Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1879-S1889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking
about the importance of what we are doing with this bill and why
amendments ought to be allowed in order. I have a very specific
amendment I have filed that has to do with health care in this country.
Basically, it has to do with the health care of the most vulnerable in
this country, babies.
In the early 1980s, an epidemic of an unknown virus started in this
country.

[[Page S1880]]

We now know it as HIV/AIDS, and a lot of progress has been made in that
fight. During the Reagan Presidency, his AIDS Commission recommended
routine testing. That was in 1986. In 2005, the CDC finally recognized
the wisdom of that AIDS Commission recommendation, and it is now CDC
policy that routine testing from the ages of 17 to 64 be carried out on
everybody in this country who encounters health care.
The Ryan White bill, which was recently passed in the 109th Congress,
took note of those recommendations. And within the HIV community, there
has been debate about the CDC guidelines. But some of that was put to
rest on the basis of what we know has been an exemplary program in two
States that have all but eliminated HIV transmission to babies.
The policies in many States in this country require extensive
counseling before anybody can be tested. What was found by the CDC, and
many other organizations, is that a small number of people who are
pregnant will actually get tested. New York, led by a courageous
Democratic legislator by the name of Nettie Mayersohn, passed a law in
1996. In that year they had 500 babies born with HIV. In the last 2
years, since that law has been passed, they have had less than 7.
Now, what happened? What did they do? What they did was they used
commonsense public health, and they said: we test women who are
pregnant for lots of diseases antenatally so we can know how to handle
them and take care of their infant should they have one of those
problems. They applied that same common sense to HIV, and hundreds of
babies are born every year in New York who do not get HIV because
commonsense public health policies were applied.
It is very simple. If we know your HIV status, and you are positive,
99 percent of the time we can keep your child from getting HIV. There
is not hardly any other disease we have in obstetrics--and I am an
obstetrician--that is that effective.
What we have done in the bill before us is take away all the money
for that, take all the money away the CDC says now is the guideline,
their recommendation, the recommendation of the American Medical
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Why are we doing that? There is a claim it was an earmark. I will not
spend the time to bore everybody with the definition of an ``earmark.''
This came as part of the Enzi-Kennedy Ryan White bill because it is
good public health policy and it applies as an incentive to every State
out there to start doing something that will make a difference in
someone's life.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that HIV be
a routine testing procedure. Washington, DC, has a wonderful Director
of their AIDS Commission, Marsha Martin. Last June they started routine
testing in this city. This city has 3.5 percent, it would seem, of its
population infected with HIV--about three and half to four times the
rest of the Nation. They have identified almost 1,600 HIV patients.
Now, why is that important? The reason that is important is because
70 percent of the infections that are now occurring in HIV are
occurring in people who do not know they are infected. And if they do
not know they are infected, they will transmit the disease without
knowing they are transmitting it.
Before the Nettie Mayersohn law in New York State, only 62 percent of
the women who were pregnant knew their HIV status. After that, we are
at almost 96 percent. The difference is 500 babies a year born with HIV
versus 7--a very significant difference.
What does that mean in terms of the children? It means a life not
having a disease, not being stuck, not being given medicine, and having
a life expectancy of less than 25 years of age. That is what that
means.
So with that leadership in the State of New York, what has been
accomplished is 99 percent of the prenatal transmission of HIV has been
prevented. It also means those pregnant women who are HIV positive are
now being treated at a much earlier stage in their disease, which gives
them far greater--probably the same life expectancy as you or I because
of the tremendous advances in medicine. What we do know is the later
the diagnosis, the shorter their life expectancy and the higher the
cost.
Now, let me walk you through, for a minute, what others say about
this. CDC also recommends prenatal testing and treatment of newborns.
Here is what they have said:

Considering the potential for preventing transmission, no
child in this country should be born whose HIV status or
whose mother's status is unknown.

It costs $10 to test, it costs $75 to treat, to prevent 99 percent of
them. It makes a major difference in thousands of children's lives
every year. It makes a major difference in thousands and thousands of
women's lives every year to have this diagnosis.
What happens if we do not do it, if we do not encourage it? And this
part of the Ryan White Act was meant to incentivize States to move to
the CDC recommendation. It costs $10,000 a year to treat a newborn who
is infected with HIV.
One of the problems with this tremendous epidemic that we face is it
narrows in on a group of people, a large percentage of whom happen to
be African-American women. They account for two-thirds of the infection
in women yet are 13 percent of our population. How dare us take this
away.
Multiple organizations have supported this policy. The Early
Diagnosis Grant Program was established by the Ryan White HIV/AIDS
Treatment Modernization Act. It provides $30 million for grants that
will be utilized for States that become eligible to do the testing and
the treatment for both mothers and their infants.
To be eligible for the funds, they have to offer a voluntary opt-out
HIV testing program for pregnant women. They have to commit to
universal HIV testing of newborns when the HIV status of their mother
is unknown. They have to offer voluntary opt-out HIV testing of clients
at sexually transmitted disease clinics. And they have to offer
voluntary opt-out HIV testing of clients at substance abuse treatment
centers, where we know most of the disease tends to be seen.
This is current CDC policy--the people whom we trust to tell us what
to do. Funding for this grant is provided out of existing HIV moneys at
CDC, prevention funds that are already there, which they know will have
tremendous positive effects.
Now, think about it: 500 infants at $10,000 a year, every year.
Multiply it, multiply it, multiply it, and it only takes 4\1/2\ years
to spend $30 million if we do not do this. These funds are targeted for
those most at risk of infection, as well as those most likely to
benefit from treatment.
President Bush, in his budget, asked for this money to be directed as
well. So this is not something that does not have broad support, both
in the health community, with the President, and many of those most
active in the HIV community.
The point we should not forget is baby AIDS can be virtually
eliminated if expectant mothers with HIV are identified and treated for
HIV during their pregnancy. When treatment is provided during
pregnancy, labor, and delivery, and to infants after birth, the risk of
transmission goes down to less than 1 percent. Without treatment, 25
percent of the infants will become HIV infected.
But how do we treat? We cannot treat unless we know they have it. We
cannot know they have it unless they are tested. We cannot test unless
we have the incentives to test. So this creates the incentive programs
for States to copy what both New York and Connecticut did. Connecticut
has not had an HIV-infected baby since 2001.
They have eliminated it in Connecticut. Why should we not do the same
thing? Why should we disallow an amendment to restore this funding that
goes to the heart of those most vulnerable in our country? It also goes
to help those who are most disaffected, those who are on the poorer
spectrum, those who have less opportunity because that is where we see
more infection.
For the 1 percent who would not be cured, what we know is, we are
treating early. We are not waiting until they get the disease in a
full-blown state. What we know is, your likelihood of dying, if you are
diagnosed when your CD 4 count is below 50, exponentially goes up. So
early diagnosis with HIV is of paramount importance.

