Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to echo my colleagues' comments. A recent Agriculture Research Service report indicated, ``Because swine are also susceptible to infection with avian and human influenza viruses, genetic re-assortment between these viruses and/or swine influenza viruses can occur.'' The potential for swine to develop novel viruses that can impact human health highlights the importance of the additional ongoing resources in this bill for the NADC. It is my intention to support the subcommittee's efforts as enunciated to provide the specific resources noted above in fiscal year 2010 and over the long term.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the Senate is considering the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. I thank our two managers, Senators Kohl and Brownback, for their hard work on this measure. The bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee more than 3 weeks ago on a bipartisan basis with all members voting in support of the measure. As my colleagues are aware, as the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee this year one of my goals was to increase transparency and accountability in the appropriations process. In many respects I have followed the lead of former Chairman Senator Byrd in this regard. To this end, the Agriculture bill and report have been available on the Internet and in printed form for several weeks. All Members have had ample time to review the material in this bill. As the Senate considers this measure it will find a bill that will meet our Nation's critical requirements to support agriculture and related programs which are vital to our economy and, frankly, our Nation's livelihood. Our Nation has been blessed with a wealth of natural resources which allows us to be the world's leader in agriculture. This bill offered by Senators Kohl and Brownback will help to ensure that we maintain that position. There is a total funding of $123.9 billion included in this bill, of which $23.05 billion is for discretionary programs, the same as the 302(b) allocation. While this represents an 11-percent increase in funding when compared with fiscal year 2009, not including supplemental spending, my colleagues should recognize that for too long funding for our Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee has been severely constrained. Even with this level of funding, the subcommittee has had to find savings in farm programs to live within this allocation. I very much thank our two managers for their work in preparing this bill. The Committee on Appropriations has offered its unanimous support. I believe the full Senate should do the same.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE. Please do so. Amendment No. 1846 To Amendment No. 1813

Mr. INOUYE. Yes.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 225, submitted earlier today.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 50 years ago next month, the 85th Congress of the United States voted to allow a tiny island archipelago made up of people of every race and creed and situated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean entry into the Union. August 21, 2009, marks the 50th anniversary of the execution of Proclamation 3309, signed by President Dwight David Eisenhower, which admitted Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State. On a personal note, 50 years ago today, I was elected by the people of Hawaii to serve as the first Member of the House of Representatives from the State of Hawaii. It is a moment I shall never forget. And on August 25, 1959, I had the great honor and privilege of standing behind the great President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, when he signed Proclamation 3309. The territory of Hawaii was annexed to the United States in 1898 by a joint resolution of Congress based on a treaty signed with the Hawaiian government. For many years thereafter, many delegations of Congressmen and Senators visited the territory of Hawaii to consider the pleas submitted by generations of our people requesting statehood. Finally, during the 85th Congress in 1959, members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs, led by Congressman Leo W. O'Brien, visited the territory of Hawaii to make an inquiry into granting it statehood. The members of the committee met with local leaders and government officials in Hawaii and noted that the islands of Hawaii formed a unique and successful racial melting pot and claimed that if the rest of the Nation could mix as well, our democracy would be advanced by a century. The State of Hawaii has been a rich cultural addition to the United States, thanks to the ancient culture of Native Hawaiians, the diverse multiracial society created by generations of Asian and European immigrants, and the stunning natural beauty of our tropical climate. Hawaii has produced the first Chinese and Japanese American Members of Congress, the first woman of color in Congress, and the first Native Hawaiian in the Senate. The Honorable Barack Obama, the first African- American President of the United States, was born and raised in Honolulu, HI. Hawaii is much more than hula dancing, lovely beaches, and beautiful weather. For example, 300 years ago, before Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic Ocean in search of India, Polynesians boarded double-hulled canoes and sailed north seeking a place called Havaiki. These ancient voyagers found Havaiki and settled there and slowly built their society and government. A kingdom emerged and a monarchy grew to gain the respect of nations around the world. The kingdom of Hawaii entered into treaties with the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and