense Department billions of dollars--because the DOD will be able to use modern, state-of-the-art commercial assets rather than buying and maintaining this capability on their own. It is eight times cheaper to have the private sector perform this vital national security task--and this point alone makes the Maritime Security Act a commonsense bargain for America. My fellow colleagues, in the past we have often taken for granted the role of the merchant marine in the economy and security of the United States. We cannot afford to do so today--nor can we suddenly rebuild a maritime capability in the future if we need it urgently. It is simply not economically feasible or realistic to repeat the mistakes--the ups and downs of maritime support--we have made in the past. We need a merchant marine in place that is strong and reliable in both peacetime and wartime. The new maritime security program will help our Nation reach this goal in a cost-effective, more efficient and more competitive manner. So I urge all my colleagues to support this program, and to enact it into law. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, most respectfully, I wish to suggest that this amendment is demeaning, unfair, and I say insulting to the civilian merchant mariner of the United States of America. In World War II, I had the great honor and privilege of serving my country, and it is true that my pay, even as that of a captain, was less than that of most of the merchant mariners. But as a result of my injury, for the rest of my life, I will receive a pension. The merchant mariner who was injured in World War II is not receiving that pension. As a result of my service in the military, I received the bountiful gift of this Nation, the GI Bill of Rights. I received my law degree and my baccalaureate through the GI Bill of Rights. The merchant mariner who served during World War II did not receive the GI Bill of Rights. And because of my injury, Mr. President--and this sounds rather facetious--in order to assist me in my mobility throughout the neighborhood, my country gave me a car, an automobile. The disabled merchant mariner did not receive a car. Today, as a result of my injury in World War II, my wife and I receive full medical benefits for the rest of our lives. The merchant mariner doesn't receive that. As a result of that, understandably, the merchant mariner said this will never happen again. So, since then, they have organized and they have said, ``Though we cannot get the GI Bill, nor can we get lifetime pensions and hospitalization and dependents' benefits, we are going to insist that if we are going to stand in harm's way and risk our lives, we should be covered.'' Mr. President, we are, by this amendment, comparing apples to coconuts--apples and oranges look alike in some cases, but this is apples and coconuts. I hope that at the appropriate time tomorrow morning--whatever my leader wishes to do--we will dispose of this with an overwhelming vote, because this is not fair. It is insulting to our merchant mariners.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, speaking on behalf of the leader on our side, I reserve the right to object. I wonder if the Senator from New Hampshire would amend his request to include the following: That the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 599, S. 608, that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I just wanted to advise my colleagues that we have not received any requests to submit amendments on this side. Do we have any amendments pending at this moment?

Mr. INOUYE. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1831 which is similar to H.R. 3152 which the Senate will pass tonight. Title I of this bill reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]. The NTSB plays an integral role in the transportation life of this nation and it deserves our continued support and respect. The NTSB has over many years acquitted itself in determining the cause of transportation accidents and recommending actions to prevent repetitions of these accidents. Particularly over the last several months NTSB has shown the World its professionalism. I wish to note my firm support for the agency its members and its personnel and assure them and this body of my continued support for an appropriation that allows it to accomplish its mission. Safety is the highest mission any agency can have and the NTSB clearly is a lead agency in ensuring the safety of the travelling public. I also support title II of S. 1831, which contains the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Amendments Act of 1996. These amendments modify the Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act of 1992, Public Law 102-548 in an effort to strengthen that legislation. These amendments have been crafted in a true bipartisan manner. The Commerce Committee staff has crafted these amendments with industry representatives and in consultation with the Department of Transportation. In fact, these amendments are supported by a wide range of transportation and shipper interests. Carriers of every transportation mode have written in support of these amendments. In addition, the Nation's largest shipper associations and the nation's ports also support this effort. These amendments will prevent cargo at the Nation's ports from simply lying at those ports and ensure rather that cargo speeds to its destination. Under the original legislation, cargo in containers weighing over 10,000 pounds would have to be certified, in writing, by the shipper before the container could leave the port for its next destination. The truck driver or the rail carrier taking the container to its next destination would be required to carry that certification and subject to a fine if he or she is caught without this piece of paper. Potentially, the certification could be delayed, or in the case of international cargo there could be delayed, or in the case of international cargo there could be confusion as to the requirement for a certificate. Should a container not have a certificate it would be