[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2488-S2491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FISCAL YEAR 2011 SAFER PROGRAM

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to highlight an important 
provision that is included in the Homeland Security division of this 
bill. It is related to the firefighter hiring program known as SAFER. 
In 2009 and 2010, Congress approved waivers for several restrictions of 
the SAFER grant program because in this economic downturn fire 
departments were struggling to meet those requirements. By adding this 
flexibility to the program, fire departments were able to make the best 
use of the funding provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A provision 
in this bill maintains three of the same waivers for fiscal year 2011 
and specifically allows for the grants to be used to retain and/or 
rehire personnel, to supplant local funds, and a local match is not 
required. While some might argue that it is a local responsibility to 
hire firefighters, it has been made clear disaster after disaster--and 
especially including catastrophic events such as the 9/11 attacks and 
Hurricane Katrina--that firefighters are the first people we call on 
from all over the Nation to serve in a national response. Of course, I 
supported the inclusion of all six waivers contained in the Inouye 
amendment. Through negotiations we were able to secure the provisions 
that allow for the retention and/or rehiring of firefighters, the 
waiver of a cost share, and the ability to supplant local funds.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my subcommittee chairman for highlighting this 
important provision. Ensuring that the SAFER grants are available to 
retain and/or rehire firefighters and waiving match requirements will 
provide communities the assistance they need in these tough times.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, much attention has been given to how the 
Ryan plan ends Medicare as we know it by turning Medicare into a 
voucher program.
  For example, on April 6, 2011, AARP wrote to Congressman Ryan:

       Today's budget proposal appropriately acknowledges that 
     health care costs must be addressed if the federal budget is 
     to be balanced. However, rather than recognizing that health 
     care is an unavoidable necessity which must be made more 
     affordable for all Americans, this proposal simply shifts 
     these high costs onto Medicare beneficiaries, and shifts the 
     even higher costs of increased uninsured care onto everyone 
     else. By creating a ``premium support'' system for future 
     Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal will increase costs for 
     beneficiaries while removing Medicare's promise of secure 
     health coverage--a guarantee that future seniors have 
     contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.

  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities put out a statement on 
April 6, 2011 stating:

       Many future Medicare beneficiaries with modest incomes, 
     such as elderly widows who must live on $15,000 or $20,000 a 
     year, also would likely be hit by the plan's Medicare 
     provisions; the Medicare voucher (or defined contribution) 
     they would receive would fall farther and farther behind 
     health care costs--and purchase less and less coverage--with 
     each passing year. Aggravating this problem, Ryan has said 
     that his plan calls for repeal of a key measure of the health 
     reform law that is designed to moderate Medicare costs--the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board. In other words, his plan 
     would scrap mechanisms to slow growth in the costs of health 
     care services that Medicare beneficiaries need, even as it 
     cuts back the portion of those costs that Medicare would 
     cover.

  The Center for American Progress writes:

       Medicare as we know it would end for new beneficiaries in 
     2022 under the House Republican budget proposal. It would be 
     replaced with a government voucher that would be paid 
     directly to private insurance companies. This system would 
     double costs to seniors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
     Office, or CBO, concluded that ``most elderly people would 
     pay more for their health care than they would pay under the 
     current Medicare system.''

