Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, heavy rains, for more than 40 days and 40 nights, devastated many families and destroyed public and private property in the State of Hawaii. On the Island of Kauai, besides the serious damage to agricultural operations in these areas, the intensity and sustained nature of these storms caused a breach of two important reservoirs. A breach sent water and debris downstream at about 25 miles per hour and tore away homes and blocked off the north side of the island, hampering emergency services and assistance. In addition, floodwaters from the reservoir compromised the downstream reservoir, which public officials have now declared unstable and dangerous. These two reservoirs were built in the 1890s. As a result of this failure, the only access to the northern part of the island sustained severe damage to the roadway, embankments, culverts, guardrails, and other structures. This damage was so great that the highway was shut down for over a week. The emergency supplemental already includes $500,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey's Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program for assistance in conducting assessments of critical reservoirs and dams. This amendment asks for an additional $900,000, which would make it possible for the evaluation of critical reservoirs and dams throughout the State of Hawaii. I urge the adoption of this proposed amendment. It has been cleared by the Parliamentarian as being germane.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the Parliamentarian as being germane. It has been discussed with the leadership of the committee. It provides $1 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii. As some may be aware, the State of Hawaii sustained extraordinarily heavy rains and flooding for more than 40 days and 40 nights, beginning February 20, 2006, devastating many families and destroying public and private property. Unfortunately, on March 24, during this deluge, a Waikiki sewer line ruptured, sending more than 48 million gallons of raw sewage into the Ala Wai Canal, closing popular beaches in Waikiki. The water quality of other beaches and streams on the Island of Oahu was severely impacted by the sustained heavy rains that caused sewer overflows and runoff of tremendous amounts of sediment and pollutants. Sewer systems are designed to handle wastewater and very small amounts of storm water that infiltrates into the pipe system. During the continuous storm event, excessive amounts of water from the surrounding area infiltrated into the pipe, and homeowners discharged storm water into the sewer system. High bacterial levels exceeded the recreational water quality standards and the State Department of Health required beaches to be closed. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will approve this amendment. I urge the adoption of the proposed amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, that would be my understanding.

Mr. INOUYE. I do agree with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. He has accurately clarified this matter.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond, on April 2 of this year, the rains ended. The Governor of Hawaii, in a most expeditious manner, gathered all the facts and filed a report with the President of the United States on April 10. That letter to the President requested that the President issue a declaration of disaster. It is now in the White House under consideration. It is unfortunate it is not before us, but we have been assured that it will be part of the declaration. I wish the record to show that the State of Hawaii did go through every regular step to make certain this request was done in the regular fashion.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the provision under attack at this moment was not snuck in during the dark of night. It was openly discussed with the authorizing committee and was granted approval. It was openly discussed with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and it was granted approval. That is why this provision is in the supplemental. It was approved by the authorizers and the appropriators. Thirdly, it was openly discussed with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary issued a statement declaring that this was a disaster area. Why do we call this a disaster? In one of those strange natural phenomena, for 40 days and 40 nights it rained in Hawaii. In one spot, it rained 126 inches in those 40 days. The average in most areas was 3 inches a day. Obviously, with such sustained heavy rains, you would have devastation. Many families lost their homes. Private property and public property were destroyed. The $6 million in this provision is to assist the two sugar companies, Gay and Robinson and Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, with their crop losses, damage to their irrigation canal system, and washed out roads. It may interest my colleagues to know that on the island of Kauai, that plantation suffered more than 100 miles of roads being severely damaged. They are washed out and require complete rebuilding. Some of the most critical roads were the access roads to irrigation, and these will have to be rebuilt. In addition to the roads, the irrigation infrastructure on the island of Kauai was totally damaged and destroyed. This infrastructure damage has two costs. One is the cost of repairing, obviously, and the other is the sugar losses due to production disruptions. And the same can be said for the island of Maui. The yield losses alone for the two companies will far exceed the amount we are requesting for assistance. Losses have occurred because of this damage. In summary, heavy rains caused tremendous infrastructure damages. The actual repair or reconstruction costs are much higher than the amount we are seeking. I hope my colleagues will show some compassion and understanding. It is an emergency. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I have agreed to cosponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our Nation's communications laws. My cosponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself. This is the draft of the majority staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process. Now that the majority staff's draft is no longer a secret, we can begin a full review of the bill and address the many issues important to me and my colleagues. At first glance, some provisions will need to be deleted or changed substantially and some issues still need to be addressed. For example, we cannot ignore concerns about the potential for discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure network neutrality. Similarly, I believe that the provisions addressing video franchise reform must follow more closely the principles Senator Burns and I offered earlier this year. At a time of increasing consolidation in the communications industry, it is essential that we guarantee rights of interconnection, promote competition, and restrain anticompetitive behavior, particularly in markets where the Bell Companies continue to have significant market power. The legislation must promote the availability of affordable, broadband services and extend consumer protections on a competitively neutral basis. Again, I recognize and honor the chairman's prerogative to set this legislative process into motion. The chairman is aware of my many concerns and has assured me that this will be a bipartisan process, and the Democrats will be at the table. I look forward to our discussions, and I am hopeful that we can develop a final product that everyone on our committee can support.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I have agreed to cosponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our Nation's communications laws. My cosponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself. This is the draft of the majority staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process. Now that the majority staff's draft is no longer a secret, we can begin a full review of the bill and address the many issues important to me and my colleagues. At first glance, some provisions will need to be deleted or changed substantially and some issues still need to be addressed. For example, we cannot ignore concerns about the potential for discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure network neutrality. Similarly, I believe that the provisions addressing video franchise reform must follow more closely the principles Senator Burns and I offered earlier this year. At a time of increasing consolidation in the communications industry, it is essential that we guarantee rights of interconnection, promote competition, and restrain anticompetitive behavior, particularly in markets where the Bell Companies continue to have significant market power. The legislation must promote the availability of affordable, broadband services and extend consumer protections on a competitively neutral basis. Again, I recognize and honor the chairman's prerogative to set this legislative process into motion. The chairman is aware of my many concerns and has assured me that this will be a bipartisan process, and the Democrats will be at the table. I look forward to our discussions, and I am hopeful that we can develop a final product that everyone on our committee can support.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senators Menendez and Lautenberg's amendment to increase funding for port security. As the cochairman of the Commerce Committee and a Senator representing an island State, I place a particularly high priority on port security, and I know first hand that it is not receiving the resources that are necessary. Budgets are a reflection of priorities, and our budget must place far greater emphasis on this critical component of our national and economic security. I feel compelled to remind this body that, since 2002, it has been given a litany of opportunities to bolster port security resources, and it has routinely rejected them. As we consider this year's budget, I would like to recall the discussion we had around this time in 2003. During the budget debate, this body unanimously supported an amendment to provide $2 billion to port security. Yet 3 weeks later, when the Senate considered the supplemental appropriations legislation to address funding for the war in Iraq and homeland security, the Senate rejected the amendment that would have provided immediately the actual money for port security funding. It was a lesson in cynicism that I have not forgotten. Given the recent attention to the Nation's lingering, significant port security inadequacies, it is my hope that the Senate will have the wisdom to choose a different course this time around. If there is one silver lining to the Dubai Ports World debacle, it is that the country is now paying close attention to port and cargo security. The heartland is learning what the coasts have known for many years: our national economy and physical security depend on strong port security. They are now familiar with the statistic that 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports, and that very little of that cargo is inspected. The American public now knows that more needs to be done. Maritime commerce is essential to the American economy. Many of our Nation's manufacturers and retailers depend on on-time delivery, and any disruption to the flow of commerce could have disastrous consequences for American businesses and the economy as a whole. Despite this fact, the administration still fails to make port security a top priority. It has consistently submitted inadequate funding requests and has routinely missed critical security deadlines that were required by law. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, only recently submitted its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan. The report was due in April 2005. Given the administration's poor record on port security and its poor judgment on the Dubai Ports World deal, I am left wondering what it will take for this administration to take port security seriously. It was Congress that put a halt to the Dubai Ports World takeover, and it will have to be Congress that provides the port security funding that the administration's budget lacks. The amendment put forward by Senators Menendez and Lautenberg calls for a funding level that is a far better reflection of port security's importance to the country. While it will not solve all of the current inadequacies, it will bring us far closer to what will be required. Several other Members will be introducing amendments that enhance resources for transportation security, and while I would prefer specific offsets, I applaud their focus on port security and strongly support them. Our committee has held numerous oversight hearings in the area of transportation security, and we recognize that much more needs to be done. The latest Department of Homeland Security inspector general's report indicated that the DHS has made considerable improvements in the administration of the port security grant program. It is beginning to deliver the funding the way Congress intended, consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA. Now, we must dedicate more substantial resources to this effort. While increased funding is a critical step, we must not lose sight of the long-term security improvements that will be necessary for port security. In November, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved the Transportation Security Improvement Act, S. 1052, which addresses a litany of security shortcomings across all modes of transportation. Specifically, title V of our bill tackles port and cargo security inadequacies. It improves the examination of cargo before it reaches our shores, ensures the resumption of commerce in the event of an attack, and takes greater advantage of coordinated, interagency port security efforts. Of course, I would like to see passage of our full bill, but at a minimum, I urge the Senate to take up title V of our bill and pass it as soon as possible. Our approach has broad bipartisan support, and it will improve security while maintaining the jurisdiction and transportation expertise of the Commerce Committee. The time is right to pass these needed security improvements, and I am hopeful that the Senate will take up our measure as soon as possible. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this important and timely amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an organization with which many of my colleagues have some personal familiarity, the Office of the Attending Physician. Many of my colleagues have come to rely upon the Attending Physician's Office here in the Congress as the source for support and medical advice. Most of us are personally aware of the fine work performed by Dr. Eisold and his staff in providing care for the Members of Congress, but there is much about the office which we don't think about regularly. The Senate has been served by the Attending Physician since 1930, a little more than a year after the office was established by the House of Representatives. The first Attending Physician, Dr. George Calver, served this body for approximately 37 years. He was known for offering health tips to Members of Congress such as ``eat wisely, drink plentifully (of water). Play enthusiastically and relax completely. Stay out of the Washington social whirl--go out at night twice a week at most.'' And, perhaps most importantly. ``Don't let yourself get off- balance, nervous and disturbed over things.'' Each of these remains good advice all these years later. My colleagues and I know we can count on the expertise of the Attending Physician in many areas of medical advice. On average, the office successfully treats more than 50,000 patients annually. They regularly track the spread of infectious disease so that they can determine which inoculations and other medications will be required when Members travel to foreign locations. Members of the Senate rely on the physician's office for our annual flu shots and for assistance on minor medical problems. We also count on them, as do our staff and visitors to the Capitol, for handling medical emergencies. The Office of the Attending Physician also provides unique capabilities that are very important to the success of this institution which are not well known. The office is poised for crisis response. In recent years, it has responded to the anthrax outbreak in the Hart Building and to the ricin scare. The physicians, nurses, and other medical staff have the capability and training to respond to many potential emergencies up to and include terrorist response. The office is equipped with mobile medical vehicles designed to allow for deploying medical support throughout the region, if necessary, for offsite operations. These vehicles are well equipped to handle many medical emergencies that could arise. Each has a fully functioning laboratory and two examination rooms complete with most modern equipment. As the Congress considers its continuity of Government requirements, the Office of the Attending Physician is well positioned to support emergency legislative operations which could be required following an attack. Mr. President, the Office of the Attending Physician provides a critical capability to the legislative branch. The services they provide serve as a convenience to busy Members of the Congress, but they are much more. They are a vital piece of emergency response in the Capitol. They are ready, when called upon, to play a key role in ensuring continuity of the legislative branch, they serve to handle any medical emergency which might arise at the Capitol. We owe a great deal to Dr. Eisold and his team of fine specialists. May I suggest all of my colleagues thank them for their great service the next time we see them in action. They deserve our gratitude and support.