Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 1 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Next Big Disaster: Is the Private Sector Prepared?''

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 4, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment submitted by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. This amendment cloaks itself in the guise of fiscal responsibility, but nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment would rescind funding from the American Recovery Act--the so-called stimulus bill--to pay for the cost of program increases for small businesses. We can all agree that we should do more to support small business, but it is nonsensical to rescind funding from the Recovery Act, which is also creating jobs. I understand all too well that some on the other side of the aisle have argued that the stimulus bill was a mistake, but the facts are proving just the opposite. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--released a report on the impact of those stimulus funds which have already been spent. The Congressional Budget Office report notes the extremely beneficial impact from this act. The report states that the stimulus funds are responsible for an increase of somewhere between 1.5 and 3 percent in the gross domestic product during the last quarter of 2009, and with an estimated increase in this first quarter of up to 3.9 percent. Moreover, the CBO states that the stimulus bill accounted for an increase of at least 1 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009, and possibly as many as 2.9 million jobs. This is something to ponder. The one thing the American people all agree upon is that we need to be doing more to create jobs. The American Recovery Act is doing just that. CBO estimates that the level of jobs created through 2010 from stimulus funds could be as high as 3.4 million jobs. That would mean a decline in unemployment of 1.8 percent in this country. No other action by this Congress has provided this kind of positive impact on the job market. So what possible logic is there in rescinding funds from this act which is providing so many benefits to the American people? Why would we support an amendment to cut funding from the act which is clearly helping to reduce devastating job losses? No one can argue that the stimulus bill isn't working. The proof is at least a million jobs created last quarter. It has had an immensely favorable impact on our economy. I know some of those who oppose the bill don't want to hear it, but that is reality. The numbers from CBO tell the story. The Thune amendment fails to offer any guidance to which programs it would cut. That is a rather strange amendment. Clearly, it is more politically expedient to simply cite a dollar figure to cut rather than identifying which specific programs the amendment would impact. The Thune amendment offers no direction as to which recovery programs it would shut down. The result could be cuts to the highway funding, new energy technology or reversing efforts to make government buildings and low-income housing more energy efficient. Moreover, this amendment doesn't even allow the Congress to determine how the funds should be reduced. Instead, it directs the Office of Management and Budget--OMB--to determine where to reduce funding. I cannot believe the authors of this amendment want the Senate to give up the power of the purse to the bureaucrats at OMB to determine where we should spend our taxpayers' funds, but this is what this amendment would do. For many reasons, this is a bad amendment. It is exactly what the country does not need at this time. We all know that the No. 1 malady facing the country today is unemployment. We now have proof from the Congressional Budget Office that the stimulus bill was the exact right medicine to treat this illness. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and allow our stimulus funds to work as planned: making wise investments in America and putting our people back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, we find ourselves debating an amendment that we voted down just last month. Proponents make the rescissions sound like good policy when you listen to them. But Members need to understand this amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to our economy. First, this amendment proposes rescissions throughout the agencies that are completely random and based on subjective assumptions. Second, rescinding discretionary funds that have been available for more than 2 years will jeopardize our national defense, our homeland security, and the well-being of our citizens. This is simply irresponsible governing. For example, a ship is not built in a year or 2 years. A hospital is not built in a year. And if they are not built in a year, these funds are rescinded. This amendment proposes to cut billions in funding the Congress voted on and agreed to provide just months ago. This amendment is not based on careful review and, if adopted, would have serious consequences on our procurement process and many critical programs for fiscal year 2010. The majority of the Members acted responsibly in January and rejected the same approach. I urge my colleagues to do the same today. Accordingly, Mr. President, I move to table the Bunning amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 1299, the Capitol Police Administration bill, the legislative vehicle for the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 will allow the United States to remain competitive as a welcoming destination for foreign travelers. Our ability to explain the processes and changes made by the United States to gain entry for travel will help to ease fears about the entry process. The proposed nonprofit, independent corporation charged with this responsibility will be able to conduct the necessary outreach and promote tourism in a way that the tourism industry cannot. In addition, an Office of Travel Promotion will be able to work with