Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, since 1974, there has been a law on our books that does exactly what this amendment proposes to do. It does so without taking away the checks and balances we have in the government. It also does so in a proper way. It goes through the Congress of the United States. This is an appropriations matter. So, therefore, I hope all of us can vote no on the Coburn amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise to discuss H.J. Res. 48, a short term continuing resolution designed to keep the Government open through April 8th. If the Senate passes this resolution it will be the sixth short term continuing resolution this year. With its passage we will be more than half way through the fiscal year and still operating without a budget. H.J. Res. 48 would fund the Government for an additional 3 weeks and would reduce the rate of operations for the Federal Government by an additional $6 billion. If adopted, we would be operating the government at a rate that is $51 billion below the amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011. At this level, our spending on security programs will be $30 billion below the president's request and $21 billion lower on domestic spending. I would also point out to my colleagues that this is $31 billion below the so-called Sessions-McCaskill level which every member of the Republican caucus voted for last year. The aggregate amount in this short term CR is the level proposed by the President as a compromise with the House Republicans and it is the same amount that was included in the amendment which I offered as an alternative to the House continuing resolution last week. By agreeing to this level, the Senate will be $6 billion lower than current spending levels, but no lower than the President has recommended. While several of my colleagues have complained that we simply have not cut enough Government spending, most of our subcommittee chairmen, and many Members of the Democratic caucus are beginning to think that we have already cut too much. I believe the disparity in views can be partially explained by the information described below. Recently the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report which notes that in comparing appropriations funding levels, the appropriate measurement should be expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars, normally referred to as real growth. The Center's point is that the cost of Government operations increases each year by inflation. One cannot ignore the fact that if the price of goods and services rise by 1, 2 or 10 percent, the Federal Government's cost in providing those goods and services also increases by this rate. When we fail to consider the effect of inflation on Federal discretionary programs in viewing spending rates, we are not accurately reflecting what it costs to run the Government. If utility prices are increasing by 5 percent, and if we don't budget the extra amount, we are forced to cut other programs to pay for the fact of life increase in our utility bills. Longevity increases paid to civil servants and military pay raises are also fact of life increases that we cannot ignore. These bills have to be paid even if we aren't budgeting for their increased cost. And. if we aren't basing our funding decisions on real costs, adjusted by inflation, we are in fact forcing Government to cut the services it provides even when it receives the same funding level as in the previous year. This isn't a political talking point; it is a mathematical fact. The report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities measures the impact of inflation on the cost of Government. By its calculation using the CBO baseline, real spending approved for fiscal year 2011 to date is $34 billion lower than what was provided in fiscal year 2010, a cut of $18 billion in real security spending and $16 billion in domestic spending. With this amendment we will be cutting domestic spending by another $6 billion in nominal terms, but more than that in inflation adjusted dollars. Democrats have been chastised for only cutting $10 billion from fiscal year 2010 levels. I would note that even in that comparison, which fails to take into account many fact of life increases, we should all understand that domestic spending is being cut by more than $14 billion, while security spending is slated to increase. Furthermore we are now halfway through the fiscal year. Agencies have spent on average 50 percent of their funds. Each dollar we reduce at this time has the effect of doubling the cut made in programs for the rest of the year. Our subcommittee chairmen recognize the difficulties that this level of spending will create for the programs they oversee. Accordingly, many of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee are saying enough is enough, while those who are not as familiar with the details of budgeting complain that we should be able to cut spending more. I ask the Senate to consider one more measurement. For domestic discretionary spending the total available for the whole year after the passage of this bill will be $400 billion. In FY 2010 we had $413.6 billion for these purposes. For nearly the entire first half of this year we were spending funds at a rate of nearly $410 billion. Since the year is halfway over, approximately half of the $140 billion--or $205 billion--has already been allocated. In general, that means we will only have approximately $195 billion to cover the cost of operations for all of our domestic agencies for the rest of the year. This rate of spending for the rest of this fiscal year is $23.6 billion below the rate we spent last year. And when we compound this, recognizing that inflation has increased the cost of operations for domestic programs by $16 billion a year according to the center on budget and policy priorities, we see that effectively for the remainder of the year we will be asking our agencies to operate at a rate which is $39.6 billion below what we gave them for the same level of goods and services that we supported last year. In real terms even under this short term CR, we will be requiring our agencies to absorb more than a 9 percent reduction in spending compared to a year ago. Agreeing to a cut of this size this late in the fiscal year will be challenging for our agencies to manage. I believe our subcommittee Chairmen recognize this reality and it is why most of them are concerned that the level of cut that we are agreeing to is already deeper than is prudent. Finally, I want to point out to everyone who is listening exactly where we are, and what we are really talking about in trying to conclude our negotiations on spending for this fiscal year. Those who talk about $3.7 trillion in spending and billions in unneeded funds are not dealing with the reality of this continuing resolution. What the decision comes down to is this. After this resolution passes, our domestic agencies will have approximately $195 billion to meet all their needs through the end of the year. This covers the salaries of people who monitor our food supplies, of our air traffic controllers who keep U.S. airspace safe, of our customs officials and U.S. Marshalls who monitor our borders. It