Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Children's Health of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 29, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen room 406 to hold a hearing entitled, ``Promoting and Improving Children's Health Protections.''

Mr INOUYE

Mr INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 29, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Body Building Products and Hidden Steroids: Enforcement Barriers.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, earlier, the Senator from Arizona raised concerns that the Committee on Appropriations had reduced funding in the operation and maintenance accounts. As I noted in my opening statement, this committee of ours reviews the entire budget and adjusts funds based on that review. That review came out with various results, and I would like to discuss some of them with you. Before I do the analysis, I would just point out to my colleagues the budget that we are considering at this moment was formulated about a year ago--a year ago. That is when the process began. I am certain all of us will agree that since that time much has changed. Therefore, the committee believed we owe it to the Senate to apply the funds we recommended where they are most needed at this moment, not where they were needed a year ago. For example, the reductions to operations and maintenance programs we recommended are based on a lack of justification or of changed requirements. The funds are not reduced because of a need to transfer funding to other appropriations. The Senator from Arizona suggested we are taking out certain funding to pay for earmarks. The O&M accounts--operation and maintenance accounts--were reduced in this fiscal year 2010 base budget for many reasons, and just let me explain a few. Five hundred million dollars, or half a billion dollars, was not a cut as suggested by the Senator from Arizona, but it was, rather, a transfer from the base budget request to the overseas contingency operations budget because the resources for certain programs were more appropriately funded for the Iraq and Afghanistan war. This is what they suggested. One hundred million dollars was reduced based on administrative savings proposals. In April of this year the Office of Management and Budget was directed by the President to work with agencies to identify cuts to their administrative budgets separate and apart from those identified by the fiscal year 2010 budget--beyond that. The DOD savings identified by the administration was $100 million in fiscal year 2010, and we allocated these funds to other worthy projects. Finally, $100 million was cut from the Security and Stabilization Program because that was not authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, we do this type of review every year. Every year someone complains their programs are cut, but we stand by our recommendations. We do more to enhance the readiness of the forces in this bill than was requested. Keep in mind since this budget was drafted, we have requested and added 30,000 more troops. We do so by providing equipment to our National Guard and Reserves. Everyone supports the National Guard, but we give them secondhand tools. It is about time they got some good ones. We do so by applying resources to buy MRAPs to protect our troops. And, yes, we do so to buy more C-17s to carry our forces wherever our leaders send them. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the statement I am about to present may appear a bit redundant after listening to the great statement of the senior Senator from Mississippi, vice chairman of this committee. But as chairman of this committee, I want to, by this redundancy, emphasize that Senator Cochran and I work as a team, and we agree with the provisions in this measure. For the interest of this body, it should be noted that this measure was passed and presented to the Senate by a vote of 30 to zero--unanimous. A $636 billion bill coming out of the committee, after due consideration, unanimously is historic. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona seeks to eliminate funds provided in this bill to sustain the C-17 program. As I indicated, Vice Chairman Cochran and I proposed, and the committee accepted, our recommendation to relocate $2.5 billion to procure an additional 10 C- 17 aircraft. If approved, this will bring the total C-17 inventory to 223 aircraft. We believe this is a critical investment which will support our national security strategy and add much to the needed airlift capability. There are three main reasons the committee supported adding funding for the C-17: First, as everyone in the military, from senior leadership to the soldiers being transported, will agree, it is, simply put, a superb aircraft. The C-17 represents the finest in military technology. It is efficient, cost-effective, and highly capable. In short, it has no detractors. Second, we believe the facts now show that additional aircraft are needed to meet military requirements despite that it is being recommended by the Pentagon for cancellation. Third, the C-17 embodies the only strategic airlift production program in our Nation. As the Senator from Missouri pointed out, there is nothing on the planning ledger to replace it. If we cut off the production at this moment, it will be unaffordable to restart this program. The C-17 provides the U.S. military with the essential flexibility to respond on short notice--and I emphasize short notice--anywhere in the world. Our air fleet assets are a major enabler of strategy and operational plans. There is not a military scenario in existence today which can