Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent the Lautenberg amendment No. 4175 be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this will be the fourth time this year the Senate has faced an amendment from the Senator from Alabama which seeks to constrain discretionary spending. Each one of the amendments has been similar. The Senator from Alabama uses last year's budget resolution as his starting point. He argues that since Congress agreed to this level last year that we should stick with it. His goal is to mandate that the Congress hold the line on discretionary spending at these levels. I would remind my colleagues that the Budget Committee had the ability to make these caps binding when they passed this resolution last year, but they chose not to. Instead they put these notional targets in the resolution. However, since the last time the Senate defeated the amendment, one important change has occurred. The Budget Committee has now reviewed the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 and has marked up a new budget resolution. They have changed their recommendation. Since the committee has determined the levels that it believes should be adhered to, I am not sure what benefit the Senate would have in agreeing to the notional targets in last year's resolution. Moreover, like the last three times, there simply is no justification for the rest of the amendment. We all understand that discretionary spending is likely to be frozen this year as the President has proposed. Our Budget Committee recommends it be cut by an additional $4 billion. This proposal goes way beyond what the President or the Senate Budget Committee recommends. The President has proposed a modified spending freeze which caps non- security related spending. The president's proposal allows growth in Homeland Security; this amendment does not assume growth. The President has requested more than $732 billion in his budget for national defense for fiscal year 2011, including the cost of war. This amendment only allocates $614 billion. While the proponents of this amendment note that it waives the $50 billion war allowance, why does the amendment not support the full request? Some interpret the provision to mean if we want to support our men and women deployed overseas we would need to get 60 votes. Does the Senate really want national defense to be hostage to a 60- vote threshold? This is not the same as President Obama's plan. Over the three years in the Sessions amendment, the caps he would put into place are $141 billion below President Obama's 3-year plan, $50 billion below defense and $91 billion below non-defense spending. Moreover, this is not the Budget Committee's plan. The Sessions amendment is $82 billion below the budget resolution which the committee adopted--including a cut of $50 billion from Defense over 3 years. There can be no argument about this point. The level in the Sessions amendment will require the Appropriations Committee to cut defense spending in fiscal year 2011 by $9.5 billion and nondefense spending by about $11 billion. If you vote for this measure while seeking program increases this year, you can forget about such increases. Instead, in a budget that already freezes nondefense spending, we will cut another $20 billion. If we adopt the Sessions caps we will not be able to fund the priorities of our colleagues, and we will have to gut the President's agenda for discretionary spending, including education, green jobs, and homeland security. As I have said now several times before, the critical flaw in this amendment is it fails to do anything serious about deficits. It fails to address the two principal reasons why our fiscal house is out of balance. It is a fact that the growth in the debt has resulted primarily from unchecked mandatory spending and massive tax cuts for the rich. This amendment fails to respond to either of those two problems. In short, this amendment is shooting at the wrong target. Moreover, this amendment also wants to raise the threshold on discretionary spending increases to a 67-vote approval, allowing one- third of the Senate to dictate to the majority. We already have a threshold of 60 votes required to increase discretionary spending above the budget resolution. I, for one, cannot believe the Senate wants to let a mere one-third of the Senate dictate to the other two-thirds whether there is a bona fide need for increased spending. This is the wrong direction for this institution. Mandatory spending has increased substantially the last few years. Tax cuts for the rich have constrained revenues, but neither tax cuts nor mandatory spending increases would be subject to the 67-vote threshold. The Senator from Alabama says this approach worked to help balance the budget in the 1990s; Well, that is only partially correct, and here is the difference. In the 1990s our budget summits produced agreements to cap discretionary spending, but they also decreased mandatory spending and increased revenues at the same time. It was only by getting an agreement on all three areas of the budget at the same time that we were able to achieve a balanced budget. Let's be clear. Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to put a cap on discretionary spending, but they do not want to put policies in place to make sure we have enough revenues to reduce the deficit. Any honest budget analyst can tell you we will never achieve a balanced budget just by freezing discretionary spending. We could eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense, other security spending, and nondefense spending and still not balance the budget. Moreover, if we cut discretionary spending without reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes, we will find it very hard to get those who do not want to address revenues to compromise. I want to remind my colleagues that the deficit reduction commission is tasked with helping us get our financial house in order. They will look at both revenue and spending and find the right balance to restore fiscal discipline. They will make their recommendations to the Congress, and the Majority Leader has committed to bringing the recommendations of that Commission to the Senate for a vote. Rather than rushing to address only one small portion of the issue, the Senate should await the judgment of the Deficit Reduction Commission, which will cover all aspects of the problem. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I agree that everyone should tighten their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all the tightening will be done on a small portion of spending, while revenues and mandatory spending will still be unchecked. The Senate has already rejected this flawed plan three times this year. This amendment has not gotten any better in the intervening period. However, we know that it is not only out of step with the administration, but it is also out of step with our Budget Committee. It is still shooting at the wrong target. It still fails to address the real causes of our deficits and national debt. It would provide far less funding than either the President or the Senate Budget Committee. I urge my colleagues once again to vote no. I yield the floor. Appointment of Conferees--H.r. 4173

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 4899, the FEMA supplemental as passed by the House on March 24 and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, May 13. As my colleagues may be aware, several attempts were made to proceed to the House-passed bill, but there were objections to proceeding. Because of the delay in acting upon the House bill, the vice chairman and I agreed that we should consider all of the supplemental provisions in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee that are pending before the Congress instead of just the FEMA portion as proposed by the House. The committee concurred in this recommendation and forwarded the bill to the full Senate by a unanimous vote of 30 to 0. This bill contains $45.4 billion in discretionary spending and $13.4 billion in spending on mandatory programs. This amount is the same as the amount requested by the President. I want to point out to all of my colleagues that the bill does not include funding for the settlements between the Federal Government and African American-farmers and Native Americans. While I am strongly in favor of funding these settlements, these items are, in fact not in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. We have been informed by the leadership that these matters will be addressed elsewhere. I understand and expect that funding for these two settlements will be approved by the Congress and forwarded to the White House before the Memorial Day recess. The recommendations that Vice Chairman Cochran and I are presenting to you on behalf of the appropriations Committee reflect the collective efforts of each of our subcommittees. The main parts of the bill include $33.5 billion in Department of Defense funding to cover the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, combat terrorism, and respond to the earthquake in Haiti. An additional $6.5 billion is provided for the State Department and other agencies in support of these and related efforts. The bill also includes $68 million in the first payment to cover Federal responsibilities resulting from the oilspill in the gulf. We recognize that additional funding and new legislative authorities are likely to be required in response to the oilspill. The amount we recommend results from our review of the budget amendment which was only submitted to the Administration the day before the committee markup. We are confident that the sums recommended are necessary but recognize more action will be needed in the coming months. As requested, the committee is also recommending $5.1 billion for FEMA'S disaster relief efforts. Everyone should be aware that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is out of funding for disaster relief. Even this sum is below what we anticipate will be required before the end of this year. However, the recommended sum is the amount sought by the Administration. The committee was unable to identify additional offsets to increase the total funding for FEMA. In addition to these, the committee has identified rescissions and other savings within the Administration's request to address many natural disasters for which the Administration did not request assistance. Two weeks ago, more than 40 counties in Tennessee were underwater. Rhode Island suffered through a once in a 500-year storm in March. A disaster was declared by the President in January for fisheries in Alaska. Tornadoes have tormented the Midwest and South. We have dams in need of emergency repair in the Northwest and an urgent requirement to address mine safety, but no funds have been requested to address these needs. Nothing has been offered to offset the enormous cost of clean-up and reconstruction for the States and communities which have suffered. In total, the committee has provided more than $425 million to address the disaster related shortfalls that were not requested by the Administration. This is a mere pittance when compared to the $1 or $2 billion that is needed now to meet these needs, but it was that we could identify so late in the fiscal year to help meet these legitimate emergency costs. Some will say, ``Well, surely there are other offsets.'' I do not deny there are unobligated funds, but unobligated does not mean unneeded. For example, last week we identified a program with $8.3 billion unobligated, the Joint Strike Fighter. The contract award for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been delayed by months. Accordingly, the funding remains unobligated. Surely those that want to cut unobligated balances to offset the cost of this bill do not want us to rescind funds for this new fighter. We are told that some of our colleagues would like to send members of the National Guard to the border using unobligated balances to pay that