includes the cost of all of our programs to support education from kindergarten through college, of those who ensure that our social security benefits are paid, and of thousands of other activities. We have reduced their funding effectively by 10 percent. How much more of this $195 billion which accounts for only about 5 percent of the $3.7 trillion budget; how much more of this spending can we really afford to cut before we are required to lay off food inspectors and shut down meat plants? How much more can we cut before we have no funds to pay employees to monitor our borders and ports? How much more before we have to cancel the construction of dams, bridges, highways, levees, sewers, and transit projects and throw thousands of private sector workers onto the street? It should not be forgotten that when we force either civil servants or private sector workers out of their jobs, they both add to the unemployment rolls. They will not be paying taxes any longer, but they will tax already stretched social services. Surely we can agree cutting jobs, whether public or private, is not the right approach to assist our slowly rebounding economy. This is not a question of how much we can or should save from a $3.7 trillion budget, but a question of how much more our colleagues think we should cut from the $195 billion we have left to pay for our domestic agencies when we will be effectively asking the agencies to cut another 10 percent in spending over the next 6 months. In the coming days as we try to resolve our differences on domestic spending for the rest of this fiscal year I hope my colleagues will keep these points in mind. Having said that, I intend to support this CR because it will provide the funding level that the White House has endorsed, and because if it fails we would likely have to shut down the Government. That would be unacceptable. I encourage all my colleagues, those who think we have cut too much and those who do not, to support this 3 week extension to allow our colleagues additional time to try and reach an overall compromise on discretionary spending for the rest of the fiscal year. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in quorum calls be allocated on both sides.

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

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at my request, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has provided information on the potential impact of a fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution on the agency's long-term ability to effectively carry out its mission. In particular, they highlight potential impacts to their ability to provide accurate and timely weather and hazard forecasts and what the economic impacts may be on a State-by-State basis. I ask unanimous consent that their response be printed in the Record so that we may have a more informed debate.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment from the Senator from Kentucky seeks to reduce discretionary spending by $200 billion. The actual amendment would cut in excess of $155 billion from domestic discretionary spending programs and the balance from security-related programs. While I am sure the Senator is serious in his desire to cut spending, I would point out to my colleagues that for the remaining 6 months of this fiscal year, with the passage of the next short-term continuing resolution, the Federal Government will have less than $200 billion in fiscal year 11 funds remaining for domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to be advised that the CR that has passed the House will set a ceiling on domestic discretionary funding for the whole year at $400 billion. Since we are half way through the fiscal year, we have already allocated approximately half of these resources. Moreover, during the first 6 months of the fiscal year the government was funded at a higher rate, approximately $405 billion. Therefore, we only have approximately $195 billion remaining for the balance of the year to spend on all discretionary domestic programs. While there are examples where unobligated balances remain in some agencies, in general it is fair to say the Senator's amendment would cut this year's remaining domestic spending by 80 percent. The amendment stipulates that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are all abolished. If this wasn't bad enough, the amendment would also cut more funding from the Department of Education than they have remaining for the balance of the fiscal year. It would cut more than remains available for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and from the Office of Personnel Management. Some domestic agencies would have sufficient resources to survive this cut, but none without dire consequences. A cut of 35 percent to the EPA would seriously curtail funding for sewer and drinking water infrastructure, while leaving the agency with little funding to pay its personnel for the balance of the fiscal year. For the Department of the Interior, the Paul amendment would almost certainly necessitate the closure of our national parks and Indian schools. On security funding, the bill would slash the State Department's budget 75 percent below last year's level, effectively eliminating funding for most State Department functions worldwide with devastating consequences for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The $30 billion cut to the Department of Defense would likely delay or terminate procurement programs supported by the Congress as the Department uses its authority to target cuts away from readiness and personnel programs toward investment programs. The Energy Department's nuclear weapons program would be cut by $2.5 billion. This would put the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons at risk. The only thing that many agencies would be able to do if they were faced with cuts of this magnitude would be to plan their shut down operations. Not a single Member of this Chamber can responsibly vote for this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, today our Nation faces a very difficult political landscape when it comes to addressing the major challenges to our country, such as unemployment and the deficit. The American public is demanding that the House and Senate work with the President to address these concerns. I believe the American people's understandable and growing concern over the national debt is shared by every Member of this body. But in order for the Congress to address our fiscal crisis, we must fix our broken budget process. Today, with fiscal year 2011 nearly halfway over, as a result of the Congress's inability to finish its work, the Federal Government is still operating on stopgap funding designed to avert a government shutdown. This is no way to govern. Continuing resolutions make it difficult for Federal agencies to perform their duties. As the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, has stated very clearly, operating under a CR places a great burden on the Department of Defense. The same can be said for every Federal agency. Our failure to act responsibly makes the everyday functioning of government more difficult and less responsive to the needs of the American people. Moreover, continuing resolutions make a mockery of our constitutional responsibility to allocate taxpayer funding wisely. Putting the country on budgetary autopilot is simply unacceptable. It is well past the time to cast aside the blistering campaign rhetoric of the fall and find the means to compromise. Many new Members of this body were elected on the promise of a return to fiscal responsibility. I would suggest that returning to regular order in our budget process is a necessary component to achieve this goal. The Appropriations Committee produces 12 individual bipartisan spending bills, but when the Congress fails to act on them through regular order, we wind up with a $1 trillion omnibus bill or a $1 trillion continuing resolution that cedes the power of the purse to the executive branch. Neither the most liberal nor the most conservative Member of this body should prefer an omnibus or a CR over the regular order in our budget process. Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Hal Rogers of Kentucky, to congratulate him on his new position. During our discussion, we both agreed that the Congress needs to reestablish regular order in the appropriations process. Both Chambers need to pass its bills and allow us to work out our differences in conference. I believe if we adopt this approach, we can do our part to help this Nation regain its economic health. The first step in the process is the adoption of a budget to provide the framework for appropriations bills. The House must step up to the plate with a budget that is workable. It cannot hide behind vague rhetoric and arbitrary spending caps, and it should not insist upon irrational, problematic cuts that would devastate the lives of the American people. Likewise, it is imperative that the Senate do its part in moving a budget through a responsible and regular order process, including the timely adoption of a budget resolution. If a budget resolution is not adopted by early May, the appropriations process will be delayed. Every week of delay further diminishes our ability to finish our work prior to the end of the fiscal year. In recent years, all too often appropriations bills have been held hostage, as Members offered message amendments, knowing they would not pass, while the time needed to complete 12 freestanding bills slipped away. By September, we had abandoned any hope of finishing all 12 bills as the calendar simply did not give us enough time. We Democrats must recognize that regular order cannot exist without bipartisan cooperation. Last year, despite the lack of a budget resolution, the committee completed almost all of its work, preparing 11 of the 12 appropriations bills for full consideration in a timely manner. However, gridlock on the Senate floor eliminated any further progress. If a more open amendment process for relevant amendments will enable these bills to move forward, we should be open to such an approach even if that means taking some uncomfortable votes. This Chamber is split 53 to 47. Both sides need to give a little bit, and in so doing, it is my hope that we can get the bipartisan appropriations process back on track. Certainly, no Member of this body wants to explain to his or her constituents why we have failed yet again to responsibly fund the government or ceded our constitutional authority to the administration or even why we are unable to work together responsibly to avoid a disastrous government shutdown. We must find a way to accomplish the tasks the Constitution has assigned to us. To do this, we need a budget resolution, we need the House to send over appropriations bills in a timely fashion, we need floor time, and we need a willingness to vote on amendments. Without these four things, there is no doubt in my mind that I will be standing in this Chamber in late September, yet again, seeking passage of a continuing resolution in order to avoid shutting down the government. The House and the Senate need to find a way to work together to pass our bills under the regular order and send them to the President. This is the only way we can restore discipline to the budget process. It is the only way we can maintain our constitutional responsibility to determine how taxpayers dollars are spent. It is truly the only way we can avoid repeating the catchall spending bills none of us wants. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the amendment I introduced on Friday cuts $51 billion from the discretionary spending request submitted by the President for fiscal year 2011. If this amendment were agreed to as written, it would mean we would appropriate $51 billion less than the President felt was necessary for the government to carry out its duties. I do not agree with every item this President or any President requests in their budget. But I also know the President's budget request did not contain $51 billion in frivolous or wasteful spending. The cuts necessary to reach the $51-billion level required difficult choices. This amendment makes real cuts to real programs. Tens of thousands of Americans will feel the direct impact of the proposed cuts. But the cuts included in this amendment are based on hearings, testimony, and a thorough analysis of the current needs of every agency and department the committee funds. By contrast, the Republicans in the House have thrown together a proposal based not on budgets, not on hearings, not on the demonstrated needs of agencies and departments but rather based on the campaign promise to reduce spending by $100 billion. H.R. 1 shows clearly what happens when you run a bill based not on analysis but on campaign speeches. Therefore, today, the Senate finds itself responding to draconian cuts that would lead to furloughs, disrupt the delivery of government agencies and services, and harm America's children, our students, our working class, and our seniors. An estimated 700,000 jobs would be lost. All this pain delivered in the name of deficit reduction and growing the economy. Yet the facts are clear. This is the wrong direction for our Nation. We face our current fiscal situation primarily because of falling revenues brought about by unpaid-for tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans, and because of ever-rising entitlement costs. Every nonpartisan report on finding a solution to our current fiscal crisis stresses the need for a comprehensive solution, a solution that includes cuts in discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, as well as cuts in entitlement spending, and, yes, the need for additional revenues. Just yesterday, the New York Times published a story about the efforts of the junior Senator from Virginia and the senior Senator from Georgia to honestly examine what it will take to solve our fiscal challenges. According to that story, even if Congress cut discretionary spending to zero, the senior Senator from Georgia was quoted as saying: ``We still couldn't solve the problem.'' I could not agree more. The solution to deficit reduction will not come from huge cuts to a small portion of the Federal budget. But that is what the House is proposing. What H.R. 1 will do instead is jeopardize the economic recovery we are beginning to see. This Democratic alternative attempts to make