be put into effect without a strong airlift fleet. The C-17 was designed specifically to meet virtually all of the needs of our warfighters. It is the only airlift aircraft that has the ability to fly both great distances and to land on austere airfields anywhere in the world. That is very important because we don't have long runways prepared for us in far-off countries. When teamed with the tactical C- 130 and the C-5, the C-17 fleet provides the Nation with the capability to deliver outsized cargo to our forces wherever they may be located. We believe the C-17 is today the finest airlift aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. With its new avionics and structures, it can maintain a very high mission capability rate. This is a term used by the Air Force to denote the aircraft's ability to perform. Comparative data filed by the Government Accountability Office in November 2008 showed that the C-17 was able to successfully perform its mission in excess of 85 percent of the time. And I think we should note that--85 percent of the time, they are able to perform their mission. On the other hand, the aging C-5 was only able to meet its performance demands 58 percent of the time. For our men and women in uniform, what this means is that if they are depending on a C-5, their needs will be only addressed a little more than half the time, while a C-17 will meet their needs more than 8 times out of 10. In addition, the C-17 is much cheaper to operate than the C-5. It is true that a C-5 has the capacity to carry more cargo, but in the actual usage by the Air Force, the cost per flying hour of the C-17 is only 40 percent of the cost of the C-5. The Air Force has informed us that today its current statistics show that it costs $6.42 to fly 1 pound of cargo from South Carolina to Baghdad on a C-17--that is $6.42 from South Carolina to Baghdad--but $13.76 to fly the same item on a C-5. Why? Because the C-5 is unreliable, because we rarely need to fill either plane to its maximum capacity on an average mission, and because the C-17 is newer and modernized in comparison to the C-5. We simply cannot rely on the older, outdated C-5. Opponents might argue that when we modernize the C-5 it will be able to overcome many of these problems. I would concur that a modernized C- 5 will be a far better aircraft. However, I would point out that the C- 5 Modernization Program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. Because of the high cost of the C-5 Modernization Program, the Defense Department decided that it could no longer afford to modernize all 111 C-5s and it cut the program to 52. That means our military will be dependent on 59 of the old and often broken C-5s that cost twice as much to operate as the C-17 for the foreseeable future. That is 47 percent of the C-5 fleet that won't be updated and will be unable to operate efficiently to meet our military needs. The Government Accountability Office noted that additional investments in the C-17 may be attractive. It calculated that the Defense Department would need to modernize, as Senator Cochran pointed out, seven C-5s--to modernize seven C-5s--to get the equivalent capability gained from acquiring one C-17. It is going to take seven C- 5s to do the work of one C-17, but it would cost three times as much to modernize the seven C-5s as it would to purchase one C-17. I would like to point out that the C-17 is a fully matured program with stable costs and little uncertainty, while the C-5 Modernization Program is still in its infancy. If there is one thing we know about Defense programs, it is that new program costs generally increase during their early years. Some may address the Senate and say we don't need any more C-17s. They note that today the Air Force now says we only need the 213 we already have purchased. I would like to point out that in 2002 the commander of the U.S. Transportation Command testified that his C-17 requirement was for 222 C-17s. Moreover, the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study also raises questions about how many aircraft are required. This study, which is supposed to be the basis of our strategic airlift capability requirements, identified the need for between 292 and 383 strategic airlift aircraft, a combination of C-17s and modernized C-5s. In the force today, we have 111 C-5s and 205 C-17s--a total of 315 aircraft--near the bottom of the requirement level. But that doesn't tell the whole story. In the last Quadrennial Defense Review in 2006, the Defense Department opted to keep its total inventory near the bottom of this requirement range with 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s. Although we have added C-17s since that time and lost one C-5, the more important fact is that the QDR based this recommendation on a plan to modernize all 112 C-5s. With the plan to only modernize 52 C-5s, the airlift capability of the fleet is drastically diminished. In 2008, the commander of the Air Force Air Mobility Command expressed his concern with this plan. He testified that the plan with 52 modernized C-5s and 205 C-17s will not provide the strategic airlift that he required. I would also note that these earlier studies did not take into account today's force structure. That is a very important point. Since the mobility study and the QDR were completed we have transformed our Army creating additional combat capability that requires lift. We have increased the end strength of our Marine Corps, and we have created the U.S. Africa command. All of these have increased our airlift needs. At the same time, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are aging our airlift