Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in presenting this supplemental appropriations bill to the Senate. The central purposes of the bill are to fund the military and diplomatic surge in Afghanistan, to respond to natural disasters in this country and in Haiti, and to address the immediate challenges we face from the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been 5 months since the President announced his strategy to achieve stability in Afghanistan. Central to that strategy is the addition of some 30,000 troops into the theater, together with a significant increase in aid and diplomatic resources to the region. Congress has the responsibility and the duty to carefully review and consider the President's request for these supplemental appropriations and approve the expenditure of the funds that are necessary for a successful outcome, one that serves the interests of the United States. We must be mindful, however, that more than half of the additional troops called for in the President's plan have already arrived in Afghanistan. Spring and summer offenses are being mounted now and in the coming months will become critical to our chances for success. It is also important that we act on the President's request in a timely manner. We should not procrastinate or drag our feet. We should not force the Pentagon to juggle accounts, delay procurements, and otherwise take actions that will detract from our efforts in the field. The committee has spent several months, as the distinguished chairman pointed out, carefully examining the supplemental request made by the Department of Defense and the State Department. Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have testified before the committee in support of these requests. The committee members and staff have met with other government officials and outside groups to refine the committee's recommendations. While this bill includes many of the supplemental requests made by the President, some of his proposals were deemed premature, unwarranted, or inappropriate for inclusion in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The committee also heard from both Democratic and Republican Senators about urgent needs not addressed in the President's supplemental request. The chairman and I, as well as the various subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked to address those needs. We have limited the total cost of the bill to the amount requested by the President, and we have kept the bill focused on its central purposes. In some parts of the country, recent natural disasters have left communities in desperate need of Federal assistance, but with flood waters still receding and damage assessments not yet complete, it has been difficult to respond to all of the requests we have received. The chairman and I will continue to work with Senators representing those communities to see that the Federal response is appropriate and addresses the most critical needs. For those of us who represent the gulf coast region, our States are dealing with a different kind of disaster. While it is not a natural disaster, it is a very serious event that will have very serious consequences for the natural environment as well as for local economies throughout the region. We cannot predict now and we cannot now know what the long-term impacts of this spill will be. While the Federal Government is intimately involved in the response and cleanup efforts, clearly the parties responsible for the spill must bear the ultimate cost of cleanup and associated damages. The President submitted an oilspill supplemental proposal 1 day prior to the committee's consideration of this bill. The proposal contained funding requests prompted by the spill but not directly tied to the Deepwater Horizon event. It also included broader policy proposals that would restructure the oilspill liability regime currently in place. The committee has had very little time to review these proposals. We have decided to recommend funding only items that are within the committee's jurisdiction that will address urgent needs. We do not suggest that the committee has arrived at the perfect solution. There may be other proposals that should be included in this legislation. There may be recommendations included by the committee that should be reconsidered based on additional analysis. I look forward to working with our colleagues from the gulf coast and all Senators to address this unfortunate event. During consideration of this bill in committee, several members identified additional funding needs or policy matters they intend to raise during floor debate. Members not on the committee will surely have amendments as well, and we look forward to working with all Senators to improve this bill where we can. But it is clear that adding additional costs to this bill will exacerbate our Nation's fiscal imbalance and potentially jeopardize our ability to rapidly get needed resources to our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other parts of the world. This bill recommends $46 billion in discretionary appropriations and another $13 billion in mandatory funds. No matter how important the purposes, that is a significant amount of money. I expect amendments will be offered to offset some or all of these costs. The disaster relief fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is currently allocating funds for immediate needs only. The fund owes more than $1.5 billion to States for projects already approved to assist communities recovering from disasters. Going into hurricane season, the fund has less than $900 million available to respond to disasters. One way or the other, we must take action to capitalize the fund. We also must act with a sense of urgency to provide the resources needed to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We should consider those requirements carefully. But I believe we will poorly serve our men and women in the field if we allow internal tactical battles to unduly delay delivery of a bill to the President, or if we burden this bill with other costs or legislative matters that are unrelated and controversial. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and able members of his staff for their work on this bill and moving it to this point through the committee. I hope our colleagues who have amendments will contact us so we can help arrange for consideration of those in a timely manner. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in presenting this supplemental appropriations bill to the Senate. The central purposes of the bill are to fund the military and diplomatic surge in Afghanistan, to respond to natural disasters in this country and in Haiti, and to address the immediate challenges we face from the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been 5 months since the President announced his strategy to achieve stability in Afghanistan. Central to that strategy is the addition of some 30,000 troops into the theater, together with a significant increase in aid and diplomatic resources to the region. Congress has the responsibility and the duty to carefully review and consider the President's request for these supplemental appropriations and approve the expenditure of the funds that are necessary for a successful outcome, one that serves the interests of the United States. We must be mindful, however, that more than half of the additional troops called for in the President's plan have already arrived in Afghanistan. Spring and summer offenses are being mounted now and in the coming months will become critical to our chances for success. It is also important that we act on the President's request in a timely manner. We should not procrastinate or drag our feet. We should not force the Pentagon to juggle accounts, delay procurements, and otherwise take actions that will detract from our efforts in the field. The committee has spent several months, as the distinguished chairman pointed out, carefully examining the supplemental request made by the Department of Defense and the State Department. Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have testified before the committee in support of these requests. The committee members and staff have met with other government officials and outside groups to refine the committee's recommendations. While this bill includes many of the supplemental requests made by the President, some of his proposals were deemed premature, unwarranted, or inappropriate for inclusion in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The committee also heard from both Democratic and Republican Senators about urgent needs not addressed in the President's supplemental request. The chairman and I, as well as the various subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, have worked to address those needs. We have limited the total cost of the bill to the amount requested by the President, and we have kept the bill focused on its central purposes. In some parts of the country, recent natural disasters have left communities in desperate need of Federal assistance, but with flood waters still receding and damage assessments not yet complete, it has been difficult to respond to all of the requests we have received. The chairman and I will continue to work with Senators representing those communities to see that the Federal response is appropriate and addresses the most critical needs. For those of us who represent the gulf coast region, our States are dealing with a different kind of disaster. While it is not a natural disaster, it is a very serious event that will have very serious consequences for the natural environment as well as for local economies throughout the region. We cannot predict now and we cannot now know what the long-term impacts of this spill will be. While the Federal Government is intimately involved in the response and cleanup efforts, clearly the parties responsible for the spill must bear the ultimate cost of cleanup and associated damages. The President submitted an oilspill supplemental proposal 1 day prior to the committee's consideration of this bill. The proposal contained funding requests prompted by the spill but not directly tied to the Deepwater Horizon event. It also included broader policy proposals that would restructure the oilspill liability regime currently in place. The committee has had very little time to review these proposals. We have decided to recommend funding only items that are within the committee's jurisdiction that will address urgent needs. We do not suggest that the committee has arrived at the perfect solution. There may be other proposals that should be included in this legislation. There may be recommendations included by the committee that should be reconsidered based on additional analysis. I look forward to working with our colleagues from the gulf coast and all Senators to address this unfortunate event. During consideration of this bill in committee, several members identified additional funding needs or policy matters they intend to raise during floor debate. Members not on the committee will surely have amendments as well, and we look forward to working with all Senators to improve this bill where we can. But it is clear that adding additional costs to this bill will exacerbate our Nation's fiscal imbalance and potentially jeopardize our ability to rapidly get needed resources to our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other parts of the world. This bill recommends $46 billion in discretionary appropriations and another $13 billion in mandatory funds. No matter how important the purposes, that is a significant amount of money. I expect amendments will be offered to offset some or all of these costs. The disaster relief fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is currently allocating funds for immediate needs only. The fund owes more than $1.5 billion to States for projects already approved to assist communities recovering from disasters. Going into hurricane season, the fund has less than $900 million available to respond to disasters. One way or the other, we must take action to capitalize the fund. We also must act with a sense of urgency to provide the resources needed to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We should consider those requirements carefully. But I believe we will poorly serve our men and women in the field if we allow internal tactical battles to unduly delay delivery of a bill to the President, or if we burden this bill with other costs or legislative matters that are unrelated and controversial. I thank the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and able members of his staff for their work on this bill and moving it to this point through the committee. I hope our colleagues who have amendments will contact us so we can help arrange for consideration of those in a timely manner. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Mitchell, a military fellow assigned to the Appropriations Committee, be allowed floor privileges for the period of time the war supplemental bill is on the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Mitchell, a military fellow assigned to the Appropriations Committee, be allowed floor privileges for the period of time the war supplemental bill is on the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I would like to express my support for amendment No. 3809, which was offered by the Senator from Hawaii to the financial regulatory reform bill. His amendment would have stricken a provision in the financial reform legislation that allows the Securities and Exchange Commission to use fee revenues to fund its own operations without undergoing the annual appropriations process. While the President's budget request does not endorse ``self- funding'' for the SEC, I understand the Commission itself supports the idea because it generally raises more fee revenue each year than Congress appropriates for the agency. Under self-funding, the SEC might receive more money without the challenges of the annual appropriations process by keeping all the fees it receives in the form of offsetting collections. While I appreciate that the appropriations process subjects the Commission to competition from other government programs, it is precisely that process that imposes discipline on Federal agencies and helps distill needs from wants. Self-funding would effectively exempt the SEC from Congressional budgetary oversight. Congress has important constitutional responsibilities for directing Federal spending and providing necessary oversight over the executive branch. The Commission has offered no compelling evidence that it cannot perform its statutory functions under the current budget structure or that its performance warrants being exempted from that structure. The Appropriations Committee has consistently responded to the resource requests of the SEC, recognizing its important enforcement role. Congress appropriated $906 million for the SEC in fiscal year 2008, $960.1 million in fiscal year 2009 and $1.11 billion in fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2010 appropriation level provided by Congress was $85 million over the President's budget request. The President's appropriation request for the Commission for fiscal year 2011 is $1.25 billion, an increase of $139 million over the prior year's approved funding. As with all agencies, the chairman and I will carefully consider this request and work with the members of the committee to ensure that the funding provided to the Commission will enable it to carry out its important mission. If the SEC were to self-fund using fee revenues, the Securities and Exchange Commission is on track to set fees at levels sufficient to raise $1.7 billion in collections in fiscal year 2011, an increase of $220 million over fee collections in fiscal year 2010. This change would increase the SEC budget by $590 million in fiscal year 2011, when compared with the appropriated funding level in fiscal year 2010. It also represents an increase of $490 million over the President's appropriation request for the SEC for fiscal year 2011. It seems to me that, now more than ever, congressional oversight is needed to regulate the regulators and to hold accountable those regulators who fail to do their jobs correctly. The SEC made many mistakes during the financial crisis, including failing to bring an enforcement action against Stanford Financial for over 12 years after learning about the Stanford scheme. Recent reports by the SEC inspector general and others show that these problems were caused by mismanagement at the SEC and not by any funding shortages. Shouldn't Congress demand even more accountability of the SEC, rather than allowing the SEC to freely spend a greatly expanded budget? The financial downturn and its aftermath have highlighted the need for increased oversight and transparency throughout the financial system. They also have highlighted the need for increased congressional oversight. The annual budget and appropriations process ensures that Congress plays an active role in the oversight of important agencies, such as the SEC. Under the financial reform bill, the SEC will face new challenges as it takes on additional responsibilities. I am committed in my role as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee to work with the administration and the SEC to ensure that all resource requests receive appropriate consideration. The Appropriations Committee has a history of responding to such requests and at times has provided additional resources based on the committee's assessment of the agency's needs. In addition, if for some reason the fees that the SEC collects are insufficient to support its mission, it is likely that the SEC would be back before the Congress, requesting additional resources. While the SEC may believe that the fees it collects provide a path to a dependable funding stream, I believe the appropriations process-- which is grounded in the Constitution and subject to scrutiny not only by the Appropriations Committee but by extension by the entire Senate and the Congress--is the path to dependable funding with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that funding decisions are made in the best interest of the taxpayers. With our Nation's fiscal situation as precarious as it is, Congress should not be putting yet another Federal agency on auto-pilot. Even though the Senator from Hawaii's amendment was not considered prior to the Senate's completing action on the financial reform bill, I hope the managers of the bill will duly consider the views of the amendment's sponsors and drop the SEC self-funding provision from the bill in conference.