Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to honor all our military families by introducing a Resolution to designate November as National Military Family Month. As we all know, memories fade and the hardships experienced by our military families are easily forgotten unless they touch our own immediate family. Today, we have our men and women deployed all over the world, engaged in this war on terrorism. These far-ranging military deployments are extremely difficult on the families who bear this heavy burden. To honor these families, the Armed Services YMCA has sponsored Military Family Week in late November since 1996. However, due to frequent ``short week'' conflicts around the Thanksgiving holidays, the designated week has not always afforded enough time to schedule observances on and near our military bases. I believe a month long observation will allow greater opportunity to plan events. Moreover, it will provide a greater opportunity to stimulate media support. This resolution will help pave the way for this effort. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to our military families.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today the Senate will consider a 73-day continuing resolution, which will fund the government through March 4 of next year. This is a clean CR that is $1 billion above the spending level for fiscal year 2010. It meets the most basic needs of the Federal Government, and will allow Congress the time necessary to reconsider a funding bill next year. Most importantly, this temporary funding measure will avoid a government shutdown, which would be a terrible thing for the American people. That is the last thing any responsible Member of this body should wish for. As I have previously stated, it is deeply unfortunate that we were unable to take up and pass the omnibus bill. An omnibus, as opposed to a CR, assumed responsibility for the spending decisions that are the most basic responsibility of Congress. I regret that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of whom helped to craft the omnibus, failed to support it in the end. It was a far superior alternative to this short-term CR. The omnibus better protected our national security and would have brought a responsible conclusion to the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process. The CR we have before us allows for a limited number of adjustments for programs that would lose either their funding or their authorization between now and March 4. The CR will also prevent the layoff of thousands of Federal workers and contractors during the holiday season. When the 112th Congress convenes in January, I hope the Senate and the House will find a way to move forward in a responsible manner to conclude work on the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process. To do so, we will require a good-faith effort from Members of both parties to reach reasonable compromises on a range of issues. I hope that despite the current political environment, we can find a way to work together to fund critical priorities that will strengthen our economy and protect our Nation's security. That is what the American people expect of us, and they deserve no less. But for now, I urge my colleagues to support this 10-week continuing resolution. Cloture Motion

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, Last evening the Senate made a regrettable decision to defer action on completing its work on the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations bills. I shouldn't have to remind anyone that we are in mid-December, 1 week before Christmas, nearly 3 months into the fiscal year. Yet because our Republican colleagues have decided that they cannot support a bill that they helped craft, we now face placing the Federal Government on autopilot for another 2 months under a continuing resolution--a CR. My colleagues should all understand the consequences of this decision. First, a CR does virtually nothing to accommodate the priorities of the Congress and it abdicates responsibility for providing much needed oversight of the requests of the executive branch. Each year, the Senate Appropriations subcommittees conduct hundreds of hearings to review the budgets of our government agencies. Our committee members and staffs conduct thousands of meetings with officials from the executive branch, our States and municipalities, leaders and workers from American companies, and the general public. The committee relies heavily on the work of the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office and outside experts to determine spending needs. Tens of thousands of questions are forwarded each year to officials in the executive branch asking them to justify the funding requested for each respective agency. It is painstaking, detailed work. It requires great knowledge of each of our Federal agencies, a desire to dig into the nitty gritty details of agency budgets and question the programs and functions they manage. This annual review is conducted in a bi-partisan fashion with Democratic and Republican Members and staff working in close cooperation to determine how our taxpayer funds should best be allocated. These meetings, reviews, questions, and deliberations together led to the formulation of 12 individual Appropriations bills. Each bill is drafted by the subcommittee chairman and ranking Member in concert, marked up by it subcommittee, and then reviewed, debated, and amended by the full committee. A year's worth of work came down to a choice. Would the Senate acquiesce in providing a bare bones approach to governing or would it insist upon allocating funding by agency and by program with thousands of adjustments that are the result of the good work of the House and Senate Appropriations committees? To me, the answer was obvious. Nothing good comes from a CR. The Congress owes it to the American people to demand that programs funded by their hard-earned money will be for the best purposes we can recommend based on the countless hours of work of our committees and their staff. Some will point out that a continuing resolution will result in fewer dollars being spent. That is technically correct. A CR will include less spending than was included in the omnibus, but like the old saying goes--you get what you pay for. The savings in the continuing resolution come primarily by shortchanging national defense and security. Under the CR, the total allocated to the Defense subcommittee for discretionary spending is $508 billion. Under the omnibus bill the total is $520.6 billion. So, more than half of the so-called savings is really additional cuts to the Defense Department. For Homeland Security the CR would cut nearly $800 million from the omnibus measure. In fact, if we look at the funding for all security programs in the bill, more than $15 billion in cuts come from this sector. Surely we could have all agreed that we shouldn't be determining our national defense and security funding on the fact that Congress was unable to finish its work. Who among us really believes we should base our recommendations for defense, homeland security, and veterans on whatever level was needed last year? This is no way to run a government. The United States of America is not a second-rate nation, and we should not govern ourselves as if she is second rate. The continuing resolution by design mandates that programs are to be held at the amounts provided last year, regardless of merit or need. Moreover, in the vacuum this creates, it is left to the bureaucrats to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated, not elected representatives. At this juncture, may I suggest that I believe we who represent our States know more about our States than these bureaucrats. I do not believe the people of Hawaii elected me to serve in the Senate as a rubberstamp. The alternative I offered was a product of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. It represented a good-faith effort to fund many of the priorities of the administration, while ensuring that it is the Congress that determines how the people's money will be spent. While the omnibus bill we drafted provided more funding than the CR, it is by no means the amount sought by the administration. Earlier this year, more than half of this body voted to limit discretionary spending to the so- called Sessions-McCaskill level, which in total is $29 billion below the cost of the budget requested by the Obama administration. The Appropriations Committee