the best of a very bad situation. The top line numbers tell a story. In this amendment, we are $23 billion below the President's request for nonsecurity spending, and we are $28 billion below his original request for spending related to our Nation's security. For the Department of Defense alone, we have reduced spending by $19.4 billion, including a reduction of $2.1 billion for military construction, and $17.3 billion for the rest of the Defense Department. At this level, the bill is nearly $3 billion below the amounts proposed by the House for these activities. The recommended amounts will cover our defense requirements in this constrained fiscal environment. However, my colleagues should all understand that with our troops still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be looking to defense for additional reductions. I feel that not all Members understand the depths of the cuts we have had to take to get $51 billion under the request. They should be advised, for example, that the Senate amendment cuts $355 million of State and local law enforcement grants. This will result in some 1,400 fewer local and tribal law enforcement and criminal justice jobs. In addition, the amendment cuts $526 million from FBI salaries and expenses. These cuts will halt new national security enhancements intended to improve our intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities to protect U.S. information and technology networks from cyber attacks and to assist in litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases. This amendment cuts science funding by $573 million at the National Science Foundation and by $165 million at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As a result, the Nation will lose opportunities for promising research in emerging fields such as cyber security and nanotechnology. Instead of taking the lead, as we have always done, we will slow down, allowing the rest of the world to catch up. When it comes to the critical area of education, the Senate amendment eliminates 17 individual education programs totaling $370 million. It cuts all Federal funding specifically targeted to education technology, gifted and talented instruction, and family literacy. The list goes on and on. But as significant as these cuts are, they stand in strong contrast to the House Republican bill, which includes such severe measures that the bill would undermine our security, endanger our economy, while costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs. H.R. 1 would cut transit security grants by 66 percent, despite the fact that there have been over 1,300 attacks, killing or injuring over 18,000 people worldwide on trains and subways over the last 7 years. The Senate bill would maintain the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $300 million. The House Republican CR cuts discretionary funding for community health centers by $1 billion compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This cut would prevent any new clinic from opening. It will eliminate funds for 127 clinics currently operating in 38 States and reduce current services at another 1,096 centers across the country. More than 2.8 million people will likely lose access to their current primary care provider, and over 5,000 health center staff would lose their jobs. The Senate bill restores the $1 billion cut, preserving both the vital services being provided today and the planned expansion of centers estimated to treat over 7\1/2\ million new patients this year. The House CR would eliminate all funding for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery ``TIGER'' Grant Program. TIGER grants are highly competitive and fund transportation projects that make a significant contribution to the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area. The House proposal would take funding away from 75 projects in 40 States across the country. Based on information from the Transportation Department, cutting a total of $1.2 billion from the TIGER Program will put 33,360 jobs at risk. H.R. 1 cuts funding for the Social Security Administration administrative expense by $125 million below the 2010 level. This would cause the SSA to freeze hiring across the agency and possibly furlough employees at a time when the number of Americans filing for disability and retirement benefits is at record levels. The Senate bill, by contrast, provides $600 million more than the House Republican proposal. Compared to the House CR, it will allow SSA to process about 300,000 more initial disability claims and 150,000 more disability hearings and prevent delays in new beneficiaries receiving their retirement benefits. The House bill slashes title I education funding by nearly $700 million, meaning 2,400 schools serving 1 million disadvantaged students could lose funding, and approximately 10,000 teachers and aides would lose their jobs. At a time when schools across the Nation are already struggling with budget cuts, the title I grants program serves as the foundation of Federal assistance to elementary and secondary schools across the country, providing financial assistance to more than 90 percent of our Nation's school districts. Finally, with regard to our Nation's security interests, the devastating funding cuts in H.R. 1 undermine our ability to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and to support General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy. H.R. 1 provides $5.71 billion for the Economic Support Fund, a 27-percent cut from the fiscal year 2011 request level. As both Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have made clear in repeated testimony before Congress, cuts of this magnitude will seriously impede efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and to transition responsibility for U.S. operations in Iraq from the military to civilians. There are many more examples of damage that would come should H.R. 1 be enacted into law, which is why the President has promised a veto and why I know all my Democratic colleagues will reject it when it comes up for a vote. The Senate amendment I offer takes a responsible approach to funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, making difficult decisions but also ensuring minimal disruptions to the economic recovery. We are now almost halfway through fiscal year 2011, If we are to have any chance of avoiding another series of continuing resolutions for fiscal year 2012, we simply must finish our work on the current year and move past this issue. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support my amendment as a prudent alternative to the House measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following explanatory statement regarding Division A of my Amendment No. 149, The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have listened to several of my colleagues say that the Defense budget should be further reduced. Other Members are concerned that this bill cuts too much funding out of the Department of Defense. I believe the Defense bill before you today strikes a fair balance between responsible reductions and protection of our military forces. The defense portion of this bill provides a total of $671.5 billion in base and overseas contingency operation funding for fiscal year 2011. The base budget is $513.6 billion, which is $17.3 billion less than the President's budget request. This bill cuts an additional $2.13 billion more than H.R. 1 for defense. I believe that these reductions are prudent, and reflect the reality of today's challenging fiscal environment where all programs are subject to reductions. But let me be clear--this bill continues to fully support our men and women in uniform and protects funding for four important national security priorities. First, the bill takes care of our military personnel. It fully funds the 1.4 percent authorized pay raise and provides $887 million above the budget request to cover shortfalls in the military personnel accounts that were identified by the services. Second, the bill fully funds health care for the military and their families. The bill provides $32.8 billion for the Defense Health Program, continues advancements in medical research, modernizes and maintains medical infrastructure, and develops the next generation of electronic medical records. In addition, the bill adds $100 million for peer-reviewed research in psychological health and traumatic brain injury. Third, the bill fully funds key readiness programs critical to prepare forces for combat operations and other peace time missions, including flying hours and steaming days, depot maintenance, training, spare parts, and base operations. Additional funding is included to provide for shortfalls identified by the Army for base operations, for the Navy and Air Force for depot maintenance, and tuition assistance for military spouses. Fourth, the bill provides additional funding to protect our forces, including new equipment and upgrades to existing programs to ensure that our military has the hardware needed to conduct operations and train during a time of war. High-priority programs are increased, such as: The replacement of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft lost in battle, and increased production of Army and Air Force helicopters urgently needed to support combat operations in Afghanistan; Support for critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, ISR, initiatives, including procurement of 48 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles and more than $2.5 billion of ISR programs identified by the Secretary of Defense as high priority for troops overseas; Better protection of deployed military personnel, such as $3.4 billion to fully fund Mine Resistant Ambush Protected-All Terrain Vehicles and an additional $225 million to test and procure the Stryker Double V Hull for additional protection from IEDs; An additional $850 million for the National Guard and Reserve to ensure that our Reserve components have the equipment needed to conduct their growing missions. Furthermore, the bill continues our goal to transfer responsibility to our partners in Afghanistan and Iraq so that our forces can safely and responsibly withdrawal. The bill provides $11.6 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund, $1.5 billion for the Iraq security forces fund, $500 million for the Commander's emergency response program, and $400 million for the Afghanistan infrastructure fund. However, the Department of Defense is not immune from budget reductions. I believe this bill judiciously cuts defense spending, while improving fiscal accountability. Nearly 760 defense programs are reduced in the package before you today. These funding cuts are made as a result of program terminations or delays, changes to policy or programs since submission of the budget over a year ago, inadequate justification, authorization adjustments, or corrections to poor fiscal discipline. For instance, the bill cuts nearly $2 billion out of the Joint Strike Fighter program due to production and testing delays. Over $450 million is deleted from the bill due to the termination of the non-line of sight launch system. The bill rescinds $1.2 billion from prior year funding in 45 different programs due to poor execution, delays or terminations. The list goes on and on. This is a fair bill for the Department of Defense. It is a bipartisan compromise between responsibly reducing defense spending while at the same time providing for our men and women in uniform that are fighting a war in Afghanistan, winding down operations in Iraq, and operating around the globe to protect this Nation's security. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the following regulations were printed in the Record on January 25, 2011. Due to errors in the initial printing, I ask unanimous consent that the notice be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the continuing resolution we introduce today, which is $51 billion below the President's budget request, imposes responsible cuts and terminations across a wide variety of programs. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate proposal will allow the government to continue operating at reduced levels without major disruptions that would set back our economic recovery and eliminate countless American jobs. The House-passed CR would cut $51 billion more than the Senate measure, with the vast majority of cuts coming from nondefense spending. The House bill would jeopardize our economic recovery at a critical time, and severely disrupt the ability of Federal agencies to carry out even their most basic functions. If enacted in its current form, the House bill would lead to furloughs and to premature termination or postponement of contracts that will end up costing taxpayers additional dollars in the future. The House bill would cause backlogs in Social Security claims, undermine nuclear weapons safety, remove more than 200,000 children from of Head Start, and close poison control centers across America. These are just a few specific examples of the irresponsible nature of the House Republican bill as a whole. The Senate has put forward a reasonable, fiscally responsible bill that will reduce funding at a rate that is $51 billion below the President's budget request. This bill is a good faith effort to meet in the middle. It is now time to end political gamesmanship and stop gambling with people's lives and livelihoods. I urge our counterparts in the House to engage in a constructive dialogue with us that will end the current budget stalemate.