Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dane Balker, Senator Webb's national security detainee, be given floor privileges for the duration of this bill.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President. On June 26, 2007, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives met to consider and adopt H. Res. 121. This resolution was authored by Congressman Michael Honda of San Jose, CA.

H. Res. 121 expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into sexual slavery, known to the world as ``comfort women,'' during its colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the duration of World War II.

There is no doubt in my mind that during the war period the men in the Imperial Armed Forces of the Government of Japan did abuse, assault, and forcibly impose their wills upon women for sexual purposes. This was conduct and behavior that cannot in any way be condoned or justified.

These events, according to H. Res. 121, occurred during the war period of the 1930s and 1940s. Records indicate that on August 31, 1994, as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II was approaching, then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement articulating Japan's remorse and apology to comfort women.

His statement says in part, ``on the issue of wartime `comfort women,' which seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women, I would like to take this opportunity once again to express my profound and sincere remorse and apologies.''

This statement was made in his official capacity as Prime Minister of Japan.

Subsequently, every successive Prime Minister since 1996--Prime Ministers Hashimoto, Obuchi, Mori, and Koizumi--have all issued letters of apologies to individual former comfort women, who have accepted an apology letter along with atonement money offered to her by the Asian Woman's Fund. It should be noted that some former comfort women refused to accept the atonement money.

The Asian Women's Fund was established, sanctioned, and approved by the Government of Japan. The letters addressed to former comfort women were issued by the Prime Ministers of Japan in their official capacity, and recite, ``as Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies

and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations.'' Japan's present Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, in a March 1, 2007, news conference clearly indicated that Japan accepts responsibility and expressly apologized to all its victims.

On March 11, 2007, Prime Minister Abe made the following statement:

I will stand by the Kono Statement. This is our consistent

position. Further, we have been apologizing to those who

suffered immeasurable pain and incurable psychological wounds

as comfort women. Former Prime Ministers, including Prime

Ministers Koizumi and Hashimoto have issued letters to the

comfort women. I would like to be clear that I carry the same

feeling.

The 1993 Kono statement made by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono stated in part:

The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly,

involved in the establishment and management of the comfort

stations and the transfer of comfort women. . . . The

Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once

again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all

those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered

immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological

wounds as comfort women.

During his visit to our Nation's Capitol in April 2007, Prime Minister Abe reconfirmed these sentiments in a meeting with bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate.

Prime Minister Abe also expressed similar statements in a meeting with President Bush. At a joint press conference at Camp David, Abe, when describing his meeting with congressional leaders, said:

I, as Prime Minister of Japan, expressed my apologies, and

also expressed my apologies for the fact that they [comfort

women] were placed in that sort of circumstance.

In 1995 and 2005, the Japanese House of Representatives considered and adopted resolutions related to Japan's actions in World War II, including the comfort women issue. The 1995 resolution adopted by Japan's House of Representatives provides in part:

Solemnly reflecting upon the many instances of colonial

rule and acts of aggression that occurred in modern world

history, and recognizing that Japan carried out such acts in

the past and inflicted suffering on the people of other

countries especially in Asia, the Members of this House

hereby express deep remorse.

The Asian Women's Fund was established in 1995 with the cooperation of the Government of Japan and the Japanese people. The fund has extended letters of apology and payments, donated by the Japanese people, to 285 former comfort women in the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan. Each of the 285 individuals received 2 million yen, or $17,000. The fund has also implemented medical and welfare projects.

I have taken the time to cite the above because of my concern over the adoption of H. Res. 121, the Honda Resolution.

It should be noted that after World War II, the issue of compensation for Japan's wartime crimes was settled, country by country, by the Treaty of San Francisco with the U.S. and by the relevant peace treaties with other countries. Thus, from a purely legal standpoint, the issue of the comfort women has been settled by treaties of peace.

Several questions come to mind as I read the text of statements made on this matter, and the text of H. Res. 121. For example, what would be required of Japan under H. Res. 121 to ``formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner''?

