Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to discuss H.J. Res. 48, a short term continuing resolution designed to keep the Government open through April 8th. If the Senate passes this resolution it will be the sixth short term continuing resolution this year. With its passage we will be more than half way through the fiscal year and still operating without a budget.

H.J. Res. 48 would fund the Government for an additional 3 weeks and would reduce the rate of operations for the Federal Government by an additional $6 billion. If adopted, we would be operating the government at a rate that is $51 billion below the amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011.

At this level, our spending on security programs will be $30 billion below the president's request and $21 billion lower on domestic spending. I would also point out to my colleagues that this is $31 billion below the so-called Sessions-McCaskill level which every member of the Republican caucus voted for last year.

The aggregate amount in this short term CR is the level proposed by the President as a compromise with the House Republicans and it is the same amount that was included in the amendment which I offered as an alternative to the House continuing resolution last week.

By agreeing to this level, the Senate will be $6 billion lower than current spending levels, but no lower than the President has recommended.

While several of my colleagues have complained that we simply have not cut enough Government spending, most of our subcommittee chairmen, and many Members of the Democratic caucus are beginning to think that we have already cut too much.

I believe the disparity in views can be partially explained by the information described below.

Recently the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report which notes that in comparing appropriations funding levels, the appropriate measurement should be expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars, normally referred to as real growth.

The Center's point is that the cost of Government operations increases each year by inflation. One cannot ignore the fact that if the price of goods and services rise by 1, 2 or 10 percent, the Federal Government's cost in providing those goods and services also increases by this rate.

When we fail to consider the effect of inflation on Federal discretionary programs in viewing spending rates, we are not accurately reflecting what it costs to run the Government. If utility prices are increasing by 5 percent, and if we don't budget the extra amount, we are forced to cut other programs to pay for the fact of life increase in our utility bills.

Longevity increases paid to civil servants and military pay raises are also fact of life increases that we cannot ignore. These bills have to be paid even if we aren't budgeting for their increased cost.

And. if we aren't basing our funding decisions on real costs, adjusted by inflation, we are in fact forcing Government to cut the services it provides even when it receives the same funding level as in the previous year. This isn't a political talking point; it is a mathematical fact.

The report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities measures the impact of inflation on the cost of Government. By its calculation using the CBO baseline, real spending approved for fiscal year 2011 to date is $34 billion lower than what was provided in fiscal year 2010, a cut of $18 billion in real security spending and $16 billion in domestic spending.

With this amendment we will be cutting domestic spending by another $6 billion in nominal terms, but more than that in inflation adjusted dollars.

Democrats have been chastised for only cutting $10 billion from fiscal year 2010 levels.

I would note that even in that comparison, which fails to take into account many fact of life increases, we should all understand that domestic spending is being cut by more than $14 billion, while security spending is slated to increase.

Furthermore we are now halfway through the fiscal year. Agencies have spent on average 50 percent of their funds. Each dollar we reduce at this time has the effect of doubling the cut made in programs for the rest of the year.

Our subcommittee chairmen recognize the difficulties that this level of spending will create for the programs they oversee. Accordingly, many of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee are saying enough is enough, while those who are not as familiar with the details of budgeting complain that we should be able to cut spending more.

I ask the Senate to consider one more measurement. For domestic discretionary spending the total available for the whole year after the passage of this bill will be $400 billion. In FY 2010 we had $413.6 billion for these purposes. For nearly the entire first half of this year we were spending funds at a rate of nearly $410 billion.

Since the year is halfway over, approximately half of the $140 billion--or $205 billion--has already been allocated. In general, that means we will only have approximately $195 billion to cover the cost of operations for all of our domestic agencies for the rest of the year.

This rate of spending for the rest of this fiscal year is $23.6 billion below the rate we spent last year. And when we compound this, recognizing that inflation has increased the cost of operations for domestic programs by $16 billion a year according to the center on budget and policy priorities, we see that effectively for the remainder of the year we will be asking our agencies to operate at a rate which is $39.6 billion below what we gave them for the same level of goods and services that we supported last year. In real terms even under this short term CR, we will be requiring our agencies to absorb more than a 9 percent reduction in spending compared to a year ago.

Agreeing to a cut of this size this late in the fiscal year will be challenging for our agencies to manage. I believe our subcommittee Chairmen recognize this reality and it is why most of them are concerned that the level of cut that we are agreeing to is already deeper than is prudent.

Finally, I want to point out to everyone who is listening exactly where we are, and what we are really talking about in trying to conclude our negotiations on spending for this fiscal year. Those who talk about $3.7 trillion in spending and billions in unneeded funds are not dealing with the reality of this continuing resolution.

What the decision comes down to is this. After this resolution passes, our domestic agencies will have approximately $195 billion to meet all their needs through the end of the year.

This covers the salaries of people who monitor our food supplies, of our air traffic controllers who keep U.S. airspace safe, of our customs officials and U.S. Marshalls who monitor our borders. It includes the cost of all of our programs to support education from kindergarten through college, of those who ensure that our social security benefits are paid, and of thousands of other activities.

We have reduced their funding effectively by 10 percent.

How much more of this $195 billion which accounts for only about 5 percent of the $3.7 trillion budget; how much more of this spending can we really afford to cut before we are required to lay off food inspectors and shut down meat plants?

How much more can we cut before we have no funds to pay employees to monitor our borders and ports? How much more before we have to cancel the construction of dams, bridges, highways, levees, sewers, and transit projects and throw thousands of private sector workers onto the street?

It should not be forgotten that when we force either civil servants or private sector workers out of their jobs, they both add to the unemployment rolls. They will not be paying taxes any longer, but they will tax already stretched social services. Surely we can agree cutting jobs, whether public or private, is not the right approach to assist our slowly rebounding economy.

This is not a question of how much we can or should save from a $3.7 trillion budget, but a question of how much more our colleagues think we should cut from the $195 billion we have left to pay for our domestic agencies when we will be effectively asking the agencies to cut another 10 percent in spending over the next 6 months.