[[Page S1881]]

It also needs to be said that one out of every four people in this
country who have HIV don't know it. They have no knowledge that they
have it. That one out of four accounts for 70 percent of the new
infections in this country. So the CDC policy of frequent testing, opt-
out testing, more testing is a policy that makes absolute sense from a
public health perspective.
Because only a few States have similar laws to Connecticut and New
York, hundreds of babies will still become infected this year. To take
this money out, to say none of the money can be spent for this program,
condemns hundreds of newborn babies to a life of HIV infection and
AIDS. That is what this bill does. It condemns hundreds of babies in
this country to a life with HIV. It is a preventable disease. Why would
we do that? Why would we come anywhere close to that?
I mentioned Marsha Martin. Since last year, they started a policy of
routine frequent testing, and 16,000 individuals in Washington, DC,
have been tested. Five hundred eighty people who would not have
otherwise been tested have been diagnosed with HIV at a stage at which
we can save their life. Some of those were pregnant women. People say:
You don't need to do this. Why is it important for every woman to know
whether she is HIV positive or negative if she gives birth to a baby?
Because only 25 percent of the time does this virus get transmitted to
the baby at birth. But what they don't think about is, if they breast-
feed the baby, they will transmit the virus as well. So your baby may
not be infected at birth, but if you breast-feed your baby and you are
carrying HIV, it is a death sentence for the baby. So to not know your
status puts your baby at risk, even though it was not infected at
birth.
Here is what happened in Connecticut. They went from 28 percent of
the women who knew their HIV status before they passed the law to 90
percent of the women. What does that translate into? That translates
into saving lives, not just the women who were HIV positive who found
out and had early treatment but their children as well. Why would we
not want to incentivize the rest of the States to do what has been
successful in New York and Connecticut and several other States?
The health commissioner of New York is pushing to change State law to
make testing more convenient for patients and health care providers:

We are aggressively offering testing to patients who come
to us for routine physicals, heart disease, a sprained ankle.
We are lessening the stigma sometimes associated with HIV and
helping connect many more HIV-positive individuals with early
treatment.

Here is the other difference I would hope the esteemed Members of the
Senate would recognize. By doing early testing, the cost to treat is
$10,000 a year. By doing late testing, the cost to treat is $40,000 a
year, with much more in terms of complications. Again, to test costs
$10, to treat a newborn is $75, versus $10,000 a year at a minimum.
Women, children, and African Americans will be most affected by the
termination of this program. Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic,
African Americans have accounted for almost 400,000 of the estimated 1
million AIDS diagnoses in our country. According to the 2000 census,
African Americans made up 13 percent of our population. However, in
2005, 49 percent of the estimated 40,000 new cases were African
American. It is 24 times the rate in African-American women than it is
in white women. Why would we not want to intercede with testing to save
their lives?
Between 120 and 160,000 women in the United States are infected with
HIV. In 2001, the National Congress of Black Women issued a report
entitled ``African American Women and the HIV/AIDS Initiative,'' that
outlined that group's strategy to combat HIV/AIDS among black women.
Among their recommendations: Every State should be required to screen
all pregnant women for HIV and test all newborns for the virus and
Congress should appropriate funds for such initiatives. Every year that
passes results in hundreds of more cases of baby AIDS that could have
been prevented.
Who supports doing this perinatal testing and treatment? The American
Medical Association, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, the
AIDS Health Care Foundation, the Children's AIDS Fund, multiple medical
groups, and, yes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
one agency we fund to tell us what we should do. It is their policy. We
are denying their policy. We are denying infants the right to live
without HIV.
Here is what they said:

Based on information presented in the MMWR, the available
data indicate that both ``opt-out'' prenatal maternal
screening and mandatory newborn screening achieve higher
maternal screening rates than ``opt-in'' prenatal screening.

The status quo.

Accordingly, CDC recommends that clinicians routinely
screen all women for HIV infection, using an ``opt-out''
approach and that jurisdictions with statutory barriers to
such prenatal screening consider revising them. In addition,
CDC encourages clinicians to test for HIV any newborn whose
mother's HIV status is unknown . . . CDC recommends rapid
testing of the infant immediately postpartum so that
antiretroviral prophylactics can be offered to HIV-exposed
infants.

Ninety-nine percent, we can prevent. We have taken out the capability
for other States what New York and Connecticut have done, and we are
refusing to allow the replacement of that to save the weakest and most
vulnerable in our country.
What are the claims we have heard? Here is the first claim: Even
without funding for this particular HIV testing grant program, Federal
funds will still be available for HIV testing. What is true is that
other Federal funds can provide HIV testing. As written, section
20613(b)(1) of this bill specifies that none of the funds appropriated
for 2007 can be used for any early diagnosis grants. This
would specifically forbid Federal funding for HIV testing of pregnant
women in any area--newborns, patients receiving treatment for substance
abuse, and those accessing services at STD clinics. These populations
include those most at risk for HIV, as well as those who can most
benefit from early treatment and intervention. It is counterintuitive
that this would be a part of this bill.

What are the activities that are supported by this $30 million that
are going to be prohibited, including HIV AIDS testing, including rapid
testing? It only costs $10. It precludes prevention counseling. It
excludes treatment of newborns exposed to HIV. It excludes treatment of
mothers infected with HIV or AIDS and the costs associated with linking
the diagnosis of AIDS to care and treatment for that disease. The $30
million instead will revert to other CDC HIV/AIDS program activities
which in recent years have included the following: Beachside
conferences, flirting classes, erotic writing seminars, zoo trips, and
other dubious initiatives that do not have any lifesaving impact or
near lifesaving impact as early diagnosis and treatment.
This $30 million is either going to be spent effectively or it is
going to be wasted. President Reagan's AIDS Commission was right. They
said it in 1986. The CDC caught up last year in 2005 to the policies
that were recommended to this Congress in 1985-1986.
Few, if any, States would benefit from the funding provided by this
program. The point of this program is to encourage States to update
their policies to reflect CDC's recommendations for HIV testing and
baby AIDS treatment. That is the whole purpose. That is part of the
whole Ryan White grant. It is to improve our approach to HIV, to
eliminate newborn infections, and to eliminate transmission from those
who don't know. While few States would immediately qualify for early
diagnosis grants, the availability of the funds was intended to get
them to move to the point where they would take advantage of that,
which means they would be saving hundreds of babies' lives every year
and protecting the lives of the mothers who were there to nurture them.
It makes no sense that we would prohibit money for this process.
Many States, including Illinois, are already moving in this
direction. States such as New York and Connecticut have had the
policies in place for over a decade. And the proof is there.
What is the other claim? This bill defunds all earmarks. The Early
Diagnosis Grant Program is an earmark and, therefore, has not been
singled out but has been removed, along with other special funding
projects.
Fact: The Early Diagnosis Grant Program is not an earmark. All States

[[Page S1882]]

with routine testing policies are eligible for the funding provided by
this grant. Those which are not currently eligible can become eligible
by passing the law or implementing State regulations to meet funding
eligibility.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the senior Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. May I inquire as to how much longer the distinguished
Senator will be speaking?
Mr. COBURN. About 10 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. If the Senator will yield further
momentarily, I ask the Chair, what is the parliamentary situation?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are in morning business. The
minority has 41 minutes; the majority has 66 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator for
yielding.
Mr. COBURN. This program doesn't match the definition or criteria of
an earmark approved by the Senate in January or used by the
Congressional Research Service. On January 16, 2007, the Senate
approved an amendment by a vote of 98 to zero, defining the term
``earmark'' as a provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Member, delegate, resident commissioner, or Senator,
providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority or spending authority
for a contract loan, loan guarantee, loan authority or other
expenditure with or to an entity or targeted to a specific State, a
specific locality or a specific congressional district, other than
through a statutory or administrative formally driven competitive war
process.
This doesn't come anywhere close to that definition. It doesn't meet
any of criteria that the Senate has defined as earmark. It is not
directed to any specific State, any entity, any location, and does not
bypass the statutory award process.
CRS defines an earmark as funds set aside with an account for
specific organization or location, either in the appropriations act or
the joint explanatory statement of the conference committee. CRS notes
that such designations generally bypass the usual competitive
distribution of awards by a Federal agency. This doesn't meet any of
that. It is hogwash to call this an earmark, and everybody knows it.
Everybody knows it.

