Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment is unnecessary. There is no funding in the bill to reinstate the fairness doctrine. The bill does not contain any provisions directing the FCC to reinstate the doctrine. President Obama does not support it. The FCC has no plans to reinstate the doctrine. Opposition to the amendment is not based on substance, it is based on fact. It does not belong in the bill. Things have changed since the fairness doctrine was adopted in 1949. Today, there are more ways than ever to hear a variety of opinions on any issue. We have hundreds of channels on cable TV, over 14,000 AM and FM stations, and we have the Internet. Therefore, we don't need it. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 668

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I realize time is of the essence, so I will simply say I wish to oppose amendment No. 668, which was submitted by Senator Enzi, which would strip a hold-harmless provision enacted last year in the Ryan White Act, an act we passed several years ago to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. It is an amendment that will cause some problems to the cities that are helping in this fight, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this amendment. In 2006, the Ryan White Care Act programs were reauthorized, enacting some dramatic shifts in the formula by which funds are disbursed to municipalities. Without increased funding, some cities were slated to have more than 25 percent of their funding cut. To reduce the impact of these extreme cuts, the Labor HHS Appropriations bill has included provisions since 2006 that accomplish two things. First, the bill has provided increases in the formula funds to offset the cuts. Second, the bill included language in Part A providing a fully funded partial hold-harmless account. As the formula funding is increased every year, the funding needed for the hold harmless is decreased. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill ensures that no municipality receives more than a 6.3 percent cut from fiscal year 2006 funding levels. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill includes a $35 million increase for Part A grants, of which $10.8 million is used specifically to hold cities to no more than a 6.3 percent cut in their funding level. The remaining $25 million is used to increase the formula allotments as the second part of efforts to reduce the impact of the authorized shift in the formula. The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the efforts to soften the blow to those geographical regions negatively impacted from the authorized shift in formula. When the reauthorization was debated, the best information out there was that there were 40,000 new cases of HIV per year in the U.S. In 2007, just after that reauthorization passed, we learned that number is really more than 56,000. Between 2004 and 2007, we saw a 15 percent increase in HIV diagnoses. We knew none of this when the reauthorization passed. With this many new infections happening, we cannot afford to cut HIV treatment funding to any one area so drastically. We are not overriding the formula. All we are doing is ramping down the funding gradually. As the formula funding increases, the need for the hold harmless decreases. The Enzi amendment seeks to stop the ramp down approach and impose draconian cuts when our cities simply cannot afford to keep up. I urge my colleagues to agree to the modest adjustment included in the underlying bill and vote no on the Enzi amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, most Americans have a healthy understanding of the difference between a pay raise and a pay adjustment based on inflation. Most Americans will tell you that when they do receive a pay adjustment to their wages, they do not consider it a raise; they consider it being held harmless against the impact of inflation. The pay adjustment provided to Members of the House and Senate is based on a method established by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act that requires the annual adjustment be determined by a formula based on certain elements of the employment cost index, an index that measures inflation of wages. Basically the formula is tied to the pay adjustments given to Federal employees under the General Schedule. Further by law, and under no uncertain terms, Members cannot receive an adjustment greater than the increase provided in the base pay of our GS level Federal employees. Understanding that the substance of the matter before us is not about pay raises for Members but about pay adjustments tied to inflation. Everyone in this Chamber also is aware of the economic situation we are facing as a Nation. Because of this economic crisis, section 103 was included in the underlying bill, stating that Members of Congress will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in fiscal year 2010. We have proactively addressed the issue of a Member pay adjustment