Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the following list of amendments that I will identify, if not pending, then once this agreement is entered, the amendment be considered called up for consideration; and that the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that no amendments be in order to the amendments included in this agreement; further, that if there are modifications to any of the listed amendments, then the amendment be modified and agreed to, as modified: Nos. 2563, 2585, 2617, 2559, 2562, 2568, 2614, and 2615; and further that amendment No. 2569 be withdrawn.

Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I listened to my leader with great admiration. I wish him to know that I support his action in support of the health reform measures before us. The leader touched upon two problems. One was that each day in the State of Nevada, 221 men, women, and children will go to bed and the next morning find themselves without health insurance coverage. I believe it should be noted that, as we speak, over 15,000 men, women, and children of the United States will wake up in the morning finding that they have no insurance coverage--15,000 a day. That means close to half a million every month. This is not acceptable. I don't think we should tolerate this and set it aside. Mr. President, my leader, the very distinguished Senator from Nevada, brought up the matter of the death panel. It is the responsibility of physicians throughout this land, when confronted with terminal cases, to tell their patients of the condition. They should also notify the patients that as long as they want care and life-sustaining medicine, it will be done. But I believe it is the right of the patients to suggest that they would like to rest. Three years ago, I lost a wife. We were married for 57 years. It wasn't an easy moment, believe me. One evening--and I have never discussed this publicly before--as I sat near her, she said, ``I have something I would like to discuss with you that is very important.'' She looked at me and said, ``I will be dead in 10 days.'' I said, ``Now, you must be kidding.'' She said, ``No, I have discussed this matter with the doctor. We all know it is terminal. This cancer is beyond control, and I don't wish to continue this agony. I hope you will support me.'' She said, ``I will be OK for a week, but on the seventh day I will go into a coma. During those 7 days, I would like to discuss with you certain things, such as where my funeral services should be held.'' She kept all these details. There was no death panel. What the doctor did was to provide her with comfort--comfort of her emotions, her senses. She passed away happy. She knew that things were going to be done. I am sorry to see--and it hurts me to see--fellow Americans distort a good aspect of health care and turn it into something murderous. They should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. President, our leader is a good man. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I would like to say a few words on a few of the contentious issues before us. The administration requested $7.4 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund in fiscal year 2010. This is an increase of $1.8 billion over fiscal year 2009 levels. This is to continue to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. The committee was informed by officials of the Department of Defense that $1.8 billion of this request would not be spent until fiscal year 2011. I would like to repeat that. This amount will not be spent until 2011. And there was $1.9 billion remaining from the fiscal year 2009 appropriations. At the same time, the committee was also aware of a validated urgent but unfunded requirement from the Department of Defense for additional all-terrain MRAP vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan, something that the military has been asking for with great urgency. Recognizing that these funds would not be obligated until fiscal year 2011--the funds I mentioned earlier--and were not required for long lead equipment of infrastructure projects, the committee transferred $900 million from the Afghan security forces fund to the MRAP fund to pay for this urgent requirement. The redirecting of funds was not an attempt to curtail our efforts to train and equip the Afghan security forces. It was solely based on the Department's ability to execute the required resources during fiscal year 2010 and the urgent unfunded and validated requirement to procure additional all-terrain MRAPs for our troops in Afghanistan. There is a tremendous amount of debate in both the Halls of Congress and the Pentagon over the size of the Afghan security forces--how fast they can be trained, equipped, and executing missions independent of coalition forces. While many would like to grow the Afghan security forces beyond the current plan, the Department of Defense has not been able to say that they can absorb additional resources in fiscal year 2010 or that they can source additional trainers to reach these new levels. This is a situation where, yes, we need the money, but we cannot spend it. We want you to appropriate it so we can leave it in the bank. That is a hell of a way to run the government. Since 2005, Congress has appropriated nearly $19 billion for the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. These funds have greatly increased over the years, starting from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 to $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2010. Of the $5.6 billion appropriated in the last fiscal year, nearly $1.9 billion remains unobligated, and the Department of Defense does not anticipate obligating these funds until July of 2010. The $7.4 billion fiscal year 2010 request for the Afghan security forces fund is projected to obligate $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 and $1.8 billion in the next fiscal year, 2011. The Afghan security forces fund is a 2-year funding account to enable long lead equipment procurement and infrastructure projects that obligate over a 2-year period. The funds transferred from the Afghan security forces trust fund to meet the urgent operational requirement of additional all-terrain MRAPs for Afghanistan were taken from sustainment requirements of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police which would have been obligated in fiscal year 2011 and do not require long lead appropriations. We took money they did not need or can use. Areas funded through the sustainment program include fuels, salary, incentive pay, clothing, individual equipment, rental equipment--all of which do not require long lead time. Therefore, the fiscal year 2010 sustainment request for the Afghan National Army is a 45-percent increase over 2009 and a 108-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 for the Afghan National Police. Even with the decrease in this fund, there is substantial flexibility and resources in the Afghan security forces fund to meet unanticipated requirements of the security forces and to expedite the growth of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Madam President, I decided to share these numbers with my colleagues to make certain they know the committee has acted on this very carefully. When we were convinced that the Department of Defense could not use that money, we decided to use it for some other more urgent purpose. I should point out once again this bill was passed by the committee, made up of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, by a vote of 30 to 0. Unanimous. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared by both sides, both leaders. It is a good amendment. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I listened to the comments of the Senator from Alabama with interest. I want to inform my colleagues that despite the rhetoric we have heard it is important to remember that the funds that we have recommended in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills are in accordance with the level provided to the committee in the budget resolution. Second, each one of the bills that he mentioned was approved by the committee by unanimous, or near unanimous, votes. Third, each of the bills considered by the Senate so far this year have been approved at the funding level that the Senator has noted. In addition, in most cases--in the Transportation and Interior bills for example--the level of funding approved by the committee is lower than the amount requested by the administration. We are all concerned about deficits and overspending, but the root cause of this problem is not in discretionary domestic spending. The cause was the failed policies of the previous administration that ran up trillions in our national debt. To remind my colleagues when President Bush was elected the country had a budget surplus. After 8 long years, the country inherited an unprecedented national debt. What is even worse, the Obama administration and the Nation also inherited a fiscal crisis unseen since Herbert Hoover. While I understand and share the concern of many of my colleagues over our Nation's debt, they have set their sights on the wrong target. The increases in discretionary spending will reverse the neglect which occurred in the previous administration and will help put people back to work. The Appropriations Committee will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to recommend bills which are fiscally prudent and within the amounts recommended by this Senate.

Mr. INOUYE

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

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the motion to waive the rule XXVIII point of order being made against the conference report for containing a continuing resolution provision allowing the government to maintain normal operations until October 31, 2009. Today is the last day of the fiscal year. As I noted earlier, our men and women in uniform are fighting on two fronts. On the homefront, our economy is at a critical stage in its recovery. Our Federal agencies provide essential services every day of the year to our men and women in uniform, to our veterans who have returned from war, to homeowners and workers struggling to recover from the downturn in our economy, and to businesses and maritime commerce reliant on weather forecasts and data. These are just a few examples of a multitude of critical services we must maintain by passing this conference report with the continuing resolution provision included and having it sent to the President for his signature. This point of order is made and raised against the conference report based on the fact that this continuing resolution was added to it without being included in either the House or Senate versions of the bill. While the vice chairman and I are not inclined to add provisions outside the scope of the conference, there are occasions when it is necessary. This is one of those times. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked diligently with my colleague and vice chair, Senator Cochran, to return the appropriations process to regular order. When we finally received the administration's budget--and may I ask my colleagues to recall that it was in May of this year--we worked nonstop, holding budget hearings with the agencies, analyzing their budget proposals, and marking up and reporting out all 12 bills in 4 months. Eleven of them were reported out before the August recess. I might add that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported nine of these bills by a vote of 30 to 0--unanimous--and the other three by a vote of 29 to 1--one vote in opposition. The Senate is currently considering the Defense bill, the seventh appropriations measure to come to the floor. We have made great progress in our efforts to return to regular order and pass individual bills, but we are not there yet. We need to pass this continuing resolution so that our agencies can continue to operate while we conclude our business. In fact, today we had our second and third conferences with the House, and I am happy to report that both conferences have concluded in harmony and a report will be forthcoming to the Senate floor. Several more are scheduled for the rest of the week. This short-term continuing resolution, which is clean and does not contain what I consider controversial matters, will give us time to consider a good number of appropriations bills under regular order. For my colleagues who may be interested in specific details regarding the impact of a government shutdown, here are just a few examples: For veterans who have served, all nonemergency health care, including elective surgeries, would be deferred. This means that those veterans whose medical needs are not life-threatening or an emergency would have to wait to see their doctors. The end result would be rationing health care, causing significant waiting times for appointments, which would, of course, spill over after the shutdown has ended. A government shutdown would suspend much of the work Treasury staff is doing to promote economic recovery and would impact transportation funding that also plays an important role in supporting the economic recovery and putting people back to work. A government shutdown could derail the 2010 census, for example. Even a brief shutdown could jeopardize the accuracy and timeliness of the constitutionally mandated 2010 census, which everybody is depending upon for numbers. Specifically, the Census Bureau could be forced to abandon or delay the hiring of tens of thousands of temporary enumerators. Under a government shutdown, the census would be unable to continue setting up field operations needed to count our citizens. A government shutdown would halt highway, transit, and motor carrier safety programs, which would disrupt State and local efforts to maintain and improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and would impact upon commuters and movers of goods. A government shutdown would lay up NOAA's entire fleet of ships, including the hydrographic vessels, which would stop any current nautical charting operations for the purpose of navigation. Even navigation service conducted by the private sector under NOAA contracts would cease and any data processing would be put on hold. Our Nation's physical oceanographic real-time system would not be maintained, eliminating live environmental information, such as tides and currents that coastal pilots rely on when safely guiding huge vessels in and out of our ports. Imagine what would have happened if this shutdown was in place at this moment. The knowledge that we have of the Samoan disaster would not be available to us, simply put. Maritime commerce, which accounts for 90 percent of our Nation's imports and exports, would be dramatically slowed and the risk of an environmental disaster would be heightened. Mr. President, I could continue on with other services being impacted by the shutdown, but I think you have got the gist of it. Twice in the past 4 years--in 2006 and 2007--the Congress passed a similar type continuing resolution as a provision to a conference report. Yes, they had CRs in the conference report in 2006 and 2007. In 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed a continuing resolution provision by a vote of 100 to 0. In 2007, a Democratic-led Senate passed a conference report with a continuing resolution by a voice vote--unanimous. It is not a partisan issue and it should not be a partisan issue today. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote to waive any point of order against the Legislative Branch conference report because of the continuing resolution. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 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, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, the Senate then stand in recess until 6:30 p.m. today; that upon reconvening at 6:30 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3326 and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 2558, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon the use of the 2 minutes, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Legislative Branch conference report, which includes a continuing resolution allowing the government to maintain normal operations until October 31, 2009. I thank Chairman Nelson and Ranking Member Murkowski for their hard work on this bill. I believe the final product before us is fiscally responsible legislation that meets the essential needs of both the House and Senate. I applaud their efforts to urge its adoption by the Senate. With regard to the continuing resolution, I note that today is September 30, the last day of the fiscal year. With our men and women in uniform fighting on two fronts, and with our economy at a critical