responded to the will of the majority of the Senate and adopted this ceiling on spending. Moreover, we did not use any gimmicks or tricks to hit this target. Instead, each of our subcommittees was directed to take another look at the funds they were recommending and provide additional cuts. Each was tasked to identify unneeded prior-year funds and to use those to achieve this reduced level. And it was not easy, sir. Many worthwhile programs were cut, but we reduced the bills reported from the committee by $15 billion--enough to reach the Sessions-McCaskill level while still fully funding and paying for Pell grants and covering all CBO scoring changes. The administration's top priorities have received funding but not always at the level sought. Congressional priorities were cut back. Essential needs were met, but there were no frills. For many Members, this debate focused on what we call earmarks. Here, too, the Congress tightened its belt. As defined by Senate rules, we reduced our spending that was provided in fiscal year 2010 by nearly 35 percent. Less than $8 billion was recommended in the omnibus bill for congressionally directed spending programs as compared to more than $12 billion last year. My colleagues should be advised that since 2006, the Congress has reduced spending on earmarks by just about 75 percent. In total, the omnibus bill recommended less than three-quarters of 1 percent of discretionary funding on the so-called earmarks. A tiny fraction of funds are provided so all of you can support the needs of your constituents which are not funded by the administration. We have all heard those who say this election was about earmarks. Nothing could be further from the truth. This election was not about earmarks. My colleagues who went home and reminded the voters what they had done for them--yes, with earmarks--are returning to the Senate. If this election was about public distaste for earmarks, why did I receive a higher percentage of votes than any other Member of this body who had an opponent? Why is it that virtually all of my colleagues who took credit for earmarks will be coming back next year? This election was about gridlock and partisan gamesmanship. And what we saw in the past 24 hours is more of the same--endless delaying tactics, followed by decisionmaking by partisan point-scoring rather than what is good for our Nation. Some of our colleagues have suggested that since this bill is 2,000 pages long, it is obviously too big. But as we all know, this is not 1 bill; it is 12 bills, funding all government agencies. Of course it is 2,000 pages long. It is simply not rational to object to a bill because of its length. And that is nonsense. Too often, our debates in the Senate focus on mind-numbing budget totals that are hard to grapple with. But when the CR is $15 billion to $20 billion below the omnibus, it is not just a number; it is specific programs that will be cut or eliminated. When we point out that congressional priorities were curtailed, these are real programs that impact the lives of millions of Americans. When we are talking about a bill as large as the omnibus, we are talking about thousands of such programs. For example, in the Defense Subcommittee, we prioritized the purchase of more helicopters to move about the rough terrain in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that there are thousands of men and women--American men and women--in uniform, putting themselves in harm's way, sometimes being injured or killed. These funds were not requested in the Pentagon's budget but were identified as a need by field commanders. So the committee justifiably appropriated more than $900 million to buy new helicopters. This will be lost from the bill when we vote for a CR instead of the omnibus. We added $228 million to test and procure the new double-V hull improvements to Stryker armored vehicles, which will dramatically improve soldiers' protection. These were not included in the President's request. To support our wounded warriors, we added $100 million for lifesaving medical research in psychological health and traumatic brain injury. Under the CR, funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which secures nuclear weapons and materials in Russia, would be reduced by $100 million. There are hundreds of additional examples which could be described in defense alone, from breast cancer research to additional F-18 jets for the Navy which they have declared to be essential. But it is not just defense that will be impacted. Similar issues will be found in every agency. It is evident, for example, that the threat to the security of the United States evolves every day. As evidenced by the growth of homegrown terrorism, such as the Times Square bomber, the New York subway plot, the Fort Hood shooting, and the recent efforts to blow up aircraft over the United States; whether the Christmas Day bombing attempt or the recent attempt to blow up all-cargo planes, it is critical that careful decisions be made on the allocation of resources to the Department of Homeland Security. But a continuing resolution would not provide the Transportation Security Administration with the resources necessary to enhance our defenses against terrorist attacks, such as Northwest flight 253 and the recent attempts against all-cargo aircraft. This omnibus bill provides $375 million above the continuing resolution for TSA to acquire 800 explosives trace detection units, 275 additional canine teams, hire 31 additional intelligence officers, and strengthen our international aviation security. This omnibus bill provides $52 million above the continuing resolution to deploy radiation portal monitors where vulnerabilities exist, such as airports and seaports, and for radiation-detection pagers and backpacks used to detect and identify nuclear materials. Because we have chosen not to enact an omnibus, we will miss an opportunity to address cyber security at the Department of Transportation. The Department recently assessed the security of its computer systems and found it sorely lacking. Security gaps at the Department are putting at risk computer systems that manage our air traffic and monitor our national infrastructure. The Department requested $30 million for fiscal year 2011 to fix this problem as soon as possible. An omnibus appropriations bill would have provided this funding, but a CR will do nothing to address this urgent problem. Not passing this omnibus would halt new national security enhancements intended to improve the FBI's cyber security, weapons of mass destruction, and counterterrorism capabilities and assist in litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases. The FBI will not be able to hire 126 new agents and 32 intelligence analysts to strengthen national security. The omnibus was better for our brave men and women who work as members of law enforcement to make our streets and the everyday lives of our constituents safer. Without an omnibus, the Department of Justice will not be able to hire 143 new FBI agents and 157 new prosecutors for U.S. attorneys to target mortgage and financial fraud scammers and schemers who prey on America's hard-working middle-class families and devastated our communities and economy. When it comes to the health and well-being of our constituents, it is clear that passing an omnibus is just better policy. Again, we are talking about redirecting our resources to address today's needs, not last year's needs. Specifically, the omnibus bill included $142 million in vital program increases for the Indian Health Service that are not in the CR, which includes $44 million for the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, which provides additional assistance to the neediest tribes; an additional $46 million for Contract Health Services; an additional $40 million for contract support costs, as well as support for new initiatives in drug prevention, chronic diseases prevention, and assistance for urban Indian clinics. This omnibus bill would continue the strides that have been made in the recent past to significantly increase funding for the Indian Health Service and thereby provide more and better medical care for our Native Americans and Alaska Natives. But this CR will bring that to a close. There are hundreds more examples of what will not be done because the Congress will not pass this bill. However, because the CR turns over decisionmaking to the executive branch, we cannot even tell this body all the things the bureaucrats will not