Claim: This program would violate the privacy rights of women by
requiring mandatory HIV testing.
This doesn't require mandatory HIV testing. It offers women to have
testing and they can say, ``I don't want to be tested,'' rather than
for them to have to ask to be tested.
Current laws mandating extensive pre- and post-test counseling make
HIV testing the most overregulated diagnostic and thereby discourage
health providers from offering patients screening for HIV.
Testing newborns for HIV is too little too late. That is the other
point I have heard. The science doesn't support that at all. If the
baby has HIV antibiotics, 99 percent of the time we can prevent them
from becoming infected. Of those who do, the 1 percent who do become
infected, we can treat so much better by knowing it at an early stage.
We can extend their life for years at less than $40,000 a year, at
$10,000 a year. By not knowing and waiting until their CD4 counts come
down precipitously low, we go from $10,000 a year in treatment to
$40,000 a year in treatment.
I will finish with a couple of comments.
In the early eighties, I delivered a little girl. Her name was Megan.
Two years later, her mother re-presented to me with full-blown AIDS.
The mother died 3 weeks later. Megan lived an additional 8 years.
Had we done this and had we known to have done this, Megan would be
alive and flourishing. Her mother would be alive with HIV. Megan would
have never gotten HIV.
I will never have that little girl's face removed from my memory. We,
by this bill and not allowing the reestablishment, are creating
thousands of Megans in this country--thousands, thousands. If this body
wants that on their shoulders, continue what we are doing today. But if
we claim to be here to help the helpless, to put in place policies
that, No. 1, the best of the science tells us are the right policies,
and No. 2, makes a massive difference in individual lives, then make in
order this amendment to restore this money. By not doing so, you walk
out of here condemning hundreds of infants, thousands of infants to
death, at worst, and a life on medicines for the rest of their life.
You also condemn a large group of African-American women to the lack
of knowledge and the lack of effective drugs that can give them a
normal life. You can decide. The power is on the majority side. They
get to decide this issue. But you dare not come back into this Chamber
saying that you care for children, that you care for minorities, and at
the same time have gutted one of the programs that will give hope to
those same groups of people. You can't have it both ways. You can't
single out good medicine, good public health care, and true compassion
for those most at risk, and then come back and claim you care.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for how long am I recognized?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has under morning
business up to 65 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, today marks the 136th day of the fiscal year. The
fiscal year is over one-third complete. We will be debating House Joint
Resolution 20, a joint funding resolution for the nine remaining
appropriations bills that were not completed during the 109th Congress.
The Republican leadership during the 109th Congress left us with a
great deal of unfinished appropriations business. Only 2 of the 11
appropriations bills were enacted into law; 13 of the 15 Federal
Departments are struggling to cope with a very restrictive continuing
resolution which expires at midnight this coming Thursday.
As I noted last week, this was not the fault of the Appropriations
Committee. Under the able leadership of Chairman Thad Cochran, all of
the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills were reported from the
committee by July 20. All--a-l-l--all of the bills were bipartisan
bills approved by unanimous votes. Unfortunately, the Republican
leadership of the 109th Congress chose not to bring domestic
appropriations bills to the floor before the election and then chose
not to finish those bills after the election. Instead, Congress passed
a series of restrictive continuing resolutions.
If Congress were to simply extend the existing continuing
resolutions, we would leave huge problems for veterans and military
medical care, for education programs, law enforcement programs, funding
for global AIDS, funding for energy independence, and funding for
agencies that provide key services to the elderly, such as the Social
Security Administration and the 1-800-Medicare call center.
In December, the new House of Representatives appropriations
chairman, David Obey, and I plotted a bipartisan and bicameral course
for dealing with this problem. Based on that plan, there were intense
negotiations--intense negotiations--in January which included the
majority and the minority in the House and the Senate.
I, as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, consulted with
several Senators, and especially with Senator Thad Cochran, several
times during that process, and his ranking members and their staffs
were included throughout the process.
The resolution that is now before the Senate is the product of these
efforts. The resolution, which totals $463.5 billion, meets several
goals. Let me repeat the figure: $463.5 billion. That would be $463.50
for every minute that has passed since our Lord, Jesus Christ, was
born.
Get this. These are the goals: First, funding stays within the $873.8
billion statutory cap on spending, the cap which was set during the
109th Congress and which equals the President's request.
Second, the legislation does not--does not--include earmarks. We
eliminated over 9,300 earmarks. Hopefully, the ethics reform bill will
establish greater transparency and accountability in the earmarking
process. Once the ethics reform bill is in place, we will establish a
more open, disciplined,

[[Page S1883]]

and accountable process for congressional directives in the fiscal year
2008 bill.
Third, there is no--there is no--emergency spending in this
resolution.
Finally--finally--essential national priorities receive a boost in
the legislation. To help pay for these priorities, we cut over $11
billion from 125 different accounts and we froze spending at the 2006
level for 450 accounts. These national priorities have broad bipartisan
support, as noted in the White House Statement of Administration
Policy. Many of these increases reflect administration priorities.
For veterans care, we include $32.3 billion, an increase of $3.6
billion over the fiscal year 2006 level. For defense health
initiatives, we include $21.2 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion over
fiscal year 2006. To provide care for military members and their
families, including treating servicemembers wounded in action in Iraq
and Afghanistan, for the Labor, HHS, and Education bill, funding is
increased by $2.3 billion.
Title I grants for our schools are funded at $12.8 billion, an
increase of $125 million over fiscal year 2006, which will provide
approximately 38,000 additional low-income children with intensive
reading and math instruction. The legislation also funds the title I
school improvement fund at $125 million to target assistance to the
6,700 schools that failed to meet No Child Left Behind requirements in
the 2005-2006 school year. For the first time in 4 years, we will have
an increase in the maximum Pell higher education grant from $260 to
$431.
The National Institutes of Health are funded at $28.9 billion, an
increase of $620 million over fiscal year 2006.
Three hundred million dollars is included for the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Administration. Let me say that again. Three hundred million
dollars is included for the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Administration, an increase of $23 million over fiscal year 2006, to
allow the agency to continue its national efforts to hire and train new
mine safety inspectors for safety in the Nation's 2,000 coal mines.
The legislation increases funding for Federal, State, and local law
enforcement by $1.6 billion. According to the FBI, last year violent
crime rose--went up--in America for the first time in 15 years.
Under the continuing resolution now in law, highway funding is
frozen--frozen--at the 2006 level. Under this joint funding resolution,
the Federal-Aid Highway Program is fully funded at the level guaranteed
in the highway law.
The joint resolution includes $4.8 billion for global AIDS and
malaria programs, an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year 2006.
Last week there was debate concerning the level of funding for the
2005 base closure and realignment program. The resolution that is
before the Senate provides $2.5 billion for the base closure and
realignment 2005 program. This level is $1 billion--I say again--this
level is $1 billion higher than the level available in the current
continuing resolution the President signed on December 9. However, this
level is $3.1 billion below the level requested by the President. I
assure all Senators that the Appropriations Committee, of which I have
the honor of being chairman, intends to address the $3.1 billion
increase when the Senate takes up the $100 billion supplemental the
President sent to the Congress last week. Last week. I have every
expectation that the supplemental will be before the Senate next month.
This being February, I have every expectation that the supplemental
will be before the Senate next month.
Now, let me take a moment to review how we came to be where we are on
funding the base closure account. Last year, under the very able and
competent leadership of Chairman Thad Cochran, Senator Hutchison, and
Senator Feinstein, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out the
Military Construction bill on July 20, which was over 6 months ago, and
the bill included $5.2 billion for the base closure account.
Unfortunately--I say unfortunately--that bill was never sent to the
President. The President triggered the problem when he vowed to veto
the fiscal year 2007 Defense bill unless the Senate added $5 billion--
$5 billion; that is $5 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$5
billion to the Senate version of the Defense bill. This is the same $5
billion the Senate Appropriations Committee had put toward addressing
needs, such as funding the base closure account and funding veterans
medical care.
The Republican leadership of the 109th Congress followed the
President's lead, appropriated the $5 billion to the Defense bill, and
did not send to the President the Military Construction-Veterans bill
or eight of the other appropriations bills. Funding for BRAC was among
the many victims of that decision. Thus, and therefore, it was left to
the 110th Congress to solve the budgetary mess left by that decision.
While the extra $1 billion added to BRAC in this resolution does not
bring the program up to the level of the President's budget request, it
is sufficient--it is sufficient--to address one of the Defense
Department's most urgent BRAC priorities; namely, the construction of
facilities needed to bring U.S. troops back from Europe. The remaining
$3.1 billion for the base closure effort can and will be addressed
through the supplemental next month.
This is not a perfect resolution, but it is a thoughtful resolution.
By complying with the statutory cap on spending, it is a fiscally
disciplined resolution. By eliminating earmarks, it provides Congress
with time to pass ethics reform legislation to increase transparency
and accountability. By targeting resources toward national priorities,
such as veterans and military medical care, we--the pronoun ``we''--
solve the most distressing of the problems created by the existing
continuing resolution.
Now, looking ahead to the fiscal year 2008 bill, I am committed to
working with my friend and colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, the ranking
member from Mississippi, to bring--hear me--to bring 12 individual
bipartisan and fiscally responsible fiscal year 2008 appropriation
bills to the floor. When? When? This year.
However, on this, the 136th day of fiscal year 2007, adoption of
House Joint Resolution 20 will ensure that we answer some of our
Nation's most pressing needs and avoid an unnecessary Government
shutdown. It is time to act. I urge swift--not Tom Swift, but swift
adoption of the resolution.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning
business be dispensed with, that the Senate resume consideration of
H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania, I object.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I came to the Senate yesterday to spend
several hours speaking to the Senate to describe the loss of a program
critical to rural counties in my State. The Secure Rural School and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 benefits more than Oregon. In
fact, there are 38 other States and 700 counties nationwide that are
affected. The safety net program it embodies protected 8.5 million
schoolchildren, 557,000 teachers, and 18,000 schools from Washington
State to California to Mississippi and West Virginia. That safety net
was removed through expiration last September.
Last week, I filed an amendment to the continuing resolution that
would have extended the Secure Rural School and Community Self-
Determination Act by 1 year. This time is needed to keep these 700
counties whole while Congress writes and enacts a longer term program.
Yesterday, I was allowed to speak but not as long as I had hoped to
speak. In fairness to other colleagues and at the request of the
majority leader, I ended up only taking up a couple of hours. I thought
it was necessary yesterday and, still, to describe fairly the severe
impacts the expiration of the