In the coming days as we try to resolve our differences on domestic spending for the rest of this fiscal year I hope my colleagues will keep these points in mind.

Having said that, I intend to support this CR because it will provide the funding level that the White House has endorsed, and because if it fails we would likely have to shut down the Government. That would be unacceptable.

I encourage all my colleagues, those who think we have cut too much and those who do not, to support this 3 week extension to allow our colleagues additional time to try and reach an overall compromise on discretionary spending for the rest of the fiscal year.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in quorum calls be allocated on both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the amendment from the Senator from Kentucky seeks to reduce discretionary spending by $200 billion. The actual amendment would cut in excess of $155 billion from domestic discretionary spending programs and the balance from security-related programs. While I am sure the Senator is serious in his desire to cut spending, I would point out to my colleagues that for the remaining 6 months of this fiscal year, with the passage of the next short-term continuing resolution, the Federal Government will have less than $200 billion in fiscal year 11 funds remaining for domestic discretionary spending.

My colleagues need to be advised that the CR that has passed the House will set a ceiling on domestic discretionary funding for the whole year at $400 billion. Since we are half way through the fiscal year, we have already allocated approximately half of these resources. Moreover, during the first 6 months of the fiscal year the government was funded at a higher rate, approximately $405 billion. Therefore, we only have approximately $195 billion remaining for the balance of the year to spend on all discretionary domestic programs. While there are examples where unobligated balances remain in some agencies, in general it is fair to say the Senator's amendment would cut this year's remaining domestic spending by 80 percent.

The amendment stipulates that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are all abolished. If this wasn't bad enough, the amendment would also cut more funding from the Department of Education than they have remaining for the balance of the fiscal year. It would cut more than remains available for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and from the Office of Personnel Management.

Some domestic agencies would have sufficient resources to survive this cut, but none without dire consequences.

A cut of 35 percent to the EPA would seriously curtail funding for sewer and drinking water infrastructure, while leaving the agency with little funding to pay its personnel for the balance of the fiscal year.

For the Department of the Interior, the Paul amendment would almost certainly necessitate the closure of our national parks and Indian schools.

On security funding, the bill would slash the State Department's budget 75 percent below last year's level, effectively eliminating funding for most State Department functions worldwide with devastating consequences for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The $30 billion cut to the Department of Defense would likely delay or terminate procurement programs supported by the Congress as the Department uses its authority to target cuts away from readiness and personnel programs toward investment programs.

The Energy Department's nuclear weapons program would be cut by $2.5 billion. This would put the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear weapons at risk.

The only thing that many agencies would be able to do if they were faced with cuts of this magnitude would be to plan their shut down operations.

Not a single Member of this Chamber can responsibly vote for this amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, today our Nation faces a very difficult political landscape when it comes to addressing the major challenges to our country, such as unemployment and the deficit. The American public is demanding that the House and Senate work with the President to address these concerns.

I believe the American people's understandable and growing concern over the national debt is shared by every Member of this body. But in order for the Congress to address our fiscal crisis, we must fix our broken budget process.

Today, with fiscal year 2011 nearly halfway over, as a result of the Congress's inability to finish its work, the Federal Government is still operating on stopgap funding designed to avert a government shutdown.

This is no way to govern. Continuing resolutions make it difficult for Federal agencies to perform their duties. As the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, has stated very clearly, operating under a CR places a great burden on the Department of Defense. The same can be said for every Federal agency. Our failure to act responsibly makes the everyday functioning of government more difficult and less responsive to the needs of the American people.

Moreover, continuing resolutions make a mockery of our constitutional responsibility to allocate taxpayer funding wisely. Putting the country on budgetary autopilot is simply unacceptable. It is well past the time to cast aside the blistering campaign rhetoric of the fall and find the means to compromise.

Many new Members of this body were elected on the promise of a return to fiscal responsibility. I would suggest that returning to regular order in our budget process is a necessary component to achieve this goal.

The Appropriations Committee produces 12 individual bipartisan spending

bills, but when the Congress fails to act on them through regular order, we wind up with a $1 trillion omnibus bill or a $1 trillion continuing resolution that cedes the power of the purse to the executive branch.

Neither the most liberal nor the most conservative Member of this body should prefer an omnibus or a CR over the regular order in our budget process.

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Hal Rogers of Kentucky, to congratulate him on his new position.

During our discussion, we both agreed that the Congress needs to reestablish regular order in the appropriations process. Both Chambers need to pass its bills and allow us to work out our differences in conference.

I believe if we adopt this approach, we can do our part to help this Nation regain its economic health.

The first step in the process is the adoption of a budget to provide the framework for appropriations bills. The House must step up to the plate with a budget that is workable. It cannot hide behind vague rhetoric and arbitrary spending caps, and it should not insist upon irrational, problematic cuts that would devastate the lives of the American people. Likewise, it is imperative that the Senate do its part in moving a budget through a responsible and regular order process, including the timely adoption of a budget resolution. If a budget resolution is not adopted by early May, the appropriations process will be delayed. Every week of delay further diminishes our ability to finish our work prior to the end of the fiscal year.

In recent years, all too often appropriations bills have been held hostage, as Members offered message amendments, knowing they would not pass, while the time needed to complete 12 freestanding bills slipped away. By September, we had abandoned any hope of finishing all 12 bills as the calendar simply did not give us enough time.

We Democrats must recognize that regular order cannot exist without bipartisan cooperation. Last year, despite the lack of a budget resolution, the committee completed almost all of its work, preparing 11 of the 12 appropriations bills for full consideration in a timely manner. However, gridlock on the Senate floor eliminated any further progress.

If a more open amendment process for relevant amendments will enable these bills to move forward, we should be open to such an approach even if that means taking some uncomfortable votes. This Chamber is split 53 to 47. Both sides need to give a little bit, and in so doing, it is my hope that we can get the bipartisan appropriations process back on track.