cost. Well, I would point out that we have more than $2.6 billion in unobligated balances in funding that the Congress has appropriated over the past 3 years to purchase additional equipment for our National Guard and Reserve Forces. I suppose we could reallocate funds from that account to cover the cost of stationing additional National Guard troops on the border, But I doubt the proponents of such an amendment would support that. Moreover, like funding for the Joint Strike Fighter, the amount provided for National Guard equipment is needed even if it has not yet been spent. In recent months the rhetoric on Federal spending has focused solely on how much money has been spent rather than on what was necessary and what is still required. Many Senators question why we bailed out Wall Street. Others ask why we used Federal funds to ``prime the pump'' of our economy through the Recovery Act. I, for one, believe both were necessary to forestall an economic depression. Over the past few months as the stock market has rebounded and we have seen the beginnings of job creation, I am more confident than ever that the Congress acted wisely. But I want to inform all my colleagues that this bill is neither a bailout nor a stimulus. Instead, it is the minimum necessary to support our troops in harm's way and to meet emergency domestic and international requirements. The vice chairman and I agreed that the bill recommended by the committee would stay within the amounts requested by the Administration, even though we know more could be justified for these purposes. I recognize that many Senators on both sides of the aisle believe we simply should not spend more, but I say to you the Nation still has legitimate needs and a responsibility to act. We cannot stop investing in our Nation simply because of high deficits. This is a time for fiscal austerity but not for cutting legitimate spending needs. I can assure my colleagues this bill is both austere and responsible. The items in this bill are all either fully offset or bona fide emergencies. Many items are both emergency and offset to stay within the budget request. As chairman of this committee, I believe there are many more items which could be justified; but, to maintain necessary support for this bill, Vice Chairman Cochran and I committed to holding the line on spending. The committee met that objective. I want to thank Vice Chairman Cochran and his staff for their dedication and cooperation. This bill has been written in a completely bipartisan fashion, with input from all the chairmen and ranking members of our 12 subcommittees. I thank all members of the committee for their enormous contributions to this bill. Let me be clear. FEMA is out of money. More than 40 States have been told that they must wait for funds to cover disaster bills. Communities throughout the Northeast and Southeast are waiting for funds in this bill to begin rebuilding after devastating floods. We have an urgent requirement to respond rapidly to the devastating effects of the oilspill in the gulf. Funding for all of these cannot wait while some might seek to delay action on this bill. But most importantly, next week, the Nation will honor those who sacrificed their lives in defense of our country. As I have said on many occasions, my colleagues should be mindful that less than 1 percent of our population has volunteered to wear our country's uniform, to serve the rest of us. They defend our freedom, our way of life. They are called upon ever more frequently to leave their families behind and report to dangerous and inhospitable locations. Willingly, they do so. The Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotism and sacrifice. I can think of no better way to honor those who serve today and those who have gone before than by passing this bill expeditiously so that it can be forwarded to the House for action. I urge all Members to work with Vice Chairman Cochran and me to support this bill and secure its quick passage. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 4899, the FEMA supplemental as passed by the House on March 24 and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, May 13. As my colleagues may be aware, several attempts were made to proceed to the House-passed bill, but there were objections to proceeding. Because of the delay in acting upon the House bill, the vice chairman and I agreed that we should consider all of the supplemental provisions in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee that are pending before the Congress instead of just the FEMA portion as proposed by the House. The committee concurred in this recommendation and forwarded the bill to the full Senate by a unanimous vote of 30 to 0. This bill contains $45.4 billion in discretionary spending and $13.4 billion in spending on mandatory programs. This amount is the same as the amount requested by the President. I want to point out to all of my colleagues that the bill does not include funding for the settlements between the Federal Government and African American-farmers and Native Americans. While I am strongly in favor of funding these settlements, these items are, in fact not in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. We have been informed by the leadership that these matters will be addressed elsewhere. I understand and expect that funding for these two settlements will be approved by the Congress and forwarded to the White House before the Memorial Day recess. The recommendations that Vice Chairman Cochran and I are presenting to you on behalf of the appropriations Committee reflect the collective efforts of each of our subcommittees. The main parts of the bill include $33.5 billion in Department of Defense funding to cover the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, combat terrorism, and respond to the earthquake in Haiti. An additional $6.5 billion is provided for the State Department and other agencies in support of these and related efforts. The bill also includes $68 million in the