[[Page S1884]]

Secure Rural School Fund will have upon my State and upon many others.
Likewise, the amendment tree has been filled to prevent the Senate from
considering amendments such as mine.
The CR is critical to my State and others to have this amendment on
it simply because of the operation of time. There is one other vehicle
coming up--the emergency supplemental--that could also serve to
mitigate the damage which is being done. But that bill is not expected
to pass until sometime in April. Between now and then, thousands of
public employees will be laid off. Public libraries will be closed,
public services curtailed, public safety put in jeopardy.
While this bill will keep the Federal Government afloat, the most
basic elements of our extended democracy in places such as Oregon will
be in peril. That is not fair. It is not something I will condone or
bless with my vote on this bill.
I will continue to come to the Senate and speak to this, even after
cloture is invoked, to try to appeal to my colleagues that this
continuing resolution, which is the continued work product of the 109th
Congress, should include this indispensable provision, this funding,
that is so vital to the most basic services which Government is called
upon to provide.
Some may wonder why we are at this juncture, why it has taken so
long, where there has been no action. As a former Member of the
majority, I cannot begin to count the numbers of meetings I attended,
pleading the case of my State, asking for consideration and being met
with warm words but no commitments. My colleague now, Senator Wyden, is
undertaking nobly to do the same thing as a Member of the current
majority. Together, we are both committed to doing everything that is
possible, that this business not be left undone because it is so
critical to the State of Oregon and others.
It affects Oregon disproportionately because the formula for the
Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act was based on
historic timber levels. Many Americans do not realize that Oregon is
over half owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government
created the western expansion in large measure because of the Railroad
Act, incentivizing people to go and settle. California had the gold,
but Oregon had the green gold in the form of timber, logs, raw material
for building homes and structures throughout America and, frankly,
throughout the world.
The relationship that was developed between Oregon and the Federal
Government was based upon timber. Because local and State governments
are constitutionally prohibited from taxing the Federal Government, the
Federal Government realized, as the greatest landowner, it had to
provide some opportunity for local communities to have things such as
schools, paved roads, police officers, and the like, the things which
are normally in the general funds of counties. What it did, when the
Federal Government would put up timber for sale, it would do it on a
bid basis; 75 percent of the money received from bidding Federal timber
would come to Washington, DC; 25 percent would go to the local
communities. This was in lieu of property taxes because they had no
other recourse to tax the Federal Government. This went on for well
over 100 years and it worked wonderfully.
But the ethic in the United States has changed as it relates to the
harvesting of trees and the extraction of natural resources. The
spotted owl was held up as an emblem that its survival was imperiled by
the harvesting of trees. After 15 years of the Endangered Species Act
listing of the spotted owl, it has now become clear the threat to the
spotted owl was not logging; it was, in fact, the barred owl, which is
not native to Oregon but which eats the spotted owl. In addition to
that because timber harvest was ended on public lands, we now suffer
extraordinary nonhistoriclike wildfires that consume millions of acres,
destroying spotted owl habitat.
But in all of this, through the decade of the 1990s, President
Clinton generously recognized the forest policies he had implemented
were doing great harm to rural communities, to timber-dependent towns,
so we established the Secure Rural School and Community Self-
Determination Act. In establishing that, it made up the difference, a
bandaid, if you will, until we could write Federal timber policy in a
way that would allow for these communities to survive in the interim.
President Bush was elected to office. He has tried mightily, through
the Healthy Forest Initiative, through supporting and, for the first
time, funding the Northwest Forest Act, to try to free up timber so the
funds are not necessary. But despite his best efforts, the courts and
the laws of Congress have prevented that from occurring.
So with the expiration of this act, we desperately need its
continuance, its reenactment, as we continue to work to rebalance the
environmental and economic equation.
The irony is we are losing spotted owls through natural predation and
through catastrophic wildfire. And all of the 30,000 jobs lost in my
State--family wage jobs--those have not been replaced and Americans
still need timber.
So where do we get our timber? We get it from Canada. Canada has
spotted owls as well. But what Canada does to fill the void America
created for American consumers is to overcut its lands without near the
environmental protections we have on our own forest lands. As a result
of that, the question ought to be asked: Does the spotted owl know the
difference between the border of the United States and the Canadian
border? I believe the answer is no.
As science and evidence is proving more all the time, the peril to
the spotted owl is not humankind, it is its own kind, the barred owl,
and then, of course, catastrophic wildfire.
Congress needs to live up to this. This is an obligation that comes
when the Federal Government, as the biggest land owner, has said you
can't cut trees. But when it says you can't cut trees, that comes with
a cost. It is a cost with a price, and it is a price which the Federal
Treasury owes as a matter of a moral obligation.
The time to act is now. Yes, we can wait for the emergency
supplemental, but if we do, much of the damage will already have begun
to take place. It is not necessary that we wait. It is necessary that
we act now. That is my appeal. That is my message. That will continue
to be the reason why I come to the Senate to inform my colleagues of
this problem and of this moral obligation. If we can't have the
resources in terms of dollars, then allow Oregonians to restore its
timber industry so it can produce jobs, produce timber, produce the tax
base so these communities can live. It is basic fairness.
The time to show it is now on the continuing resolution, at this time
and today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am out here again today to urge the
Senate to pass the bipartisan joint funding resolution that is before
us. It is H.J. Res. 20. As I mentioned yesterday evening when I was out
here on the Senate floor, President Bush's Transportation Secretary,
Mary Peters, testified before us last week that we will see ``drastic
consequences'' if we fail to pass this funding resolution that is now
in front of us. We are going to see painful cuts to aviation safety,
highway safety, and highway construction. I also can tell my colleagues
we will see painful and unnecessary cuts in housing, law enforcement,
and veterans health care.
I want to make sure every Senator understands the importance of the
vote