fleet beyond anticipated rates. We are flying the wings off our C-17 fleet. In November, 2007, the Air Force Chief of Staff recommended buying an additional 44 C-17s to meet the required force level. On the 2009 Unfunded Requirements List the Air Force asked for an additional 15 C-17 aircraft with a stated inventory objective of 248 C-17s. Our military leaders have called for additional aircraft, our forces have grown since our last studies were written and our plans have been altered to cut back on our modernization program. It seems to me that notwithstanding the plan offered by the Defense Department, the country has a choice--we can either agree to modernize all the C-5s or we can continue to procure additional C-17s. As noted earlier, as the GAO discovered a new C-17 offers greater capability at a lower price. To me and to many of my colleagues this just makes sense. Unless we act this year and approve the recommendation from the Appropriations Committee, we won't have a choice. Without the funds in this bill the C-17 program will begin to shut down. I say to my colleagues this is a critical decision and we have to be certain on our course. As the GAO noted, ``careful planning is needed to ensure C-17 production is not ended prematurely . . . Restarting production would not be feasible or cost effective.'' That is the GAO. Earlier this decade, on several occasions the Defense Department urged the Congress to allow it to begin to retire the oldest and least capable C-5s. It too believed that purchasing additional C-17s was a far superior choice to meet our airlift needs. However, each year the Congress refused to allow DoD to retire any C-5s. Eventually, the Pentagon gave up trying and decided it would be stuck with the old unreliable C-5s. While it originally sought to upgrade all the old C-5s to at least make the best of a bad situation, the cost overruns and delays in the C-5 modernization program made that decision unaffordable. I would point out that the Congress rectified this problem this year in the supplemental and allowed the Air Force to begin to retire these aged aircraft. We know that it makes economical sense to retire these poorly performing aircraft and to replace them with new C-17s. We are looking forward to the Air Force revisiting this issue in the fiscal year 2011 budget with a renewed plan to retire the older C-5s and hopefully a desire to replace them with new C-17s. In this year's budget the Secretary of Defense has made some tough decisions'' He has opted to kill the F-22, the JSF second engine, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter, the combat search and rescue helicopter and the kinetic energy interceptor. In the bill before the Senate we have supported each of these recommendations. I will be candid that I am not confident that each of these recommendations is in our Nation's interest, but in general I support the Secretary's plans. There is only one program that the vice chairman and I felt strongly enough about to reverse the recommendation of the Secretary, the C-17. I have explained at some length why, it is cost effective, it is capable, and it is needed. I urge all my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from Arizona and to vote to support the continuation of the C-17 program. It is in our Nation's interest. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Robert Berschinski, a fellow with the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, and Rachel Meyer, staff assistant for the Defense Subcommittee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 3326.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of the bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010. On behalf of the committee, Vice Chairman Cochran and I are recommending funding which totals $636.3 billion for the discretionary programs under the Defense Subcommittee's jurisdiction. This amount is $3.9 billion below the amount requested but is the same as the subcommittee's allocation. Of this amount $128.2 billion is funding to sustain our overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. I applaud Secretary Gates and the administration for putting forward a budget request which covers the operations both for the normal cost of running our national security programs and for the ongoing wartime needs. The proposed funding in this measure protects the priorities of our military and civilian leaders; it supports our men and women in uniform, and provides the funding needed for critical acquisition programs. There has been much discussion this year about proposals by the administration to cut funding for ``unneeded'' weapons programs. Vice Chairman Cochran and I have reviewed each of the proposals by the administration. While we are not in complete agreement with the judgment of administration officials, we have generally concurred with the recommendations of our current leaders. I would like to remind the Members of the Senate that the Defense Department has been wrong on several occasions in recommending program terminations. Luckily the Congress has not always agreed with such proposals. Let me give three examples, although we could spend all day relaying examples of mistakes by previous administrations. First, the F-117 Stealth fighter. After producing only one squadron of F-117s the Air Force wanted to terminate the program which some in the Defense Department saw as a threat to the F-15E. Congress continued to add funding for the program until two squadrons had been completely filled out. Without the additional aircraft provided by the Congress, the Defense Department would have been woefully short of Stealth aircraft in