the United States. That kingdom was overthrown with the assistance of the U.S. military forces. But the Congress of the United States, realizing that the takeover was not done in a democratic fashion, recently issued an official apology to the people of Hawaii. It takes a great country like America to admit its wrongs. Hawaii's location in the middle of the Pacific between the U.S. mainland and the nations of Asia has made it a major center of military defense for the United States. Pearl Harbor serves as a critical naval outpost, allowing our fleet to connect to the United States, Asia, and other Pacific nations. So critical is Pearl Harbor's location to our national defense that it was targeted by our enemies at the beginning of World War II. The bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II and revealed the loyalty the people of Hawaii had for the United States and the sacrifices they were willing to make for their country. Thousands upon thousands of young men from Hawaii volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army during World War II. Senator Dan Akaka and I were two of the volunteers. Nearly 8 billion visitors from around the world each year are drawn to Hawaii's breathtaking beaches, scenic sites, and unique culture. Hawaii is home to one-fourth of the endangered species in the United States. We have eight national parks, including the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, which is the home to Kilauea, the most active volcano on Earth. Hawaii has truly added to the diversity and richness of the United States--culturally, racially, ecologically, and geographically. Today, the Congress of the United States celebrates Hawaii as the 50th State to enter the Union.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of its third appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The bill before the Senate provides funding for the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers and for related agencies. The funding in the bill totals $33.75 billion. This is nearly $650 million lower than the administration requested. As we begin our debate on this bill, I urge my colleagues not to delay action on this measure. The Senate will only be in session for 2 more weeks prior to the August recess. The Appropriations Committee has reported seven bills which have already passed the House and are awaiting Senate action. We need to get this bill passed so that we can move on to the other appropriations bills that are ready for consideration. Passing appropriations bills and providing the funding essential to run our Federal Government is one of the most important duties of this Senate. We need to act responsibly and move this legislation. All Senators should have an interest in seeing this bill passed. It provides critical funding for our nation's waterways, for safeguarding our nuclear power industry, and for programs to improve energy usage, conservation and discovery. I know of very little controversy associated with this measure. I would ask any Member who is interested in amending this bill to come to the floor today to offer any amendment. I am very grateful to Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett for their hard work on this measure. The committee strongly endorsed the recommendations in this bill and passed the measure unanimously. I believe this bill deserves the support of all my colleagues. I urge all Members of the Senate to work with the managers and help us attain quick passage.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, pursuant to Senate rules, I submit a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the F-22 program. For the past week as the debate has swirled around on this program I have not spoken on the subject. My colleagues know that I have strongly supported the F-22 program over the past two decades. Why? Because it is without question the world's most advanced fighter aircraft. It's capabilities far outstrip anything else in the world. There simply is no match. When the Advanced Tactical Fighter Program began more than 20 years ago, no one could foresee what the world would look like in 2009. We planned to build 750 F-22s in order to match the Soviet Union's assumed far greater number of advanced fighters. The F-22 was designed with a goal of defeating 10 Soviet fighters apiece. The strategy was that using a combination of stealth and an advanced radar the F-22 would be able to attack Soviet fighters long before the adversary knew they were there. I am pleased to note that 20 years later as we train with the F-22 our Air Force pilots report that is exactly what it can do. Time after time as we exercise with the F-22, the results are nearly the same. The F-22 defeats all adversaries nearly with the same predictions as the designers hoped it would do. What has changed, however, is that the Soviet Union no longer poses the threat that was assumed by the Defense Department in the 1980s. So then, critics say, why do we need to continue to buy more? We will soon have 187 aircraft that should be sufficient. They note that the F-22 hasn't been used in Afghanistan. While that is considered a clear argument that it isn't needed, it is laughable. As far as I know al- Qaida and the Taliban don't have an air force. The F-22 is designed to defeat conventional military forces. It is designed, for example, to counter a conventional attack by an adversary against one of its neighbors. Were the Chinese to attack Taiwan, the F- 22 would provide an incredible counter to the Chinese. The same would be true if a resurgent Russia were to try to reclaim countries in the Baltics. Unless we truly believe that we will never face another nation state