Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2005, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is the premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird recovery area in the northern portion of the Island of Oahu. It supports all four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The expansion of James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge under my bill would provide for wildlife and habitat protection, and would also resolve issues associated with the hydrology of the Kahuku floodplain. The expansion would restore historical wetland habitat and form the largest managed freshwater wetland on Oahu. It would connect the two existing units of the Refuge and create a protected flyway between them to provide essential habitat for four endangered waterbird species and migratory waterbirds. It would also protect the last remaining large scale coastal dune ecosystem on Oahu and preserve native strand plants and protect coastal wildlife such as threatened green sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds, and possibly the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Support facilities could be constructed on upland areas to support environmental education and interpetation programs, visitor services, and habitat management programs. All land proposed for the expansion is owned by the Estate of James Campbell, a willing seller. Heavy floods occur frequently in this area, devastating residents who live in the adjacent town of Kahuku. Because of the location and natural function of this historical floodplain, the land acquisition also serves as the crucial component for the proposed Kahuku flood control project by increasing the capacity of the area to drain and preserving the floodwater retention of these wetlands. This habitat restoration proposal represents the most significant wetland enhancement project ever undertaken in Hawaii. By combining effective flood control, wetland development, endangered species conservation, environmental education, and visitor opportunities, benefits provided will serve not only the local communities, but also Hawaii residents and visitors for generations to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this non- controversial legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act of 2005, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is the premier endangered Hawaiian waterbird recovery area in the northern portion of the Island of Oahu. It supports all four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a variety of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The expansion of James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge under my bill would provide for wildlife and habitat protection, and would also resolve issues associated with the hydrology of the Kahuku floodplain. The expansion would restore historical wetland habitat and form the largest managed freshwater wetland on Oahu. It would connect the two existing units of the Refuge and create a protected flyway between them to provide essential habitat for four endangered waterbird species and migratory waterbirds. It would also protect the last remaining large scale coastal dune ecosystem on Oahu and preserve native strand plants and protect coastal wildlife such as threatened green sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds, and possibly the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Support facilities could be constructed on upland areas to support environmental education and interpetation programs, visitor services, and habitat management programs. All land proposed for the expansion is owned by the Estate of James Campbell, a willing seller. Heavy floods occur frequently in this area, devastating residents who live in the adjacent town of Kahuku. Because of the location and natural function of this historical floodplain, the land acquisition also serves as the crucial component for the proposed Kahuku flood control project by increasing the capacity of the area to drain and preserving the floodwater retention of these wetlands. This habitat restoration proposal represents the most significant wetland enhancement project ever undertaken in Hawaii. By combining effective flood control, wetland development, endangered species conservation, environmental education, and visitor opportunities, benefits provided will serve not only the local communities, but also Hawaii residents and visitors for generations to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this non- controversial legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman, and I say to the Senator from California that you have my commitment to look into this issue as we hopefully proceed with this bill through conference. That will be the appropriate time to bring this additional matter to the table.

Mr. INOUYE. I want to thank both Senators for their cooperation on these matters. Senator Bond raises a good point regarding the definition and we understand that this is a complex issue which will require further work by all involved.

Mr. INOUYE. These protections are needed because, while the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, assumed the regulatory duties for the household goods moving industry previously entrusted to the Interstate Commerce Commission, inadequate Federal statutory protections and limited resources have meant that the interstate moving industry has essentially gone without oversight. FMCSA has received nearly 20,000 consumer complaints since January 2001, and yet until recently has had only one or two employees dedicated to household goods regulation and enforcement for the entire nation.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes, we understand that both Senators have a very strong interest in these provisions, and while I have concerns with the changes that Senator Bond is proposing which I believe could significantly limit the authority of our State attorneys general in assisting the Federal Government in enforcing these new protections for moving company consumers, we are prepared to accept this language and make a commitment to work with both Senators to improve their provisions moving forward.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise as a leading co-sponsor of the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 introduced today by my colleague and Chairman, Ted Stevens, along with Senators Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, Frank Lautenberg, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Mark Pryor, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. Nearly 4 years after the enactment of landmark aviation and maritime security laws, it is time to build upon that foundation, make needed improvements and enhancements to our transportation security efforts across all modes, and reestablish the requisite funding levels. Most importantly, we must restore the sense of urgency that is essential if we are to keep our transportation systems, and our economy, strong, vibrant, and secure. We have worked hard to develop this legislation, and we will continue to improve it with the assistance of committee members and the Department of Homeland Security as we move forward through the legislative process. Over the past 3\1/2\ years, the administration and Congress have slowly lost the sense of immediacy that once allowed us to recognize that transportation security is a matter of national security. The administration's budget and priorities indicate that they are overlooking glaring security vulnerabilities, disregarding the continuing threats and risks that are reported almost daily, and underestimating the economic consequences that would undoubtedly result from another attack on our transportation