stage in its recovery from the worst recession we have faced in several generations, it is inconceivable that we would allow for any disruption of the essential services provided by the Federal Government. We simply must pass this bill today and send it to the President for his signature. The continuing resolution before us is clean and does not contain any controversial provisions. It increases funding for our veterans health care services in order to meet the needs of our wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The continuing resolution increases funding for the Census Bureau to allow that agency to continue to ramp up its necessary activities prior to the 2010 census. Mr. President, I note that the continuing resolution prohibits any funding for ACORN, and it extends a number of necessary authorizations. Finally, in order to cover a budget shortfall, the continuing resolution allows the Postal Service to reduce by $4 billion a payment designed to prefund retiree health benefits. Continuing the operations of this government should not be a partisan issue. I note to my colleagues that in both 2006 and 2007, the Congress attached a continuing resolution to an appropriations conference report. In 2006, the Republican-led Congress passed the conference report and the attached continuing resolution by a vote of 100 to 0. In 2007, the Democrat-led Senate passed the conference report and the continuing resolution by voice vote. When I assumed the chair of the Appropriations Committee, my first priority was to work with my colleague and vice chair, Senator Cochran, to return the appropriations process to regular order. This is a tall order given that we did not receive the administration's budget until May. Today, we have our second and third conferences scheduled with the House, and we expect to hold several more in the coming weeks. This short-term continuing resolution will give us time to consider a good number of appropriations bills under the regular order. Mr. President, we have more work to do to pass all 12 bills. But I am proud of the committee's efforts thus far, and I look forward to reporting continued progress throughout the month of October. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Legislative Branch conference report, which contains this short-term continuing resolution. I congratulate the chair and the ranking member. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, one of the must-pass items in the continuing resolution regards the U.S. Postal Service. Under current law, each year the Postal Service is required to cover the health care costs of retirees and provide an actuarially determined rate for future costs of health care. These funds are required to be placed into a trust fund to be invested. Because of the recession as well as the increased reliance on the Internet for personal communications, the Postal Service is experiencing financial difficulties. Working with members of the authorizing committees of both Houses, the Committee crafted a short-term solution for this problem which would allow the Postal Service to reduce the amount it would otherwise be required to invest this year. The impact of the amendment is it allows the Postal Service to retain $4 billion to pay for its ongoing cost of operations. Let me be clear, this provision will not provide any additional taxpayer dollars to the Postal Service. It doesn't mean that current health benefits of our postal workers would be shortchanged. It does assume that when the recession ends and profitability returns to the Postal Service the funding they would need to invest in future health care costs would probably increase. Some might want to decry this amendment because it is scored by the congressional budget amendment as a net loss to the Treasury. It should be noted that the proposal will not require additional discretionary funds to be expended. The provision will, on the other hand, do a great deal to preserve the financial solvency of the Postal Service. This amendment should not be controversial. It does not add costs to the taxpayer. It was an item that was in keeping with the needs of the Postal Service; and, it was an item that has the support of the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with jurisdiction over the matter. This needs to be done today and I would urge my colleagues to vote to waive any points of order that might be raised in relation to this matter.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. INOUYE. No objection.

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the statement I am about to present may appear a bit redundant after listening to the great statement of the senior Senator from Mississippi, vice chairman of this committee. But as chairman of this committee, I want to, by this redundancy, emphasize that Senator Cochran and I work as a team, and we agree with the provisions in this measure. For the interest of this body, it should be noted that this measure was passed and presented to the Senate by a vote of 30 to zero--unanimous. A $636 billion bill coming out of the committee, after due consideration, unanimously is historic. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona seeks to eliminate funds provided in this bill to sustain the C-17 program. As I indicated, Vice Chairman Cochran and I proposed, and the committee accepted, our recommendation to relocate $2.5 billion to procure an additional 10 C- 17 aircraft. If approved, this will bring the total C-17 inventory to 223 aircraft. We believe this is a critical investment which will support our national security strategy and add much to the needed airlift capability. There are three main reasons the committee supported adding funding for the C-17: First, as everyone in the military, from senior leadership to the soldiers being transported, will agree, it is, simply put, a superb aircraft. The C-17 represents the finest in military technology. It is efficient, cost-effective, and highly capable. In short, it has no detractors. Second, we believe the facts now show that additional aircraft are needed to meet military requirements despite that it is being recommended by the Pentagon for cancellation. Third, the C-17 embodies the only strategic airlift production program in our Nation. As the Senator from Missouri pointed out, there is nothing on the planning ledger to replace it. If we cut off the production at this moment, it will be unaffordable to restart this program. The C-17 provides the U.S. military with the essential flexibility to respond on short notice--and I emphasize short notice--anywhere in the world. Our air fleet assets are a major enabler of strategy and operational plans. There is not a military scenario in existence today which can be put into effect without a strong airlift fleet. The C-17 was designed specifically to meet virtually all of the needs of our warfighters. It is the only airlift aircraft that has the ability to fly both great distances and to land on austere airfields anywhere in the world. That is very important because we don't have long runways prepared for us in far-off countries. When teamed with the tactical C- 130 and the C-5, the C-17 fleet provides the Nation with the capability to deliver outsized cargo to our forces wherever they may be located. We believe the C-17 is today the finest airlift aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. With its new avionics and structures, it can maintain a very high mission capability rate. This is a term used by the Air Force to denote the aircraft's ability to perform. Comparative data filed by the Government Accountability Office in November 2008 showed that the C-17 was able to successfully perform its mission in excess of 85 percent of the time. And I think we should note that--85 percent of the time, they are able to perform their mission. On the other hand, the aging C-5 was only able to meet its performance demands 58 percent of the time. For our men and women in uniform, what this means is that if they are depending on a C-5, their needs will be only addressed a little more than half the time, while a C-17 will meet their needs more than 8 times out of 10. In addition, the C-17 is much cheaper to operate than the C-5. It is true that a C-5 has the capacity to carry more cargo, but in the actual usage by the Air Force, the cost per flying hour of the C-17 is only 40 percent of the cost of the C-5. The Air Force has informed us that today its current statistics show that it costs $6.42 to fly 1 pound of cargo from South Carolina to Baghdad on a C-17--that is $6.42 from South Carolina to Baghdad--but $13.76 to fly the same item on a C-5. Why? Because the C-5 is unreliable, because we rarely need to fill either plane to its maximum capacity on an average mission, and because the C-17 is newer and modernized in comparison to the C-5. We simply cannot rely on the older, outdated C-5. Opponents might argue that when we modernize the C-5 it will be able to overcome many of these problems. I would concur that a modernized C- 5 will be a far better aircraft. However, I would point out that the C- 5 Modernization Program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. Because of the high cost of the C-5 Modernization Program, the Defense Department decided that it could no longer afford to modernize all 111 C-5s and it cut the program to 52. That means our military will be dependent on 59 of the old and often broken C-5s that cost twice as much to operate as the C-17 for the foreseeable future. That is 47 percent of the C-5 fleet that won't be updated and will be unable to operate efficiently to meet our military needs. The Government Accountability Office noted that additional investments in the C-17 may be attractive. It calculated that the Defense Department would need to modernize, as Senator Cochran pointed out, seven C-5s--to modernize seven C-5s--to get the equivalent capability gained from acquiring one C-17. It is going to take seven C- 5s to do the work of one C-17, but it would cost three times as much to modernize the seven C-5s as it would to purchase one C-17. I would like to point out that the C-17 is a fully matured program with stable costs and little uncertainty, while the C-5 Modernization Program is still in its infancy. If there is one thing we know about Defense programs, it is that new program costs generally increase during their early years. Some may address the Senate and say we don't need any more C-17s. They note that today the Air Force now says we only need the 213 we already have purchased. I would like to point out that in 2002 the commander of the U.S. Transportation Command testified that his C-17 requirement was for 222 C-17s. Moreover, the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study also raises questions about how many aircraft are required. This study, which is supposed to be the basis of our strategic airlift capability requirements, identified the need for between 292 and 383 strategic airlift aircraft, a combination of C-17s and modernized C-5s. In the force today, we have 111 C-5s and 205 C-17s--a total of 315 aircraft--near the bottom of the requirement level. But that doesn't tell the whole