required to stay at the port or at the point of shipment clogging the port and delaying delivery of critical time sensitive cargo. These amendments clarify and simplify the procedures for certification. One provision of these amendments prevents delay and confusion by the simple expedient of raising the certification requirement to 29,000 pounds. Certification as to the weight of the container will be required if its weight is in excess of that amount. With this provision fewer containers will be required to remain at port or point of shipment awaiting certification. Another provision dispenses with the requirement that the certification be carried with the container. Instead, the information on the certification will be required to be made available on request. Thus, police officers or state officials requesting the certification information could access it by fax or other electronic means. The information would be provided without the unnecessarily delaying transport. It is important to note what these amendments do not do. They do not in anyway alter any State or Federal law limiting the amount of weight a motor carrier or rail carrier may carry. Likewise, the amendments do not change current limits concerning the amount of hazardous materials a carrier may transport. These limits are left intact. It bears repeating: These amendments do not change any law respecting the transportation of hazardous materials or place any additional burden on the Nation's highway and bridges. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska, in support of the manager's substitute for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation's amendment to S. 39. I wish to thank my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Kerry for their leadership in accommodating a multitude of diverse concerns and requests and bringing this monumental legislation to the Senate floor. S. 39 represents a truly bipartisan approach to fisheries issues that are of vital importance to our nation's economy and environment. There are many commendable features to the manager's amendment including a section which provides authority for the western Alaska and western Pacific community development quota (CDQ) programs. Mr. President, for 190 years the United States limited its authority to regulate fishing in the waters surrounding its coast to the three- mile territorial sea. Exploiting that forbearance, by the mid-1930s, foreign fishing vessels routinely fished for salmon, crab, and other fish stocks within sight of the Alaska coast. In 1976, in order to end foreign fishing within 200 miles of the coast of the United States, the Congress enacted the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA). Section 302 of the Act divides the 200-mile zone--which today is known as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)--into eight subzones and establishes a fishery management council for each subzone. The Act authorizes each council to prepare a fishery management plan and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to approve and by regulation implement each fishery management plan (FMP) for each fish stock located within its subzone that the council determines ``requires conservation and management.'' In addition to preventing overfishing, the Congress intended the Secretary's implementation of fishery management plans to advance an equally important policy objective--the transfer of the economic benefits derived from fishing inside the EEZ from foreign fishermen to United States fishermen. When the Magnuson Act was enacted, with little exception, American fishermen were not participating in fisheries beyond the territorial sea. In the EEZ Alaska subzone, for example, in 1975 Japanese and Soviet fishermen harvested 1,310,000 metric tons of pollock, while United States fishermen harvested less than 3,000 metric tons. And Japanese fishermen harvested 30,000 metric tons of sablefish, while United States fishermen harvested 1,000 metric tons. By 1987, United States fishermen had replaced foreign fishermen in the Alaska subzone. And by 1991, United States processors had replaced foreign processors. As a consequence, in 1992, U.S. fishermen harvested pollock and other groundfish in the Alaska subzone that had an ex-vessel value of $675 million. Between 1984 and 1992, the catch of pollock by U.S. fishermen increased from 8,400 metric tons to 1,402,300 metric tons, and the catch of sablefish by U.S. fishermen increased from 9,900 metric tons to 23,700 metric tons. The revenues realized by U.S. fishermen who replaced foreign fishermen in the pollock fishery conducted in the Alaska subzone increased from $1.4 million in 1984 to $388.8 million in 1992. And the earnings of U.S. fishermen who replaced foreign fishermen in the sablefish fishery increased from $7 million to $53.5 million. However, there was one group of U.S. fishermen--the Eskimo and Aleut fishermen residing in 55 Native villages scattered along the windswept coast of the Bering Sea--who, through no fault of their own, were precluded from participating in the fisheries which the Secretary's implementation of fishery management plans in the Alaska subzone had forced open. For generations, life in the Native villages had revolved around subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering. Isolated by their distant locations and indigenous cultures, between the entry of Alaska into the Union in 1959 and the enactment of the Magnuson Act in 1976, residents of the 55 villages were left out of Alaska's poststatehood rush to economic and social modernity. In 1990, the median population of the 55 villages was 278 persons. In 1968, the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska described the situation in the region in which most of the villages are located as follows: Bluntly put, the region has no apparent base for economic growth. It has a rapidly growing population without local employment prospects and generally without the cultural, educational, and skill prerequisites for successful out- migration. In the foreseeable