Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is a driving force for our Nation's economy. In 2006, the industry generated a $7.3 billion trade surplus. In 2006, international receipts for travel-related tourism spending reached $107.8 billion. Travel and tourism supported 8.3 million American jobs in 2006, of which 1.1 million were supported by international travel and tourism. In Hawaii, tourism is the largest industry bringing in approximately $12 billion annually, $4 billion of which derives from international visitor spending. International tourism brings more than economic returns. International travelers who visit our country can advance our standing overseas. Studies have shown that, after visiting the United States and interacting with Americans, 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of our country. In recent years, overseas travel to the United States has suffered. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the United States made a number of necessary changes in the visa and entry processes to improve security, but some of those changes have confused and deterred visitors from even the friendliest countries. Many in the travel industry have continued to express concerns about the perception that the U.S. entry process is unnecessarily antagonistic. In order to strengthen our competitiveness and recover lost international market share, we must improve and better explain the process for travelers coming to America. The world needs to know that the United States welcomes business and leisure travelers. In addressing these concerns, and in recognizing the benefits of travel promotion, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Vice Chairman Stevens, in introducing the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill establishes a nonprofit, independent corporation charged with reaching out to potential international travelers, clarifying the ease of travel to America, and encouraging them to visit. As experts have testified in hearings before the Commerce Committee, a unified effort to promote tourism to all areas of the United States is necessary and cannot be achieved by the industry alone. The proposed corporation will be run by 14 board members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who represent all aspects of the travel industry, including State tourism boards, hotels, and airlines, as well as the Federal Government. A small fee collected from international travelers to the United States will help fund the corporation, but its costs will be truly shared with industry. In order to receive the funds collected by the Government, the corporation will need to raise matching funds from the travel industry. By working together, the Federal and State governments and business will be able to revitalize the travel industry and make America a stronger and more welcoming destination. In most developed countries, the minister of tourism is one of the most powerful and important positions in the government. For too long, our Government has relegated travel and tourism to a second tier status. The bill seeks to improve that status by creating an Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel Promotion who would work with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the corporation, to improve travel promotion efforts and the entry process for international travelers. The travel and tourism industry helps drive the U.S. economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will enhance our competitiveness while improving our image abroad, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is a driving force for our Nation's economy. In 2006, the industry generated a $7.3 billion trade surplus. In 2006, international receipts for travel-related tourism spending reached $107.8 billion. Travel and tourism supported 8.3 million American jobs in 2006, of which 1.1 million were supported by international travel and tourism. In Hawaii, tourism is the largest industry bringing in approximately $12 billion annually, $4 billion of which derives from international visitor spending. International tourism brings more than economic returns. International travelers who visit our country can advance our standing overseas. Studies have shown that, after visiting the United States and interacting with Americans, 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of our country. In recent years, overseas travel to the United States has suffered. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the United States made a number of necessary changes in the visa and entry processes to improve security, but some of those changes have confused and deterred visitors from even the friendliest countries. Many in the travel industry have continued to express concerns about the perception that the U.S. entry process is unnecessarily antagonistic. In order to strengthen our competitiveness and recover lost international market share, we must improve and better explain the process for travelers coming to America. The world needs to know that the United States welcomes business and leisure travelers. In addressing these concerns, and in recognizing the benefits of travel promotion, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Vice Chairman Stevens, in introducing the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill establishes a nonprofit, independent corporation charged with reaching out to potential international travelers, clarifying the ease of travel to America, and encouraging them to visit. As experts have testified in hearings before the Commerce Committee, a unified effort to promote tourism to all areas of the United States is necessary and cannot be achieved by the industry alone. The proposed corporation will be run by 14 board members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who represent all aspects of the travel industry, including State tourism boards, hotels, and airlines, as well as the Federal Government. A small fee collected from international travelers to the United States will help fund the corporation, but its costs will be truly shared with industry. In order to receive the funds collected by the Government, the corporation will need to raise matching funds from the travel industry. By working