Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3506

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3504

Mr. INOUYE. No objection.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3501

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3500

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3499

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I fully support the measure before us. I would like to say how proud I am to serve with my colleague from Alaska. Once again, he has demonstrated to all of us his extraordinary legislative skill in pressing his case. I can assure my colleagues in the Senate, as I assure my chairman, that I will do my very best to see that his decision is carried out. This bill provides $383.8 billion in new discretionary budget authority, consistent with the subcommittee's target, and another $25 billion in emergency budget authority to cover a portion of the anticipated costs for the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill provides the necessary funds to support our men and women in uniform and their families--to include our Guard and Reserves. It recommends funding for a 3.5 percent pay raise for all service members and a 20,000 increase in army end strength as authorized by the Senate. The bill supports the critical modernization programs requested by the Defense Department including the Navy's DDX Destroyer, the Army's Stryker vehicles and the Air Force's F-22 fighter. It scales back those programs that DoD is trying to advance before the technology is mature and those that are experiencing delays or technical problems. The bill increases spending on research and development by nearly $1 billion with significant growth in medical programs, particularly those that directly impact warfighters in the current conflict. These include increased spending on amputee care, new technology bandages, and leishmaniasis. Health care programs are fully funded in this measure. In addition, the committee recommends increases for Walter Reed, Madigan, Tripler, and other military hospitals and research facilities. The Committee has made a significant effort to see that this bill is consistent with the decisions which have been made by the Senate on the Defense authorization bill. Many of my colleagues' amendments that have been adopted on the floor receive funding in this bill, such as the end strength increase which I already addressed. The committee has also included enhanced Guard and Reserve benefits as authorized and other proposals approved by the Senate. This bill provides the support essential for the coming year and also provides $25 billion which DoD will require to cover its costs next fall and winter for its on-going efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the committee has very carefully earmarked the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to direct funding for the priorities of the military departments. We have also restricted the authorities sought by the administration to ensure proper congressional oversight of executive actions. In recent years, the executive Branch has often argued that, as Commander in Chief, the President has almost unlimited powers in the conduct of day-to-day defense matters. It is clear that the Constitution provided the Congress the power of the purse. In drafting this measure the Committee has safeguarded its responsibilities and expects that the Defense Department will recognize the constitutional authority of the Congress to determine how funding will be utilized in executing this budget. We fully expect that the Defense Department will only fund activities that have been approved by the Congress, and in no case will funding be used to support programs which have been rejected by the legislative branch. I am pleased to have worked with my good friend, our Chairman, Senator Stevens on crafting this legislation. It is a very good bill and I would encourage all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the courageous men and women of military medicine, whose efforts to preserve life on the battlefield must not go unnoticed. Since World War II, I have followed the advances in personal protection and combat casualty care which have changed the fate of thousands of our military men and women. The improvements in battlefield protection have given our military the lowest levels of combat deaths in history. While there is still regrettable loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that we are savings hundreds of lives which could not have been saved in past operations is proof that these advances are paying off. Historically, 20 percent of all war casualties resulted in death. Today, that rate has been cut in half. Additionally, the rate of total battlefield casualties has also declined by half. Many advances have led to these decreases. Improved body armor, the placement of forward surgical teams, improved medical training and evacuations, in theatre assessments of unforeseen medical complications, and superior medical technology are just a few of the changes I want to address. As we read about casualties in the press, one might not realize that much has changed. We read about injury or death by mortar or improvised explosive device. And, as in the past, when soldiers are injured, the first person they call out for is not their mother, not their sweetheart, or even God, but for a medic. But circumstances are different when that medic arrives today. Training of our medics has improved drastically. Today every medic is certified as an emergency medical technician. They are provided with improved medical kits with state-of-the-art medical equipment. The military unit on the ground has these additional capabilities and life saving techniques to improve combat care from the moment of injury. A second major development in treating battlefield injuries is the placement of forward surgical teams closer to the front lines. These teams target the 15-20 percent of wounded who, without care within the first hour after wounding, would die before seeing the inside of a combat support hospital. Uncontrollable hemorrhage has been a major cause of death in previous wars. Today, the forward surgical teams are well equipped to identify and stop bleeding using a hand held ultrasound machine to identify internal bleeding. Advances in hemorrhage control dressings have also had a substantial impact on saving lives. Circumstances were definitely a little different when I served during World War II. After I was injured, it took 9 hours to get to a field hospital where they performed military trauma surgery and over 3 months before I made it back to the United States. I spent 11 months in a hospital that was essentially a converted hotel in Atlantic City waiting for my final surgery and another 9 months in a rehabilitation facility in Battle Creek, MI. All told, it was almost 2 years from the time I was injured until I