Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I had the privilege and honor of meeting with Judge Roberts. I was impressed by his legal scholarship, but expressed a hope that he would be forthright and open with the American people as he progressed through the Senate confirmation process. Although I must regretfully conclude that there are still questions outstanding on Judge Roberts' record, in light of the urgency of ensuring that our Nation's Supreme Court has its full complement of Justices, I agree with my Democratic and Republican colleagues that his nomination should be given an up-or-down vote. I have studied the development of the Supreme Court by our Founding Fathers, and it is apparent to me that our Nation's leaders did not want this group of citizens to be subjected to the political pressures of the day, so they provided for lifetime appointments, with no termination date. Further, candidates were not required to be lawyers, perhaps as a reminder that legal brilliance alone does not qualify a man or woman to sit on the bench of our highest court. Integrity, compassion, and wisdom are also required in equal--or perhaps greater-- measure. Reconciling lifetime appointments with the demands of democratic elections, created understandable consternation. After much debate, our Founding Fathers provided that the executive and legislative branches of our Federal Government would employ every means available to them to make certain that the selection is a wise one, and one that a nation could live with for the lifetime of the judge. Today, we walk again the careful path laid out by the Founding Fathers to ensure for the American people that Judge Roberts is a man worthy of their trust. Fully realizing that Judge Roberts will most certainly receive substantial support from the Senate, I will cast my vote against this appointment. I do not object to Judge Roberts' politics, nor do I object to his personal beliefs. Our democracy guarantees him both the freedom to think and speak as he chooses, and the opportunity to ascend to any position in our government for which he is qualified. My concerns lie instead with the failure of the Department of Justice and the White House to honor the request of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make available certain documents relating to 16 cases Judge Roberts worked on when he served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. These documents, written during Judge Roberts' tenure in his most senior executive branch position, are relevant to the Senate's evaluation of his fitness to serve as the Chief Justice of the highest court of this land. I am not suggesting that these documents might contain dark shadows-- far from it. The refusal of the White House to allow the American people to see this corner of Judge Roberts' record, however, deviates from the careful road our Founding Fathers paved for us so many years ago, and leaves Americans wondering, ``Do those papers hide something I should know?'' Many groups have questioned Judge Roberts' position on civil rights. His early writings outline defiance toward review of civil rights violations by Federal courts, and many have asked how his views have evolved over the years. As one who has spent his life fighting against baseless prejudice and discrimination, I share these concerns. Would the papers withheld from our sight have answered these questions? We will never know. Throughout my career I have supported a woman's right to choose. I have supported Roe v. Wade. I have also supported stem cell research. The responses Judge Roberts provided when questioned about these issues did not assure me that these questions would be seriously considered. I hope I am wrong. Perhaps the papers hidden from our sight would have allayed my fears. Similarly, my questions on Judge Roberts' thoughts on the death penalty, and habeas corpus review by the Federal courts will never be answered. I am not against the person. As I noted, I am impressed by his legal scholarship. Although we seem to differ on the fundamental issues of the day, I respect his right to freely form and hold his own opinions. I do, however, object to the failure of the White House, the Department of Justice, and ultimately Judge Roberts himself, to make available documents from his past. The American people deserve a nominee unclouded by needless secrecy--and our democratic heritage demands that the President and the Congress work together to confirm the worthiness of any man or woman to sit as a Supreme Court Justice. To affirm my allegiance to these most American of principles, I will vote, ``no.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Would the distinguished Senators from Utah and Wisconsin yield? I would like to discuss with you a program that addresses the very limited employment and high barriers to entry into sustainable agricultural enterprises on the Island of Molokai.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleagues for their consideration and support of the Molokai Agriculture Development program. position transfer

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for yielding. In fiscal year 2005 and prior fiscal years, the subcommittee has included $250,000 for a program that provides training, business coaching, and cost share assistance to new agricultural businesses on the Island of Molokai, that have the promise of being sustainable and beneficial to this predominantly Native Hawaiian community. In 2004, the program allowed past grantees who had demonstrated success in their businesses to apply for expansion and enhancement funding. As a result, eight businesses were able to strengthen their operations through diversification, value added treatment, and improved marketing. As a result of the program, increased quantities and percentages of local produce and value added products are available in Molokai's grocery stores, farmers markets and other venues. In addition, the marketing of sweet potatoes and papayas has continued to expand to the Island of Maui and on the mainland. In the coming year, the emphasis will be on first-time farm businesses. Mini start-up grants will be instituted to prepare new applicants for possible projects in the future. While this program is showing success in an economically depressed part of my State, the need for this program continues. Despite the support by the Congress, no funds are provided for the program in fiscal year 2006. Accordingly, efforts to assist first-time farm businesses and to provide assistance and employment opportunities to the Island of Molokai will not continue without the continued support of the Congress and funding for the program. Would my colleagues consider including such support for the program during conference deliberations on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill?