The statements of apology that I quoted earlier were issued by six Prime Ministers of Japan, each acting and speaking in his official capacity.

I would think that in the world of diplomacy, these words would suffice as official statements.

Another matter that should be noted is that these events occurred in the 1930s and 1940s, and the acknowledgment and apology over the abuse of the comfort women have been made by successive Prime Ministers since 1994.

I can think of many events in our own historic past that deserve an acknowledgement and apology issued by the United States. Nonetheless, our Government has not acknowledged these actions and other countries have not officially reprimanded us because of it.

For example, soon after December 7, 1941, the United States contacted the Governments of Chile and other South American countries and requested that they round up their residents of Japanese ancestry and send them to the United States to be used by the United States in negotiations for the return of American prisoners of war held by Japan.

Many Latin Americans of Japanese descent were arrested, stripped of their passports or visas, and shipped to the United States. Once in the United States, they were treated as illegal aliens, subject to deportation and repatriation.

The internees' vulnerable position under the law basically left their fate in the hands of the State Department and Department of Justice. Those caught in this situation were considered repatriable and thus available for use in hostage exchanges with Japan.

I am happy to report to you that after many years of concern, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has considered this matter and reported favorably on a measure to study this matter. However, the bill still faces consideration by the full Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House.

And yet has any country suggested we should ``formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner'' for this matter?

Nor have the legislatures of other nations criticized and accused us for Executive Order 9066, which directed the United States Army to establish 10 concentration camps in various parts of the United States to intern residents of Japanese ancestry. The majority of them were American citizens. As investigations disclosed in later years, their incarceration or internment was based only upon race. No crime had been committed, no act of treason, no act of sabotage.

Consequently, four decades later, the Congress finally acknowledged and apologized for the actions of the U.S. Government in the Civil Rights Act of 1988.

There exist many other such events in our history that could be discussed, but these incidents in particular are of interest because they involve the men and women whose ancestry lies in the nation of Japan.

Regardless of the historical example, the question remains the same: how would the U.S. Government have reacted if the legislature of some other nation had condemned our historical actions in World War II?

Diplomatic protocol among friendly nations and allies calls for consideration and sensitive handling of such matters.

In the case at hand, I respectfully suggest that the Government of Japan, through six of its Prime Ministers, and through two acts considered by its House of Representatives, has issued statements of acknowledgement and apology since 1994.

I would suggest that so many apologies should suffice.

The payment of $17,000 to each survivor may not suffice because no amount of monetary compensation would be sufficient to clear away such memories just as much as the payment of $20,000 to each internee of Japanese ancestry in the United States for years of incarceration by the United States in the concentration camps was not sufficient to wipe away that memory either. Nevertheless, payments have been made and accepted.

As a final matter, it may be interesting to note that a Gallup Poll conducted in February and March 2007 sets forth the following: 74 percent of the general public, and 91 percent of opinion leaders thought of Japan as a dependable ally or friend. 48 percent of the general public, and 53 percent of opinion leaders considered Japan to be the most important U.S. partner in the Asia region, followed by China, which scored 34 percent among the general public, and 38 percent among opinion leaders. 67 percent of the general public, and 86 percent of opinion leaders described U.S. relations with Japan as ``good'' or ``excellent.'' 87 percent of the general public, and 88 percent of opinion leaders supported the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

Finally, when asked whether Japan shared common values with the United States, 83 percent of the general public, and 94 percent of opinion leaders agreed. The only country that received a higher score was the United Kingdom, by only 2 percent for each group.

These numbers and responses to the Gallup Poll should suggest our relationship with Japan is excellent. The general public believes it, and our Government has said so as well. Why should we involve ourselves in a legislative act that would jeopardize a relationship as good as we share with Japan?

Is this how we Americans should conduct ourselves with the Japanese, our friends and allies?

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bond in submitting a resolution, which recognizes the mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and the Republic of Indonesia.

Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country, the third largest democracy, and the most populous Muslim nation. It possesses extensive natural resources, and a considerable amount of trade passes through the straits of Malacca. Without question, Indonesia is a valuable partner to the United States in the global war on terror.