in a conventional conflict then the F-22 is indeed necessary. At 187 aircraft, the F-22 provides a very credible deterrent to those nations. Is it sufficient? Perhaps. Will the Joint Strike Fighter replace it, not a chance. The Joint Strike Fighter, we expect, will be a terrific aircraft, but it is designed primarily to attack ground targets. In a battle against the F-22, it would likely lose each engagement. With better trained pilots and tactics, the Joint Strike Fighter could probably give the F-22 a run for its money, but it was never designed to replace the F-22 and should not be viewed as such. To me what is maddening about this debate is the sense that the decision is so clear cut that the F-22 program should be killed that it is only parochial politics that could keep it alive. That is pure hogwash. The Nation has invested more than $65 billion to develop and buy 187 aircraft. If we choose to buy more F-22s we will do so at a very reasonable price--about $150 million. While that is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, it is far cheaper than what we paid to initiate the program. And, if we kill the program and decide that we need to restart it in a few years, it is far cheaper than we would have to pay to resuscitate production. This is not a boondoggle. We don't have critics saying the program is flawed and should be killed. Everyone agrees it is a great aircraft. While some of my colleagues obviously support the program because it means jobs in their States, others like myself who have no F-22 jobs in their States support the program because of its capabilities and their concern for the future. Why then has it become an issue over which to veto a bill? Why are the stakes so high with this program? I have the greatest respect for the President and the current Secretary of Defense. I have supported both in almost every initiative they have advocated. But I see in this case a pattern that I have witnessed over and over again. Time after time our new leaders, both civilian and military, look at a program and see all the reasons why it isn't the right one. For example, in the early days of the Clinton administration the C-17 program was nearly terminated because the production of the aircraft wasn't performing up to expectations. I recall 2 years prior to that the Appropriations Committee recommended a pause in funding for the C- 17, not because we had lost confidence in the program. We still believed in the requirement for the aircraft, but the program wasn't performing. Up to that point, we had appropriated funds for 16 C-17s in total, but not a single one had been delivered, and there were very few coming together on the factory floor in Long Beach. We weren't recommending cancellation, but it served notice that attention was needed. However, the attention that the program received was mostly from critics who sought its termination. When the Clinton administration came into office many of the new officials were convinced that the C-17 should be terminated. In that instance the Pentagon mandated a study to determine whether the C-17 was still required. Luckily the conclusion was that yes the plane was still needed and those who were calling for its cancellation, including some in Congress, would not get their way. It was only a few years earlier that Secretary Cheney determined that the V-22 should be terminated. He was justifiably concerned that the price was increasing and that the program was taking longer than planned. It took the concerted effort of the Congress to stand up and say that we would not allow the program to be terminated. Certainly there were those in the Pentagon who agreed with the Secretary, but the Marines did not. I am told that a few years prior to that my good friend Senator Rudman weighed in with Chairman Stevens to overrule the Air Force who wanted to kill the F-117 after the production of only one squadron of aircraft. I should point out that the F-117 was not built in New Hampshire. There might have been some modest amount of work associated with the plane in his state, but the reason that Senator Rudman insisted that we keep buying the F-117 was because of its unique capabilities not for any parochial reason. My colleagues all know the history of the B-2 program. It was started as a classified program in 1981. The Air Force was going to build 132 bombers. We expected it to cost between $20 and $25 billion in total. The contractor built a huge state of the art factory out in the high desert of California to handle the production of the aircraft. Because it was highly classified every precaution had to be taken to protect national security all of which dramatically increased the cost to produce the aircraft. Clearly the contractor and Air Force were overly optimistic on the cost and schedule of the program. Within 5 years it was clear that the program was not going to be completed within $25 billion. As development delays occurred, costs continued to escalate. The Air Force was unwilling to devote more resources to the program so in a series of moves it consistently delayed production of the aircraft and transferred dollars appropriated to build the aircraft to be used instead to cover higher development costs. By the time I became chairman, it was clear that the program would exceed its budget, but it was also clear that if it were successful it would provide an unmatched capability to this Nation. As costs mounted, the Defense Department determined that it would not be able to purchase all 132 aircraft. First production was cut to 75 and eventually it dropped to 20. In 1996 as the program was being killed, the contractor offered to produce three per year for several years at a price of about $600 million per copy. However, by that time support for the program had eroded so that neither the Pentagon nor the Congress would take up the offer. Instead, by only buying a total of 21 aircraft, we invested over $2 billion per plane making it the most costly aircraft in history. This situation isn't unique to aircraft programs. In the case of shipbuilding, I remember vividly Secretary Cheney's decision to cancel the Seawolf submarine. As a result of that decision, the three Seawolf- class submarines that were eventually built were very expensive. Because we only bought three, the average cost of each submarine was more than $4 billion. Had we built the 29 originally planned, I can only speculate about the cost, but it would certainly have been less than the price we are now paying for its replacement. What is even more galling is that during that time we were still building the capable SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarines and only paying about $800 million apiece for them. Instead of reinvigorating that program, we cancelled the Seawolf program and proceeded with the New Attack submarine, now called the Virginia class, in order to move to a cheaper submarine. Regrettably, I have to report that the cost of the Virginia class submarine is so high that we have only been able to afford to purchase one per year. When I became chairman we were buying four Los Angeles class submarines a year and paying only 1/3 the cost of the Virginia class. Is the Virginia a better submarine? Surely it is. The technological advances that the Nation has developed between the time the Los Angeles subs were designed and this decade have allowed for substantial improvements. Is it better than the Seawolf? That is debatable. The pattern I have watched during my tenure is a mix of four things. First, programs are cancelled before or as they reach maturity. Why? Sometimes because new leadership wants to go in a new direction more often, and important costs increase and schedules are delayed which erode the support for the programs. Sometimes programs are cancelled because we believe the promised replacement will be more capable or cheaper. And sometimes we argue times have changed and we don't need them. In a few cases it is clear that the program wasn't performing as expected and should be terminated. For the F-22 some will argue it is too expensive. That was the argument against the V-22 program. Some say we simply don't need any more. That was the argument used to kill the B-2. Would we like to have more B-2s in the inventory today? I, for one, surely would. Others will say the threat doesn't warrant buying more F-22s. This is where I have my gravest concern. Some experts will tell you that we know that potential adversaries are working on fifth generation fighters. If in 5 years the Chinese unveil a new fifth generation fighter and begin to produce it in numbers will we regret the decision to kill the F-22, I believe we would. I am told that no one is likely to be able to develop and build an F- 22 equivalent aircraft for a generation. The skill and funding required to do so exceeds any foreign nation's ability. But in my view, they might not be able to design an F-22 themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't steal the plans. We were told that the North Koreans were years away from a long range missile, then were surprised when they unveiled the Taepo dong. We were surprised when Pakistan conducted a nuclear test. We were shocked when the Soviet Union collapsed and most Americans were shocked when they learned about al-Qaida after 9/11. if there is one thing that shouldn't surprise us is that we cannot foretell the future. So as my colleagues deliberate on the F-22 program I come down on the side of caution. I believe it makes more sense at this time to continue to produce the program to hedge our bets against the future. To my knowledge there isn't a single worker in the State of Hawaii whose job is dependent of continuing production of the F-22, but I believe the program merits continued production. I believe it is unfortunate that the debate on this matter has taken on an overblown proportion. One can make the case that 187 could be sufficient. Our Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agree that is the case. But just like the Marines argued for continuing to produce the V-22, the leaders of our Air National Guard and those in charge of flying the aircraft argue that we need more--even though the Defense Secretary said it should be cancelled. When some say well, the Air Force leaders say they have enough, I will remind my colleagues that the Air Force said the same thing about the F-117 after we only produced one squadron. When some say we should kill this and move on to the Joint Strike Fighter, I remember the Seawolf debate. We killed that submarine to build a cheaper alternative. Will we do the same thing here and be disappointed in the cost of the so-called alternative? On February 2, 1989, I was selected as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Appropriations Committee. For the past 20 years, it has been my distinct honor to serve either as the chairman of the ranking member of this subcommittee. As my colleagues all know, the defense subcommittee has the largest budget of any of our Appropriations subcommittees, and to many of us it is probably the most important of our subcommittees. It has required a great deal of my time and attention over the past 20 years. For me it has been a labor of love. I have the greatest respect for the men and women of this Nation who are willing to serve and who guarantee constitutional freedoms for the rest of us. It has been my priority to support their cause during this period. As I consider the F-22, I do so with the past twenty years as my guide. In my opinion what I have learned has taught me to be cautious as we kill programs. Therefore today I will cast my vote to continue the F-22 program.