Floor Statements

Madam President, it was not my intention to rise, but after listening to the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina, I felt it obligatory that I say something to clarify the record.

I think it is well that we review a bit of the history of World War II. On July 26, 1941, the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, invited the Filipinos, issued a military order, and said: Join our forces in the Far East. If you do, at the end of the war you will be entitled to, well, apply for citizenship and receive all the benefits of a veteran of the United States. That was a promise made by the President of the United States in March of 1942.

After going through the horror of Bataan and Corregidor, the Congress of the United States passed a law doing exactly that: authorizing Filipinos who wished to be naturalized to do so; and upon naturalization, a receipt of citizenship, they were entitled to all the benefits.

Madam President, 470,000 volunteered, and many died as we know. Most of the men who marched in the Bataan Death March were not Americans; they were Filipinos. But then, when the war ended, we did send one member of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to Manila to take applications for citizenship. Before he settled down, he was recalled back to Washington. The Congress of the United States, in March of 1946, repealed that law, denying the Filipinos and reneging on the promise we made.

When I took the oath as a soldier in World War II, after the oath, the company commander told me there are three words that are precious: ``duty,'' ``honor,'' and ``country.'' Duty to your country, never dishonor the country. Show your love for your country.

Well, in this case, it should be apparent to all of us what we did was not right. We made a promise. We were honor bound to those men who served and got wounded. The emergency is very simple: they are dying by the dozens each day. They are old men. Their average age is 87. They do not have too many months left in their lives. That is why it is in this supplemental bill. If we wait another year, who knows how many will be left?

I just wanted the record to be clear this is a matter of honor. We should uphold our promises. We are complaining to other countries when they violate a little portion of a treaty. This was a promise made by Congress and the President of the United States, and we reneged soon after the war. It is so obvious. Would we have done that to other countries?

Madam President, I am glad it is not coming up for a vote because I think it would be a sad day if we voted it down.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, on May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter informing me that the Department underestimated the number of eligible Filipino veterans, especially those who have become U.S. citizens, in calculating the amount needed for this program. More than 42,000 applications were received. Based on the actual applications received before the deadline, the Department has recalculated the estimates and identified a shortfall of $67 million.

The provision included in this supplemental does not cost a dime. It simply allows any savings, currently unobligated and not assigned to any ongoing project, which the VA realizes is the result of a favorable contract environment, to be transferred to the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund and/or retained for authorized major medical facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It does not mandate this transfer. It simply gives the VA the flexibility should the Department want to transfer the funds for these purposes.

Just a reminder: In July of 1941 President Roosevelt invited the Filipinos to volunteer and join the American forces, and 470,000 volunteered. In March of 1942 this Congress passed a law stating that Filipinos who volunteered may, after the war, apply for citizenship and receive all the benefits of American citizenship. In March of 1946 this Congress reneged and repealed that law.

We must fulfill this commitment the country made to the Filipino veterans who fought so bravely under our command because to deny the VA authority to transfer to this account would renege on our commitment and would send a dangerous signal that the Senate may not honor past and future commitments to veterans.

Is the amendment up for consideration?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4299.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be modified to provide that amendments Nos. 4184, as modified, and 4213 as modified not be withdrawn.

Pursuant to the order, I call up the managers' package, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is correct about the intent of the funding provided here. As the Senator knows, the Appropriations Committee's capacity to provide additional funding for disaster recovery is constrained by the President's top-line number for emergency supplemental appropriations. Given the relatively modest funding available in comparison to previous disaster supplemental appropriations bills, the intent is to focus CDBG and EDA assistance on Rhode Island and Tennessee, where the underlying economic need is greatest. We will work to clarify and maintain that position during conference with the House.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments, and we will continue to work with him and the Senator from Rhode Island to help address the needs of their States.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has proposed two amendments, both of which are designed to offset the cost of the supplemental bill before us. He argues that the Nation needs to find ways to use existing funds to meet these needs. He even argues that some of the items were not unforeseen and, therefore, do not qualify as emergencies.

I would respond, do not tell the people of Rhode Island and Tennessee that the floods in their States are not emergencies. I would say any of us watching television are aware of the emergency which is occurring now on the gulf coast. I would even say those in Oklahoma whose forests and towns have been damaged by tornadoes are aware of what an emergency is.

The Senator suggested we should not declare the cost of war as an emergency since we have known about the costs of war since September 11, 2001. I would remind the Senator and my colleagues that the current administration did its best to foresee the costs of war and included funding for those costs as part of its budget request, and the Congress acted to meet these needs.

