Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been discussed rather fully by our two leaders. I now yield to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate return to the consideration of amendment No. 1137. This technical amendment has been cleared by both sides.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE. I object momentarily.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield. Amendment No. 1133

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of a Senate resolution commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Sisters of the Sacred Hearts in Hawaii. I am pleased to have Senators Daniel Akaka and John Kerry as original cosponsors of the resolution. The first Catholic missionaries to the Hawaiian Islands were members of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and of Perpetual Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. The Congregation was founded by Pierre Coudrin and Henriette Aymer de la Chevalerie in Poitiers, France, on Christmas Eve 1800. In 1825, the Congregation responded to a request of Pope Leo XII for missionaries to the Pacific Rim, then known as Oceania. The Sacred Hearts Priests and Brothers arrived in Hawaii in 1827; the Sisters, in 1859. Today, through the missionary zeal of its members, of which a noteworthy exemplar in Hawaii is Blessed Damien de Veuster, the Brothers and Sisters of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary are present in 40 countries and on all continents. The Sisters of the Sacred Hearts Pacific Province is the administrative center of communities of Sisters currently serving in Hawaii, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. In observance of the 150th anniversary of the Sisters' arrival to Hawaii, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing the Sisters' dedication through these years to the education of the children of Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, and New Mexico.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Halekulani is, without question, one of the signature hotels of Hawaii. It is synonymous of the interweaving of luxury hospitality and Hawaii's unique history and local culture. Its roots trace back some 200 years when Princess Likelike and ancient Hawaiian fishermen named its Waikiki beachfront location Halekulani, or the ``house befitting heaven.'' This year, the Halekulani is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its reopening in 1984, following a grand property-wide renovation by its current owners, Mitsui Fudosan, USA, Inc., a branch of one of Japan's leading companies. This new chapter for the Halekulani builds on its fabled history, and strengthens and expands its international reputation for excellence and community involvement. The Halekulani is more than a unique visitor experience with open courtyards, lush gardens, ocean breezes, and a spa that offers the healing touch of Polynesian traditions; it is also an enthusiastic promoter of Hawaii's history and the arts, sponsoring the Honolulu Symphony's ``Halekulani Masterworks'' and offering guests special access to Hawaii's leading museums and historic buildings. In 1907, the original Halekulani opened as a residential hotel owned by Robert Lewers that was called the Hau Tree with a beachfront home and five bungalows. Ten years later, Juliet and Clifford Kimball bought the hotel, renamed it the Halekulani, and began catering to well-do-to travelers. In 1962, the Norton Clap family of Seattle bought the hotel, and sold it 39 years later to Mitsui Fudosan, USA. While each owner of the Halekulani sought to enhance the hotel's distinctiveness in different ways, all four shared a common goal: a commitment to excellence that remains unwavering. I congratulate the Halekulani as it celebrates the 25th anniversary of its reopening, and as it looks forward to a bright future. I am certain its owners will continue their best efforts to maintain the Halekulani as a landmark hotel, a leader in the international travel and visitor industry, and an icon of Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Mr. Jesse Kuhaulua, renowned sumo wrestler and stablemaster. June 6, 2009, marks Mr. Kuhaulua's 65th birthday, and official retirement from the sport of sumo. It is with warm aloha that I congratulate Mr. Kuhaulua on these milestones. The traditions of sumo span centuries. During the 8th century, sumo wrestling matches were integrated into the ceremonies of the Imperial Court. With the support of the Imperial Court, sumo evolved and developed rules and techniques that closely resemble the sumo of today. In the 12th century, under a military dictatorship, intense warfare ensued, and sumo was used to improve fighting skills. When peace was restored in the early 17th century, professional sumo groups were organized to entertain the rapidly expanding mercantile class, and sumo came into its own as the national sport of Japan. The present day Japan Sumo Association has its origins in these groups. An amalgamation of Shinto ritual, skill, and entertainment, sumo is more than a practice of strength and combat. Sumo epitomizes Japanese culture and its affinity for tradition. Mr. Kuhaulua was born and raised in Hawaii on the Island of Maui, and in 1964 left the islands to pursue the sport of sumo in Japan. Over the course of nearly 45 years, as both a wrestler and stablemaster, Mr. Kuhaulua has been a pioneer and a legend. As an individual athlete, his achievements are outstanding. Mr. Kuhaulua holds almost every all-time individual sumo record of endurance or in the iron-man category. As a trail blazer, he has earned a place in sumo history that will never be forgotten, as the first foreigner to win a tournament championship, and to open a sumo stable. His coaching skills helped develop the skills of Mr. Chad Rowan, the first foreigner to achieve the rank of Yokozuna. The legacy Mr. Kuhaulua leaves the world of sumo wrestling will continue to be an inspiration for generations to come. I applaud Mr. Kuhaulua for his hard work and perseverance that has led to his great achievements in sumo, and wish him the best in the bright years ahead.