the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to improve the entry process. Promoting the United States as an attractive tourist destination for both leisure and business with international visitors is of the utmost importance to the many States that house destination resorts. Consider the experience of my own home State of Hawaii. Hawaii's economy largely relies on travel and travel related business. Visitors from around the world come to see our islands' natural beauty, and experience the spirit of ``Aloha.'' Our Nation's hospitality industry suffered a severe setback following the events of September 11, 2001, and travel from abroad to the United States fell dramatically. It is not only the hospitality industry in Hawaii that suffers, but our local businesses. The State of Hawaii boasts its beauty and environment, but many travelers to our State come to do business, which is sometimes obscured or overlooked because of Hawaii's label as a tourist destination. The hospitality industry's employees rely on vacationers and businessmen and women to provide for their families. The economic activity generated by this industry continues to struggle during these financially challenging times. Hawaii's experience is not unique. The hospitality industry nationwide continues to face similar challenges, and the economic effects have rippled through the nation to impact all of our citizens. The State of Hawaii's visitor statistics continue to reflect the downward trend. Preliminary travel data for 2009 indicate that there was an overall 3.5 percent decline in the number of international visitors to the islands compared to the number of international visitors in 2008. Nationwide, the number of international visitors between January and November of 2009 fell by 7.2 percent compared to the same period during 2008. Both developing countries and industrialized economies around the world have ministers and offices that promote travel to their respective countries. However, the United States does not have an office that promotes travel and tourism abroad. This legislation is an important first step in the right direction. Establishing an Office of Travel Promotion will help to attract foreign travelers to the United States. This will not only sustain our tourism based industries, it reinforces business relationships and promotes a better understanding between Americans and our friends abroad. Interacting with the American people is a valuable tool at our disposal to dispel international travelers of misconceptions they may have about our country. Approximately 74 percent of visitors have a more favorable opinion of the United States after visiting our country. The economic activity generated by international travel and its promotion should be approached in the same manner we foster other industries equally important to jobs and the economy. The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 is vital to our travel and tourism industry's ability to compete globally, and to restore confidence in the United States' image as a country that is committed to welcoming our friends from abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and help us ensure that international business and leisure travel to the United States is given all of the tools necessary to succeed. The question is on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1299.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, let's make it clear. This is not the plan the President presented last evening. The President allows growth in Homeland Security. This amendment does not. The President's proposal doesn't put a cap on emergency spending. Yes, we have decided certain things are an emergency. Yet it doesn't mean that all of us will agree. He doesn't put a cap on that. The President's plan will request more than $700 billion for Defense. This amendment allocates $614 billion. To exceed this amount, we need 60 votes. Does the Senate want to make the Defense budget subject to 60 votes? As chairman of the 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 the budget, while the revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked. This is a flawed amendment. It is not the President's plan. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Once again, we find ourselves debating an amendment that at first blush sounds like a good thing. But when Members take the time to actually read the amendment and understand the programs it impacts, they will discover this amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to our economy. Let me begin by discussing the last section of the amendment, section 16. Section 16 of the Coburn amendment is based on assumptions that reflect a lack of understanding about both what constitutes discretionary unobligated balances as well as about Federal funding and oversight for certain critical procurement programs. The Senator from Oklahoma claims that $100 billion would be rescinded from an estimated $657 billion in unobligated balances. First, this amendment assumes a rescission amount based on erroneous assumptions. Specifically, the majority of the $657 billion in unobligated balances would not be eligible for rescission under criteria outlined in the amendment because they are either mandatory funds or they are not older than 2 years. 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, our homeland security, our economy, and the well- being of our citizens. For example, 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 I think all of us are aware 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 would now require the Navy to cancel contracts for ships under construction and lay off thousands of workers across the Nation's shipyards. In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought bravely in past wars, section 16 also severely impacts the construction of new hospitals by the Veterans' Administration. Like for defense procurement, the VA requests full funding for the construction project in the first year. As a result, the Veterans' Administration has 43 active major construction projects at various stages of completion, totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated balances. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the loss of this funding, further delaying critical services to our brave men and women who have served us. Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland Security would 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 would 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 reasoning for the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is a catch-22 for those of us on the Appropriations Committee with responsibility for overseeing our taxpayers' dollars. We are criticized for having funding that is unobligated for more than 1 year. Well, a ship is not built in a year, a hospital is not built and equipped in a year, and the next generation satellite is not built in 1 year. The Coburn amendment proposes to rescind an additional $20 billion from programs he perceives to be redundant. We can go around and around about what is redundant and what is not because one's perception of what is or is not a duplicative program is based on subjectivity. It is that simple, and this amendment reflects what the Senator from Oklahoma alone believes is redundant. But what is clear is that this amendment proposes to cut $20 billion in funding that the Congress voted on and agreed to provide just months ago. The impact of these cuts has significant consequences for many critical services. For example, the Senator's amendment proposes that the intent is to consolidate duplicative programs serving the homeless. However, in reality, this language simply calls on the Department of Housing and Urban Development to implement a 5-percent reduction across the Department's programs. The bulk of the funding increase recently provided by Congress to HUD covers the increasing cost of providing affordable housing to our Nation's low-income citizens. According to HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, on any given night there are over 650,000 people who are homeless. However, HUD's resources fund 183,000 beds. During this difficult economic time, it is not the time to cut housing for the Nation's poorest individuals. This amendment also takes aim at nursing education programs, claiming they are duplicative, when in fact they are not. While there are several programs that promote nursing education, each of these programs addresses different needs in our Nation's effort to address a profound nursing shortage. We have a loan repayment program to get nurses to rural areas, a program to incentivize nurses to teach, and a program to expand nurse training in geriatric care. The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate programs for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The truth is, each of the three agencies named by the Senator deal with a different aspect of climate change, and each brings a special expertise to the problem. They are not duplicative; they are complementary based on specific expertise. For the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies Program is not a grant program to weatherize existing residential and commercial buildings in the same fashion as the weatherization program does for residential homes. There is a difference between a residence and a building. It is a research and development program aimed at new technologies. There is simply not overlap or duplication in these programs. The amendment proposes to rescind funding for the 2010 census. Any reduction in funding for the constitutionally mandated 2010 census at this critical time would jeopardize the completion of a timely and accurate count, which is necessary, sir. The amendment proposes to cut $2.2 billion from critical Department of Homeland Security programs. The attempted destruction last month of Northwest flight 253 near Detroit is our most recent reminder that terrorists continue to threaten our homeland and the security of all Americans. This amendment would reduce funding for the purchase of explosive detection equipment at the very time the Department of Homeland Security Secretary has asked us to address the need for further increases in airport security. In closing, the author of this amendment arbitrarily rescinds funding with no true justification. The rescission of $100 billion from the $657 billion in unobligated balances, as we know, would wreak havoc on ongoing procurement. The rescission of $20 billion is based on the claim of redundancy in programs where no redundancy exists. This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for Members to act responsibly. We have a well-established process for funding the Federal Government. It involves a Budget Committee that sets our allocations and involves the consideration and approval by the Senate of every appropriations bill. It is not passed in the dark of night. I can assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations Committee takes its responsibilities seriously, and every agency budget is reviewed and oversight is 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. This amendment is not based on careful review and would harm many worthwhile programs, and it fails to meet the test of proper oversight. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Amendment No. 3308 I will also speak on another amendment. I will speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions. We are all concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to control the debt of the United States. I support that goal, as I imagine all of us in this Chamber support the goal. None of us disputes the ultimate threat to the standard of living of our citizens posed by long-term deficit spending. However, the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama is not the appropriate way to attack the issue, for several reasons. As I understand the amendment, it would have the effect of freezing any increases in nondefense discretionary spending for the next 5 years. In addition, the amendment would impose caps on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks. The amendment also contains unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's start with the facts. For fiscal year 2010, the government spent $2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was discretionary. The remaining $1.7 trillion we declare as being mandatory. Of the $1.2 trillion that was discretionary, approximately $526 billion, or less than half, was for nondefense purposes. Therefore, this amendment attempts to reduce the deficit of the United States by constraining 18 percent of total government spending. If the goal is to reduce government spending, I am unclear on how constraining growth on just 18 percent of that spending will be at all effective. In addition, if we examine the actual numbers involved here, it becomes even clearer that this amendment will simply not achieve its stated goal. From fiscal years 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93 billion, as compared to $4.4 trillion. Doing the math, for the past 4 years, the increase in nondefense discretionary spending has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in the national debt--just 2 percent. What do we get for this 2-percent savings? Aside from the obvious challenge of funding vital government programs without even an adjustment for inflation, we also put our country and our citizens at risk. Arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. Such subjective across-the-board restrictions would hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders. As more and more of our service men and women are returning from the battlefield, this measure would restrict our ability to provide our military personnel and veterans with the medical care and support they need. These are only a few examples of the damage that would be done to vital programs, all for a projected savings of 2 percent. Even more troubling, this amendment would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its very nature and definition, impossible to predict. To deliberately impede the government's ability to respond to natural disaster or major terrorist attack I say is deeply irresponsible. Recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to affix a set price to future emergencies. More than 4 years later, the gulf coast is still recovering from destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been needed to respond to this one disaster alone. We have all seen the horrible suffering that has resulted from the devastating earthquake in Haiti. What if a city in California were to experience a similar disaster? This reckless amendment could delay or block the timely delivery of resources needed for an appropriate Federal response. The recent Christmas Eve airline bombing attempt serves as a stark reminder of the grave threats that continue to face our Nation. In the event of a major terrorist attack on our soil, the Federal Government must not be constrained by an emergency spending cap. Remarkably, this amendment would also restrict funding needed to support our men and women in uniform fighting overseas. Based on earlier budget projections that no longer reflect fiscal reality, this amendment provides $130 billion for the current fiscal year and $50 billion per year thereafter for ``overseas deployments and other contingencies.'' The President's recent decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan will almost certainly require additional resources from Congress. I find it very difficult to imagine that the Senator from Alabama genuinely believes that $50 billion would suffice to cover the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this amendment were adopted, with defense and overseas caps, in statute, are we expecting Congress to cut defense to pay for these operations? That is what this amendment authorizes. Spending restraints that would deny funding needed to support our troops are not fiscally prudent; they are deeply irresponsible. Finally, I remind my colleagues that we already have a 60-vote threshold to overcome budget points of order to appropriations bills. As we all know, 60 votes is not a minor hurdle to overcome. By increasing that threshold to 67 votes, we turn over decisionmaking to a small portion of the Senate. We should not let those who represent only one third of this body exercise control over bona fide emergency spending. This country must face the challenge of reducing our deficit. We all agree to that. But we must do so in a meaningful and effective way. I do not believe this amendment does either. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Sessions amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma proposes to cut $20 billion from programs which he describes as being redundant. Well, take, for example, nursing. There are three different programs. They are not redundant. One is for education; another is to train women and men to go to rural areas, rural America, to serve; and the third is for research. Yes, three different agencies handle that. It is for three different purposes. Then you have HUD. One of the sad facts of life is that tonight 658,000 American men, women, and children are going to go to bed homeless, some of them with empty stomachs, some without blankets, and we are going to cut 5 percent from housing for the homeless? This amendment does that. Then you have cuts for foreign operations. Senator Leahy spent some time this afternoon explaining why this is foolish. We had an accounting change because now we cover State Department activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it is ill-advised to do what the Senator proposes because these are not redundant. These are not wasteful. I think we could be spending more for the homeless, but yet we are cutting this by this amendment. I hope we reject this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment. Potentially it could be damaging. It says, very simply, if the funds are not obligated for 2 years, then it is rescinded. It sounds reasonable, but I think it is no secret it takes longer than 2 years to build a battleship. It takes more than 2 years to build an aircraft carrier. It takes more than 2 years to build a hospital. Right now, there are 43 VA hospitals being built. Are we going to cut them out? What about the shipbuilding industry? Are we going to rescind that? This amendment has potentially very dangerous consequences. I hope my colleagues will vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent for all taxpayers. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax deduction for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 percent. In 1993, the Congress again reduced the deduction to 50 percent. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction. At a time when the nation is getting back on a stronger economic footing, the legislation is particularly critical especially for the small businesses and self-employed individuals that depend so heavily on the business meal to conduct business. Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best, and sometimes only, marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small businesses bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant. Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create an $18 billion increase to the overall economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent for all taxpayers. In 1986, the Congress reduced the allowable tax deduction for business meals and entertainment from 100 percent to 80 percent. In 1993, the Congress again reduced the deduction to 50 percent. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction. At a time when the nation is getting back on a stronger economic footing, the legislation is particularly critical especially for the small businesses and self-employed individuals that depend so heavily on the business meal to conduct business. Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best, and sometimes only, marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small businesses bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant. Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's, NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create an $18 billion increase to the overall economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a State-by-State chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. As my colleagues know, this afternoon the Senate received this measure from the House which represents a compromise between the bill passed by the House last July and what we passed this past October. Since passage of the Senate measure, Vice Chairman Cochran and I and our staffs have spent countless hours in discussion with our colleagues in the House to thrash out the differences between our two bills. The product the Senate will consider represents the work of our discussions. While this is a House measure, I can assure my colleagues it is a very fair and balanced product. The Defense appropriations portion of this measure totals $636.3 billion in discretionary spending, including more than $128 billion for the cost of our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In total, the Defense bill is $3.8 billion below the request of the President and within the subcommittee's allocation. This bill represents the hard work over the past year of all the members of the Defense subcommittee. It contains funds that we believe will best meet the needs of the men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation in the military. The bill provides funding to increase their pay by 3.4 percent. It provides more than $30 billion to care for their health and the health of their families. It provides support to families with loved ones serving in harm's way overseas and funding to ensure that their workplaces and quality of life back home are protected. Of equal importance, the funding in this bill ensures that our forces in the field have the equipment and other tools required to meet their missions. Funding has been added to the President's request to provide for more MRAP vehicles to protect our forces from IEDs in Afghanistan. Funds are provided for more medical evacuation and combat rescue helicopters to save our wounded troops. Funds have been added to sustain production of the C-17 Program so our forces in the field can be adequately resupplied, no matter where they are based. This bill enhances research in lifesaving technologies and increases funds to care for our wounded personnel. It fully funds the priorities of Secretary Gates and our military commanders. While I know some will criticize the fact that funds have been included at the request of Members of Congress, I remind my colleagues that, in total, this amount is less than 1 percent of the funding in the bill. Moreover, all the so-called earmarks in the defense portion of this bill were in either the House or Senate bills. There are no ``airdropped'' earmarks in the defense funding included in this measure. In addition to the defense portion of the bill, the House has added a little more than 1 dozen provisions to provide a 2-month safety net to unemployed and nearly impoverished Americans and to extend critical provisions which are set to expire this month. For individual Americans, provisions were included to extend, through February 28, 2010, expiring unemployment insurance benefits that were established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Likewise, provisions were included to extend the 65-percent COBRA health insurance subsidy from 9 to 15 months for individuals who have lost their jobs and to extend the job lost eligibility date also through February 28, 2010. Further, a provision was included to freeze the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines at 2009 levels in order to prevent a reduction in