[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.

                          ____________________