Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I would like to honor the legacy and service of my colleague and dear friend, Senator Daniel K. Akaka. My brother, Senator Daniel Akaka, has been my friend and partner in Washington for 36 years. During that time, he has fought hard for Native Hawaiians, veterans, and the needs of Hawaii. I am sad at the thought of the Senate without him and I am sorry I am unable to join him on the floor today. Dan Akaka is the spirit of Aloha. I have always relied on his even keel and hard work to help me represent the people of Hawaii. And I have never, ever heard him utter a harsh word or do anything to harm another person. There are few words to describe a kind man of his stature, but I assure you, Hawaii and this Nation are better because of his work. On behalf of the people of Hawaii, thank you Danny. There will never be another like you.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today the United States Senate is considering a resolution to provide its advice and consent with respect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD. At its heart, the Convention is a non-discrimination treaty, which requires that persons with disabilities have the same general rights as those without disabilities. I am grateful for the opportunities this Nation provided me as a young man who returned from World War II as an amputee. Those opportunities included a college and law degree, eventually serving the Territory and State of Hawaii. I was fortunate my injury did not hinder my dream to work for, and serve the people of Hawaii. Throughout my years in the Senate, I joined with my colleagues to advance non- discrimination initiatives that protect all Americans. In 1989, I was proud to join with my good friend Senator Harkin as an original cosponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, in the Senate, and vote for its passage in 1990. The ADA, established in law, our Nation's dedication to ensure those born with disabilities, or those who suffer life changing disabilities, are individuals with dignity. Furthermore, that those individuals enjoy the same rights and opportunities all Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case around the world. The ADA and its goals served as the model for the treaty resolution before us today. This Convention will help move countries toward protecting the rights of disabled individuals. Practically, it will allow the U.S. to engage other countries in the international arena to work toward the standards and accessibility here in the United States, which will benefit disabled Americans who work, live, and travel the world. We are fortunate U.S. law meets or exceeds the obligations of the CRPD, and that no implementing legislation is required. Our country stands up to protect the rights of the most vulnerable in our society. We cannot comprehend the mistreatment or simply the disregard of the lives of those with disabilities. Ratifying this treaty will reaffirm our country's leadership and commitment to the basic human rights of disabled men, women, and children. I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the ratification of the CRPD.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize all of the advanced practice nurses who work in Nurse-Managed Health Clinics in a resolution to designate November 26, 2012 through November 30, 2012 as National Nurse Managed-Health Clinic Week. National Nurse-Managed Health Clinic Week will provide a national platform from which to promote the pivotal services offered by the more than 200 nurse-managed health clinics in the United States. Led by advanced practice nurses, these clinics are a unique model for delivery of primary and preventive care. Within Nurse-Managed Health Centers, nurse practitioners and other advanced practice nurses deliver high quality and cost-effective services to diverse populations of all age groups and ethnicities. A substantial share of the patients are uninsured or on Medicaid. As safety net providers, Nurse-Managed Health Clinics provide care regardless of a person's ability to pay. In addition to the provision of health care services, Nurse-Managed Health Centers play an important role in the health profession's education. Most Nurse-Managed Health Centers are affiliated with colleges of nursing and provide clinical education opportunities to over 3,100 students annually from the fields of nursing, medicine, pharmacy, social work, and public health. A Senate Resolution will recognize the key role Nurse-Managed Health Centers play. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to Nurse-Managed Health Clinics.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this CR funds the government for the next 6 months at a level agreed to by the Budget Control Act. It contains a minimum of anomalies and allows adequate funding for disaster relief. This is an inefficient way to fund our Federal Government, but it is better than shutting it down next week. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I believe the record should show how much we appreciate the work of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the vice chairman of the committee, Thad Cochran. We have demonstrated to our colleagues that bipartisanship works in this Senate. All they have to do is watch us operate. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, as we near the end of the current fiscal year, the Senate is considering H.J. Res. 117, a continuing resolution to ensure that the Federal Government will remain functioning through March of next year in the absence of regular appropriations. Last Thursday, the House passed this measure by a vote of 329 to 91. This bill provides total discretionary spending of $1.047 trillion. This is the funding level the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended on an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 27 to 2 and the level agreed to last year in the Budget Control Act, but this bill is $19 billion more than what was approved by the House in the Paul Ryan budget. I am encouraged the House has finally repudiated its own budget. I am only sorry it has taken them this long to come to their senses. One of the primary reasons Congress now faces this CR is that the House broke this agreement on spending. I want my colleagues to know I support this measure even though it is far from perfect. In fact, I would say it is not a good bill, but passing it is much better than allowing the government to shut down over a lack of funding. Continuing resolutions are not new. As some of my colleagues are aware, I have served in this Senate for 49 years and 9 months. During my tenure, this Congress has completed its work and enacted all of its spending bills without needing a continuing resolution on only three occasions. In 49 years, three times. This is not a record we should be proud of, but it demonstrates how difficult it is to agree on funding for each of the thousands of Federal programs that the Appropriations Committee reviews annually. However, never before in history has the Congress passed a stopgap resolution in September to fund the entire government for half the coming fiscal year. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Seven months ago, as we began this legislative session, the mood was quite different. There was broad support for acting on appropriations bills. Several Members on both sides of the aisle came to the floor to speak about restoring regular order and passing all 12 appropriations bills. Both the Republican and Democratic leaders spoke in favor of considering all of these bills. The Appropriations Committee was urged to conduct a budget review as quickly as possible and report bills to the Senate for consideration, and our subcommittees embraced this challenge. We shortened our hearing schedule, conducted thousands of meetings with executive branch officials and the public, and began to mark up bills shortly after receiving our allocation from the Budget Committee. In most years the Senate Appropriations Committee begins its markups in June. This year the committee reported its first two bills in April and had nine bills ready for floor consideration by the end of June. By July the committee had reported out 11 bills, 9 of which were recommended with strong bipartisan votes, and by that I mean 30 to 0 or 29 to 1. Despite the work of the committee, none of those bills have been considered by the Senate. The decision by the House to break faith with the Senate and the administration on funding levels and the inclusion of outrageous legislative policy riders in their bills drained the enthusiasm for acting on those measures. But the real culprit thwarting the efforts of the committee was a handful of my colleagues who insisted on delaying the business of the Senate. We have heard our distinguished majority leader cite the statistics. In 382 instances in the past 6 years he has been forced to file cloture to break filibusters. It is becoming very clear filibusters are crippling the Senate. This year, this Senate has been in session for 105 days. By my count, on 31 of those days the Senate has done nothing but consider motions to proceed, as we are doing with this motion, or to invoke cloture. That means nearly 30 percent of the Senate's time this year has been completely wasted. Moreover, the Senate has only voted on amendments and legislation on 21 of those days that we were in session. On 21 out of 105 days, we actually legislated and worked. The rest of the time was spent on a backlog of nominations or breaking filibusters. I have never experienced anything like this in my many years in the Senate. It is true that for some time the use of filibusters has been increasing, but this year it has truly exploded. I do not oppose filibusters. I believe the filibuster is one of the most critical tools Senators have to protect the rights of our constituents. This is especially true for small States, such as Hawaii, which are at a disadvantage in the House of Representatives compared to States with very large delegations. In fact, the first speech I delivered in the Senate was in defense of the filibuster. I supported the filibuster. Times were different then. For example, I waited until April of that year before speaking on the Senate floor, and I spoke on the filibuster. When I delivered my maiden speech, legendary Senators such as Everett Dirksen, Richard Russell, Mike Mansfield, and John Stennis were all in attendance. Truly, times have changed, but the most striking difference between then and now is that a filibuster was used very rarely in those early days and only for matters of extreme importance to Members and their States. I did not agree with those who used the filibuster in the 1960s to try to stop civil rights legislation. I disagreed with those who used the filibuster against health care reform in 2010. But in both cases I defended the right to do so. This year the Senate has been held up, delayed, and rendered ineffective for at least 30 percent of its time by the abuse of the filibuster. These filibusters were not to highlight important policy differences, nor were they to protect a Senator's constituents. Instead, in virtually every case it was simply to thwart the ability of the Senate to function. So today is a sad day. The Senate is forced to take up a 6-month continuing resolution instead of acting upon regular appropriations bills. The bipartisan zeal for regular order last spring has been crushed by dilatory tactics of a few Members who have wasted the Senate's time. At some point, this body needs to alter either its behavior or its rules. In addition to discretionary funding, this resolution also provides $99 billion for overseas contingencies as requested and necessary for the coming year. Further, it continues funding at current levels to pay for disasters under FEMA and to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in the Social Security Program. Each of these is consistent with the authorities included in the Budget Control Act. In addition, the bill before the Senate provides only the bare minimum that is necessary to maintain the functions of our Federal Government. The administration sought approximately 78 proposals to ensure that critical programs and authorities could be continued for the next 6 months. This bill includes only about half of them because the House was unwilling to allow more. Provisions deemed essential by the Secretary of Defense to preserve authorities for ongoing programs in support of our efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq are not in this measure. Special provisions to allow the Department of Defense to award contracts for critical programs were denied. Additional funding to activate new Federal prisons that currently sit empty was not included. This bill denies necessary authorities for dozens of programs. In some cases, the administration will find cumbersome work-arounds. For others it will have to slow down work on ongoing programs, and this increases costs and brings about inefficiency. Many programs will simply have to cease activity and await additional action on appropriations bills. We urged the House to include many of the provisions requested by the administration, but they refused. The bill would have been far better had more of these requirements been met. Yet I would point out that the House has not played favorites. No department was granted the authorities it required. The Defense Department has not been singled out for special help by House Republicans. If anything, it has been treated more harshly than many other agencies. So I support this bill because opposing it is not a responsible alternative. No one should be interested in delaying or defeating this bill. We simply cannot afford to shut down government operations. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill which will preserve our government. It is lean and it is stripped down, but it contains the funding and minimal authorities essential to ensure that the services provided for all Americans can be continued over the coming months. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in memory of an unspeakable tragedy that shook our great Nation free of the belief that we are an untouchable force in the modern world, 11 years ago today. Eleven years ago today an unspeakable tragedy shook our great Nation free of the belief that we are an untouchable force in the modern world. Today, as we honor the nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in Shanksville, PA, we must remember more than the pain and rage that followed the events of that Tuesday morning. I cannot help but compare that day to the morning of December 7, 1941, when Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, killing more than 2,400 sailors, soldiers, and civilians, and plunging our Nation into World War II. The bombing of Pearl Harbor moved me to put on the uniform and join thousands of my brothers in a fight that spanned across Europe and the Asia Pacific. Like Pearl Harbor, the events of September 11 forced our Nation to send troops into Afghanistan, and later it was used to help justify the invasion of Iraq. More than 6,000 of our brave men and women have died fighting in those countries, and, like World War II, the loss of life and American resources is staggering. These attacks on America, the wars that followed, and the aftermath where we searched for hope and dealt with the pain of loss, altered our national consciousness and fortified us for the future that we continue to work hard to build. To move forward, we must recognize that September 11 was a painful reminder that America must remain ever vigilant to the threats posed by foreign forces and those who abhor the freedom and equality that defines our great Nation. But most importantly, we have to understand the role America plays in the global community, and we must be respectful of our place and work hard to use what we have been blessed with to ensure that peace and good will reign, regardless of our differences. I speak from experience when I say that no matter the justification and no matter the final outcome, no nation, no people, escape from war unscathed.

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 6 through August 10, 2012 as National Convenient Care Clinic Week. National Convenient Care Clinic Week will provide a platform from which to promote the pivotal services offered by the more than 1,350 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 clinics offer a 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. I request unanimous consent that the full text of my resolution be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 3369, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or DISCLOSE, Act. I joined Senator Whitehouse and some 25 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this bill because it is the right thing to do. I do not believe, as some claim, that the DISCLOSE Act will chill or limit the right to free speech in something as fundamental as advocating for a candidate for elected office. The bill will simply require more openness by those advocating, an important point in our world of radio, television, and the internet. The DISCLOSE Act will help restore transparency and accountability to our electoral process by requiring outside groups to disclose who funds their political activities. It may be worth noting that the bill is not focusing on the average American contributing small amounts of money to her candidate, but rather on those groups who are making donations of at least $10,000. I do not think it is so onerous to ask those contributing such large sums to identify themselves. But, I must be honest. I was disappointed to learn that the so-called ``stand by your ad'' provision was not included in S. 3369. This provision, which required that the biggest donors of a campaign, or sponsors of a radio or TV spot, be identified during the ad, was what initially caught my attention. In an age where communications are largely anonymous whether it is on Twitter, Facebook, or to a lesser extent, radio and even television, I believe it is only fair that Americans learn who is speaking to them as they are listening. We have moved past those times when a candidate or his supporters would use a soapbox to explain their positions to a crowd, and who is doing the talking is no longer clear. However, I believe the overarching principle of the DISCLOSE Act sharing the identities of those advocating in an election campaign, whether it be for or against a candidate, or simply an opinion is a necessary part of democracy. I hope my colleagues will agree and vote to support passage of the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an authorization measure for the Department of Veterans Affairs to Advance Leeward Outpatient Healthcare Access, ALOHA, lease in Ewa, HI, and to request the facility be named after my dear friend and colleague Senator Daniel K. Akaka. The new facility will provide support to our proud veterans in the State of Hawaii who live in West Oahu. In addition to serving the needs of our veterans, the facility will include a collocated clinic which will serve our military servicemen and women, and their families. Both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, VA, will also be able to share ancillary and support services. I believe naming this joint facility after Senator Akaka is an appropriate and fitting way to honor his commitment to our military personnel and veterans throughout his years in Congress. As a Member of the Armed Services Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, he worked to ensure the Armed Services met their obligation to ``man, train, and equip.'' As the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Akaka also kept watch over and labored to improve the quality of care received by our brave men and women who completed their military service and entered into the VA system. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Senator Akaka who worked on behalf of the people of the State of Hawaii and this nation to improve the quality of life and care of our military personnel and our veterans. 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 to introduce an authorization measure for the Department of Veterans Affairs to Advance Leeward Outpatient Healthcare Access, ALOHA, lease in Ewa, HI, and to request the facility be named after my dear friend and colleague Senator Daniel K. Akaka. The new facility will provide support to our proud veterans in the State of Hawaii who live in West Oahu. In addition to serving the needs of our veterans, the facility will include a collocated clinic which will serve our military servicemen and women, and their families. Both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, VA, will also be able to share ancillary and support services. I believe naming this joint facility after Senator Akaka is an appropriate and fitting way to honor his commitment to our military personnel and veterans throughout his years in Congress. As a Member of the Armed Services Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, he worked to ensure the Armed Services met their obligation to ``man, train, and equip.'' As the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Akaka also kept watch over and labored to improve the quality of care received by our brave men and women who completed their military service and entered into the VA system. I hope my colleagues will join me in saluting Senator Akaka who worked on behalf of the people of the State of Hawaii and this nation to improve the quality of life and care of our military personnel and our