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senators from Utah and Wisconsin yield? I would like to discuss with them the tremendous potential of open ocean cage culture as a sustainable source of high protein seafood for the United States and the world, and the issues associated with advancing open ocean cage culture.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for yielding. Along with the increased demand for seafood, we have also witnessed the decline in natural fisheries. While we have, as a Nation, made great advances with land-based aquaculture to address the widening gap between seafood demand and supply, we are beginning to see the emerging potential of open ocean cage culture as a way to bolster supply without detrimental impacts on the marine environment. With the development of a viable open ocean cage aquaculture industry, we will have a valuable tool to assist our efforts to manage wild fisheries and ensure that United States consumers will have access to a range of high quality, environmentally responsible seafood products. I am proud to say that producers and the marine aquaculture research community in my State of Hawaii are among the leaders in the development of this new industry. To date, growers in Hawaii have demonstrated the commercial viability of open ocean cage culture for Hawaiian finfish and have small scale ventures that supply Hawaii as well as some mainland markets. To move open ocean cage culture to the next level requires the refinement and transfer of finfish hatchery technology to the industry. The Oceanic Institute in Hawaii has been the leader in developing this technology but recently has encountered problems in scaling hatchery technology to a commercial level. To overcome these problems, this research organization has recently expressed a need to remove the nutritional and other constraints in the raising of finfish fingerlings destined for open ocean cages. This will involve some redirection of funds provided by this committee for the Oceanic Institute of Hawaii for a comprehensive aquaculture development research program. Specifically, there is a need to shift funds from more general feed issues to the myriad problems associated with raising fingerlings on a commercial scale for open ocean cages. I support such changes in the use of funds appropriated for the Oceanic Institute of Hawaii and seek your concurrence.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, APHIS, from using appropriated funds to demolish or dismantle the Hawaii Fruit Fly Production Facility in Waimanalo, HI. This amendment, which is cosponsored by my dear friends, Senator Akaka and Senator Finstein, is in response to a recent decision made by APHIS to dismantle the Hawaii Fruit Fly Production Facility in Waimanalo, HI and would preclude the agency from carrying out this decision until other alternatives have been articulated and analyzed. In addition, this amendment would provide the agency and the many stakeholders with additional time to examine the issue, to seek a more creative solution, and to have the Secretary recommend a plan that is acceptable to the agricultural representatives of the State of Hawaii, California, and other impacted States. Releases of sterile insects have played a prominent role in the success of most pest control or eradication programs. It is in this context that I have two main concerns with the agency's decision. First, relying solely on Guatemala as a source of sterile Mediterranean fruit flies places the United States at risk if the supply from Guatemala were curtailed for any reason. In these times of terrorist activities and civil unrest, disruption is much more than an academic debate. I have been assured by other states impacted by the APHIS decision that they share my concern. Second, from a Hawaii perspective the permanent closure of the facility in Waimanalo does not bode well for the future of diversified agriculture in Hawaii. Unfortunately, Hawaii is infested with four fruit fly pest species--not just the Mediterranean fruit fly. Any hope of area wide control or eradication of these pests requires efficient rearing of all four species for sterile release programs. It is my intent to seek support for a multiple species rearing facility in Waimanalo to address this problem that is unique to Hawaii. While suppression of all four of the fruit fly species in Hawaii is of great benefit to our State, such activities may be among the best mechanisms for avoiding inadvertent fruit fly infestations in other states where these alien pests can survive. Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would prohibit APHIS from implementing its demolition decision and to provide additional time for the agency to work with all stakeholders in exploring and implementing a sound public policy on this issue of great importance to the State of Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 33rd annual convention of the National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones, NAFTZ, which is meeting this week in my home State of Hawaii, I rise today to pay tribute to the cofounder of the NAFTZ, my good friend, Homer A. Maxey, Jr., who I have known for more than a quarter century. The NAFTZ was conceived in November of 1972, at an informal meeting of foreign-trade zone representatives from various States. At that meeting, Homer A. Maxey, Jr., was selected chairman of a committee to develop the organizational framework for a formal association representing FTZ grantees and operators in the U.S. During a conference of FTZ managers in Washington, DC, on May 8, 1973, the NAFTZ was officially launched and Homer was elected to serve as the first President of this Association from 1973 to 1975. Homer was elected, by unanimous vote of the members, as the first Honorary Life Member at the NAFTZ Annual Conference in 1979. He has served on many different Committees of the NAFTZ including: the Oil Refinery Sub-Zone Task Force, ORSTF, the Operations Committee, Nominations Committee, the Long Range Planning Committee, and several task forces. Today the NAFTZ represents over 800 members comprised of State and local government agencies, public entities, individuals and corporations involved in the Foreign-Trade Zone program. The NAFTZ plays an important role in facilitating international trade and U.S. competitiveness through the promotion and support of the Foreign-Trade Zones Program. The Foreign-Trade Zones Program was created by an act of Congress in 1934. Its purpose is to encourage domestic warehousing, manufacturing and processing activity. States and local governments use foreign-trade zones as part of their overall economic development strategy and to improve the international business sector in their communities. FTZs contribute to the enhancement of the U.S. investment climate for commerce and industry. The FTZ program encourages capital investment in the U.S. rather than abroad and secures American jobs. The benefit occurs only if the activity takes place in the U.S. It substitutes U.S.-produced merchandise and labor for foreign imports. Today there are 260 approved general-purpose zones and 534 subzones located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. According to the latest available annual report of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, the total value of merchandise received at foreign-trade zones annually exceeds $200 billion. Over 2,200 firms in the U.S. utilize foreign-trade zones and employment at these facilities exceeds 300,000. During his involvement with the NAFTZ, Homer Maxey has played an instrumental role in the growth and development of the U.S. Foreign- Trade Zones Program. For instance, he was instrumental in a number of issues, challenges, and accomplishments of the program, including spearheading customs regulations to limit customs duties on merchandise manufactured in FTZs to foreign material only; streamlining FTZ inventory recordkeeping; creating uniform FTZ management practices nationally; securing weekly entry for manufacturing; eliminating activation and annual fees on foreign-trade zones; allowing users of foreign-trade zones to defer entry and payment of duty on foreign production machinery used in FTZs until such time that the equipment goes into commercial production, and eliminating the merchandise processing fee on domestic materials shipped from FTZs. At the same time Homer Maxey directed General Purpose Foreign-Trade Zone No. 9 in Hawaii, which was established in February 1965. Homer was the Administrator for the State of Hawaii's Foreign-Trade Zone project from 1965 through 1993. During his management of the zone, the first FTZ oil refinery was established on Oahu. Thereafter, the program in Hawaii grew under his direction to include today five General-Purpose Zone sites and five Subzones handling $2.04 billion worth of merchandise from 341 firms, with exports of $290,980,773 and employing a total of 2,683 people in zone-related activities. From its modest beginnings with 40,000 square feet originally approved, the General Purpose Zone project grew to involve 15 percent of the designated industrial lands on the Island of Oahu. After attending the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, Mr. Maxey was employed by Hawaiian Airlines. He served in the U.S. Air Force during the early 1950s. He was employed by Matson Lines, 1955-1965, in passenger sales, freight traffic and marine operations. He has also been active in the Hawaii/Pacific Export Council, the Propeller Club of the Port of Honolulu, and the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii. Mr. Maxey has also been a consultant to the State of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii, and Foreign-Trade Zone No. 9. It is my honor to recognize the lifelong contributions of Homer Maxey to the U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Program and the State of Hawaii. I wish Homer and his wife, Mahina, all the best in the future.