together, the Federal and State governments and business will be able to revitalize the travel industry and make America a stronger and more welcoming destination. In most developed countries, the minister of tourism is one of the most powerful and important positions in the government. For too long, our Government has relegated travel and tourism to a second tier status. The bill seeks to improve that status by creating an Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel Promotion who would work with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the corporation, to improve travel promotion efforts and the entry process for international travelers. The travel and tourism industry helps drive the U.S. economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will enhance our competitiveness while improving our image abroad, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, by request of the administration, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007. I am joined by Senator Stevens, the vice chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to establish and implement a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. While Senator Stevens and I understand this is a top priority for the administration, we continue to have concerns with the administration's bill as drafted, particularly with regard to the need for clearer safeguards for the environment and native fish stocks. Therefore, we are also filing several amendments that would address these concerns. The three amendments that I am filing, and which Senator Stevens is cosponsoring, would strengthen requirements to address potential environmental risks from offshore aquaculture, including to native species; require a more comprehensive research and development program for offshore aquaculture; and ensure that offshore aquaculture permits could only be provided to citizens, residents, or business entities of the United States. Senator Stevens is also filing an amendment, which I am cosponsoring, that would prohibit offshore aquaculture of finfish in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of Alaska. I intend to introduce later this year a comprehensive bill that would address additional concerns with the administration's proposed legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline, and its ocean territory is larger than the combined land area of all 50 States. We rely on our oceans for such diverse benefits as recreation, food, transportation, and energy. All Americans, regardless of whether they reside in the Nation's heartland or along the coast, are impacted by the ocean. That is why I rise today, joined by Vice Chairman Ted Stevens and several other Commerce Committee colleagues, in introducing a group of bills to provide for sustainable use and protection of our ocean and coastal areas. Our oceans and coasts provide us with tremendous economic and recreational opportunities. It is critical that use of ocean resources and coasts is sustainable and that we address the many existing and emerging risks to their well-being. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has thoroughly documented, our oceans and coasts are faced with many threats, including those posed by pollution, increasing population growth and coastal development, overfishing, climate change, and ocean acidification. All of the bills my colleagues and I are introducing today implement recommendations of the Ocean Commission. First, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007 would reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and provide critical authorities for preserving, restoring, and managing in a sustainable manner our coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are one of the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and they provide environmental and economic benefits such as shoreline protection as well as critical habitat for approximately half of all federally- managed fisheries. Second, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 would reauthorize and strengthen authorities to survey and analyze the physical condition of our Nation's coasts and waterways, along with elements that impact safe navigation. Conducting surveys of our Nation's coasts and waterways is a core mission for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and provides valuable services to the maritime industry and to Federal agencies responsible for maritime transportation, homeland security, and emergency response. Third, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and establish ballast water management requirements to mitigate the introduction and spread of invasive species from ships. The bill would also seek to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ship equipment or hulls. Invasive species brought into the United States from other countries have caused billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy. In addition to the initiatives I have highlighted, a number of other ocean-related bills are being introduced today by colleagues on the Commerce Committee. These include a bill by Senator Lautenberg to establish a much-needed Federal program to conduct research, monitoring, and education to examine the processes and consequences of ocean acidification, and a bill by Senator Snowe to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. This week we celebrate Capitol Hill Ocean Week. Many organizations and agencies are using this opportunity to educate and raise public awareness about the impact of our oceans on our society and economy. The bills that my colleagues and I are introducing today address many of those needs being highlighted. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Commerce Committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the health and management of our oceans and coasts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline, and its ocean territory is larger than the combined land area of all 50 States. We rely on our oceans for such diverse benefits as recreation, food, transportation, and energy. All Americans, regardless of whether they reside in the Nation's heartland or along the coast, are impacted by the ocean. That is why I rise today, joined by Vice Chairman Ted Stevens and several other Commerce Committee colleagues, in introducing a group of bills to provide for sustainable use and protection of our ocean and coastal areas. Our oceans and coasts provide us with tremendous economic and recreational opportunities. It is critical that use of ocean resources and coasts is sustainable and that we address the many existing and emerging risks to their well-being. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has thoroughly documented, our oceans and coasts are faced with many threats, including those posed by pollution, increasing population growth and coastal development, overfishing, climate change, and ocean acidification. All of the bills my colleagues and I are introducing today implement recommendations of the Ocean Commission. First, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007 would reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and provide critical authorities for preserving, restoring, and managing in a sustainable manner our coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are one of the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and they provide environmental and economic benefits such as shoreline protection as well as critical habitat for approximately half of all federally- managed fisheries. Second, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 would reauthorize and strengthen authorities to survey and analyze the physical condition of our Nation's coasts and waterways, along with elements that impact safe navigation. Conducting surveys of our Nation's coasts and waterways is a core mission for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and provides valuable services to the maritime industry and to Federal agencies responsible for maritime transportation, homeland security, and emergency response. Third, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and establish ballast water management requirements to mitigate the introduction and spread of invasive species from ships. The bill would also seek to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ship equipment or hulls. Invasive species brought into the United States from other countries have caused billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy. In addition to the initiatives I have highlighted, a number of other ocean-related bills are being introduced today by colleagues on the Commerce Committee. These include a bill by Senator Lautenberg to establish a much-needed Federal program to conduct research, monitoring, and education to examine the processes and consequences of ocean acidification, and a bill by Senator Snowe to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act. This week we celebrate Capitol Hill Ocean Week. Many organizations and agencies are using this opportunity to educate and raise public awareness about the impact of our oceans on our society and economy. The bills that my colleagues and I are introducing today address many of those needs being highlighted. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Commerce Committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the health and management of our oceans and coasts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry. Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet. However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race. That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share. Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year. This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce. When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo. These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income. Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all. But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs. In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts. That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Again, I thank my colleague. If I could make another inquiry, the Congress also included items in House Report 110-60 and Senate Report 110-37 which provided guidance to the Defense Department on several items in this bill. Would the Senator from Alaska agree with me that the intent of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense was that the guidance in these reports should be adhered to except in those areas that were altered in this bill or those areas that were addressed to the contrary in the joint explanatory statement to H.R. 1591?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for that clarification. Therefore, I ask my friend whether he agrees that the allocation of funds that the Congress provided for these defense programs as described in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference to accompany H.R. 1591, except for those three areas that he just specified, is exactly the intent of this bill that we are about to pass?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend. Then would you agree with me that it is our intent that the Defense Department should adhere to the guidance under the conditions which you and I have described above?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to act on H.R. 2206, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, which will fully fund the needs of our men and women in uniform. The process that we have used to reach this point has been somewhat different from our normal course of business. As such, I wanted to engage my cochairman of the Defense Subcommittee, the Senator for Alaska, in a colloquy on the defense portion of this bill. The bill before the Senate is not accompanied by the customary report because of the way the process unfolded. However, it is also true that for matters involving the allocation of funding and direction for those matters under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee, the bill closely mirrors the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591 as printed in House Report 110-107 that the Senate passed on April 26, 2007. Would my friend from Alaska agree that in terms of funding, the bill is nearly identical to that which the Senate previously approved?

Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Senator from Alaska, and concur. It is our view and intent that the Defense Department shall adhere to the funding allocation and comply with the guidance in the above described reports in interpreting the will of the Congress with respect to H.R. 2206, except in those few areas which are also described above. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his time and cooperation in this matter.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all. But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs. In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts. That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry. Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet. However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race. That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share. Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year. This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce. When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo. These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income. Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, when the Congress passed Public Law 106-50 in 1999, it was impossible to imagine the positive impact it would have on all veterans and, in particular, all those young men and women now returning from active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Veterans Corporation, TVC, is a not-for-profit organization that amplifies business opportunities and the tools our veterans need to start and grow their businesses. Through unparalleled public and private sector business, and strategic partnerships with the U.S. Department of Defense, the Veterans Affairs Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Labor, veterans have the three main ingredients for success: access to capital; access to bonding, and the important educational, mentorship and program case work followup. Today, more than ever, our Nation's veterans present an opportunity for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship based on the skills and practiced discipline they embraced as part of their service to our Nation. Membership in TVC remains free to our veterans because the Congress invested wisely in this organization. In partnership with the Surety and Fidelity Association of America, SFAA, we have a 50-State surety bonding program that includes a comprehensive education curriculum and a three-step process for veterans to secure the bonding they need on government contracts. Bonding is critical to service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs and to the Federal Government if the 3-percent goal, mandated by the President's Executive Order, is to be achieved. TVC's partnership with SFAA provides a complete solution to the mandate by fulfilling the needs for identification and qualification of service-disabled veteran- owned small businesses, along with casework followup as veteran entrepreneurs experience growth in their businesses. Access to capital for both business start-up and infusion growth remains the number one need of veteran entrepreneurs. To address this issue, TVC has formed a strategic partnership with the National Economic Opportunity Fund, NEOF. Through this partnership, TVC is able to assist veterans in obtaining micro-loans of $500 to $25,000 through ACCION USA. PNC Bank has also begun accepting referrals from TVC and has already funded one veteran-owned business. In addition, TVC is in the process of finalizing partnerships with several banking institutions to provide veterans with larger loan programs for their increasing business needs. TVC's leadership has made extraordinary progress in addressing the broad scope of issues facing veteran entrepreneurs. While embracing the existing community networks of the Small Business Development Centers, the Department of Labor's One Stop Centers, and the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, PTAC, TVC has been able to develop programs that complement and enhance the resources already available to current and aspiring business owners. By doing so, TVC is now providing the programs and services most needed by the veteran community, including access to capital and bonding, and is more effectively meeting the real needs of veteran entrepreneurs. TVC's strength is in its ability to bring together the best in public and private entities to leverage scarce federal dollars in effectively and efficiently assisting veterans, service-disabled veterans, and members of the National Guard and Reserves, who want to start or promote growth in small businesses. By benefiting from the strong resources already available from national business networks, and by eliminating duplication of efforts through strategic partnerships, TVC has the programming and the capacity to serve the needs of all veterans in 50 States. TVC is working for our Nation's veterans and we have an obligation to continue funding programs that respond to all business entrepreneurial needs. We must build a solid transition from active military service to veterans' entrepreneurship. I am confident TVC is that investment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my leader to honor the distinguished Senator from the State of Connecticut, and one who I was proud to call friend: Senator Thomas Dodd. Senator Tom Dodd, the father of Connecticut's senior Senator, Christopher Dodd, would have been 100 years old today. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon his remarkable career. Tom Dodd was, in many ways, the picture of a Senator. In a tribute shortly after his death in 1971, a colleague said: His ability was outstanding and his appearance was striking. With the dignity of his bearing and the gray of his hair and his booming resonant voice, he made an impressive figure on the Senate Floor. But there was much more to Tom Dodd than style. Through a lifetime of service, he brought a dedication of fighting evil in all its forms: in racism, in greed, in sabotage, genocide, and tyranny. Few have piled up such an impressive record. Tom Dodd began his career as an FBI agent tracking down some of our Nation's worst criminals. In a way, he had something of the FBI agent about him for the rest of his life. He was determined to give wrongdoers no quarter, in word or in action. During the Great Depression, he led the National Youth Administration of Connecticut, putting thousands of his fellow citizens to