and the current economic situation. To offer this amendment today is simply playing politics. This amendment is about trying to make it appear as if Members are against prohibiting a pay adjustment for themselves, when in fact they already have prohibited a pay adjustment for themselves. This amendment is about trying to change the underlying bill, knowing that the House has indicated they will not take this bill back up, in an effort to force the Government to operate under a continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year. If the Senator from Louisiana is successful in having his amendment adopted and killing enactment of the underlying bill, the prohibition against the Member pay adjustment for fiscal year 2010 will not be enacted into law. Further our Federal agencies will have to decide between eliminating programs or firing employees as they absorb the 2009 cost increases at fiscal year 2008 funding levels. This amendment does not do anything that is not already addressed in the underlying bill, and its passage could in fact jeopardize the steps that have been taken. I encourage my colleagues not to take the political bait here, and vote against this amendment which appears to do one thing, but in fact creates exactly the opposite situation. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 668

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 593, an amendment submitted by the Senator from Arizona. This amendment limits the flexibility of the executive branch. It has no impact on Government spending and will not add to congressional oversight. It is an amendment which will serve no useful purpose to either the Congress or the executive branch. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona states that no funds for congressionally directed spending programs could be spent unless the items were included in bill language. The Senator seems to believe that the inclusion of the items in bill language affords the Congress greater oversight over the items. This is not correct. The Senate has the ability to review, debate, and vote in relation to any item, whether it is included in this measure as bill language or just identified in report language. The Senator apparently believes that putting items in the bill language offers better control over spending. The opposite is true. When items are contained in bill language, the executive branch is afforded less opportunity to exercise management over use of the funds. For example, if the Congress appropriates $1 million for an item in bill language, the funding can be used only for that purpose. Under current law, funds must be spent for the purpose for which the funds were appropriated unless the Congress has provided agencies additional authority to transfer funds. While most agencies have some ability to transfer funds, the rules are more often restrictive. The only other recourse an agency has is to propose the funding for rescission. The effect of this amendment would be to require that every item specified in bill language could not be altered without either the use of authorized transfer authority or the passage of a new law governing the use of funds. If a product is allocated $1 million in report language but only costs $800,000 to complete, in most cases agencies are afforded some flexibility to reapply the remaining funds for other authorized purposes. However, once the items are included in bill language, unless additional legal authority has been enacted, they cannot be allocated for another purpose. If a Government program manager has an additional and unneeded $200,000 but which can only be used for that one purpose, what incentive does he or she have to make certain all the funds that are approved for spending are really necessary? The unintended consequence of this amendment is to limit the ability of agencies to adjust to changing circumstances, such as reduced costs or resolution of environmental issues. This amendment needlessly ties the hands of agencies. This amendment will not save funding. If it were to be enacted, the Congress would simply move items that currently appear in report language to bill language. We shouldn't see this amendment as a way to reduce spending. It would probably necessitate the adding of an additional 1,000 pages to the bill, but it would not save a dime. I am not sure what useful purpose this amendment is thought to have. Its enactment would limit the flexibility of our agencies to manage funds. The amendment provides no additional congressional oversight of funding. It would have no impact on spending. Its adoption would, however, force the Senate to send the bill back to the House, further delaying the passage of this important legislation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I, too, will work with the Senator to clarify this provision.

Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I concur with Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of the leadership, I object.