systems. I am hopeful that the new leadership will reinvigorate transportation security. The economic importance of those systems can hardly be overstated: 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports; our rail system and our motor carriers move all of those goods from our coasts and borders throughout the interior U.S. to retail outlets and manufacturers that rely on on-time delivery; our aviation system carried 629.7 million domestic passengers during 2004 and averaged 1.5 million enplanements per day in January this year; approximately 24 million passengers ride Amtrak annually, and there are nearly 3.4 billion passenger and commuter rail trips in this country each year. The loss of our aviation system for just 4 days after the September 11th attacks sent shockwaves through the economy that are still being felt today. The al Qaida attack on the passenger trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 people and injuring 1,800, unfortunately proved that railroads are vulnerable targets for terrorists. If there is an incident at any one seaport, the whole system for moving cargo into and out of the country would screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. In addition to the horrible loss of life, the resulting economic damage would be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible. We cannot afford to risk this kind of damage due to a lack of preparedness and forethought. The terrorists that seek to do us harm are cunning, dynamic, and most of all, patient. While they have not successfully struck our homeland since September 11, 2001, it does not mean that they are not preparing to do so. They work 24 hours a day, studying what we do and how we do it. It is imperative that we stay ahead of them. That means we must constantly anticipate, innovate, and plan. We must continually research and implement the most effective technologies. We must recruit, train and deploy the most skilled security force. Simply put, our entire economy relies on a well-functioning, secure, transportation system. It is in our greatest economic interest to ensure that this system, and the passengers and cargo that use it, are well protected. And, in keeping with transportation security's impact on the nation's physical and economic security, it is the responsibility of the federal government to properly finance that protection. Following passage of our new aviation security laws, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, was assembled quickly, presented with an enormous task, and expected to produce immediate results. It has performed admirably, despite the administration's near- constant reorganization of the agency with little to no input from Congress. While we take seriously recent reports about financial mismanagement and the limits of the human capacity to detect security breaches, we cannot and must not use these inadequacies as justification to cast aside the critical work of this agency. There are some in Congress that have never been comfortable with the new Federal role in transportation security, and they look to every negative report to help usher in a return to private security screening companies. We contend, however, that transportation security must not be judged only by the bottom-line commercial pressures of the private sector. Transportation security is a unique national security function and an economic necessity, and like our national defense, it must remain a primary responsibility of the federal government. The need for Congressional action to secure all forms of transportation infrastructure across the country remains essential, and I, along with many of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, have expressed great reservations about the direction our Nation is now headed on matters of transportation security. As I noted during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the administration's budget demonstrates the lost sense of urgency. It shifts critical work away from the TSA. It erodes the Agency's limited focus and accountability. It undermines the effectiveness of our maritime and land security efforts. It underfunds efforts across all modes, but particularly port and rail. The legislation we are introducing today renews the importance and commitment transportation security deserves. It identifies the numerous, lingering shortcomings that currently exist, re-dedicates our efforts on maritime and surface transportation security, and provides the guidance necessary to adequately defend the nation's infrastructure. The TSA should not focus almost exclusively on aviation, nor should it be transformed into a glorified, security screener training and placement agency. The TSA is essential, and it possesses critical expertise that must be cultivated and put to proper use. We believe that the TSA, as outlined by our bill, can and will be the difference between a flourishing economy fueled by smooth-running transportation systems and an economy crippled by transportation systems that could fall victim to terrorist attacks. As such, the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will authorize the TSA for the next 3 fiscal years and re-dedicate the agency to its mission of providing specialized security for all modes of transportation. It provides further direction to the agency's cargo security functions, strengthens aviation, maritime, rail, hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and enhances interagency cooperation. While the proposal incorporates several Commerce Committee and Senate-passed bills or initiatives from the prior Congress, it also puts forth new ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes. We recognize that Secretary Chertoff has had only a short time to make changes and that his comprehensive review is pending. Our legislation provides the flexibility necessary to address his findings and prerogatives. However, it is incumbent upon Congress to provide guidance and clarify the expectations. On the matter of port security, our legislation seeks to improve interagency cooperation with the further development of joint operation command centers. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for cargo security programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans to resume the flow of commerce in the event of a seaport attack. By setting a minimum floor for research and development funding related to maritime and land security, the bill further encourages the development of effective technologies that detect terrorist threats. Conversely, the administration has continued to consolidate critical infrastructure grant programs, which we believe will effectively decrease funding for port security and eliminate the appropriate expertise necessary to review grant proposals and distribute the funds accordingly. In addressing aviation security, we continue to be concerned that current budget proposals diminish the TSA's authority and squander its expertise. Airport directors are still struggling to receive the technological and capital improvements that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the current security system and lower costs considerably. Instead of addressing these shortcomings with aggressive support, the administration has chosen to place a greater burden on the airlines through increased security fees at the same moment that the carriers are facing the most difficult financial period in their history. Not only has the industry lost more than $30 billion cumulatively since 2000, the Federal government has had to bail out the carriers twice. Increasing the carriers' financial burden is ill conceived and counterproductive. Quietly but consistently, we also hear of some of our colleagues' desire to return to the