eligibility for programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and school lunch programs through March 1 of next year. This provision keeps struggling families from falling through the cracks. In addition, provisions were included to provide $125 million to extend the Recovery Act program for small businesses. The program reduces lending fees charged to borrowers under the Small Business Administration's guaranteed loan programs and increases the Federal guarantee on certain small business loans. The Recovery Act supported a resurgence in SBA small business lending, but funds were exhausted in November. The additional funding in this bill will help support lending for small businesses during the economic recovery by continuing fee relief for borrowers and encouraging lenders to extend credit to small businesses. Further, this bill includes a short-term extension of the highway, transit, highway safety and truck safety programs. Without this extension, the highway program would be brought to a standstill and the Department of Transportation would be unable to reimburse States for eligible expenses. In addition, several agencies--including the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--would not have the funds necessary to pay their employees. This is not your typical end-of-the-year Christmas tree; to the contrary, it is the bare minimum of programs which must be continued to provide for our less fortunate and our struggling small businesses. It also allows for a 2-month extension of laws such as the PATRIOT Act, in order to allow more time for our authorizing committees to come to agreement on more permanent legislation. The House has passed a compromise measure and forwarded it to the Senate because of the calendar. Today is December 16, and our Department of Defense has been operating on a continuing resolution for more than 2 months. It is time we get on with the process and get this bill to the President. It is a good measure. Our troops deserve our support. Let's show we support those who volunteered to serve all of us by voting today to send this bill to the President. As I close, I wish to thank the Defense Subcommittee staff for their dedication and hard work in putting this bill together. I wish to put into the Record the names of these staff members who have worked on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. They are: Charlie Houy, Nicole Diresta, Kate Fitzpatrick, Katy Hagan, Kate Kaufer, Ellen Maldonado, Rachel Meyer, Erik Raven, Gary Reese, Betsy Schmid, Renan Snowden, Bridget Zarate, Rob Berschinski, Stewart Holmes, Alycia Farrell, Brian Potts, Brian Wilson and Tom Osterhoudt. Mr. President, it is my pleasure and privilege to be chairman of the committee. It is a great honor. I wish to make certain we express our gratitude to all these staff people. Without them, I would not be standing here at this moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there is nothing in rule XLIV which governs a message between the Houses in regard to disclosing earmarks. However, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee it is my belief that the committee should none the less attest that all earmarks have been fully disclosed. Accordingly I note that in the bill H.R. 3326 as passed by the House and explained in the statement offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House of Representatives on December 16, 2009, each earmark in the bill has been disclosed in accord with rule XLIV.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today, I am supporting this resolution to honor the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as well as to honor the 10th anniversary of His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein's accession to the throne. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senator Gregg. Since establishing diplomatic relations, Jordan has worked together with the U.S. towards the mutual goal of peace in the Middle East. In 1994, King Hussein and Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, signed the Jordan-Israel peace treaty, ending nearly 50 years of war between the two countries. The government of Jordan has been an instrumental partner in the fight against al-Qaida and terrorism. As a result, the people of Jordan have also suffered devastating losses at the hands of terrorists.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to waive all applicable sections of rule XXVIII, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today with mixed emotions. When I assumed the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee last January, I immediately reached out to the senior Republican member of the committee from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, to seek his support in achieving my central objective for the fiscal year: to return this appropriations process to the regular order. The vice chairman, Senator Cochran, agreed wholeheartedly, and together we committed to passing all 12 appropriations bills individually and to sending each of the completed bills to the President for his signature. It might be of interest to my colleagues that of the 12 bills assigned to this committee, 11 were passed by the end of July, many months ago. One was held up at the request of the House but passed in mid-September. This is December. These bills have been passed. And it might be of further interest to the Senate that of the 12 bills, 9 were passed unanimously, bipartisan, 30 to 0. Three passed by one objection--29 to 1. Completing action on our annual appropriations bills is our most fundamental responsibility. The Founding Fathers gave us the power of the purse, and for good reason. Our system of checks and balances, which has served us so well in the last 220 years, allows the executive branch to propose spending initiatives that make clear to us their intentions and desires. But the Constitution gives the Congress the ultimate decisionmaking authority, and it is our responsibility to fulfill