conducting operations in Desert Storm and Bosnia. Second, the first Bush administration fought very hard to kill the V- 22 which today the Marine Corps considers one of its greatest assets. Finally, I would remind my colleagues that shortly before Desert Shield-Desert Storm some in the Pentagon wanted to eliminate the Central Command. The view at the time was that we probably wouldn't need to focus much attention on South West Asia. This clearly demonstrates that our ability to predict hot spots and future threats is not perfect. As we go forward today--killing the F-22, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter, the Combat Search and Rescue helicopter, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, we do so with the hope that today's military and civilian leaders are better able to predict the future than some of their predecessors were. The recommendations before the Senate provide our best judgment on the needs of our Nation for national security. We have not provided funding for the closure of Guantanamo because the administration has yet to produce a credible plan. Instead we have included language which for all practical purposes is the same as was adopted by the Senate earlier this year. We have adjusted funding for the littoral combat ship because the administration did not request sufficient funding to produce the quantity it requested. On that subject, I must report that the administration has recently announced that it will only procure two LCS ships this year, which is the number that our committee has funded. We have reapplied savings cut from unjustified amounts requested in the budget to programs that are better suited for funding. For example, we have reduced amounts requested for Afghanistan security forces which the administration has informed the committee cannot be spent in the coming year and transferred that amount to cover a shortfall in the critically needed MRAP program. While we strongly concur with the administration that increased funding is required to train and equip our Afghan army and police forces, the amount that we recommend is nearly $1 billion more than was provided for fiscal year 2009. Moreover, my colleagues should be advised that the Defense Department has not yet spent nearly $2 billion of the funds that are currently available for this program as we near the end of this fiscal year. Notwithstanding the critical importance of funding for the Afghan security forces, it simply makes no sense to provide more funding than can be spent for this program when other shortfalls exist. Along with our staffs we spend countless hours reviewing the programs and funding requests proposed by the administration. As you all know the defense budget is huge and it is extremely complex. There are thousands of acquisition and operations programs. In most cases the specific amounts requested for each of these programs was proposed by the military services more than a year ago. During the intervening period many changes occur. It is not unusual for a program to be delayed or even terminated while a request is pending before the Congress. As such, it is up to the subcommittee to make the necessary adjustments based on the latest information to ensure that the Nation is afforded the best use of the funds provided in this measure. In so doing, we are recommending several program increases in this bill. For example, we are recommending adding $1.5 billion to provide for essential equipment for our National Guard and Reserve Forces. We have also added funding to sustain our near term missile defense programs--like the AEGIS standard missile, THAAD radars, and ground based interceptors for testing. We are recommending $1.7 billion to purchase an additional DDG-51 Destroyer to put that restarted program on a more efficient and economical production schedule. And we have added $2.5 billion to sustain production of the C-17 program for one additional year. The administration has recently been provided with authority to retire the aging, hard to maintain, and often broken C-5A force. We expect that in re-examining its airlift fleet the Defense Department will eventually conclude that purchasing additional C-17s and maintaining the strategic asset of a hot airlift production line is the right solution. On the question of earmarks, as we described earlier this year, the committee has reduced the amount recommended for earmarks by $300 million or 10 percent from last year's recommendation. In numbers, the committee has reduced the number of earmarks by nearly 200 fewer projects. We recognize that most members of the Senate will receive less than last year. we hope that our colleagues can support this package with its streamlined approach to earmarking. Collectively, we believe the recommendations in this bill will provide for our Nation's defense and is far superior to the budget request submitted by the administration. Having had the time to review the suggestions of the administration carefully has afforded the subcommittee the opportunity to produce a better bill. I hope that all my colleagues can support the bill which was approved unanimously by the committee.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items I certify that the information required by rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate related to congressionally directed spending items has been identified in the committee report which accompanies H.R. 2996 and that the required information has been available on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize a great American and a dedicated naval officer who has diligently served for the past 35 years and most recently served as the Director, Navy Nurse Corps. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler, a native of Camden, New Jersey, entered the Navy in 1974 after earning her Bachelor of Science in Nursing from Villanova University. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler served in many nursing roles, obtained her master's and doctoral degrees, and was selected to serve in many distinguished senior health executive assignments including executive officer, commanding officer, and now regional commander and commander. However, the most rewarding role of her career was serving as the 21st Director Navy Nurse Corps, where she led more than 4100 Active-Duty and Reserve nurses to advance the role and relevance of nursing in the military and throughout our Nation. With visionary leadership, she championed initiatives that successfully increased nurse recruitment and retention through accession and specialty pay bonuses, loan repayment programs, and educational opportunities to both military and Federal civilian nurses. Seeing firsthand the physical and psychological wounds of war borne by our young servicemembers and their families, Admiral Bruzek-Kohler spearheaded nursing operational readiness improvements to include clinical sustainment policies and the expansion of mental health nurse specialists and mental health nurse practitioners within the Nurse Corps. Admiral Bruzek-Kohler served with passion and conviction and profoundly impacted Federal nursing issues within the Navy and our nation. Her performance reflects exceptionally on herself, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation to Admiral Bruzek-Kohler on behalf of a grateful nation for her years of dedicated service to the Navy Nurse Corps.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there are no words to express the sadness of the great loss of our dear friend Senator Edward M. Kennedy. America has lost a great patriot and great leader. I have lost a good friend. While it is difficult to say goodbye to a dear friend, I am consoled with the certainty that Ted's spirit and message will continue to resonate in the Senate. The solemn but joyful celebration of Ted's life reminded one and all that we should remember to help the poor, to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, and to be compassionate with those who are less fortunate than us. I will do my best to keep Ted's spirit alive. I offer my deepest condolences to the Kennedy family. Mr. President, as America mourns, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this magnificent Senator.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of the fiscal year 2010 transportation and housing and urban development appropriations bill. This bill includes total resources of $122 billion; a level of funding that is $1.2 billion below the administration's request. The programs funded by this bill are critical to our ongoing efforts both to support the economic recovery and to provide a safety net to the most vulnerable who have been impacted by the economic downturn. Specifically, this bill provides critical funding to our States and local communities for transportation infrastructure investments and for ensuring the safety of our transportation system. This bill also provides housing and services to our most vulnerable constituents and supports the efforts of our local communities as they continue to address the impacts of the foreclosure crisis. The two managers of this bill, Senators Murray and Bond, have worked diligently to offer a strong bipartisan bill that tackles lingering major economic issues, and they have succeeded in doing so with limited resources. The committee supported their recommendations unanimously, and the bill was reported out of the Appropriations Committee on July 30 by a recorded vote of 30 to 0. Members of the Senate have had the entire month of August to review the committee's recommendations. This bill is the fifth fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Bill to be considered by the Senate, and while we are making steady progress, we have much work ahead of us. Therefore, given that Members have had the last month to review the bill, if a Member has an amendment, I encourage them to come to the floor today and offer it. We have seven remaining bills ready for immediate consideration after this one. I therefore encourage my colleagues not to delay action on this bill.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the Senator's kind words for me. I wish to express my agreement with her on the creation of an Under Secretary position in the Department of Commerce who oversees the tourism industry. I have advocated for the Under Secretary position in the past, and continue to support its creation for the reasons you described. The State of Hawaii's economy relies heavily on travel and tourism, and welcomes visitors from across this great Nation and from around the world. International travelers to the United States generate a tremendous amount of economic activity. The Department of Commerce found that in 2008, total U.S. international travel receipts were $142 billion. International tourism provided support for over 800,000 U.S. jobs, $30 billion in payroll, and $17 billion in tax revenue. The economic benefit of this industry should be represented, and requires policy-related coordination. An Under Secretary would provide that voice. This is especially true when the U.S. engages in international negotiations around travel and tourism policy. It is important that the United States is represented by an appropriately ranked official, with the same authority as his or her counterparts.