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the passage of the conference report for H.R. 3, SAFETEA-LU, the reauthorization of our Federal surface transportation programs. During my 42 years in the Senate, it has been the rare occasion when we pass a piece of legislation that is guaranteed to save lives. But the safety provisions authored by the Senate Commerce Committee in this transportation reauthorization bill will save thousands of lives, and prevent thousands of serious injuries, for generations. I want to thank Chairman Stevens, Chairman Lott, Senators Pryor, Rockefeller, Burns, Dorgan, Lautenberg, and Boxer of the Senate Commerce Committee for working so closely with me to develop a consensus, bipartisan safety bill in the Senate. Likewise, Chairman Young, Chairman Petri, Chairman Barton, and Ranking Members Oberstar, DeFazio, and Dingell from the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce Committees for their efforts in merging our bills into a truly landmark conference report. In crafting our bill and conference report, we have incorporated many of the administration's recommendations and provisions from our similar effort that passed the Senate last year covering auto, truck, rail safety, and hazardous materials transportation safety. The bill also strengthens consumer protections for those who entrust their belongings to a moving company, provides more robust, predictable funding for boating safety and sport fish restoration programs, and provides additional financing options. In the 1970s, we required that seatbelts be standard equipment in all automobiles. We then followed in the 1980s with airbags and other safety features. Now a new generation of technology has opened the door to even greater automobile safety. With Chairman Stevens and Senator Lott, we undertook a bipartisan mission in the Commerce Committee to use these new technologies to reduce injuries and save lives of automobile drivers and passengers. The development of electronic stability control by America's brilliant engineers is the most promising vehicle safety technology of our generation. Rollovers represent one-third of all traffic safety fatalities, so our safety bill requires that electronic stability control become standard equipment on all passenger cars and trucks in 5 years. It is also cost effective since it uses existing anti-lock brakes to correct the course of a vehicle before a potential rollover. During a rollover, we need to keep occupants inside the car where they are better protected. Therefore, the bill also requires stronger doors and door locks. The third critical change is to mandate stronger roofs that are less likely to crush occupants during a rollover. This highway safety bill goes even further: side-impact crash standards that likely will result in side-curtain airbags in every automobile; new rules to make 15-passenger vans subject to the same safety tests as automobiles; a prohibition on sales of new 15-passenger vans to schools for use in carrying children; and new power-window switches that will reduce strangulation deaths and injuries to children. Cumulatively, these improved vehicle safety standards will save thousands of lives. We also dramatically increase funding for programs to reduce drunk driving and increase seatbelt use. I am especially proud that our bill gives States large incentives to crack down on hard-core drunk drivers, those who have the audacity to drive drunk again after a prior conviction. We also provide $29 million annually for national advertising and safety enforcement campaigns, which research data shows has had a significant effect on saving lives. In other words, everyone will see more commercials during the holidays about drunk driving and seatbelt use, and there will be more police on patrol during those times. There is a final issue that is very important to me, highway safety on Indian lands. While the rate of highway deaths and injuries has declined across the Nation, the death and injury rate on Indian lands has actually increased. Since 1982, 65 percent of fatal crashes that occurred on Indian lands were alcohol related. That compares to the national alcohol-related death rate of 47 percent of all fatal crashes. The percentage of fatal crashes on Indian reservations that involves a single vehicle is 26 percent higher than in the rest of the Nation. These single-vehicle accidents are the most preventable, and where we can save the most lives per dollar spent on traffic safety outreach and enforcement. Therefore, from the funding pool for the basic safety grant in this bill, we more than doubled the proportion of basic safety grant money sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA distributes this money to Indian tribes that apply for funds to reduce drunk driving, increase seatbelt use, and enact other safety strategies. This was a provision in the original Senate bill, and we convinced our colleagues on the conference committee to include it in the final report. This extra funding will make a tremendous difference in the lives of our Native Americans, whose families suffer the tragedy of highway deaths more severely than any other part of our country. To improve the safety of trucks and buses operating on our Nation's roads, we have reauthorized the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's safety programs FMCSA and strengthened their efforts to improve truck safety through strong enforcement and cooperation with the trucking industry. The conference report also reauthorizes the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, MCSAP, for the years 2006 through 2009 at an average annual funding level nearing $200 million, more than double the TEA 21 level, and consistent with the administration's proposal. The conference report also provides $128 million over the life of the reauthorization to improve States' Commercial Driver's License programs and modernize the Commercial Driver's License Information System, CDLIS. The conference report updates the medical program for commercial drivers by establishing a Medical Review Board to recommend standards for the physical examinations of commercial drivers and a registry for qualified medical examiners to ensure medical examiners have received proper training. The conference report also improves the maintenance and safety of intermodal truck chassis are the current Single State Registration System for truck registration, SSRS, with a new system that requires truckers to only register in one State, while preserving State revenues collected through the current system. To improve the safety and security of the transportation of hazardous materials, the conference report reauthorizes the hazardous materials, HAZMAT, transportation safety programs at an average of $30 million annually, now administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, for the first time in over 10 years. The conference report provides $21,800,000 annually for community HAZMAT planning and training grants and allows States to use some of their planning money to training programs as needed. Additionally, the bill provides $4 million annually for HAZMAT ``train the trainer'' grants, and allows these funds to be used to train HAZMAT employees directly. The conference report also increases civil penalties to up to $100,000 for HAZMAT violations that result in severe injury or death and raises the minimum penalties for violations related to training. The conference report requires Mexican and Canadian commercial motor vehicle operators transporting HAZMAT in the U.S. to undergo a background check similar to those for U.S. HAZMAT drivers. Additionally, the conference report streamlines Federal responsibilities for ensuring the safety of food shipment by transferring primary responsibility of food transportation safety