was able to return home to Hawaii. Today, military personnel injured on the battlefield can be transported from theatre to a military hospital in Europe in a matter of hours. Depending on the extent of the wounds, they can be flown back to the United States within days. The rapid, sophisticated treatment on the battlefield and expedited transfer to safety are two of the most striking differences between military medicine today and World War II. The story of Private Jessica Lynch is an excellent example. Following her rescue from the Iraqi hospital, Army medics, Air Force aeromedical evacuation troops and Special Operations forces transported her thousands of miles, used three different aircraft, and provided care during her entire journey, until she reached the safety of an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. This was all accomplished in fewer than 15 hours. This same approach has saved the lives of many other courageous, young heroes. What remains a mystery is how to treat the unexpected. Many deaths are the result of disease or non-battle injuries. In March 2004, there were 595 evacuations from Iraq for disease or other non-battlefield injuries. The Army Medical Department has deployed special teams with expertise in areas such as leishmaniasis, pneumonia, mental health and environmental surveillance to respond to these types of injuries. Having their critical assessments and recommendations while our troops are still in theatre will hopefully enable the command to decrease these illnesses. The good news is that we have already improved our rates on this front. In the Civil War, twice as many people died of disease than of battle wounds. In World War I, about 56,000 U.S. soldiers died of disease, 14,000 during World War II, but only 930 during the Vietnam War. And we continue to make progress. Press reports have highlighted the suicide rates of our troops serving overseas, but little acknowledgement has surfaced on how the military is addressing this concern. In July 2003, the Army sent a team of mental health experts to study the issues facing our troops in Iraq. This team was assembled to assess the increase in suicides in Operation Iraqi Freedom, evaluate the patient flow of mental health patients from theater, and analyze the stress-related issues Soldiers experience in combat. This was the first time a mental health assessment was ever conducted with soldiers in combat. I cannot stress the importance of the collection and analysis of this data and its potential to help the military address these issues at the earliest stages. We have also learned a great deal about providing better protection to our forces. We are now experiencing less than half of the theatre evacuations for chest and abdomen wounds than was seen during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam because of body armor. The 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict in which all U.S. troops were provided body armor. At that time, the vests were made of Kevlar. They were capable of stopping shell and grenade fragments, but were a heavy 25 pounds to carry. The lighter interceptor body armor now used in Afghanistan and Iraq weighs only sixteen pounds and stops grenade fragments, 9mm slugs, and some rifle ammunition. The efforts placed in these advancements have paid off and should continue with renewed commitment. But while these advances have drastically improved our casualty rates, injuries to the limbs are increasing. Historically, 3 percent of those wounded in action required some amputation. Today that rate has jumped to 6 percent in Iraq. This requires our attention. We must focus on technology to reverse this trend. These are just a few of the advances in medical technology and treatment that are responsible for saving the lives of our military. As we think about today's improvements, we should remember the men and women that served before this conflict. Nearly half a million men were permanently disabled by wounds during the Civil War. Their sacrifices led others to develop improvements in orthopedic surgery and the design of prosthetic limbs. It is important that we recognize these sacrifices and contributions and continue our commitment to further advances. It is said that my generation was the greatest generation. But I have spent a great deal of time visiting our military personnel and must say that this generation is surpassing us by far. These men and women in uniform display the courage, strength, and devotion of our armed forces. I thank the Chair for allowing me to recognize the men and women of our military and to pay particular attention to lesser known positive data coming from the Global War on Terrorism.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution to designate January first of each year as Global Family Day. More than 30 years ago, a small group of inner-city children conceived of a holiday devoted to peace and understanding amongst the global community. They envisioned a day to celebrate life and extend hands in friendship, rather than in violence, in an effort to overcome world events that have produced fear, hate, and grief. In the years leading up to the turn of the new millennium, this small group of children and their mothers petitioned Congress and the United Nations for the establishment of a one-day peaceful celebration. As a result of their efforts, ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' was officially designated by the United Nations General Assembly and supported by more than 1,000 organizations, more than 100 governments, and 25 U.S. Governors. ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' was a 24- hour period during which the people of the world united for a virtually violence-free day devoted to positive interactions amongst different races and cultures. The U.S. Congress unanimously approved a resolution recognizing ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000.'' The resolution I am submitting today will give our nation's citizens an opportunity to renew the teachings of ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' by designating January first of each year as Global Family Day. Congressional recognition of Global Family Day will provide an opportunity for Americans to discuss and educate themselves on how to end inter-cultural fear, mistrust and alienation. I invite my colleagues to join me in support of Global Family Day and the designation of January first of every year as a day to appreciate and learn about other cultures and communities, in an effort to bring people all over the world closer together.