story. In the last Quadrennial Defense Review in 2006, the Defense Department opted to keep its total inventory near the bottom of this requirement range with 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s. Although we have added C-17s since that time and lost one C-5, the more important fact is that the QDR based this recommendation on a plan to modernize all 112 C-5s. With the plan to only modernize 52 C-5s, the airlift capability of the fleet is drastically diminished. In 2008, the commander of the Air Force Air Mobility Command expressed his concern with this plan. He testified that the plan with 52 modernized C-5s and 205 C-17s will not provide the strategic airlift that he required. I would also note that these earlier studies did not take into account today's force structure. That is a very important point. Since the mobility study and the QDR were completed we have transformed our Army creating additional combat capability that requires lift. We have increased the end strength of our Marine Corps, and we have created the U.S. Africa command. All of these have increased our airlift needs. At the same time, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are aging our airlift fleet beyond anticipated rates. We are flying the wings off our C-17 fleet. In November, 2007, the Air Force Chief of Staff recommended buying an additional 44 C-17s to meet the required force level. On the 2009 Unfunded Requirements List the Air Force asked for an additional 15 C-17 aircraft with a stated inventory objective of 248 C-17s. Our military leaders have called for additional aircraft, our forces have grown since our last studies were written and our plans have been altered to cut back on our modernization program. It seems to me that notwithstanding the plan offered by the Defense Department, the country has a choice--we can either agree to modernize all the C-5s or we can continue to procure additional C-17s. As noted earlier, as the GAO discovered a new C-17 offers greater capability at a lower price. To me and to many of my colleagues this just makes sense. Unless we act this year and approve the recommendation from the Appropriations Committee, we won't have a choice. Without the funds in this bill the C-17 program will begin to shut down. I say to my colleagues this is a critical decision and we have to be certain on our course. As the GAO noted, ``careful planning is needed to ensure C-17 production is not ended prematurely . . . Restarting production would not be feasible or cost effective.'' That is the GAO. Earlier this decade, on several occasions the Defense Department urged the Congress to allow it to begin to retire the oldest and least capable C-5s. It too believed that purchasing additional C-17s was a far superior choice to meet our airlift needs. However, each year the Congress refused to allow DoD to retire any C-5s. Eventually, the Pentagon gave up trying and decided it would be stuck with the old unreliable C-5s. While it originally sought to upgrade all the old C-5s to at least make the best of a bad situation, the cost overruns and delays in the C-5 modernization program made that decision unaffordable. I would point out that the Congress rectified this problem this year in the supplemental and allowed the Air Force to begin to retire these aged aircraft. We know that it makes economical sense to retire these poorly performing aircraft and to replace them with new C-17s. We are looking forward to the Air Force revisiting this issue in the fiscal year 2011 budget with a renewed plan to retire the older C-5s and hopefully a desire to replace them with new C-17s. In this year's budget the Secretary of Defense has made some tough decisions'' He has opted to kill the F-22, the JSF second engine, the VH-71 Presidential helicopter, the combat search and rescue helicopter and the kinetic energy interceptor. In the bill before the Senate we have supported each of these recommendations. I will be candid that I am not confident that each of these recommendations is in our Nation's interest, but in general I support the Secretary's plans. There is only one program that the vice chairman and I felt strongly enough about to reverse the recommendation of the Secretary, the C-17. I have explained at some length why, it is cost effective, it is capable, and it is needed. I urge all my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from Arizona and to vote to support the continuation of the C-17 program. It is in our Nation's interest. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is the DOD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This measure contains approximately $636 billion, including nearly $130 billion to continue the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and all around Southwest Asia. It contains funds to pay our men and women in uniform, as well as funds to operate our forces and to take care of our wounded. It provides the money required to equip the warfighters and to develop new weapons systems so that they may be protected in the future. Today is September 29. The fiscal year ends tomorrow. I believe all of us should know that. On Thursday, the Department of Defense will begin to operate on a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure required because the Congress has not completed action on its 12 appropriations measures. I want to point out that the Appropriations Committee reported its first fiscal year 2010 bill in the Senate on June 18, more than 3 months ago, and this last bill on September 10, nearly 3 weeks ago. All of the other bills were reported before the