[[Page S1885]]

we are going to have and understands the difference between the
continuing resolution that our Government is currently running on and
the joint funding resolution, H.J. Res. 20, that we are currently
debating.
If we fail to pass H.J. Res. 20, the bill before us, and, instead,
extend the current continuing resolution for the rest of this year, we
are going to see families across this country lose their housing. We
are going to see airline safety inspectors who are furloughed. We are
going to see air traffic controllers who will be furloughed, highway
construction will be cut, and, as a result, some States are going to
have to wait until the next construction season to deal with very
critical safety and congestion problems.
In short, failing to pass H.J. Res. 20, the issue before us, we are
going to hurt our communities severely. That is why it is so important
we pass this resolution, which is a bipartisan bill, that has been very
carefully crafted to address the most critical funding shortfalls
across our entire Government. We have to pass H.J. Res. 20, and we need
to do it this week, by this Thursday.
Communities across our country need more help in fighting crime, and
that is one reason we have to pass this joint funding resolution.
Without this resolution, without this bill, our State and local law
enforcement will be cut by $1.2 billion. The joint funding resolution
we have before us will prevent that drastic cut, and our resolution
adds money for Byrne grants and COPS grants, providing a $176 million
increase over last year for those two programs. That money will go
straight to our local communities to help them fight crime.
When I go home and sit down with our law enforcement officials in my
home State of Washington, they tell me they need more help from all of
us in the Federal Government.
A few months ago, I was out in Yakima, WA, listening to our local law
enforcement officials talk about their tremendous efforts to fight meth
and gangs. They told me that Byrne grants are absolutely critical to
their efforts.
There is a huge difference for Byrne grant funding under a continuing
resolution--that we would be under if we do not pass this joint funding
resolution--and the joint funding resolution. Under the joint funding
resolution, the Byrne Grant Assistance Program is funded at $519
million. That is an increase of $108.7 million over fiscal year 2006.
Under our bill, the COPS Program is funded at $541.7 million. That is
an increase of $67.9 million over fiscal year 2006.
Those programs are exactly the type of support that our local law
enforcement officials need. But they will only get that--they will only
get that--if we pass the joint funding resolution that is now before
the Senate.
Our resolution also supports national efforts to fight crime. Under a
continuing resolution, the FBI would have to lay off 4,000 special
agents. Let me repeat that for my colleagues. If we go under a
continuing resolution and fail to pass the funding resolution that is
before us, the FBI will have to lay off 4,000 special agents.
Now, at a time when violent crime is rising, when robberies are up
nearly 10 percent nationwide, when the FBI is working very hard to
fight crime, do we really want to lay off 4,000 FBI agents? Of course
not. That is why the resolution provides the FBI with an additional
$216 million over fiscal year 2006. That means the FBI will not have to
lay off those special agents if we pass this funding resolution. If we
do not pass H.J. Res. 20, those FBI agents will be furloughed, sitting
at home, unpaid, rather than out working to fight crime.
Also the Justice Department's Violence Against Women office is funded
at $382.5 million in our resolution. That is nearly $1 million over
their funding of fiscal year 2006, critical dollars for a very
important initiative to fight violence against women.
The joint funding resolution will also help us to cut off funding to
terrorists. The Treasury Department today is working very hard to block
the flow of money to terrorists. Last year, Treasury hired new
intelligence analysts in that effort. Under a CR, those new analysts
would be furloughed. Talk about a step backwards in the fight against
terror. Our joint funding resolution, however, ensures that those
analysts will stay on the job and keep disrupting terror financing.
In short, we have to pass H. J. Res. 20 so we prevent cuts in local
law enforcement, so we prevent the layoffs of thousands of FBI agents,
and we keep our Federal law enforcement efforts on track. This vote
coming up is very critical. Either you vote to support funding law
enforcement at an appropriate level or you are voting to cut funding to
your local law enforcement community. That is the choice every Senator
will have to make.
America's veterans also have a great deal at stake when the Senate
votes on this joint funding resolution. I just came from a hearing with
VA Secretary Nicholson this morning. It is absolutely clear to me that
we are not doing enough yet to meet the needs of those who have served
our country so honorably. Veterans today are facing long lines for
health care. Veterans who need mental health care are being told they
have to wait to see a doctor. The VA is not prepared for the many
veterans who are coming home with serious physical challenges. We need
a VA budget for the current year that meets their needs. If we pass a
continuing resolution, veterans are going to get less funding and, with
it, fewer medical services, less funding for medical facilities, and
more delays in getting the benefits they have earned. We owe our
veterans more than cuts and delays. Under the joint funding resolution,
total funding for VA medical care is $32 billion. That is an increase
of about $3.5 billion over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level.
Let me talk about one other VA account in particular. Under the joint
funding resolution we have before us, VA medical services are funded at
about $25 billion. That is an increase of $2.965 billion over the
fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. That money is going to help our
veterans with medical care, including inpatient and outpatient care,
mental health care, and long-term care. Under our bill, there is an
extra $70 million for the VA's general operating expenses, and some of
that money is going to help our Veterans Benefits Administration deal
with the massive backlog of benefit claims. The VA has told us they
wanted to hire a net of 300 more employees so we can cut down this
waiting time all of us are hearing about from our veterans when we go
home who can't get the benefits they need. Without the joint funding
resolution, the VA will not be able to hire those new employees, and
veterans are going to continue to tell us they face long delays for the
benefits they have earned and deserve.
I also want to talk about the effect that not passing the joint
funding resolution would have on critical programs under my own
jurisdiction in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development
Subcommittee. If we do not pass the joint funding bill, our air traffic
controllers are going to be furloughed. Our air safety inspectors will
be furloughed. If we fail to pass this bipartisan bill, we are going to
see a decline in our ability to provide railroad inspections, pipeline
safety inspections, and to make sure we get truck safety inspections
across the country. Simply put, if we don't pass this bipartisan bill,
the safety of the people we represent is going to be put in danger.
We are also going to feel the consequences in the critical area of
housing. If we don't pass this funding resolution, hundreds of
thousands of Americans are going to face a housing crisis. In fact,
157,000 low-income people could lose their housing; 70,000 people could
lose their housing vouchers; and 11,500 housing units that are housing
the homeless could be lost.
Those are only some of the consequences Americans will face if this
Congress fails to act in the next 2 days to pass this joint funding
resolution. Don't take my word for it. Last Thursday I held a hearing
with President Bush's very able Secretary of Transportation Mary
Peters. At that hearing, she talked in very clear terms about the
consequences of not passing this joint funding resolution. I asked
Secretary Peters what it would mean for safety and hiring if we did not
pass this joint funding resolution. She said to me:

[W]e will see a serious decline in the number of safety
inspectors: truck safety inspectors, rail safety inspectors,
aviation inspectors across the broad range in our program.

That is directly from the Transportation Secretary.

[[Page S1886]]

Does any Senator want to be responsible for voting for a serious
decline in the number of truck safety inspectors, rail safety
inspectors, aviation safety inspectors? How would you ever explain that
to your constituents, that you voted to undermine their safety as they
travel by car or train or plane?
We also need to pass this joint funding resolution because without
it, our States will not be able to address their most pressing highway,
bridge, and road problems. In fact, Secretary Peters, President Bush's
Transportation Secretary, warned us last week that some States could
miss an entire construction season if we do not pass this bill this
week. She said:

It is especially important to those States who have a
construction season that will be upon us very, very shortly,
and if they are not able to know that this funding is coming
and be able to let contracts accordingly we could easily miss
an entire construction season.