work, and then he joined the Department of Justice as a prosecutor. He fought the Ku Klux Klan, long before any Americans saw its true nature. In later years, he prosecuted union busters who kept workers from bargaining together for fair conditions. And when the Second World War came, he served with devotion on the home front, bringing prosecutions against German American Bundists, Nazi sympathizers who tried to sabotage the war effort. When the Nazis had been defeated, his country called Tom Dodd to Nuremberg, Germany, to help lead the historic prosecution of Nazi war criminals. And Tom Dodd said yes because he knew that Nuremberg was America's chance to prove its commitment to the rule of law. If we simply gave in to vengeance, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we despised, and Tom knew intuitively that America stood for something more. He was quickly promoted to executive trial counsel, second only to the lead prosecutor, Robert Jackson. Laying before the world indisputable proof of the Nazis' crimes, Tom and his colleagues succeeded. They had sacrificed the certainty of an execution for the uncertainty of a trial. The test was one of principle over power--and America passed. Tom's lifetime of service was crowned with two terms in the House and then election to the Senate. He served in this Chamber--at the desk now occupied by his son Chris--for 12 years. In the face of enormous opposition, he passed America's first comprehensive gun control law. He fought drug abuse and juvenile crime and violence on television. He protected the homeland on the Internal Security Subcommittee and was one of our most eloquent voices in support of the International Genocide Convention. Tom Dodd said had it been in force in the 1930s, the crimes of Hitler might have been deterred. For the rest of his life, Tom remembered what he had seen at Nuremberg. He had seen tyranny face to face; he had seen, as he put it, an ``autopsy of history's most horrible crime.'' And he remained an enemy of tyranny for the rest of his life. He knew, as one author put it, that the Nazis' ``corruption of spirit, the irresistible human addiction to power, were like first drafts of a terrible future.'' So he spoke out against that corruption wherever it showed itself, and against Communist tyranny above all. One colleague remembered that Tom Dodd's many foreign policy speeches ``were memorable in the annals of the Senate for their scope and their scholarship, their philosophical consistency, and their nonpartisan nature.'' True, Tom's career did not end as he would have wanted it. In 1970, he ran for another term as an Independent and lost. He returned to his home in Connecticut, and shortly after passed away. But through those last, difficult months--and I remember it well even today--he held his head high. Tom's steadfast example and his eloquent words remain with me still. In 1950, Tom Dodd said the following: At Nuremberg, we laid down the doctrine that individuals are responsible for some offenses. It always seemed to me that it is the people who make up the government. Individual people. What holds true for the worst surely holds for the best. Behind all of Tom's achievements there was an indelible individual--passionate, strong, wise, and brave. I was privileged to call him among my friends. I have no doubt that he would be so proud of his children today.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a member of my staff who retired from service to the Senate after dedicating 8 years to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Margaret Spring, Democratic general counsel for the Commerce Committee, left the Senate for love. In doing so, she will be leaving behind a record of accomplishment that will be difficult for anyone to match. During her 8-year tenure on the committee, more than 10 major ocean and coastal initiatives, which she was heavily involved in drafting, have been enacted into law, including the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization, the Oceans and Human Health Act, Coast Guard Reauthorization Acts, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, and the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. Probably most notable are the first and last pieces of legislation Margaret worked on. The first was the Oceans Act of 2000, and the final bill was the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. What is clear from the passage of all these bills is both Margaret's ability to successfully negotiate and work in a bipartisan fashion, regardless of whether she was in the minority or the majority, and her unwavering commitment to making the world we live in a better place for today and for the future. Her trustworthiness and constant striving for perfection provided a process where every staffer who worked with her believed the final product was a true reflection of negotiations and discussions, and the outside parties that had an interest in the legislation, whether environmental or industry groups, while not necessarily agreeing completely with the ultimate outcome, felt like their voices were heard. The best example of her abilities is the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which passed by unanimous consent with support from the fishing industry and environmental groups, a rarity in this day. A hallmark of Margaret's legacy will be a cleaner and healthier environment for generations to come. The Oceans Act, which passed in 2000, created the Ocean Commission, consisting of this country's leading ocean experts. Without the legislation enacted though her efforts, Congress and the administration would be without a landmark blueprint. Margaret's work, in combination with efforts of other dedicated members and staff, has given us guideposts for what we must do to sustain the ocean environment for future generations. While Margaret has left the Senate, she has not left her call to public service, to preserving the coastal environment, or to improving the planet for the next generation. While she and her new husband have decided to move to the West coast, she also decided to continue her passionate interest in the marine environment with a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve environmental diversity through the protection of lands and waters. The Commerce Committee, the Senate, and this country have benefited from Margaret's dedication during the past 8 years, and while she will be missed, the country will continue to benefit from her commitment, dedication, and tireless efforts to improve the world we live in. On the eve of Margaret Spring's wedding to Mark Bunter, we wish her well as she embarks on a new chapter of her life.