August recess. However, because of the scheduling problems we have had, this Senate has passed just six bills. We have spent the better part of 7 weeks on the floor to pass these bills. I wish to note that in years past, most appropriations measures were taken up and passed by this body in 1 or 2 days. Now it is nearly 1 week on each bill. The Senate is known for being a deliberative body, but this is the third day the Senate has been on this important bill, and up until a few minutes ago, not a single amendment had yet to be offered. Moreover, at this point, only eight amendments have been filed, and we have seen this pattern week after week. Our colleagues are waiting days before getting serious about these bills. The impact of these delays is that the end of the fiscal year is upon us, and we are nearly only halfway done completing Senate action on our bills, and only one of the 12 bills has reported out of conference committee. At this juncture, I wish to note that we have had 12 measures. Of the 12 subcommittees, 3 reported the bill to the Senate on a vote of 29 to 1--not quite unanimous, 29 to 1. The remaining nine subcommittee bills, after due deliberation, debate, and discussion, were passed on to the Senate. The Senate committee reported to this Senate with a recommendation that it be passed by a vote of 30 to 0. This measure before us was adopted by the Appropriations Committee, made up of liberal members, conservative members, middle of the road and whatever you want, men, women, by a vote of 30 to 0. In January, when I became chairman of this committee, it was apparent to me that the Senate and the legislative branch were losing control over the budget process. We had not passed all of our spending bills as freestanding measures since 2005. We only accomplished that feat once during the past decade. In many cases, we have resorted to large omnibus bills to complete our work. The Senate has not been allowed to debate or amend many of the measures that were passed. This is no way to run the government. Vice-Chairman Cochran and I agreed to put a stop to this practice. We vowed to pass 12 bills and to send them to the President individually. We have passed those 12 bills in a timely fashion and presented them to the Senate. Our leaders fully supported us in this plan. I remind my colleagues that the entire Republican caucus sent a letter to the majority leader urging him to follow this approach. But when it came to putting this in practice, instead of working to get this accomplished, we have been hamstrung by slow progress on each and every bill. We are well aware that Members have amendments they wish to have considered on this and other appropriations bills. We understand that and have been waiting to debate them. Senator Cochran and I came to the floor Thursday night but were told there was nothing to do. We came here on Friday morning with the same results. We are back this afternoon, and we have one amendment. The go-slow approach that has been taken by a few of our colleagues has put us in a position in which the government must now begin to operate on a continuing resolution. What does that mean to our agencies? It means they must throw out their plans for operations and streamline activities so that only the most essential operations are funded. Continuing resolutions will continue programs that have expired and are no longer needed, and the new programs that will replace them will not be in place. It means they must delay purchases until they are sure the resources they are seeking will be approved. In the case of the Defense Department, it means they have to delay starting new weapons development and procurement programs. Some of my fiscally conservative colleagues might applaud this, thinking it means they are cutting spending. But, unfortunately, they are wrong. In fact, we are only running up expenses, as we follow penny-wise, pound-foolish practices which cost more in the long run than they save. Senate rules are written to protect the rights of the minority and to ensure that legislation is carefully reviewed. But it is also true that when time is of the essence, the deliberative process is frequently turned on its head and complex matters rushed through with no time to debate or opportunity to offer amendments. Rather than delay these bills, which have minimal controversy, leaving the body no choice but to adopt expedited procedures to complete action, let's proceed apace and get this and the other five bills through the Senate as quickly as possible because it is the responsibility of the Congress to ensure that taxpayer funds can be expended efficiently by passing each of these appropriations measures without depending on continuing resolutions or omnibus measures. I urge all of my colleagues to work with us so we can complete our work, the work of this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 29, 2009, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening and Streamlining Prudential Bank Supervision.''

Mr INOUYE

Mr INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 29, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Body Building Products and Hidden Steroids: Enforcement Barriers.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 29, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Transparency and Accessibility of Federal Contracting Databases.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a military fellow in the office of Senator Christopher Dodd, CPT Lindsay George, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of H.R. 3326, the Defense appropriations bill.