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on March 1, 1961, President Kennedy signed an Executive order that established the Peace Corps whose mission would be to promote peace, mutual understanding, and friendship between Americans and the people of the world. Back then, the world was viewed as engaged in a cold war with the United States and its allies pitted against the Communist bloc. President Kennedy envisioned the Peace Corps as an agency that would create opportunities for Americans to reach out to the rest of the world, and make positive contributions to community development and nation-building overseas. As we celebrate the Peace Corps's 45th anniversary, all Americans can be proud of what the agency has accomplished and continues to do. Through its hardworking and committed volunteers who now number nearly 8,000, the Peace Corps provides assistance today in 138 host countries in such fields as education, healthcare, environmental preservation, and business development. Last year, the Peace Corps's Crisis Corps Volunteers helped with rebuilding efforts in tsunami-ravaged areas of Sri Lanka and Thailand. And, for the first time in its history, volunteers were deployed at home as approximately 270 volunteers assisted with recovery efforts along the U.S. gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I am also proud to report that the Peace Corps continues to attract Volunteers from Hawaii. At this moment, 12 volunteers from Hawaii are serving in 12 different host countries that include Bulgaria, China, Morocco, Nicaragua, Swaziland, and Tanzania. It is a pleasure to join all Americans in congratulating the Peace Corps and its volunteers past and present for their outstanding work, and for their invaluable and effective civic contributions to communities throughout the world.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all. The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps. This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately 2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America. Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America, but some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport. When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country. The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation. I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all. The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps. This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately 2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America. Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America, but some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport. When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country. The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation. I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment in our history, our country faces a spectrum of challenges broader than any we have ever faced before, both at home and abroad. However great the storm we face today, I am confident that our Nation, founded on the architecture of our Constitution, will prevail. The checks and balances established among the Congress, the President, and the courts are the true arsenal of freedom. In the end, these checks and balances in the hands of the American people will prove greater than any assault on the precious freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought to establish. For the officials of our Federal Government, the protection of the institutions of our American democracy is a duty that both transcends and supersedes all others, especially for members of the Supreme Court who must interpret the Constitution of our Nation as a living foundation for the freedom and liberty of our people. From confiding the power of the Federal Government in three co-equal but separate branches of government, to guaranteeing the civil liberties that bless our Nation, the Constitution enshrines principles that are as relevant today as they were when it was first penned centuries ago. These cherished principles are the backbone of our Nation, and they comprise the final yardstick for taking the mettle of any man or woman who would aspire to our Nation's highest Court. I have studied the full record of President Bush's nominee, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and carefully measured it against the sworn duties of the Supreme Court. Regretfully, I conclude that Judge Alito falls short. From his writings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to his public speeches, I discern a man who would fundamentally rewrite the interpretation of our Constitution and leave in doubt the legacy of freedom it was meant to preserve. For many, this will mean his record on civil rights, reproductive choice, or the death penalty. Let there be no mistake, I share these concerns, and I have spent my life fighting for these rights. For me, however, the greatest area of doubt lies in Judge Alito's consistent preference for expanding the power of the President by relaxing the checks and balances the Constitution places on the executive branch of Government. In 1989 and 2000, Judge Alito gave speeches to the Federalist Society in which he embraced an obscure legal doctrine called the ``unitary executive theory.'' This so-called ``unitary executive theory'' places the President almost above the law. Under this theory, independent counsel appointed to investigate Presidential misdeeds would be unconstitutional. Similarly, the theory holds that enforcement agencies independent of the President, such as the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, would also be unconstitutional because they are not under the President's control. The theory also justifies a President who would overstep Acts of Congress and the Constitution when acting as Commander in Chief. How Judge Alito might actually apply this ``unitary executive theory'' on the Supreme Court is, of course, an open question. Separated by a span of 11 years, however, his own speeches in 1989 and 2000 suggest that Judge Alito's views on the powers of the President are long-held and strong. A memo he generated early in his career with the Reagan administration amplifies this impression. In that memo, Judge Alito wrote on a President's authority to modify an act of Congress by making a ``signing statement''--a written document issued by a President on signing an act of Congress into law. In the memo, Judge Alito wrote, that ``the President's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.'' This statement suggests that Judge Alito believes the President has a role in the legislative process not contemplated under the Constitution's exclusive grant of legislative power to