first payment to cover Federal responsibilities resulting from the oilspill in the gulf. We recognize that additional funding and new legislative authorities are likely to be required in response to the oilspill. The amount we recommend results from our review of the budget amendment which was only submitted to the Administration the day before the committee markup. We are confident that the sums recommended are necessary but recognize more action will be needed in the coming months. As requested, the committee is also recommending $5.1 billion for FEMA'S disaster relief efforts. Everyone should be aware that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is out of funding for disaster relief. Even this sum is below what we anticipate will be required before the end of this year. However, the recommended sum is the amount sought by the Administration. The committee was unable to identify additional offsets to increase the total funding for FEMA. In addition to these, the committee has identified rescissions and other savings within the Administration's request to address many natural disasters for which the Administration did not request assistance. Two weeks ago, more than 40 counties in Tennessee were underwater. Rhode Island suffered through a once in a 500-year storm in March. A disaster was declared by the President in January for fisheries in Alaska. Tornadoes have tormented the Midwest and South. We have dams in need of emergency repair in the Northwest and an urgent requirement to address mine safety, but no funds have been requested to address these needs. Nothing has been offered to offset the enormous cost of clean-up and reconstruction for the States and communities which have suffered. In total, the committee has provided more than $425 million to address the disaster related shortfalls that were not requested by the Administration. This is a mere pittance when compared to the $1 or $2 billion that is needed now to meet these needs, but it was that we could identify so late in the fiscal year to help meet these legitimate emergency costs. Some will say, ``Well, surely there are other offsets.'' I do not deny there are unobligated funds, but unobligated does not mean unneeded. For example, last week we identified a program with $8.3 billion unobligated, the Joint Strike Fighter. The contract award for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been delayed by months. Accordingly, the funding remains unobligated. Surely those that want to cut unobligated balances to offset the cost of this bill do not want us to rescind funds for this new fighter. We are told that some of our colleagues would like to send members of the National Guard to the border using unobligated balances to pay that cost. Well, I would point out that we have more than $2.6 billion in unobligated balances in funding that the Congress has appropriated over the past 3 years to purchase additional equipment for our National Guard and Reserve Forces. I suppose we could reallocate funds from that account to cover the cost of stationing additional National Guard troops on the border, But I doubt the proponents of such an amendment would support that. Moreover, like funding for the Joint Strike Fighter, the amount provided for National Guard equipment is needed even if it has not yet been spent. In recent months the rhetoric on Federal spending has focused solely on how much money has been spent rather than on what was necessary and what is still required. Many Senators question why we bailed out Wall Street. Others ask why we used Federal funds to ``prime the pump'' of our economy through the Recovery Act. I, for one, believe both were necessary to forestall an economic depression. Over the past few months as the stock market has rebounded and we have seen the beginnings of job creation, I am more confident than ever that the Congress acted wisely. But I want to inform all my colleagues that this bill is neither a bailout nor a stimulus. Instead, it is the minimum necessary to support our troops in harm's way and to meet emergency domestic and international requirements. The vice chairman and I agreed that the bill recommended by the committee would stay within the amounts requested by the Administration, even though we know more could be justified for these purposes. I recognize that many Senators on both sides of the aisle believe we simply should not spend more, but I say to you the Nation still has legitimate needs and a responsibility to act. We cannot stop investing in our Nation simply because of high deficits. This is a time for fiscal austerity but not for cutting legitimate spending needs. I can assure my colleagues this bill is both austere and responsible. The items in this bill are all either fully offset or bona fide emergencies. Many items are both emergency and offset to stay within the budget request. As chairman of this committee, I believe there are many more items which could be justified; but, to maintain necessary support for this bill, Vice Chairman Cochran and I committed to holding the line on spending. The committee met that objective. I want to thank Vice Chairman Cochran and his staff for their dedication and cooperation. This bill has been written in a completely bipartisan fashion, with input from all the chairmen and ranking members of our 12 subcommittees. I thank all members of the committee for their enormous contributions to this bill. Let me be clear. FEMA is out of money. More than 40 States have been told that they must wait for funds to cover disaster bills. Communities throughout the Northeast and Southeast are waiting for funds in this bill to begin rebuilding after devastating floods. We have an urgent requirement to respond rapidly to the devastating effects of the oilspill in the gulf. Funding for all of these cannot wait while some might seek to delay action on this bill. But most importantly, next week, the Nation will honor those who sacrificed their lives in defense of our country. As I have said on many occasions, my colleagues should be mindful that less than 1 percent of our population has volunteered to wear our country's uniform, to serve the rest of us. They defend our freedom, our way of life. They are called upon ever more frequently to leave their families behind and report to dangerous and inhospitable locations. Willingly, they do so. The Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotism and sacrifice. I can think of no better way to honor those who serve today and those who have gone before than by passing this bill expeditiously so that it can be forwarded to the House for action. I urge all Members to work with Vice Chairman Cochran and me to support this bill and secure its quick passage. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin McLaughry, a detailee on Senator Conrad's Budget Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the floor consideration of H.R. 4899.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin McLaughry, a detailee on Senator Conrad's Budget Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the floor consideration of H.R. 4899.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Edward Chen, nominee for Federal judgeship in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Chen has been a respected Federal magistrate judge for over 8 years. He is held in high regard by his judicial colleagues and by the attorneys, litigants, and witnesses who have appeared before him, including non partisan prosecutors and law enforcement officials. Judge Chen has issued hundreds of rulings in accordance with the rule of law, and without bias or unfairness. He has facilitated the fair settlement of hundreds of cases, ranging from complex business disputes to civil rights claims. For these reasons, Judge Chen received the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. Given his wide support from the legal community, and his record of fairness, what could prevent the U.S. Senate from confirming this outstanding jurist's appointment to the District Court of the Northern District of California? I am in the opinion that nothing should prevent it. But elements of the extremist media have launched cynical attacks against Judge Chen. Unarmed by facts, accusers resort to tired smears that Judge Chen is a ``radical leftist,'' someone ``who doesn't appear to love America.'' But these charges are completely without basis. Those interested in the true picture of Judge Chen's work and outlook need only look at his actual 8-year record on the Federal bench. I believe that this record is exactly where discussions of his nomination should focus in our Senate Chambers, where good judgment should prevail. Judge Chen has written over 300 published opinions, and what those opinions show is a judge who is committed to the rule of law. He follows case precedent. He checks any personal views at the courthouse door, and rules impartially in each and every case. His decisions reveal a belief in fairness to all. Judge Chen, like so many others, values diversity in the Federal judiciary. Judges from different backgrounds bring varied life experiences to the court, and this diversity of background and experience helps foster balanced and accurate decisionmaking according to the rule of law. Judge Chen's belief in the value of diversity is joined also by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. During his 2006 confirmation hearing, Justice Alito stated, ``When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account'' in reaching balanced and accurate decisions. Justice Clarence Thomas underscored this very point in his statement about the importance of broad representation in the judiciary: ``My goal is to have a court that is fair, and I think it's fair when we are fair in selecting people from all parts of the country, from all walks of life.'' I believe Judge Chen brings valuable experience and a solid record of judicial fairness to the Federal court. He is faithful to the rule of law. He is committed to impartiality and equality for all. I believe that upon fair and honest consideration by my Senate colleagues, Judge Chen and his judicial record will earn approval. Judge Chen has my full support and deserves to be confirmed by the Senate without delay.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the financial reform bill before the Senate includes a section, subtitle J, section 991, that would permit the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to be ``self-funded,'' meaning that the SEC would set its own budget and collect the subsequent fees from the companies the agency regulates. The effect of this action would be to remove a critical oversight role for the Appropriations Committee. Currently, Congress sets the amount to be collected and the SEC adjusts their fees during the year accordingly. The provision included in S. 3217 allows the SEC to both set the fee level and adjust the fees accordingly, basically creating a carte blanche approach to SEC budgeting. I, along with eight of my colleagues, including the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee with oversight responsibilities for the SEC, Senators Durbin and Collins, along with Senators Byrd, Harkin, Voinovich, Murkowski, and Brownback, have introduced a bipartisan amendment to strike the provision from the underlying bill. No one disputes the fine job Chairperson Mary Schapiro has done since taking the helm of the SEC. But the foundation of our government is based on checks and balances, not personalities. Agencies should not be given sole authority to negotiate the fees that support their operations with the very institutions over which they regulate. Such a situation allows for absolutely no meaningful oversight by Congress. However, if Congress is going to concede to the SEC absolute control of its billion-dollar budget, then the agency must have effective internal controls in place. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Government Accountability Office has faulted the SEC several times in the past for weaknesses in this very area. So the underlying provision will exempt an agency from the appropriations process and its annual congressional oversight without ensuring that any internal controls are in place for revenue and budget management. While it may not be the intent of the underlying provision, what is clear is that spending for the SEC would go unmonitored. The amendment I and my colleagues introduced would strike section 991 from the bill, and thus restore the existing fee-based system for the SEC. The existing fee-based system is a successful model that has the annual appropriations bill both trigger the collection of the fees and determine the amount that can be spent. This model is used for other fee-based agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Patents and Trademark Office, and parts of the Federal Drug Administration. It is clear that the House of Representatives does not support the approach included in the underlying Senate bill as they did not include a provision for the SEC to be self-funded in their legislation. I have spoken with my fellow cosponsors of this amendment, and we have agreed not to offer this amendment during the current debate. We take this action in support of the managers' and leaderships' interest in wrapping up floor consideration of the measure and because it is clear that this issue will be resolved appropriately during the conference negotiations on this bill.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 3839

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities. Currently, there is no Council, and despite the federal government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a Nation we need to preserve our Native Communities; they are rich with cultural significance and living history. Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities. In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future. 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 to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities. Currently, there is no Council, and despite the federal government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a Nation we need to preserve our Native Communities; they are rich with cultural significance and living history. Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities. In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future. 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 wish to commemorate the graduation of the first 100 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nurses from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. As a proud supporter of the nursing profession, I am pleased to recognize IKE AO PONO, the Workforce Diversity Program for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nursing students at the School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene. On May 7, 2010, IKE AO PONO will commemorate a historic achievement in celebrating the graduation of the first 100 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nurses from its program in only 6 years, contributing more Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nurses to workforce diversity in Hawaii than in the previous 80 years. As an academic support and cultural enrichment program, IKE AO PONO's mission is to increase the number of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nurses in Hawaii to improve health and health care, with special attention to at-risk, underrepresented, and underserved peoples and communities. IKE AO PONO envisions a lasting improvement, advancement, and promotion of health for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander peoples and communities by increasing the number of culturally informed and sensitive health professionals in nursing. This increase in Native nurses will help to address the dire health disparities of both Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders who have higher rates of diseases such as cancer, diabetes and obesity, heart disease and an overall mortality rate that is significantly higher than other cultural groups in Hawaii. While the 2000 census showed Native Hawaiians as 23 percent of Hawaii's population, they represented only 7 percent of the University of Hawaii's students, only 2 percent of the UH faculty and administration, and only 4 percent of the nursing workforce. Therefore, in 2001, IKE AO PONO began as a 3-year pilot program with six Native Hawaiian students. By year 3, the numbers of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nursing students had grown to 66 per semester. Between 2004 and 2010, the number of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nursing students increased again to 80 students per semester in both undergraduate and graduate programs. During this time, IKE AO PONO helped graduate the first Native Hawaiian and the first Samoan Ph.D.s in nursing in the 80-year history of the School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene. Through the IKE AO PONO Program, there are currently 14 times the number of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander nurses at the School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene than in 2000, and many are focused on higher degrees in advanced public health, community, health, family health and nurse practitioner fields, as well as, a full range of other nursing specialties. With the full support of the School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene, the UH Administration and Board of Regents, the Native Hawaiian Councils of Kualii and Pukoa and community partners such as Papa Ola Lokahi, Kamehameha Schools, Queen's Medical Center and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, IKE AO PONO is also preparing Native nurses to return to their home communities to support the health, well-being and recovery of underserved Native islanders in rural areas throughout Hawaii.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INOUYE

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