same privatized security apparatus that proved disastrously inadequate on September 11, 2001. These efforts are short- sighted, defy our experience, and will reverse much of the progress we have made since September 11. Those seeking to return to the old system, at times, claim that the system is no better than pre-September 11. We all know that is not the case. We also know that with new technology, we can improve screener performance. There is no doubt that human factors limit the capabilities of screeners, but as we fund and deploy new equipment, the security system will continue to improve. Our bill seeks to enhance the current screener workforce by directing a more appropriate use of the TSA's resources and through improved training. It would also stimulate efforts to streamline and improve collections of existing airline and passenger security fees to promote a more efficient and healthy aviation industry. On rail security, our legislation will incorporate an updated version of the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year. It features new efforts to ensure the security of hazardous materials that are shipped by rail and improves security training and awareness for our railroad workers and the public. The tragic events in Madrid, Spain, demonstrated to all of us the clear threats to our rail system. We have already been warned publicly twice 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. The rail threat assessment required by our legislation and the grant programs and other measures designed to respond to those threats will strengthen our ability to address them. Until we pass a rail security package, this body is failing its responsibility to try to secure our national transportation system. We owe it to the American people to strengthen the security of our passenger and freight railroads. To address the security needs of our other surface transportation modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus security, strengthen hazardous material transportation security efforts, establish new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing operations, and develop pipeline security incident recovery plans. Such action is long overdue as the administration has consistently failed to develop dedicated programs, much less financial support, for rail and other surface transportation security efforts. We have reached a critical juncture for transportation security in the United States and the steps that we take in the coming months will impact our safety, security and one of our most essential freedoms-- movement--for years to come. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our transportation security remains a priority and is as strong and effective as possible. I believe the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will continue to move us in that direction.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise as a leading co-sponsor of the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 introduced today by my colleague and Chairman, Ted Stevens, along with Senators Jay Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, Frank Lautenberg, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Mark Pryor, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. Nearly 4 years after the enactment of landmark aviation and maritime security laws, it is time to build upon that foundation, make needed improvements and enhancements to our transportation security efforts across all modes, and reestablish the requisite funding levels. Most importantly, we must restore the sense of urgency that is essential if we are to keep our transportation systems, and our economy, strong, vibrant, and secure. We have worked hard to develop this legislation, and we will continue to improve it with the assistance of committee members and the Department of Homeland Security as we move forward through the legislative process. Over the past 3\1/2\ years, the administration and Congress have slowly lost the sense of immediacy that once allowed us to recognize that transportation security is a matter of national security. The administration's budget and priorities indicate that they are overlooking glaring security vulnerabilities, disregarding the continuing threats and risks that are reported almost daily, and underestimating the economic consequences that would undoubtedly result from another attack on our transportation systems. I am hopeful that the new leadership will reinvigorate transportation security. The economic importance of those systems can hardly be overstated: 95 percent of the Nation's cargo comes through the ports; our rail system and our motor carriers move all of those goods from our coasts and borders throughout the interior U.S. to retail outlets and manufacturers that rely on on-time delivery; our aviation system carried 629.7 million domestic passengers during 2004 and averaged 1.5 million enplanements per day in January this year; approximately 24 million passengers ride Amtrak annually, and there are nearly 3.4 billion passenger and commuter rail trips in this country each year. The loss of our aviation system for just 4 days after the September 11th attacks sent shockwaves through the economy that are still being felt today. The al Qaida attack on the passenger trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 people and injuring 1,800, unfortunately proved that railroads are vulnerable targets for terrorists. If there is an incident at any one seaport, the whole system for moving cargo into and out of the country would screech to a halt, as we scramble to ensure security at other ports. In addition to the horrible loss of life, the resulting economic damage would be widespread, catastrophic and possibly irreversible. We cannot afford to risk this kind of damage due to a lack of preparedness and forethought. The terrorists that seek to do us harm are cunning, dynamic, and most of all, patient. While they have not successfully struck our homeland since September 11, 2001, it does not mean that they are not preparing to do so. They work 24 hours a day, studying what we do and how we do it. It is imperative that we stay ahead of them. That means we must constantly anticipate, innovate, and plan. We must continually research and implement the most effective technologies. We must recruit, train and deploy the most skilled security force. Simply put, our entire economy relies on a well-functioning, secure, transportation system. It is in our greatest economic interest to ensure that this system, and the passengers and cargo that use it, are well protected. And, in keeping with transportation security's impact on the nation's physical and economic security, it is the responsibility of the federal government to properly finance that protection. Following passage of our new aviation security laws, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, was assembled quickly, presented with an enormous task, and expected to produce immediate results. It has performed admirably, despite the administration's near- constant reorganization of the agency with little to no input from Congress. While we take seriously recent reports about financial mismanagement and the limits of the human capacity to detect security breaches, we cannot and must not use these inadequacies as justification to cast aside the critical work of this agency. There are some in Congress that have never been comfortable with the new Federal role in transportation security, and they look to every negative report to help usher in a return to private security screening companies. We contend, however, that transportation security must not be judged only by the bottom-line commercial pressures of the private sector. Transportation security is a