do that are important to Members of the Congress and to our constituents. The bill I would have brought to the Senate represented a clear and far superior alternative. It better protected our national security. It ensured that the Congress determines how our citizens' funds will be allocated, as stipulated in our Constitution. It was written in coordination with Senate Republican Members. It was not a perfect document. It represented a lot of compromises. It made $29 billion in reductions from the President's program. But it was a good bill which ensured the programs important to the American people will be funded. It assumed responsibility for spending decisions that I believe are rightfully the duty of the Congress. We find ourselves where we are today because we were unable to get this message across. In many respects it was a failure of communication. We were never able to adequately explain to everyone what the good things in this bill would have accomplished. So instead we are now faced with placing the government on autopilot. Our Republican colleagues will allow the administration to determine how to spend funds for another 2 months rather than letting the Congress decide. In the 2 months, we will very likely find ourselves having to pass another 2,000-page bill that will cost more than $1 trillion or, once again, abdicating our authority to the administration to determine how taxpayer funds should be spent. I wish there were a better way, but the decision by our colleagues on the other side who helped craft this bill has left us with no choice. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand the importance of this matter to the Senators from Montana, and indeed all Americans. As long as the Secretary complies with the authorizing statutes, then I concur that conservation measures at Glacier-Waterton International Peace Park are a suitable use for the funding collected through the recreation enhancement fee program.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on the absurd premise that the unemployment insurance benefits piece alone must be paid for, lest we contribute to the deficit. Never mind that this entire package contributes $858 billion to the deficit, of which only $51 billion is accounted for by the UI extension provision. It is clear that this amendment is not about deficit reduction; rather, it is about attacking programs that make a real difference to the everyday lives of our constituents. Meanwhile, this amendment leaves the tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans, those who need the least assistance, completely intact. Let me be clear. There are a few ideas proposed in this amendment that make some sense. However, as part of the Appropriations Committee's annual and ongoing oversight responsibilities, the committee has already rescinded unobligated balances from those programs or reduced their funding for fiscal year 2011 as part of the fiscal year 2011 omnibus, which the Senate will consider this week. Every recommendation in the omnibus was made in collaboration with Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, based on a detailed analysis. These decisions were not made rashly, nor because they might sound good in a press release. Too often when the Senate debates cuts in unobligated balances, the proponents want to ignore the consequences of their recommendations and focus on broad generalizations. But in reality these cuts can cause serious problems. Accordingly, let me highlight the impact of a few of the programmatic cuts proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma. For example, this amendment would require each Department to cut its workforce by 10 percent over 10 years, without considering the impact of the cuts. It seems as though Federal workers have become the newest punching bag for a few of our colleagues. FDA staff, necessary to ensure that the food we eat and the drugs we take are safe and effective, would be cut by nearly 1,000. The staff of the Food Safety and Inspection Service would be cut by an additional 1,000. These cuts are irresponsible and would put the American public at unnecessary risk at a time of breakthrough medical research when important new drugs are being produced and must be monitored. When more of our food supply is coming from around the world, preventing contamination is more important than ever. More than 95 percent of the 280,000 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs either work for the Veterans Health Administration or the Veterans Benefits Administration. To reduce the VA's overall employees by 28,000 over 10 years would mean that doctors, dentists, hospital administrators, and benefits claims processors would have to be reduced. As more and more of our veterans are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be cutting their service providers. This amendment would require a reduction of 600 to 800 Government Accountability Office staff, as well as a reduction in travel that is necessary for the GAO to conduct audits and evaluations. Travel is critical to GAO's ability to meet the requirements of Congress. Rescinding funds from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals will not prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, cutting funding for these agencies means cutting agents who are serving on the front lines keeping our Nation safe from terrorist threats and cyber attacks, reducing the flow of drugs, and combating gun-related violence along the southwest border, strengthening immigration enforcement, and keeping children safe from sexual predators. That is the real impact of this proposal. The 15-percent budget cut to the Executive Office of the President might sound reasonable, but it would cut key staff of the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council. This would severely hamper the President's ability to coordinate critical economic security and national security programs across the entire Federal Government. It would be particularly devastating considering that the rest of the Federal Government would also be shedding a significant number of staff under the Coburn amendment, leaving agencies currently managing the economic crisis and our national and homeland security programs not only short-staffed but also in chaos due to minimized leadership. The Coburn amendment also would eliminate the State grant for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The Congressional Budget Office has previously recommended this action. However, this suggestion comes a year too late. The Committee on Appropriations removed $295 million in funding for the State formula grant funding from the 2010 appropriations bill. There is no funding for the State grants program in the 2011 bill. The Appropriations Committee has already made this cut. The Coburn amendment would also rescind $4 billion in fiscal year 2011 for U.S. development and humanitarian programs in the world's poorest countries, from Haiti to Afghanistan. This would cut funding for programs for refugees and victims of natural disasters from Darfur to Pakistan; it would affect global health programs including HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment that mean life or death for millions of people; and it would weaken programs to support food security and nutrition, clean water, sanitation, and basic education, and to combat human trafficking, in countries where 95 percent of new births are occurring and over 2 billion people barely survive on less than $2 per day. The short-term effects of such a reduction in funding would be severe, the long-term effects would be devastating, and ultimately it would exacerbate global problems that directly affect U.S. security. The amendment proposes to rescind funds focused on returning contaminated sites to productive use. The Brownfields Program has a track record of successfully restoring damaged properties--often in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods--to sources of economic growth, creating jobs for lower income people in the process. Many of our cities are among those communities hardest hit by the economic recession. Now is not the time to stall the cleanup of brownfields. This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Army in consultation with other Federal agencies to determine the definition of ``low priority'' Army Corps projects. This appears to be code for those projects not requested in the President's budget. Since when has the administration been the only source