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this is the fifth time this fiscal year that I have urged the Senate to support a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government running. CRs are inefficient and hamstring our agencies and departments, especially the Department of Defense in a time of war. A CR funds programs that should be terminated and does not fund programs that need to be initiated. There is only one advantage to a CR--it is better than the alternative, a government shutdown. The House has proposed a 2-week continuing resolution, which would keep the government operating through March 18. The proposal includes $4 billion in cuts, many of which were recommended by the President in his fiscal year 2012 budget request. Clearly, the 2-week extension in this CR does not provide sufficient time to hammer out a final agreement. At this point, however, it would appear that the only alternative is a government shutdown. This is an unacceptable outcome-- the consequences for our economy and the American people would be severe. As a result, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that we should pass this extension quickly and send it to the President for his signature. As things stand today, I believe that we will find ourselves in the same place 2 weeks from now. I am not optimistic that there will be sufficient time to work out a final deal that will pass the House and Senate prior to March 18. I hope I am wrong, but the reality is that the two Houses remain far apart and the negotiations will be long and intense. By accepting this extension, Senate Democrats have demonstrated a good faith effort to work with our House and Senate Republican counterparts on a reasonable compromise that will end the current budget stalemate. Let us hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to meet us half way as we move forward with these critical negotiations in the weeks to come.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 112th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Cochran, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee will not oppose this amendment not because we think it is a good idea--it is not--but because this amendment does nothing that is not already covered by title X of the bill. Sadly, this is the kind of amendment that took up far too much of the Senate's time and effort in the last session, and none of it with any discernable value to the American people. Specifically, we asked CBO to score this amendment and they said they could not. They pointed out that the definition provided in the amendment did not exist 9 years ago; consequently, there are no earmarks older than 9 years that meet this definition. So any claims that this amendment saves the American taxpayer money is simply not substantiated by CBO. Mr. President, we took the further step of asking agencies across the Federal Government if they could tell us what is out there that could possibly meet the Coburn standard. There are indeed a few projects at the Department of Transportation, but they are already covered by title X of the underlying bill. Outside of the Department of Transportation, we discovered that there are a few sewer grants still on the books, but they total less than $5 million. And outside of those two agencies, there may be anecdotal evidence of an earmark here or an earmark there, but that is it. Meanwhile, I note that this amendment as well as title X may well end up costing the American taxpayer more than the amendment claims to save. The requirement that OMB must create and administer a database and maintain it on its Web site costs money, not to mention the time and labor necessary to establish the criterion for what defines a Congressional earmark for the purposes of this amendment. In the spirit of President Obama, I will not take this opportunity to relitigate our past debates over the worthiness of Congressionally directed spending requests. Since my announcement of a moratorium on earmarks this year, it is no surprise to me to see a number of press reports about the communities across the country that are now finding themselves without resources they urgently need. However, I must say, in the spirit of our many past debates over earmarks, that I find this amendment to be duplicative, ineffective, and a potential waste of the taxpayers' dollars. And if it had come up for a vote, I would most certainly have voted no. We have serious financial issues before us, and we need to get to work.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is a somewhat poorly kept secret that many of the successes of government are attributable to those who work outside of the limelight. While Senators, Cabinet Secretaries, and even the generals in our military are the public face of the policies of the United States, behind every leader is a cadre of dedicated and knowledgeable civil servants. Today I wish to call out one name in particular. Ellen Maldonado, a professional staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, will soon be retiring after 30 years of government service. Ellen joined the Defense Subcommittee in 2006, brought onboard by my friend and former colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. The subcommittee, and in fact the Senate as a whole, was fortunate to find someone with such a wealth of talent and experience in the complex field of budgeting for our Armed Forces. Ellen has worked at every level of the budgeting workforce for our military establishment. She began her career as a program analyst at the Naval Ship Research and Development Center in Carderock, MD, and rapidly progressed through the ranks in critical budgeting positions both inside and outside the beltway. Some of her most rewarding positions outside of Washington have included service at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, and even the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru. Inside the Pentagon, Ellen worked on an impressive array of budgeting issues. From revising the Army's reprogramming process to programming for military health care, from reviewing defense research and development programs to developing emergency spending requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, she has earned the respect of all of those around her. She has won a reputation of being an expert on the most arcane points of the Financial Management Regulations, as well as understanding the details of highly complex weapons systems. Ellen has been recognized for her outstanding achievements by being awarded both the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Service and the Exceptional Civilian Service Award. Ellen's career at the Pentagon culminated in her 2005 appointment as the Director for Investment for the Comptroller of the Department of Defense. In this position, she was responsible for overseeing the budget for every stage of developing, testing, and procuring equipment for all of the military services. This position brought her into regular contact with the highest levels of the Department of Defense, as well as Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. It is extremely fortunate for the Committee on Appropriations that we managed to lure her away from this important position in 2006. While serving on the Defense Subcommittee, Ellen has excelled in reviewing the budget proposals on critical Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and intelligence programs. She has tackled some of the greatest national security challenges facing our country today, including an in- depth investigation into our government's cyber security efforts and exhaustive reviews of the Nation's most expensive military program in history, the Joint Strike Fighter. Her impressive track record made her a natural pick to join President Obama's transition team at the Department of Defense in 2008 and 2009. While I could continue to list her professional successes, one cannot comment on her career without saying a few words on her outstanding character. Ellen combines a sunny disposition with a deep-rooted sense of fairness. She is a true master of her field, and always eager to share her knowledge and experience with her colleagues. While consistently a good steward of the taxpayer's money, her patriotism has insured that the welfare of the men and women serving in uniform has always been foremost in her mind. And finally, everyone who knows Ellen also knows of her remarkable and touching relationship with her husband, Rob. They are truly a magical couple, and I understand that they have plans to travel the world later this year. Ellen Maldonado has had an outstanding career in three decades of service in the Department of Defense and the Senate. On behalf of the whole Committee on Appropriations, I wish to thank Ellen for her tireless and outstanding work on behalf of the members of the Armed Forces, her colleagues, and the people of the United States. I wish Ellen and Rob all the very best in their future plans.