Certainly, no Member of this body wants to explain to his or her constituents why we have failed yet again to responsibly fund the government or ceded our constitutional authority to the administration or even why we are unable to work together responsibly to avoid a disastrous government shutdown. We must find a way to accomplish the tasks the Constitution has assigned to us. To do this, we need a budget resolution, we need the House to send over appropriations bills in a timely fashion, we need floor time, and we need a willingness to vote on amendments. Without these four things, there is no doubt in my mind that I will be standing in this Chamber in late September, yet again, seeking passage of a continuing resolution in order to avoid shutting down the government.

The House and the Senate need to find a way to work together to pass our bills under the regular order and send them to the President. This is the only way we can restore discipline to the budget process. It is the only way we can maintain our constitutional responsibility to determine how taxpayers dollars are spent. It is truly the only way we can avoid repeating the catchall spending bills none of us wants.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the amendment I introduced on Friday cuts $51 billion from the discretionary spending request submitted by the President for fiscal year 2011. If this amendment were agreed to as written, it would mean we would appropriate $51 billion less than the President felt was necessary for the government to carry out its duties.

I do not agree with every item this President or any President requests in their budget. But I also know the President's budget request did not contain $51 billion in frivolous or wasteful spending. The cuts necessary to reach the $51-billion level required difficult choices. This amendment makes real cuts to real programs.

Tens of thousands of Americans will feel the direct impact of the proposed cuts. But the cuts included in this amendment are based on hearings, testimony, and a thorough analysis of the current needs of every agency and department the committee funds. By contrast, the Republicans in the House have thrown together a proposal based not on budgets, not on hearings, not on the demonstrated needs of agencies and departments but rather based on the campaign promise to reduce spending by $100 billion.

H.R. 1 shows clearly what happens when you run a bill based not on analysis but on campaign speeches. Therefore, today, the Senate finds itself responding to draconian cuts that would lead to furloughs, disrupt the delivery of government agencies and services, and harm America's children, our students, our working class, and our seniors. An estimated 700,000 jobs would be lost.

All this pain delivered in the name of deficit reduction and growing the economy. Yet the facts are clear. This is the wrong direction for our Nation.

We face our current fiscal situation primarily because of falling revenues brought about by unpaid-for tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans, and because of ever-rising entitlement costs. Every nonpartisan report on finding a solution to our current fiscal crisis stresses the need for a comprehensive solution, a solution that includes cuts in discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, as well as cuts in entitlement spending, and, yes, the need for additional revenues.

Just yesterday, the New York Times published a story about the efforts of the junior Senator from Virginia and the senior Senator from Georgia to honestly examine what it will take to solve our fiscal challenges. According to that story, even if Congress cut discretionary spending to zero, the senior Senator from Georgia was quoted as saying: ``We still couldn't solve the problem.''

I could not agree more. The solution to deficit reduction will not come from huge cuts to a small portion of the Federal budget. But that is what the House is proposing. What H.R. 1 will do instead is jeopardize the economic recovery we are beginning to see.

This Democratic alternative attempts to make the best of a very bad situation. The top line numbers tell a story. In this amendment, we are $23 billion below the President's request for nonsecurity spending, and we are $28 billion below his original request for spending related to our Nation's security.

For the Department of Defense alone, we have reduced spending by $19.4 billion, including a reduction of $2.1 billion for military construction, and $17.3 billion for the rest of the Defense Department. At this level, the bill is nearly $3 billion below the amounts proposed by the House for these activities. The recommended amounts will cover our defense requirements in this constrained fiscal environment.

However, my colleagues should all understand that with our troops still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be looking to defense for additional reductions. I feel that not all Members understand the depths of the cuts we have had to take to get $51 billion under the request.

They should be advised, for example, that the Senate amendment cuts $355 million of State and local law enforcement grants. This will result in some 1,400 fewer local and tribal law enforcement and criminal justice jobs. In addition, the amendment cuts $526 million from FBI salaries and expenses. These cuts will halt new national security enhancements intended to improve our intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities to protect U.S. information and technology networks from cyber attacks and to assist in litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases.

This amendment cuts science funding by $573 million at the National Science Foundation and by $165 million at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As a result, the Nation will lose opportunities for promising research in emerging fields such as cyber security and nanotechnology. Instead of taking the lead, as we have always done, we will slow down, allowing the rest of the world to catch up.

When it comes to the critical area of education, the Senate amendment eliminates 17 individual education programs totaling $370 million. It cuts all Federal funding specifically targeted to education technology, gifted and talented instruction, and family literacy. The list goes on and on. But as significant as these cuts are, they stand in strong contrast to the House Republican bill, which includes such severe measures that the bill would undermine our security, endanger our economy, while costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

H.R. 1 would cut transit security grants by 66 percent, despite the fact that there have been over 1,300 attacks, killing or injuring over 18,000 people worldwide on trains and subways over the last 7 years. The Senate bill would maintain the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $300 million.

The House Republican CR cuts discretionary funding for community health centers by $1 billion compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This cut would prevent any new clinic from opening. It will eliminate funds for 127 clinics currently operating in 38 States and reduce current services at another 1,096 centers across the country. More than 2.8 million people will likely lose access to their current primary care provider, and over 5,000 health center staff would lose their jobs. The Senate bill restores the $1 billion cut, preserving both the vital services being provided today and the planned expansion of centers estimated to treat over 7\1/2\ million new patients this year.

The House CR would eliminate all funding for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery ``TIGER'' Grant Program. TIGER grants are highly competitive and fund transportation projects that make a significant contribution to the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area. The House proposal would take funding away from 75 projects in 40 States across the country. Based on information from the Transportation Department, cutting a total of $1.2 billion from the TIGER Program will put 33,360 jobs at risk.

H.R. 1 cuts funding for the Social Security Administration administrative expense by $125 million below the 2010 level. This would cause the SSA to freeze hiring across the agency and possibly furlough employees at a time when the number of Americans filing for disability and retirement benefits is at record levels. The Senate bill, by contrast, provides $600 million more than the House Republican proposal. Compared to the House CR, it will allow SSA to process about 300,000 more initial disability claims and 150,000 more disability hearings and prevent delays in new beneficiaries receiving their retirement benefits.

