Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to raise awareness of a complex neurological disorder affecting an estimated 200,000 Americans. Tourette Syndrome, TS, emerges in children, as young as 5 years old. Symptoms include ``tics,'' repeated involuntary noises or movement. Some adults with TS have learned to control their tics, or redirect them in other ways. I have not been knowledgeable on this subject. However, I recently had the pleasure of meeting a group of four--two mothers and two sons-- all dealing in some way with TS. Zach Pezzillo, a high school junior from Haiku, Maui, in my State of Hawaii, was diagnosed with TS at age 7. After 2 years of misdiagnosis, Zach and his mother, Susannah Christy, were almost relieved to learn why Zach constantly sniffed. Zach was fortunate in that his tics were mild. He has become a well spoken young man, a gifted photographer, and a wonderful youth ambassador for the National Tourette Syndrome Association. I am sure much of his success is due in large part to his mother Susannah, whose support of her son's drive and openness with his affliction is noteworthy. I also had the pleasure of meeting Chris Schuette, a young man who, in his adulthood, has learned to control his tics so well that he was able to serve with AmeriCorps in 2007. His mother, Cynthia Schuette, heads the Northern California and Hawaii Chapter of the National Tourette Syndrome Association, and has been involved in educating the public about TS since her son, now 26, was diagnosed with the disorder nearly 20 years ago. Not all Americans with TS are as lucky as Zach and Chris. This is a disorder so largely misunderstood that Zach, after telling a neurologist about his TS, was challenged by this learned professional, who told him he must not have TS because she couldn't see any physical manifestations of his disorder. Such misinformation leads to misdiagnosis for children with TS. While the Centers for Disease Control, through necessary grant programs, continues its essential research into the causes of TS, we must do our part in educating ourselves and others about this disorder.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is the third time we find ourselves debating the same rescission amendment that sounds like good policy on first blush but in fact is not. Members need to understand that this amendment is irresponsible governing, and causes harm to our national and international security, and to our economy. Members on the other side of the aisle have frequently criticized the majority party for asking them to vote on measures that they have not had a chance to thoroughly read or comprehend. But that is certainly what Members are being asked to do today. It is irresponsible to vote in support of this amendment that indiscriminately cuts $20 billion from discretionary projects and services given that we do not know what programs are impacted by such significant cuts. On January 27 of this year I spoke at some length about an almost identical amendment offered by the junior Senator from Oklahoma, and again on March 3 about an almost identical amendment offered by the junior Senator from Kentucky. Today it is the junior Senator from Oklahoma's turn to offer the amendment again. I would like to take just a few moments to remind my colleagues of why they voted against this amendment twice already, and why I hope they will again choose to vote against this financially irresponsible and harmful amendment. The majority of unobligated balances are not eligible for rescission under this amendment because they are, in fact, mandatory funds. Second, because of the small amount of unobligated funding eligible for rescission, this amendment indiscriminately rescinds prior year unobligated funding from certain critical programs, jeopardizing our national defense, and our homeland security. I have mentioned this before, but need to mention it again because nothing has changed between January, March and today. While we cannot say with certainty which programs are impacted by this amendment, here are some of the expected impacts based on current discretionary unobligated balances available. We require the Department of Defense to budget up front for all the costs required to procure military equipment such as ships or aircraft. But it takes several years to complete construction. For shipbuilding specifically, funds provided to the Department of Defense are available for obligation for 5 years. Rescinding unobligated funds now could require the Navy to cancel contracts for ships under construction and layoff thousands of workers across our Nation's shipyards. In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought bravely in past wars, this amendment could impact the construction of new hospitals by the Veterans Administration. It takes a few years to build a hospital. The Veterans Administration requests full funding for a construction project in the first year. As a result, the VA has 43 active major construction projects at various stages of completion totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated balances. This could be wiped out. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the loss of that funding, further delaying critical services to our brave men and women who have served. We made a solemn promise to them. Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland Security could stop the construction of the Coast Guard national security cutter and would rescind funding for the purchase of explosive detection systems. Rescinding unobligated balances in NOAA could create a minimum 6-month gap in coverage for the geostationary weather satellite system which focuses directly over the United States and constantly and accurately monitors storm conditions. Over 200 employees would lose their jobs. The Senator from Oklahoma argues that if funding is not spent immediately, then it is not necessary. This reasoning is irresponsible when it comes to overseeing taxpayers' dollars and the capitalization of large projects such as ships, hospitals, and satellites. I am certain everyone in this Chamber knows that a ship is not built in a year. I hope everyone knows that a hospital is not built and equipped in a year. I hope everyone knows that satellites are not built and launched every year. In addition to the potential impact on large procurements, this amendment could impact the funding of programs the Congress voted on and agreed to provide only a few months ago. The impact of these cuts could have significant consequences for many critical services such as HUD programs providing affordable housing to our Nation's low-income citizens--we had a great debate on that here--or funding for climate change research or funding to purchase explosive detection equipment for airports. This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for us, the Members of the Senate, to act responsibly. We have a well established process for funding the Federal Government. It involves the Budget Committee that sets our allocations. It involves the consideration and approval by the Senate of every appropriations bill. I can assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations Committee takes this responsibility seriously. Every agency budget is reviewed and oversight provided throughout the year. Each year the Appropriations Committee recommends rescissions of funds that are not needed, but those rescissions are based on detailed oversight and understanding of the programs, not indiscriminate action such as this amendment. This amendment is not based on careful review, would harm many worthwhile programs, and fails to meet the test of proper oversight. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, and I commend the Hawaiian students' club of Pacific University, Na Haumana O Hawaii, for their steadfast commitment to the preservation of the rich cultural heritage of Hawaii. For 50 proud years, its strong membership has championed educational opportunities to ensure the survival of a distinct history, beautiful language, and long-standing traditions. The story of our State is one of a strong native people who have persevered against forces that nearly extinguished their existence, of struggling immigrants whose hope sustained them while they toiled to achieve the American dream, and of a remote chain of islands who overcame obstacles to attain statehood in the 20th century. Hawaii began with a proud people and continues to serve as a home for proud people. Through the efforts of Na Haumana O Hawaii, those ancient stories and values upon which our island home is founded will endure for future generations to come. The Annual Luau hosted and facilitated through the leadership of Pacific University shares and exemplifies the ``aloha spirit.'' This event allows others to experience the unique qualities of Hawaiian culture in an atmosphere that encourages fellowship. We would like to express our appreciation to faculty, staff and students of Pacific University, Na Haumana O Hawaii, and the local community for their great efforts in making this event so memorable and for spreading the aloha spirit. Mr. President, we ask our colleagues to join us in recognition of this momentous occasion.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has made a good- faith effort to address many of flaws in the Sessions amendment. First, this amendment would require savings from discretionary spending, mandatory taxes and revenues. Second, it wisely eliminates the requirement for a two-thirds majority to increase spending, leaving in place the supermajority 60- vote requirement already included in the budget act. And, it reduces the amount of discretionary savings from the Obama request by more than half--to $77 billion over 3 years. While it is a far better alternative to the Sessions amendment, I must still oppose it. The matter for determining how much deficit reduction the country needs over the next three years should be left up to either the Budget Committee or the Deficit Reduction Commission. It should not be determined by an amendment on the Senate floor. In addition, the burden of taking half the total cut from discretionary spending is too great when the real deficit problem has been caused by runaway mandatory spending and tax cuts for the rich. The 3-year cuts of $77 billion in discretionary spending would still be crippling to the Obama budget plan. The Senate should debate this matter on the budget resolution which the Senate is expected to consider next month, instead of on the FAA Reauthorization Act that is before us today. I very much appreciate the Senator's efforts to achieve a more balanced amendment, but I regrettably must still oppose the amendment. Mr. President, the amendment from the Senator from Alabama seeks to constrain discretionary spending at the levels agreed to in last year's budget resolution. He says his intent is to cap spending for the next 3 years. Now we all understand that discretionary spending is likely to be frozen this year as the President has proposed, but this proposal goes way beyond what the President has recommended. The President has proposed a modified spending freeze which caps nonsecurity related spending. The President allows growth in homeland security; this amendment does not assume growth. The President has requested more than $732 billion in his budget for National Defense for fiscal year 2011 including the cost of war. This amendment only allocates $614 billion. Specifically, this amendment only allows $50 billion for the cost of overseas deployments. As such it fails to fully cover the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as estimated by DOD for fiscal year 2011 by $109 billion. While the proponents of this amendment note that it waives the $50 billion war allowance if we are at war, why does the amendment not support the full request? Some could interpret the provision to mean if we want to