Floor Statements

Mr. President, the facilities and services located at Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin, and designated as excess, were established at the behest of the U.S. Navy in the 1950s for the benefit of our military and their families. Not-for-profit organizations responded to the needs identified by the Navy to assist our military. The relationships formed between the military and surrounding community have grown over the past 50 years at Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin including schools for children in prekindergarten through high school. It is my hope the Department of the Navy will consider the Federal Real Property Management Regulations regarding adjusted fair market value when making their determination for the Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin property.

Madam President, today the Senate begins its consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill which was passed by the House and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee late last month. This week the Committee on Appropriations will meet, to consider five additional appropriations bills.

Over the next several weeks we expect to have many of these bills debated and hopefully passed by the Senate so that we can begin final conference deliberations on these critically important measures.

The bill before the Senate was prepared by our Homeland Security Subcommittee chaired by Senator Robert Byrd.

Senator Byrd along with this ranking member Senator Voinovich of Ohio and all the subcommittee members crafted this bill which provides $42.7 billion in discretionary spending for the critical programs to defend our Nation, protect our borders and coastline, and respond to natural disasters.

The amount represents a 7 percent increase over the funding provided in fiscal year 2009, but is approximately $150 million less than requested.

An additional $241 million is also included in the bill for the overseas contingency operations of the Coast Guard. This sum was requested in the defense bill for the same purpose.

Our colleagues should thank Senators Byrd and Voinovich for completing their hard work on this bill. The bill was marked up by the committee 3 weeks ago and approved on a unanimous bipartisan vote.

As the Senate reviews this and the other spending bills which will soon follow I urge it to be mindful of the importance of this task.

It is imperative to the efficient operation of our Federal Government that we move to pass this measure and complete a conference with the House. For too long we have relied on cumbersome omnibus spending measures to fund our Federal agencies.

In order to break this habit, the Appropriations Committee will continue to report noncontroversial bipartisan bills which will be within the congressionally approved budget levels and should be considered expeditiously by the Senate. Passage of this bill quickly will demonstrate the Senate's ability to act responsibly and collegially in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

The bill before the Senate deserves the support of every Member of this body. It is a clean bill free of unnecessary legislative riders. It is within the committee's spending allocation and $150 million below the amount requested. I strongly recommend its approval.

Mr. President, pursuant to Senate rules, I submit a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Supporting Child Maltreatment Prevention Efforts in Community Health Centers Act of 2009. I am introducing this bill on behalf of the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Community Health Centers. This much-needed legislation would help address a critical problem in our country, the abuse and neglect of millions of children. Today, I am introducing legislation that will help address this preventable tragedy.

Unfortunately, child maltreatment continues to be a serious public health problem in our country that affects millions of children and their families. Child abuse and neglect can take many forms, including neglect of children's medical needs, physical or psychological maltreatment, sexual abuse, and multiple types of maltreatment.

In 2007 alone, an estimated 5.8 million were allegedly victims of maltreatment, 3.2 million referrals were made to Child Protective Services agencies, and 794,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse and neglect. During that same year, 1,760 children died as a result of abuse or neglect, most of them younger than 4-years old.

Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and approximately seven percent were other relatives. Therefore, child maltreatment is a tragedy that impacts millions of children in their own families. Considering that not all maltreatment is reported to the authorities, the actual numbers are estimated to be higher.

Focusing on prevention will help save billions of dollars that are currently spent annually--due to victimization and injuries--with hospitalization, visits to ER, out-of-home placements, CPS services, investigations, incarceration of abusers, services to address mental health issues, and other related costs.

At the same time, we know that community health centers represent a unique resource for many families who depend on their services to obtain much-needed health and mental health care. Community Health Centers, CHCs, served 16 million individuals in 2007, most of them poor, uninsured, and at-risk for child maltreatment. In fact, one in five low-income children in the U.S. receives health care at a CHC. Furthermore, the centers provide comprehensive primary care services that set up the stage for an integrated care model.

Given this evidence, the American Psychological Association, APA, convened a group of experts to review the best available science to identify and recommend public health strategies to prevent child maltreatment within the context of behavioral health integration at community health centers. For decades, the APA and its members have been at the forefront of child maltreatment prevention efforts in research, development of interventions, and evaluation. The findings of this report provided the seed to develop this critical legislation on behalf of children and families in our country.