this obligation. Regular order allows each Senator the opportunity to debate and to amend each bill on an individual basis. Every Senator on both sides of the aisle recognizes that regular order is the preferred course of action. The underlying Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill will provide urgently needed funding so we can keep our transportation system safe and strong and provide much-needed assistance to our most vulnerable populations. In addition, every one of the six bills we consider today was reported out by the full committee. As I pointed out, three of them were passed unanimously and the other three by a vote of 29 to 1. Every one of them has been written in a bipartisan fashion with considerable input on the part of the minority party. The negotiations with our House counterparts have been spirited at times, but I can assure my colleagues that on the difficult issues, our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members have done an excellent job of defending Senate positions and of coming to fair and equitable compromises when such was necessary. I would also note that on Tuesday evening, we held a full and open conference with the House at which every conferee, including 22 Members of the Senate, bipartisan Members, and 14 Members of the House, also bipartisan, was afforded the opportunity to offer amendments on any provision of the legislation. For the record, comity was demonstrated by the Senate conferees, and no amendments--no amendments--were offered on our side. At the conclusion of the conference, 16 conferees, including 4 Republican members, signed the conference report. Finally, I can say this is a clean bill. There are no extraneous measures attached. For this reason, as I just mentioned, we have bipartisan support of the bill, and I am proud of that fact. Some have criticized this bill as spending too much. I will point out that the amounts recommended in the bill are below the amounts requested by the President and equal to the amount approved by the Congress in the Budget Committee. It has been a long process. Furthermore, the only area where the committee exceeded the amount requested by the President is for military construction and for veterans. Moreover, some have criticized the majority for resorting to an omnibus measure once again. Clearly, those who criticize are those responsible for this outcome. When the Senate needs 4 days to pass a noncontroversial conference agreement on the Energy and Water appropriations bill, we know the only reason can be that a few Members want to delay our progress. Why do they want to do that? So they can complain when the calendar has expired and we have no time left for the regular order. As a reminder to all of us, the Military Construction bill was delayed for 6 days of debate on this floor. It was a bill that was voted out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, bipartisan-wise, and then delayed. But after the delay of 6 days, this Senate passed it by a vote of 100 to 0. What was the opposition all about? What was the delay all about, when everyone here was in favor of it? There was not a single dissenting vote, so it is obvious there was not opposition to the bill. It was simply that a few Members wanted to delay the bill. Mr. President, now is December 11, and it is nearly time to adjourn the Senate for the year. We have not completed our work, and therefore we have consolidated six appropriations bills in one measure. My colleagues know precisely why we have reached this point, and it is not the fault of one member of the Appropriations Committee, nor the fault of the majority. It is the fault of a handful of Members who would rather see the responsibility for funding our Federal Government turned over to the bureaucrats and administration than have the Congress exercise its constitutional responsibility. I am a very patient person, but at times the rhetoric of this debate is too much to take. With Senator Cochran, my vice chairman, as my partner, we have tried to move 12 individual bills only to be thwarted by a few Members--just a few Members. That is why we are here and where we are today with an omnibus bill. As we look ahead to consideration of fiscal year 2011 appropriations bills, I hope all Members of the Senate will learn from the frustrations of this year. We can succeed in returning to regular order for appropriations. We only need a modicum of cooperation and a recognition that delay for the sake of delay serves no one's best interests, least of all the people of the United States. I strongly support this clean, bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2009. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, a program that I originally sponsored in the 106th Congress establishing the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. Coral reefs are among the oldest and most economically and biologically important ecosystems in the world. They provide habitat for more than one million diverse aquatic species, a natural barrier for protection from coastal storms and erosion, and are a potential source of treatment for many of the world's diseases. In addition, reef-supported tourism is a $30 billion industry worldwide, and the commercial value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs is more than $100 million. However, our coral reef ecosystems face many threats including pollution, climate change and coral bleaching, and overfishing to name a few. Coral reefs cover only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean floor, yet provide habitat for more than 25 percent of all marine species. The original Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 recognized the need to preserve, sustain and restore the condition of these valuable coral reef ecosystems. It directed NOAA to develop a National Coral Reef Action Strategy, established a NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, and created a Coral Reef Conservation Fund to support public-private partnership projects. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 also authorized NOAA to provide emergency grants to address unforeseen and disaster-related impacts to coral reefs. The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2009 would strengthen NOAA's ability to comprehensively address threats to coral reefs and empower the agency with tools to ensure that damage to our coral reef ecosystems is prevented or effectively mitigated. It also establishes consistent practices for maintaining data, products, and information, and promotes the widespread availability and dissemination of that environmental information. The bill allows the Secretary to further develop partnerships with foreign governments and international organizations as well as with Federal agencies, State and local governments, tribal organizations, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, commercial organizations, and other public and private entities. These partnerships are critical not only to the understanding of our coral reef ecosystems, but also to their protection and restoration. Finally, the bill allows for any amount received by the United States as a result of illegal activity resulting in the destruction, take, loss, or injury of coral reefs to be used toward restoration efforts. I would urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I hope that we may pass this bill quickly to continue supporting NOAA's leadership role in coral reef conservation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2901

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I am submitting a Senate resolution to observe Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing, and am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senator Reid. We are a global society, interconnected by highly efficient modes of communication and transportation. With continued advancements in technology, nations will become even more interdependent upon each other. For this reason, I will continue to support and advocate for world peace. This is not a lofty pursuit. I have great confidence that if nations use everything at their disposal, they can promote peaceful, diplomatic options instead of war.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Byrd on this historic milestone. It has been my pleasure and a great honor to work and serve with Senator Byrd during his service to our Nation. He has served as a devoted champion to his home State of West Virginia. Senator Byrd is worthy to be part of the history of the United States, as he now becomes the longest serving Member of the Congress of the United States of America. I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to his great service and the accomplishments of this great American, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to apprise my colleagues of an impressive effort in Afghanistan. I recently had the opportunity to visit with our military troops and civilian personnel serving in Afghanistan. While I was there, I had the pleasure to meet Dr. Michael Smith, president of the American University of Afghanistan. I was embarrassed to admit that until meeting Dr. Smith, I had never heard of the university. Upon learning more about the university, I am encouraged to know that while bombs are bursting and bullets are flying, there is an ongoing and successful American mission to provide educational opportunities to the men and women of Afghanistan. Today, the American University of Afghanistan has 450 students and will graduate their first undergraduate class next spring. The student body draws from every province and ethnic group in Afghanistan and is nineteen percent female and growing. While the majority of faculty members are American, 15 other countries are represented, including Afghanistan. The university models itself after other strong international American universities like the American University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut. Its programs focus on business and entrepreneurship, information technology, and many other professional areas. Since over 85 percent of the student body have been immigrants at some point in their lives and 29 percent of the students graduated high school in Pakistan, one goal of creating this university is to enable Afghanis the educational opportunity to earn a degree that can be utilized for the betterment of Afghanistan. I know many of my colleagues have plans to travel to Afghanistan to visit with our troops. I would encourage all of you to take some time to learn about this university which is one of the unsung efforts we have undertaken in Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to support this mission so when the military departs Afghanistan we can leave with a smile and our heads held high knowing that we have not only supported the security and stabilization of Afghanistan but have provided a sustained educational mission as well.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee to discuss amendment No. 2754, which has been cosponsored by Senators Johnson and Cochran, to reallocate unobligated fiscal year 2009 military construction funding to support President Obama's new European missile defense plan.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman. Funding was appropriated in last year's MILCON/VA appropriations bill for the European missile defense sites but now can no longer be spent. This amendment will enable the Missile Defense Agency to meet the President's timelines for defending Europe and the United States sooner against Iranian missiles. In order to meet the timelines set out by the President to deploy a capability in Europe in the 2015 timeframe, General O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, MDA, has requested the Congress support the use of $68.5 million to construct an AEGIS Ashore Test Facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. The funding would come from the now unneeded funds for the two sites in Europe.