the Congress. Judge Alito's writings and speeches show how he personally believes that the Congress should have less power to check and balance the President. His judicial opinions, issued in his official capacity as a judge on the Third Circuit, demonstrate a parallel conviction that the Congress should have less authority in general. In United States v. Rybar, Judge Alito wrote a minority opinion asserting that the Congress had no authority to pass laws to regulate machine guns. The majority opinion criticized Judge Alito's narrow and restrictive view of Congressional authority. In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito ruled that the Congress had no authority to allow State employees to sue for damages under the Family Medical Leave Act. Judge Alito's restrictive view on Congress's authority was later invalidated by the Supreme Court when it considered the same issue in a later case. Our Supreme Court shoulders the solemn task of discovering how the Constitution applies to the unique problems of the day. Through dialog, study, and diligent inquiry, the Justices bring to bear the collected experiences of the Nation, and forge justice from the Constitution by tempering its words with human compassion, wisdom, and integrity. Judge Alito's record suggests that he holds his personal beliefs on expanding the President's power so strongly that they might come before the call of justice. Accordingly, I have concluded that I must oppose his nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Asian American Justice Center, dated January 10, 2006, and a letter from the Japanese American Citizens League, dated January 8, 2006. Both letters refer to the nomination of Judge Alito.

Mr. INOUYE. 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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on February 3, 2006, Mr. Ray H. Jyo, Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project Management/ Chief, Programs and Project Management Division, Honolulu Engineer District, HED, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will retire from the Government following nearly 40 years of exemplary service to Hawaii, the Pacific Region, the military and the Nation. Born and raised in Hawaii, Mr. Jyo is a registered professional engineer and a member of the American Society of Military Engineers, who served in numerous engineering and executive management positions in the U.S. Army. He holds a bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Minnesota. He has attended the Senior Officials in National Security Program, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the Emerging Issues in Public Management Training at the Brookings Institute. Over the course of his 40-year career, Mr. Jyo has served with pride and distinction. I have witnessed his steadfast dedication and hard work to improve and safeguard the lives of our citizens and servicemembers. Mr. Jyo has demonstrated the highest values and ideals in his many accomplishments throughout his distinguished Federal service. Upon retirement, he will have served the Federal Government for 39 years, 11 months and 13 days. He has succeeded at every job position in his career, which covers every facet of the design/construction/management continuum of the construction industry. He has used his considerable leadership and management skills on behalf of the Army Corps and the Nation to achieve much success. As the chief of the Far East Surveillance Branch from 1982 to 1986, Mr. Jyo pioneered the regionalization concept at the Pacific Ocean Division, POD. His program managers monitored engineering, design and construction efforts at the Japan and Far East Districts with the focus of providing valued-added service to the districts and our regional partners with the Army and Air Force. Mr. Jyo's branch became the ``strike'' arm of POD's rapid deployment force which led and provided hands-on project management and technical assistance to the districts. His teams would deploy to the districts to support them during times of peak workload or during crisis situations making them invaluable to District operations. He also had the responsibility of keeping U.S. Army, Pacific and Pacific Air Forces informed and involved in our large construction program overseas. Many of the principles and policies he pioneered are still being followed at POD today. During this timeframe, Mr. Jyo led by example when he deployed to Ft. Drum for 2 months to lead the planning and programming efforts to provide quality facilities for the 10th Mountain Division. During his tenure as the chief, Technical Engineering Division, 1986 to 1987, Mr. Jyo provided quality technical services to all the districts in POD. In addition, he instituted the concept of life-cycle technical services by sending his technical reviewers to the field to assist the construction offices in coming up with viable solutions to sticky construction problems. This formed the basis of the latter consolidation of the technical review and quality assurance staffs at POD. Responsive to the customer, Mr. Jyo has consistently strived to provide high-quality technical services and products in a responsive manner. As the chief of Military Division, Mr. Jyo led the planning, engineering, and construction of the military program POD-wide. Through his leadership and experience, POD has become the proven leader in project execution and accomplishment. As the acting director of Engineering and Construction Directorate, Mr. Jyo forged a solid link between engineering, design, and construction quality. He brought all of POD's technical assets together to work toward common goals to provide responsive service and engineering and construction excellence to POD. The Engineering and Construction Directorate was the largest directorate at POD and included the operational elements of design, construction, engineering services, environmental, cost engineering as well as design and construction quality assurance. Mr. Jyo maintained technical excellence by pioneering innovative design and procurement tools, such as the construction indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contracting for Tripler Army