unique national security function and an economic necessity, and like our national defense, it must remain a primary responsibility of the federal government. The need for Congressional action to secure all forms of transportation infrastructure across the country remains essential, and I, along with many of my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, have expressed great reservations about the direction our Nation is now headed on matters of transportation security. As I noted during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Michael Chertoff to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the administration's budget demonstrates the lost sense of urgency. It shifts critical work away from the TSA. It erodes the Agency's limited focus and accountability. It undermines the effectiveness of our maritime and land security efforts. It underfunds efforts across all modes, but particularly port and rail. The legislation we are introducing today renews the importance and commitment transportation security deserves. It identifies the numerous, lingering shortcomings that currently exist, re-dedicates our efforts on maritime and surface transportation security, and provides the guidance necessary to adequately defend the nation's infrastructure. The TSA should not focus almost exclusively on aviation, nor should it be transformed into a glorified, security screener training and placement agency. The TSA is essential, and it possesses critical expertise that must be cultivated and put to proper use. We believe that the TSA, as outlined by our bill, can and will be the difference between a flourishing economy fueled by smooth-running transportation systems and an economy crippled by transportation systems that could fall victim to terrorist attacks. As such, the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will authorize the TSA for the next 3 fiscal years and re-dedicate the agency to its mission of providing specialized security for all modes of transportation. It provides further direction to the agency's cargo security functions, strengthens aviation, maritime, rail, hazardous materials, and pipeline security efforts, and enhances interagency cooperation. While the proposal incorporates several Commerce Committee and Senate-passed bills or initiatives from the prior Congress, it also puts forth new ideas to enhance transportation security across all modes. We recognize that Secretary Chertoff has had only a short time to make changes and that his comprehensive review is pending. Our legislation provides the flexibility necessary to address his findings and prerogatives. However, it is incumbent upon Congress to provide guidance and clarify the expectations. On the matter of port security, our legislation seeks to improve interagency cooperation with the further development of joint operation command centers. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities for cargo security programs, while establishing criteria for contingency response plans to resume the flow of commerce in the event of a seaport attack. By setting a minimum floor for research and development funding related to maritime and land security, the bill further encourages the development of effective technologies that detect terrorist threats. Conversely, the administration has continued to consolidate critical infrastructure grant programs, which we believe will effectively decrease funding for port security and eliminate the appropriate expertise necessary to review grant proposals and distribute the funds accordingly. In addressing aviation security, we continue to be concerned that current budget proposals diminish the TSA's authority and squander its expertise. Airport directors are still struggling to receive the technological and capital improvements that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the current security system and lower costs considerably. Instead of addressing these shortcomings with aggressive support, the administration has chosen to place a greater burden on the airlines through increased security fees at the same moment that the carriers are facing the most difficult financial period in their history. Not only has the industry lost more than $30 billion cumulatively since 2000, the Federal government has had to bail out the carriers twice. Increasing the carriers' financial burden is ill conceived and counterproductive. Quietly but consistently, we also hear of some of our colleagues' desire to return to the same privatized security apparatus that proved disastrously inadequate on September 11, 2001. These efforts are short- sighted, defy our experience, and will reverse much of the progress we have made since September 11. Those seeking to return to the old system, at times, claim that the system is no better than pre-September 11. We all know that is not the case. We also know that with new technology, we can improve screener performance. There is no doubt that human factors limit the capabilities of screeners, but as we fund and deploy new equipment, the security system will continue to improve. Our bill seeks to enhance the current screener workforce by directing a more appropriate use of the TSA's resources and through improved training. It would also stimulate efforts to streamline and improve collections of existing airline and passenger security fees to promote a more efficient and healthy aviation industry. On rail security, our legislation will incorporate an updated version of the Rail Security Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent last year. It features new efforts to ensure the security of hazardous materials that are shipped by rail and improves security training and awareness for our railroad workers and the public. The tragic events in Madrid, Spain, demonstrated to all of us the clear threats to our rail system. We have already been warned publicly twice 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. The rail threat assessment required by our legislation and the grant programs and other measures designed to respond to those threats will strengthen our ability to address them. Until we pass a rail security package, this body is failing its responsibility to try to secure our national transportation system. We owe it to the American people to strengthen the security of our passenger and freight railroads. To address the security needs of our other surface transportation modes, the proposal will include funding to improve intercity bus security, strengthen hazardous material transportation security efforts, establish new security guidelines for truck rental and leasing operations, and develop pipeline security incident recovery plans. Such action is long overdue as the administration has consistently failed to develop dedicated programs, much less financial support, for rail and other surface transportation security efforts. We have reached a critical juncture for transportation security in the United States and the steps that we take in the coming months will impact our safety, security and one of our most essential freedoms-- movement--for years to come. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that our transportation security remains a priority and is as strong and effective as possible. I believe the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005 will continue to move us in that direction.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma very much.

Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Vermont is very kind. I should point out, I was very proud of my speech, but the consequences are rather sad because my so-called liberal friends avoided me for a few weeks after that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. INOUYE. Forty-two years ago.