The House bill slashes title I education funding by nearly $700 million, meaning 2,400 schools serving 1 million disadvantaged students could lose funding, and approximately 10,000 teachers and aides would lose their jobs. At a time when schools across the Nation are already struggling with budget cuts, the title I grants program serves as the foundation of Federal assistance to elementary and secondary schools across the country, providing financial assistance to more than 90 percent of our Nation's school districts.

Finally, with regard to our Nation's security interests, the devastating funding cuts in H.R. 1 undermine our ability to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and to support General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy. H.R. 1 provides $5.71 billion for the Economic Support Fund, a 27-percent cut from the fiscal year 2011 request level.

As both Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton have made clear in repeated testimony before Congress, cuts

of this magnitude will seriously impede efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and to transition responsibility for U.S. operations in Iraq from the military to civilians.

There are many more examples of damage that would come should H.R. 1 be enacted into law, which is why the President has promised a veto and why I know all my Democratic colleagues will reject it when it comes up for a vote.

The Senate amendment I offer takes a responsible approach to funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, making difficult decisions but also ensuring minimal disruptions to the economic recovery.

We are now almost halfway through fiscal year 2011, If we are to have any chance of avoiding another series of continuing resolutions for fiscal year 2012, we simply must finish our work on the current year and move past this issue. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support my amendment as a prudent alternative to the House measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following explanatory statement regarding Division A of my Amendment No. 149, The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

Mr. President, over the past few weeks, I have listened to several of my colleagues say that the Defense budget should be further reduced. Other Members are concerned that this bill cuts too much funding out of the Department of Defense.

I believe the Defense bill before you today strikes a fair balance between responsible reductions and protection of our military forces.

The defense portion of this bill provides a total of $671.5 billion in base and overseas contingency operation funding for fiscal year 2011.

The base budget is $513.6 billion, which is $17.3 billion less than the President's budget request. This bill cuts an additional $2.13 billion more than H.R. 1 for defense. I believe that these reductions are prudent, and reflect the reality of today's challenging fiscal environment where all programs are subject to reductions.

But let me be clear--this bill continues to fully support our men and women in uniform and protects funding for four important national security priorities.

First, the bill takes care of our military personnel. It fully funds the 1.4 percent authorized pay raise and provides $887 million above the budget request to cover shortfalls in the military personnel accounts that were identified by the services.

Second, the bill fully funds health care for the military and their families. The bill provides $32.8 billion for the Defense Health Program, continues advancements in medical research, modernizes and maintains medical infrastructure, and develops the next generation of electronic medical records.

In addition, the bill adds $100 million for peer-reviewed research in psychological health and traumatic brain injury.

Third, the bill fully funds key readiness programs critical to prepare forces for combat operations and other peace time missions, including flying hours and steaming days, depot maintenance, training, spare parts, and base operations.

Additional funding is included to provide for shortfalls identified by the

Army for base operations, for the Navy and Air Force for depot maintenance, and tuition assistance for military spouses.

Fourth, the bill provides additional funding to protect our forces, including new equipment and upgrades to existing programs to ensure that our military has the hardware needed to conduct operations and train during a time of war. High-priority programs are increased, such as:

The replacement of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft lost in battle, and increased production of Army and Air Force helicopters urgently needed to support combat operations in Afghanistan;

Support for critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, ISR, initiatives, including procurement of 48 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles and more than $2.5 billion of ISR programs identified by the Secretary of Defense as high priority for troops overseas;

Better protection of deployed military personnel, such as $3.4 billion to fully fund Mine Resistant Ambush Protected-All Terrain Vehicles and an additional $225 million to test and procure the Stryker Double V Hull for additional protection from IEDs;

An additional $850 million for the National Guard and Reserve to ensure that our Reserve components have the equipment needed to conduct their growing missions.

Furthermore, the bill continues our goal to transfer responsibility to our partners in Afghanistan and Iraq so that our forces can safely and responsibly withdrawal.

The bill provides $11.6 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund, $1.5 billion for the Iraq security forces fund, $500 million for the Commander's emergency response program, and $400 million for the Afghanistan infrastructure fund.

However, the Department of Defense is not immune from budget reductions. I believe this bill judiciously cuts defense spending, while improving fiscal accountability. Nearly 760 defense programs are reduced in the package before you today.

These funding cuts are made as a result of program terminations or delays, changes to policy or programs since submission of the budget over a year ago, inadequate justification, authorization adjustments, or corrections to poor fiscal discipline.

For instance, the bill cuts nearly $2 billion out of the Joint Strike Fighter program due to production and testing delays. Over $450 million is deleted from the bill due to the termination of the non-line of sight launch system.

The bill rescinds $1.2 billion from prior year funding in 45 different programs due to poor execution, delays or terminations. The list goes on and on.

This is a fair bill for the Department of Defense. It is a bipartisan compromise between responsibly reducing defense spending while at the same time providing for our men and women in uniform that are fighting a war in Afghanistan, winding down operations in Iraq, and operating around the globe to protect this Nation's security.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, the continuing resolution we introduce today, which is $51 billion below the President's budget request, imposes responsible cuts and terminations across a wide variety of programs. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate proposal will allow the government to continue operating at reduced levels without major disruptions that would set back our economic recovery and eliminate countless American jobs.

The House-passed CR would cut $51 billion more than the Senate measure, with the vast majority of cuts coming from nondefense spending. The House bill would jeopardize our economic recovery at a critical time, and severely disrupt the ability of Federal agencies to carry out even their most basic functions. If enacted in its current form, the House bill would lead to furloughs and to premature termination or postponement of contracts that will end up costing taxpayers additional dollars in the future. The House bill would cause backlogs in Social Security claims, undermine nuclear weapons safety, remove more than 200,000 children from of Head Start, and close poison control centers across America. These are just a few specific examples of the irresponsible nature of the House Republican bill as a whole.