Mr. INOUYE. I do. I look forward to working with the Senator on this issue in the future, and with Senator Bingaman who has also been a strong advocate for this issue.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues in support of S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, which is now being considered by the full Senate. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 will allow the United States to remain competitive as a welcoming destination for foreign travelers. Our ability to explain the processes and changes made by the United States to gain entry for travel will help to ease fears about the entry process. The proposed nonprofit, independent corporation charged with this responsibility will be able to conduct the necessary outreach and promote tourism in a way that the tourism industry cannot. In addition, an Office of Travel Promotion will be able to work with the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the entry process. Promoting the United States as an attractive tourist destination for both leisure and business with international visitors is of the utmost importance to the many States that house destination resorts. Consider the experience of my own home State of Hawaii. Hawaii's economy relies on tourism and travelers. Visitors from around the world come to see our islands' natural beauty and experience the spirit of ``Aloha.'' Our Nation's hospitality industry suffered a severe setback following the events of September 11, 2001, and travel from abroad to the United States has fallen dramatically. The industry continues to struggle during these difficult economic times coupled with fears about a pandemic influenza. Hawaii's experience is not unique. The hospitality industry nationwide has faced similar challenges, and the economic effects have rippled through the Nation to impact all of our citizens. The State of Hawaii's visitor statistics reflect the downward trend, which accelerated during last year's increase in the cost of oil. Compared to the first 7 months in 2008, visitors to the islands for the same period this year fell by 8.1 percent. Nationwide, the number of international visitors through the first two quarters of 2009 fell by 10.3 percent as compared to the same period during 2008. Both developing countries and industrialized economies around the world have ministers and offices that promote travel to their respective countries. However, the United States does not have an office that promotes travel and tourism abroad. This legislation is an important first step in the right direction. Establishing an Office of Travel Promotion will help to attract foreign travelers to the United States. This will not only sustain our tourism based industries, it reinforces business relationships and promotes a better understanding between Americans and our friends abroad. Interacting with the American people is a valuable tool at our disposal to dispel international travelers of misconceptions they may have about our country. Approximately 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of the United States after visiting our country. The economic activity generated by international travel and its promotion should be approached in the same manner we foster other industries equally important to jobs and the economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 is vital to our travel and tourism industries' ability to compete globally and to restore confidence in the image of the United States as a country that is committed to welcoming our friends from abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and help us ensure that international business and leisure travel to the United States is given all of the tools necessary to succeed.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment No. 2302 that is being offered by my distinguished colleague and friend from New Hampshire. Madam President, at the beginning of this Congress, just about every Member in this Chamber approached me and my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, and indicated that we had to fix the legislative and appropriations process. Senator Cochran and I have taken that challenge very seriously, and we are on the path of doing just that. In the course of 7 months, we have enacted into law the Recovery Act and closed the books on the 110th Congress with the enactment of the omnibus and supplemental appropriations bills. In looking forward to fiscal year 2010, we have reported out of the Appropriations Committee 11 of 12 appropriations bills, and the Senate has passed four of them. There are 2 months remaining before the start of the 2010 fiscal year, and to state it very bluntly, Madam President, this amendment will wreak havoc on both the work that has already been accomplished and the work that still needs to be accomplished. A vote for an amendment that cuts $2 billion from our 2010 budget allocation at this late date--and let me remind everyone in this Chamber that we are operating within an allocation that is $10 billion below the President's budget request--is a vote against getting our appropriations process back to regular order. The Appropriations Committee has spent many months reviewing agency requests and drafting bills to reflect those needs within the limitations of the budget allocation set by the Budget Committee. To cut that budget allocation