All of us better recognize that our constituents are going to feel
the impact of this vote on their roads and bridges and highways if we
do not pass the joint funding resolution. The bill before the Senate
provides an additional $3.75 billion in formula funding for our
Nation's highway and transit systems. That funding will serve to create
almost 160,000 new jobs, and it will help us alleviate congestion, an
issue many of us face in our States. It is going to be an important
infusion of cash for the States to address their needs.
I ask unanimous consent that a table that has been provided to me by
the Federal Highway Administration which displays the highway funding
increases that will be seen by each of our States be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION--COMPARISON OF ACTUAL FY 2006 OBLIGATION
LIMITATION AND ESTIMATED FY 2007 OBLIGATION LIMITATION INCLUDING REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
[Including takedowns for NHTSA Operations and Research]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual FY 2006
State obligation Estimated FY Delta
limitation 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... $535,056,170 $600,869,788 $65,813,618
Alaska.................................................... 228,288,252 270,731,918 42,443,666
Arizona................................................... 499,506,758 593,277,405 93,770,647
Arkansas.................................................. 330,837,555 381,949,909 51,112,354
California................................................ 2,381,267,388 2,680,526,468 299,259,080
Colorado.................................................. 338,198,419 400,663,892 62,465,473
Connecticut............................................... 376,937,736 402,325,874 25,388,138
Delaware.................................................. 104,178,113 121,131,724 16,953,611
District of Columbia...................................... 112,407,878 123,804,359 11,396,481
Florida................................................... 1,289,559,918 1,544,927,499 255,367,581
Georgia................................................... 940,654,903 1,067,010,791 126,355,888
Hawaii.................................................... 120,644,520 127,596,268 6,951,748
Idaho..................................................... 197,536,278 222,829,360 25,293,082
Illinois.................................................. 898,006,320 1,010,811,302 112,804,982
Indiana................................................... 661,150,145 775,353,318 114,203,173
Iowa...................................................... 288,499,793 330,589,700 42,089,907
Kansas.................................................... 292,376,091 309,772,956 17,396,865
Kentucky.................................................. 460,544,276 520,949,132 60,404,856
Louisiana................................................. 404,683,450 474,862,364 70,178,914
Maine..................................................... 128,192,073 136,355,671 8,163,598
Maryland.................................................. 418,246,584 490,032,577 71,785,993
Massachusetts............................................. 466,003,994 501,926,732 35,922,738
Michigan.................................................. 828,533,266 909,761,902 81,228,636
Minnesota................................................. 425,664,013 485,442,279 59,778,266
Mississippi............................................... 310,973,491 367,059,847 56,086,356
Missouri.................................................. 618,465,606 711,268,494 92,802,888
Montana................................................... 255,215,718 287,386,573 32,170,855
Nebraska.................................................. 197,252,237 223,867,736 26,615,499
Nevada.................................................... 172,076,917 210,350,302 38,273,385
New Hampshire............................................. 130,407,725 137,769,576 7,361,851
New Jersey................................................ 695,744,922 822,265,394 126,520,472
New Mexico................................................ 250,952,902 290,194,749 39,241,847
New York.................................................. 1,292,715,319 1,366,155,757 73,440,438
North Carolina............................................ 755,312,308 872,183,722 116,871,414
North Dakota.............................................. 166,994,190 189,098,718 22,104,528
Ohio...................................................... 951,965,833 1,109,710,100 157,744,267
Oklahoma.................................................. 413,931,430 459,904,524 45,973,094
Oregon.................................................... 299,292,210 347,410,836 48,118,626
Pennsylvania.............................................. 1,287,067,418 1,357,719,130 70,651,712
Rhode Island.............................................. 134,484,666 154,154,462 19,669,796
South Carolina............................................ 424,589,865 511,384,433 86,794,568
South Dakota.............................................. 174,696,675 202,845,805 28,149,130
Tennessee................................................. 572,103,666 672,761,834 100,658,168
Texas..................................................... 2,183,334,526 2,574,558,747 391,224,221
Utah...................................................... 190,146,092 220,645,255 30,499,163
Vermont................................................... 115,678,528 129,379,891 13,701,363
Virginia.................................................. 697,407,933 830,852,486 133,444,553
Washington................................................ 448,545,807 519,595,013 71,049,206
West Virginia............................................. 285,867,458 325,592,845 39,725,387
Wisconsin................................................. 520,781,728 586,036,437 65,254,709
Wyoming................................................... 174,357,693 207,256,184 32,898,491
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................................. 26,447,336,756 30,170,912,038 3,723,575,282
Allocated programs........................................ 9,103,451,278 8,794,320,215 -309,131,063
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 35,550,788,034 38,965,232,253 3,414,444,219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts include formula limitation, special limitation for equity bonus and Appalachia Development Highway
System. Amounts exclude exempt equity bonus and emergency relief.

Allocated programs amount reflect NHTSA transfer of $121M.

Mrs. MURRAY. It is very important that we each understand the impact
of not passing this joint funding resolution with the additional $3.75
billion in funding formula to each and every one of our States.
The failure to pass this resolution is also going to have a painful
impact on hundreds of thousands of Americans when it comes to housing.
In this bipartisan bill, we worked to make sure our vulnerable families
would not be thrown out in the streets or face out-of-reach rent
increases. We provided critical support for section 8 homeless
assistance grants, housing equity conversion loans, HOPE VI, and public
housing operating funds. If we do not pass this joint funding
resolution and continue on a CR, that would mean housing vouchers are
going to be lost, many of our low-income residents will become
homeless, renters will be displaced or face unaffordable rent
increases, and many of our seniors are going to lose a valuable source
of equity. And importantly, efforts to replace deteriorating public
housing units will be eliminated.
Clearly, for all I have walked through, the consequences of not
passing the joint funding resolution are going to be severe for some of
our country's most vulnerable families. It is clear that our
communities across the board are going to pay a very high price unless
we pass H.J. Res. 20 before us. I urge my colleagues to vote to allow
our low-income families to keep

[[Page S1887]]