future, outside of the conversion of the present subsistence [salmon] fishery in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers to a more efficient commercial operation, any growth of opportunity either for employment or for enterprise in the region, will result directly from government action. The only prospect for expansion of the public sector, in turn, can be anticipated as a result of efforts to overcome the cultural and economic handicaps of the region's population. The Field Committee's assessment accurately described the underlying cause of a growing social crisis in Bering Sea coastal villages that, over the succeeding 20 years, intensified. In 1970-71, for example, the village of Nome experienced 9 suicides and 22 suicide attempts in 24 months, committed primarily by Eskimo adolescents. A knowledgeable local physician described the epidemic of self-destruction as ``the end result of a long series of problems'' caused by ``the traditional village life dying out and the [subsistence] culture becoming nonexistent;'' a social upheaval that young Natives returning home ``from outside schools to find their skills unneeded in the village'' exacerbated. Seventeen years later, the situation both in Bering Sea coastal villages and in other Native villages had deteriorated to the point that as the Anchorage Daily News, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage, explained in 1988: Across the state, the Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts of Bush Alaska are dying in astonishing numbers. By suicide, accident and other untimely, violent means, death is stealing the heart of a generation and painting the survivors with despair . . . An epidemic of suicide, murder and self-destruction threatens to overwhelm cultures that have for centuries survived and prospered in the harshest environments on earth . . . The village of Alakanuk [one of the 55 Bering Sea coastal villages referred to above] lived on the razor's edge: a town of 550 with eight suicides, dozens of attempts, two murders and four drownings in 16 months. This was Eskimo Armageddon. But while Alakanuk's experience has been the worst, it is by no means an isolated example. The pace of suicide, self-destruction and abuse is accelerating all over Alaska. The Daily News series, which was entitled ``People in Peril,'' drew public attention to a social crisis of which Native leaders long had been aware. Seizing the opportunity, the Alaska Federation of Natives [AFN], a statewide organization representing Native interests, prepared a report documenting the conditions and challenges confronting the Native people, entitled ``A Call for Action,'' that was submitted to the Congress. In pertinent part, ``A Call to Action'' concluded that: [L]arge numbers of Natives who want to work in their home villages or region have no possibility of doing so. In most Native villages, the prospects for private sector economic development are limited, and due to declining oil revenues, state spending is projected to steadily decline throughout the 1990s. The projected decline in economic activity in rural Alaska coincides with the steadily increasing number of young Native adults who will be seeking to enter the work force. Every effort to take advantage of limited opportunities for private economic development should be encouraged. For Eskimo and Aleut residents of Bering Sea coastal villages, AFN's admonition was particularly ironic because, due in large part to the Magnuson Act, the ocean lapping at their doorsteps was roiling with private economic activity that for 16 years had been regulated by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council [Council] and the Secretary in a manner that had for the most part excluded their participation, even though section 301(a)(4)(A) of the act required the Council and the Secretary to regulate the opportunity to participate in Bering Sea fisheries in a manner that was ``fair and equitable'' to all fishermen, including Eskimo and Aleut fishermen who reside in Bering Sea coastal villages. The Council and the Secretary's failure to regulate Bering Sea fisheries in a manner that provided fishermen in Bering Sea coastal villages a ``fair and equitable'' opportunity to participate was particularly troubling given the fact that the Council and the Secretary both have a fiduciary obligation to exercise their regulatory authority in a manner that advances the well-being of Alaska Natives. Two months after the Alaska Federation of Natives presented A Call for Action to Congress, in May of 1989, the Council planning committee recommended that the Council amend its relevant fishery management plans to establish a western Alaska community development quota program. The objective of the program was to facilitate access to Bering Sea fisheries by Eskimo and Aleut residents of Bering Sea coastal villages by providing the villages in which they reside an opportunity to harvest a small portion of the total allowable catch of certain fish stocks. After careful review and numerous opportunities for public comment, in June of 1991, the Council approved an amendment to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries management plan that established a western Alaska community development quota program for Bering Sea pollock and allocated 7.5 percent of the Bering Sea pollock total allowable catch to ``communities of the Bering Sea coast'' that participate in the program. In May of 1992, the Secretary approved the amendment and in November of that year promulgated a rule adopting regulations which established a procedure for village participation in the program. The regulations identified 55 eligible Bering Sea coastal villages. To be eligible, a village was required to be located within fifty miles of the Bering Sea coast and to have been determined by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to be a ``Native village.'' In addition, the residents of an eligible village must have conducted more than half of their commercial or subsistence fishing effort in the waters of the Bering