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the facilities and services located at Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin, and designated as excess, were established at the behest of the U.S. Navy in the 1950s for the benefit of our military and their families. Not-for-profit organizations responded to the needs identified by the Navy to assist our military. The relationships formed between the military and surrounding community have grown over the past 50 years at Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin including schools for children in prekindergarten through high school. It is my hope the Department of the Navy will consider the Federal Real Property Management Regulations regarding adjusted fair market value when making their determination for the Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin property.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, pursuant to Senate rules, I submit a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Supporting Child Maltreatment Prevention Efforts in Community Health Centers Act of 2009. I am introducing this bill on behalf of the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Community Health Centers. This much-needed legislation would help address a critical problem in our country, the abuse and neglect of millions of children. Today, I am introducing legislation that will help address this preventable tragedy. Unfortunately, child maltreatment continues to be a serious public health problem in our country that affects millions of children and their families. Child abuse and neglect can take many forms, including neglect of children's medical needs, physical or psychological maltreatment, sexual abuse, and multiple types of maltreatment. In 2007 alone, an estimated 5.8 million were allegedly victims of maltreatment, 3.2 million referrals were made to Child Protective Services agencies, and 794,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse and neglect. During that same year, 1,760 children died as a result of abuse or neglect, most of them younger than 4-years old. Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and approximately seven percent were other relatives. Therefore, child maltreatment is a tragedy that impacts millions of children in their own families. Considering that not all maltreatment is reported to the authorities, the actual numbers are estimated to be higher. Focusing on prevention will help save billions of dollars that are currently spent annually--due to victimization and injuries--with hospitalization, visits to ER, out-of-home placements, CPS services, investigations, incarceration of abusers, services to address mental health issues, and other related costs. At the same time, we know that community health centers represent a unique resource for many families who depend on their services to obtain much-needed health and mental health care. Community Health Centers, CHCs, served 16 million individuals in 2007, most of them poor, uninsured, and at-risk for child maltreatment. In fact, one in five low-income children in the U.S. receives health care at a CHC. Furthermore, the centers provide comprehensive primary care services that set up the stage for an integrated care model. Given this evidence, the American Psychological Association, APA, convened a group of experts to review the best available science to identify and recommend public health strategies to prevent child maltreatment within the context of behavioral health integration at community health centers. For decades, the APA and its members have been at the forefront of child maltreatment prevention efforts in research, development of interventions, and evaluation. The findings of this report provided the seed to develop this critical legislation on behalf of children and families in our country. Among its provisions, this important legislation supports the implementation of demonstration projects at federally qualified health centers to promote universal access to a family-centered integrated and voluntary services model, evidence-based behavioral health interventions that prevent child maltreatment and promote family well- being by addressing parenting practices and skills for families from diverse socioeconomic, cultural, racial, ethnic, and other backgrounds. The bill would also support program evaluation outcomes, technical assistance, project coordination, and the design and implementation of a cross-site evaluation plan. I have been committed to the support of psychology contributions to children and families and the vital role of community health centers for decades. This bill will help address the critical need to help and protect our nation's children by giving their parents and caregivers the tools and skills they need to be become the best parents and caregivers they can be and to, ultimately, help prevent child abuse and neglect. It is my hope that the science-based recommendations utilized in the development of this legislation will serve as a useful resource to inform current health care reform legislative efforts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today the Senate begins its consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill which was passed by the House and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee late last month. This week the Committee on Appropriations will meet, to consider five additional appropriations bills. Over the next several weeks we expect