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a Special Resources Study of the Honouliuli Gulch and associated sites located in the State of Hawaii in order to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating these sites as a unit of the National Park System. During World War II, over 1,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated in at least eight locations on Hawaii. In a report completed in 2007, the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii documented these sites that include Honouliuli Gulch, Sand Island, and the US Immigration Station on Oahu, the Kilauea Military Camp on the Big Island, Haiku Camp and Wailuku County Jail on Maui, and the Kalaheo Stockade and Waialua County Jail on Kauai. These camps also held approximately 100 local residents of German and Italian ancestry. Those detained included the leaders of the Japanese immigrant community in Hawaii, many of whom were taken from their homes and families in the hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The forced removal of these individuals began a nearly four year odyssey to a series of camps in Hawaii and on the continental US. Over 1,000 immediate family members of these men joined their husbands, fathers and relatives in mainland camps. The detainees were never formally charged and granted only token hearings. Many of the detainees' sons served with distinction in the US armed forces, including the legendary 100th Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team and Military Intelligence Service. This report found that both the Kilauea Military Camp and the Honouliuli sites feature historic resources and recommended that the sites be nominated for listing on the National Register for Historic Places. In 2008, the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii published a more detailed archeological reconnaissance of the Honouliuli site. This report found that there were numerous historic features that would qualify the site for National Historic Register and further recommended that the site be conserved. The Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii is currently working with Monsanto, the landowner, to nominate the Honouliuli Gulch site to be listed on the National Historic Register. So far I have received letters in support of this legislation from a range of local, regional and national organizations, including the Japanese American National Museum, Hawaiian Historical Society, Go For Broke National Education Center, Japan America Society of Hawaii, Honolulu Chapter of the Japanese Citizens League, Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii, Honolulu Japanese Junior Chamber of Commerce, MIS Veterans Club of Hawaii, the United Japanese Society of Hawaii, Japanese American Citizens League, The Conservation Fund, Densho, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Japanese American National Heritage Coalition and the Friends of Minidoka. This legislation will enable the National Park Service to study these important sites in my state and make recommendations to Congress regarding the best approach to conserve and manage these sites to tell this chapter in our Nation's history to current and future generations. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a Special Resources Study of the Honouliuli Gulch and associated sites located in the State of Hawaii in order to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating these sites as a unit of the National Park System. During World War II, over 1,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated in at least eight locations on Hawaii. In a report completed in 2007, the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii documented these sites that include Honouliuli Gulch, Sand Island, and the US Immigration Station on Oahu, the Kilauea Military Camp on the Big Island, Haiku Camp and Wailuku County Jail on Maui, and the Kalaheo Stockade and Waialua County Jail on Kauai. These camps also held approximately 100 local residents of German and Italian ancestry. Those detained included the leaders of the Japanese immigrant community in Hawaii, many of whom were taken from their homes and families in the hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The forced removal of these individuals began a nearly four year odyssey to a series of camps in Hawaii and on the continental US. Over 1,000 immediate family members of these men joined their husbands, fathers and relatives in mainland camps. The detainees were never formally charged and granted only token hearings. Many of the detainees' sons served with distinction in the US armed forces, including the legendary 100th Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team and Military Intelligence Service. This report found that both the Kilauea Military Camp and the Honouliuli sites feature historic resources and recommended that the sites be nominated for listing on the National Register for Historic Places. In 2008, the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii published a more detailed archeological reconnaissance of the Honouliuli site. This report found that there were numerous historic features that would qualify the site for National