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, we all learned recently that an outstanding public servant, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has decided to step down. I am personally saddened by this announcement because I believe the country has been well served by Mr. Tenet. George Tenet started his career in public service as part of the Senate family working for the late Republican Senator John Heinz. He served on the professional staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee rising to become the committee staff director for my good friend Senator David Boren. I was the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during that period. Our committee works closely with the Intelligence Committee in determining the funding for our classified programs. So I believe I can speak with some authority in saying that George was a top-notch staff director. And, I believe his tenure in the Senate prepared him well for the position of Director of Central Intelligence. I have known every CIA Director since Allen Dulles. I have worked closely with each Director for the past 30 years. All of them have been honorable men, well-meaning and decent public servants, but none was a better Director of Central Intelligence than George Tenet. Intelligence is a critical part of our national security. Obviously it does not get the public scrutiny that most Government functions receive. To do so would jeopardize the lives of countless agents and analysts who serve this Nation. We limit the number of people who receive sensitive information to lessen the chance that it will be inadvertently disclosed and harm our national security. As such, much of the good news in intelligence is never brought to light. When the CIA breaks up a terrorist cell in Albania or Egypt it cannot be disclosed. When critical information is discovered by our intelligence community about weapons trafficking on the high seas, the weapons can be confiscated, but the American people are not told. Unfortunately, only the operations that fail become public. So our CIA Directors are generally not known for their successes, only for their failures. It is an historical fact that there has been great temptation to use intelligence operations and analysis to achieve political objectives. As most of my colleagues know, the Senate established the Select Committee on Intelligence in the mid-1970s to review intelligence activities in response to improprieties which occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period, I was fortunate to serve as the first Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. There have been other unfortunate incidents when individuals in the executive branch have circumvented the law to further their objectives. We all remember the Iran-contra scandal when rogue elements ran an extra legal operation out of the White House. Some have suggested that intelligence was recently politicized to justify the war on Iraq. It is my view, and I think history will one day prove that any politization of intelligence that might have occurred on Iraq did not come from George Tenet. Those who are charged with oversight of intelligence for the Congress have a difficult task. We must review intelligence activities and practices, but the universe is truly enormous. There are not enough hours of the day for us to know all the details of intelligence. We could never amass enough staff to monitor every action of the intelligence community. Therefore, we need to be able to trust our intelligence leaders. The Senate could trust George Tenet to tell the truth and be forthright with this institution. Perhaps it was because of his background as a Senate staff member, but George was always eager to inform and consult with the Senate to share important information regardless how sensitive it might have been. My experience with the CIA has been that many past Directors were reluctant to provide detailed information to the Congress. Perhaps it was the ingrained culture that protects secrets, or perhaps it was the lack of trust between the executive and legislative bodies, but for whatever reason, they didn't want to tell the Congress any more than they had to. With George it was different. He would take time to explain controversial and highly classified issues in detail. At times he would direct his associates in the community to be more forthright in their responses when he felt they might be holding back. George Tenet trusted the Congress with the Nation's secrets as partners in national security, not adversaries or impediments. I know the Director has his critics, but they do not come from the Defense Subcommittee. I think I can speak for my chairman when I tell you we both had the utmost confidence in George Tenet. And, no one in the Senate or the House has spent more years overseeing the intelligence community than Ted and I. George Tenet is depicted today by some as the Director of Intelligence who failed to stop the tragedy of 9/11 and criticized for the description by author Bob Woodward that the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a ``slam dunk.'' Both of those miss the point. George Tenet should be remembered as one of the finest Directors in the history of Central Intelligence. He should be remembered as the most honest and forthright of any CIA Director. He should be thought of as the Director who took an agency from the cold war mentality and started to reshape it for the 21st century. I know he will be remembered by the thousands of CIA employees as a great leader who did his very best to support them and the entire intelligence community. I will remember him as a tremendous public servant who served honorably, effectively and tirelessly. Mr. President, someday when the records are declassified and the analysis is completed, historians will likely remember George with great regard. It is my view that he should not have to wait. We should all thank him for his dedication to duty and his service to our country.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Mapping Integration Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gregg and Hollings, who are original cosponsors of the bill. The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States. There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services. The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment. The recent draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has highlighted the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate Federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats. The bill I am introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many Federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the Federal Government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort. Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2004. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time, we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country. While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels. Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year. From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year. We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward. The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program. The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented. 