Sea. Finally, an eligible village ``must not have previously developed harvesting or processing capability sufficient to support substantial'' participation in the Bering Sea groundfish fishery. To participate in the western Alaska pollock community development quota program, the 55 villages formed six organizations: the Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association, the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation, the Coastal Villages Fishing Cooperative, the Aleutian Pribilof Island Development Association, and the Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association. Each organization then submitted a community development plan to the Governor of Alaska. When the Governor approved the plans, in December of 1992, the Secretary issued each organization the share of the 7.5 percent of the pollock total allowable catch that the Governor had determined was needed by the organization to implement its community development plan. Each community development quota organization has entered into a joint venture with an experienced fishing company to assist in the harvesting of its share of the pollock community development quota allocation. These joint venture efforts have provided employment for village residents on joint venture fishing vessels, in the processing of the pollock catch, and in the management of the joint ventures. Of coequal importance, the sale of the catch has provided working capital that each organization has used to finance village fishery-related economic development activities that otherwise would not be occurring. To what extent has the western Alaska pollock community development quota program contributed to alleviating the social problems described in ``A Call for Action''? Alarmed by ``A Call for Action's'' documentation of the accelerating social disintegration taking place in Native villages, in 1990, the Congress established a Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives to conduct ``a comprehensive study'' of ``the social and economic status of Alaska Natives,'' and to recommend actions that the Congress and the State of Alaska should take to better address the needs of Alaska Natives for ``economic self- sufficiency * * * and reduced incidence of social problems.'' In 1994, the Commission published a three-volume report that summarized the results of its investigation. Among the recommendations listed in its report, the Commission urged the Council ``to expand the community development quota [program] to other fisheries in the future.'' In fact, while the Commission was studying the community development quota program, the Council had already acted upon the Commission's report by recommending to the Secretary that he establish a western Alaska community development quota program for Bering Sea halibut and sablefish, in which the six community development quota organizations are presently participating. And in June of 1995, the Council recommended to the Secretary that he establish a third western Alaska community development quota program for Bering Sea crab species and other groundfish species. To facilitate the efficient implementation of the programs, the substitute amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act amends the Magnuson Act to require the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary to establish a single western Alaska community development quota program and to annually allocate a percentage of the total allowable catch and guideline harvest levels of each Bering Sea fishery to the program. The eligibility standards for participating in the program are the same standards that the Secretary previously established by regulation. Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the substitute amendment also authorizes the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council and the Secretary to establish a western Pacific community development program. Much like their brothers and sisters in Alaska, those indigenous people who for centuries had traditionally fished in the waters of the Western Pacific, have been increasingly foreclosed from access to the fishery, largely due to the fleets of foreign fishing vessels whose number, vessel size, and methods of harvesting have dominated the Western Pacific fishery. The Western Pacific community development quota program would be applied in the Western Pacific Region but would not, in all likelihood, employ a percentage of the total allowable catch of any particular species. Accordingly, while there is a section of the substitute bill that addresses fees associated with the allocation of a percentage of total allowable catch, it is not anticipated that the requirements of the section addressing fees would apply. Rather, it is anticipated that the Western Pacific program would place a priority on enabling access to the fishery for those that have been economically-fore closed from such access. Measures to enhance access might include regulation of limited entry permits, area closures, fishing zones, and vessel size. Joint venture agreements for the harvesting and processing of fish might also be employed as they are in the north Pacific region. In addition, under the western Pacific program authority, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council would be authorized to take into account traditional indigenous fishing practices in preparing any fishery management plan. The substitute also establishes authority for the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior to make direct grants to eligible western Pacific communities, as recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, for the purpose of establishing fishery demonstration projects to foster and promote traditional indigenous fishing practices. The demonstration projects are intended to foster and promote the involvement of western Pacific communities in the conservation and management of fisheries through the application of traditional fishing practices as a means for developing or enhancing western Pacific community-based fishing opportunities, the preservation of the island-based cultural values that shape their historical conservation ethic, and the development and implementation of community-based research and education programs. I am also pleased that the manager's substitute includes a provision authorizing Pacific Insular Area Fisheries Agreements for the purpose of enhancing fisheries conservation and management in the Pacific. This program will be funded under terms similar to those imposed on U.S. fishermen who seek access to fish resources in foreign waters. This program will greatly benefit our Nation and fisheries resources throughout the Pacific Ocean. I congratulate Senator Stevens, Senator Kerry and their staff, particularly Penny Dalton, Alex Elkan, Trevor McCabe, Earl Comstock, Glenn Merrill and Tom Melius for this great accomplishment.