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I would like to express my support for amendment No. 3809, which was offered by the Senator from Hawaii to the financial regulatory reform bill. His amendment would have stricken a provision in the financial reform legislation that allows the Securities and Exchange Commission to use fee revenues to fund its own operations without undergoing the annual appropriations process. While the President's budget request does not endorse ``self- funding'' for the SEC, I understand the Commission itself supports the idea because it generally raises more fee revenue each year than Congress appropriates for the agency. Under self-funding, the SEC might receive more money without the challenges of the annual appropriations process by keeping all the fees it receives in the form of offsetting collections. While I appreciate that the appropriations process subjects the Commission to competition from other government programs, it is precisely that process that imposes discipline on Federal agencies and helps distill needs from wants. Self-funding would effectively exempt the SEC from Congressional budgetary oversight. Congress has important constitutional responsibilities for directing Federal spending and providing necessary oversight over the executive branch. The Commission has offered no compelling evidence that it cannot perform its statutory functions under the current budget structure or that its performance warrants being exempted from that structure. The Appropriations Committee has consistently responded to the resource requests of the SEC, recognizing its important enforcement role. Congress appropriated $906 million for the SEC in fiscal year 2008, $960.1 million in fiscal year 2009 and $1.11 billion in fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2010 appropriation level provided by Congress was $85 million over the President's budget request. The President's appropriation request for the Commission for fiscal year 2011 is $1.25 billion, an increase of $139 million over the prior year's approved funding. As with all agencies, the chairman and I will carefully consider this request and work with the members of the committee to ensure that the funding provided to the Commission will enable it to carry out its important mission. If the SEC were to self-fund using fee revenues, the Securities and Exchange Commission is on track to set fees at levels sufficient to raise $1.7 billion in collections in fiscal year 2011, an increase of $220 million over fee collections in fiscal year 2010. This change would increase the SEC budget by $590 million in fiscal year 2011, when compared with the appropriated funding level in fiscal year 2010. It also represents an increase of $490 million over the President's appropriation request for the SEC for fiscal year 2011. It seems to me that, now more than ever, congressional oversight is needed to regulate the regulators and to hold accountable those regulators who fail to do their jobs correctly. The SEC made many mistakes during the financial crisis, including failing to bring an enforcement action against Stanford Financial for over 12 years after learning about the Stanford scheme. Recent reports by the SEC inspector general and others show that these problems were caused by mismanagement at the SEC and not by any funding shortages. Shouldn't Congress demand even more accountability of the SEC, rather than allowing the SEC to freely spend a greatly expanded budget? The financial downturn and its aftermath have highlighted the need for increased oversight and transparency throughout the financial system. They also have highlighted the need for increased congressional oversight. The annual budget and appropriations process ensures that Congress plays an active role in the oversight of important agencies, such as the SEC. Under the financial reform bill, the SEC will face new challenges as it takes on additional responsibilities. I am committed in my role as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee to work with the administration and the SEC to ensure that all resource requests receive appropriate consideration. The Appropriations Committee has a history of responding to such requests and at times has provided additional resources based on the committee's assessment of the agency's needs. In addition, if for some reason the fees that the SEC collects are insufficient to support its mission, it is likely that the SEC would be back before the Congress, requesting additional resources. While the SEC may believe that the fees it collects provide a path to a dependable funding stream, I believe the appropriations process-- which is grounded in the Constitution and subject to scrutiny not only by the Appropriations Committee but by extension by the entire Senate and the Congress--is the path to dependable funding with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that funding decisions are made in the best interest of the taxpayers. With our Nation's fiscal situation as precarious as it is, Congress should not be putting yet another Federal agency on auto-pilot. Even though the Senator from Hawaii's amendment was not considered prior to the Senate's completing action on the financial reform bill, I hope the managers of the bill will duly consider the views of the amendment's sponsors and drop the SEC self-funding provision from the bill in conference.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the State of Mississippi lost one of its most respected citizens and devoted public servants on December 25, 2009. Those of us who knew and worked with Charlie Capps were privileged to witness his commitment to the advancement of our State. I extend my sincerest sympathies to the family of Charlie Capps--Alinda, Margaret, and Charlie III. Charlie Capps was born in Merigold, MS, and graduated from Cleveland High School. He attended Davidson College until the outbreak of World War II, when he volunteered and enlisted in the U.S. Army. After the war, Charlie founded Capps Insurance and Real Estate Company. However, he was best known as ``Mr. Chairman'' because of his service as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in the Mississippi legislature for more than a decade. During his tenure of service in the Mississippi House of Representatives, he served with four speakers of the House--John Junkin, Buddie Newman, Tim Ford, and Billy McCoy. Charlie Capps' greatest enjoyment was his association with public service. During his career he was an effective advocate for law enforcement, higher education, the arts and cultural heritage, workforce training, agriculture, and wildlife and fisheries conservation. Charlie Capps is clearly among our State's finest citizens and certainly one of the most capable public servants of this generation. The State of Mississippi is a better place to live because of the life of Charlie Capps, and I am privileged that I was able to call him my friend.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President I am pleased to commend Travis Satterfield of Benoit, MS, for his service and contributions to the State of Mississippi while serving as the 75th president of Delta Council. Delta Council is an economic development organization representing the business, professional, and agricultural leadership of this alluvial floodplain commonly known as the Mississippi Delta. The organization was formed in 1935 and is widely respected for its role in meeting the challenges which have historically faced the economy and quality of life of this region of our State. Travis Satterfield has served as president of Delta Council during a time when our Nation, as well as the State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Delta, have experienced economic challenges of immense proportions. Travis Satterfield took over his family farming operation from his parents 40 years ago and has built one of the most successful farming enterprises in this intensely agricultural region of our Nation. Travis has brought practical insight and trusted leadership to the cornerstone issues confronting the Delta region. His practical approach to problem- solving has had a positive impact on Delta Council's role in many important areas of work, such as groundwater management, soil and water resource conservation, flood control, farm policy and transportation improvements for the region. Travis is a proven leader with strong values. I am confident that Travis will continue to be an effective voice for the economic benefit of all of the people of the region for many years into the future. In Mississippi, we appreciate Travis Satterfield, his wife Nancy, and their four sons, Dwayne, Dennis, Darrell, and Kirk, for the sacrifices they have made to help improve the life of all who live and do business in the Mississippi Delta.