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, I rise today to introduce the Ballast Water Management Act of 2004. I am joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. For some time, we have recognized the impacts of land-based invasive species. In Hawaii, the impacts of such alien species on native species have been among the most significant in the country. While not as visible, invasive species pose an equally great threat. One of the major ways that aquatic invasives make their way around the globe is through the ballast water used by vessels. Modern maritime commerce depends on ships stabilized by the uptake and discharge of huge volumes of ocean water for ballast. Regrettably, ships do not transport such water alone--but also the plants and animals, as well as human diseases such as cholera, that it contains. An estimated 10,000 aquatic organisms travel around the globe each day in the ballast water of cargo vessels. Over 2 billion gallons of ballast water are discharged into waters of the United States each year. From the zebra mussel fouling the facilities and shores of the Great Lakes, to the noxious algae that choke the coral reefs of Hawaii, aquatic invasive species pose a serious threat to delicate marine ecosystems and human health. The economic costs are also staggering-- the direct and indirect costs of aquatic invasive species to the economy of the United States amount to billions of dollars each year. We must find an effective solution to this problem, while at the same time ensuring that our maritime industry can continue to operate in a cost-effective manner. We will need to rely on the steady collaborative efforts of industry, science, government, and coastal communities as we move forward. The bill I introduce today lays the foundation for such progress. It establishes standards for ballast water treatment that will be effective but on a schedule that our maritime fleet can realistically achieve. It recognizes safety as a paramount concern, and allows flexibility in ballast exchange practices to safeguard vessels and their passengers and crew. Looking to the future, my bill will also encourage the development and adoption of new ballast water treatment technologies, as well as innovative technologies to address other vessel sources of invasives such as hull fouling, through a grant program. The bill closely tracks and is consistent with an agreement recently negotiated in the International Maritime Organization. It would phase- in ballast water treatment requirements on the same schedule as that adopted by the IMO agreement, and require ballast water exchange to be used until treatment systems are in place. Importantly, the international agreement includes a provision assuring that parties can adopt more stringent measures than those included in the agreement. This provision was sought by the United States and is important to assure the sovereignty of nations in addressing their needs while striving for international cooperation. In light of this provision, the bill includes a standard for treatment that is more effective than that adopted by the international community to ensure that the impacts in the United States are adequately prevented. 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. President, I rise today to introduce the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, Fritz Hollings, and Maria Cantwell focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels and dumped at sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment. Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded fishing nets and gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Dead is dead--whether an animal dies from an immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net. Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in the draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000. The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, re- invigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention. In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most 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. In 2003 alone, 122 tons of debris were removed from coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. 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. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes. 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. This is why the bill establishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies, state governments, universities, and non-governmental organizations. 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 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. I hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Mapping Integration Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Gregg and Hollings, who are original cosponsors of the bill. The jurisdiction of the United States extends 200 miles beyond its coastline and includes the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, or ``EEZ.'' Regrettably, nearly 90 percent of this expanse remains unmapped by modern technologies, meaning that we have almost no information about a swath of ocean as large as the terra firma of the entire United States. There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services. The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment. The recent draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has highlighted the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate Federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decisionmaking. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact on sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Living marine resource managers can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats. The bill I am introducing today will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many Federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill would also establish national hydrographic centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the Federal Government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort. Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure that will, in turn, support the development of healthy coastal communities across the nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise with deep humility and honor. The words of my colleagues and friends have touched me greatly. I am most grateful. But in listening to their words, I must suggest that wars are not won by soldiers alone. It takes a united nation to do that. The war that we were privileged and honored to serve in was a war that a united America carried out. Husbands went to war, but their wives stayed home and worked in the factories. Some worked in the fields. There were mothers who were in anguish every day while their sons were away, but they gave us hope. They gave us courage. Little kids went around collecting pennies to buy bonds. Yes, it took a nation to win this war. The memorial testifies to that. It does not just honor those who served in battle, but it honors those wives and sweethearts who worked in the factories, the little students who collected scrap metal and pennies. Yes, we were young. But we knew what was going on. I have been asked many times: If given the chance, would I do it again? I think I speak for all of my colleagues: Certainly, because it was the right thing to do. It was the American thing to do. And what we did I am certain all other Americans would have done. We all received medals. It is unfortunate that all Americans could not receive those medals. Well, I can tell you that my mother deserved a medal. She had to look at the little flag that flew over her window. There were three stars on it. My two brothers served in the Korean war. It must have been a difficult time for her. I am certain that all mothers have gone through this. So I thank all of my colleagues.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. From the shore, our oceans seem vast and limitless, but I fear that we often overlook the impacts our actions have on the sea and its resources. The Act that I am introducing today with my friends and colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, Fritz Hollings, and Maria Cantwell focuses on one particular impact that goes unnoticed by many: marine debris. In a high-tech era of radiation, carcinogenic chemicals, and human- induced climate change, the problem of the trash produced by ocean- going vessels and dumped at sea must seem old-fashioned by comparison. Sea garbage would seem to be a simple issue that surely cannot rise to the priority level of the stresses our 21st century civilization places on the natural environment. Regrettably, that perception is wrong. While marine debris includes conventional ``trash,'' it also includes a vast array of additional materials. It is discarded fishing nets and gear. It is cargo washed overboard. It is abandoned equipment from our commercial fleets. Nor does the ``low-tech'' nature of solid refuse diminish its deadly impact on the creatures of the sea. Dead is dead--whether an animal dies from an immune system weakened by toxic chemicals, or drowns entangled in a discarded fishing net. Global warming, disease, and toxic contamination of our seas has already stressed these fragile ecosystems. These threats have been described in the draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which also dedicated an entire chapter to the threats posed by marine debris. The bill we introduce today adopts the measures recommended by the Commission to help remove man-made marine debris from the list of ocean threats. It also follows the recommendations of the International Marine Debris Conference held in my home State of Hawaii in 2000. The bill establishes a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, directs the U.S. Coast Guard to improve enforcement of laws designed to prevent ship-based pollution from plastics and other garbage, re- invigorates an interagency committee on marine debris, and improves our research and information on marine debris sources, threats, and prevention. In Hawaii, we are able to see the impacts of marine debris more clearly than most 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. In 2003 alone, 122 tons of debris were removed from coral reefs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which is also home to many endangered marine species. 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. NOAA's Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Science Center is leading this interagency partnership, which also includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii's business and university communities, and conservation groups. Not only have we removed debris that poses harm to endangered species, but with the help of donated services, we have recycled the abandoned nets into energy to power residential homes. 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. This is why the bill establishes an Interagency Committee on Marine Debris to coordinate marine debris prevention and removal efforts among federal agencies, state governments, universities, and non-governmental organizations. 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 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. I hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Marine Debris Research and Reduction Act. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to protect our most valuable resources, our oceans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act. This act is administered by the Administration for Native Americans within the Department of Health and Human Services. Funds appropriated for the Administration for Native Americans enable the provision of grants for social and economic development initiatives addressing the needs of Native communities, for Native language preservation, and to provide support for environmental initiatives.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act. This act is administered by the Administration for Native Americans within the Department of Health and Human Services. Funds appropriated for the Administration for Native Americans enable the provision of grants for social and economic development initiatives addressing the needs of Native communities, for Native language preservation, and to provide support for environmental initiatives.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution with my colleagues, Senators Harkin and Warner, commending the United States Institute of Peace on the occasion of its 20th anniversary and recognizing the Institute for its contribution to our Nation's capacity to manage international conflict by peaceful means. Since its founding by Congress, the Institute has been a pioneer in promoting the study and application of non-military approaches to the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict. The Congress established the Institute as an independent, nonpartisan Federal institution dedicated to strengthening our national capabilities for conflict management and resolution. The resolution we are submitting today recognizes the importance of the Institute as a national and international resource for peaceful conflict management. It stresses that Congress looks forward to continuing to gain from the Institute's knowledge, teaching, and practical applications of conflict management as a way to promote the security interests of the United States and peace around the world. The resolution also expresses appreciation to the founding men and women of the Institute and support for the Institute from the American people. Finally, the resolution congratulates the Institute on its 20th anniversary and on its