to have many of these bills debated and hopefully passed by the Senate so that we can begin final conference deliberations on these critically important measures. The bill before the Senate was prepared by our Homeland Security Subcommittee chaired by Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd along with this ranking member Senator Voinovich of Ohio and all the subcommittee members crafted this bill which provides $42.7 billion in discretionary spending for the critical programs to defend our Nation, protect our borders and coastline, and respond to natural disasters. The amount represents a 7 percent increase over the funding provided in fiscal year 2009, but is approximately $150 million less than requested. An additional $241 million is also included in the bill for the overseas contingency operations of the Coast Guard. This sum was requested in the defense bill for the same purpose. Our colleagues should thank Senators Byrd and Voinovich for completing their hard work on this bill. The bill was marked up by the committee 3 weeks ago and approved on a unanimous bipartisan vote. As the Senate reviews this and the other spending bills which will soon follow I urge it to be mindful of the importance of this task. It is imperative to the efficient operation of our Federal Government that we move to pass this measure and complete a conference with the House. For too long we have relied on cumbersome omnibus spending measures to fund our Federal agencies. In order to break this habit, the Appropriations Committee will continue to report noncontroversial bipartisan bills which will be within the congressionally approved budget levels and should be considered expeditiously by the Senate. Passage of this bill quickly will demonstrate the Senate's ability to act responsibly and collegially in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The bill before the Senate deserves the support of every Member of this body. It is a clean bill free of unnecessary legislative riders. It is within the committee's spending allocation and $150 million below the amount requested. I strongly recommend its approval.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today the Senate begins its consideration of our annual spending bills. We start with the legislative branch appropriations bill. I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that as of this moment, the Appropriations Committee has reported out four appropriations bills. It may please you to know, Madam President, that all of these bills--Legislative, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Interior--passed the committee unanimously and all of the bills represent a bipartisan approach. We start with the legislative branch appropriations bill not because we want to take care of ourselves, but because it is the only bill so far which has been passed by the House and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Without unanimous agreement, the Senate can only act on those appropriations bills which have already been approved by the House. While we begin today with the legislative bill, we are confident that several bills will soon follow. We are optimistic that the Homeland Security bill will pass the House this week and be available for consideration before we adjourn for the recess. Later this week the Committee on Appropriations will meet to consider two additional appropriations bills and we expect to meet in early July to prepare another five bills. Over the next several weeks we expect to have many bills debated and hopefully passed by the Senate so that we can begin final conference deliberations on these critically important measures. The bill before the Senate, as prepared by our Legislative Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and his ranking member Senator Murkowski of Alaska provides $3.1 billion for the operations of the Congressional Branch, excluding amounts specifically requested for the House of Representatives. It represents a 3-percent increase over the amounts provided in FY 2009, but it is nearly 10 percent below the amount requested. Our colleagues should thank Senators Nelson and Murkowski for completing their hard work on this bill. Because of the change in administration, the committee has had the details of the President's request for less than 2 months. Yet our colleagues, who have only assumed their subcommittee leadership positions this year, have already completed their review and prepared this measure. The bill was marked up by the committee last week and approved on a unanimous vote. It is a tribute to our two managers that this bill was passed by the committee without a single amendment. For those of our colleagues who focus on the small part of the Appropriations bills which are earmarks, I would note there is only one earmark in this bill. Many critics and pundits constantly overstate the controversy over earmarks, but here in the bill which provides the essential support for our legislative branch, we include only one earmark. As we begin our process to provide for our Nation's spending it is important to remember why we are engaged in this annual exercise. As the Framers of our Constitution recognized it is critically important to our democracy to ensure that the people's representatives in the Congress are the ones who determine how taxpayer money should be expended. While the Congress relies on the expertise of the executive branch to develop programs and to construct spending plans, it is our responsibility to determine which of these programs and plans is right for the American people. We were elected to represent our States. One way in which we carry out our responsibilities is by determining our Nation's