But circumstances change. The deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan led our military leaders to recommend, and the President to conclude, that we needed to increase our forces in Afghanistan. The funds in this bill are that unforeseen portion of the cost of war. For someone to argue they do not qualify as an emergency is most unfortunate.

The Senator suggests we should cut unobligated balances. Several others have suggested we should cut from the stimulus bill. Nearly every dollar remaining in the stimulus bill has been committed to a particular project if not yet obligated. If we look at what is left, the largest item that is unobligated at the moment is for high-speed rail--approximately $7.9 billion--but those funds have been awarded to specific projects. We know where the funds are going, and they will all be awarded on contracts soon.

There is some $6 billion in unobligated Pell grant funding. But that amount is already assumed in the fiscal year 2011 budget. We already have a $5.7 billion shortfall in this great scholarship funding program. If we rescind this $6 billion, we will need to find nearly $12 billion in fiscal year 2011 to meet the shortfall.

More than $6 billion remains available to pay the States for fiscal stabilization. Thirty-four States have written budgets assuming these funds would be available to them. States such as Texas are scheduled to receive more than $1 billion of this amount. These funds are unobligated, but that does not mean they are not wanted.

More than $4 billion remains unobligated for education reform. The funds are ready for award and will be obligated in the next 4 months. Is this the program we want to stop?

Several Senators have proposed specifically rescinding funds from the Recovery Act. Senator Coburn also suggests this is one possible area of savings. Well, unless we want to cut the programs I have listed above, there are no funds to rescind from the stimulus bill.

The Senator from Oklahoma is indiscriminate in his suggestion we cut unexpended balances. Let me say this to my colleagues, in a trillion dollar discretionary budget, we better hope we have unobligated balances because if we did not, we would be terminating government services with a third of the year still remaining to be funded. For example, there would be no one to send out Social Security checks, no one to keep our national parks open, and no funds to maintain a terrorist watch list or fight our wars.

But unobligated does not mean unneeded. On Monday, I noted we have $8.3 billion in unobligated balances in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, but the Senator does not say what programs he would propose for the bulk of the cuts he is mandating.

In one amendment, he says, do not cut defense spending. In the other, it is, do not cut veterans funding. I share that sentiment, but if we are talking about cutting discretionary funding, the large unobligated balances are in the Defense Department.

As of last month, the Defense Department had nearly $400 billion in unobligated balances. There are plenty of unobligated balances to pay for the supplemental. But what sense does it make to cut defense spending so we can increase funds to cover the cost of war? Even the Senator seemingly agrees it would make no sense.

The $80 billion rescission authority in the Senator's amendment is virtually unworkable. In fiscal year 2010, the Federal funds unobligated balances, excluding the Defense Department and the Veterans' Administration, are about $597 billion. More than half of that--$330 billion--is unobligated balances for Treasury which are mostly financing mechanisms such as credit reform balances. These cannot be rescinded. That leaves only about $267 billion for the $80 billion of proposed rescissions.

Nearly one-third of the funds available to continue government operations for the remainder of the fiscal year would have to be eliminated. And, under the amendment, the Congress would defer to the unelected OMB Director to determine where to make the cuts. Not only is this a terrible concept, it is an abrogation of our responsibility to make spending decisions for the Nation. And, you can be sure, were we to adopt this amendment, the first thing to be cut would be congressional priorities.

It is always easy to suggest we should cut unobligated balances, or waste, fraud, and abuse, or someone else's earmarks. What is much harder to identify is specific programs which should be cut.

By way of example, if we cut funding for NOAA, it will mean reducing our capabilities to track the devastating oil spill washing up on our gulf coast communities at this moment. Slashing unobligated funding would curtail the efforts to restore wetlands and beaches that are vital to the environment and the local economy and to our fishermen who are banned from fishing, evidenced by the fishing disaster just declared by Secretary Locke.

In the case of homeland security, most of the unobligated balances which remain available are for acquisitions such as the national security cutter, aircraft for border security, border station construction, explosive detection equipment for our airports, radiation portal monitors, and border technology such as sensors, cameras, and x- ray

machines. This amendment would force us to curtail spending on these programs at the same time other Senators are urging the Senate to increase funding for them.

The Senator's two amendments fall short in identifying reasonable offsets for the cost of these bills. Does this body want to penalize all civil servants by not allowing any cost-of-living adjustment for the coming year? Do we want to encourage our most skilled workers to leave Federal service because their pay, which already doesn't match the employment cost index when comparing similar jobs in the private sector, would be frozen? What sense does it make to encourage our best workers to quit? That is not good management. Few successful private enterprises would suggest freezing pay for all their workers.