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was saddened by the announcement of my friend, Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin, that he will retire from the U.S. House of Representatives. He has served with great distinction for the people of his district in Wisconsin since April 1, 1969. He was elected to succeed Melvin Laird, who had resigned from the House to serve as Secretary of Defense. David Obey was reelected to 17 succeeding Congresses. In the House, he has chaired the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Appropriations. David Obey has had a career of distinction in the Congress. He has been conscientious in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities as a Congressman and he has been a good friend of mine. I will truly miss working with David Obey on the Appropriations Committee. We dealt with some of the most contentious issues of our time. I always respected him even though we sometimes had to disagree on issues that were being considered by our committee. He was a spirited and effective Member of Congress. I extend to him my very good wishes for the future.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to be able to recognize an important project being undertaken by students at Horn Lake Middle School in Horn Lake, MS, to learn lessons from the Holocaust. This project was brought to my attention by Miss Sadie Hopkins who, with her seventh grade classmates, has worked months to collect 1.5 million pennies--each coin representing one child lost in the Holocaust. Led by their teacher Susan Powell, these young people plan to use the pennies to understand the tragic and significant impact the Holocaust had on Jewish children during World War II and the ripple effects of that terrible time on families today. I am pleased that Miss Hopkins made me aware of this project, which should be viewed as an innovative endeavor in making history more real for our youth today. It has opened these students' minds to an important era in history and put them in touch with some of those whose lives were directly affected by the Holocaust. I commend the Horn Lake community for supporting this ongoing educational effort. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article titled, ``Horn Lake Middle School students collecting pennies for Holocaust project,'' from the DeSoto Appeal.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I understand we have time allocated to this side of the aisle, and the Senator from South Carolina has agreed to yield me a few minutes, and then he is going to close up debate after I speak.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. He is a friend of mine. He is a distinguished Senator. He makes an impact here in the Senate that is very impressive. But I think his proposal to impose a virtual moratorium on congressionally directed spending is not in the public's interest. Some Senators who support the amendment voted earlier this year against creation of a deficit reduction commission and against pay-as- you-go rules. They argued that those initiatives were merely fig leaves and might make Congress feel good, but would not serve any useful purpose and might actually operate against our effort to reduce the national debt. This amendment also may make you feel good, feel like you are doing something to reduce spending, but in reality, it does not accomplish that goal. Earmarking has nothing to do with how much the Federal Government spends, but it has everything to do with who decides how the Federal Government spends. The DeMint amendment applies to earmarks in any bill--whether it is authorizing legislation, tax bills, or appropriations bills. The Appropriations Committee drafts bills that conform to the discretionary spending levels established in the annual budget resolution. If it is the will of the Congress, as expressed in the budget resolution, to increase domestic spending by 5 percent, the Appropriations Committee produces bills to conform to that level of spending. If the will of the Senate is to cut discretionary spending below a certain level, the committee will do that as well. In any case, the committee allocates the discretionary amounts of funding for Federal programs as provided in the budget resolution. We also review the President's budget request, the levels of funding in prior years, and other considerations that are important. We meet with many outside groups during the annual hearing process. We review the requests for funding of every government agency in the executive branch. We also consider the priorities expressed by Members of the Senate. Some come to our hearings and testify as witnesses. We have an annual series of hearings reviewing every Department's budget requests and the agencies that operate within those Departments. We subject the entire process to careful scrutiny. The Senate as a whole is involved as they want to be in negotiations with the other body, letting us know what their views are, and what we should argue for during conferences with the House. In disagreements with the administration, the Congress really has the power for the final say-so. We do not all agree on the spending levels approved in the budget resolution. The Senator from South Carolina and I are likely to agree that the discretionary spending level approved for fiscal year 2010 was too high. But the level of spending is not the question before us. The question proposed by the DeMint amendment is whether Congress will allow the executive branch to make 100 percent of all the decisions about how spending is allocated or whether Congress will preserve its constitutional prerogative to appropriate funds for the purposes it deems meritorious. There are many outstanding civil servants within the executive branch who do their best to manage in a careful way Federal funds in a professional manner. But those persons are not necessarily familiar with the interests of the people in our respective States and with the needs of those we represent. It is naive to think that political considerations are not going to be a part of the executive branch decisionmaking process. History belies the notion that executive branch judgment with regard to spending is superior to the legislative branch. Are my colleagues happy with the way stimulus funding has been spent, unfettered by congressional earmarks? Will western Senators be comfortable appropriating lump sums of money to the Department of the Interior for land acquisition not knowing what lands will be acquired? Inspector general reports arrive almost weekly describing wasteful and sometimes fraudulent spending by executive branch agencies. Some may think executive branch spending decisions are entirely merit based, immune from political pressure and lapses in judgment. But they are not. That is one of the reasons I am not willing to cede every spending decision to the executive branch. I am not talking about political party-driven decisions, but I am not willing to concede superior public interests in the executive branch as compared with the legislative branch. I think the people of my State are entitled to be represented by advocates of projects that are important to the interests of their State. The programs and legislation that benefit our State they want me to support, and they want it to be in the best interests of my State and the country. Each Member has to make his or her own analysis of each bill based on the entirety of its contents, the Member's views and background, his or her view of the national interest. So the presence or absence of earmarks is not the determining factor in the quality of the legislative process. Every piece of legislation we consider in the Senate affects all of our citizens, communities, and industries in different ways. The bill currently before the Senate, which is the FAA authorization bill, has many provisions of particular interest and benefit to communities and sectors of the aviation community. Madam President, I know the time is limited, and I do not want to prolong the debate. I do not question the motives of any Senator in this legislative process. Actions that we are taking are driven by notions of what is in the best interests of the country. We just happen to disagree, and I strongly disagree with this amendment. Should we throw up our hands and say: This is a tough job, and let's turn it over to the executive branch; let's respect their decisions, forget our own interests in our States, and our own individual backgrounds and experience? Of course not. That would be an abdication of our responsibilities as Senators. So the solution is to adopt an aggressive budget resolution; consider all spending and tax bills in a transparent fashion; subject them to public, careful scrutiny; allow Members to propose amendments on any and all provisions of any and all appropriations bills. When they judge it to be wasteful, vote against it. Cut the spending or approve it. In any case, do what each individual Senator thinks is in the public interest, unfettered by makeshift budget restraints that accomplish nothing except shift power from the Congress to the Executive.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3470