from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, which would set practices to be followed by shippers, carriers, and others engaged in food transportation. To provide greater protection to consumers entrusting their belongings to a moving company, the conference report allows a state authority that enforces State consumer protection laws and State attorney general to enforce Federal laws and regulations governing the transportation of household goods in interstate commerce. Additionally, the conference report imposes new penalties for fraudulent activities perpetrated by movers and imposes new registration requirements on household goods carriers to protect consumers. This conference report also reauthorizes activities funded by two of the Nation's most effective ``user-pay, user-benefit'' programs--the sport fish restoration fund, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the recreational boating safety fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. These programs constitute the ``Wallop-Breaux'' program, which is funded through the aquatic resources trust fund. The reauthorization will allow continued funding of programs that benefit boating safety, sportfish, and wetland restoration, as well as Clean Vessel Act grants that help to keep our waterways clean. I am pleased to report that this provision is supported by a large coalition of recreational and boating groups who are members of the American League of Anglers and Boaters. The changes made include: (1) renaming the trust fund the sport fish restoration and boating trust fund, and eliminating the separate boating safety account; (2) reauthorizing the marine sanitary devices pump-out program, the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program, and outreach programs; and (3) funding most of the programs on a percentage basis, which provides both simplicity and fairness. Conforming changes to the Internal Revenue Code are also included. The growing popularity of recreational boating and fishing has created safety, environmental, and access needs that have been successfully addressed by the Recreational Boating Safety and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. The trust fund program reauthorizations and funding adjustments contained in the conference report are important for the safety of boaters, the continued enjoyment of fishermen, and improvement of our coastal areas and waterways. Finally, the conference report streamlines the Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Loan Program and increases the amount of loans for railroad infrastructure improvements. The conference report creates a new program to fund the relocation of rail lines and other projects that help alleviate congestion, noise, and other impacts from railroads on communities and provides additional funds for highspeed rail planning and development efforts. As the title of this bill implies, increasing the safety of our highways and surface transportation system is one of our Nation's top priorities, and I am proud to say that this conference report will bring us closer to the goal of having the safest transportation system in the world.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2005.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels. Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care. I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers. In 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment released a report requested by the Senate Appropriations Committee. This report, ``Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Certified Nurse Midwives: A Policy Analysis,'' found the quality of nurse practitioner care to be as good as or better than care provided by physicians. By passing this legislation, we honor the commitment of these frontline health care professionals by ensuring they receive the respect and reimbursement they have earned. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2005.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels. Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care. I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers. In 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment released a report requested by the Senate Appropriations Committee. This report, ``Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and Certified Nurse Midwives: A Policy Analysis,'' found the quality of nurse practitioner care to be as good as or better than care provided by physicians. By passing this legislation, we honor the commitment of these frontline health care professionals by ensuring they receive the respect and reimbursement they have earned. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, nearly 4 years have passed since the events of 9/11, yet rail and transit security remain major vulnerabilities. The warning signs cannot be clearer. Public transportation and rail systems are a primary target for terrorist attacks. Last week's transit bombings in London follow similar attacks in Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Seoul, and each attack has produced massive casualties, caused broad economic disruption, and generated widespread fear. We have already been warned twice publicly by the FBI that al-Qaida may be directly targeting U.S. passenger trains and that their operatives may try to destroy key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments. We know that more than one-third of all worldwide terrorist attacks target transportation systems, with public transit the most frequently targeted transportation mode. Despite the significant threat to transit and rail systems and the Senate's unanimous approval of the Rail Security Act last year, security funding has remained grossly inadequate. As a result, our Nation's transit and rail systems have been unable to implement necessary security improvements. I am pleased to join my colleagues this afternoon in supporting an amendment that increases rail security by $265 million in fiscal year 2006. This funding level is not fictional. It is absolutely justifiable and necessary. Of the total amount proposed in our amendment, $65 million would be for Amtrak security, and Amtrak officials have verified they can obligate that funding amount in fiscal year 2006. An additional $40 million would be for Amtrak tunnel safety, and Amtrak could obligate this funding in fiscal year 2006 for tunnels in New York, Baltimore, and the District of Columbia. Of the total amount provided for by the amendment, $120 million would be for passenger and freight rail security grants, similar to the funding level authorized in S. 2273, the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed unanimously last year. Additionally, $35 million would be provided for rail security research and development. Again, the level is similar to the funding that the Senate has previously approved. Finally, $5 million would be for a Transportation Security Administration, TSA, rail security risk assessment. Just yesterday, Secretary Chertoff announced his plan to reorganize the Department of Homeland Security. He mentioned two points I would like to close with. First, he noted that increased preparedness should focus on not only risk and threat, but also consequences. We are all aware of the devastation that could result from a London-style attack on our transit and rail systems. Second, he noted in his prepared materials that the TSA will continue to be the lead agency for intermodal transportation. I couldn't agree with him more, and this amendment gives him the necessary funding to support his renewed focus on rail and transit security.