a roof over their heads. I urge my colleagues to vote to keep our
safety inspectors on the job, to keep highway construction projects
moving forward, to help our local law enforcement fight crime, and I
urge Senate colleagues to vote to give our veterans the care and
benefits they have earned.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 20; otherwise, you will
have to tell your veterans and your police officers, your commuters,
your air traffic controllers, your public housing tenants, your housing
advocates, and your airline passengers, pilots, and flight attendants
why you voted against them.
I urge my colleagues this afternoon to vote for cloture and then
allow us to finish H.J. Res. 20 so we can put the funding in place that
is sorely needed in every area in our local communities and for the
people we represent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized
for up to 5 minutes, and that following my remarks, the remaining time
until 12:30 p.m. be provided to the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I have the unenviable task of
encouraging my colleagues to support the continuing resolution that
lies before the Senate. Loading all of the unfinished bills from last
year into a continuing resolution that barely funds programs at
adequate levels is not my idea of a job well done by the Senate. The
Senate should have worked its will last year and passed these bills
separately before the end of the fiscal year. But that is now water
under the bridge. Our task today is to finish off this process so that
we can move forward with a fresh start in a new year.
The continuing resolution before us is a stripped down, bare bones
version of a funding bill. It contains no earmarks--not a one. It
provides the minimum funding needed to protect our rural communities,
and keep our farming economy going. It provides support for critical
research that helps keep our agriculture sector productive and put food
on our tables--but we have left it up to the USDA to apportion these
funds. Critical efforts to protect rural drinking water and grow rural
housing were also maintained. In short, we did the best we could to
protect rural America, save small farms, and maintain a safe and
reliable food supply.
I understand that some Members may not be happy with some of the
difficult choices that we had to make. But the alternative is much
worse. Continuing to live under the current funding agreement would
have been devastating to rural America, agribusiness, and would have
shaken consumers' faith in the food they buy at the local grocery
store.
Without this continuing resolution, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service would not have enough funds to get through the rest of the
year. Without it, FSIS would have to lay off employees beginning in
September. Without inspectors, 6,000 meat and poultry facilities would
be shut down across the country. Do any of my colleagues want to
explain to their constituents why they can't buy meat during the month
of September? Without this CR, 700,000 people connected to the food
industry will be laid off once the USDA can no longer inspect the meat
produced in this country.
The proposal before us may not be perfect, but I believe it is a
better alternative than endangering our food supply.
The cuts threatened by the current funding agreement will hurt more
than just our grocery shopping habits. They will also be felt in
doctor's offices and hospitals around the country. Continuation of the
current CR will force the Food and Drug Administration to lay off 652
personnel. Some of these employees have the job of approving new
medical devices. Does the Senate really want to force patients to wait
up to 20 percent longer for the medical care that will help them
recover? Does the Senate really want to stand in the way of these kinds
of life and death decisions?
Sometimes in this body we can get caught up in the dollars and cents
of the decisions we make, and lose track of the impact our votes have
on real peoples lives. I understand that there are many of my
colleagues that are concerned about the budget deficit. I am as well. I
came to the Senate when there were record deficits, and we took
difficult votes to get this country back into financial shape and
create budget surpluses. I know what it takes to balance a budget. But
not funding food inspections and delaying life saving medical care is
not the way we should balance the budget. We have a responsibility to
protect the health and welfare of the people back home. The current CR
fails to fulfill that mission, but the bill we are going to pass
succeeds.
Mr. President I yield the remainder of the time to my colleague from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, inquiry: Can you advise me how much time
remains in morning business on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans now control 16 minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for
his courtesy.
Mr. President, I would like to speak for no more than the next 10
minutes. If the Chair will advise me after the expiration of that time,
then I will yield to the senior Senator from Texas.
The House passed a continuing resolution that is before the Senate.
In fact, it is a $464 billion omnibus spending bill that makes major
policy changes and shifts billions of dollars away from important
national priorities.
The omnibus, I believe, is a flawed proposal and should be fixed
before it becomes law, which means that amendments should be offered
and voted on by the Senate.
Unfortunately, the majority leader has decided not to allow the usual
process for amendments to be offered and voted on to occur and, in
fact, has blocked those amendments, and it is unlikely we will have an
opportunity to improve this Omnibus appropriations bill before it is
voted on.
We have several amendments we are prepared to offer on this omnibus
bill, if allowed to do so, which I do believe would measurably improve
it. While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pledged,
as we have, to support our troops, this bill will delay the return of
many U.S. troops from overseas. We are prepared to offer a budget-
neutral amendment to restore more than $3 billion in funding for the
U.S. military. More than 12,000 American troops serving overseas will
be unable to come home if the plan on the floor now becomes law without
any amendments. The barracks necessary to house these returning troops
will not be funded in this spending plan.
To have the majority not allow the Senate to vote on the proposed
amendment which would restore this funding and support our troops and
to prevent our troops from coming home to the facilities they need in
order to accommodate them, to me, is simply a bad way to do business
and is difficult for me to explain to my colleagues and my constituents
back home.
The majority promised not to change policy through a spending bill
but now have eliminated a bipartisan baby AIDS prevention program. We
have an amendment by Senator Coburn that will ensure that more than $30
million dedicated to this lifesaving baby AIDS program is not blocked
by this omnibus.
We were also told by the majority they believe in earmark reform,
special projects that are funded through an earmark in the budget
process, but they are in this Omnibus appropriations bill allowing what
I would call back-door earmarking.
We have an amendment we are prepared to offer that would protect
taxpayers' funds by guaranteeing that the omnibus is truly earmark free
and by preventing back-room deals to fund wasteful programs after this
bill is passed.
Finally, in a general sense, talking about the kinds of amendments
that need to be offered and voted on on this bill, the majority
promised to be sensitive to those who are in the most need of
assistance, but this Omnibus appropriations bill takes money from crime
victims, $1.2 billion, and spends it on other Government programs. This
is simply, I believe, a bad way to do business and I think is
inconsistent with the spirit of bipartisanship with

[[Page S1888]]

which this Congress started with the work we have been able to do on
lobby and ethics reform, on minimum wage, and small business tax and
regulatory relief.
I also have two other amendments I would like to call up to this bill
that I wish to mention briefly, but unfortunately, as I already
mentioned, the majority leader has seen fit to deny any Senator the
opportunity, in this the world's greatest deliberative body, to even
offer any additional amendments. Nevertheless, I wish to take a moment
to highlight them.
The first amendment would restore funding to the Department of
Energy's FutureGen Program and do so without busting the budget.
FutureGen, as my colleagues know, is a demonstration project launched
by President Bush in 2003 to test new technology in refining coal in
generating electricity. If successful, FutureGen technologies could
help lower energy costs, increase domestic energy resources, and
eliminate harmful air pollutants.
On the Senate floor, we talk a lot about ending our reliance on
foreign sources of energy, as well as our need to produce energy in the
cheapest way possible.
The Omnibus appropriations bill that is on the floor, to which we are
being denied an opportunity to offer amendments, pulls the carpet from
under the FutureGen Program which seeks to address both of those needs.
Solutions to our energy future must be made by utilizing a variety of
technologies, both traditional and new, innovative technology. We
cannot turn our back on our most abundant domestic resource, coal, but
we can make sure that the kind of innovation and research that this
FutureGen project is designed to do can make sure we can use that
domestic energy resource in a way that is entirely consistent with our
universal desire to have a clean environment.
One other amendment I would offer would restore the cuts that the
omnibus bill makes from the U.S. Marshals Service. This amendment also
does not bust the budget. The Omnibus appropriations bill shortchanges
the men and women in the U.S. Marshals Service who are on the
frontlines protecting the safety of our Federal judges and our court
personnel.
Every day the Marshals Service protects more than 2,000 sitting
Federal judges, as well as other court officials, at more than 400
courthouses and facilities across the Nation. The protection of our
Federal judges by the U.S. Marshals Service is one of the most
important and perhaps least-recognized assignments in law enforcement.
But a disturbing trend is afoot. Increasingly, judges, witnesses,
courthouse personnel, and law enforcement personnel who support them
are the subject of violence simply for carrying out their duties.
We can all agree that the safety of our men and women who serve in
these important law enforcement capacities deserve the proper funding
necessary for them to do their job.
Mr. President, I regret, more with a sense of disappointment than
anger, the fact that the majority leader has denied us an opportunity
to offer amendments on any of these priorities, matters which I think
we can all agree deserve our consideration and close scrutiny. But
given the fact that, rather than the bipartisan cooperation we were
promised at the outset of this Congress, we are seeing basically a my-
way-or-the-highway approach to this Omnibus appropriations bill, not
only are our troops not going to get the $3.1 billion that is necessary
to provide housing and assets for them to return home, but we know
clean coal-burning technology and research is going to be denied and
put off, pushed down the road with harm to our Nation and, finally, we
know the U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting our Federal
judiciary, is going to be denied the resources they need to do their
job.