  However, there has been less discussion of the other ways in which 
the Ryan plan would hurt current beneficiaries.
  So I would like to give some specific examples how the changes 
Congressman Ryan proposed will impact current Medicare beneficiaries.
  The Republican plan will force beneficiaries to pay for preventive 
services and eliminates the free annual wellness exam they can 
currently receive. Nearly all 44 million beneficiaries who have 
Medicare, including 2.2 million in Pennsylvania, can now receive free 
preventive services--such as mammograms and colonoscopies--as well as a 
free annual wellness visit with their doctor.
  The Republican plan will eliminate the efforts that have begun to 
close the doughnut hole. If the Republican budget becomes law, costs 
for Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole will 
increase drastically. Over 266,000 Pennsylvanians will pay an 
additional $149 million in 2012 and $3 billion through 2020.
  The Republican plan hurts beneficiaries today by repealing 
improvements designed to save them money and provide needed services. 
It hurts beneficiaries even more beginning in 2022 when end Medicare as 
we know it and puts in place a voucher system to ration health care and 
increase costs for beneficiaries.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last Friday night, in the absence of a 
budget deal, the Federal Government came within 1 hour of shutting its 
doors and all but emergency services. The obstacle to an agreement at 
that point was not a matter of spending levels or budget cuts. The 
obstacle was ideologically driven policy riders that some insisted on 
including in the budget bill. Thankfully, in the end, we prevailed in 
stripping out the abhorrent rider to bar funding for Planned 
Parenthood.
  A small but vocal minority is adamant about eliminating one specific 
organization's health centers, which provide health care and family 
planning services for women nationwide. Planned Parenthood centers 
receive Federal funding from title X of the Public Health Service Act--
the only Federal grant program dedicated to offering people 
comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. 
President Nixon was instrumental in enacting this legislation, and it 
has been supported since then by lawmakers and Presidents of both 
parties. As many women can tell you, title X was a remarkable 
breakthrough in women's health care.
  What a travesty it would have been to gut health services to women 
that literally have meant the difference between life or death, health 
or grave illness, to countless American women. Vermonters were 
outspoken in their opposition to this rollback for women's health, and 
I am proud of our State and grateful for our success in this round.
  Tens of thousands of women in Vermont depend on title X of the Public 
Health Service Act for lifesaving preventive treatments and care. 
Around the country, there are many providers of title X services, but 
in Vermont, Planned Parenthood centers are the only clinics where many 
lower income women can go for family planning care. Planned Parenthood 
centers in Vermont offer women and teens annual health exams, cervical 
and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings and counseling. Last 
year in Vermont, Planned Parenthood provided critical primary and 
preventive services to nearly 21,000 patients.
  In the last few weeks more than 6,000 Vermonters have contacted me 
about their support for the funds that make title X health services 
possible and for Planned Parenthood's long and commendable record of 
making title X's promise a reality for millions of American women in 
Vermont and across the Nation. I have heard from nurses and doctors in 
Vermont urging me to support funding for Planned Parenthood in order to 
continue essential care these centers offer to their own patients and 
to women who would not receive primary health care were it not for 
Planned Parenthood.
  Despite the misleading and blatantly false statements of some 
ideologically driven advocates, more than 90 percent of the care 
Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive. In fact, 6 of 
every 10 women who use Planned Parenthood for title X services describe 
it as their primary source of medical care. And despite what some 
opponents of women's health funding have proclaimed, absolutely no 
title X funding can be used for abortion services. The sad irony is 
that defunding title X and Planned Parenthood would result in more 
unintended pregnancies, and probably more abortions.

[[Page S2489]]