The Senate has put forward a reasonable, fiscally responsible bill that will reduce funding at a rate that is $51 billion below the President's budget request. This bill is a good faith effort to meet in the middle. It is now time to end political gamesmanship and stop gambling with people's lives and livelihoods. I urge our counterparts in the House to engage in a constructive dialogue with us that will end the current budget stalemate.

Madam President, this is the fifth time this fiscal year that I have urged the Senate to support a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government running. CRs are inefficient and hamstring our agencies and departments, especially the Department of Defense in a time of war. A CR funds programs that should be terminated and does not fund programs that need to be initiated. There is only one advantage to a CR--it is better than the alternative, a government shutdown.

The House has proposed a 2-week continuing resolution, which would keep the government operating through March 18. The proposal includes $4 billion in cuts, many of which were recommended by the President in his fiscal year 2012 budget request. Clearly, the 2-week extension in this CR does not provide sufficient time to hammer out a final agreement. At this point, however, it would appear that the only alternative is a government shutdown. This is an unacceptable outcome-- the consequences for our economy and the American people would be severe. As a result, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that we should pass this extension quickly and send it to the President for his signature.

As things stand today, I believe that we will find ourselves in the same place 2 weeks from now. I am not optimistic that there will be sufficient time to work out a final deal that will pass the House and Senate prior to March 18. I hope I am wrong, but the reality is that the two Houses remain far apart and the negotiations will be long and intense. By accepting this extension, Senate Democrats have demonstrated a good faith effort to work with our House and Senate Republican counterparts on a reasonable compromise that will end the current budget stalemate. Let us hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to meet us half way as we move forward with these critical negotiations in the weeks to come.

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

Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee will not oppose this amendment not because we think it is a good idea--it is not--but

because this amendment does nothing that is not already covered by title X of the bill.

Sadly, this is the kind of amendment that took up far too much of the Senate's time and effort in the last session, and none of it with any discernable value to the American people.

Specifically, we asked CBO to score this amendment and they said they could not. They pointed out that the definition provided in the amendment did not exist 9 years ago; consequently, there are no earmarks older than 9 years that meet this definition. So any claims that this amendment saves the American taxpayer money is simply not substantiated by CBO.

Mr. President, we took the further step of asking agencies across the Federal Government if they could tell us what is out there that could possibly meet the Coburn standard. There are indeed a few projects at the Department of Transportation, but they are already covered by title X of the underlying bill.

Outside of the Department of Transportation, we discovered that there are a few sewer grants still on the books, but they total less than $5 million.

And outside of those two agencies, there may be anecdotal evidence of an earmark here or an earmark there, but that is it. Meanwhile, I note that this amendment as well as title X may well end up costing the American taxpayer more than the amendment claims to save.

The requirement that OMB must create and administer a database and maintain it on its Web site costs money, not to mention the time and labor necessary to establish the criterion for what defines a Congressional earmark for the purposes of this amendment.

In the spirit of President Obama, I will not take this opportunity to relitigate our past debates over the worthiness of Congressionally directed spending requests.

Since my announcement of a moratorium on earmarks this year, it is no surprise to me to see a number of press reports about the communities across the country that are now finding themselves without resources they urgently need.

However, I must say, in the spirit of our many past debates over earmarks, that I find this amendment to be duplicative, ineffective, and a potential waste of the taxpayers' dollars. And if it had come up for a vote, I would most certainly have voted no.

We have serious financial issues before us, and we need to get to work.

Mr. President, it is a somewhat poorly kept secret that many of the successes of government are attributable to those who work outside of the limelight. While Senators, Cabinet Secretaries, and even the generals in our military are the public face of the policies of the United States, behind every leader is a cadre of dedicated and knowledgeable civil servants.

Today I wish to call out one name in particular. Ellen Maldonado, a professional staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, will soon be retiring after 30 years of government service. Ellen joined the Defense Subcommittee in 2006, brought onboard by my friend and former colleague, Senator Ted Stevens. The subcommittee, and in fact the Senate as a whole, was fortunate to find someone with such a wealth of talent and experience in the complex field of budgeting for our Armed Forces.

Ellen has worked at every level of the budgeting workforce for our military establishment. She began her career as a program analyst at the Naval Ship Research and Development Center in Carderock, MD, and rapidly progressed through the ranks in critical budgeting positions both inside and outside the beltway. Some of her most rewarding positions outside of Washington have included service at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, and even the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru.

Inside the Pentagon, Ellen worked on an impressive array of budgeting issues. From revising the Army's reprogramming process to programming for military health care, from reviewing defense research and development programs to developing emergency spending requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, she has earned the respect of all of those around her. She has won a reputation of being an expert on the most arcane points of the Financial Management Regulations, as well as understanding the details of highly complex weapons systems. Ellen has been recognized for her outstanding achievements by being awarded both the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Service and the Exceptional Civilian Service Award.

Ellen's career at the Pentagon culminated in her 2005 appointment as the Director for Investment for the Comptroller of the Department of Defense. In this position, she was responsible for overseeing the budget for every stage of developing, testing, and procuring equipment for all of the military services. This position brought her into regular contact with the highest levels of the Department of Defense, as well as Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.

It is extremely fortunate for the Committee on Appropriations that we managed to lure her away from this important position in 2006. While serving on the Defense Subcommittee, Ellen has excelled in reviewing the budget proposals on critical Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and intelligence programs. She has tackled some of the greatest national security challenges facing our country today, including an in- depth investigation into our government's cyber security efforts and exhaustive reviews of the Nation's most expensive military program in history, the Joint Strike Fighter. Her impressive track record made her a natural pick to join President Obama's transition team at the Department of Defense in 2008 and 2009.