of wisdom for determining funding decisions? If there is surplus funding available, we should ask the Corps to identify those funds and propose them for rescission. However, it would become quickly apparent that this strategy is penny wise and pound foolish. These are all ongoing projects, previously funded by this or prior Congresses. It would not make economic sense to stop these projects. Demobilization costs and costs to make these construction sites safe for the public could end up costing more than continuing the projects. These are just a few examples of the damage that would be done if this reckless amendment was actually agreed to. But I would conclude by saying that every Member of this Chamber who supports the tax cut deal should vote against the amendment being offered by the Senator from Oklahoma for the simple reason that it seeks to change the tax package, which reflects an agreement between the Republican leader and the President of the United States. The Republican leadership signed off on this deal because many of the provisions they wanted were included in exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment insurance benefits with no offset. I would certainly hope that they will stand by their agreement. Mr. President, this amendment would do serious damage to many necessary government programs. Unobligated does not mean excess or unnecessary. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Coburn amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following statement in explanation of the Inouye amendment to the House amendment to the bill H.R. 3082, the Continuing Appropriations Act.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the need to transition the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse--APRN--programs at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences--USUHS--to the Doctorate of Nursing Practice. It was my hope to establish a program to educate advanced practice nurses at USUHS and in 1993 Congress founded the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Graduate School of Nursing, GSN. Doctoral nursing programs are designed to prepare advanced practice nurses and Ph.D.s for the unique challenges of military health care. The GSN students explore the fields of nursing through a signature blend of science, research, and field training. The lessons learned on the USU campus and beyond the traditional classroom prepare the GSN graduates to take on a diverse range of challenges that have led to their success in any environment. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing--AACN--Position Statement on the Doctorate of Nursing Practice, DNP, dated October 2004, identified 13 advanced practice degree recommendations in response to the increasing complexity of healthcare and rising patient acuities. In recommendation 10 of its position statement, the AACN stated, ``the practice doctorate be the graduate degree for advanced nursing practice preparation including, but not limited, to the four current APRN roles: clinical nurse specialist, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife and nurse practitioner.'' Additionally, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Council on Accreditation have stated that APRN programs should be converted from the master's degree to Doctorate of Nursing Practice programs by 2015 and 2025, respectively. These endorsements were preceded by almost 4 years of research and consensus- building by an AACN task force charged with examining the need for the practice doctorate with a variety of stakeholder groups. Of the 388 APRN programs in the country, 72 percent are offering or planning DNP programs. To maintain professional standards for military APRNs and remain competitive for high quality students, the Graduate School of Nursing at USUHS must transition to the DNP for its APRN programs. A report is requested from USUHS, within 180 days, outlining the GSN's progress toward DNP program transition and planned implementation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the amendment offered today by Senator Johanns proposes to rescind unobligated balances of appropriated funds that are designated for specific purposes in various appropriations bills previously enacted by Congress. The Senator offers these rescissions in order to offset the loss of revenues resulting from his amendment. Much like similar amendments offered in the past, this amendment simply provides for a generic rescission of funds, with the authority and decision-making for which programs are impacted delegated entirely to the executive branch. Consideration of this amendment is the first of two attempts this evening to shift the power of and responsibility for the Nation's purse strings from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Rescinding funds in this manner, should this amendment be adopted, may be politically expedient because it simply cites a dollar figure, but it is also reckless and irresponsible, and hides the accountability for future actions when legitimate programs are shut down. Mr. President, we should make no mistake about it, an across the board cut is the legislative equivalent of performing surgery with a meat cleaver, and Senators would be right to reject the amendment for this reason alone. I can assure my colleagues that if this amendment passes, the impact will be felt throughout this country, and the arbitrary nature of the cuts will only intensify the pain. Why do I know this? Because for the past several months Senator Cochran and I have instructed our staffs to scrub the books of every single Federal agency in order to fund Pell Grants, while at the same time maintaining the discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2011 proposed by Senators Sessions and McCaskill. Even after reviewing in great detail unobligated balances across all the agencies and rescinding those funds that were truly unobligated balances, we still have to cut spending for fiscal year 2011 in order to pay for Pell Grants to the level at which almost everyone in this Chamber desires that it be funded. Consequently, the only unobligated balances remaining are those in accounts that have slow spend rates such as construction and infrastructure accounts. To rescind $39 billion from these remaining accounts without congressional guidance, and without any analysis of the ultimate costs and benefits, is simply irresponsible. Throughout this past year, every time an amendment similar to this one has been offered, I and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have come to the Floor and provided real examples of real programs that would be impacted by such an amendment. While I will not go into such detail tonight, I will take a moment and give Members a sense of which agency accounts have unobligated balances: International narcotics control and law enforcement programs that provide police training and counter-drug programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico and Colombia, among others. Global Health and Child Survival, which impacts global HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, polio and other programs. The State Department's worldwide security program, including funding for requirements in Iraq, again impacting our embassy and personnel security costs worldwide. Coast Guard construction of ships and planes, including the National Security Cutter, the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and Fast Response Cutters. Funds to maintain and upgrade the southwest border fence in Arizona and California. The FEMA Disaster Relief Fund which is still paying for Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike. Cyber security investments to secure Federal information systems. Funds to procure and install TSA advanced imaging technology and other explosive detection systems. Funds to build border patrol stations in Texas, Arizona, California and Washington. Funds to build schools and hospitals under the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services. The $500 million in non-emergency unobligated fire suppression funds remaining in the Forest Service and Interior Wildland Fire accounts is the minimum needed to make sure there are enough funds available in case the fire season turns out to be worse than forecast. Section 8 tenant-based and Section 8 project-based rental assistance. These programs receive advanced appropriations to run through the end of the calendar year. If these funds were rescinded, there would