support our men and women deployed overseas we would need to get 60 votes. Does the Senate really want national defense to be hostage to a 60-vote threshold? This is not the same as President Obama's plan. Over the 3 years in the Sessions amendment, the caps he would put into place are $141 billion below President Obama's 3-year plan--$50 billion below Defense, not including the cost of war, and $91 billion below nondefense spending. If we adopt the Sessions caps we will have to gut the President's agenda for discretionary spending--education, green jobs, and homeland security. The critical flaw in this amendment is it fails to do anything serious about deficits. It fails to address the two principal reasons why our fiscal house is out of balance. It is a fact that the growth in the debt has resulted primarily from unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax cuts for the rich. This amendment fails to respond to either of those two problems. In short, this amendment is shooting at the wrong target. Moreover, this amendment also wants to raise the threshold on discretionary spending increases to 67-vote approval allowing one-third of the Senate to dictate to the majority. We already have a threshold of 60 votes required to increase discretionary spending above the budget resolution. I for one cannot believe the Senate wants to let a mere one third of the Senate dictate to the other two thirds whether there is a bona fide need for increased spending. This is the wrong direction for this institution. Mandatory spending has increased substantially the last few years. Tax cuts for the rich have constrained revenues, but neither tax cuts nor mandatory spending increases would be subject to 67 votes. The Senator from Alabama says this approach worked to help balance the budget in the 1990s. Well, that is only partially correct and it is critical that my colleagues understand the difference. In the 1990s our budget summits produced an agreement to cap discretionary spending, but they also decreased mandatory spending and they increased revenues at the same time. It was only by getting an agreement on all three areas of the budget at the same time that we were able to achieve a balanced budget. Now let's be clear, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to put a cap on discretionary spending, but they don't want to put policies in place to make sure we have enough revenues to reduce the deficit. Any honest budget analyst can tell you we will never achieve a balanced budget just by freezing discretionary spending. We could eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense, other security spending, and nondefense and still not balance the budget. Moreover, if we cut discretionary spending without reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes we will find it very hard to get those who do not want to address revenues to compromise. I want to remind my colleagues that the administration has just announced that it will create a Deficit Reduction Commission to help us get our financial house in order. It will look at both revenue and spending and find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline. They will make their recommendations to the Congress and the majority leader has committed that the recommendations of that Commission will be brought to the Senate for a vote. Rather than rushing to address only one small portion of the issue, the Senate should await the judgment of the Deficit Reduction Commission which will cover all aspects of the problem. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree that everyone should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked. The Senate has already rejected this flawed plan twice in the last 2 months. This amendment hasn't gotten any better in the intervening period. It still is shooting at the wrong target. It still fails to address the real causes of our deficits and national debt. It is far less that the President has requested. I urge my colleagues once again to vote no. Amendment No. 3453

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate has already rejected this flawed plan twice in the last 2 months, and this amendment has not gotten any better in the intervening time. If we adopt the Sessions caps, we will have to gut the President's agenda for discretionary spending, including education, jobs, and homeland security. This amendment still fails to address the real causes of our deficit and national debt. It is far less than the President has requested. I urge my colleagues to once again vote no. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in the name of reducing our national debt, this amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma seeks to freeze discretionary spending at fiscal year 2008 levels for the next 10 years. While I understand and support the need to restrain discretionary spending as a part of the solution to our debt problem, this draconian approach is most certainly not the way to accomplish that task. As I have said before, it is a fact that the growth in the debt has resulted primarily from unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax cuts for the rich. This amendment, as have several offered from the other side of the aisle, fails to respond to either of those two problems. For this reason alone, my colleagues should not support it. We need a comprehensive solution to the national debt, one that addresses spending, mandatory programs, and revenues. Any honest budget analyst can tell you we will never achieve a balanced budget just by freezing discretionary spending. We could eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense, other security spending, and non- defense and still not balance the budget. Again, I remind my colleagues if we cut discretionary spending without reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes we will find it very hard to get those who do not want to address revenues to compromise. For exactly