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill addressing the need to extend a number of our temporary judgeships. My colleagues and I share a common interest in ensuring that the American public is provided with the most efficient court system possible. However, across the nation many of our judicial resources are strained due to our growing population and an increase in the number of caseloads per judge. Hawaii is no exception, and this bill addresses our need to maintain our current number of judgeships. This bill offers a much needed relief to our over-worked courts. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you my thoughts as to the importance of this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill addressing the need to extend a number of our temporary judgeships. My colleagues and I share a common interest in ensuring that the American public is provided with the most efficient court system possible. However, across the nation many of our judicial resources are strained due to our growing population and an increase in the number of caseloads per judge. Hawaii is no exception, and this bill addresses our need to maintain our current number of judgeships. This bill offers a much needed relief to our over-worked courts. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you my thoughts as to the importance of this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill addressing the need for a fourth permanent judgeship for the District of Hawaii. Hawaii currently has four active District Court judges. However, if any of its four active judges either accepts senior status and retires, or becomes otherwise unable to serve, the District of Hawaii will not be able to replace that vacancy with another active judge. This will pose a problem for not only the active judges, as their workload will increase, but also for the public because an unfilled vacancy may have a disastrous effect on our court's caseloads. This bill ensures the continued efficiency of Hawaii's District court system. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you the importance of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this bill addressing the need for a fourth permanent judgeship for the District of Hawaii. Hawaii currently has four active District Court judges. However, if any of its four active judges either accepts senior status and retires, or becomes otherwise unable to serve, the District of Hawaii will not be able to replace that vacancy with another active judge. This will pose a problem for not only the active judges, as their workload will increase, but also for the public because an unfilled vacancy may have a disastrous effect on our court's caseloads. This bill ensures the continued efficiency of Hawaii's District court system. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to share with you the importance of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I believe that all Members of this body support the Defense appropriations section. The only area of concern and contention is that which refers to Iraq. I think all of us agree that our forces today are bogged down in Iraq. They are caught in the middle of a civil war, and we need a change in plans. This war has dragged on too long and, incidentally, longer than our involvement in World War II. Staying the course is not working, and I, for one, am not convinced that it ever will. The only way we can succeed in Iraq is if the Iraqis fundamentally change the dynamic. The language in the conference agreement embraces this idea of offering a new plan. This new plan eventually should allow for forces to be withdrawn from Iraq. The proposal establishes a goal--and I repeat the word ``goal''--of redeploying most of our forces from Iraq by next March. It does not mandate that all the troops are removed. To the contrary, it allows that forces remain in Iraq to protect U.S. and coalition personnel. It also stipulates that U.S. forces can continue to train and equip the Iraqis so they can better defend themselves, and it directs that we may continue targeted counterterrorism operations in Iraq. This is a balanced plan. It recognizes that we still have responsibilities in Iraq and will continue to do so even a year from now, but it will force the Iraqis to fight their own civil war if they insist on doing so. We all know there are very few military objectives to be achieved in Iraq. We defeated the Iraqi Army 4 years ago. We should keep that in mind. I still recall the huge banner on the carrier that said: ``Mission Accomplished.'' Yes, the military mission was accomplished. We won that part of the war, the part the military can win. We failed in not preparing for the aftermath of direct conflict, and now we are enmeshed in an untenable position. Our military has performed remarkably. They have achieved their military objectives. But the plan to rely on the military to achieve political objectives has not worked, and what we desperately need is a political solution. And in the end, how many truly believe we will emerge victorious with a Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Tigris River? What is victory? I have asked this question many times. What will constitute victory? And no one has answered that question. Or we can embrace a new plan that begins to reshape our forces in Iraq to provide those missions that our military is best suited for with a goal, not a mandate, but a goal of redeploying the remaining forces. If Iraq is to succeed, it must assume responsibility for its own destiny. It must decide if it wants to stop the civil war. We cannot do that for them. This is a very modest proposal, but one that is caught up in the emotion of the debate. This conference report offers a plan, one that has much greater chance of success than staying the course.

Mr. INOUYE. May I have 30 seconds?