Mr. INOUYE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on January 31, 1963, I gave my maiden speech in the Senate. That is over 40 years ago--42 years ago. At that moment, the Senate was embroiled in a very heated debate on civil rights. The question before the Senate was the filibuster because many of my colleagues, especially those who were designated as liberals, looked upon the filibuster as the major obstacle to the granting of civil rights to the oppressed minority of this Nation. On that day, I was given the right to the floor and I gave a short speech. I think it is quite relevant at this moment. If I may, these are the words of 31 January 1963: Mr. President, I fully understand the respected custom of this body which advises a new member to sit in his chair, to listen quietly and learn before he rises to speak to the Senate himself. There is wisdom in that custom, as there is in most customs which last through years of trial and experience. I would not willingly break that honored silence, but because this debate calls to question the place of the minority in a democratic political system, I feel I must say these few words in deep but passionate humility, for I am a member of a minority in a sense few other Senators have ever been. I understand the hopelessness that a man of unusual color or feature experiences in the face of constant human injustice. I understand the despair of a human heart crying for comfort to a world it cannot become a part of and to a family of man that has disinherited him. For this reason, I have done and will continue to do all that one man can do to secure for these people the opportunity and the justice that they do not now have. But if any lesson of history is clear, it is that minorities change, new minorities take their place, and old minorities grow into the majority. One can discern this course in our own history by observing the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the growth of the Nation's law so often takes the form of adopting as the opinion of the Court the dissenting view of the earlier decision. From this fact, we discern the simple example of a vital democratic principle. I have heard so often in the past few weeks eloquent and good men plead for the chance to let the majority rule. That is, they say, the essence of democracy. I disagree, for to me it is equally clear that democracy does not necessarily result from majority rule but rather from the forged compromise of the majority with the minority. The philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not simply to grant the majority the power to rule, but is also to set out limitation after limitation upon that power. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion: What are these but the recognition that at times when the majority of men would willingly destroy him, a dissenting man may have no friend but the law. This power given to the minority is the most sophisticated and the most vital power bestowed by our Constitution. In this day of the mass mind and the lonely crowd, the right to exercise this power and the courage to express it has become less and less apparent. One of the few places where this power remains a living force is in the United States Senate. Let us face the decision before us directly. It is not free speech, for that has never been recognized as a legally unlimited right. It is not the Senate's inability to act at all, for I cannot believe that a majority truly determined in their course could fail eventually to approach their ends. It is instead the power of the minority to reflect a proportional share of their view upon the legislative result that is at stake in this debate. To those who wish to alter radically the balance of power between a majority in the Senate and a minority, I say, you sow the wind, for minorities change and the time will surely come when you will feel the hot breath of a righteous majority at the back of your own neck. Only then perhaps you will realize what you have destroyed. As Alexis de Tocqueville said about America in 1835: ``A democracy can obtain truth only as the result of experience; and many nations may perish while they are awaiting the consequences of their errors.'' The fight to destroy the power of the minority is made here, strangely enough, in the name of another minority. I share the desire of those Senators who wish to help the repressed people of our Nation, and in time, God willing, we shall effectively accomplish this task. But I say to these Senators, we cannot achieve these ends by destroying the very principle of minority protection that remains here in the Senate. For as de Tocqueville also commented: ``If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority.'' I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I concur fully with the chairman.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Chairman Trent Lott and Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens for their efforts to develop a consensus, bipartisan bill to reauthorize highway safety and boating safety programs under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. Together, with the help of other members of our committee, including Senators Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Conrad Burns, Byron Dorgan, Frank Lautenberg, and Barbara Boxer, we have crafted legislation that advances the safety of all motorists on our Nation's highways. Our committee considered the Surface Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2005 on April 14 and reported this measure without amendment. Our national highway transportation network is a tremendous national asset and a first-class system. It allows us the freedom to travel and fosters economic growth. The benefits of mobility that our highways provide, however, come with a staggering cost of injury, property destruction, and death. Recent safety trends indicate that the dangers of operating a vehicle on this network are still disturbingly high. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, highway fatalities and injuries increased from 42,643 in 2003 to 42,800 in 2004. Large truck crash fatalities increased by 3.7 percent from 4,986 in 2003 to 5,169 in 2004. To put these numbers in context, the United States suffered more than 58,000 casualities during the entire Vietnam War. We are now losing nearly 43,000 Americans on our highways every year. As we consider ways to improve the infrastructure and operation of our highways, we must do more to increase the safety of cars and trucks, and their drivers. The Commerce Committee's section of H.R. 3 incorporates many of the administration's recommendations, and those of safety advocates, regarding auto and truck safety, as well as the safety of hazardous materials transportation. The bill also strengthens consumer protections for those who entrust their belongings to a moving company, and provides more robust, predictable funding for boating safety and sport fish restoration programs. We have been at loggerheads with the administration over the funding levels needed to improve our transportation system for more than a year. I am hopeful that these disagreements can be resolved so that we may finalize this important safety bill this session. I support more resources for all of our surface transportation programs and believe that we should seek funding closer to the levels that a majority of this chamber supported last year. If we do provide additional funding, a pro-rata share should be allocated to our Nation's transportation safety programs. The Commerce Committee's titles of the highway bill have received broad support by incorporating many initiatives proposed by the administration, industry, and safety advocates. However, we are always searching for ways to improve the bill and to reduce the risk of death and injuries on our Nation's highways. I encourage those who might have amendments to offer to the Commerce Committee's titles to come forward so that we may work to incorporate these requests, to the extent possible. I urge my fellow Senators to support the significant safety provisions contained within our section. The safety of the traveling public depends on it. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document which summarizes each of the bill's key provisions.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Senate resolution honoring Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu for his loyalty and patriotism to the United States and expressing condolences to Fred's family, friends and supporters on his passing. On March 30, 2005, our Nation lost a deeply compassionate man and a great American patriot. Fred profoundly influenced the course of American history and legal jurisprudence when he led a courageous legal challenge against the internment of Japanese Americans by the United States Government. Fred was born in Oakland, CA, in 1919. His parents were Japanese immigrants who ran a flower nursery while Fred attended Castlemont High School and later the Master School of Welding. Fred worked on the Oakland docks as a steel welder and was quickly promoted to a foreman position. The war in Europe, however, changed his life. America began providing supplies to Great Britain in its war against Germany and Germany's allies, including the country of Japan. At home in California, when Fred entered restaurants, waiters refused to serve him because of his ancestry. Fred's union terminated his membership, and Fred lost his job. American by birth, Fred wished to prove his patriotism by joining the United States Coast Guard, but the recruiting officer refused his application. Fred eventually found work with a mobile trailer company, but after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, his employer fired him. Fred was 22 years old when President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing military commanders on the West Coast to issue whatever orders necessary for national security. Curfews, exclusionary orders, and the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans soon followed, and the Korematsu family was taken to the Tanforan racetrack in San Mateo. Fred, however, held a deep conviction that the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans were being violated by the internment order issued without any real evidence of disloyalty, without specific charges, and without trial, and so Fred chose to defy the order. Fred assumed a non-Japanese identity and even had plastic surgery in an attempt to change his appearance. Nevertheless, the police stopped him in San Leandro and Fred was charged with violating the military's exclusion order. Fred was sent to Federal prison and later to live with his family in a horse stall at the Tanforan racetrack. The Korematsus performed hard labor behind barbed wire and under the watch of armed guards. Other Japanese Americans in the internment camp avoided him, fearing for the safety of their own families. The Federal district court found Fred guilty of violating military exclusion orders, and sentenced him to 5 years of probation under military authority. Fred appealed that decision. Meanwhile, after a year and a half of laboring in the interment camp, Fred's skill as a welder enabled him to leave the camp, on the condition that he not return to California. He got a job as a welder in an iron works company in Salt Lake City, and eventually, made his way to Detroit. Fred's appeal reached the Supreme Court in 1944. The Court upheld the lower court's ruling in a 6-3 vote, citing the simple reason that the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was a military necessity in light of the war with Japan. Fred petitioned for a rehearing, but it was denied in February 1945. Fred eventually met and married Kathryn and raised a family. Like many Japanese Americans, Fred tried to put his internment experiences behind him, but he was unable to pursue many job opportunities because his violation of the exclusion order left him with a criminal record. He once worked on an application to become a real estate broker, but when he came across the question that asked whether he had prior criminal convictions, he threw the application away. Although Fred worked as a draftsman, he did not apply to work at larger companies or government agencies, as they would not hire someone who had a prior conviction on record. Without a pension, Fred worked part time to make ends meet, even while in his eighties. In the early 1980s, a volunteer legal team began to accumulate evidence that government officials had possessed significant information that Japanese Americans had not posed an actual threat to national security at the time of the interment, and the team approached Fred to file a coram nobis petition to review events that occurred 40 years earlier that denied Fred a fair hearing. In late 1983, a Federal court in San Francisco overturned Fred's guilty conviction, stating that the Government's case at the time had been based on false and biased information. The court's decision was a landmark and a critical turning point in history. The volunteer legal team that gravitated to Fred was driven by his courage, his unshakable sense of right and wrong, and his faith in the American Constitution. The court's 1983 holding in Korematsu v. U.S., coram nobis, set in motion a chain of important events. Shortly following the success of that case, Congress ordered a commission report on the internment of Japanese Americans. Upon the commission's finding that internment orders were issued without proper basis, Congress in 1988 passed legislation for a Presidential apology and reparations to Japanese American internees. Ten years later, in 1998, President Bill Clinton awarded Fred with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States. During that ceremony, the President stated, ``In the long history of our country's constant search for justice, some names of ordinary citizens stand for millions of souls--Plessy, Brown, Parks. To that distinguished list today we add the name of Fred Korematsu.'' To many, Fred was more than just a distinguished name. Fred shared his riveting and protracted story about justice with thousands of young Americans, and he has deeply touched and inspired a new generation of civil rights attorneys. Fred's zest for life, courage, patriotism, compassion, gentle humor, strong will, and delight in teaching others has endeared him to many. He graced our midst, and by example, encouraged all of us to never abandon our Nation's cherished constitutional principles and values. Fred Korematsu was a devoted husband and father, a teacher, a trailblazer, a hero, and a great American.