Mr. INOUYE. I concur with Senator Dorgan.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand Senator Thune has modified his amendment to correct an earlier drafting error. The original amendment proposed a $400 million across-the-board cut against the programs funded in the interior division of the bill, as an offset to increase funding for various Indian health and safety programs in the interior division by $400 million. As it stands, the modified amendment proposes that the $400 million across-the-board cut now applies to the entire omnibus appropriations bill, not just the interior subcommittee's division. Nevertheless, I still oppose the Senator's amendment. This amendment now makes cuts to all programs in the omnibus. This means there will be cuts in job training, law enforcement, cancer research, highway funding, food inspection, energy research, and on, and on, and on. I know that no single cut will be that great, but if we are going to go down this road, where will it end? Who brings the next amendment, claiming that it only cuts 0.1 percent? How many more of these will we have to accept before we say we have cut enough out of law enforcement or enough out of health care? Mr. President, just to make the record clear, the interior division of this bill contains $2.376 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and $3.581 billion for the Indian health service. Many of the programs run by those agencies and by the tribes themselves deal directly with health and safety issues. We cannot start chipping away in this fashion and have any hope of ever finishing this bill. Furthermore, the amendment, as modified, causes the interior bill to exceed its 302(b) allocation for budget authority. This makes it very troublesome. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I am sorry. Yes, I withhold.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 596; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote; that upon disposition of amendment No. 596, the Senate resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 608; and that there be 20 minutes of debate remaining with respect to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Coburn or their designees; that upon the use of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 608.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to clarify the time. There is no time at this moment, but it will be soon.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, many of my colleagues whose spending initiatives are under attack by this amendment have spoken today to provide a more detailed explanation of what the funding would be used for. If we took the time to listen, we discovered that what may appear frivolous based on a three word description is actually relevant to the programs under which the funding is provided, and relevant to improving the lives of our constituents. For example, the tattoo removal earmark on this list is for a program run by Providence Holy Cross Hospital in Mission Hills, CA, to remove gang insignia tattoos of reforming gang members. It is an effective anti-crime program founded by Sister June Wilkerson. For ex-gang members, having a tattoo often means not getting hired for a job, or beaten or killed. It is that simple. It is that effective. I have a few comments about the bill as a whole and earmarks. I would also like to note that this bill reflects a reduction in earmarks of 45 percent from fiscal year 2006 and a 5-percent reduction from last year. These initiatives are not a surprise to anyone in this chamber. Every earmark in this bill is on the Internet. A few Members are simply trying to pick a project here and a project there to attack to further their effort to amend and delay passage and possibly kill this bill. We need to finish our work here. I have no problems with reforming the way we do business, in fact, in our continuing effort to provide unprecedented transparency to the process, Chairman Obey and I announced further reforms to begin with the 2010 bills, including: (1) a further reduction in earmarks. We have committed to reducing earmarks to 50 percent from fiscal year 2006 level; (2) posting requests online to offer more opportunity for public scrutiny of member requests. Members will be required to post information on their earmark requests on their web sites at the time the request is made explaining the purpose of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer funds; and (3) early public disclosure to increase public scrutiny of committee decisions. Earmark disclosure tables will be made publically available the same day as the House or Senate subcommittee rather than full committee reports their bill or 24 hours before full committee consideration of appropriations legislation that has not been marked up by a Senate subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. I realize the Defense bill is not part of this package, but I have become quite concerned with the debate because I am certain many of my fellow Americans are now reaching the conclusion that earmarks are evil, that it is a waste, the money is down the drain. I would like to share with my colleagues and refresh their memory as to what some of the funds have been spent for. This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but breast cancer research is in the Defense bill. It is an earmark. The National Institutes of Health has just declared that the finest research on breast cancer is that program. That is an earmark because no one wanted to put in money for breast cancer. Now it is becoming the fad of the Nation. It is popular. But it took an earmark to begin that program. We have spent millions of dollars. Then we have an aircraft called the C-17. It is now the most productive and the best working aircraft we have to carry cargo and personnel. Then we have the F-22, a fighter plane that requires a landing space just about the size of this room. I am citing these because these have shortened a war in Iraq. There is also the Predator, the unmanned vehicle. We send a plane out with no pilot, but it sends back signals and photographs, makes it possible for the men and women on the field to know what is on the other side of the mountain. That is an earmark. It did not come out of the mind of the President of the United States or from the Defense Department. It came from the minds of the members of the committee. I dare anyone to suggest that these are evil products. It has helped to shorten the war. It has helped to save lives. It will bring back the brave and courageous men and women from Iraq. Yes, there are many more I can cite. But I think these few should remind us that earmarks are not evil. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Coburn amendment No. 596.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 623, an amendment submitted by the Senator from Oklahoma, because it is most troubling for several reasons. First, this amendment presumes guilt without the benefit of the full legal process. Second, it presumes that the 14 clients actively or knowingly participated in the alleged activities of the firm without any evidence to support that assumption. Third, the amendment will punish the clients for having funds allocated to their projects without any knowledge of wrongdoing. Fourth, it makes the assumption that Members requested these projects because of ties to the lobbying firm rather than because these projects addressed the needs of their constituents. The last thing we in this body should do on matters such as this is rush to judgment. Yes, we know the firm was raided by the FBI, and we also know the firm is in the process of being disbanded, but we also know no one from the firm has been convicted of any crime. In fact, as far as we know, no one has even been indicted for a crime. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the clients themselves are being investigated, much less guilty of some Federal offense. There has been absolutely no indication by anyone involved in the actual investigation that any of the clients of the PMA firm were involved in any illicit activity. Under our legal system, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but under this amendment we will presume such guilt. We will presume guilt even of those who are not under investigation. It is not the responsibility of the Senate to presume guilt. That determination should be left to the courts based on evidence presented by Federal investigators. Our ``evidence,'' however, is based on press reports. But even in this most questionable evidence, there has been no assertion that the clients were involved in any type of criminal activity and certainly none has been accused of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the amendment would deny funding for projects included in this bill by Members of the House and the Senate. The projects were approved by the relevant subcommittees and displayed publicly on the Internet. Rather than assuming guilt, what we should assume is that Members who asked for these projects did so because they believe they will serve the needs of their constituents. We have no information that indicates that funds were recommended for these programs because of the efforts of any lobbying firm. We can't even say with certainty the funds were included at the behest of this particular lobbying firm. I would point out that the Senator from Oklahoma must also not be so sure since he has modified his amendment to remove one of the projects which he originally had on his list. Are we seriously considering voting to cut funds for projects because we think they might--they might--have been related to a firm which is under investigation, even though the projects' advocates are not under investigation? As do many of my colleagues, I meet with lobbyists every year--dozens of them. They seek hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks in appropriations bills. I am not the only Member in this situation. Incidentally, the firm is not a Hawaiian firm, although the projects involved are Hawaiian. For the most part, the lobbyists with whom I meet request funds for projects pertaining to my State of Hawaii. But as do most Members of Congress, I seek funding only for ones which I believe will have the greatest benefit for my State and for its citizens and which hold the greatest promise for achieving a larger national objective. This is what we were elected to do--to serve our constituents. Why do we presume guilt in this instance instead of innocence? Why do we assume wrongdoing by clients because they hired this lobbying firm? Why should we assume Members requested funds because of the efforts of the lobbying firm instead of the merits of the programs? I can't speak personally of any of these projects because most of them were included by the House and agreed to by our subcommittees, but I do believe most Members act responsibly. I, for one, am willing to give the Members who sponsored these projects the benefit of the doubt that they did so because they believe the projects were meritorious and worthy of their support. I am not willing to presume our Members are guilty of wrongdoing because their constituents hired some lobbyist who might--and I emphasize the word ``might''--have been engaged in some illegal activity. Do any of us seriously believe the Members who sponsored these programs in their States and districts did so for any reason other than it benefited their constituents or they believed in the work the clients are engaged in? For every Duke Cunningham willing to trade earmarks for cash, there are 534 other Congressmen and Senators who would never think of doing such a thing. I do not believe we should impugn the motives of the Members who sponsored these earmarks, and I can think of no reason to do so. I recognize this is what we call a tough vote. Many Members might wish to vote in favor of this amendment because they fear the news spot that says they supported crooked earmarks. But my colleagues should understand if we don't stand up for this institution--the Senate--and its Members, no one else will. We should all recognize the next time this could be your earmark or mine. You could be the one standing on the Senate floor