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2005, legislation to reauthorize and update the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senator John Sununu, the new Chairman of the Commerce Committee's National Ocean Policy Study, who is also greatly concerned about the fate of coral reefs and the future well-being of our coastal regions and resources. Coral reefs, often called the ``rainforests of the sea,'' are among the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Covering less than one percent of the Earth's surface, these fragile resources provide services worth billions of dollars each year to the United States economy and economies worldwide. Coral reef resources provide economic and environmental benefits in the form of food, jobs, natural products, pharmaceuticals, and shoreline protection. In Hawaii, reef-related activities generate $360 million each year for the State's economy, and the overall worth of our reefs has been estimated at close to $10 billion. However, these reefs are also under pressure from some 1.2 million residents and the seven million tourists visiting each year. Threats range from land-based sources of pollution, overfishing, recreational overuse, alien species introduction, marine debris, coral bleaching and the increased acidity of our oceans. Despite these impacts, there are still remote coral reefs that are largely intact, such as those in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The continued conservation and study of these isolated reefs is necessary for understanding healthy coral reef ecosystems and restoring impacted ecosystems. The reefs of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are an important nesting and breeding site for many endangered and threatened species. A Federal public designation process is underway to manage these areas as a National Marine Sanctuary, under a science-based management scheme that will accommodate multiple uses while achieving the necessary conservation goals. Increased funding and expanded Federal, State and local partnerships in this area have resulted in monitoring, mapping, and research programs have improved our understanding of the spatial and temporal dynamics of Hawaiian reefs which can be used to guide conservation and management decisions. Through this reauthorization, we can build upon lessons learned in Hawaii and other areas and apply them throughout the United States. A mere five years ago, Congress took its first step toward addressing coral reef declines by authorizing legislation that provided targeted funding to advance our understanding and capacity to address threats to coral reefs. Since then, strong support for these programs around the country, as well as focused funding, have given us much information that will help us strengthen and refocus the legislation. The report of the U.S. Ocean Commission has further underscored the urgent need to improve management and conservation of coral reefs from a variety of threats. Our hearing on coral threats last month provided additional recommendations for changes to move from monitoring to action to improve coral conservation. The Coral Reef Amendments Act of 2005 responds to these recommendations by increasing annual authorizations under the Coral Reef Conservation Act, starting at $30 million in fiscal year 2006, and increasing to $35 million in fiscal year 2009 to 2012. This roughly doubles the authorization levels in the existing act. It also gives priority attention to local action strategies and territorial needs, as well as on prevention of physical damage from vessel impacts. A new $8 million Community-Based Planning Grants program is included to encourage and enhance on-the-ground efforts to develop and implement coral management and protection plans, working through appropriate Federal and State management agencies. I am particularly pleased that this grant program will encourage adoption of traditional and island- based management approaches, many of which have a long history in the Pacific region. The bill also fills a gap in authority needed for NOAA to respond to vessel groundings on coral reefs, damage that compounds over time if left unaddressed. Grounded vessels have remained on reefs, and have been a particular problem, when there is no viable owner or when the grounding occurs under circumstances that do not allow for response under authorities such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act or the Oil Pollution Act. The July 2, 2005, grounding of the survey vessel CASITAS in the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and the damage caused in American Samoa several years ago when a typhoon drove 9 abandoned fishing vessels onto reefs in Pago Pago harbor, highlight the vulnerability of coral reefs to groundings, and limitations of existing law and funding. The bill responds to these needs by giving NOAA statutory authority to respond on an emergency basis to prevent or mitigate coral reef destruction from vessel or other physical impacts, including damage caused by natural disasters. The bill also authorizes NOAA to use Coral Reef Conservation Funds for these purposes, and encourages leveraging resources and assistance from other Federal agencies, as well as private sources. To assist in preventing future groundings, the bill authorizes NOAA to establish a vessel grounding inventory, identify reefs outside National Marine Sanctuaries that are at risk, and recommend measures that may be used to prevent future groundings, such as navigational aids or beacons to warn mariners. Finally, the bill specifically directs NOAA to coordinate on the federal, state, and local levels to implement the U.S. National Coral Action Strategy. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, which Senator Stevens and I introduced in January 2004, and which is now being considered by the full Senate. We are joined by 24 of our friends and colleagues as cosponsors, including Senators Cantwell, Burns, Lautenberg, Snowe, Akaka, Murkowski, Clinton, Smith, Murray, Lieberman, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Kerry, Chambliss, Wyden, Dayton, Boxer, Feinstein, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Corzine, Lott, Gregg, and Ben Nelson. This bill, which the Commerce Committee unanimously approved in March, provides a scientific and technological response to minimize the threats posed by tsunami to our own shores and coastal communities around the world. While we have had limited observation and detection capabilities dating back to 1949, we must have a more robust, reliable, and well-maintained tsunami warning system. The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 made clear the need and the urgency to develop more advanced detection capabilities. Our legislation builds on our previous work and will establish a warning system in the Pacific that is a model for the world. It also provides for expansion and improvement to repair gaps that have been identified recently. Protecting human life and property from natural disaster requires three components: the ability to reliably detect and forecast, the capacity to broadcast warnings in a timely and informative manner, and the capability to respond and safely evacuate coastal communities. Above all, however, it requires the willingness to invest resources to prepare for a threat that is largely unseen and unpredictable, until the last moment, when a monstrous wave actually strikes. The people of Alaska and Hawaii have long memories and a keen awareness of the threat of tsunami. Perhaps it is because Hawaii sits in a position of terrible vulnerability in the Pacific Ocean, which is the site of 85 percent of the world's tsunami activity, and because Alaska, perched on the northern edge of the Pacific's Ring of Fire, suffers frequent tsunami-generating earthquakes. Yet we are not the only States at risk from tsunami. There is a 14 percent chance that the coast of Oregon will, within the next 50 years, see a tsunami similar in magnitude to the one that recently took so many lives in the Indian Ocean. A recent study by the University of Southern California found that undersea slumping off the California coast could generate a tsunami with the potential to take many thousands of lives and cause over $40 billion in damages. In order to protect local communities, Hawaii established in 1949 a tsunami warning center, following a tragic Hilo tsunami. In response to the Good Friday earthquake and tsunami of 1964, which accounted for 90 percent of the deaths in the State that year, Alaska established an observatory in Palmer, AK, in 1967. Collaborations between the two centers and other partners led to a nascent capacity for predicting and warning coastal communities about potential tsunami in Alaska and Hawaii and beyond. As we came to understand the broader threat that tsunami posed, Ted Stevens and I worked together to pass legislation in 1994 to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to develop a Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. We are pleased to report that the program has laid the foundation for tsunami preparedness. Through its Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, PMEL, NOAA has developed Deep Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tunami--or ``DART''-- buoys, which accurately measure the subtle variations in the ocean's sea level caused by tsunami traveling over open water. With these measurements, as well as readings from coastal gauges, mathematical models can forecast tsunami direction, speed, and inundation with astonishing accuracy. Although the worldwide network of seismic sensors operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, provides excellent notice of earthquakes with the potential to generate tsunami, the DART buoys represent a next-generation approach to detection and forecasting of tsunami that will form the backbone of our domestic preparedness. Interpreting these data and issuing warnings are Hawaii's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and Alaska's West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, which jointly have the capacity to cover our domestic shores, and, at