Historic Register and further recommended that the site be conserved. The Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii is currently working with Monsanto, the landowner, to nominate the Honouliuli Gulch site to be listed on the National Historic Register. So far I have received letters in support of this legislation from a range of local, regional and national organizations, including the Japanese American National Museum, Hawaiian Historical Society, Go For Broke National Education Center, Japan America Society of Hawaii, Honolulu Chapter of the Japanese Citizens League, Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii, Honolulu Japanese Junior Chamber of Commerce, MIS Veterans Club of Hawaii, the United Japanese Society of Hawaii, Japanese American Citizens League, The Conservation Fund, Densho, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Japanese American National Heritage Coalition and the Friends of Minidoka. This legislation will enable the National Park Service to study these important sites in my state and make recommendations to Congress regarding the best approach to conserve and manage these sites to tell this chapter in our Nation's history to current and future generations. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as Hawaii celebrates its 50th anniversary of statehood, I would like to recognize Mr. Peter Fithian for his illustrious career of 50 years and invaluable service as founder and director of the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament. Peter has been a dear friend of mine for many years, and I am honored to have this opportunity to share with you the profound impact he has had on my home State of Hawaii. His tremendous commitment to the people of Hawaii has led to the establishment of the internationally renowned Billfish Tournament, which truly put Hawaii on the map of sport fishing, drawing both spectators and competitors from all over the world. I commend him for his tireless efforts in building a longstanding tradition while promoting tourism and marine conservation in our island community. Through Peter's unwavering passion in cultivating Hawaii's proud heritage of recreational fishing, he has founded not only an event that encourages warm fellowship, but has created an educational opportunity that deserves our highest praise. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the great service and accomplishments of Mr. Peter Fithian.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment, if you are trying to get an earmark in the bill, you have to have it posted on your Web site 30 days before markup to give the public an opportunity to look at the Web site. Secondly, there is much transparency, much more than ever before. Thirdly, we have reduced earmarks to less than 1 percent. And now that, as our Senator has indicated, on March 11, the President spoke on the earmarks, it went something further. The President said: I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse, and I believe that individual Members of the Congress understand their districts best. They should have the ability to respond to the needs of the communities. Yes, all of us were elected to represent our districts and our States. We were not elected to be rubberstamps of anyone.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the budget resolution we are considering now proposes to increase discretionary nondefense spending by $35 billion from the level approved in fiscal year 2009. My colleagues should all understand that this is $15 billion less than was requested by President Obama. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am not particularly pleased that the resolution has cut the President's request by $15 billion. We on the Appropriations Committee know that in order to meet the level proposed by the Budget Committee, we will have to make real cuts in the budget proposed by President Obama. But I must say that I am surprised that we are now facing an amendment which would seek to cut discretionary spending even more. As I stand here, I find myself somewhat at a disadvantage to explain all the impacts that would occur if further cuts are made. While we know the overall parameters of the President's budget, we do not yet have most of the details on the thousands of programs which will be reviewed in detail by the Appropriations Committee. That information is not available to the Congress at this moment. So we really do not know which programs that have been supported by the Senate in years past will be proposed for cuts or elimination. We do not know which fees or offsetting collections might be buried in the President's request that the Congress is likely to insist on eliminating, adding to the unfunded costs in the budget. We also know that nearly all of our colleagues will be asking for items that will not be included in the request. We know that many of you will be writing our various subcommittees urging that we adopt new programs and initiatives that might be incorporated in this budget. And we know this for sure: The committee will face a much larger burden than just identifying $15 billion that can be reduced by the President's request. With the few details we have already received about the budget request, there are a few things that we know would result by freezing nondefense discretionary spending. First, my colleagues should all be advised that the largest single increase in the domestic spending budget for fiscal year 2010 will be for the census. A $4.5 billion increase is necessary to meet our constitutional responsibility. This amount is needed in fiscal year 2010. It cannot be delayed. The timeliness and accuracy of the