forced to defend yourself because someone is accused of wrongdoing, even though that matter is completely unrelated to your behavior. This is actually a simple matter. There is no evidence to support wrongdoing by the Members involved. There is no evidence to suggest these projects are not meritorious. There is no evidence to suggest the clients who engaged in these projects did anything wrong. Finally, we cannot be certain anyone engaged in any wrongdoing. This amendment sets a course down a slippery slope that is unnecessary. Federal laws already provide remedies to recoup funds depending on the circumstances if our legal system determines laws were broken. Funds can be rescinded and improper payments can be recovered by the agencies involved. Finally, the agencies have their own rules and regulations to follow if they believe there is any impropriety involved. We should allow the legal process to work and then assess an appropriate response based on the results. We should not convict the clients and Members and enact punishment before we even know whether a crime has been committed. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, amendment No. 596, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, prohibiting funding from being used for no-bid contracts would appear on its face to be a good amendment, an amendment that some are asking: Why would I vote against this? When this amendment first appeared as an amendment to the recovery act, the Senate passed it by a unanimous vote because it appeared to be a good-government amendment. However, what we quickly learned as we began conference negotiations with the House is that the consequences of this amendment are more far reaching than simply prohibiting no-bid contracts. Because of the way this amendment is drafted, it is destructive to small business and minority-owned businesses in this country, as well as to Native American funding. This amendment states the only procedures that can be used to award funds in this act are the procedures in accordance with only section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. As a result, this amendment prohibits agencies from making any awards to small businesses through statutes that have been enacted over the years that provide assistance to small businesses, including small veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses, minority-owned businesses, tribal enterprises, women-owned businesses, HUBZone-qualified businesses, and other entities covered through the SBA programs, as well as the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act, just to name a few. Mr. President, in terms of Native American funding, this provision would essentially overturn the so-called ``638'' contracts whereby a tribe contracts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service or other agency to perform the function of that agency. These contracts are not competitive pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and other statutes enacted to help Native Americans. In fact, efforts were made to correct this language during the conference negotiation of the recovery act so that small businesses-- the backbone of this country--and Native American funding would not be unnecessarily penalized by language that combined the broad dismissal of authorization statutes and the narrow citing of one procurement law. Even with the significant improvements made to the original text, the Senator from Alaska, who is the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, asked that I enter into a colloquy with her during consideration of the conference report to clarify that the language did not impact existing Federal procurement law applicable to programs that allow for set-asides and direct-award procurements. Mr. President, I cannot speak to the intentions of the Senator from Oklahoma as to what he wants to accomplish with this amendment. To be clear, however, I can speak to the consequences of the pending amendment. It will have a destructive impact on the small business programs and Native American programs mentioned above. Do we really want to prohibit small veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses from Federal funding opportunities unless they compete in the same manner as large corporations? Do we really want to prohibit small women-owned businesses from Federal funding opportunities unless they compete in the same manner with large corporations? Do we really want to say our Federal agencies must ignore existing Federal procurement laws that govern these small business programs and Native American programs and allow only these small businesses to compete subject to section 303 of the law? This amendment systematically ignores years of Small Business Committee and Indian Affairs Committee authorizations enacted into law by insisting that all contracts be awarded through one specific section of one specific law. This is the exact language the Senator from Oklahoma offered during Senate consideration of the recovery act and not the provision that was amended after Members were made aware of the negative impacts on our small business community. Consequently, while it appears to be a good-government amendment, it is in fact the opposite. If this amendment is adopted, it will cause significant disruptions to small businesses across this country, and I don't wish to be part of that effort. Small businesses make up 99.7 percent of our Nation's employers and 50.3 percent of our Nation's private sector employment. Denying the ability of these small businesses to compete on a level playing field would severely impact small businesses that are already struggling to stay afloat during the current economic downturn. Given the information we have learned since this amendment was first proposed several weeks ago, and given the fact the language before us does not take into account and address the many problems raised after it was first proposed, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is the least we can do for our small businesses, particularly given the economic crisis we are currently in. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, may I associate myself with the comments of the chair of the Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee regarding the amendment proposing an earmark for the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. Make no mistake, no one in this Chamber is interested in denying funding to resolve unsolved civil rights cases--no one. But what we are interested in doing is passing this bill as quickly as possible, so that the Department of Justice has the necessary and adequate funding to pursue these cases. This amendment slows down that process. This amendment earmarks $10 million with existing funding for the Weed and Seed Program, which is an authorized competitive grant program under title I of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act, which funds communitywide strategies to reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activities. This authorized program has nothing to do with resolving unsolved civil rights cases. Yet this amendment takes almost half the funding in one authorized program designed to combat violent crime and gang activities and earmarks it for a different program that already has millions in funding available for this effort. I am confident this administration's Department of Justice will be using its resources to solve as many of these cases as possible. The Department of Justice has at its disposal $123 million provided for the Civil Rights Division, $151 million in funding to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence, and $30 million for State and local governments to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations. These are just a few of the many authorized civil rights-related programs for which the subcommittee chair has provided increased funding for the fiscal year 2009. The best way to fund initiatives of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act is to pass this measure--the underlying measure--now and send it to the President for his signature. The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma detracts from that effort, while providing no overall benefit. I yield the floor and suggest the absence after quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the measure before us, H.R. 1105, is consistent with the funding levels approved in the budget resolution. Therefore, I sincerely believe there is no justification for any amendment to reopen this bill to further cuts. The Republicans argue there is an overlap between the funds added in the recovery bill and the omnibus bill before us. At the request of Republican Members, Senator Cochran and I called upon our staff to conduct a bipartisan review of the impact that the Recovery Act has on the omnibus bill. That review determined that there is, at most, minimal overlap. Let me explain. First, there are 900 programs in the omnibus bill. Fewer than 20 percent receive stimulus funds. For those who may want to offer an across-the-board cut to this bill, they would be harming more than 80 percent of the programs for the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Treasury, HUD, Energy, and so on. Second, of the programs with stimulus funds, only 100 have an increase in the 2009 omnibus bill above the 2008 funding level, and many of those increases just cover inflation or are relatively small. Nearly half of these programs averaged about $5 million in increase between 2008 and 2009. In many cases this does not even cover the cost of inflation. Analysis will show there are 30 programs in the bill before us which grow substantially between 2008 and 2009 by a total of $15 billion. Of the omnibus growth of the $15 billion we measured, $13 billion is either entirely unrelated to the stimulus bill or is required in addition to the Recovery Act funds to achieve policy objectives or was funded in response to strong political support which would eliminate any chance of reducing it. I would like to mention a few critical priorities that would go unmet if the Congress were to pass a CR rather than the omnibus. On food and medical product safety inspections, this omnibus bill would provide the Food and Drug Administration with an increase of nearly $325 million, of which $150 million is included in the current continuing resolution. If this measure is not enacted into law, the proposed increased funding for the FDA would be reduced by $175 million. This reduction in funding would significantly decrease the number of food and medical product safety inspections, both domestic and overseas, that the FDA could perform. On the matter of consumer product safety, this measure would provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with an increase of $25 million or 32 percent above the 2008 level. Without this funding increase, this Commission would not be able to implement many of the reforms and new directives contained in the newly enacted Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to make children's products safer, such as the consumer complaint database, an overseas presence, and increased inspector general staffing, and staffing generally. On the matter of the enforcement of securities law, inadequate resources for the Securities and Exchange Commission would hamper the ability to undertake vigorous enforcement of security laws to help bolster the integrity of the financial markets just when such enforcement is needed. On the matter of the Federal Aviation Administration, this agency faces a crisis in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers. Without the increase provided in this omnibus bill, 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. One accident is one too many. These are only some of the many priorities in this legislation that would go unmet if we fail to pass this bill as written. This omnibus bill is a good package. It is bipartisan and noncontroversial. It is in compliance with the budget resolution for the committee. Again, I believe there is no justification for an amendment to reopen this bill to further cuts that would do harm to the important national priorities I have mentioned. I suggest the absence of a quorum.