the same time, to reach out to all cooperating nations of the world. Forecasting and warning networks, however, depend on ears who know how to respond, and so the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has partnered with States and local authorities to produce inundation mapping, develop evacuation routes, and conduct tsunami education. As a result of much hard work, 15 counties along the West Coast and in Alaska and Hawaii have become national and world leaders by becoming ``tsunami ready.'' The appalling scope of the Indian Ocean tragedy illustrates the importance and necessity of our work of the past 10 years, and with stark clarity, we can see that despite our best efforts, much remains to be done. Now, as before, Senator Stevens and I have come together to lead the charge toward national and international tsunami preparedness. The bill formally authorizes NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability for the Nation. The system would build on the model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. The system would include four components: an expanded and upgraded detection and warning system, a Federal-State tsunami hazard mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a modernization and upgrade program. In addition, S. 50 would direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other assistance to international efforts to establish regional systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean. The detection and warning system established by the bill would cover the Pacific Ocean region, as well as the Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico region. The system would incorporate a variety of seismic and tsunami detection technologies, including deep ocean buoys. The system also would encompass tsunami warning centers charged with collecting and analyzing the data and distributing warnings, including the existing Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the West Coast/ Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, as well as any others deemed necessary by the NOAA Administrator. The bill formally authorizes NOAA's Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and its community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness of at-risk areas. The bill directs a Federal-State coordinating committee for the program to work together to improve inundation mapping, community outreach and education, and promote and integrate tsunami warning and mitigation measures, including rescue and recovery guidelines. The program would provide grants to States to ensure the program elements are implemented in coastal communities. The bill requires NOAA to establish, along with other agencies and academic institutions, a tsunami research program to continuously improve detection, prediction, communication, and mitigation science and technology to support tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would also focus on the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings, including telephones, wireless and satellite technology, the Internet, television and radio, and any innovative combination of these technologies. Another critical component of the bill requires NOAA to upgrade and modernize the U.S. tsunami detection system by December 2007, and provide accountability for the long-term operation of the system. NOAA is required to repair and upgrade the system, ensuring deployment of existing deep ocean detection buoys and related detection equipment, as well as notify Congress immediately not only of any equipment or system failures that will impair regional detection, but also of significant contractor failures or delays. In addition, the bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to review the system for further modernization recommendations. One of the changes we made to the bill resulted from testimony at the committee's February 2, 2005, hearing, and focuses on improving warning and preparedness for all coastal hazards, not only tsunami. The bill now contains a Coastal Community Vulnerability and Adaptation program at NOAA would encourage collaboration among Federal, State, local, and regional efforts through pilot projects focusing on: No. 1, development of vulnerability maps for coastal communities to a wide array of potential hazards; No. 2, better integration of risk management with community planning; No. 3, rick management leadership training for public officials; No. 4, development of risk assessment technologies; No. 5, new data services to support the new risk management activities; and No. 6, new risk communication systems. The bill would authorize $5 million annually for fiscal year 2006-2012 for the program. The bill also recognizes the need for global coordination on tsunami preparedness, and as such, requires NOAA, and the interagency coordinating committee of the U.S. Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, to provide technical assistance and advice to international entities as part of an international effort to develop a fully functional global tsunami warning system. The bill would also encourage nations to share information and funding for such activities. Finally, the bill authorizes $35 million annually for 6 years to support tsnunami related activities. Through this legislation, the work Senator Stevens and I started over ten years ago will step up to the next level, and provide our Nation with coverage and protection that it needs, while fulfilling our duties as citizens of the global community. I believe that this bill will provide services of incalculable value to our Nation. The return on our investment may not happen this day or the next but it will happen. I hope that you will join me and my cosponsors in supporting enactment of the Tsunami Preparedness Act.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I rise today in support of S. 362, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, legislation I introduced with Senator Stevens, with the cosponsorship of Senators Cantwell, Snowe, Lautenberg, Kerry, Sarbanes, Akaka, and Murray. This bill, which I am proud to say passed the Senate unanimously in the 108th Congress, focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many and has been largely ignored by the global community: marine debris. This problem is so important, and so pervasive, that it merited an entire chapter of the 2004 Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials that may find their way to sea, such as discarded or lost fishing gear, cargo washed overboard, and abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Marine debris is not only unsightly and dangerous to navigation, but it is also deadly to sea creatures, which may die entangled in a discarded fishing net or after ingesting plastic items such as lighters and toys. While the problem is vast, it is also reversible when given sufficient emphasis, coordination, and funding. The bill being considered by the full Senate today aims to meet this challenge by adopting the measures recommended by both the Ocean Commission and the 2000 International Marine Debris Conference to help remove manmade marine debris from the list of ocean threats. The bill has strong support from the Bush administration, environmental groups, and others with an interest in the marine debris problem, including the Ocean Conservancy and the Northwest Straits Commission. Specifically, our legislation would establish a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, direct the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, reinvigorate an interagency committee on marine debris, and improve our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention. The bill would authorize $10 million in funding for the NOAA program, and $5 million in funding for the Coast Guard program. I am pleased to say that congressional action last year provided $5 million in appropriated funding to NOAA specifically toward this problem, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended increasing this amount to $6.4 million in fiscal year 2006. We challenge the administration to likewise increase funding for this initiative in coming years. In Hawaii, the impacts of marine debris are more visible because of the convergence caused by the North Pacific Tropical High. Atmospheric forces cause ocean surface currents to converge on Hawaii, bringing with them the vast amount of debris floating throughout the Pacific. Since 1996, a total of 484 tons of debris have been removed from coral reefs in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. In 2004 alone, the program removed over 125 tons of debris. However, because more debris arrives daily, the job is far from done. I am pleased that the coordinated approach taken to address the threats posed by marine debris in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands has provided a model for the nation. We have learned that our best path to success lies in partnering with one another to share resources, and it is my hope that others may adapt our project to their own shores through the partnership and funding opportunities set forth in this bill. We must also bear in mind that no matter how zealously we reform our practices, the ultimate solution lies in international cooperation. The oceans connect the coastal nations of the world, and we must work together to reduce this increasing threat to our seas and shores. The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act will provide the United States with the tools to develop effective marine debris prevention and removal programs on a worldwide basis, including reporting and information requirements that will assist in the creation of an international marine debris database. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. The committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I rise today in support of S. 39, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act. As a cosponsor of S. 39, I join my good friend Chairman, Stevens in supporting an enhanced national effort to explore our oceans, as was strongly recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface and contain a diversity of life which greatly exceeds that found in terrestrial systems, and yet our oceans remain poorly understood. I therefore commend my friend, Chairman Stevens, for his initiative in this area and thank Senators Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Lautenberg, Cantwell, and Reed for their support in cosponsoring this legislation. Despite the importance of the oceans in human history, in regulating climate change, guaranteeing food security, providing energy resources, and enabling worldwide commerce, the U.S. spends only 3.5 percent of its research budget on ocean science, and far less on ocean exploration. Approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored. It is hard to understand our inattention to this exciting area of research given the opportunity ocean exploration provides for discovering new habitats, species, artifacts, and resources. Ocean exploration expeditions can provide images of ancient human artifacts, rare or previously undiscovered species, and exciting new ecosystems. These images ignite the imagination of the general public and engage them in marine science and conservation. This bill is a reflection of Senator Stevens' and my long history of working together to increase the funding for ocean exploration, as well as to secure a dedicated vessel to conduct these activities in U.S. waters and worldwide. To accomplish these goals our bill would establish a national ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that, in coordination with the National Science Foundation, would conduct interdisciplinary ocean exploration voyages and give priority attention to deep ocean regions. To facilitate the aims of the exploration program, the bill would also establish a Federal exploration technology and infrastructure task force. This task force would be charged with strengthening interagency coordination for the purposes of developing and facilitating the transfer of new exploration technologies, communication infrastructure and data management systems to the exploration program. Long-term funding levels are also dedicated for ocean exploration in the bill. I hope that my colleagues will work with us today to ensure the swift passage of the National Ocean Exploration Program Act.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Domenici, in a brief colloquy on the subject of the State Technologies Advancement Collaborative, commonly called STAC, a program in the energy efficiency portion of the Department of Energy appropriation.

Mr. INOUYE. The STAC program is a collaboration among two State organizations and the Department of Energy, initiated by an agreement among the parties in November of 2003. The program was to be a 5-year pilot of a joint planning process between the States and the Department, resulting in projects that were multistate collaborations across the country, of interest to both States and the Federal Government, and cost-shared by the State at no less than 50 percent To date the program has had two competitive solicitations for projects, resulting in almost $24 million in buildings, industry, transportation, distributed generation and fossil energy activities, with over $12 million of that amount being provided by the States. These projects involve 36 different States.

Mr. INOUYE. I am aware that the energy legislation does that, and I thank the chairman for including such support in the Energy bill. Despite the support of Congress for this program in the past, and in the Energy bill, no funds are provided for the program in the Energy and Water appropriation now before us. This highly leveraged, efficiently managed program, with wide participation from the States, will not continue, even with the language included in the Energy bill, without strong support from the appropriations process. Would the chairman consider including such support for the program in the conference agreement on the Energy and Water appropriations bill by directing the Department to provide funds out of its regular programs at the level no less than the level Congress supported in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the program?

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for his consideration and for his support of programs important to the States.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments that I filed concerning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydro relicensing process and its impact on Indian tribes. The two amendments were simple amendments that I had hoped to have included in a managers' package. As presently drafted, section 261 will authorize license applicants to have veto authority over the Secretary's decision on whether to accept alternative conditions. This will have substantial adverse effects on Indian reservations that are occupied by hydroelectric project facilities as well as fishery resources that the United States holds in trust for Indian tribes. The Federal Government has an obligation, a trust responsibility, to protect the resources and related property rights in them that we hold in trust for Indian tribes. A cornerstone of Federal Indian policy regarding tribal natural resources is that development of them will not occur without the consent of the tribe for which the United States holds the resources in trust. By injecting the judgment of a hydroelectric dam operator--whose interests may well be adverse to a tribe's--to override the Secretary's determination of the Federal trust responsibility for tribal resources affected by a license application seems to me to be a clear violation of our trust responsibility. In certain cases this could result in an applicant having a virtual veto over conditions relating to the protection of Indian lands and resources. Congress acted to create reservations to fulfill solemn obligations to Indian tribes and vested in the Secretary the special responsibility to be the repository of expertise in the management and protection of those reservations as well as fisheries in which many tribes reserved rights in their treaties with the United States--treaties that were ratified by this Senate. The tribal land and fishery resources that would be adversely affected by section 261 are vested property rights that the United States holds in trust. There is no justification for subordinating those rights to the activities and interests of a licensee in the manner provided for in this legislation. The Federal Government has continuously broken its promises to Indian tribes. Over the past 60 years or so, this has cost us, and the taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more for breaking those promises. And we continue to face additional liability in the billions of dollars for breaking other promises and violating our trust responsibility. This has got to stop. Justice Black once wrote at another critical juncture in the history of the Federal Power Act's relationship to tribal property rights: ``Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.'' Although I am disappointed that we may once again be violating our solemn obligation to the Indian tribes who have contributed so much to our great country, I note that Senator Domenici has assured me that he will continue to look at this matter. I call on my colleagues in the conference of this legislation to work to ensure revision of the language that is antithetical to tribal rights and longstanding Federal Indian policy.