There are items that I believe have merit in the Senator's proposal, and I hope the committee can work with him as we move forward into fiscal year 2011 to identify them. Cutting overhead and saving funding through taxpayer compliance are good ideas which I know our appropriations subcommittees share. The government should rid itself of excess real property, and it should be encouraged to do so. But to set an arbitrary target of cutting $15 billion seems unrealistic, unwarranted, and unwise.

All my colleagues should be advised that it is very difficult to make significant reductions in spending 7 months into the fiscal year. At this point, we have made commitments to our agencies, and they, in turn, have made commitments to contractors and grant recipients. No, they haven't spent all their funding for the entire fiscal year, but nor do they have large unneeded balances that can be reapplied to cover the cost of emergent requirements.

If the Senate were to agree to cut $100 billion from the legislative budget at this juncture, the Congress would have two choices: lay off our staffs so that we are unable to meet the legislative demands of the institution or stop work on maintenance.

The Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Stephen Ayers, just testified that the Capitol Complex faces a growing backlog of deferred maintenance projects totaling over $1.6 billion which must be funded in the near future. Many of these projects are fire- and life-safety related. The Architect has received numerous citations about the urgency of the needed repairs to the aging infrastructure in the historical buildings within our complex. The Russell, Cannon, Capitol, and the Thomas Jefferson Library of Congress buildings are all in violation of current fire safety codes. The longer this work is delayed, the more it will ultimately cost. Each year, the Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee attempts to whittle away at this backlog by funding a handful of these projects in the annual appropriations bill.

So we could cut $100 million from the legislative budget, but it would be penny wise and pound foolish, as the old adage says.

One suggestion made by the Senator from Oklahoma is to cut the administrative expenses of the Federal agencies by 5 percent. Again, it is an idea that sounds good. Surely every bureaucracy can be cut back. I would note that on the Appropriations Committee, we look for such cuts every year, but setting arbitrary targets would be irresponsible. For example, in the case of the State Department and the USAID, which lost large percentages of their professional staff during the 1990s or had them transferred from Washington to other embassies in Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11, it will exacerbate an already unsustainable situation. Some of our embassies are 20 percent short of staff. USAID is being asked to do more and more, especially in key countries such as Pakistan, without nearly half the staff to manage the funds and conduct the necessary oversight.

Here are a few examples of what a 5-percent cut means. The Indian Health Service medical services would be cut by $185 million. This means 10,000 fewer inpatient admissions, 195,000 fewer dental patient visits, 55,000 fewer mental health patient visits, and 85,000 fewer public health nursing visits. The National Park Service base operations would be cut by $115 million and result in a loss of 1,130 park rangers nationwide. This would necessitate the closure of most national parks where security and health and safety maintenance could not be maintained, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and the Yellowstone National Park. Just think of the impact of such an action as we head into the busy summer months. The American people would be incensed by such a recommendation.

This amendment would cut the childhood immunization program by $25 million, preventing more than 30,000 children from being vaccinated this year.

Yes, I will be glad to.

We have looked into that, and I can assure my colleague that all the statements I have made have been verified.

Further, it would eliminate childcare subsidies for 35,000 low-income children and their working families who depend on subsidies in order to be able to work. It would eliminate over 40,000 Head Start slots that provide comprehensive early childhood services to low-income children. It would more than double the number of people waiting on their disability decisions from the Social Security Administration and delay benefits for everyone waiting on a decision. It would eliminate 13 million meals for older Americans, many of whom are low income, disabled, and depend on these meals for the majority of their daily food intake.

On another matter, these amendments would also arbitrarily cap voluntary payments to the United Nations by $1 billion. No matter how important to U.S. security, no matter how much our allies are contributing, no matter that our influence is often the function of how much we contribute, the amendment picks a round number out of the air and prohibits spending $1 more. Those calculations must be made program by program, agency by agency, whether for UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or some other U.N. organization. The decisions should be based on the merits and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, not on some arbitrary amount proposed in this amendment.

Let's stop trying to legislate by formula. If there are U.N. programs that do not deserve to be funded, I am all for cutting our contributions, but this amendment does not name a single one.

Placing a cap on new Federal employees would create problems for several agencies. If Homeland Security needs to increase the number of Border Patrol agents to secure the border or the number of TSA operators to screen passengers for explosives under their clothes, does that mean we must cut the number of Secret Service agents or Coast Guard personnel or customs inspectors or FEMA personnel who are now helping to respond to disasters in Tennessee, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi?

The same point can be made for the IRS and the HHS because most fraud, abuse, and waste is in the Tax Code and in Medicare. We need additional personnel to uncover this waste.