Among its provisions, this important legislation supports the implementation of demonstration projects at federally qualified health centers to promote universal access to a family-centered integrated and voluntary services model, evidence-based behavioral health interventions that prevent child maltreatment and promote family well- being by addressing parenting practices and skills for families from diverse socioeconomic, cultural, racial, ethnic, and other backgrounds. The bill would also support program evaluation outcomes, technical assistance, project coordination, and the design and implementation of a cross-site evaluation plan.

I have been committed to the support of psychology contributions to children and families and the vital role of community health centers for decades. This bill will help address the critical need to help and protect our nation's children by giving their parents and caregivers the tools and skills they need to be become the best parents and caregivers they can be and to, ultimately, help prevent child abuse and neglect.

It is my hope that the science-based recommendations utilized in the development of this legislation will serve as a useful resource to inform current health care reform legislative efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today the Senate begins its consideration of our annual spending bills. We start with the legislative branch appropriations bill. I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that as of this moment, the Appropriations Committee has reported out four appropriations bills. It may please you to know, Madam President, that all of these bills--Legislative, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Interior--passed the committee unanimously and all of the bills represent a bipartisan approach.

We start with the legislative branch appropriations bill not because we want to take care of ourselves, but because it is the only bill so far which has been passed by the House and marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Without unanimous agreement, the Senate can only act on those appropriations bills which have already been approved by the House. While we begin today with the legislative bill, we are confident that several bills will soon follow. We are optimistic that the Homeland Security bill will pass the House this week and be available for consideration before we adjourn for the recess. Later this week the Committee on Appropriations will meet to consider two additional appropriations bills and we expect to meet in early July to prepare another five bills. Over the next several weeks we expect to have many bills debated and hopefully passed by the Senate so that we can begin final conference deliberations on these critically important measures.

The bill before the Senate, as prepared by our Legislative Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and his ranking member Senator Murkowski of Alaska provides $3.1 billion for the operations of the Congressional Branch, excluding amounts specifically requested for the House of Representatives. It represents a 3-percent increase over the amounts provided in FY 2009, but it is nearly 10 percent below the amount requested.

Our colleagues should thank Senators Nelson and Murkowski for completing their hard work on this bill. Because of the change in administration, the committee has had the details of the President's request for less than 2 months. Yet our colleagues, who have only assumed their subcommittee leadership positions this year, have already completed their review and prepared this measure.

The bill was marked up by the committee last week and approved on a unanimous vote. It is a tribute to our two managers that this bill was passed by the committee without a single amendment.

For those of our colleagues who focus on the small part of the Appropriations bills which are earmarks, I would note there is only one earmark in this bill.

Many critics and pundits constantly overstate the controversy over earmarks, but here in the bill which provides the essential support for our legislative branch, we include only one earmark.

As we begin our process to provide for our Nation's spending it is important to remember why we are engaged in this annual exercise.

As the Framers of our Constitution recognized it is critically important to our democracy to ensure that the people's representatives in the Congress are the ones who determine how taxpayer money should be expended.

While the Congress relies on the expertise of the executive branch to develop programs and to construct spending plans, it is our responsibility to determine which of these programs and plans is right for the American people. We were elected to represent our States. One way in which we carry out our responsibilities is by determining our Nation's budget.

Included in this process is the relatively small amount of funding that are included in direct response to our constituents' petitions. In the fiscal year 2010 bills that the Appropriations Committee will recommend to this body we will reduce our spending on non-project based earmarks by 50 percent compared to amounts for these program in fiscal year 2006.

To understand the importance of our willingness to curtail this type of spending, I would note that this means a reduction of more than $8 billion in earmarks.

Chairman Obey and I have agreed that, as long as he and I are Chairmen, the total of non-project based earmarks in appropriations bills will not exceed 1 percent of the total discretionary funding appropriated by the committee in any fiscal year.

What this means is that this year and in future years we will allocate 99 percent of the funds in the budget for national programs and programs which are included in the president's request, and only 1 percent, really less than 1 percent, for programs that are included in direct response to the needs of our States, cities, towns and the constituents whom we represent.

It is essential that the Congress maintain its control over Federal spending. While it may not always be politically popular to challenge the authority of Presidents in determining the spending priorities for the country, it is how we safeguard the democratic traditions of this Nation.

The day that we cede this authority to the White House is the day when we create a monarchy. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a member of this body for more than 46 years, I have no intention to allow that to occur.