be no funding to continue to provide housing for low-income families living in housing today. In the case of homeless assistance grants, there is a time-consuming competitive process that communities go through in order to get these funds. Accordingly, these programs have unobligated funds. If these funds were rescinded, existing homeless programs in communities across the country wouldn't have sufficient funds to continue serving the homeless--literally leaving people on the streets. And finally, as one would imagine, Corps of Engineers construction projects as well as funding for flood control and coastal emergencies have substantial unobligated balances. Supporters of the Johanns amendment may claim that I and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee are simply citing the worst case scenario of where unobligated balances may come from. The fact of the matter is that these accounts are exactly where the unobligated balances will come from. Let me also point out to my colleagues that if this amendment is enacted, we cannot stop rescissions of unobligated balances from any of the accounts mentioned because the amendment gives sole decision-making power regarding where to cut to the executive branch. Unlike the situation with deciding how to fund the FY 2011 ominibus, where Ranking Member Cochran and I, along with our committee members, decided after much scrutiny of accounts which unobligated balances were truly available for rescission, this amendment places all authority with the executive branch. Mr. President, this amendment is not the way to do business. This is certainly not the way to fund the Federal Government. We need to stop trying to shift our fiscal responsibilities to the executive branch. We need to stop claiming there is an excess in Federal funds where none exists. And if we want to cut funds and hamper those critical programs, then we need to stop hiding behind generic rescissions. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Johanns amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this evening----

Mr. INOUYE. I yield.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak against the Coburn amendment which imposes a moratorium on congressional initiatives for the next 3 years. Mr. President, our Founding Fathers bestowed upon the Congress the authority to ensure that the people's representatives would make the final decision upon spending, not the executive branch. They had lived under a monarchy in which the power of the purse resided with the Executive, and they had no desire to repeat that experience. In short, our Founding Fathers did not want another King, they wanted a President but a President whose power would be held firmly in check by a coequal Congress. None of us should be surprised that President Obama is expressing his opposition to earmarks. A ban on earmarks would serve to strengthen the executive branch of government by empowering the President to make decisions that the Constitution wisely places in the hands of Congress. This is the exact same reason Presidents Clinton and Bush sought the line-item veto during their Presidencies. As I have said many times before, the people of Hawaii did not elect me to serve as a rubberstamp for any administration. Handing over the power of the purse to the executive branch would turn the Constitution on its head. So I must admit, Mr. President, I find it puzzling that some Republicans would want to grant all authority over spending to any President but especially a Democratic President. Make no mistake, that is exactly what this amendment will do. We have heard numerous misleading arguments from opponents of earmarks, but several in particular seem to be repeated again and again. I cannot allow the misinformation or misrepresentation to go unanswered. First and foremost, opponents falsely claim that earmarks contribute to the deficit. Perhaps the strongest proponent of this argument is the junior Senator from South Carolina who stated the following in a fundraising letter he sent out in October: I am not willing to bankrupt my country for earmarks. It is a fine statement. This is but one example of the many times over the past year in which so-called deficit hawks have falsely asserted that earmarks are the root cause of our Nation's fiscal problems. This is especially galling when you consider that many of these same individuals supported the policies that led directly to the current budget crisis. In the interest of setting the record straight, and as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that eliminating earmarks would do virtually nothing to balance the Federal budget. This is a cynical attempt to distract the American people from the serious challenges before us and nothing more. The numbers clearly demonstrate just how misleading the arguments of earmark opponents are. According to the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate, Federal spending for fiscal year 2010 totals about $3.5 trillion, and revenues for that year total about $2.2 trillion, resulting in a deficit of $1.3 trillion. Congressional initiatives make up less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the total Federal spending. If we accept this proposal to eliminate all earmarks and take the second necessary step of actually applying the savings to deficit reduction, the total deficit for the United States would still be $1.3 trillion. If opponents were serious about eliminating the deficit and paying down the national debt, they would offer a specific plan for cutting the $1.2 trillion in spending or for increasing revenues. Instead, they choose to mislead the American people by implying that we can balance the budget by cutting a tiny fraction of Federal spending. Calling for the elimination of congressional earmarks is a legitimate philosophical position to take, although not one with which I agree. However, to suggest that earmarks are the cause of our deficit of $1.3 trillion is irresponsible. Adding to this misleading rhetoric are allegations that congressionally directed spending is an inherently corrupt practice that is hidden from the public eye. That allegation is simply false. We all recognize that the practices of the previous majorities led to significant abuses of the system. However, since we recaptured the Congress in 2006, Democrats have instituted a series of major reforms that now hold Members accountable and have made earmarking more transparent than ever. That is the law. I would ask any of my colleagues: Can anyone name another part of the Federal budget--and let me remind my colleagues we are talking about less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the budget--that is subject to more scrutiny than earmarks? The Appropriations Committee requires every Member to post his or her request 30 days prior to the committee's consideration of the relevant appropriations bill. The committee requires every Member to submit a letter that he or she does not have a pecuniary interest in the projects for which the funding is being requested. The committee's Web site provides a link to every single Member's request. These are all reforms that were implemented when the Democrats took control of the Senate and the House. To pretend and suggest that earmarks are being doled out in a business-as-usual manner reflective of previous Congresses is flatout misleading. Reforms have been made that allow great projects that provide benefits to the Nation and to individual States and districts to be funded while ensuring that the abuses of the early and mid-2000s are a thing of the past. There can be no doubt that we have entered an age of real transparency when it comes to earmarks. Moreover, each and every earmark that comes before the Senate today is listed in the committee report so that all Members are able to identify them and know exactly what they are voting on. Of course, the Internet makes all earmark requests available to the press and to the public. The Internet also makes all campaign contributions over $200 equally accessible. So where is the so-called corruption? Where are the secret deals? I would like to know about them. Further, I remind my colleagues that in 2010, funding for earmarks is less than half of the $32 billion in earmarks provided in 2006. I have spent considerable time refuting the misinformation being spread by those who are opposed to congressionally directed spending initiatives. If I may, I would like to highlight a few examples of why the practice of earmarking is indeed necessary. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have witnessed the benefits of earmarks firsthand over many years. I have previously discussed the benefits to our troops and our Nation of the Predator drone--the pilotless drone that is able to pick up enemy sites without endangering our troops. I have pointed to the new bandages that quickly stop bleeding in serious wounds that have saved countless lives of our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. President, these are earmarks. Let me now turn to other areas of the Federal budget. I will start by reminding my colleagues that one of the most successful programs for low-income women and infants started out as an earmark. In the 1969 Agriculture appropriations bill, Congress earmarked funds for a new program called WIC to provide critical nutrition to low-income women, infants, and children. Over the past 41 years, this program has provided nutritional assistance to over 150 million women, infants, and children, making a critical contribution to the health of the Nation. This vital program has provided much needed assistance to millions, and it came into existence as an earmark. In 1969 and 1970, Congress earmarked $25 million for a children's hospital in Washington, DC, despite the objections to and the veto by the President. That funding resulted in what we know today as the Children's National Medical Center. Children's Hospital has become a national and international leader in neonatal and pediatric care, providing health care to over 5 million children since its doors opened. Again, I note this was an idea--an earmark--directed by Congress and vetoed by the President. In 1987, Congress earmarked funds at the request of Senator Domenici for mapping the human gene. This project became known as the human genome project. This research has led to completely new strategies for disease prevention and treatment, including the discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian, and colon cancers. No one disputes that these advances will save many lives, and it all began with an earmark. This was a project that was not supported by unelected agency bureaucrats in the executive branch, and thus would never have made it into the budget without congressional intervention. In the early 1990s, I pursued, along with my dear friend, the Senator from Alaska, the late Ted Stevens, an earmark through NOAA to fund a tsunami warning system. This earmark came under attack in the late 1990s and early 2000 by a few Members as wasteful spending. Of course, in this particular case, as in many others, time and events would prove this to be a wise investment of tax dollars. We all remember that on December 26, 2004, the Indian Ocean tsunami occurred, killing over 200,000 people in 14 countries. Two years later, the Republican Congress passed and the Bush administration signed into law the Tsunami Warning and Education Act. This legislation was based on the foundation established by the 14 years of earmarking for the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. A congressional initiative that began in 1998 at the behest of Senator Gregg would lead to the creation of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which is now the principal vehicle through which FEMA identifies, develops, tests, and delivers training to State and local emergency responders. The program began as a series of earmarks for several nationally recognized organizations which focused on counterterrorism preparedness and response needs of the Nation's Federal, State, and local emergency first responders and emergency management agencies. As a result of the training and expertise providing by NDPC members, thousands of New York City first responders had been through counterterrorism preparedness and response training at the centers prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There are thousands of other earmarks just like these that, over the years, have made a difference in the lives of Americans, projects the bureaucrats in downtown Washington never hear about because they do not communicate with constituents on a regular basis, programs such as the Predator and the Human Genome Project that are so innovative that an unelected, unaccountable government official is reluctant to include them in the budget out of fear that he or she will be accused of wasting taxpayer funds on an unproven technology. Other Members will be speaking against this amendment and will have examples of why simply stopping all earmarking is wrong and detrimental for government and our citizens. The Founding Fathers bestowed upon Congress the responsibility to determine how our taxes should be spent, rather than leaving those decisions to unelected bureaucrats in the administration, and obviously with good reason. Certainly we can all agree that Members of Congress who return home nearly every weekend to meet with constituents have a much better understanding of what is needed in our cities and towns across rural America than do the bureaucrats sitting in Washington. For all these reasons, I will continue to defend the right of Congress to direct spending to worthy projects as long as I am privileged to serve in the Senate and call attention to those who distort the facts of the subject. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment. We have already taken significant and forceful steps to ensure the abuses of the past are not repeated. This amendment ignores those steps while at the same time deprives the Congress of essential constitutional prerogatives. It does nothing to decrease the debt and is designed to give political cover to those who lack a serious commitment to deficit reduction. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. I yield 15 minutes.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased that through the leadership of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--HELP--Committee, S. 510--the Food and Drug Administration--FDA--Food Safety Modernization Act--Food Safety Act--will be taken up on the floor of the Senate. I believe that consideration of the Food Safety Act represents positive steps toward better protections for the safety of the American people. I am also pleased that a few of the provisions from my Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act--Seafood Safety Act--that I introduced on September 29, 2010, have been incorporated into S. 510. I am, however, disappointed that more of the Seafood Safety Act could not be included, and will continue to work on passage of the full bill. The Seafood Safety Act will strengthen the partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to coordinate Federal activities for ensuring that commercially distributed seafood in the United States meets the food quality and safety requirements of Federal law. The bill provides for no new jurisdiction and does not alter any existing jurisdiction given to FDA or any other agency. The bill does not include any authorization of appropriations, but seeks only to strengthen existing partnerships and share information. The bill remains largely unchanged since I introduced it in the 110th Congress, but this version incorporates the FTC as an additional partner since they have broad existing authority for consumer and inter-state commerce fraud issues. Specifically, the bill requires the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, DHS, and the FTC to enter into agreements as necessary to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. Those agreements must address seafood testing and inspection; data standardization for seafood names; data coordination for the purposes of detection and prosecution of violations regarding importation, exportation, transportation, sale, harvest, or trade of seafood; seafood labeling compliance assurance; and information-sharing for observed noncompliance. The bill also increases the number of laboratories certified to inspection standards of the FDA and allows the Secretary of Commerce to increase the number and capacity of NOAA laboratories responsible for seafood safety testing. It allows for an increase in the percentage of seafood import shipments tested and inspected to improve detection of violations. Finally, the bill allows the Secretary of HHS to refuse entry of seafood imports from countries with known violations, and also allows the Secretary to permit individual seafood shipments from recognized and properly certified exporters. Again, I am grateful for the leadership shown by the HELP Committee and Chairman Harkin on S. 510, yet I remain committed to the Seafood Safety Act and look forward to continuing to work to ensure its passage.