that reason, the administration has just announced that it will create a Deficit Reduction Commission to help us get our financial house in order. It will look at both revenue and spending and find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline. They will make their recommendations to the Congress and the majority leader has committed that the recommendations of that Commission will be brought to the Senate for a vote. If we adopt the Inhofe caps we will have to effectively eliminate the President's agenda for discretionary spending--education, green jobs, and homeland security. And this amendment would keep the spending caps in place for ten years. With one amendment, we would actually be tying the hands of the next administration as well. In my time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have consistently advocated for regular order. Regular order allows all of our colleagues to participate, debate and offer amendments to the appropriations bills. It allows the budget committee to play the essential role that it does. The Inhofe amendment turns regular order on its head. This amendment fails to do anything serious about deficits. It fails to address the two principal reasons why our fiscal house is out of balance. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree that everyone should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked. The Senate has already rejected a less draconian version of this plan three times in the last 2 months. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I do.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina is, simply stated, a misguided attempt which would turn over the power of the purse to the executive branch. It will not save a penny toward the deficit. It will allow unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability to voters to determine how Federal tax dollars are expended instead of the Congress. Despite the protestations of a few Senators and an active media campaign spurred on by well-financed so-called watchdogs, this amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. For the sake of my colleagues who may still want to support a moratorium on earmarks, let me point out where we are at this moment. Since retaking the majority in 2006, the Democratic-led Congress has reduced funding for earmarks by more than 50 percent. As the new chairman of the appropriations committee last year I vowed with the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Obey, that we would continue on the path set by former Chairman Byrd to reduce earmarks until they represented less than 1 percent of discretionary spending. We achieved that objective in the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Bills, and we have agreed that we will not exceed 1 percent as long as we are chairmen of our respective committees. If we look at the numbers in 2006, the completed appropriations Acts included $16.7 billion in what are called ``Non-project Based Earmarks. Madam President, $8.4 billion of these were in defense and the remainder in non-defense programs. In the fiscal year 2010 bills, we ended the year with a total of $8.2 billion in earmarks, $4.1 billion in defense and $4.1 billion in non-defense, well below 50 percent of the amount in 2006. As a percentage of discretionary spending, non-project based earmarks are hardly \1/2\ of 1 percent. Not only have we accomplished our objective, we have exceeded our goal. I am sure others will cite different numbers and try to say that we have many more earmarks than we are counting. The earmark definition that we use for FY 2010 is the one that comes from the Senate rules. Other outside groups may want to consider additional congressional items as earmarks, but we can only go by what the Senate has declared as earmarks. In summation, let me say this. Since the Democrats have retaken the Congress we have reduced earmarks by more than 50 percent. We are well below 1 percent of total discretionary spending for non-project based earmarks, and we will not be going above 1 percent as long as I am Chairman. As the Senate considers this amendment, I believe it is time we have an honest debate about the overall subject of earmarks. What they are and what they aren't. First and foremost, earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit. And let me say that another way to make sure everyone understands. If we eliminate all earmarks this year or forever, it will not save a nickel in Federal spending. Not a dime. Not this year, next year, or ever. So to continue on this theme, if we adopt the amendment from the senator from South Carolina, we won't save a penny in fiscal year 2010 or fiscal year 2011. We just change who gets to decide what we spend. The definition of an earmark is to carve out funding from a budget for a specific purpose. It is not adding to the budget. When we specify that we want an agency to spend a portion of its budget on a specific item we aren't increasing that agency's budget, we are simply reallocating funding within the budget for that purpose. If that is not completely understood let's look at it this way. The president submits his request to the Congress for funding by agency and budget functions. Our budget committee reviews the funding requested and tells the appropriations committee how much funding it can spend in the budget resolution. The budget resolution makes no assumptions about earmarks. It doesn't designate earmark levels in any way, shape or form. The appropriations committee then divides the total funding provided in the budget resolution among its subcommittees. The committee doesn't increase an allocation for earmarks, nor does it reduce the allocation if earmarks are not funded. Instead it provides the subcommittee with a total amount it can spend. For example, the Foreign Operations subcommittee usually chooses not to proide earmarks. That doesn't change the amount of spending the subcommittee provides. If the Senate