budget. Included in this process is the relatively small amount of funding that are included in direct response to our constituents' petitions. In the fiscal year 2010 bills that the Appropriations Committee will recommend to this body we will reduce our spending on non-project based earmarks by 50 percent compared to amounts for these program in fiscal year 2006. To understand the importance of our willingness to curtail this type of spending, I would note that this means a reduction of more than $8 billion in earmarks. Chairman Obey and I have agreed that, as long as he and I are Chairmen, the total of non-project based earmarks in appropriations bills will not exceed 1 percent of the total discretionary funding appropriated by the committee in any fiscal year. What this means is that this year and in future years we will allocate 99 percent of the funds in the budget for national programs and programs which are included in the president's request, and only 1 percent, really less than 1 percent, for programs that are included in direct response to the needs of our States, cities, towns and the constituents whom we represent. It is essential that the Congress maintain its control over Federal spending. While it may not always be politically popular to challenge the authority of Presidents in determining the spending priorities for the country, it is how we safeguard the democratic traditions of this Nation. The day that we cede this authority to the White House is the day when we create a monarchy. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a member of this body for more than 46 years, I have no intention to allow that to occur. As the Senate reviews this and the other spending bills which will soon follow, I urge it to be mindful of the importance of this task. The bill before this body deserves the support of every Member of this body. It provides for the essential services to fulfill the functions of our legislative branch. It is a clean bill free of unnecessary legislative riders. It is $300 million below the amount requested and within the funding allocation provided to the subcommittee. I strongly recommend its approval.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the attached subcommittee memberships for the 111th Congress printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens. Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities. The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether. The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years. This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country, and I am pleased that Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has agreed to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens. Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities. The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether. The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years. This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country, and I am pleased that Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has agreed to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today marks the 25th anniversary of the passing of a most beloved and remarkable hula master and instructor, Maiki Aiu Lake. Her skills in the art of hula and love of teaching have made her a legendary figure in the State of Hawaii. Affectionately known as ``Aunty Maiki,'' Maiki Aiu Lake has played a pivotal role in the preservation and continuation of Native Hawaiian culture. Her unwavering dedication to her students and art has proved hula more than a dance; the elegance and beauty exhibited in hula enriches its audience, and instills a deeper understanding and appreciation for Hawaii's artistic heritage. Her Halau Hula is renowned among many for its attention to detail and profound respect for the traditions of the Native Hawaiian people. Through her passion as both an artist and teacher, Aunty Maiki has touched countless lives. She remains an enduring influence whose legacy continues through the work of her many students and devoted friends. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the great accomplishments of Maiki Aiu Lake.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution that recognizes the Bishop Museum on its 120th Anniversary and celebrates the reopening of its historic Hawaiian Hall. The Bishop Museum was founded in 1889 by Charles Reed Bishop in honor of his late wife, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last descendant of the royal Kamehameha family. The museum was established to house the extensive collection of Hawaiian artifacts and royal family heirlooms of the Princess, and has expanded to include millions of artifacts, documents and photographs about Hawaii and other Pacific island cultures. Today, the Bishop Museum is the largest museum in the State of Hawaii and the premier natural and cultural history institution in the Pacific, recognized throughout the world for its cultural collections, research projects, consulting services and public educational programs. It also has one of the largest natural history specimen collections in the world. The museum provides a great service to the State of Hawaii and I commend them for their long time commitment of serving and representing the interests of native Hawaiians.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Henry Williams and Jessica Martinez of Senator Bingaman's office be granted privileges of the floor during the debate of the travel promotion bill.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive rule XLIV occur at 2:50 p.m., and that the time until then be equally divided and controlled between the majority leader and Senator Gregg or their designees.