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wanted to take just a few moments to commend Senators Conrad Burns and Harry Reid, the chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee. The conference report for the fiscal year 1997 Military Construction Appropriations Act that has been put before the Senate is an excellent product. It protects the interests of the Senate, and more importantly, it addresses the needs of our men and women in uniform. This conference agreement represents a compromise between the House and the Senate, and I am aware that many items of interest to Members of both the House and the Senate had to be scaled back or deferred. Nonetheless, I am convinced that Chairman Burns and Senator Reid brokered a good deal for the Senate. I understand that there are several projects which were supported by the Senate in both the appropriations and authorization processes that are funded in this conference agreement, but for which no funds are specifically authorized in the conference report filed by the Armed Services Committee. I am hopeful that legislation will be enacted by the end of this session which will clarify the position of the Congress that these programs should be considered authorized and I will work to that end. Once again, I wanted to thank Senators Burns and Reid for their leadership on this matter and I urge all my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the managers of the bill for your assistance in this matter. Mr. MURKOWSKI: Mr. President, I am here today because the people of Alaska face a very serious problem. But, unlike other times when we face problems and find solutions, in this case the solution may be even worse. I'm referring to the use of oxygenated fuels to reduce the emissions of carbon monoxide. These alternative fuels are required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Alaska has two areas where carbon monoxide levels are above those required by the law. But when we tried using gasoline treated with ether-based oxygenates, the people of Alaska became ill. Headaches, coughs, nausea, as well as other ailments, all resulted from exposure to these fuel additives. Additionally, study after scientific study shows, oxygenated fuel doesn't reduce carbon monoxide levels in the extreme cold of Alaska. This finding was recently reinforced by a report of the National Research Council [NRC]. The NRC recognized that oxygenated fuels decrease carbon monoxide emissions under Federal test procedure conditions using fuel-control systems, but also stated that ``* * * the data presented do not establish the existence of this benefit under winter driving conditions.'' And oxygenates increase the costs of gasoline for the average working Alaskan. In sum, Mr. President, no environmental benefit, adverse health effects, and higher fuel costs. This is not the solution the Clean Air Act intended. I am pleased to be here with my friend Senator Bond from Missouri and my friend Senator Faircloth from North Carolina to discuss this issue today. In previous years, the VA/HUD Appropriation Act has included language that prohibited implementation of an oxygenated fuel program in States where the winter temperature is below 0 degree. That language was designed to allow time for additional studies to be conducted on using ethanol-treated fuel in our cold weather, and to keep Alaskans from suffering adverse health effects with no environmental improvement in the quality of our air. I had hoped to see that amendment included in this year's bill.

Mr. INOUYE. I wish to raise an issue of concern with the managers of the bill. It relates to the direction of an audit conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's [FEMA] inspector general on the county of Kauai and the State of Hawaii on the damages caused by Hurricane Iniki. It looks to undo insurance settlements, sanctioned by FEMA and agreed upon 4 years ago. In doing so, the inspector general would renege on funding commitments FEMA previously made, thereby leaving the county with outstanding obligations and in debt. The State of Hawaii voluntarily purchased insurance over that which was required after Hurricane Iwa hit in 1981. To now second guess the county's settlement with its insurance carriers, and then use it as the basis for denying previously approved damage survey reports [DSR's] is without precedent. It is a disincentive for States and cities to insure themselves against natural disasters. FEMA is wrongly penalizing a State for its good faith effort to minimize future losses and reduce the expenditure of Federal funds. There are currently no clear guidelines in the Stafford Act.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the House of Representatives approved $110.8 million in fiscal year 1997 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's [NASA] academic programs. This amount reflects a $3.9 million increase from fiscal year 1996, and a $10 million increase above the administration's budget request. I understand that the Senate proposal did not include a funding increase for NASA's academic programs. I support increased funding for this valuable program. This will allow NASA to fund ongoing programs as well as fund new innovative programs. One such program involves a science education program developed by Hawaii's Bishop Museum. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin has indicated his personal support for this program which involves the creation of two dynamic multimedia planetarium programs and associated educational materials around the theme of exploration. The ``Journey by Starlight'' program is an interactive simulation of navigating a Hawaiian canoe from Tahiti to Hawaii. The ``Eyes of the Universe'' program will focus on modern technology and human exploration of the universe from earth and space-based observatories, particularly those in Hawaii. Using various distribution techniques, it is estimated that at least 800,000 students and 500,000 families and nontraditional students across the Nation will experience these programs. Complementing the planetarium programs will be educational curricula for grades 3 through 12, an interactive and evolving World Wide Web site, video resources, and an interactive CD-ROM. Mr. President, it is my hope that during the House-Senate conference you will support increased funding for NASA's academic programs and give consideration to the joint initiative between NASA and Hawaii's Bishop Museum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, when we in the Senate unanimously passed the health insurance reform bill in April, we included an amendment offered by Senators Domenici and Wellstone that provided for parity coverage for mental health services. I was proud of our vote. We did the right thing by ensuring that persons who suffer mental illness are treated fairly by insurance companies. The conferees stripped the Domenici-Wellstone amendment out of the bill. However, by our April vote, this Chamber made a commitment to fairness in insurance coverage for persons with mental illness. The health insurance reform bill is about fairness. Just as the bill now prevents insurers from dropping people's coverage when they change jobs or for other reasons, the bill should also have prevented insurers from discriminating against persons suffering mental illness. Leaving the Domenici-Wellstone mental health parity amendment out of the bill is wrong. I know that the business and insurance communities raised some concerns about the cost and impact of the Domenici-Wellstone amendment with the conferees. I also know that Senators Domenici and Wellstone answered every concern raised. While I view the CBO estimate for the cost of the original amendment as extremely reasonable, I understand that Senators Domenici and Wellstone offered a compromise to the conferees that would have provided parity coverage only for annual and lifetime caps. This compromise slashed the cost of the original amendment by 90 percent. CBO determined that the compromise would increase private insurance premiums by four-tenths of 1 percent, of which employers would pay only sixteen one-hundredths of 1 percent. My fellow colleagues, these figures are so low, that employers could meet this slight premium increase by raising their deductible by a mere $5 per year. I understand that insurance and business interests also raised concerns about the loss of workers' insurance due to the compromises' cost. Considering CBO's extremely low cost estimate, no one could possibly contend that passage of the compromise would cause workers to lose their insurance. The compromise went even further. It permitted businesses to deliver mental health services through ``carveout'' arrangements and to adjust deductibles, copayments, and visit limits for mental health services as they saw fit. Small businesses would have been completely exempt from the parity standard. I believe that Senators Domenici and Wellstone should be commended for developing a compromise that the conferees should have accepted. Now, we have made a promise to persons suffering mental illness in this country. We have promised they will treated fairly, just as this bill promises fairer health care coverage for other Americans. I will personally join with Senators Domenici and Wellstone to ensure that we make good on our promise.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I regret that the conferees on the welfare reform bill have decided to report out a measure that is short-sighted and punitive to children, the disabled, and legal immigrants. I realize that the President has indicated that he will sign this bill into law, but I have concerns, as have already been expressed by the President in his recent statement, with many of its provisions. Preliminary estimates that this measure will push an additional 1.3 million children nationwide into poverty. Once families have reached the 5-year time limit for receiving assistance in this legislation, they will have no recourse for assistance if a poor economy leave them without the possibility of finding employment. Legal immigrants, including those who have been in this country for some time already, will be prevented from participating in all Federal means-tested programs, including the Food Stamp and Medicaid Programs. This measure also cuts $23 billion from the Food Stamp Program over the next 6 years. It also limits benefits for those out of work without minor children to 3 months total in a 3-year period. This measure will cause much grief in Hawaii. The State is already at its limit in its ability to assist those living in poverty, and the changes in the Federal law will only exacerbate a bid situation I believe that the intent of a welfare reform bill should be to make it easier for families to make the transition from welfare to work. This bill does not provide adequate resources for States to provide the necessary support for families to do so. For these reasons, I will vote against the conference report. However, I wish to commend the conferees for including in the bill that will now go before the President important provisions that would: First, provide child support enforcement services and funding to Indian tribes; second, authorize a State to exempt any Indian tribe from the 5-year limitation on participation for any Indian residing on an Indian reservation where the resident Indian population is 1,000 or more and where the unemployment rate is 50 percent or higher; and third, establish a 3 percent set-aside for American Indian tribal governments in the child care development block grant. Given the President's statement of his intent to sign his measure into law, I am pleased that the conferees have given special attention to the very serious needs of tribal communities.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I very much appreciate my colleagues' interest and support for enhancing the U.S. aquaculture industry by developing, testing, and transferring science-based technology to the commercial aquaculture sector. Horticultural and Water Management Research Laboratory