census will be in jeopardy if we do not fund this amount. Second, we are advised that the budget will include a $3.5 billion increase for the Veterans' Administration to cover the cost of medical care inflation, as well as projected increases in VA enrollment, and new initiatives such as the proposal to expand VA health care to over 500,000 modest-income veterans. Increased veterans health care services and specialty care services targeted at the growing population of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans include prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, which would have to be curtailed if we freeze spending. Surely, the sponsors of this amendment do not want us to cut these needed increases for our veterans. Madam President, if I may be personal at this juncture--and this is not in my prepared text--I had the privilege and honor of serving in the Army of the United States during World War II. I was literally a young boy. I was 18 when I got in. But I know a few things about that war. My regiment, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, has been declared to be the most decorated unit of its size in World War II. It also had one of the highest casualty numbers of any war. We began our battles in Italy in June of 1944, and the war ended in May of 1945. In those 11 months, we began our service with 5,000 men, infantry men. At the end of 11 months, over 12,000 had gone through the ranks, all brought about because of the necessity of replacements to replace those who had been wounded in action. So when our men got involved in a major battle--I remember one battle that lasted 5 days. At the end of the battle, our casualty rate was 800, and of that number 250 dead. When you see these numbers, somehow Iraq becomes inconsequential: four today, three tomorrow. But at that time, times were a little different. For example, if I had been wounded in Baghdad, I would have been evacuated from that site of battle to the hospital within 30 minutes by helicopter. On my last battle, when I received three wounds--my arm, my gut, my leg--I had to be evacuated by stretcher. Evacuation began at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I got to the hospital at midnight--9 hours. So it sounds unbelievable, but with all the casualties we have had, not one double-amputee survived the war. And we had dozens of them, but they bled to death because of the long evacuation. Not one brain injury case survived because of the long evacuation. Not one spinal injury case survived because of the long evacuation. Today, they are all surviving, and this amount will cut it out. Help for them will disappear. On a final note, I think about this and I chuckle. When I was taken to the hospital at midnight, we were put into a tent about half the size of this Chamber. Hundreds were lined up on stretchers, and teams of doctors and nurses would go down the line, look at the medical card, and whisper among themselves--and you could hear--``No. 1,'' ``No. 2,'' ``No. 3.'' By the time it got to me--I sensed that ``No. 1'' meant: Send him immediately to the operating room; ``No. 2'' meant: Oh, his injury is not that serious, he can wait; ``No. 3'' was: You have done a good job for us. Thank you. So people would see the Chaplain going to all the No. 3's. The Chaplain came to me. I did not know, but I was designated a No. 3, and the Chaplain said: Son, God loves you. I looked at the Chaplain, and I said: Chaplain, I know God loves me, but I am not ready to see Him yet. So here I am. What I am trying to say, is that in that war, seriously injured soldiers did not survive. And maybe in a sense, it is God's gift. I would hate to think of myself lying in bed the rest of my life looking at the ceiling. But they survived, and I think it is our responsibility. This amendment would cut that out. If I may proceed further, third, we know that the budget will include a $250 million increase to cut down on overpayments in Social Security. We know this from experience, that for every $1 we spend, we save $10 in inappropriate payments. Isn't that a good investment? By spending $250 million, we are going to save billions. I thought the business was not in spending but in saving. We would lose more than $2 billion in mandatory savings by freezing discretionary funds. Fourth, we have an amount of $183 million, which would be cut out. We are told by the Department of Agriculture that an additional $183.5 million will be needed simply to maintain existing rental assistance agreements. This assistance provides subsidies to maintain affordable rent and utility costs for very low-income rural residents. Without this increase, 41,705 households will face substantial rent increases forcing many to leave, be evicted from their homes. I know the sponsors are not seeking to force the poor from their homes. Madam President, as you preside and as I speak, we should keep in mind that many of our fellow citizens are sweating out each day, not knowing whether he or she has a job tomorrow or whether they can keep up the payments on the mortgage or whether they can pay for health care or whether they can pay the rent. Without this, all hope is gone. The least we can do is to let them know we are here to help them get through this crisis. Yes, there is another one. Fifth, we know about potential accidents at airports. We know we do not have enough trained air traffic controllers. This resolution provides funds for that purpose, to train them so we may have safer traveling. When I travel, which is not often enough, I go to Hawaii. It takes, just in flying time, 11 hours. I feel safe because I have confidence in our air traffic controllers. But