As the Senate reviews this and the other spending bills which will soon follow, I urge it to be mindful of the importance of this task.

The bill before this body deserves the support of every Member of this body. It provides for the essential services to fulfill the functions of our legislative branch.

It is a clean bill free of unnecessary legislative riders. It is $300 million below the amount requested and within the funding allocation provided to the subcommittee. I strongly recommend its approval.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens.

Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities.

The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.

As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether.

The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years.

This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country, and I am pleased that Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has agreed to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would provide authority for the establishment of branch banking facilities on Indian reservations so that the Federally-chartered Native American Bank could enable access to financial services to Indian tribes and their citizens.

Many years ago, as part of my service as Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I met with tribal leaders to discuss the challenges of economic development in Indian country. At that time, I suggested that they might give consideration to a means by which tribal governments could pool their resources and thereby provide the capital that other tribal governments could employ on a short-term loan basis to undertake reservation-based projects that held the potential of stimulating economic growth in their tribal communities.

The tribal leaders with whom I met were very interested in this idea, and in the ensuing years, went forward and established the Native American Bank--which is headquartered in Denver--but continues to manage its first affiliated bank on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana.

As my colleagues know, there are few financial institutions located either on or near Indian reservations, and sadly, there is evidence that some financial institutions have found it apparently necessary to either charge very high rates that they associate with the risk of doing business in Indian country, or to deny financial assistance altogether.

The Native American Bank has stepped into that latter void and has been providing meaningful financial services to tribal governments and their citizens for a number of years.

This bill contains amendments to the McFadden Act that have been carefully sculpted to address only this narrow expansion of capacity on the part of financial institutions serving Indian country, and I am pleased that Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has agreed to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, today marks the 25th anniversary of the passing of a most beloved and remarkable hula master and instructor, Maiki Aiu Lake. Her skills in the art of hula and love of teaching have made her a legendary figure in the State of Hawaii.

Affectionately known as ``Aunty Maiki,'' Maiki Aiu Lake has played a pivotal role in the preservation and continuation of Native Hawaiian culture. Her unwavering dedication to her students and art has proved hula more than a dance; the elegance and beauty exhibited in hula enriches its audience, and instills a deeper understanding and appreciation for Hawaii's artistic heritage. Her Halau Hula is renowned among many for its attention to detail and profound respect for the traditions of the Native Hawaiian people. Through her passion as both an artist and teacher, Aunty Maiki has touched countless lives. She remains an enduring influence whose legacy continues through the work of her many students and devoted friends.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the great accomplishments of Maiki Aiu Lake.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution that recognizes the Bishop Museum on its 120th Anniversary and celebrates the reopening of its historic Hawaiian Hall.

The Bishop Museum was founded in 1889 by Charles Reed Bishop in honor of his late wife, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last descendant of the royal Kamehameha family. The museum was established to house the extensive collection of Hawaiian artifacts and royal family heirlooms of the Princess, and has expanded to include millions of artifacts, documents and photographs about Hawaii and other Pacific island cultures.

Today, the Bishop Museum is the largest museum in the State of Hawaii and the premier natural and cultural history institution in the Pacific, recognized throughout the world for its cultural collections, research projects, consulting services and public educational programs. It also has one of the largest natural history specimen collections in the world. The museum provides a great service to the State of Hawaii and I commend them for their long time commitment of serving and representing the interests of native Hawaiians.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346, a motion to waive all applicable rule XLIV points of order be considered as having been made by the majority leader.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive rule XLIV occur at 2:50 p.m., and that the time until then be equally divided and controlled between the majority leader and Senator Gregg or their designees.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346.

No, go ahead.

Please proceed.

Madam President, I rise in support of the conference agreement on H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriations bill.

The compromise agreement, which has been worked out in a full and open conference between the two Houses, represents the hard work of our conferees.

As has long been the tradition of the Appropriations Committee the compromise package before the Senate reflects the deliberations of our twelve

subcommittees. Each subcommittee has items in this measure and I am pleased to note that all of our subcommittees were able to reach agreement with their House counterparts.

As such, the bill before us represents a balanced compromise between the issues and funding recommended by the House and by the Senate.

As in any compromise neither body, nor individual Member, received everything he or she sought.

The House has agreed to support funding for the International Monetary Fund and the Senate has agreed to compromise language on how we deal with the detainees at Guantanamo. But, it is a fair compromise which I believe all Members should support.