For the Veterans' Administration, when the agency is seeing an increasing number of veterans suffering from complex combat-related injuries and mental health problems due to numerous deployments, this is exactly the type of government action our veterans do not need or deserve. Congress has consistently, on a bipartisan basis, increased funding for the VA to build its capacity to handle these types of disorders. This type of zero sum amendment would ensure that in order to adequately serve veterans suffering from mental health and other combat-related injuries, the VA would have to decrease its capacity to handle other services, including addressing the backlog of claims processing.

This is a small point, but since the Senator chose to raise it yesterday, I wish to respond. I find it to be a clear example of the way the Senator misunderstands the work of the Appropriations Committee.

In his remarks yesterday, the Senator noted that the bill includes $1.8 million for the work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and stated that it was inappropriate to include $1.8 million in emergency funding to continue the efforts of this Commission. Several Members of this Chamber disagree with the judgment of the Senator that the Commission is unnecessary, but on one point I agree with the Senator. I share his views that the continuation of the Commission does not constitute an emergency, and for that reason, the Financial Services Subcommittee has been directed to identify an offset in discretionary funds to pay for this Commission, and they did. The cost of the Commission is fully offset with discretionary rescissions.

I will reiterate what I said on Monday. The vice chairman and I worked to ensure that only emergencies were funded in this act. In the few cases where nonemergency projects were funded, we insisted that these programs be offset. This may be the first time in decades that the committee has followed such a strict policy. Collectively, it was the judgment of the members of the committee that these are, indeed, tough times and we have to be very stingy with our taxpayers' funds. But let me repeat: The fiscal crisis the country faces cannot be overcome by failing to invest in those programs which are essential to our Nation.

The amendments offered by the Senator are unworkable. They represent a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Should we cut the pay of our employees at the same time we are asking them to be more efficient? That makes little sense.

Should we cap the number of Federal employees when demands for veterans services, border security, and ferreting out waste are on the rise?

Again, in sound bites, it does sound good. But in implementing the concept, we see it is unworkable.

Finally, I think the Senate should thank the Senator from Oklahoma for drawing attention to the matter that we need to do more with less.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I can see the belt tightening that will be required in the coming years as we get our fiscal house in order. There are elements of this proposal I intend to have our subcommittees incorporate as we move bills for fiscal year 2011.

I can assure the Senator and all members of the committee that the committee will continue to stress the requirement to uncover waste and cut it. We will scrutinize all aspects of the Federal budget to identify the duplication and unnecessary spending, and we will use these savings to invest in the shortfalls the Nation faces.

I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments because, on balance, they are the wrong approach to solving our Nation's emergency needs.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank and commend my friend for his presentation. He is one of the hardest working subcommittee chairmen of the Appropriations Committee.

If I may, I wish to be a bit personal. As some of my colleagues are aware, I did put on the uniform of this land and served in a war that was fought about six decades ago--ancient times. A few things happened between that time and this war. For example, although the regiment I was privileged to serve in had about the highest casualties per capita in the European conflict, it may be hard to believe but there was not a single double amputee survivor.

Today, if one goes to Walter Reed Hospital, one will see dozens of double amputees. Why? Because of high tech. For example--I am being personal now--in my case, it took 9 hours to evacuate me. Nine hours? That is a long time. But in Italy, they have hills. We had no helicopters in those days. You had to be carried by hand. As a result, no brain injuries survived and no double amputees survived. So the families did not have the problem then that they are having now.

There is another big difference. For example, if I wrote a letter as a soldier in Italy, that letter was censored by my commanding officer. I could not say anything about the war. All I could say is: Italy is a beautiful place. The food is fabulous. Nothing else. You could not say that my buddy Tom was shot. What they received at home were pleasant notes.

Today we have what is known as cell phones and other technology. You can communicate with your spouse every day. And these items are not censored.

I have had members on my staff with husbands fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They communicate all the time. Imagine if you are communicating with your husband in Iraq and suddenly you see that evening on CNN a program with that outfit in combat and your husband does not call you the next day. The stress disorder complex is not only hitting the GIs, it is hitting families. And now we are trying to cut VA, the Veterans' Administration, when the need is much greater? I cannot understand that.

I concur with the chairman that, if anything, if we are to show appreciation and gratitude, we should not be cutting, we should be helping. I commend the Senator.

I yield the floor.

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

I would say to my friend from Vermont that is correct, we intend those vetting procedures to apply to these funds.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

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

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I do.

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

Mr. President, reluctantly I object. I suggest the absence of a quorum so I may discuss this matter with Senator Collins.

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

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

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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. 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.

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