Medical Center, later to be applied across the division programs, and such technical tools as the Computer Aided Drafting and Design, CADD, and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). By combining the technical elements of design, engineering and construction quality assurance into one division, he unified the quality function and created ``life cycle'' accountability for a design/construction continuum. Mr. Jyo truly was an innovator and made POD a better organization. Since 1997, Mr. Jyo has been the deputy district engineer for programs and project management for the Honolulu District. He has continued to utilize his leadership skills to accomplish considerable successes on their behalf. He has executed programs and projects in a team-oriented matrixed organization. He has led the effort to incorporate a quality management system into the district along with International Organization for Standardization 9001 certification. He has instituted a learning organization with a system of After Action Reviews and Lessons-Learned. He is successfully leading the district through its biggest construction program with highly visible programs such as the Stryker Brigade Combat Team and C-17 implementation in Hawaii. Under his leadership, the Honolulu District has achieved the highest customer satisfaction rating in its history. Mr. Jyo is a recognized representative of the Corps in the Pacific Region. He has established lasting relationships with the Hawaii Congressional Delegation as well as the Governors of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Mr. Jyo's efforts have made lasting impacts on the abilities of our service men and women to fight the global war on terror, bolster the region's economy while ardently protecting the environment. Mr. Jyo played an instrumental role in expanding the civil works and capital improvement programs to Guam, American Samoa, Kwajalein, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, Mr. Jyo oversaw the construction of the Alenaio Stream Flood Control project in Hilo, HI, which was completed in 1997 at a cost of $16 million. During the storm of November 2000, the improvements prevented approximately $13 million in damages and remains fully functional today. Prominent projects on the island of Oahu include the construction and renovation of military housing and improving facilities at Hickam AFB, Wheeler, Schofield, Aliamanu, and Fort Shafter. In 1989, HED began the design of the $110 million Hale Koa--Phase 2 recreational hotel at Fort DeRussy in Waikiki. Upon its completion in 1994, the Fort DeRussy area was transformed into a visually pleasing enhancement of Waikiki for the benefit of the military and civilian communities. His lifelong contributions and achievements to the Army are considerable. His recognized leadership and ability to forge lasting relationships and his clear vision describes an outstanding individual who has dedicated his life to public service. Ray Jyo's distinguished career may be coming to an end, but his loyalty to the goals of the Army and the Nation will carry on. On behalf of a grateful Nation, thank you for your service and for a job well done.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Hutchison, Nelson, and Stevens, for their leadership in bringing together the different bills from the Senate and the House. The final product is the result of hard work and compromise. It provides the National Aeronantics and Space Administration, NASA, and the country clear congressional direction on how to proceed with human space exploration, and it emphasizes NASA's invaluable work in science and education. Human space exploration is a key component of this bill. I am confident that space discovery will continue to excite young minds and, hopefully, inspire them to pursue an education in math and science. The skills and talents they develop will not only help them reach the stars, they will propel American innovation and define our country's future. At the same time, we must not overlook safety. I applaud Senator Nelson and the other conferees for keeping safety a top priority in this legislation. In addition, I want to express my appreciation for the conferees' willingness to accommodate my efforts to promote the design and development of new science facilities, such as telescopes through the National Science Foundation, as well as NASA. NASA plays a strong role in astronomy from the Hubble Telescope to the Keck Outrigger Project in Hawaii. I am pleased to see that the bill affirms NASA's commitment to astronomy by ensuring that the Hubble will be serviced. It is my hope that Section 616 will also help NASA work with institutions, such as the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center, to make the work of world-class scientists accessible to their neighbors and children. Finally, I would like to thank Jeff Bingham, Tom Cremins, Jean Toal Eisen and Chan Lieu of the Commerce Committee staff, and Mike Dodson, a fellow in Senator Bill Nelson's office, for their hard work on this important measure. I understand Mr. Dodson will be leaving at the end of the year. We will miss his counsel and expertise. I urge the swift adoption of the conference report.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to seek clarification from our esteemed majority leader, Senator Frist, on the scheduling of S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, for consideration of the full Senate. As you may recall, in December of last year, the majority and minority leaders joined us in reaching agreement on a schedule for the Senate's action on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act bill with Senators Domenici and Kyl. Specifically, in an exchange of correspondence that was made part of the Congressional Record for the 108th session of the Congress, the leaders agreed that S. 147 would be brought before the Senate on or before August 7, 2005.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President I ask that the following editorial which was written by my good friend, former Senator Fritz Hollings, and published in the Charleston Post and Courier on October 27, 2005, be printed in the Record.