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased and hnored to speak in support of J. Michael Seabright of Honolulu, Hawaii, who has been nominated by the President to serve as a Federal district court judge for the District of Hawaii. Mr. Seabright graduated magna cum laude from his undergraduate alma mater of Tulane University, before going on to attend The National Law Center at George Washington University, where he received his juris doctor and graduated with high honors as a member of the Order of the Coif. At George Washington, he further distinguished himself by serving as the editor of the George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Seabright since he arrived in Hawaii 20 years ago, having watched him as he successfully became a member of the Hawaii State Bar Association, and became involved in our community. Now Mr. Seabright stands out as a leader in the legal side of law enforcement, where he developed the District of Hawaii plan for implementing ``Operation Triggerlock-Hawaii,'' a Federal-local effort aimed at the prosecution of violent armed career criminals in Federal court. His broad experience in prosecution, from violent crimes to government corruption, have provided him a balanced perspective of the criminal justice system that will continue to serve him well as he prepares for this most recent development in his career of public service. Mr. Seabright's work for Hawaii goes beyond his professional commitments as an assistant U.S. attorney, however. He has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court's disciplinary board since 1995 and holds the chairmanship of its rules committee, which is charged with the drafting proposed rules for the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. He was also a member of the Hawaii State Board of Bar Examiners, and has been an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law. This extraordinary record of achievement has now culminated with his nomination to the Federal bench, and amply supports the favorable reports he has received from the Hawaii State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am confident that his record will prove equally impressive to the full Senate, and I trust that he will become the 206th of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees to be confirmed to the Federal bench. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of Mr. Seabright.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for withdrawing this amendment. If I may, for clarification, so the record can be clear, the United States historically has responded expeditiously to all disasters-- natural or domestic, manmade--when American communities seek assistance. For example, we provided $2 billion for the Midwest floods in 1993. We provided $56 million to Oklahoma City for the Murrah Federal Building disaster--not for the building itself but for other projects, community development, street alignments, and such. We also provided over $3 billion for Midwest floods in 1997, and for all of the hurricanes. This flood in Moanalua Valley on the island of Oahu in Hawaii was one of those extraordinary disasters that occurs about once every 100 years. It went down the valley and literally wiped out parts of the University of Hawaii. I point out that the university library has not received any FEMA funds. These funds are beyond what the State has put in for construction and reconstruction and rebuilding. This is for cleanup. This is for restoration of books so our students can continue studying. We are not asking for anything more than what other communities have been receiving. I am most grateful to the Senator from Oklahoma for withdrawing his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on April 15, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu Engineer District, HED, will celebrate 100 years of exemplary service to Hawaii, the Pacific region, the U.S. military and the Nation. For an entire century, the District has served with pride and distinction. I have personally witnessed their hard work and dedication to improve the lives of our fellow citizens in many ways. They have never failed to answer the call. The District has had a significant impact on the ability of our servicemen and women to fight the global war on terror; it has bolstered the region's economy and worked to enhance the safety of communities in and about waterways and the functionability of the many major harbors in my home State of Hawaii. In everything they do they safeguard the environment. From civil works projects navigation, flood control and shore protection to building and maintaining the infrastructure for our military personnel, the Honolulu District is proud of its service. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' missions in the Pacific region have expanded exponentially since the unit's conception in 1905 when LT John Slattery was designated as Honolulu District Engineer on the Island of Oahu. The mission of the Twelfth Lighthouse District was to design and construct lighthouses for navigation, acquire land for military fortifications, improve the harbors and expand the Corps' services to other Pacific islands. In its first 100 years, the Honolulu District has supported the military in peace and in war, helped protect the island from enemies and forces of nature, protected the environment and wetlands, and added to Hawaii's economic growth. HED's legacy includes: the creation of Sand Island; the acquisition of Fort DeRussy area in Waikiki; the expansion of Honolulu Harbor; the repair of Hickam, Wheeler and Pearl Harbor airfields after the December 1941 attack; the construction of the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl, the Tripler Army Medical Center, the Hale Koa Hotel and numerous military and federal construction projects; and the creation of the Kaneohe-Kailua Dam, as well as a host of disaster mitigation and assistance measures. At the beginning of the 20th century, HED constructed six deep-draft harbors on the five major Hawaiian Islands and three crucial lighthouses for navigation. Under Slattery's command, the District began transforming the swampy coral reef used as a quarantine station in Honolulu Harbor into what is now known as Sand Island. Lt. Slattery's contributions are honored today with the Lt. John R. Slattery Bridge which connects Sand Island with the City of Honolulu. He later purchased the 74-acre Fort DeRussy area in Waikiki for just $2,700 an acre for use as a military fortification. At the time, the land was little more than a swampy parcel. Today the area provides a valuable green oasis in the heart of Waikiki. Throughout the 20th century, HED supported Oahu's defense by building a multitude of coastal fortifications including Pearl Harbor, Forts Ruger, Armstrong, Weaver, Barrette and Kamehameha as well as Batteries Randolph, Williston, Hatch, and Harlow. Changes in technology and the approach of World War I changed HED's missions. Batteries and forts were supplemented with artillery fire control and submarine mine defense systems. As cars began replacing horse-drawn wagons, HED built new roads and tunnels to transport equipment and troops. The District enlarged Honolulu Harbor to 1,000 feet long and 800 feet