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish the Record to show that I concur fully with my colleague and that I will do my absolute best to see that his views are carried out.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may again repeat, in June of this year, 9 of the 11 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee passed their bills in the full committee and reported to the desk. They are all at the desk. But somebody held it up, and I can assure you none of us held it up. I rise to speak against the amendment just submitted by Senator DeMint, which would extend the CR from the current expiration date of December 3 to February 4 of next year. I am certain most of my colleagues are aware that the government frequently operates under a short-term continuing resolution, not because they like to do it but because it takes time. It is not the most efficient way to operate. I agree with that. But it is frequently necessary as we resolve the differences over spending levels. While our agencies decry living under the CR--and I have said many times that this is not the way to run our government--I believe these agencies have learned to operate in the short term, and I emphasize the two words ``short term.'' This CR was crafted with a very narrow focus in the expectation that it would only last 2 months. It was agreed upon by both leaders, the majority and minority leaders. The minimal authorization extensions were included in a bipartisan attempt to keep this bill as clean as possible. Many requested anomalies were excluded because it was clear the CR would expire on December 3. Hopefully, the Congress will have concluded its work by that date. If not, a new CR will be required, and I can assure my colleagues that it will be significantly longer than this bill, with many more anomalies to cover exceptions that must be continued if this CR is extended. A short-term CR is not efficient, as I have said before, but it is manageable. However, each week we go beyond that period, we further damage the ability of the government to function effectively. For example, contract awards can be delayed a month or two but not for 4 months. The Appropriations Committee has worked very hard. We have held many hearings, heard from hundreds of witnesses--not just the administration but opposition witnesses--and in a truly bipartisan fashion come to an agreement on the CR we have before us. A large part of that effort was based on the good-faith assumption that once we agreed on an end date-- in this case, December 3--Members and staff would use that date to properly identify programs that needed adjustments in order to function as they were intended. If we accept this amendment and arbitrarily change the end date to February 4 of next year, we will ensure that the exact opposite will happen: The Government will not function as it should. Let me offer a few specific examples. As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I know there are programs essential to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be disrupted if the Senate were to arbitrarily change the end date of the CR. To say that our troops deserve better is an understatement of the highest order. As a specific example, the Defense Subcommittee carefully reviewed the plans of the Department of Defense and the Department of State for the authorities under the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. This authority allows the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide funding for initiatives to reduce the terrorist presence in Pakistan. The subcommittee concluded that a 2-month delay would have minimal negative impact. However, stretching beyond 2 months could seriously erode our counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan. As my colleagues know, new starts are prohibited under CRs, so a CR through February 4 would restrict the DOD from proceeding with any new military construction projects during the first third of the fiscal year. Losing 4 months of the year before DOD can begin to implement its 2011 construction program puts the timely execution of the entire program at risk. Fifty percent of the requested funding is anticipated to be awarded by the end of February 2011. A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing certain farm bill programs, as requested by the Office of Management and Budget. The delay would present shortfalls in funding for food and drug safety approval programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration due to a shortfall in the budget authority. A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing certain farm bill programs, as requested by OMB. The delay would present shortfalls in funding for food and drug safety and approval programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Food and Drug Administration due to a shortfall in new budget authority. In addition, if the child nutrition reauthorization is not approved, a further delayed CR will result in reduced food services for children. As another example, the administration sought to extend a highway provision of interest to Maine and Vermont but since it does not expire until December 17, it was not necessary to include in this CR. But if the CR does not expire until February, that provision is needed. A final example. The delays that would result from this amendment would stall the implementation of all planned new law enforcement initiatives at the Justice Department, including $366 million in new national security spending intended to improve the FBI's cyber security, WMD and counterterrorism capabilities and to assist in the litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases. This CR was negotiated in good faith, it has bipartisan support, and it ensures the government will continue to operate in good order until December 3. This amendment violates all three of those tenets. Arbitrarily changing the end date violates our good faith, is highly partisan, and ensures that the government will not function as it should. For all of these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cardin, chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this measure, I object.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am concerned about the problem in Florida. I am well aware there may be some consternation. But I must once again remind the Senate that we are now considering the continuing resolution as a result of a bipartisan agreement reached by the majority leader and the minority leader. That agreement calls for a clean CR. There are many amendments that my colleagues would like to submit, but we have had to say, reluctantly, no. Therefore, I object.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Thune amendment. There are a number of reasons the Thune amendment is a bad idea. A 5-percent cut across the board may seem reasonable, small, and not a big cut. But it is a devastating cut when Members understand the specific programmatic impact. A 5-percent cut against non-national security accounts would be about $20 billion below the current fiscal year spending level. This cut would be in addition to the current CR level which is $18 billion below the Sessions amendments offered earlier this year. I remind my colleagues that we have a $5 billion problem outside of all this cutting in terms of addressing the Pell grants shortfall. I believe the vast majority of my colleagues are in favor of the Pell grants. I can assure them that the Pell grant problem is not going to magically cure itself. Members may try and hide from taking responsibility for the devastating impacts of a generic across-the-board cut of this magnitude, but I am standing before my colleagues now and putting everyone in this Chamber on notice for what the actual impact of passing this amendment will be. For starters, let me discuss America's security outside of the Department of Homeland Security and outside of the department that handles the southwest border. Cutting funding by 5 percent would mean a loss of $1.5 billion for the Department of Justice. It is not part of Homeland Security and not part of the Defense Department. The FBI's uniform crime report that was just released tells us that violent crime is down 5.3 percent, a decrease for the third year in a row, and a total 9 percent drop