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, my State of Mississippi has lost one of its finest citizens, Bill Gresham of Indianola, who passed away on Tuesday, February 23. His family and friends will gather today to honor his memory at funeral services in his hometown. I extend my sincerest sympathies to Bill's wife Ann, his daughters Gayle and Susan, his sons Walton and Tom, his sons and daughters-in-law, his grandchildren, and all members of his extended family. Bill Gresham graduated from Indianola High School and the University of Mississippi. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and the Korean war. After his Navy service Bill returned to Mississippi and became a very respected and successful leader in our State. Bill was president of Gresham Petroleum Company and Gresham Service Stations and a board member of Double Quick, Inc. and Delta Terminal, Inc. Bill was president of Delta Council, the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers Association, the Mississippi Propane Gas Association, the Mississippi Economic Council, and the Mississippi Gaming Commission. He was also a board member of Mississippi College, the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and the National Propane Gas Association. Bill was inducted in the Hall of Fame of the University of Mississippi Alumni Association, which he served as President. He was also a member of the University of Mississippi Foundation. Bill was an Eagle Scout and a leader in the Chickasaw Council of the Boy Scouts of America. His dedication to community service was also reflected in his leadership of the Indianola Rotary Club and as a major general in the Mississippi Army National Guard. Bill Gresham was a proud citizen of the United States of America and a real patriot. In Mississippi, Bill Gresham's name will be associated with the highest standards of leadership and values. Our State is a better place to live because of the life of Bill Gresham, and I am glad that I was able to call him a friend.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, in submitting a resolution to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Volunteers in Service to America, or VISTA, program. President Kennedy suggested in 1963 a program of national service that would provide assistance to those in need in urban and rural areas. Less than 2 years later, President Johnson launched the ``War on Poverty,'' and included the VISTA program created by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Incorporated into the AmeriCorps network of programs in 1993, VISTA has been hard at work in the fight against poverty for 45 years. Today, the VISTA program is stronger than ever, placing 6,500 full-time volunteers at 1,200 nonprofit organizations and public agencies each year. These volunteers are committed to serving the needs of the poorest Americans at numerous program sites, and they are to be commended for their unselfish contributions to helping others. I am proud to say that there are 87 VISTA volunteers at 21 program sites in my home State of Mississippi. I understand the sacrifices that are being made by these young men and women and the important impact that these volunteers have made in our communities. I am pleased to congratulate VISTA on 45 years of distinguished service to our country.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that there is waste within government, that there is duplication or overlap of programs across some government agencies, and that the amount of spending approved for fiscal year 2010 was higher than it should have been given our Nation's fiscal situation. That is part of the reason why I opposed the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. But, I am not enamored of the approach that Senator Coburn has taken in this amendment. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties as elected Members of Congress to cede such vast decisionmaking power to the executive branch. If there is $120 billion to be cut from the budget, we should identify those cuts and vote on them. We should not let the President, a commission, or some other entity make those decisions for us. Throughout the past year the Senator from Oklahoma and other Members offered amendments to cut spending from the budget resolution, appropriations bills, and other measures. Some of these amendments were adopted and some were not. I supported some of the amendments and opposed others. In each case, however, Senators knew what they were voting on and had some idea what the effect of the amendment would be. With this amendment we have no idea what its effect will be. The sponsor of the amendment says the impacts will be negligible but offers virtually no specifics. Perhaps he is correct. It is also possible that the President--whose priorities in many respects differ significantly from most Senators on my side of the aisle--will take the reductions mandated by this amendment from programs that my colleagues and I feel to be high priorities. It is possible that the President will fail to take the reductions from those programs we feel are most duplicative or wasteful. We will likely never know the answers to these questions. This amendment will not be enacted. I agree that Federal spending must be constrained. As we go forward, however, I hope the Senate will take a more transparent approach to deficit reduction so that Senators, consistent with their constitutional responsibilities, can make informed decisions about the operations of the Federal Government. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am glad I was here to hear the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I serve on that subcommittee of Defense Appropriations with him and get to observe, at close range, the skill and effort and courtesy that is reflected in his service as chairman of our committee. It is a pleasure to serve with him and it is an honor. He has provided leadership and cooperation in working with all Senators--not just members of our committee--to move forward in carrying out of duties by the Department of Defense through our appropriations process. It is very important that the Senate approve, as soon as possible, the funding that is contained in the bill that our committee has reported to the Senate. It will help support and provide the resources necessary to carry out the missions of our men and women have in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, safeguarding our freedom, protecting our security interests. The Department of Defense is now operating under a continuing resolution that expires on Friday. This is an inefficient way of managing the support for our Department of Defense. It causes too much effort to be made by employees and men and women in the Defense Department, focusing on management, how to manage day-to-day operating expenses dealing with the challenges that too few dollars are provided in a way that gives people time to plan and then execute efficiently their missions and responsibilities. This affects the support that is available to the men and women who are overseas and in harm's way. The act contains funds necessary to provide medical care as well as family support for members of our Armed Forces and their families. During this time of war, it is very important that every effort be made to provide good medical care for those who are injured and wounded serving our country. It is also important we support the families. There are funds in this legislation that do just that, trying to address the stresses that are associated with combat and deployment and separation. I am disappointed the normal process has been circumvented, or at least delayed, and the other body has not appointed conferees to the Defense Appropriations conference committee. It is a disappointment also that the Defense Appropriations bill is used as a vehicle to move other initiatives that seem to be slowing down the process. These measures should be considered separately and addressed in a more thoughtful way, based on their own merits, not on the legislation they are tied to, to carry them through the legislative process. I think attaching nondefense-related legislation to the Defense Appropriations Act for this fiscal year has been a mistake. It has been unnecessary, unfortunate, and it has resulted in delays and uncertainty. I am sure there are Senators who can make suggestions for improving this bill. We are open to hear those concerns and do our best to respond to the suggestions from all Senators. We don't individually support all aspects of the agreement, but we think that, in total, it is a good bill. It ought to be passed, and it ought to be passed as soon as possible in recognition of our respect for our service members and their families.