While I could continue to list her professional successes, one cannot comment on her career without saying a few words on her outstanding character. Ellen combines a sunny disposition with a deep-rooted sense of fairness. She is a true master of her field, and always eager to share her knowledge and experience with her colleagues. While consistently a good steward of the taxpayer's money, her patriotism has insured that the welfare of the men and women serving in uniform has always been foremost in her mind. And finally, everyone who knows Ellen also knows of her remarkable and touching relationship with her husband, Rob. They are truly a magical couple, and I understand that they have plans to travel the world later this year.

Ellen Maldonado has had an outstanding career in three decades of service in the Department of Defense and the Senate. On behalf of the whole Committee on Appropriations, I wish to thank Ellen for her tireless and outstanding work on behalf of the members of the Armed Forces, her colleagues, and the people of the United States. I wish Ellen and Rob all the very best in their future plans.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Levin amendment, which I believe is a far superior alternate to the Stabenow amendment as it currently stands. The amendment offered today by Senator Stabenow proposes to rescind $44 billion from unobligated balances of appropriated funds that are designated for specific purposes in various appropriations bills previously enacted by Congress. The Senator offers these rescissions in order to offset the loss of revenues resulting from an amendment.

This amendment is a perfect representation of what I expect to be a flood of similar amendments and stand-alone bills that seek to eviscerate the nondefense functions of the Federal Government. With the exception of the proposal from the junior Senator from Kentucky, which had the courage to list each and every cut he proposed, I expect many other bills and amendments will be blanket rescissions that leave it to the executive branch to decide how the taxpayers' moneys will be spent. These bills and amendments turn the constitutional separation of powers on its head and provide a terribly dangerous precedent.

In the specific case of the Stabenow amendment, it simply provides for generic rescission of funds, with the authority and decisionmaking on the programs to be impacted delegated entirely to the executive branch. Rescinding funds in this manner, as pointed out by Senator Levin, may be politically convenient as it simply cites the top line number of $44 billion, but it is also thoughtless and rash. It will serve to shelter those who vote in its favor from the righteous anger of Americans whose lives are disrupted when important and, in some cases, vital projects and programs are shut down as they inevitably will be, should the amendment be agreed to.

I can also promise that if this amendment is enacted into law, the force of these cuts will be felt in each of the 50 States, and the capricious nature of the cuts will only deepen the pain.

I know that because we are in the middle of the second quarter of the fiscal year operating under a CR. Consequently, as I explained in November, the only unobligated balances remaining outside of those for operating under a CR in 2011 are those accounts that have slow spend rates, such as construction and infrastructure accounts. That is why it is taking $44 billion in rescissions to pay for a $19 billion problem. As a result, we will be cutting deeply into our nondefense discretionary programs without congressional guidance and without any analysis of the ultimate costs and impacts. This approach is simply irresponsible.

While we cannot say with certainty what the cuts will be because the executive branch will have complete authority over what programs will be impacted, I believe the following cuts are likely: State and local law enforcement will face cuts of $200 million to $300 million in grant programs, including $82 million in Violence Against Women grants, $81 million in Byrne and other Office of Justice grants, and $10 million in Juvenile Justice grants. Cutting these grant funds will take funding from programs already expected to be awarded, and will fall particularly hard on States with large problems with crime.

A cut of $95 million from the DEA would mean halting efforts to go after and take down Mexican drug cartels, to enforce narcoterrorist investigations, and information sharing, and to address emerging technologies used by drug traffickers. The TSA stands to lose $674 million of funds to procure and install over 200 explosive detecting systems at airports across the Nation.

Finally, the U.S. Marshals would face a cut of $48.7 million, bringing an end to courthouse security equipment projects and also halting Marshals' operations in the Southwest border where they engage in activities such as tracking fugitives.

Supporters of the Stabenow amendment would claim that I am using scare tactics, painting a dark picture when the real cuts are not as devastating.

How can anyone stand here and claim we can cut $44 billion and not have it hurt our States and our constituents? This amount is equivalent to funding the entire Department of Homeland Security, which covers everything from the Coast Guard to FEMA, from the Secret Service to the Border Patrol.

No one denies that waste, fraud, and abuse exist and that we need to continue to enact reforms that will lesson waste, convict those who would defraud the government, and eliminate abuses of programs that are designed to help those who need it most. But if this amendment is signed into law, then 60 days later we will all get a harsh reminder that campaigning against waste, fraud, and abuse is not the same thing as implementing a policy that cuts billions of dollars in useful spending. These rescissions will hurt individuals, they will hurt communities and jeopardize safety of life and our security.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that if this amendment is enacted, we cannot stop rescissions of unobligated balances from a single account we may view as vital because the amendment gives sole decisionmaking power in identifying cuts to the executive branch.

I will say this again. This amendment is not in the best interests of the Senate, it is not in the best interests of our democratic priorities, and it is certainly not in the best interests of the American people.

If it is indeed the will of the Senate to eviscerate these critical programs, let's stop hiding behind generic rescissions. Let's instead support the Levin amendment, which offsets a revenue loss with a revenue gain, which eliminates unnecessary tax loopholes, and which will leave important national priorities intact.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps. As a proud supporter of the officers, enlisted, and civilian personnel of the Army Nurse Corps, I am pleased that we are recognizing their contributions to our Army and our great Nation.

Since 1901, Army nurses have demonstrated again and again their total commitment to the highest standards of military nursing excellence. Both men and women have served as Army nurses since 1775, but the Army Nurse Corps did not become a part of the Army Medical Department until 1901. The distinguished contributions of female contract nurses during and following the 1898 Spanish-American War became the justification and demonstrated the need for a permanent female nurse corps.

When the United States entered World War I in 1917, there were only 4,093 nurses on Active Duty. By November 1918, there were 21,460 Army nurses, with 10,000 serving overseas. During the war, nurses served primarily in base, evacuation, and mobile surgical hospitals in the United States, France, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. They also provided care on hospital trains in France and transport ships carrying wounded home across the Atlantic. Approximately 270 nurses lost their lives in the conflict.