achievements in fulfilling its mandate from Congress. Many in the Senate recall the personal dedication and efforts of our predecessors, led by Senators Spark Matsunaga and William Jennings Randolph who played essential roles in establishing the Institute. While Senator Matsunaga's bravery on the battlefield led to our country's awarding him a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, he was also a man who knew the importance of peace. In 1979 he set in motion many of the critical events that eventually led Congress to create the U.S. Institute of Peace. Senator Matsunaga's unyielding commitment to peace began long before he arrived in this chamber. In 1938, as a student at the University of Hawaii, he wrote an essay that included the sentence: ``If we want peace we must educate people to want peace.'' The founders of the Institute and the countless Americans who supported elevating the importance of peace education in our national dialogue would be proud of the way the Institute has grown and adapted to the ever-changing world. Today, the Institute is a national resource for education, professional training, and applied programs in peaceful conflict management and the practical application of conflict management strategies as a way to promote United States security and peace in the world. Some of the vital work currently being undertaken by the Institute of Peace includes helping countries break out of cycles of violence and peacefully resolve their conflicts. At the same time, the Institute is educating new generations of Americans about novel approaches to conflict management, and enhancing curricular materials related to the changing character of international conflict and nonviolent approaches to resolving international disputes. Over the past twenty years, the Institute has used its knowledge and expertise to train American and foreign government officials, military and law enforcement personnel, humanitarian aid workers, and civic activists in the skills of professional peacemaking. It has awarded numerous grants and fellowships to individuals, universities, and non-governmental organizations of many nations to deepen the field of conflict resolution education and ensure its application to conflict situations abroad. In its twenty year history, the Institute has played key roles in facilitating the management of critical conflict situations, such as assisting then President Nelson Mandela in the development of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and developing a detailed plan to handle accountability in the wake of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which became the basis for Rwandan Genocide Law. More recently, the Institute has taken an active role in facilitating peace processes in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. The Institute is using its expertise in Iraq in specialized areas where conflict resolution programs play a key role in stabilizing peace and nation building, such as training new ministries about conflict resolution techniques, working with the emerging judicial system to develop a reconciliation tribunal for former war criminals and human rights violators, facilitating inter-religious and inter-ethnic dialogue, and working with Iraqi universities to promote peace and conflict education. The Institute is also anticipating new opportunities for peace and conflict resolution activities on the Korean peninsula and in Sudan. In the years to come, Congress will be looking to the Institute to focus its skills and resources on peacemaking in the greater Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. The Institute is a unique national treasure. We hope that our fellow Senators will join us in cosponsoring this resolution and stressing the United States commitment to peace.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is long overdue and much needed in Indian country. On May 22nd of last year, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on the status of telecommunications across Native America. Testimony received at that hearing and reports of Federal agencies that were made part of the hearing record indicate that there is most definitely a vast difference in access to the most basic telecommunications services. For instance, telephone service to Indian homes is from 30 to 60 percent less than the national average, and only 10 percent of Indian homes have Internet service. The bill that I introduce today is modeled after the community development block grant program and provides authorization for the establishment of two block grant programs in the Department of Commerce. The first block grant would enable tribal governments to develop the necessary infrastructure to support expanded telecommunications capabilities, to develop comprehensive plans for enhancing telecommunications services in Indian communities, and to provide support for telemedicine. The second block grant program would support the provision of training and technical assistance in the very complex field of telecommunications. The objectives of this bill can be rather simply stated. For too long, when it comes to access to even the most basic telecommunications services--telephone and Internet access--we have relegated Indian country to third world status. We must bridge this gap--it is that fundamental. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is long overdue and much needed in Indian country. On May 22nd of last year, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on the status of telecommunications across Native America. Testimony received at that hearing and reports of Federal agencies that were made part of the hearing record indicate that there is most definitely a vast difference in access to the most basic telecommunications services. For instance, telephone service to Indian homes is from 30 to 60 percent less than the national average, and only 10 percent of Indian homes have Internet service. The bill that I introduce today is modeled after the community development block grant program and provides authorization for the establishment of two block grant programs in the Department of Commerce. The first block grant would enable tribal governments to develop the necessary infrastructure to support expanded telecommunications capabilities, to develop comprehensive plans for enhancing telecommunications services in Indian communities, and to provide support for telemedicine. The second block grant program would support the provision of training and technical assistance in the very complex field of telecommunications. The objectives of this bill can be rather simply stated. For too long, when it comes to access to even the most basic telecommunications services--telephone and Internet access--we have relegated Indian country to third world status. We must bridge this gap--it is that fundamental. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.