This is simply not the right way to do business, certainly not in the
bipartisan spirit which we were promised at the outset of this
Congress. I hope that the majority leader will reconsider and allow us
to offer amendments and have an up-or-down vote on each of these
amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little less than 7\1/2\ minutes. The Senator
from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
notified at 3\1/2\ minutes, and I will then leave the rest of our time
for the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very troubled by this process. We
are taking up a $463 billion appropriations bill. There is no amendment
on the House side and no amendment on the Senate side being allowed. We
are going to cloture with no capability of amendments. Yet the deadline
for this bill is February 15. We have several days in which we could
offer amendments, debate amendments, and go back to the House, if we
set our minds to doing it. And if there was a true bipartisan spirit,
we would be able to do that.
It has been said we didn't pass these appropriations bills last year,
and that is correct. We didn't for a variety of reasons, some of which
was obstruction from the other side and some of which was obstruction
on this side. I understand that. But now we are where we are. We have
been here before.
When the Republicans took control in 2003, after the Democrats had
the majority, we didn't put a continuing resolution forward for the 11
appropriations bills that had not been passed. We put forward an
Omnibus appropriations bill, a bill that was amendable. There were, in
fact, 100 amendments offered. There were 6 days of debate, and the bill
was passed with mostly Democratic amendments.
I do think, in a sense of fairness, that is what was expected when
the majority switched, that we would have an Omnibus appropriations
bill with some reasonable number of amendments. Our leadership
certainly offered a limited number with a limited time for debate. We
wouldn't have had to have a cloture vote if we had been able to have
that open dialog, but we didn't. Now we have a $463 billion bill, in
which $3 billion has been taken out of what this Congress passed last
year for military construction to prepare for the base closing law we
passed and to implement that on the deadline we made, which was 6
years. There was a request for $5.6 billion that was necessary for us
to bring 12,000 troops home this year and to go forward with the rest
of the appropriations for the troops coming home from overseas, and $3
billion was taken out of the bill that has passed and put into other
priorities with no hearings and no amendments allowed on the floor.
I don't see that is in any way able to be described as fair,
bipartisan. It is not the way we ought to do business in the Senate.
So here we are taking $3 billion from our military accounts and
putting them into accounts throughout the Federal Government. I cannot
think of anything more important than making sure our troops, when they
come home from overseas, have living conditions and training facilities
that we are trying to provide for them. The reason we are moving them
home from overseas is to give them better training facilities. That is
what the bulk of the $3 billion is going to do, and that is why we need
to stop cloture on this bill, offer one or two amendments and send the
bill to the House. We have plenty of time to work out something so
simple.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is at the 3\1/2\-minute mark.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues: Do not vote for
cloture on this bill yet. We will have plenty of time to fund the other
priorities in the bill, but we can also add amendments. This is the
Senate. There are 100 Members, and we should have a say in a $463
billion omnibus appropriation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment
No. 253 that I would like to offer to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus
spending bill.
My amendment seeks to strengthen the provisions in section 112
dealing with earmarks. According to the sponsors, the goal of this
section is to turn off the hidden earmarks for this year's spending,
but, unfortunately, it does not achieve that goal.

[[Page S1889]]

First, the language in H.J. Res. 20 say--on page 9--that hidden
earmarks shall have no ``legal effect,'' but it does not clearly state
that hidden earmarks shall have no guiding effect. These earmarks
already have no legal effect. The point of this section was not to
restate current law, but rather to make it clear that hidden earmarks
have no effect, legal or otherwise.
As my colleagues know, over 95 percent of all earmarks are not even
written into our appropriations bills. If we don't fix the language in
this resolution we are debating today, all of these earmarks could
continue. It is not certain that they will but they could and that is
something we should fix to protect American taxpayers.
Our Federal agencies need to understand that hidden earmarks mean
nothing and should be completely ignored in their decisionmaking. Our
Federal agencies need to spend American tax dollars in ways that meet
their core missions and serve true national priorities. Federal
agencies should not feel pressure to fund special interest earmarks
written by the powerful lawmakers who may cut their funding in
retaliation.
Second, the language in H.J. Res. 20 applies to hidden earmarks in
the fiscal year 2006 committee reports, but it does not turn off the
hidden earmarks buried in committee reports prior to 2006 or those
after it. In addition, the language does not turn off earmarks that may
be requested through direct communications between lawmakers and our
Federal agencies, either by phone or in private emails.
I understand that the Democratic leader is not going to allow any
amendments. The Democratic leader scheduled this debate right before
the Government's current funding expires so we will all be forced to
accept it. This practice has been going on for years, and I am afraid
it has become very destructive.
We are going to vote on whether to cut off debate on this measure
today at 2:30 p.m. and I will be forced to oppose that motion. Since
the Democratic leader has blocked me and other Senators from getting
votes on our amendments, I cannot in good conscience vote to cut off
debate. My amendment makes small changes to this resolution that would
greatly improve its integrity, and there is still time to send this
measure back to the House for its approval.
I also want to make it clear that while we have a responsibility in
this body to address hidden earmarks in this resolution, the President
also has a responsibility to do his part. In a letter that I sent last
week, I called on him to instruct his agencies to ignore all earmark
requests that do not have the force of law, and I believe he will. He
said in the State of the Union Address this year that:

Over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of
the House and Senate--they are dropped into committee reports
that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk.
You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law.
Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The
time has come to end this practice.

It appears as though our Federal agencies are beginning to follow
through on the President's directive. Last week, a memo was circulated
at the Department of Energy that said:

Because the funding provided by H.J. Res. 20 will not be
subject to non-statutory earmarks and the President's policy
on earmarks is clear, we must ensure that the Department only
funds programs or activities that are meritorious; the
Department itself is responsible for making those
determinations.

This is a great sign of progress and I hope other agencies will
circulate their own memos to this effect. Our agencies have been under
the thumb of powerful appropriators for so long, it may be difficult
for them to transition to a world without earmarks. But that is what
they must do because that is what the American people expect. Americans
want their Federal tax dollars to be spent in competitive ways that
meet the highest standards. If a project is going to get Federal
funding, they expect--just like with a Federal contract--that the money
go to the project with the most merit regardless of whose State or
district it is in.
We are making great progress on reforming our budget process and
reducing earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to help us continue this
progress and win back the trust of the American people.
Mr. President, I wish to make a few additional comments about my
amendment No. 253 to the fiscal year 2007 omnibus spending bill. This
is an amendment that would strengthen a provision in the bill that is
under section 112. This gets back to the earmark discussion. The Senate
can be proud of the debate and the votes we have taken to disclose
earmarks and to eliminate the hidden earmarks that have been added in
conference for years. Unfortunately, the language in this omnibus bill
continues the status quo. It says that earmarks have no legal
effect. It does not take the debate we have all agreed on and make it a
prohibition that earmarks cannot be added in conference.

We know that 95 percent of earmarks are in report language. They do
not have the force of law. Yet, through intimidation and other ways,
Congress has been able to get the executive branch to follow through on
these earmarks for years. My amendment would simply go back to what we
have already agreed on as a Senate and prohibit these wasteful, hidden
earmarks that waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year from being
included in report language.
I am encouraged that the White House is responding. We have a memo
that the Energy Department sent out last year to its managers telling
them not to give preferential treatment to nonbinding, nonlegal
congressional earmarks; that earmarks should be meritorious, as they
said in their memo, before they are considered. This would free up all
the Federal agencies to focus their spending and their time on Federal
priorities, not just specific special interest earmarks that a Member
of Congress happens to attach to a bill.
I understand the majority leader is not going to allow any
amendments. That is very regrettable, particularly since it leaves out
something on which I think we all agree.
The cloture motion we have been asked to vote on at 2:30 is a motion
to cut off debate. That means we can no longer talk about the
provisions in ways that could improve this bill. For that reason, I am
going to have to vote against cloture and hope the majority leader will
reconsider, particularly amendments like this which are easy and which
this Chamber has already voted unanimously to support.
Mr. President, with that, I yield back.

____________________