wide--a critical project because the newly-created Panama Canal had transformed Honolulu into a major port-of-call for ships needing coal and supplies. The District's role in the Pacific increased dramatically during World War II. At the height of the war, HED employed more than 26,000 people. Not only was the District creating the new airfield ferry routes and repairing the damaged airfields at Hickam, Wheeler and Pearl Harbor, but the District was also tasked with additional responsibilities beyond its normal realm. The District was suddenly responsible for determining shipping priorities in the harbor; converting sugarcane and pineapple plantations to vegetable farms; organizing a rationing program for oil and other consumer goods; camouflaging equipment and landmarks; building trenches and air raid shelters; erecting radar stations and excavating extensive underground rooms and tunnels for ammunition storage. Before war was declared, the District had been creating a new Airfield Ferry Route System. The original route from the Philippines, Marianas, Wake Island, Midway, Hawaii to California was considered vulnerable to Japanese attack. New air ferry routes to the east and south were necessary to the war effort and the military buildup in Australia. Building seven runways and support facilities on small, remote islands presented a number of challenges involving materials, manpower and water shortages, communication, transportation and geographical topography. The southern route, from California, Hawaii, Christmas, Canton, Fiji, New Caledonia to Australia and the eastern route, from Christmas, Penrhyn, Aitutaki, Tongatabu, Norfolk to Sydney, were finished by the 1-year anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor--an impressive accomplishment by any standard. When the war ended, HED had constructed 69 miles of runways and taxiways, and 2,700,000 square yards of aircraft parking area. Although the District's workload diminished after the war, the post- war years were anything but quiet as HED continued to supply engineering troops overseas and to dispose of real estate on the islands. The Corps was also busy with major endeavors including construction of Tripler Army Medical Center, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl, and flood control and shore protection projects critical to the safety and future enjoyment of many communities. Tripler Army Medical Center, commonly known as the ``Pink Lady,'' was completed in 1948 at a cost of $40 million. The 14-story, 1,500-bed hospital was an extensive project featuring 12 separate buildings--each constructed separately to make the Medical Center earthquake-resistant. Today, Tripler continues serving military members and their families from around the Pacific, as well as Hawaii's veterans and military retirees. During the 1960s and 1970s, new Federal policies further expanded HED's duties. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 required the Corps to prepare environmental impact statements, EIS, on all proposed federal actions affecting the environment. The Clean Water Act of 1977 brought changes to the Corps' regulatory mission and required the Corps to issue permits for all dredged or fill material. The Corps was now responsible for all the nation's water and wetlands--a scope that now stretches far beyond navigable waters. This began the Corps' mission as ``Stewards of the Environment.'' The 1970s were also a time of internal change for the District. In 1973, the functions of the Pacific Ocean Division and the Honolulu Engineer District were merged to form a single operating division. The Division moved from Fort Armstrong to its present location at Fort Shafter on Oahu. Civil works and capital improvement programs expanded to Guam, American Samoa, Kwajalein and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Main projects on Oahu included building military housing and improving facilities at Hickam AFB, Wheeler, Schofield, Aliamanu and Fort Shafter. In 1973, HED began construction of the Hale Koa Military Rest and Recreational Hotel at Fort DeRussy in Waikiki. The original highrise hotel tower has 416 rooms, 15 floors and was built for $15.7 million. Nearby Battery Randolph was transformed into the U.S. Army Museum. The second floor of the museum today houses the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Regional Visitors Center. The Corps' responsibilities were further expanded in 1980 with the addition of an Emergency Management Division. In July 2002, HED disaster recovery specialists provided support in the wake of Typhoon Chataan. Just 6 months later, HED responded swiftly in December 2002 when Pacific Ocean Division disaster recovery specialists were called upon and arrived 2 days after Super Typhoon Pongsona devastated Guam with 184-mph winds. Within 2 weeks, more than 100 members from all eight Corps of Engineers divisions were on the ground to execute a $20 million in disaster cleanup. In the fall of 2004, HED sent emergency management teams and manpower to Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and South Carolina in response to the devastation by Hurricanes Ivan, Charley, and Frances. HED today continues to serve a variety of missions in a region of 12 million square miles from Hawaii to Micronesia an area of operations spanning five time zones, the equator and the international dateline. This they have done with the utmost of professionalism, integrity and an unwavering commitment to service. I am truly honored to have the Honolulu Engineer District in my home State. They serve as ``America's Engineers in the Pacific.'' I have no doubt that they will continue their service and legacy with pride and aloha for the next hundred years and beyond. Happy Birthday. Congratulations on a job well done. On behalf of a grateful Nation, thank you for your service.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the bill before us, as noted by the Senator from Alaska, includes $74.4 billion. Of that amount, $73.3 billion is under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Defense. The vast majority of this funding, approximately $42.5 billion, is recommended to cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With 150,000 military personnel in Iraq and another 18,000 in Afghanistan, the funding included in this bill is essential to support our forces. The bill also includes $12 billion to repair and replace equipment damaged in the operations abroad. This funding will allow the military departments to reequip our forces who are returning from combat. Without these funds, our military would not be equipped to meet future crises. The bill provides $5.3 billion for new equipment for our Army and Marine forces as they restructure their forces to create additional combat capability. While some may question whether these funds qualify as emergencies, it should be clear that our military forces will need these funds as they begin restructuring transformation. Finally, the remaining funds are provided to support those nations which are taking part in the operations abroad, including training and equipping the Afghanis and Iraqis, and to support related efforts for recruiting, morale welfare, recreation, and other military personnel needs. I support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.