Indonesia has made great strides in continuing to democratize and develop its civil society as well as rule of law, particularly under the leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. This resolution acknowledges many of the Government's positive reforms and encourages the Republic of Indonesia to continue its commitment to human rights, democratic principles, and good governance.

Mr. President, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in recognizing this very important nation in Southeast Asia.

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1792, filed by Senators Stevens, Snowe, Alexander, and Carper, and cosponsored by Senators Feinstein and Kerry, among others. This bipartisan compromise reflects the input of Members, industry,

and consumers, and is good policy for our Nation.

I particularly wish to congratulate Senator Dianne Feinstein for her dedicated efforts over the years to update our Nation's fuel economy standards. The success of the amendment today is a tribute to her tenacious and skilled advocacy.

At every step of the legislative process following the introduction of S. 357, the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, by Senators Feinstein and Olympia Snowe, the authors and cosponsors of S. 357 and members of the Senate Commerce Committee have worked together in a bipartisan manner to address the concerns of the automotive industry. In particular, this group worked hard to ensure that automakers will not face a significant burden when meeting the first improvements to fuel economy standards in more than 30 years.

I am pleased that Members from both sides of the aisle continued to work together to produce the amendment adopted today. While addressing a number of the concerns raised by automakers regarding the Feinstein- Snowe Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act as reported by the Commerce Committee, the amendment preserves the core goals and fuel savings of Ten in Ten.

The amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to increase fuel economy for automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, as in Ten in Ten. But in the years that follow from 2021 to 2030, the Secretary shall increase fuel economy at a maximum feasible rate instead of at a pace of 4 percent per annum.

If we have a breakthrough in battery technology, then 4 percent per year may well be too low. If there are unforeseen problems, 4 percent may be too high. The amendment will allow the Secretary to set an appropriate standard in the future.

The Kerry-Cantwell second degree amendment to the Stevens-Carper- Feinstein-Snowe-Kerry amendment also directs the Secretary to establish and implement an action plan to ensure that 50 percent of the vehicles for sale in 2015 are alternative fuel automobiles. We must encourage manufacturers to improve their fleets' fuel economy by exploring new technologies and producing alternative fuel vehicles. I commend Senators Kerry and Cantwell for developing this compromise amendment that addresses this important goal.

By adopting the bipartisan compromise amendment and H.R. 6 as amended, we will place the country on a path toward reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, protecting the environment, and helping consumers deal with rising gas prices.

Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the excellent efforts of the dedicated staff on the Senate Commerce Committee including David Strickland, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Ken Nahigian, Mia Petrini, and Jason Bomberg.

Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is a driving force for our Nation's economy. In 2006, the industry generated a $7.3 billion trade surplus. In 2006, international receipts for travel-related tourism spending reached $107.8 billion. Travel and tourism supported 8.3 million American jobs in 2006, of which 1.1 million were supported by international travel and tourism. In Hawaii, tourism is the largest industry bringing in approximately $12 billion annually, $4 billion of which derives from international visitor spending.

International tourism brings more than economic returns. International travelers who visit our country can advance our standing overseas. Studies have shown that, after visiting the United States and interacting with Americans, 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of our country.

In recent years, overseas travel to the United States has suffered. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the United States made a number of necessary changes in the visa and entry processes to improve security, but some of those changes have confused and deterred visitors from even the friendliest countries. Many in the travel industry have continued to express concerns about the perception that the U.S. entry process is unnecessarily antagonistic.

In order to strengthen our competitiveness and recover lost international market share, we must improve and better explain the process for travelers coming to America. The world needs to know that the United States welcomes business and leisure travelers.

In addressing these concerns, and in recognizing the benefits of travel promotion, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Vice Chairman Stevens, in introducing the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill establishes a nonprofit, independent corporation charged with reaching out to potential international travelers, clarifying the ease of travel to America, and encouraging them to visit. As experts have testified in hearings before the Commerce Committee, a unified effort to promote tourism to all areas of the United States is necessary and cannot be achieved by the industry alone.