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Levin amendment, which I believe is a far superior alternate to the Stabenow amendment as it currently stands. The amendment offered today by Senator Stabenow proposes to rescind $44 billion from unobligated balances of appropriated funds that are designated for specific purposes in various appropriations bills previously enacted by Congress. The Senator offers these rescissions in order to offset the loss of revenues resulting from an amendment. This amendment is a perfect representation of what I expect to be a flood of similar amendments and stand-alone bills that seek to eviscerate the nondefense functions of the Federal Government. With the exception of the proposal from the junior Senator from Kentucky, which had the courage to list each and every cut he proposed, I expect many other bills and amendments will be blanket rescissions that leave it to the executive branch to decide how the taxpayers' moneys will be spent. These bills and amendments turn the constitutional separation of powers on its head and provide a terribly dangerous precedent. In the specific case of the Stabenow amendment, it simply provides for generic rescission of funds, with the authority and decisionmaking on the programs to be impacted delegated entirely to the executive branch. Rescinding funds in this manner, as pointed out by Senator Levin, may be politically convenient as it simply cites the top line number of $44 billion, but it is also thoughtless and rash. It will serve to shelter those who vote in its favor from the righteous anger of Americans whose lives are disrupted when important and, in some cases, vital projects and programs are shut down as they inevitably will be, should the amendment be agreed to. I can also promise that if this amendment is enacted into law, the force of these cuts will be felt in each of the 50 States, and the capricious nature of the cuts will only deepen the pain. I know that because we are in the middle of the second quarter of the fiscal year operating under a CR. Consequently, as I explained in November, the only unobligated balances remaining outside of those for operating under a CR in 2011 are those accounts that have slow spend rates, such as construction and infrastructure accounts. That is why it is taking $44 billion in rescissions to pay for a $19 billion problem. As a result, we will be cutting deeply into our nondefense discretionary programs without congressional guidance and without any analysis of the ultimate costs and impacts. This approach is simply irresponsible. While we cannot say with certainty what the cuts will be because the executive branch will have complete authority over what programs will be impacted, I believe the following cuts are likely: State and local law enforcement will face cuts of $200 million to $300 million in grant programs, including $82 million in Violence Against Women grants, $81 million in Byrne and other Office of Justice grants, and $10 million in Juvenile Justice grants. Cutting these grant funds will take funding from programs already expected to be awarded, and will fall particularly hard on States with large problems with crime. A cut of $95 million from the DEA would mean halting efforts to go after and take down Mexican drug cartels, to enforce narcoterrorist investigations, and information sharing, and to address emerging technologies used by drug traffickers. The TSA stands to lose $674 million of funds to procure and install over 200 explosive detecting systems at airports across the Nation. Finally, the U.S. Marshals would face a cut of $48.7 million, bringing an end to courthouse security equipment projects and also halting Marshals' operations in the Southwest border where they engage in activities such as tracking fugitives. Supporters of the Stabenow amendment would claim that I am using scare tactics, painting a dark picture when the real cuts are not as devastating. How can anyone stand here and claim we can cut $44 billion and not have it hurt our States and our constituents? This amount is equivalent to funding the entire Department of Homeland Security, which covers everything from the Coast Guard to FEMA, from the Secret Service to the Border Patrol. No one denies that waste, fraud, and abuse exist and that we need to continue to enact reforms that will lesson waste, convict those who would defraud the government, and eliminate abuses of programs that are designed to help those who need it most. But if this amendment is signed into law, then 60 days later we will all get a harsh reminder that campaigning against waste, fraud, and abuse is not the same thing as implementing a policy that cuts billions of dollars in useful spending. These rescissions will hurt individuals, they will hurt communities and jeopardize safety of life and our security. Let me also point out to my colleagues that if this amendment is enacted, we cannot stop rescissions of unobligated balances from a single account we may view as vital because the amendment gives sole decisionmaking power in identifying cuts to the executive branch. I will say this again. This amendment is not in the best interests of the Senate, it is not in the best interests of our democratic priorities, and it is certainly not in the best interests of the American people. If it is indeed the will of the Senate to eviscerate these critical programs, let's stop hiding behind generic rescissions. Let's instead support the Levin amendment, which offsets a revenue loss with a revenue gain, which eliminates unnecessary tax loopholes, and which will leave important national priorities intact. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back my time. But I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps. As a proud supporter of the officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel of the Army Nurse Corps, I am pleased that we are recognizing their contributions to our Army and our great Nation. Since 1901, Army nurses have demonstrated again and again their total commitment to the highest standards of military nursing excellence. Both men and women have served as Army nurses since 1775, but the Army Nurse Corps did not become a part of the Army Medical Department until 1901. The distinguished contributions of female contract nurses during and following the 1898 Spanish-American War became the justification and demonstrated the need for a permanent female nurse corps. When the United States entered World War I in 1917, there were only 4,093 nurses on Active Duty. By November 1918, there were 21,460 Army nurses, with 10,000 serving overseas. During the war, nurses served primarily in base, evacuation, and mobile surgical hospitals in the United States, France, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. They also provided care on hospital trains in France and transport ships carrying wounded home across the Atlantic. Approximately 270 nurses lost their lives in the conflict. When the United States entered World War II, fewer than 7,000 nurses were on Active Duty. By 1945, more than 57,000 Army nurses were assigned to hospital ships and trains, flying ambulances, field hospitals, evacuation stations, and general hospitals at home and overseas. In Europe, Army nurses assisted in developing the concept of recovery wards for immediate postoperative nursing care. Military nursing gained a greater understanding of the process of shock, blood replacement, and resuscitation. Air evacuation from the combat zone by fixed-wing aircraft brought patients to definitive treatment quickly. Army flight nurses helped to establish the incredible record of only 5 deaths in flight per 100,000 patients. Nurses endured hardships caring for their patients. In May 1942, with the fall of Corregidor in the Philippines, 67 Army nurses became Japanese prisoners of war. During the 37-month captivity, the women endured primitive conditions and starvation rations. Yet they continued to care for the ill and injured in the internment hospital. On Anzio, nurses dug their foxholes outside their tents and cared for patients under German shellfire. Their example bolstered the spirits of the soldiers who shared the same tough experience. By war's end, 215 brave nurses died for their country. Army nurses once again played a major role in support of combat troops when President Truman ordered U.S. forces into Korea in June 1950. Army nurses cared for combat troops during the landing on Inchon; the advance across the 38th parallel into North Korea; the amphibious landing on the east coast of Korea; the drive toward the Yalu River; and the retreat to the 38th parallel. Throughout the Korean war, 540 Army nurses served on the embattled peninsula. Mobility and increased patient acuity characterized service in Vietnam. Evacuation by helicopter brought wounded to medical units located within minutes flying time of the battlefield. The UH-1H helicopter ambulance, nicknamed the ``Dustoff,'' not only transported patients from battle locations 50 percent faster than in Korea but also provided triage and resuscitative services for casualties. Trauma care specialization, as well as shock trauma units, developed from this experience. The ``chain of evacuation'' from Vietnam was extraordinary. A soldier could be wounded on the battlefield one day and 2 days later be in an Army hospital in the continental United States. In Vietnam, of the nearly 5,000 Army Nurses who served in 44 hospitals, 8 women made the ultimate sacrifice for their Nation. During Operation Desert Storm, approximately 2,200 nurses served in 44 hospitals. Two of every three nurses in the Arabian Gulf were from the Army National Guard or Army Reserves. This was the first major conflict that DEPMEDS, Deployable Medical Systems, were used. Another unique feature was that Army hospital staff coexisted with host nation personnel in fixed facilities forming joint national professional organizations. Before, during, and after the 100-hour ground war, U.S. forces sustained a disease and nonbattle injury rate that was the lowest ever recorded in a conflict. Recent years have seen Army nurses active throughout the world both in armed conflicts and humanitarian endeavors. In 1983, they supported combat troops in Grenada; in 1989 in Panama; and in 1991 in the Middle East. Since December 1995, Army nurses have been deployed with medical units in support of NATO alliance troops in Haiti, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Nurses have continued to serve proudly during relief efforts following natural disasters such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Today, the legacy of these military nurses lives on. Currently, Army nurses serve throughout the world in support of multiple overseas contingency operations. Throughout its history, the Army Nurse Corps has earned the deep respect and gratitude of the American people because of its dedication to providing the best possible care to our soldiers and their families while serving our country in war and peace. Army nurses have unselfishly come to the aid of victims of disaster and disease throughout the world. Over time, the mission has grown broader. Yet there has been one constant--the devotion of the individual nurse in providing excellent nursing care. Today, as soldiers serve our Nation, defending freedom across the globe, they can rest assured, should they get injured or become ill, an Army nurse will be by their side, as they were there by my side during my hour of need. Happy 110th anniversary, Army nursing.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II. Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps. This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America. Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport. When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country. The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation. I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II. Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps. This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America. Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport. When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country. The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation. I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize all of the providers who work in retail-based Convenient Care Clinics in a Resolution to designate August 1 through August 7, 2011 as National Convenient Care Clinic Week. National Convenient Care Clinic Week will provide a national platform from which to promote the pivotal services offered by the more than 1,100 retail-based convenient care clinics in the United States. Today, thousands of nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians provide care in convenient care clinics. At a time when Americans are more and more challenged by the inaccessibility and high costs of health care, convenient care offers a vital high-quality primary care alternative. A Senate Resolution will help pave the way for this effort. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to Convenient Care Clinics.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(d)), the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress, submitted a notice of issuance of final regulations. The notice contains final regulations related to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998--Regulations under section 4(c)(4) of that Act. The Congressional Accountability Act requires this notice be printed in the Congressional Record; therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.