many of them are now on the verge of retiring. We need a new crew. This budget resolution provides the funds for training them. The FAA faces a crisis in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers with a freeze in nondefense discretionary spending for 2010, the FAA would be forced to freeze or reduce the number of new air traffic controllers the agency can bring on board and train--worsening the experience shortage we already have in our air traffic control towers. With a freeze in funding, the FAA also would be unable to settle an ongoing dispute over the terms of its contract with its air traffic controllers. This dispute has hurt the agency's productivity and its ability to retain experienced controllers, who are essential to training the agency's newly hired controllers. Sixth, the section 8 tenant-based account provides critical resources to help the Nation's most vulnerable families find and maintain safe and affordable housing in the private market. Congress provides annual funding adjustments for this program to cover housing cost increases, so that all families served by the program can maintain their housing. If nondefense discretionary spending were frozen in fiscal year 2010, housing agencies wouldn't have the necessary resources to cover these increased costs. As a result, tens of thousands of families could be at risk of losing their housing. Seventh, we know that because of high food costs and other factors, the overall cost of the WIC program has already increased dramatically. In fiscal year 2009, $760,000,000 above the budget request was required to keep people from losing WIC benefits. A freeze on spending could cause no new participation, waitlists, and could potentially cause some people to lose benefits. As I noted earlier, we simply do not have all the details of the budget to be able to explain to our colleagues all the harm that a freeze on discretionary spending will do. Nonetheless, I believe from the information that we have already received that I just listed it is clear that we simply cannot sustain additional cuts in the request. These economic times are tough. But in tough times our people count on the Federal Government for more services. Each day as more wage earners lose their jobs, more of them become eligible for many of the assistance programs which I have highlighted. Many of these programs are designed to help people in need during difficult economic times. Our efforts to reduce spending here will result in an even greater reliance on mandatory programs such as welfare rolls, food stamps, and public assistance. For these reasons I must oppose the amendment from the Senator from Alabama, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Madam President, as I said, I am going to vote against this amendment. It is a bad amendment. It is not American.

Mr. INOUYE. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield my time.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, last week when considering H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, I filed technical corrections to the table of congressionally directed spending items contained in the explanatory statement offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives which accompanies the bill H.R. 1105. I wish to add the following technical correction to the joint explanatory statement that accompanied H.R. 1105: On page H2368 of the Congressional Record of February 23, 2009, the words ``Perkins Career and Technical Education Act'' should read ``Higher Education Opportunity Act'' and the Senate requesters associated with this item should be changed to ``Conrad; Domenici; Dorgan.''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Omnibus Appropriations Act and encourage my colleagues to vote for cloture. This bill provides additional resources so our Government will be better able to meet the challenges of the economic crisis we face today. I would remind my colleagues that without enactment of this bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission will not get the additional funding it needs to increase the integrity of the financial markets. The Federal Housing Administration will have to stop helping families facing foreclosure to refinance into affordable mortgages at the worst possible time for such a stoppage to occur. The Food and Drug Administration will not receive the funding it needs to significantly increase the number of food and medical product safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that it could otherwise perform. If the Omnibus is not enacted, $550 million less would be provided for the FBI to protect our Nation and our communities from terrorism and violent crime. Not passing this bill means 650 fewer FBI special agents, and 1,250 fewer intelligence analysts and other professionals fighting crime and terrorism on U.S. soil. In conclusion, I ask the fundamental question: Will the United States be better off in the next year, and will the Federal Government be in a better position to help lead our country out of this deep recession, if we pass this bill? The answer is obviously, yes. It is in America's best interests to close the book on the last administration and to help the new administration hit the ground running. Now is not the time to relitigate past policy battles. Now is the time to clear the decks and look to the future. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting cloture on H.R. 1105.