When the United States entered World War II, fewer than 7,000 nurses were on Active Duty. By 1945, more than 57,000 Army nurses were assigned to hospital ships and trains, flying ambulances, field hospitals, evacuation stations, and general hospitals at home and overseas. In Europe, Army nurses assisted in developing the concept of recovery wards for immediate postoperative nursing care. Military nursing gained a greater understanding of the process of shock, blood replacement, and resuscitation. Air evacuation from the combat zone by fixed-wing aircraft brought patients to definitive treatment quickly. Army flight nurses helped to establish the incredible record of only 5 deaths in flight per 100,000 patients.

Nurses endured hardships caring for their patients. In May 1942, with the fall of Corregidor in the Philippines, 67 Army nurses became Japanese prisoners of war. During the 37-month captivity, the women endured primitive conditions and starvation rations. Yet they continued to care for the ill and injured in the internment hospital. On Anzio, nurses dug their foxholes outside their tents and cared for patients under German shellfire. Their example bolstered the spirits of the soldiers who shared the same tough experience. By war's end, 215 brave nurses died for their country.

Army nurses once again played a major role in support of combat troops when President Truman ordered U.S. forces into Korea in June 1950. Army nurses cared for combat troops during the landing on Inchon; the advance across the 38th parallel into North Korea; the amphibious landing on the east coast of Korea; the drive toward the Yalu River; and the retreat to the 38th parallel. Throughout the Korean war, 540 Army nurses served on the embattled peninsula.

Mobility and increased patient acuity characterized service in Vietnam. Evacuation by helicopter brought wounded to medical units located within minutes flying time of the battlefield. The UH-1H helicopter ambulance, nicknamed the ``Dustoff,'' not only transported patients from battle locations 50 percent faster than in Korea but also provided triage and resuscitative services for casualties. Trauma care specialization, as well as shock trauma units, developed from this experience. The ``chain of evacuation'' from Vietnam was extraordinary. A soldier could be wounded on the battlefield one day and 2 days later be in an Army hospital in the continental United States. In Vietnam, of the nearly 5,000 Army Nurses who served in 44 hospitals, 8 women made the ultimate sacrifice for their Nation.

During Operation Desert Storm, approximately 2,200 nurses served in 44 hospitals. Two of every three nurses in the Arabian Gulf were from the Army National Guard or Army Reserves. This was the first major conflict that DEPMEDS, Deployable Medical Systems, were used. Another unique feature was that Army hospital staff coexisted with host nation personnel in fixed facilities forming joint national professional organizations. Before, during, and after the 100-hour ground war, U.S. forces sustained a disease and nonbattle injury rate that was the lowest ever recorded in a conflict.

Recent years have seen Army nurses active throughout the world both in armed conflicts and humanitarian endeavors. In 1983, they supported combat troops in Grenada; in 1989 in Panama; and in 1991 in the Middle East. Since December 1995, Army nurses have been deployed with medical units in support of NATO alliance troops in Haiti, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Nurses have continued to serve proudly during relief efforts following natural disasters such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Today, the legacy of these military nurses lives on. Currently, Army nurses serve throughout the world in support of multiple overseas contingency operations.

Throughout its history, the Army Nurse Corps has earned the deep respect and gratitude of the American people because of its dedication to providing the best possible care to our soldiers and their families while serving our country in war and peace. Army nurses have unselfishly come to the aid of victims of disaster and disease throughout the world. Over time, the mission has grown broader. Yet there has been one constant--the devotion of the individual nurse in providing excellent nursing care.

Today, as soldiers serve our Nation, defending freedom across the globe, they can rest assured, should they get

injured or become ill, an Army nurse will be by their side, as they were there by my side during my hour of need.

Happy 110th anniversary, Army nursing.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act, which I also introduced in the 111th Congress. This critical bill reauthorizes and strengthens the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, a program that I was pleased to originally sponsor in the 106th Congress establishing the Coral Reef Conservation Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

Coral reefs are among the oldest and most economically and biologically important ecosystems in the world. They provide habitat for more than one million diverse aquatic species, a natural barrier for protection from coastal storms and erosion, and are a potential source of treatment for many of the world's diseases. From a commerce perspective, reef-supported tourism is a $30 billion industry worldwide, and the commercial value of United States fisheries from coral reefs is more than $100 million.

However, our coral reef ecosystems face many threats including pollution, climate change and coral bleaching, and overfishing to name a few. Coral reefs cover only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean floor, yet provide habitat for more than twenty-five percent of all marine species.

The original Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 recognized the need to preserve, sustain and restore the condition of these valuable coral reef ecosystems. The Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act of 2011 would strengthen NOAA's ability to comprehensively address threats to coral reefs and empower the agency with tools to ensure that damage to our coral reef ecosystems is prevented or effectively mitigated. It also establishes consistent practices for maintaining data, products, and information, and promotes the widespread availability and dissemination of that environmental information.

Finally, the bill allows the Secretary to further develop partnerships with foreign governments and international organizations-- partnerships that are critical not only to the understanding of our coral reef ecosystems, but also to their protection and restoration.

Thank you and I would urge you to support this important legislation to continue supporting NOAA's leadership role in coral reef conservation.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the need for inclusion of pharmacists in the National Health Services Corps, NHSC, student loan repayment program. It is imperative that our Nation focus its efforts on increased access to affordable, high quality healthcare for our Nation's underserved communities. Today's pharmacist graduates with a professional doctorate degree. My home State of Hawaii is home to our only school of pharmacy program located at the University of Hawaii at Hilo and this year will mark the school's very first graduating class. Pharmacists are vital to our intent of increasing access to patient-centered, team-based healthcare for all individuals. They collaborate with providers across the continuum of care to improve medication-use related outcomes, provides access to prevention and wellness screening that, among others, can reduce tobacco use and increase immunization rates all of which support provider effectiveness and organizational efficiencies. The integration of the pharmacist across the continuum of care helps increase access to primary and preventive care and allows for better management of chronic disease. Pharmacists support prescribers by focusing on the management of medications preventing adverse events that lead to avoidable emergency room visits and hospital admissions. This collaborative effort among healthcare providers helps improve clinical and economic outcomes and increases patient satisfaction with their care.