adopts this amendment it will dictate that the fiscal year 2011 there will be no earmarks, but the budget committee won't be reducing the allocation to the appropriations committee. The appropriations committee won't reduce the subcommittee allocations. We will just defer to the executive branch to determine how taxpayer funds are spent. So this debate like all others on the issue of earmarks is who gets to determine how taxpayer funds are allocated, the congress or the Executive Branch? All my colleagues are aware that the Constitution requires the Congress to determine where our Nation's funds should be spent. There can be no argument on that. Why then do a handful of members persist in advocating the elimination of the congressional discretion to allocate funds? Some raise the factor of corruption. We are all too aware the role that earmarks played in the corruption and eventual conviction of one Republican member of the House of Representatives. While other corruption has swept other Members of the House, little of that had to do with earmarks. It has involved paid vacations or gifts. It has had to do with sweetheart deals in legislation, or possible bribes for legislative favors. Moreover, the appropriations committee has enacted reforms to minimize any possible chance of corruption by increasing transparency. As Chairman I now require members to place all of their earmarks on their website 30 days before we act upon their requests. We then post all earmarks that are to be included in appropriations bills on the committee's website 24 hours before the full committee takes action on the bill. Furthermore, as directed under Senate Rules, we require each Senator to certify that he or she has no pecuniary interest in any earmark that is requested. We cannot legislate morality. What we can do and have done, however, is to put safeguards in place to ensure that our actions are above board, transparent, and in the best interest of our constituents. Clearly if this amendment were to become law it would change who does the earmarking, not whether earmarks are done. On February 1, the President submitted his appropriations requests to the Congress. The staff of the appropriations committee has begun its detailed examination of that request. My colleagues should know that our review by the staff and the members of our subcommittees takes months to complete. However, in our preliminary review of the budget we have discovered that the President has requested earmarks totalling $25 billion. This is a conservative estimate of the executive branch's earmarks and it uses the same criteria as we would use to identify a congressional spending earmark, specific location or entity, noncompetitive award, and specific dollar amount. In this first assessment, we find that the administration request exceeds congressional earmarks that were approved last year by more than 100 percent, twice as much. This amendment would do nothing to stop the practice of earmarking, but rather only eliminate the congressional influence in that process. But for those who want to persist in championing this amendment as a reform, they should seriously think about the following information. Last week, the democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Committee announced that they no longer would include earmarks done on behalf of for-profit entities, that means for all practical purposes, private companies. The reaction from the lobbying community and other interested parties was swift. According to a March 11 Washington Post article: Lobbyists said a prohibition against for profit earmarks will shift their focus from Capitol Hill to the Federal agencies. Mr. Alan Chvotkin, a lobbyist for the Professional Services Council, was also quoted saying: There will be greater attention focused on protecting programs in the President's Budget. Lobbyists and oversight organizations both agree--the lobbyists will simply go around the Congress and attempt to get their earmarks in the President's Request. A story that appeared in the March 11 edition of Roll Call reports that Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency, said earmarks should remain in appropriations bills. ``The dangerous earmarkers are those going underground,'' Mr. Allison said. ``The real solution is to make them transparent.'' Instead of banning earmarks, Mr. Allison said Congress should focus on creating a centralized place for the public to see who is requesting earmarks and an easily navigable process for following an earmark from start to finish. Let me say for the record we already do that. And finally, this from Laura Peterson of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that has been outspoken in its criticism of the appropriations committee. In a March 10 Congressional Quarterly article, she said: Any ban on spending defined as earmarks could end up increasing the practice of securing funding without formally requesting an earmark. I would be concerned that some earmarks might just migrate to the appropriations bills as committee adds. If it weren't so serious it would be almost laughable. Under this amendment, we won't eliminate earmarks, we will only eliminate our role, a role the Constitution has assigned to the Congress. Moreover, all our efforts at making earmarks more transparent would be rendered moot. The reforms we have implemented, which ensured full and open disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring earmarks, would be irrelevant. Instead, we will have these decisions made by unelected bureaucrats in back rooms of agencies scattered all over this city. Is this the transparency that earmark opponents desired? I think not. I don't understand why those who are the most opposed to the policies of the current president are so intent on putting additional power into his hands and those who serve the Executive Branch. Article I of the Constitution states very clearly: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. The