further after the fiscal year 2010 bills have been reported out of the committee would require significant cuts to the remaining bills that have yet to receive floor consideration. Madam President, that is fiscally irresponsible and simply unacceptable. My good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, has indicated this amendment is needed to pay for the CARS program now and not in the future. I would like to note that the authors of the underlying bill are already paying for this program by reallocating funding that was provided in the stimulus bill. This program is paid for at this moment. Further, in general, the budget allocation for fiscal year 2010 discretionary spending reflected the fact that an economic recovery package for the next 2 years had just been enacted. This was one of the primary reasons for agreeing to an allocation that is $10 billion below the President's request. Consequently, taking discretionary funding from fiscal year 2010 to pay for a program that is being funded out of the Recovery Act is the equivalent of double accounting. Madam President, the amendment is unnecessary for the purposes of paying for the CARS program, and it is harmful for the purposes of getting our appropriations process back to the regular order. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish today to support providing an additional $2 billion to allow for the extension of the car allowance rebate system, CARS, otherwise known as cash for clunkers. During the original debate on the cash for clunkers concept in the Appropriations Committee, proponents of the program promised that it would have two major benefits. The first was that it would replace older, less fuel-efficient cars with new models that are more fuel- efficient, thus helping the environment and decreasing our dependence on imported oil. The second was that it would provide a much needed boost to plummeting auto sales in the United States. The good news is that we now have hard data we can use to evaluate whether the program has lived up to its proponent's promises. And the very good news is that clearly, it has. In fact, the program has exceeded expectations. Based on approximately 184,000 dealer transactions that have so far been recorded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, we know the following: CARS transactions are generating a 60-percent increase in vehicle fuel economy. The average of the vehicles being turned in have a fuel economy rating of 15.8 miles per gallon, while the average of the vehicles being sold have a fuel economy rating of 25.3 miles per gallon. This means the average CARS transaction is leading to an increase in fuel efficiency of 9.5 miles per gallon. I think we can all agree that is a very significant improvement. How significant? The savings in gas purchases alone are estimated to be $700 a year for the typical consumer. Clearly, the CARS program has lived up to its promise to put more fuel-efficient cars on the road. As for the second promise--that this program would provide a much needed boost to automobile sales in the U.S.--the Washington Post reported the following on August 4: ``U.S. auto sales rose to their highest levels of the year in July as consumers rushed to trade in older vehicles under a government incentive program that has become so popular it is in danger of running out of money. Automakers issued their sales reports Monday, raising hope that the sagging auto industry is headed for a recovery, although some analysts cautioned that a turnaround would still be slow. Ford said its sales were up 2.4 percent over the same period a year ago, its first monthly increase in two years. The automaker attributed much of the gain to the Cash for Clunkers program, which allows consumers to receive rebates for turning in older cars for more fuel-efficient models.'' There can be no doubt that the CARS program is succeeding beyond expectations. In fact, the program has been such a hit with the American people that it has run out of funding much sooner than anticipated. The President has proposed, the House has passed, and I fully support, the reprogramming of $2 billion in Recovery Act funding to enable the extension of the CARS program. With this extension, we can continue to put more fuel-efficient automobiles on the road, which reduces pollution and our reliance on imported oil, and we can continue to provide a much needed boost to the auto industry, which helps the broader economy and saves jobs. At a time when our economy is in need of a jump-start, cash for clunkers is an undeniable success. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing the additional funding needed to continue this worthy program.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. I support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues have criticized Judge Sotomayor for her views. I welcome an independent thinker. Some have criticized her for being a ``liberal'' in certain cases. What is wrong with being a liberal? Do all Supreme Court Justices have to qualify as being conservatives? I welcome the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court because she, unlike most members of the Supreme Court, has lived through the experiences of many of our citizens. She knows what it is to be poor. She knows what it is to have grown up in public housing. I wish her the very best.