veterans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator Shaheen and others which would phase out the Federal Sugar Program. I would like to share some of my personal history with my colleagues. My grandfather and grandmother emigrated from Japan to work at McBryde Sugar Company on the island of Kauai in 1899. In my office here in Washington, I have a framed copy of the contract on which my grandfather, Asakichi Inouye, placed his ``X.'' The contract includes a photograph of this brave young man and his wife and a little baby boy they are holding, my father. Nearly a century later, Asakichi Inouye's grandson is proud to be representing the State of Hawaii in the United States Senate. With exception of one, all of Hawaii's sugar plantations are now closed. The Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company, HC&S, remains operational on the island of Maui and employs nearly 800 employees. HC&S is Hawaii's largest provider of raw sugar, producing approximately 200,000 tons each year. In addition to the growing and milling of sugarcane, HC&S produces raw sugar, specialty sugar, molasses, and the generation and sale of electricity to help provide power across the island. I am proud to represent the men and women in Hawaii who still work directly or indirectly for the sugar industry, and their families. These agricultural workers, who are among the world's most productive, have enjoyed collective bargaining for decades and are rewarded for their productivity with good wages, with some of the best health care benefits in the country, and with generous benefits for insurance and retirement. Their safety and their health are bolstered by some of the strictest worker protection rules and highest environmental standards in the Nation, and possibly in the world. These workers, many of whose families have been in sugar for three or four generations, lead comfortable, but by no means extravagant lives. They can put their children through college and can look forward to a decent retirement, but they are far from wealthy in the monetary sense. The U.S. sugar policy has ensured American consumers with dependable supplies of reasonably priced sugar, adhering to U.S. standards for food safety and quality. Consumers in other developed countries pay on average 24 percent more for their sugar than American consumers. The U.S. Sugar Program provides no subsidies to American sugar producers. For the past 10 years, the policy has operated at zero cost to taxpayers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts it will remain at zero cost for the next 10 years, to 2022. In the absence of a U.S. sugar policy, it would eliminate or severely damage the no- taxpayer-cost U.S. sugar policy, and, among other things, shift American jobs overseas. Hawaii's existing sugar producer could potentially close, forcing my constituents to lose their livelihood. If the U.S. sugar policy were eliminated, our U.S. market would be flooded with subsidized sugar from the world dump market that is less reliable and less safe. The U.S. market would collapse, and efficient American sugar farmers would be driven out of business. Job and incomes losses would devastate rural economies where sugar is grown and harm urban economies where sugar is processed. Further, if the U.S. sugar policy were eliminated Americans would have to cope with less reliable, less safe, more costly, foreign sugar. American consumers demand consistent quantity and quality. In other words, when consumers go to the grocery store to purchase sugar, they expect a high-quality product that is safe and contaminant free and identical with every purchase. They also expect to find such products on the shelf whenever they want to buy them. This is exactly what the American consumer gets from the U.S. sugar industry--so much so that we take it for granted. Further, in many of these countries, producers operate with labor, environmental, and food safety standards or enforcement that is much less than what American producers routinely meet. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to table Shaheen amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, above my desk in Washington is a copy of the labor contract that was signed by my grandfather, Asakichi Inouye, in July 1899. In the agreement, my grandfather would be paid $15 a month to work at the McBryde Sugar Company on the Island of Kauai. My grandmother, Moyo, would be paid $10 a month. Women like my grandmother were an important part of the workforce for Hawaii's sugar plantations, but they were paid less for doing the same type of work as men and did not receive the same advancement opportunities. While our Nation has made great strides in promoting gender equity since 1899, there is still more to do. According to the Joint Economic Committee, women in Hawaii today earn 76 cents for every dollar paid to men. Over a 40-year career, a woman in Hawaii would earn $433,000 less than her male counterparts. Women represent 48 percent of my State's workforce and 41 percent of married women are their families' primary wage earner. Studies have shown that the gender wage gap affects women regardless of their educational level or occupational field. Eliminating the wage gap is not only a matter of fairness for equal pay for equal work; it is also one of economic security for middle-class families. In a challenging economy, men are more likely than women to lose their jobs. This means that families across the country increasingly have had to rely on a woman's paycheck to make ends meet. For vulnerable families hard hit by unemployment, closing the wage gap would help put food on the table or pay the mortgage. Let us also remember that the wage gap undermines women's retirement security through reduced Social Security benefits. S. 3220, the Paycheck Fairness Act, strengthens the foundations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide for stronger enforcement of prohibitions against wage discrimination. It would also prohibit retaliation against workers who ask about pay practices or disclose their own pay. In short, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help women successfully fight for the equal pay they have earned. In 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, women earned 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. Today, women earn 77 cents to the dollar. At this rate, the wage gap would take more than 40 years to close. Women and their families cannot wait any longer. My vote today is not only to recognize and honor the work of women since my grandmother's generation, but it is also a vote for economic justice for future generations of young women like my granddaughter. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, last week we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the USDA. On May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to create the USDA. Since this day, the USDA has made major contributions to agriculture that have benefited the people of the United States. Hawaii has a historic relationship with the USDA that began during Hawaii's territorial days. Our very own University of Hawaii at Manoa campus began as a land-grant college of agriculture and mechanic arts in 1907. John Washington Gilmore, the first president of the College of Hawaii, the predecessor of the University of Hawaii, was the son of a farmer who was tasked to build Hawaii's first agricultural school. During the past 100 years, the University helped Hawaii diversify its economy, sustain its environment, and build stronger families and communities. Hawaii faces unique challenges when it comes to food security. Hawaii depends on imported food for approximately 85 percent of its food supply. For the United States as a whole, imports make up about 15 percent of total food consumption. In addition, higher energy-related transportation costs, and rapidly escalating commodity prices translate into very high food costs for Hawaii consumers. Further, if there is a shipping disruption of any kind, it is estimated that Hawaii has a 4 to 7 day food supply. The magnitude for Hawaii of this potential and unprecedented food security crisis has prompted a restructuring of Hawaii's agriculture, with a move from large-scale plantation agriculture to smaller scale, more diversified agriculture, with an initial emphasis on import substitution. This process has been occurring over the past 20 years with many large scale plantations either closing or shifting to overseas locations. Our situation remains a struggle. There is only one sugarcane and one pineapple operation remaining in the State. There are no dairies on the Island of Oahu and the only two remaining in the State are on the Big Island. There are no slaughter or meat processing facilities on Oahu. A major employer on the Island of Molokai is gone and, with it, agricultural production and water supplies for residents. Finally, the only poultry operations remaining are four egg producers on Oahu. The rapid closures of these farming and farm-related operations continues to pose a serious challenge for our agriculture industry in Hawaii as these operations were attempting a transition to agriculture supportive of local consumption through import substitution. Accordingly, efforts to support those remaining in agriculture to make the transition to an agriculture supportive of Hawaii food security is also critical to the continued sustainability and viability of our agriculture industry in the State of Hawaii. The USDA plays a major role in preservation. The U.S. Forest Service, part of the USDA, protects and manages our Nation's forests and grasslands. Hawaii's rainforests contain numerous plant species that are not found anywhere else in the world, and they are part of a unique, delicate ecosystem consisting of countless native Hawaiian animal species. The Forest Service has helped protect the beauty of Hawaii's rainforests by fighting invasive species and destructive human practices. The USDA hopes to protect the environments of Hawaii and the rest of the United States with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, also known as APHIS. The mission of APHIS is to protect our Nation's agriculture and animal and plant resources from diseases and pests. APHIS plays a major role in the protection of Hawaii's environment. Invasive species such as fruit flies, coffee berry borers, and Varroa mites have been devastating to Hawaii's agriculture and fragile ecosystem. If Hawaii fails to stop potential invasive species including the Brown Tree Snake, the results will be catastrophic. Even though Hawaii may be small compared to the continental United States, our islands contain one the most diverse ecosystems in the world. It is in our country's interest to keep these protective programs. APHIS also protects the continental United States from potential destructive invasive species that can wreak havoc on our Nation's agriculture. Programs such as APHIS protect both Hawaii and the continental United States and are vital for economic and environmental security for everyone. In addition to preservation, the USDA helps with innovation. The Agricultural Research Service is responsible for conducting basic, applied and developmental research on: soil, water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the integration of agriculture systems. Through research, development, and other federal programs, the USDA has helped farmers produce food efficiently and sustainably. The United States is a world leader in agricultural production, and our agriculture research infrastructure continues to give our country a competitive edge. Agriculture has been, and remains, an important pillar of the American economy. The USDA touches all Americans and will continue to contribute to our society far into the future. I wish nothing but the best for the USDA in the years to come.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I come from humble beginnings. We did not have a lot growing up but we always had what we needed. My mother and father worked very hard to provide for our family and you can be sure they paid their fair share of taxes on their living wage. In the nearly 50 years that I have served in the Senate, I have watched the very rich and their supporters in the Congress whittle away at the Tax Code to the extent that today the average tax rate paid by the highest earning Americans has fallen to the point that one in four taxpayers with an annual income greater than $1 million pays less than millions of working middle-class families. How is that fair? We are making critical decisions about how we cut and spend government funds and it will go a long way to reestablishing fiscal fairness in this country if the very wealthy pay their fair share to support government services and initiatives.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act, which establishes an independent non-profit public charity that acts as a philanthropic intermediary between the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the private sector. The lack of appropriate mechanisms make it difficult for FEMA to receive disaster related funds from private sector entities. The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation is intended to bridge this gap and improve the collaboration and coordination between FEMA and private sector entities. The unique roles that both the private and public sectors play is critical not only to the leveraging of private and public resources, but to the development of capacity and innovation models that will improve America's preparedness and resilience to an ever-increasing world of complexity, challenges and dangers both natural and man-made. The measure will allow FEMA to support and carry out activities that promote the resilience of individuals, communities, structures, and systems against natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other human caused disasters. Further, the bill would build and sustain the capabilities of the public, private, and civic sectors to work together to prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all such hazards. Among other things, the proposed Preparedness and Resilience Foundation would function as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit private corporation, and not as an agency or instrument of the Federal Government. The Foundation would establish an Endowment Fund consisting of donations from non-federal entities or assets, to provide endowments and grants, and to carry out its mission, and preparedness and resilience activities. The proposed measure requires a seven-person Board of Directors, whose sole responsibility would be to run the Foundation, including management of its employees, and the administering of donations to the Foundation. This legislation requires annual performance evaluations of the Foundation. The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act is modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Foundation. The CDC Foundation has become not only self-reliant to fund its activities, but also generates millions of dollars every year to operate and award grants to programs that help the agency meet its stated goals. I believe similar achievements can be made under the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this measure, and to bring positive change and innovation to disaster management in America. 