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the years, the Congress has been supportive of utilizing Hawaii's unique environment to develop important science-based aquaculture technology and to demonstrate and provide that technology to the U.S. aquaculture industry. With initial construction funding for Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture in 1988 and subsequent installments in 1994 and 1995, enough money has been appropriated in the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service's buildings and facilities account to complete construction of a full-fledged aquaculture research and precommercialization facility in the Hawaiian Islands. The dynamic proposal for the Center for Applied Aquaculture has grown to demonstrate the importance of a core research facility together with satellite facilities, including grow-out ponds to demonstrate new technology on a larger than laboratory precommercialization scale, protected quarantine facilities to ensure the all-important maintenance of disease free fish stock, and a hatchery to supply fry to the research and demonstration components. Hawaii's island geography and the physical limitations of the core research facility dictate the establishment of the essential satellite demonstration, quarantine and hatchery facilities on neighboring islands. There would be no question about building these integral components if the core research site could accommodate them properly. However, with no further appropriation and with the support of the Agriculture Department for the satellite components, all of this can still be accomplished in Hawaii. I would hope that my colleagues, Chairman Cochran and Senator Bumpers, could support this vision of Hawaii's Center for Applied Aquaculture, which will not only provide for a total package of groundbreaking aquaculture technology that can be demonstrated at a level to make it viable for private commercial investment, but will also give the Federal Government the highest and best use of its investment over the last 8 years.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of this bill for including my language in committee to prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from obligating funds to close the Pacific Ocean Division [POD] office. The Pacific Ocean Division has the largest civil works jurisdictional area, covering almost a one-third of the globe. Maintaining the POD office is very important to the United States' ability to deliver critical military and civil works assistance to our allies in the Asia- Pacific region. The POD has been characterized as a model of efficiency and effectiveness, particularly in military construction. In this age of restructuring to improve efficiency, the Army Corps of Engineers proposal seems to undermine these goals. I have requested that the Army Corps of Engineers provide me with a detailed cost/benefit analysis justifying closing the POD. I have not been provided with this analysis. Until an analysis is provided that demonstrates that the POD is not a model of efficiency and effectiveness, I will fight to see that the POD remains open. I request that the chairman and ranking member make every effort to ensure that the Senate position is maintained in conference with the House.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all Americans are concerned about the world's environment and how to protect it. Parts of the world not close to most of us still affect all of us greatly. One part of the world that is remote to most Americans, but vitally important to all of our welfare, is the rain forest. All of us are endangered by the destruction of rain forests that is occurring all over the world. The rain forests constitute unique and irreplaceable ecosystems sometimes called the lungs of the earth. In addition to their function in replenishing the Earth's atmosphere, the rain forests provide essential protection against global warming, contain hundreds of plants found nowhere else on Earth, house many animals unique to the rain forests alone, and provide protection against destruction of coral reefs and marine life. I would like to bring to your attention the efforts to save these vital systems and to recognize an individual who is being honored for his own efforts to save the rain forests. His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV of the Kingdom of Tonga has been selected to receive this year's Seacology Foundation Award as the Indigenous Conservationist of the Year in recognition of his superb efforts to preserve the rain forest and indigenous Polynesian culture. His Royal Highness' successes include providing royal protection for the peka or flying fox colony in Kolovai Village in Tongatupu Island. He is also responsible for protecting the primary forest of `Eau Island and for establishing a system of nature preserves throughout the Kingdom of Tonga. None of these achievements would have occurred without His Royal Highness. Seacology Foundation is a nonprofit foundation founded to help protect island ecosystems and island cultures. Seacology scientists include experts in endangered species, island flora and fauna, and island ecosystems. One hundred percent of the money donated to Seacology goes directly to building