DeMint amendment tramples on the framework established by our founding fathers. In fact, James Madison believed the power of the purse to be the most important power of congress. He called it ``The most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.'' I want all my colleagues to understand what we are doing today. I want everyone watching this body on the television to understand what we are doing today, so that in the future, no one can say, ``I didn't know.'' This amendment shifts the power to designate the expenditure of and accountability for taxpayers' hard earned dollars away from the representatives they elected, to the Executive Branch, where unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no taxpayer will make the decisions of where those dollars will be spent. There were indeed corruptions in the earmark process in the past. No one will dispute that. A Republican member of the House was convicted for corruption related to earmarking. But we as Democrats addressed that issue when we came into power. We implemented reforms which ensured full and open disclosure of who sponsors earmarks, as well as who has given money to those sponsoring earmarks. It is all outlined for the world to see. Now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decisionmaking related to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected bureaucrats. As I said, now with this amendment, not only is transparency in the Congress not continued, but we are shifting the decision-making related to billions of dollars--which is another way of saying earmarking--to unelected bureaucrats that do not have to post anything about their relationships to recipients, who they meet with, when they meet with them, or who bought them dinner. None of those reporting requirements apply to unelected bureaucrats. I am a strong proponent of earmarks. I am proud to sponsor earmarks that meet the needs of my constituents. Like every other Member of this body, I believe I understand the needs of my State better than the bureaucrats downtown do. I am closer to the people of Hawaii and I owe my allegiance to them. I will continue to support earmarks for Hawaii as I will support the legitimate earmarks from other members of this institution. The founders of our great Nation in their wisdom correctly placed the power of the purse in the hands of our elected legislators. Those who seek to overturn that decision by placing artificial constraints on our ability to carry out that mandate are ultimately undermining our Nation's freedoms. They would create a system where there is no accountability to the voter on how their tax dollars are spent. This amendment is one of many this institution has faced and will continue to face that seeks to alter the way taxpayer funds are allocated. Perhaps unwittingly, but if enacted it would turn over spending decisions to the executive branch and weaken our separation of powers. We should not tolerate that. Finally, to remind my colleagues, this amendment won't save a nickel. It has no impact on the deficit. The amendment serves no purpose other than to take away the Congress's right to determine how funds are allocated. I urge all my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank you very much and I hope this amendment is defeated.

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, so often when Members come to the floor to offer simple amendments and describe their normal objectives, it sounds too good to be true. In my years in the Senate, I have found that when things are too good to be true, they usually are. The amendment from the Senator from Alabama seeks to constrain discretionary spending at levels agreed to in last year's budget resolution. He says his intent is to cap spending for the next 4 years. We all understand that discretionary spending is likely to be frozen this year, as the President has proposed, but this proposal goes way beyond what the President of the United States recommended. The President has proposed a modified spending freeze which caps nonsecurity-related spending. The President allows growth in Homeland Security, but this amendment does not assume growth. The President does not put a cap on emergency spending, but this amendment would. The President has requested more than $700 billion in this budget for Defense, including the cost of war. This amendment only allocates $614 billion. Specifically, this amendment only allows $50 billion for the cost of overseas deployments. As such, it fails to fully cover the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want to support our men and women deployed overseas, we will need to get 60 votes. Does the Senate really want national defense to be a hostage to a 60-vote threshold? The critical flaw in this amendment is that it fails to do anything serious about deficits. It fails to address the two principal reasons our fiscal order is out of balance. It is a fact that the growth in the debt has resulted primarily from unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax cuts for the rich. This amendment fails to respond to either one of these two problems. In short, the amendment is shooting at the wrong target. Moreover, this amendment also wants to raise the threshold on discretionary spending increases to a 67-vote approval, allowing one- third of the Senate to dictate the majority. We already have a threshold of 60 votes required to increase spending for emergencies above the budget resolution. I, for one, cannot believe the Senate wants to let a mere one-third of the Senate dictate to the other two- thirds whether an emergency is a bona fide one. This is the wrong direction for this institution. Mandatory spending has run wild in the last few years. Tax cuts for the rich have constrained revenues. But neither tax cuts nor tax increases nor mandatory spending would be subject to 67 votes. The Senator from Alabama says this approach worked to balance the budget in the 1990s. That is only partially correct, and it is critical that my colleagues understand the difference. In the 1990s, our budget summits produced an agreement to cap discretionary spending. But they also decreased the mandatory spending and increased revenues at the same time. It was only by getting an agreement in all three areas at the same time that we were able to achieve a balanced budget. Let's be clear. Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to put a cap on discretionary spending, but they do not want to put policies in place to make certain we have enough revenues to reduce the deficit. Any honest budget analyst will tell you we will never achieve a balanced budget just by freezing discretionary spending. We could eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense, other security spending, nondefense, and still not balance the budget. Moreover, if we freeze discretionary spending without reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes, we will find it very difficult to get those who do not want to address revenues to compromise. I wish to remind my colleagues that the administration has just announced it will create a deficit reduction commission to help us get our financial house in order. It will look at both revenue and spending and find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline. They will make their recommendations to the Congress, and the majority leader has committed that the recommendations of that commission will be brought to the Senate for a vote. The commission will certainly not focus solely on discretionary spending. If we are going to cap discretionary spending, then we must have similar controls on revenues and mandatory spending. The commission has been created precisely for this reason. Rather than rushing to address only one small portion of the issue, the Senate should await the judgment of the deficit reduction commission which will cover all aspects of the problem. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree everyone should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked. Each of us was elected to serve our constituents, but we do not necessarily agree on the best way of doing that. We have some Members who want to hold down government spending, and so they do not seek earmarks or other program increases on behalf of their constituents. I do not agree with them, but I respect their views. We have others who believe the best way to represent their constituents is to seek earmarks on their behalf. But those who seek earmarks or other programmatic increases from the committee should recognize that funding those programs puts pressure to increase government spending, not cut it. I, for one, believe it is inconsistent to insist on getting earmarks for our constituents and supporting other spending increases while at the same time mandating that we cut spending for discretionary programs. Chairman Byrd once stated on the Senate floor that sooner or later every Member comes to the Appropriations Committee for help. I note that last year, the Appropriations Committee received requests for earmarks from more than 90 Members of this body. The Senator from Alabama was among those seeking earmarks. For fiscal year 2010, the Senator requested earmarks totaling more than $400 million. I ask my colleagues: How is the Appropriations Committee supposed to live within the tight constraints of these proposed spending limits over 5 years and still satisfy those earmarks? I would also point out that like many other Senators, the Senator from Alabama has come to the floor on several occasions to seek additional billions of dollars in support of building a fence along our southwest border. The total cost of that fence is estimated to be around $8 billion. It would be virtually impossible to provide the billions required for this fence under the terms of the amendment offered by the Senator. Other Senators have supported large program increases, such as adding $2.5 billion to continue the C-17 program. I have strongly supported continuing the C-17 program, but all Members should realize if the Senate wants to cut discretionary spending programs, such as the C-17, they are unlikely to continue to be funded. We cannot have it both ways. We simply cannot get the funds we believe are essential for our constituents or support our programs which we believe are of national importance, such as the border fence or the C-17, at the same time as we cut discretionary spending. Each and every Member should think about the need for funding for their States, their constituents, and the Nation before they vote on this amendment. The Senate rejected this flawed plan just 6 weeks ago. This amendment has not gotten any better in that intervening period. It is still shooting at the wrong target, and it fails to address the real causes of our deficits and national debt. It is not the same as the President's plan. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, once again, to vote no. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment says one thing and does another. It says it will help control Federal spending, but it leaves mandatory spending off the table when that is the area of rampant growth over the past decade. It also circumvents the Deficit Reduction Commission, which was created a few days ago to look at both spending and revenues by prematurely cutting discretionary spending, and it may require the Appropriations Committee to cut more than $100 billion from national defense. I urge my colleagues to once again reject this amendment. Mr. President, the pending amendment deals with matters within the Budget Committee jurisdiction. Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Childhood Obesity: Beginning the Dialogue on Reversing the Epidemic'' on March 4, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Middle East Peace: Ground Truths, Challenges Ahead.''

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010.