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 introduce the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act, which establishes an independent non-profit public charity that acts as a philanthropic intermediary between the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the private sector. The lack of appropriate mechanisms make it difficult for FEMA to receive disaster related funds from private sector entities. The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation is intended to bridge this gap and improve the collaboration and coordination between FEMA and private sector entities. The unique roles that both the private and public sectors play is critical not only to the leveraging of private and public resources, but to the development of capacity and innovation models that will improve America's preparedness and resilience to an ever-increasing world of complexity, challenges and dangers both natural and man-made. The measure will allow FEMA to support and carry out activities that promote the resilience of individuals, communities, structures, and systems against natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other human caused disasters. Further, the bill would build and sustain the capabilities of the public, private, and civic sectors to work together to prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all such hazards. Among other things, the proposed Preparedness and Resilience Foundation would function as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit private corporation, and not as an agency or instrument of the Federal Government. The Foundation would establish an Endowment Fund consisting of donations from non-federal entities or assets, to provide endowments and grants, and to carry out its mission, and preparedness and resilience activities. The proposed measure requires a seven-person Board of Directors, whose sole responsibility would be to run the Foundation, including management of its employees, and the administering of donations to the Foundation. This legislation requires annual performance evaluations of the Foundation. The Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act is modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Foundation. The CDC Foundation has become not only self-reliant to fund its activities, but also generates millions of dollars every year to operate and award grants to programs that help the agency meet its stated goals. I believe similar achievements can be made under the Preparedness and Resilience Foundation Act. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this measure, and to bring positive change and innovation to disaster management in America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established by the Budget Control Act by $11 billion to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This amendment is in clear violation of the Budget Control Act we just agreed to 6 months ago. In the simplest terms, the amendment would impose a 2-percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending. I would suggest if you want an offset for mandatory spending, find a mandatory offset. However, the pending amendment deals with matters within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction; therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment of the junior Senator from Tennessee would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established in the Budget Control Act by $20 billion in order to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This amendment is a clear violation of the Budget Control Act we agreed on less than a year ago. In simple terms, the amendment would impose a 4- percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending. I wish to remind my colleagues that discretionary spending will rise at a rate less than the rate of inflation over the next decade, and that is according to CBO. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is slated to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Clearly, if there is a desire to offset one area of mandatory spending, the place to find such an offset should be on the very same mandatory side of the spending ledger. In an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday, Senator Corker said that finding an offset for the highway trust fund was a small step toward fiscal responsibility and that we should all support this amendment. But in the opening portion of the editorial, the Senator noted the solid bipartisan support in the Senate for a balanced approach to real deficit reduction. This balanced approach would include revenues, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending. I agree with the Senator that only a balanced approach would truly solve our long-term challenges. Yet, in this amendment, what do we find? Cuts. Nothing but cuts to nondefense discretionary spending. No revenues, no mandatory spending, just the same approach we have seen again and again from our Republican colleagues--cut discretionary now, and we will do other things at a time to be determined later. Even the Ryan budget did nothing to Social Security or Medicare for 10 years. But the cuts to discretionary spending and to Medicaid Programs that save the lives of hundreds of thousands of elderly and children living in poverty took effect immediately, not in 10 years. And that is the approach of this amendment. Clearly, there was an opportunity here to present a balanced approach. The Senator could have proposed modest cuts to spending, with increased revenue and changes in the rules that would lead to a fully funded highway trust fund for years to come. But that would require hard work and compromise, and this amendment requires neither. Across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending are easy. This amendment is one page. Change one number, and that is it--we can all go home and say what a great job we have done cutting down. But the truth is, when it comes time to implement these cuts, agencies will be forced to look at reductions in force, at deferring desperately needed maintenance and repairs, and if you were considering upgrading your technology to better serve the American people, you can forget about it. Four percent is no small matter, coming on top of flat budgets for the past 2 years and with no increase for inflation or population growth. As with so many amendments we have seen this past year, nondefense spending is again targeted not because it is good policy but because it is an easy policy. As I have done on each of these past occasions, I once again urge my colleagues to reject these unreasonable and reckless cuts and to vote no on the Corker amendment. Madam President, if I may, I would like to speak on another amendment. Amendment No. 1738 Madam President, in September of 2011, this Senate rejected an amendment very similar to the one offered today by the junior Senator from Oklahoma. At that time, Members saw this amendment as a backdoor attempt to remove more from discretionary accounts than had been agreed through the deficit reduction deal. Nothing has changed in the intervening 6 months, and we should again reject this amendment for the same reason: It violates the deficit reduction agreement reached last fall. Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplicative programs. In reality, the amendment would require a $10 billion reduction in existing discretionary caps regardless of whether there is actually $10 billion in discretionary savings from consolidating duplicative programs that can be identified only by the OMB. Further, the $10 billion figure is completely arbitrary and almost certainly will not be reached. In fact, there is no methodology or specificity that verifies that there is, in fact, $10 billion in discretionary savings to be found. The Senator's amendment cites two reports from the Government Accountability Office--the GAO--on how programs that may be duplicative or somewhat duplicative could be streamlined or eliminated. What the Senator fails to mention is that the GAO, in its recent report, notes that on 81 issues it raised last year, the Congress or the executive branch has begun to respond to all but 17 of the issues raised. This amendment also ignores the fact that the majority of the items on which no action has been taken are unrelated to discretionary spending but cover revenues and mandatory spending. Moreover, in reviewing the details of the tens of billions that GAO indicates might be saved by eliminating duplication, it is apparent in those areas in which GAO has provided somewhat auditable estimates that the bulk of the savings are in three categories. These categories are raising revenues, cutting mandatory spending, and cutting defense. For example, 18 recommendations in 2 reports would come by cutting defense programs, including military retirement, health care, and military compensation. Furthermore, $2.5 billion in annual savings would come from Social Security and at least $10 billion from eliminating tax expenditures or making other changes to the Tax Code. Madam President, my colleagues on the other side have not demonstrated any zeal for cutting defense or raising revenues. Frankly, neither side has expressed much willingness to cut mandatory spending. Instead of targeting tax increases or mandatory spending, this amendment once again goes after the easy target, which is domestic discretionary spending--the same target that is attacked time after time even though it only represents 15 percent of Federal spending. So we have once again an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma which has become a familiar pattern in the Senate. On its face, the amendment might seem to have some value, but the details of the amendment show that the amendment is a Trojan horse--a disguise with a goal of indiscriminate cutting of discretionary spending without any real base or justification. In other words, this is simply another attempt to circumvent the deal we reached less than a year ago on spending cuts for fiscal year 2013. Understanding that Senator Coburn doesn't believe those cuts went deep enough into discretionary spending, I and many of my colleagues believe they went too far. But in the end, a deal is a deal. We must honor the agreement reached by leadership and signed into law by the President. Is it really in the best interests of the American people or this institution to force vote after vote on discretionary spending levels because one side did not get everything they wanted in the Budget Control Act? Clearly, the duplicate programs targeted in this amendment are merely the frosting on the cake of spending cuts to any number of programs of which the Senator does not approve. But let's be clear--the objective here is not better government, it is cutting discretionary funding to programs that Congress supports, hiding under the guise of good government. Setting aside the real intent of this amendment, the irony of the Coburn amendment is that the amendment itself is redundant and duplicative of existing rescission authority which has been in the law since 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This act has been successful in addressing this very situation. Setting aside this irony, the problem with this amendment is that by circumventing a well-thought-out process that recognizes the checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative branch, it simply turns over all decisionmaking in terms of which programs are duplicative to the Office of Management and Budget with absolutely no deference to Congress and the programs authorized by Congress. The Senator from Oklahoma is constant in his efforts to weaken Congress's power by shifting our responsibilities to the executive branch, and I will remain constant in pointing out to my colleagues why this is a bad idea. The power of the purse is the single most important check on the power of the executive branch. Every time we chip away at that power, we chip away at the Founding Fathers' vision of how our government should operate. In addition, we are also disregarding our accountability to the American public. The Congress should be held accountable for the tax dollars we appropriate and the tax dollars we rescind. In closing, we should reject this amendment because it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel--and in this case, an inferior one--when we are trying to address duplication in government missions. And we should reject it because it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Budget Control Act which was signed into law just 8 months ago. Finally, we should oppose this amendment because it fails to attack the real culprits of our economic woes--revenues and mandatory spending. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, last September we rightly rejected a Coburn amendment not much different from this one. Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but in reality it would just give a $10 billion reduction in discretionary caps regardless of whether there actually is $10 billion in discretionary savings. In addition, there is an existing rescission authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication redundant. This amendment is a backdoor attempt to lower discretionary spending caps agreed to by the Budget Control Act. So we should not violate the BCA, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words of tribute today on behalf of my friend Admiral Dick Camacho, on the occasion of his retirement from the private sector. Admiral Camacho's ties to Hawaii go back to the 1870s, when his family emigrated from the Azores and began working on coffee and plantations on the Big Island and Oahu, respectively. His father went through the machinist apprentice program at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and was working there as a supervisor when it was attacked on December 7, 1941. Then eight-year-old Dick Camacho waited for two days before hearing from his father that he was okay and had been working around the clock putting out fires and assessing the damage from the attack. Dick left the Islands to attend the University of New Mexico via the Naval Reserve Officers program where he graduated with a degree in Naval Engineering. He did post-graduate work in Electrical Engineering at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and later completed Harvard Business School's Management Development Program. Dick began his distinguished naval career as a junior officer on the USS Requisite in about as different a climate as he could find from Hawaii. The ship was deployed to the Arctic to engage on a mapping and survey mission. From there he was ordered to Submarine School in Connecticut. After graduating from Submarine School, Dick returned to Hawaii to serve as an officer aboard the USS Gudgeon, which was home-ported at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Camacho distinguished himself as a leader and was promoted. The Navy also increased his responsibilities, sending him to Naval Sea Systems Command, Submarine Forces Atlantic, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and Charleston Naval Shipyard where he served as the Shipyard Commander. In 1984, Dick became the first son of Hawaii to assume command of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. I had the pleasure of attending a welcome home reception for Dick and his wife, Norma Jean, where over 1,000 people were present, including members of Hawaii's Congressional delegation and local government representatives. Dick was promoted to Rear Admiral in 1985 and given the additional responsibilities of serving as the Supervisor of Shipbuilding and Commander of Naval Sea Systems West until his retirement in 1986. Embarking on his private sector career, Dick took a position with a San Diego-based company involved in the repair and modernization of Navy vessels. During this second career, which saw him open numerous shipyards around the country, Dick always stayed close to Hawaii. He returned many times and led the effort to revitalize the State's private sector ship repair business. He convinced his company to purchase a local shipyard and make significant investments in the facility through workforce training and equipment and an unparalleled commitment to workplace safety. Both the public and private sector owe a great deal to Admiral Dick Camacho and his amazing wife, Norma Jean. Hawaii is a better place for the contributions of these two wonderful people. I wish them both fair winds and following seas.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of the Leader, I ask unanimous consent that any time spent in quorum calls be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise today to speak against the Toomey amendment that would impose a permanent ban on congressional initiatives or earmarks. The Constitution grants to the Congress the power of the purse. There is no authority more vital to the separation of powers than the one that prevents the executive branch from directly spending the tax dollars collected from its citizens. Depriving the Congress of the ability to direct money to specific projects does not save money or reduce the deficit; it simply gives additional power to the President and weakens the legislative branch. As I stated when I announced the initial moratorium on appropriations earmarks last February, I continue to support the constitutional right of Members of Congress to direct investments to their States and districts under the fiscally responsible and transparent earmarking process we have established. Hawaii is a long way from the Capital City. It is simply not possible for a bureaucrat here in Washington to understand the needs of my home State as well as I do. And I believe such is the case with all 50 States. Each one is unique, each one has individual challenges, and each one has issues that cannot be fully understood by civil servants located thousands of miles away. This amendment has nothing to do with lowering the deficit. Let me state that again. Eliminating earmarks will not save a single penny in spending. It will simply take decisions that were rightfully made by Congress and delegate them to the executive branch. In truth, this is a political amendment meant to give cover to those who seek to mislead the American people into thinking earmarks are responsible for our current deficit, and that simply is not the case. Our deficit is driven by entitlement spending that is rising at a rate three times that of inflation, not by discretionary spending that is now capped at less than the rate of inflation. Our deficit is driven by the fact that revenues are at their lowest level in 50 years. A permanent ban on earmarks addresses neither of these matters. Madam President, finally, I note for my colleagues that the voluntary moratorium in appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012 was 100 percent successful, and the committee will continue the moratorium for fiscal year 2013. Prior to the moratorium taking effect, the Appropriations Committee had to put into place a series of reforms that ensured openness and transparency for earmark requests. Every earmark request was posted online. Every earmark that was approved was listed along with the sponsor's name in committee reports and posted online. There were no secrets and no backroom deals. The reality is that without congressional earmarks, we find ourselves at the mercy of the bureaucrats to ensure that our local needs are fulfilled. If we approve this amendment, from now on earmarks will be at the sole discretion of the executive branch. Local needs will either go unmet or will be included through deals made between our elected officials and the White House or unelected bureaucrats. No longer will we show the American people what earmarks we are funding and why. Instead, they will be part of a tradeoff between Members and bureaucrats--a bridge in return for support of a trade agreement. By permanently banning earmarks, the spending decisions will move from the transparent process to discussions that are hidden from the public. So we face a choice between an open and transparent method for allocating targeted funding or one that will be done with phone calls, conversations, winks, and nods. One method allows for accountability and another leaves us all at the whim of unelected bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment. This amendment will serve to deprive the Congress of essential congressional prerogatives. It has no impact on the debt, and it is simply designed to give political cover to those who refuse to address the core drivers of our fiscal imbalance--lack of revenues and ever-increasing entitlement spending. I yield the floor, Madam President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.