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the legislation that we are discussing today, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, could have a profound impact on the United States for decades to come. I am especially concerned about the tax implications of the legislation. We need to take a thorough look at these tax provisions before approving this legislation. It is plain to see that if you have insurance, you get taxed; if you don't have insurance, you get taxed; if you need prescription drugs, you get taxed; if you need a medical device, you get taxed; if you have high out-of-pocket health expenses, you get taxed. Everyone gets taxed under this proposal. This legislation also changes the core principle of Social Security and Medicare financing, a model called ``social insurance.'' Since Social Security was created in the 1930s and the Medicare Program in 1965, payroll tax revenues have been dedicated to financing these programs. In current tax law, all funding from the Medicare payroll tax finances the Medicare Program. This legislation proposes to increase the hospital insurance portion of the payroll tax on wages from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent and uses the revenues to fund programs outside of Medicare. If this proposal becomes law, future Congresses will have the ability to take payroll tax revenues and use them for highways or defense or other nonsocial insurance spending. This will be a serious precedent, a long-term game-changer in how we finance our government, and I do not think it is wise to do this today. Additionally, individuals who fail to maintain government-approved health insurance coverage would be subject to a penalty of up to $2,250 in 2016. This individual mandate tax is regressive and will largely be strapped on the backs of those who can least afford such a penalty. Analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation reveals that while a relatively small group of middle-class individuals, families, and single parents may benefit under this bill, a much larger group of middle-class individuals, families and single parents will be disadvantaged. According to the analysis by the Joint Committee on Tax, this legislation increases taxes by a 3 to 1 ratio on people making less than $200,000 a year, in other words for every one individual or family that gets the tax credit, three middle-income individuals and families are taxed. Roughly 42 million individuals and families, or 25 percent of all tax returns under $200,000 will, on average, pay higher taxes under this bill, even with the tax credits factored in. There are only about 17,000 Mississippi tax filers who earn more than $200,000, so we are looking at over 2.5 million people who earn less than $200,000 and could easily be forced to pay higher taxes. This legislation will affect a large majority of our tax base. Tax spending as proposed in the legislation before us provides credits for health insurance to individuals and families between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level, FPL. For example, a family at 100 percent of the Federal poverty level can pay no more than 2 percent of their income on premiums, and the government would pick up the rest of the cost. Although this furthers the goal of trying to get everyone insured, only 7 percent of Americans will be eligible for a tax credit and 91 percent of Americans will experience an increase in taxes. This hardly seems like a solution. The health care industry, including many small businesses in my state, would be subject to fees imposed by this legislation. Health insurance companies that administer a self-insured policy on behalf of employers would be subject to fees imposed on the industry. This $6.7 billion annual fee will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers. This legislation imposes a nondeductible $2.3 billion fee on manufacturers of prescription drugs, which is an example of yet another fee that will be passed on to consumers. Medical device manufacturers will be on the hook for $2 billion in annual fees. Again, this will be passed on to consumers. Of additional concern is the ``free-rider'' penalty for employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance coverage. These employers would be required to pay a fee for each employee. Businesses that pay any amount greater than $600 to corporate providers of services would have to file an information report with the IRS, adding further regulatory burdens on business and on an agency that does not traditionally deal in health care. According to a recent study, taxes in this proposal will place approximately 5.2 million low-income workers at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced. An additional 10.2 million workers could see lower wages and reduced benefits. Why would we want to put people at risk of losing their jobs? A small business owner in my State told me that 8 percent of his income goes to pay for health insurance for his employees. If this amount is increased, he will be forced to reduce the size of his staff. Why would we want to hurt small businesses at a time like this? We all remember President Obama's campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year. The Joint Committee on Taxation conducted an analysis that shows that in 2019-- when the bill is in full effect--on average individuals making over $50,000 and families making over $75,000 would have seen their taxes go up under this legislation. In other words, 42 million individuals and families earning less than $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Arguably millions more middle-class families and individuals could be hit with a tax increase from the health care industry ``fees'' or taxes proposed. According to testimony of the Congressional Budget Office before the Senate Finance Committee, these fees would be passed through to health care consumers and would increase health insurance premiums and prices for health care-related products. If the President signs this legislation in its current form, he would break his pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. My distinguished friend from Idaho, Senator Crapo, offered an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee markup providing that ``no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.'' The amendment was rejected. Small businesses in my State do not support this legislation. With unemployment at a 26-year high and small business owners struggling to simply keep their doors open, this kind of reform is not what we need to encourage small businesses to thrive. Small businesses need reform that will lower insurance costs. They need a bill that will decrease the overall cost of doing business. If a bill increases the cost of doing business or fails to reduce costs, then the bill fails to meet its intended goal of reigning in health care costs. I would submit that the bill fails to lower national health expenditures; it fails to lower the amount of money the federal government spends on health care; and it does not bend the cost curve of rapidly increasing national health care costs. If we were running a large company, this would be an unsuccessful business proposal. In Mississippi, we could insure a majority of the uninsured if we enrolled all eligible children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program: If more small businesses offered health insurance, and if people who could afford health insurance purchased health insurance, this would be reform. Mr. President, I would like to see our Nation's health system reformed, but these reforms cannot be on the backs of individuals and businesses that we need to succeed. Reform should not add to the already high costs of doing business.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have heard this described as a historic moment. My friend from Iowa, Mr. Harkin--we have served together on the Agriculture Committee and have worked closely on appropriations and other issues--he has described this as a ``historic moment.'' I think we can all agree on that, but that is about all we do agree on in regards to this issue. I think we just have to come out and say it: This Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is controversial. It sounds like it is just what the doctor ordered, until you look at it closely. If you look at it closely, doctors are not favorably impressed with it. Neither are the taxpayers, especially those who earn less than $200,000 a year, they are not impressed with it. Another issue that is troubling is Senator Dorgan's amendment on the reimportation of drugs. The Food and Drug Administration has concerns about the safety of the reimportation of drugs. If the Senate tries to ignore these and other serious concerns about the bill before the Senate, it will be an act of hope over reality. It will be an act which this Senator cannot support.