since 2006. Now is not the time to cut resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners. We depend on Federal law enforcement to protect Americans from terrorism and violent crime and uphold the rule of law. Cutting Federal law enforcement by 5 percent across the board would mean 1,650 fewer FBI agents to combat terrorist threats, 420 fewer DEA agents to reduce the flow of drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border, and over 2,000 fewer Federal correctional officers to safeguard our prisons. In addition to the cuts to the Department of Justice, this amendment would reduce funding for the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by $8.8 billion. Cuts of this magnitude would cripple the Treasury Department's unique efforts to keep our country safe. Specifically, the Office of Foreign Assets Control would be forced to cut staff who enforce the Iran and North Korea sanctions programs and sanctions efforts aimed at al-Qaida and its affiliates, terrorist groups in Afghanistan, international drug traffickers, and other national security threats. The Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis would be forced to cut staff who work to locate hidden funding sources of terrorist networks. Finally, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network would significantly reduce overseas staff who work with foreign government counterparts in support of law enforcement efforts, investigations that protect Americans. In terms of our consumers and our small business owners, cutting the budget of the CFTC and the SEC by 5 percent would erode their ability to conduct necessary oversight of the futures and securities markets, respectively, at a time when such scrutiny is paramount. Such a move is simply irresponsible, given the Wall Street scandals that led to the financial meltdown and economic strife plaguing so many American households. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to funding any anomalies that would have allowed these agencies to increase staffing during the pendency of the continuing resolution to implement the Dodd- Frank requirements. To insist on a further cut in light of these new requirements is not responsible. For the CFTC, a rollback would diminish aggressive efforts in the past 18 months to enhance previously decimated staffing levels which would not have been adequate to keep pace with the growing markets the agency oversees. The SEC would suffer similar erosion of critical seasoned professionals. During the past 2 years, efforts have been made to restore staffing shortages. This amendment will force these staff to be furloughed, which would undermine the significant strides to become a more aggressive and vigilant protector of American investors. Funding for the Small Business Administration would be cut at a critical point in the Nation's economic recovery, severely diminishing the agency's ability to implement the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act recently signed into law. Such a cut would hamper the ability of the Small Business Administration to provide counseling services to small businesses at a time when they need it most. Cuts to Small Business Development Centers, microloan technical assistance, SCORE, and the Women's Business Centers would be a blow to SBA's ability to assist citizens trying to start, sustain, or grow their small businesses. In terms of public safety, the FAA faces challenges in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers. Funding the FAA at 5 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level would force it to absorb almost $500 million in cost-of-living and inflation expenses. Since 75 percent of the FAA's operation budget is payroll, the FAA would need to implement a hiring freeze, thereby reducing its air traffic controller and inspector workforces, increasing flight delays, and curbing air travel at many airports. When it comes to NASA, this amendment would require $936 million less in funding. I have heard from many Members concerned about job losses at NASA facilities in their States. I can assure you, the level of funding that will result from this amendment will only expedite these losses. Specifically, this random across-the-board cut will jeopardize scientific discovery as well as the development of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle and space capsule, costing thousands of high-tech, high- skill jobs in States such as Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. The United States would abandon the high ground of space to Russia, China, and Europe, sacrificing our leadership. In terms of environmental funding, this amendment would require a $174 million cut to EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. That means 58 fewer sewer and water projects in our communities to ensure clean and safe water. It would also require a $302 million cut to the basic operating accounts at the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That means approximately 2,000 fewer Park Rangers, Forest Rangers, refuge managers, and BLM managers. The 5-percent cut proposed in this amendment would require the National Park Service to furlough virtually all of the seasonal employees that would result in the closing of many National Park facilities. Further, it would cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by over $145 million, stopping in its tracks evolving R&D on solar energy and electric vehicles. That is what we have been talking about here: alternative energy sources. It would cut the nuclear energy R&D program by $51 million, hampering the nuclear renaissance, and simultaneously it would hamper the cleanup of our nuclear weapon and civilian nuclear sites by cutting $366 million from those programs. This action calls into question our ability to undertake new weapon and civilian nuclear activities if we cannot deal with the back end of the programs. In terms of our senior citizens, the most vulnerable in our society, this amendment requires a cut of $40 million to senior nutrition services at the Administration on Aging, which translates into a reduction of 13 million senior meals. It also requires a cut of $922 million from the fiscal year 2010 operating level for the Social Security Administration. This would force the Social Security Administration to furlough employees and severely increase the waiting times for everyone with a disability claim, retirement claim, or disability appeal. In the last 3 years, the number of disability claims SSA has received has increased 30 percent, the number of disability hearings has increased 20 percent, and the number of retirement claims has increased 13 percent. By the end of the year, this cut would leave 900,000 more Americans waiting on a determination of their disability claim, almost doubling the current backlog, and 150,000 more waiting on an appeal of their disability case. This would also drastically limit program integrity efforts that save $7 for every $1 spent. Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, which helps the Nation's most vulnerable individuals and families find and maintain safe and affordable housing in the private market, would be cut by $816 million, which would put as many as 85,000 of our country's low-income families, elderly, and disabled at risk of losing their housing. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a more comprehensive list of programs that will be severely impacted by this amendment. There are too many important programs being impacted by this amendment and not enough time to discuss them all. I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. In closing, I would like to note that the CR that is being considered by the Senate this afternoon is at a rate that is $18 billion below the Sessions amendment. The amendment being proposed by the Senator from South Dakota proposes a rate that is an additional $23 billion below the Sessions amendment. To ask our agencies to continue to operate for the next 2 months at a rate that is $41 billion below the Sessions amendment will be devastating and is simply unacceptable. Under this scenario, every single program gets cut. I believe what I have provided my colleagues is a thorough analysis of exactly what you are cutting. Make no mistake, a vote for this amendment is a vote for cutting these programs. It is that simple. I, for one, do not believe this is the way Congress should be doing business, and I will oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.