schools, hospitals, installing safe water supplies, and meeting other needs of the rain forest villagers so that they will not have to sell off the rain forest to survive. Seacology scientists donate their time as well. I congratulate His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and the Seacology Foundation for all of their efforts. I ask that the letter from Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D., chairman of the board of the Seacology Foundation, to His Royal Highness be printed in the Record. The Seacology Foundation, Springfield, UT, December 15, 1995. His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, The Kingdom of Tonga. Your Royal Highness: It is with deepest respect that I inform your royal highness that you have been selected as the 1996 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year by the Seacology Foundation. This annual award is made to honor those indigenous people who have performed heroic service in preserving their own ecosystems and cultures. After careful consideration of the activities of your majesty in providing royal protection for the peka or flying fox colony in Kolovai Village in Tongatapu island (which is the oldest flying fox refuge in the world), for your protection of the primary forest of Eua island, for your support in establishing a system of nature preserves throughout the Kingdom of Tonga, and for your life-long service as an interpreter and custodian of Tongan culture, both ancient and modern, the Scientific Advisory Board of the Seacology Foundation has unanimously voted to honor your majesty with this award, which is the most prestigious conservation award for indigenous people in the world. The Seacology Foundation invites you, at our expense, to attend an award dinner in your honor and a presentation ceremony in Salt Lake City, Utah to receive your award, which will consist of an engraved plaque and a cash award of $1,000. Fine Nau and I will meet with you personally to arrange a convenient date for this event. Because of your stellar service, both public and private to conservation, and because of the tremendous example of dedication and courage that you have set for your own people--the Polynesian Islanders--and for indigenous peoples throughout the world, the Seacology Foundation is pleased to bestow upon you the most distinguished award for indigenous conservation in the world by naming you 1996 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year. We offer you our sincere appreciation for your tremendous devotion to protecting this planet. Warmest personal regards, Nafanua Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of the bill, Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy for accepting the Inouye- D'Amato amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the German Government expand the criteria by which Holocaust survivors may qualify for compensation. Time is of the essence. Most of the survivors are in their mid-to- late seventies. Each day of delay causes the survivors of one of the most gruesome atrocities mankind has ever witnessed to move a day closer to never recovering the compensation, albeit symbolic, they certainly deserve. The German Government and the United States Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany are about to engage in the yearly process of negotiating new categories by which survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to receive compensation. I recognize that there is absolutely no amount of financial remuneration that can adequately compensate these survivors for the unimaginable suffering they experienced. However, in many cases, pensions of approximately $300 to $500 a month will make a significant difference in the lifestyle these survivors will experience in their golden years. I would like to take a moment to share with my colleagues the type of hardship my constituent Mr. Armin Nagel experienced while interned at the Vapniarka camp in Romania. Mr. Nagel was interned during World War II in Transnistria, in the Vapniarka concentration camp and in the Grosulovo ghetto just inside the Romanian border. Vapniarka was a camp used primarily for Jews. In mid-September of 1942 over 1,000 Jews, of which about 400 were from the Tirgu Jiu camp, were transferred to Vapniarka by train through Tiraspol. They joined the 630 Jews from Bessarabia and Bucovina and about 50 to 60 Ukrainian inmates already interned there. In mid-October of 1943, 700 Jewish survivors were transferred from Vapniarka to the Grosulovo Ghetto and the Vapniarka camp was closed. While in Vapniarka, the inmates were severely beaten by their guards and by fellow Ukrainian inmates. Based on survivors' testimonies, Raul Hilberg, in his book ``The Destruction of the European Jews,'' describes the food that the inmates received as follows: Vapniarka was the site of a unique Romanian nutritional policy. The inmates were regularly fed 400 grams of a kind of chick pea (tathyrus savitus) which Soviet agriculturists had been giving to hogs, cooked in water and salt and mixed with 200 grams of barley to which was added a 20-percent filler of straw. No other diet was allowed. The result of this diet manifested itself in muscular cramps, uncertain gait, arterial spasms in the legs, paralysis and incapacitation. This is just one example of the type of terrible treatment the prisoners experienced at Vapniarka. Mr. Nagel has been denied a pension by the German authorities because Vapniarka has been categorized as a labor camp. Today, Mr. Nagel is 76 years old and survives on a moderate income supplemented by Social Security. This enables him to meet his basic necessities of food, shelter and clothing. A pension of $300 to $500 a month will make the difference between making ends meet and being able to live a decent lifestyle during his golden years. Through this resolution the Senate encourages the German Government to negotiate expediently and in good faith with the United States Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. clarification of the ban on aid to azerbaijan