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, in the coming weeks and months, the Senate is scheduled to complete action on bills that will have a profound impact on Federal spending for many years to come. I rise to express my concerns about the manner in which new spending is being proposed in that legislation. Congress has sent 5 of the 12 annual appropriations bills to the President for his signature. Four other bills are in conference with the House. The Senate has not yet acted upon the three remaining bills under our jurisdiction. Last year, Congress completely abandoned the appropriations process. The year before that, only a few bills were acted upon by the Senate before all of the bills but one were bundled into an omnibus bill and sent to the President. Thus far this year, we have not been able to complete action on all 12 appropriations bills, but we have made significant progress. The Senate has debated a stand-alone Agriculture appropriations bill and an Interior appropriations bill for the first time in 4 years. Ideally, these bills should be subjected to the scrutiny of the full Senate every year. This year, there have been hearings in each subcommittee, and the bills have been subjected to subcommittee and full committee markups. We have tried to get the bills to the floor individually so all Senators have an opportunity to offer amendments, and so we can avoid the necessity of grouping the bills into an omnibus bill. The chairman, who is the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, deserves the credit for these improvements. All Senators on the committee have cooperated, though. Despite the many difficulties associated with enacting the appropriations bills, the process compels us to hear testimony, analyze programs, and consider funding needs and priorities on an annual basis. It is not always a smooth or easy process, but it has the benefit of compelling us to continually reevaluate the level of Federal spending. That is not the case when we create long-term or permanent mandatory spending programs. I don't mean to criticize the oversight of the authorizing committees. Many of them do excellent work in this regard, holding agencies and funding recipients accountable for their management decisions. But once a funding stream is made mandatory, it is difficult to reduce or cut off the spending or to use the leverage of future funding to motivate more efficient management of Federal programs or activities. One of the justifications often cited for creating mandatory spending programs is that the funding recipients need predictability to properly and efficiently manage programs. While there may be some truth to this, in itself it is not a sufficient reason to make a new program mandatory or to change an existing program from discretionary to mandatory. If increased predictability is the goal, Congress should make greater efforts to get the annual appropriations bills done as close to on time as possible and in an open and orderly fashion that allows scrutiny of the proposed spending. Failure to process the appropriations bills in this manner has the effect of driving interest groups to seek the predictability of long- term mandatory funding streams. In effect, we create a situation whereby Congress must take proactive steps to reduce or eliminate spending as opposed to proactive steps to continue spending. As a general matter, we should be very careful about moving programs in that direction, in my opinion. As I look at the major legislation that Congress is slated to consider over the coming months, I am greatly concerned. Of most immediate concern is the health care bill on which we will soon begin debate. The bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee creates new programs with direct appropriations that should be funded or not funded through the annual appropriations process. There are mandatory programs for maternal, infant, and early childhood home visitation and for personal responsibility education for adulthood training. There are grants for school-based health centers, a demonstration program for emergency psychiatric care, and a demonstration program to address the health profession's workforce needs. A previously authorized childhood obesity program is directly funded with a mandatory appropriation. Many of these programs are funded for only a few years, just enough time to get funding recipients invested in the program, after which expectations will be overwhelming that the programs be continued with annual appropriations. As ranking member on the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, I might be inclined to support funding some of them, but beginning new programs with short-term, mandatory funding is a recipe for trouble. It results in hiding the long-term costs of these programs and provides no opportunity upfront to consider tradeoffs between the new programs and existing programs. The health care bill reported by the HELP Committee includes a new prevention and public health fund to support an ``expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs.'' That is a quote from the bill. The bill appropriates $2 billion for this purpose in fiscal year 2010 alone and increases that amount to $10 billion by fiscal year 2014 and thereafter. This has long been a priority of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. To the committee's credit, the bill provides some latitude for the Appropriations Committee to allocate funds among various prevention and wellness programs in the outyears. At its heart, however, this provision implies that we know today what the appropriate Federal investment for wellness programs will be 10 or 20 years from now. I just don't think that is plausible. If prevention and wellness programs are that important, let's call up the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill and either increase the size of the bill or reallocate money within the bill to support wellness programs. When the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process begins, let's analyze how those programs are working and consider, once again, the appropriate funding levels for the coming year. Beyond the health care bill, there is legislation to address global climate change. Here, again, we face the prospect of massive new annual Federal expenditures being established on a mandatory basis, effectively being put on autopilot right from the beginning. While nobody knows the value of the carbon allowances that would be auctioned under some climate bills, it is clear that tens of billions of dollars from such auctions would be plowed directly back into an array of programs administered by Federal, State, and local government agencies. Some of the programs have a more obvious relationship to climate change than others. Just to list a few, the Senate-reported bill directly funds clean vehicle technology, building retrofits, advanced energy research, nuclear worker training, coastal preservation, and Federal land acquisition. Many programs that would be funded by this bill are identical or similar to programs already funded in annual appropriations bills. Others are entirely new. Are we truly confident in the year 2016 it will be prudent to spend 4.3 percent of an unknowable amount of auction revenues on international deforestation efforts? Are we sure that in the year 2030 we should be spending .74 percent of auction proceeds on worker assistance programs? Congress should protect its ability to reconsider support or opposition to such spending annually, or at least periodically, based on program performance and our current national interests. What about funding of Federal land acquisition? I have supported some Federal land acquisitions in my State of Mississippi, sometimes to incorporate important resources into our National Park System, sometimes to preserve sensitive habitats by including them in our national wildlife refuge system or in our national forests. I have had other Senators request specifically that we not approve the Federal acquisition of a particular piece of property. This has been a particularly sensitive issue for our western colleagues, particularly in whose States Federal land ownership is already extensive. Yet in the climate bill, we are being asked to allocate funding to the executive branch on a long-term basis for unspecified Federal land acquisition projects, all with no apparent mechanism for congressional oversight. Are any Senators really comfortable with that arrangement? This is just one example of why Congress should consider programs on an annual basis through an open process rather than putting programs on autopilot and then struggling against the tide of entrenched interests to react when things do not go as expected. In July, the House passed an education bill, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. The bill terminates the programs that authorized private lenders to make federally guaranteed loans to students and provides that future student loans will be provided only through direct Federal loans from the U.S. Department of Education. My concern with this is that the House-passed bill establishes a number of new mandatory education programs and expands several existing programs with mandatory funding streams. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House-passed bill would reduce mandatory spending by $87 billion over the next decade. But the House bill directly spends all but $8 billion of that amount on new and expanded programs. It directly funds a new college access and completion innovation fund. It establishes mandatory funding streams for school modernization, renovation, and repair, including a program of supplemental grants for States along the gulf coast. It establishes mandatory programs for early childhood education and for reforming community colleges and improving training for workforce development. In many cases, these are new programs. In some cases, the mandatory amounts are meant to supplement funding currently provided through annual appropriations. Regardless of the merits of these programs, the fact remains that we are faced with a debt problem of huge proportions. We have now closed the books on fiscal year 2009, finishing the year with a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. We began fiscal year 2010 with a deficit of $176 billion for the month of October. Our national debt has hit $12 trillion, and soon Congress will have to act to raise the Federal debt ceiling again. President Obama's own budget, optimistic in many respects, forecasts that our national debt will be rising to 66 percent of the gross domestic product by 2013. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts debt reaching 87 percent of GDP in 2020 and increasing thereafter to even more alarming levels. Given this set of facts, is it responsible to enact a bill that is expected to produce--not guaranteed to produce but expected to produce--a savings of $87 billion in mandatory spending but then in the same legislation spends all but $8 billion of that anticipated savings on new programs or expansions of existing programs that could just as well be achieved through the annual appropriations process? Is it responsible to advance a climate bill that spends tens of billions of dollars on new mandatory programs and to allocate funding among those programs for decades into the future when we have no ability to judge whether those programs are needed or effective or what different programs might be necessary depending on how climate legislation would affect our economy, our workforce, and our environment? Can we afford to enact a health care bill that is long on new costly mandatory programs but short on cost savings that we all know must be found within our health care system? Certainly, there are situations where mandatory funding is an appropriate mechanism to deliver government services. In cases where our goal is to provide a service to a certain group of eligible people, regardless of how many people may be eligible in a given year, a mandatory appropriation may be the most efficient means of achieving that goal. Given our Nation's fiscal situation, however, it seems to me we should strongly favor a procedure that requires Congress to consider programmatic spending every year. This is the very principle stated in paragraph 13 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. This is not a question of which committee has the power over the purse. It is a question of whether Congress will maintain the power over the purse and deliberately exercise it. Every year in appropriations bills, programs are terminated, reduced, or expanded based on performance and the availability of resources, pursuant to the budget resolution. Interest groups and program beneficiaries are required to give us their views annually. The competition for available dollars is intense. But so what? Whether it is health care, climate change, education, or other legislation, Congress should be very cautious about establishing new, long-term, mandatory funding streams because it fundamentally weakens our ability to control Federal spending at a time when we greatly need to exercise that control. I hope my colleagues will keep this in mind as we proceed with the business before us.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, on behalf of several Senators on this side of the aisle, I object.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Dr. James R. Houston of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will soon retire with over 38 years of service. He is a member of the Senior Executive Service, SES, and is the First Director of the Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC. His accomplishments and dedication to the Corps of Engineers' laboratory community and the Army are exceptional and will have a significant and long-lasting positive impact on this Nation. After serving as a private in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dr. Houston began his Army civilian career as a physicist studying explosion-generated wave effects at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, WES, in Vicksburg, MS. At WES he calculated harbor oscillations and devised a numerical model to determine the inundation limits of tsunamis in the Hawaiian Islands. In 1978, he earned his Ph.D. from the University of Florida and in 1981 received an Army R&D Achievement Award for improved methods for numerically simulating tsunami propagation and interaction with nearshore regions. In 1983 he was promoted to chief of the research division in the Coastal Engineering Research Center where he researched numerical modeling of coastal processes and tsunami flood level predictions. In 1986 he became the SES director of the Coastal Engineering Research Center, CERC, and with the combining of CERC and the Hydraulics Laboratory in 1997, he became the director of the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, CHL. In these assignments, he oversaw research programs in coastal and hydraulic engineering, oceanography, coastal geology, dredging, and numerical modeling of hydrodynamics and sediment transport. Under his leadership, CHL became the largest coastal and hydraulics engineering laboratory in the world. In 2000 he became the first director of ERDC and in 2006 became dual- hatted as the Director of Research and Development and Chief Scientist of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In that latter capacity he advised the Commanding General of the Corps on matters of science and technology and developed research and development policy for the Corps. The ERDC research that he led has made an enormous difference in the global war on terrorism, GWOT. He led ERDC to be the 2002 Army Research and Development Organization of the Year in recognition of successful modeling of the physics of blast/structure interaction and development of structural-hardening technology for retrofitting buildings to withstand terrorist attacks. The Pentagon wedge that was hit on September 11 had just been structurally hardened using this technology, and ERDC's technology was credited with saving hundreds of lives on that tragic day. As a result of his support of GWOT, the Secretary of the Army awarded him the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service, and the U.S. Army Engineer Regiment awarded him both its Bronze and Silver deFleury medals. Under his leadership, ERDC won the Army Research and Development Organization of the Year five times: 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009. This is an unprecedented performance accomplishment in the history of the Army's laboratory of the year competition. Dr. Houston led countless water resources research efforts such as that for the Los Angeles County flood-control project that produced savings of over $200 million. In 2004, the ERDC won the prestigious White House Closing-the-Circle Award for research on environmental stewardship. Under his leadership, the ERDC developed integrated biological, chemical, and ecological control technologies to combat nonindigenous aquatic plants, resulting in annual savings of $50 million. Dr. Houston has been a champion for outreach programs to foster a diverse workforce and supported educational outreach activities in civil engineering, environmental quality, and computer science. He provided research experience for college students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions, HBCU/MI. During his tenure ERDC annually led the Army in meeting its HBCU/MI contracting goal. He has published over 130 technical reports and papers, and he has received numerous honors and awards including Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Kappa Phi; SES Distinguished Presidential Rank Award; two SES Meritorious Presidential Rank Awards; Army R&D Achievement Award; Army Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service; Army Commendation Medal; two Army Meritorious Civilian Service Awards; Silver Order of de Fleury Medal; Bronze Order of de Fleury Medal; Eminent Speaker for 1993 from the Institution of Engineers, Australia; 1997 National Beach Advocacy Award; and the 2003 Morrough P. O'Brien Award from the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Dr. Houston's career with the Corps of Engineers has been marked with unprecedented accomplishments and is a superb legacy. His exceptional leadership qualities and technical eminence are in the best tradition of the Corps. He is a consummate professional whose performance in over 38 years of service has personified those traits of competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect of its senior civilian leaders. We wish him and his family all the best.