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, according to press reports last evening one of the principal advisors to the President, Mr. Karl Rove, criticized Democrats for failing to respond to the attacks on 9/11. He is reported to have said that the Democratic Party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He is quoted saying, ``Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers, Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.'' Oftentimes in press reports, words are taken out of context or simply misquoted. I would hope that is the case here. I would hope that the views that were reported to have been expressed do not really represent the thoughts of Mr. Rove and certainly not the President of the United States. It is not often that I come to the floor to question what someone might have said. My view is that most of the time it is better to just remain silent and not to dignify the remarks which might have been made in the heat of partisan rhetoric, but this is a bit different. All of us who were in the Congress at that time recall 9/11 vividly. Like all Americans we saw the jet liners crash into the Twin Towers on our televisions and we could all see the smoke rising from the Pentagon just across the river. Perhaps Mr. Rove forgets what that day was like as we evacuated our offices and tried to maintain an aura of calm for the American public. Perhaps he forgets the spontaneous action of many of my colleagues who gathered on the steps of the Capitol to sing ``God Bless America.'' It wasn't Republicans on the steps and it wasn't conservatives, it was Americans. All colors, all religions, both parties came together in a patriotic symbol to demonstrate the resolve of America. Mr. Rove must also not remember that the Senate was in the hands of a Democratic majority in September 2001. It was the Democratic majority, acting with the Republican minority, which pushed through a resolution authorizing the use of force to go after Osama Bin Laden. There was no dispute between the parties on this issue. We all agreed that we had to defeat this enemy of America. I was Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee at that time. I worked with my colleague Ted Stevens to put together an emergency appropriations bill to support the Defense Department's requirements to mount an attack on the terrorists. It was a bipartisan plan that provided the administration wide latitude to respond to this tragedy. There was no dissent. We were united across party lines. Perhaps Mr. Rove just forgets. I cannot forget visiting the Pentagon and examining the extent of the damage and the continuing rescue efforts with my colleague Senator Stevens. I vividly recall flying to New York City one week later to tour the site of the disaster. I will never forget the acrid smell that still arose through the smoke from the site as we flew over the area in a helicopter. I will forever recall seeing the widows of lost firefighters being escorted, and literally held up, by other New York emergency workers as they visited the site. It has not been often in our Nation's history that we have been tested. As a teenager I was present on December 7, 1941 at another time in our Nation's history when we suffered a savage attack. At the time the Nation responded in a bipartisan fashion to respond to that awful attack. Our response to the 9/11 attack was similar. All Americans were outraged by the attack and we proved our resolve to respond. To claim that one party had a monopoly on a patriotic response or a will to act is not only factually in error it is an insult to all Americans. I have been in politics for many years. I understand the use of partisan political rhetoric to play to an audience. I also know that in this era of instantaneous information, erroneous statements can become accepted as facts. This statement, if it truly reflects the views of the President's advisor, needs to be refuted before it can be thought of as being historically accurate. There has been a lot said in the press recently about demanding apologies for words that have been spoken. The White House needs to take a look at these statements and consider an appropriate response to repudiate these words. Patriotism is not owned by one political party. Our national resolve is not Democratic or Republican. It is American. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 30 years in the U.S. Air Force Nurse Corps: MG Barbara C. Brannon. Major General Brannon began her career as a staff nurse in the Intensive and Coronary Care Unit at Malcolm Grow Medical Center, Andrews Air Force Base, MD, and subsequently served throughout the world in Nebraska, California, Texas, Florida, Alabama, England, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Italy, and the District of Columbia. In each assignment, General Brannon excelled and overcame every challenge, accompanied by reward with greater responsibilities and opportunities. An expert educator and clinician, she assumed instructor and coordinator positions at the School of Health Care Sciences and in aeromedical evacuation, and served as assistant chief nurse, quality assurance coordinator, and director of ambulatory services at Tyndall AFB, FL. Serving as a nurse executive management fellow at Air University Regional Hospital, Maxwell AFB, AL, prepared her to lead the 7520th Air Base Squadron Medical Aid Station in Wycombe, England. Another unmatched performance led to her competitive selection as the nursing executive management fellow for the Office of the Surgeon, Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, NE, and was followed by her selection as the chief nurse executive, 90th Medical Group, Francis E. Warren AFB, WY. Below-the-zone promotions to both lieutenant colonel and colonel illuminated her path to command the 382nd Technical Training Squadron, Sheppard AFB, TX, the 71st Medical Group, Vance AFB, OK and the 31st Medical Group, Aviano Air Base, Italy. She was later appointed as the director, Air Force Medical Readiness and Nursing Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Bolling AFB, DC. Serving briefly in this capacity, she returned to Andrews AFB where she became the first Nurse Corps officer to command the 89th Medical Group, concurrently served as the Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for Nursing, and became the first Air Force nurse promoted to major general in 2003. Her career culminates in a dual role as Assistant Air Force Surgeon General, Medical Force Development and Assistant Air Force Surgeon General for Nursing, through which she established and appraised personnel policy and force development actions for over 40,000 active duty officer, enlisted, and civilian medical personnel. I extend my deepest appreciation to Major General Brannon for her 30-plus years of dedicated military service and offer her my congratulations on a phenomenal and inspirational career.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor this legislation, the ``Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Maintenance Act'', with my friend and Commerce Committee Chairman, Ted Stevens, as well as my other Senate colleagues. As most people know, after the terrible incident involving the Exxon Valdez, Senator Stevens championed the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, OPA 90, as well as the mechanism for providing funding for the cleanup of oil spills. That mechanism, known as the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, is now in danger. In a recent report to Congress, the United States Coast Guard predicted that the Fund will run out of money before 2009. Given the recent spate of costly spills around the country, it may run out sooner. We simply cannot allow this to happen. The fund provides a critically important safety net. It aids the cleanup of oil spills and provides compensation to those harmed, particularly where no responsible party is identified or the responsible parties have insufficient resources. Since the passage of OPA 90, we have significantly reduced the number and volume of oil spills in the U.S. Unfortunately, thousands of gallons of oil continue to be spilled into our waters every year, and the cost of cleanup has increased substantially. The amount of oil carried by tank vessels to and within the U.S. is predicted to increase. While we pray that we will never have another major oil spill, we must be ready to respond if necessary. The bill introduced today would reinstate an expired fee on oil companies of 5 cents per barrel of oil. The fee, which ceased January 1, 1995, would increase the maximum principal amount of the fund from $1 billion to $3 billion, and if the fund drops below $2 billion, the fee would automatically be reinstated without the need for additional legislative action. Five cents a barrel translates to approximately $0.0011 per gallon of gas--or one eighth of one cent--and is worth about 3 cents per barrel in 1990 dollars. This is substantially less than the original rate of 5 cents. I urge my Senate colleagues to take up this issue and pass this legislation without delay.