The proposed corporation will be run by 14 board members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who represent all aspects of the travel industry, including State tourism boards, hotels, and airlines, as well as the Federal Government. A small fee collected from international travelers to the United States will help fund the corporation, but its costs will be truly shared with industry. In order to receive the funds collected by the Government, the corporation will need to raise matching funds from the travel industry. By working together, the Federal and State governments and business will be able to revitalize the travel industry and make America a stronger and more welcoming destination.

In most developed countries, the minister of tourism is one of the most powerful and important positions in the government. For too long, our Government has relegated travel and tourism to a second tier status. The bill seeks to improve that status by creating an Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel Promotion who would work with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the corporation, to improve travel promotion efforts and the entry process for international travelers.

The travel and tourism industry helps drive the U.S. economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will enhance our competitiveness while improving our image abroad, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, the travel and tourism industry is a driving force for our Nation's economy. In 2006, the industry generated a $7.3 billion trade surplus. In 2006, international receipts for travel-related tourism spending reached $107.8 billion. Travel and tourism supported 8.3 million American jobs in 2006, of which 1.1 million were supported by international travel and tourism. In Hawaii, tourism is the largest industry bringing in approximately $12 billion annually, $4 billion of which derives from international visitor spending.

International tourism brings more than economic returns. International travelers who visit our country can advance our standing overseas. Studies have shown that, after visiting the United States and interacting with Americans, 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of our country.

In recent years, overseas travel to the United States has suffered. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the United States made a number of necessary changes in the visa and entry processes to improve security, but some of those changes have confused and deterred visitors from even the friendliest countries. Many in the travel industry have continued to express concerns about the perception that the U.S. entry process is unnecessarily antagonistic.

In order to strengthen our competitiveness and recover lost international market share, we must improve and better explain the process for travelers coming to America. The world needs to know that the United States welcomes business and leisure travelers.

In addressing these concerns, and in recognizing the benefits of travel promotion, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Vice Chairman Stevens, in introducing the Travel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill establishes a nonprofit, independent corporation charged with reaching out to potential international travelers, clarifying the ease of travel to America, and encouraging them to visit. As experts have testified in hearings before the Commerce Committee, a unified effort to promote tourism to all areas of the United States is necessary and cannot be achieved by the industry alone.

The proposed corporation will be run by 14 board members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, who represent all aspects of the travel industry, including State tourism boards, hotels, and airlines, as well as the Federal Government. A small fee collected from international travelers to the United States will help fund the corporation, but its costs will be truly shared with industry. In order to receive the funds collected by the Government, the corporation will need to raise matching funds from the travel industry. By working together, the Federal and State governments and business will be able to revitalize the travel industry and make America a stronger and more welcoming destination.

In most developed countries, the minister of tourism is one of the most powerful and important positions in the government. For too long, our Government has relegated travel and tourism to a second tier status. The bill seeks to improve that status by creating an Under Secretary of Commerce for Travel Promotion who would work with the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the corporation, to improve travel promotion efforts and the entry process for international travelers.

The travel and tourism industry helps drive the U.S. economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2007 will enhance our competitiveness while improving our image abroad, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline, and its ocean territory is larger than the combined land area of all 50 States. We rely on our oceans for such diverse benefits as recreation, food, transportation, and energy. All Americans, regardless of whether they reside in the Nation's heartland or along the coast, are impacted by the ocean.

That is why I rise today, joined by Vice Chairman Ted Stevens and several other Commerce Committee colleagues, in introducing a group of bills to provide for sustainable use and protection of our ocean and coastal areas.

Our oceans and coasts provide us with tremendous economic and recreational opportunities. It is critical that use of ocean resources and coasts is sustainable and that we address the many existing and emerging risks to their well-being. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has thoroughly documented, our oceans and coasts are faced with many threats, including those posed by pollution, increasing population growth and coastal development, overfishing, climate change, and ocean acidification. All of the bills my colleagues and I are introducing today implement recommendations of the Ocean Commission.

First, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007 would reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and provide critical authorities for preserving, restoring, and managing in a sustainable manner our coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are one of the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and they provide environmental and economic benefits such as shoreline protection as well as critical habitat for approximately half of all federally- managed fisheries.

Second, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 would reauthorize and strengthen authorities to survey and analyze the physical condition of our Nation's coasts and waterways, along with elements that impact safe navigation. Conducting surveys of our Nation's coasts and waterways is a core mission for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and provides valuable services to the maritime industry and to Federal agencies responsible for maritime transportation, homeland security, and emergency response.

Third, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and establish ballast water management requirements to mitigate the introduction and spread of invasive species from ships. The bill would also seek to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ship equipment or hulls. Invasive species brought into the United States from other countries have caused billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy.

In addition to the initiatives I have highlighted, a number of other ocean-related bills are being introduced today by colleagues on the Commerce Committee. These include a bill by Senator Lautenberg to establish a much-needed Federal program to conduct research, monitoring, and education to examine the processes and consequences of ocean acidification, and a bill by Senator Snowe to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.

This week we celebrate Capitol Hill Ocean Week. Many organizations and agencies are using this opportunity to educate and raise public awareness about the impact of our oceans on our society and economy. The bills that my colleagues and I are introducing today address many of those needs being highlighted. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Commerce Committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the health and management of our oceans and coasts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the United States has more than 95,000 miles of coastline, and its ocean territory is larger than the combined land area of all 50 States. We rely on our oceans for such diverse benefits as recreation, food, transportation, and energy. All Americans, regardless of whether they reside in the Nation's heartland or along the coast, are impacted by the ocean.

That is why I rise today, joined by Vice Chairman Ted Stevens and several other Commerce Committee colleagues, in introducing a group of bills to provide for sustainable use and protection of our ocean and coastal areas.

Our oceans and coasts provide us with tremendous economic and recreational opportunities. It is critical that use of ocean resources and coasts is sustainable and that we address the many existing and emerging risks to their well-being. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has thoroughly documented, our oceans and coasts are faced with many threats, including those posed by pollution, increasing population growth and coastal development, overfishing, climate change, and ocean acidification. All of the bills my colleagues and I are introducing today implement recommendations of the Ocean Commission.

First, the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2007 would reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 and provide critical authorities for preserving, restoring, and managing in a sustainable manner our coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs are one of the oldest and most diverse ecosystems on the planet, and they provide environmental and economic benefits such as shoreline protection as well as critical habitat for approximately half of all federally- managed fisheries.

Second, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 would reauthorize and strengthen authorities to survey and analyze the physical condition of our Nation's coasts and waterways, along with elements that impact safe navigation. Conducting surveys of our Nation's coasts and waterways is a core mission for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and provides valuable services to the maritime industry and to Federal agencies responsible for maritime transportation, homeland security, and emergency response.

Third, the Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and establish ballast water management requirements to mitigate the introduction and spread of invasive species from ships. The bill would also seek to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ship equipment or hulls. Invasive species brought into the United States from other countries have caused billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy.

In addition to the initiatives I have highlighted, a number of other ocean-related bills are being introduced today by colleagues on the Commerce Committee. These include a bill by Senator Lautenberg to establish a much-needed Federal program to conduct research, monitoring, and education to examine the processes and consequences of ocean acidification, and a bill by Senator Snowe to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.

This week we celebrate Capitol Hill Ocean Week. Many organizations and agencies are using this opportunity to educate and raise public awareness about the impact of our oceans on our society and economy. The bills that my colleagues and I are introducing today address many of those needs being highlighted. I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Commerce Committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the health and management of our oceans and coasts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to act on H.R. 2206, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, which will fully fund the needs of our men and

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all.

But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs.

In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts.

That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry.

Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet.

However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race.

That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally

operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all.

But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs.

In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts.

That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry.

Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet.

However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race.

That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally

operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.