The current approach of recruiting and retaining primary care practitioners may limit access to robust patient-centered, team-based care by patients in underserved communities. Today over 88 percent of pharmacy students borrow over $107,000 to help them pay for their education. The incorporation of comprehensive pharmacy services in these particular communities is a primary objective of the Health Resources and Services Administration patient-safety and clinical pharmacy services collaborative. Making pharmacists eligible to participate in NHSC loan repayment program will ensure that the reorganization of our healthcare system envisioned in legislation, federal action, and community-based models all benefit from patient- centered, team-based models of care that integrate comprehensive pharmacy services.

I urge you to consider the benefits of including pharmacists in the NHSC student loan repayment program.

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

I am pleased to introduce my Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, Seafood Safety Act. The Seafood Safety Act will strengthen the partnership between the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to coordinate Federal activities for ensuring that commercially distributed seafood in the United States meets the food quality and safety requirements of Federal law. The bill provides for no new jurisdiction and does not alter any existing jurisdiction given to FDA or any other agency. The bill does not include any authorization of appropriations, but seeks only to strengthen existing partnerships and share information.

The bill remains largely unchanged since I first introduced it in the 110th Congress, but this version, like the one I introduced in the 111th, incorporates the FTC as an additional partner since they have broad existing authority for consumer and interstate commerce fraud issues.

Specifically, the bill requires the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, DHS, and the FTC to enter into agreements as necessary to strengthen cooperation on seafood safety, seafood labeling, and seafood fraud. Those agreements must address seafood testing and inspection; data standardization for seafood names; data coordination for the exportation, transportation, sale, harvest, or trade of seafood; seafood labeling compliance assurance; and information-sharing for observed non-compliance. The bill also increases the number of laboratories certified to inspection standards of the FDA and allows the Secretary of Commerce to increase the number and capacity of NOAA laboratories responsible for seafood safety testing. It allows for an increase in the percentage of seafood import shipments tested and inspected to improve detection of violations. Finally, the bill allows the Secretary of HHS to refuse entry of seafood imports from countries with known violations, and also allows the Secretary to permit individual seafood shipments from recognized and properly certified exporters.

For the safety of the American people, I remain committed to the Seafood Safety Act and look forward to continuing to work to ensure its passage.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act, which I also introduced in the 111th. This bill would harmonize the enforcement provisions of the U.S. statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to strengthen international fisheries enforcement.

Specifically it would grant the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard authority to implement international fisheries laws, expand their authorities in carrying out investigations and enforcement activities, and establish interference with investigations as a prohibited act. It would also amend the enforcement provisions of statutes for implementing international fisheries agreements to conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, while increasing both civil and criminal penalties for violating international fisheries laws.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to maintain and make public a list of vessels engaged in illegal, unregulated, and unreported, IUU, fishing and authorize appropriate action against listed vessels, which will hopefully allow for strong strides in our fight against illegal activity.

Finally, by creating an International Cooperation and Assistance Program that will provide assistance for international capacity building efforts, training, outreach, and education, it is my hope that we are able to more-successfully combat IUU fishing and promote international marine conservation.

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

There be no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in United States international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Seven years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108- 357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in United States domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, they are built in higher priced United States shipyards; do not receive Maritime Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading--but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade, Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes

ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing tax equity to the United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other United States flag international operations. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the U.S. Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I am reintroducing today will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, non-profit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing resulting in closures of non-profit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem, the Nation's non-profit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed hospital's quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that non-profit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. The study also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis, and that investments in technology and staffing leads to better care. In addition, it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of non-profit teaching hospitals is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 151-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. The Queen's Health Systems serve as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency program in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pathology, psychiatry, and is a clinical teaching facility for obstetrics-gynecology. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. The Queen's Health Systems operate the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs, for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital in the rural, economically depressed island of Molokai. Furthermore, the Queen's Health Systems annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code, these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Non- profit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as that of universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital cannot buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimates show that the provision with its general application will help a number of teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate has several times before acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act of 2003, which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the

Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

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

Mr. President, nearly 16 years ago I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Over a decade ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the

ottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28, Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000, Report of Hearing Officer.

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomi were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal; an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomi to cede the remainder of their traditional lands, some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago, and remove their nation west. For years, the Pottawatomi steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomi to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomi who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy- seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomi 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. However, the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomi sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomi moved westward, many of the Pottawatomi, particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty, refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomi who remained in the east with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed

by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

After learning of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomi, including most of the Wisconsin Band, vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomi were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864, 13 Stat. 172, Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949. Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties, Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. By the act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 380, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi that still remained in the east. In addition, Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2,007 Wisconsin Pottawatomi: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1,550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomi in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of the money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this Congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomi then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA, granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi from both sides of the border brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823, 1950. The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445, 1983. The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate, and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the Congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left an unfulfilled obligation, and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice, so long delayed, is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would establish a Native American Economic Advisory Council. This Council's primary duties would be to consult, coordinate, and make recommendations to Federal agencies for the purpose of improving the substandard economic conditions that exist in our Native communities.

Currently, there is no Council, and despite the Federal Government's ``trust'' relationship with Native American tribes, Native Americans themselves continue to rank lowest in quality of life standings. As a nation we need to preserve our Native communities as they are rich with cultural significance and living history.

Native communities are considered ``emerging economies'' that have stalled because of the current economic situation. This bill is an attempt to keep these communities moving by educating, empowering, and encouraging our future Native American leaders to create sustainable economic growth programs in their own communities.

In Hawaii, the cost of living ranges from 30 percent to 60 percent higher than the national average. We have to start planning for economic stability in the future and this bill provides an opportunity to do so. I look forward to working with my colleagues on reinvesting in our Nation's future.

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

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. Government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.

Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest in the Nation.

The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now enjoyed by other Americans.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to end space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation.

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