At $105.9 billion, the conference agreement is $14.6 billion above the amount recommended by the Senate. However, it is important to point out to my Senate colleagues that nearly half of this increase represents additional funding for swine flu. This funding was included in response to a budget amendment submitted by the administration following Senate passage of this bill.

The managers of our Labor HHS subcommittees have responded to the potential need for additional swine flu resources by providing more than $7 billion in funding, of which nearly $6 billion is contingent upon the administration submitting additional requests for funds. We have been advised that funding may be required this summer to prepare for an outbreak next fall in the United States if the virus mutates over the next few months.

If that occurs, the American public can be assured that we will be ready. I can also promise my colleagues that our Labor-HHS subcommittee will be monitoring the flu virus and closely watching the administration's efforts to respond to this potential crisis.

Regarding the remaining increase above the Senate bill, the conference agreement funding levels are between the amounts recommended by the two bodies.

The bill includes the funding level sought by the House for the Department of State and ``splits the difference'' in the amount recommended by both bodies for defense and military construction.

One provision of note that was deleted from the measure relates to the public release of photographs of detainees. The Senate agreed to drop this provision only after the President sent a letter to Chairman Obey and myself assuring us that he would not release the photographs in question.

While many of us support the intent of this amendment, it was clear that including the amendment would jeopardize passage of the bill in the House. That result would not have been an acceptable outcome.

Mr. President, this is a fair compromise and one which is worthy of the support of every Member of the Senate.

I understand that there may be one or two items that not all Members agree with, but I would remind my colleagues that this is a must pass bill. The funding in this bill is critical to the Defense Department in continuing to support our servicemen and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would point out that if we cannot pass this bill, we will shortly run out of funds to pay our service members and to ensure funds are available to support the readiness of all our forces, not just those serving in Southwest Asia.

I want to thank my vice chairman for his counsel and support as we have worked through several difficult issues.

We have forged this agreement together. I would note that there were 30 Senate conferees on this measure and 27 signed the conference agreement.

Finally, I wish to thank all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members and their staffs for their hard work. This conference agreement would not have been possible without their efforts.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between the two parties.

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

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Michigan.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be charged equally.

Mr. President, I find it very difficult to be on the opposing side of my dear friend from New Hampshire. There has been a lot of discussion on the premise that conferees did not pay for the cash for clunkers bill.

Technically, that is correct. But I believe my colleague should be advised that under the Congressional Budget Office scoring, the conferees are scored with a savings of $1.47 billion in discretionary spending in this bill.

In title 14 of the bill, the conferees included a provision which mandates that more than $1 billion in discretionary spending in rescissions shall be allocated as savings in the bill not used as an offset.

While the conferees were required to designate the Cash for Clunkers title as an emergency for technical reasons, it is also true that we included a $1 billion offset in discretionary spending which for all practical purposes offsets the spending for Cash for Clunkers.

So while much of the debate about this matter has involved the fact that the conferees didn't pay for this provision, that is not completely accurate.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the last page from the scorekeeping document of the appropriations committee on the supplemental which shows $1 billion $47 million in savings.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Henry Williams and Jessica Martinez of Senator Bingaman's office be granted privileges of the floor during the debate of the travel promotion bill.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the 50th anniversary of the sister city relationship between the city and county of Honolulu and the city of Hiroshima.

Mr. President, 1959 was an eventful and significant year in history. Not only was Hawaii admitted into the Union as the 50th State, but on May 19, 1959, the city and county of Honolulu Council passed a resolution inviting the city of Hiroshima into a sister city agreement. Established by former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, the ``People to People'' program was to promote peace and mutual understanding between citizens of different countries. Many of Hawaii's residents were of Japanese ancestry or were originally from Hiroshima. With this in

mind, the Honolulu Council thought a relationship between Honolulu and Hiroshima would be a fitting one, brought together through similarities and a resonance of cultural familiarity. This ``sister city'' agreement holds special significance for me and my family, as I was born in Honolulu and my maternal grandparents were from the Hiroshima Prefecture.

Fifty years later, this relationship, as well as the overall United States--Japan relationship, has formed into an enduring partnership of nations. This valued alliance has matured through the years, and it is my privilege to serve as honorary chairman of the 50th anniversary committee for the sister city relationship. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognition of this momentous occasion.