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 662, an amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. This amendment would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the fairness doctrine. This amendment is totally unnecessary. There is no funding in this bill for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine. This bill does not contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Further, President Obama does not support reinstating the fairness doctrine. The FCC repealed this doctrine in 1987, and has no plans to bring it back. Finally, last week, 87 Senators, including myself, voted to include a similar amendment to the voting rights bill that would prevent the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine, which is exactly what this amendment would do. So there is no question about Democratic support for the position being proposed by the South Dakota Senator. I wish to take a few seconds and talk about the history of this issue. The fairness doctrine, which was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949--60 years ago--is a concept that broadcasters should cover issues fairly, allowing for different viewpoints to be presented in a balanced way. I agree with the goals the fairness doctrine advanced, but the need for this policy today has become obsolete. In the 1950s, there were only three nationwide broadcast stations--NBC, ABC, and CBS. There was a legitimate public concern that the small number of media outlets could abuse their power and present a biased public agenda. At that time, the fairness doctrine was the right answer to a small and heavily concentrated media world. A lot has changed since the 1950s. Technology has exploded. There are more ways than ever to hear a variety of perspectives and opinions on any number of issues. There are hundreds of channels on cable TV. We have public broadcasting, which was nonexistent at that time. We have more than 14,000 AM and FM radio stations, and hundreds of satellite radio stations. We also have the Internet. As I stated earlier, the FCC repealed the provision in 1987, and has no plans to reinstate this doctrine. The amendment is simply an attempt to take an issue on which a vast majority of the Members of this Chamber voted in agreement last week and offer it to an unrelated bill of significant importance to the day-to-day operation of our Government. It does not belong in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this matter so we can send the bill to the President of the United States. Amendment No. 604 Mr. President, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. This is amendment No. 604. The bill before us, the Omnibus appropriations bill, would provide funding for the majority of the Federal Departments which have been funded under a continuing resolution since October of 2008. This bill, the omnibus bill, is not an authorization bill. At the request of both the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, this bill includes a simple 1-year extension of the E-Verify employment verification system, known as the Basic Pilot Program, and includes a simple extension of the EB-5 program. The Appropriations Committee chose not to include the controversial authorization measures associated with the E-Verify Program. Rather, the extension provided in the Omnibus appropriations bill provides the authorizing committee ample time during this session of Congress to consider the 6-year authorizing legislation contained in this amendment. The continuing resolution expires at midnight this Wednesday, March 11 and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this controversial authorization language, particularly since this bill provides time to the authorizing committees to address this issue through the authorizing process. I oppose that amendment. Amendment No. 674 Mr. President, now, if I may, I wish to speak on another amendment. This is amendment No. 674, which would prohibit the use of funds to implement Executive Order 13496 which was issued on January 30 of this year. This Executive order requires Federal contractors to post a notice informing workers of their existing labor rights under Federal labor laws. The pending amendment, however, prohibits President Obama's order from being implemented unless it uses the same exact language as a prejudiced order issued by former President George W. Bush in 2001. The Bush Executive order required Federal contractors to post a Federal labor rights notice, but that notice only provided one-sided material about the right to not join a union or pay certain union dues. Unlike President Bush's order, President Obama's executive order does not limit the notice to pro- or anti-union material, and it does not dictate what specific language must be used. It simply requires the Department of Labor to issue guidelines within 120 days from January 30 of this year about the notice, and for the notice to be more comprehensive and informative than the Bush Executive order. Mandating that the one-sided Executive order from the previous administration be restored defies logic. Many new federally funded projects to improve our Nation's infrastructure are underway and productive labor relations are more important than ever. Ensuring that workers are aware of their rights promotes better working relationships between labor and contractors. Federal law gives the President discretion to determine what is in this notice. President Bush exercised that right during the 8 years he served as President, and issued an Executive order on this matter that many of us in this Chamber believed to be one sided. President Obama deserves the same authority and discretion that was afforded to President Bush to issue Executive orders. The Congress should not take steps to intercede on this matter by adopting this amendment and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.