  This drive to defund women's health services offered by a particular 
organization also raises constitutional concerns. Article I, section 9, 
paragraph 3 of our Constitution expressly forbids passage of any ``bill 
of attainder.'' According to the late former Chief Justice of the 
United States, William Rehnquist, ``A bill of attainder was a 
legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed 
punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were 
regarded as odious by the Framers of the Constitution because it was 
the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose 
punishment.'' Yet those promoting the anti-Planned Parenthood rider 
clearly intend to single out one organization by name to ``punish'' it, 
``punishing'' as well the millions of women who Planned Parenthood 
serves.
  Proponents of this rider have cited what they call ``evidence'' that 
Planned Parenthood has acted unlawfully. Other supporters of this 
virulent effort charge that the organization has been ``accused'' of a 
variety of things. These comments make clear that their legislative 
intent is to punish for these unverified accusations. Some in fact have 
gone so far as to accuse Planned Parenthood of violating the law that 
prohibits any Federal funds to be used to provide abortions.
  There is no substantive reason to believe such accusations. If there 
is any violation of this or any Federal law, it is the role of the 
executive branch to prosecute and try the offenders. That is not the 
role of this body, though that is what some are advocating, through 
their injection of accusations and partisan politics into this debate.
  The Framers' original intent was to prohibit bills that single out 
one entity for punishment because that is not Congress's role in the 
separation of powers they so carefully devised for our Republic.
  Aside from the serious constitutional issues with the pending measure 
is one naked fact from which proponents of this legislative rider 
cannot hide: Nothing in this pernicious rider would actually reduce 
spending. Their proposal would save not one penny. This is about 
``punishment,'' not fiscal responsibility.
  Does this Congress care more about what looks good on a bumper 
sticker or what matters in the daily lives of real people? The 
arrogance and shortsighted attitude of a minority has put at risk the 
lives and health of millions of women. My wife Marcelle is a cancer 
survivor. We were lucky. We had good health care and a salary that 
allowed us to pay the bills when she got sick. Other people are not so 
lucky. Without the services that Planned Parenthood provides, thousands 
of low-income women in Vermont would lose their ability to have regular 
cancer screenings that could save their lives too. That we are even 
considering the elimination of these health services to America's women 
is shameful. That it was the sticking point that nearly forced the 
shutdown of the Federal Government is a disgrace.
  Title X was a true breakthrough for the health of American women. 
Should we as a nation walk back from the remarkable progress we have 
made in women's health? Of course not. The mean-spirited and 
ideological attacks must end, and these ideological assaults on women's 
health care must end.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is no doubt that we must take 
action to reduce our budget deficit. The question is, How will we 
accomplish this? Will we do as we have done all too often over the last 
few years, and protect the tax cuts of the well-to-do at the expense of 
middle-class families? Or will we seek a balanced approach that seeks 
to spread the burden of deficit reduction so that the upper income 
folks who have so prospered the last few years also contribute to the 
solution?
  There is no question in my mind that deficit reduction requires 
shared sacrifice. By that test, the legislation before us is highly 
problematic. True, it manages to avoid some of the most extreme budget 
cuts that House Republicans included in their original appropriations 
bill. The bill before us is surely reasonable in comparison with that 
extreme measure. But the test cannot be whether it is better than HR 1. 
We can and must do better.
  What troubles me most is that this legislation seeks to address the 
problem in only one manner, targeting nondefense discretionary programs 
that make up a fraction of our budget. I remain convinced it is a 
mistake to attack the deficit only through cuts in domestic 
discretionary spending, and not also end the huge Bush tax cuts for 
upper incomes, and close tax loopholes and reduce tax expenditures that 
most budget experts believe must be part of any serious deficit 
reduction plan. Simple math makes clear that those kinds of revenues 
must be a part of the solution.
  The refusal to take a balanced approach in this legislation means 
that to reach its deficit reduction target, this bill makes cuts that 
are, in my mind, too large. It reduces funding for the COPS program and 
grants to state and local law enforcement agencies by more than one-
quarter, making our communities less safe. It reduces energy efficiency 
funds by 18 percent, as though this issue wasn't crucial to our 
Nation's future security and prosperity. It cuts funding for the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 11 percent, as though the 
health of our citizens was not a priority.
  This bill eliminates all funding for the HUD Housing Counseling 
Assistance Program, eliminates it entirely, ignoring the fact that 
communities across the nation are reeling from a foreclosure crisis.
  This bill cuts by 20 percent funding for Army Corps of Engineers 
construction. That provides funding for the barrier that we hope will 
keep destructive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, and believe me, 
that is false economy. The economic damage Asian carp can do if they 
establish themselves in the Lakes is incalculable. The bill also cuts 
more than one-quarter of funding for vital water infrastructure 
programs important not just in Michigan but around the state, and it 
makes a deeply misguided 37 percent cut in Great Lakes restoration 
initiative funding, a totally unjustifiable reduction of our commitment 
to lakes that are an engine of economic activity for all the states in 
the Great Lakes region.
  There are some important programs that have escaped the worst cuts. I 
am pleased that students will still be able to receive a maximum Pell 
grant of $5,500, and that the misguided proposal to reduce these grants 
has been defeated. I am pleased that this bill generally avoids 
misguided Republican attempts to deprive financial regulatory agencies 
of the resources they need to prevent the next financial collapse.
  This bill rescinds highway funding that was provided at least 13 
years ago, including funds from the ISTEA reauthorization bill. That 
should mean that the funding for the traverse city bypass, later 
reprogrammed to the grand vision, will not be included in that 
rescission since it is no longer part of the ISTEA bill. At the request 
of the community, the funds were reprogrammed in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2005 for an entirely different purpose than the 
original legislation and in an entirely different bill. Since that time 
the community has completed the comprehensive grand vision study and is 
now poised to implement its recommendations.
  I am also glad that the bill contains a full year Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, so that our troops and their families will 
no longer have any doubt about when their next paycheck will arrive. 
And I am pleased that it does not include ideologically motivated 
policy riders that would interfere with women's health care and 
environmental protection.
  But on balance, this bill lacks balance. It seeks solutions only in 
cutting domestic programs that make our Nation safer and more 
prosperous, that protect our environment, and that help the families 
that have suffered most during the financial crisis and recession, 
while protecting the tax cuts that benefit those at the very top.
  Because of that lack of balance, that lack of fairness, I am unable 
to support this bill. But I am encouraged that, thanks to the 
leadership President Obama showed this week, and thanks to the voices 
of the many of us who are arguing for a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction, we are finally engaged in an open and honest debate over the 
vision we should follow for the future of our country.
  In the weeks and months ahead, we will finally seek an answer to the 
question of whether we will all share in the

[[Page S2490]]

sacrifices required, and whether the same people who have done so very 
well over the last decade or so will be asked to contribute. I agree 
with our President, who said this week:

       At a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its 
     lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us 
     can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax 
     cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we 
     have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. 
     Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college 
     scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. . . . And I 
     believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They 
     want to give back to the country that's done so much for 
     them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.

  Let me add that I will vote against both of the correcting 
resolutions before us today. It is ironic indeed that Republicans claim 
to be fighting the deficit by blocking the implementation of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which according to the 
Congressional Budget Office will reduce the deficit by $210 billion 
from 2012 to 2021. Likewise, the attempt to prohibit funding for 
Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with the deficit and everything to 
do with extreme ideology.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, after 6\1/2\ months it appears the 
Congress may finally be able to finish the fiscal year 2011 
appropriations process. Earlier today the House passed a Department of 
Defense Appropriations bill which includes an extension of the current 
continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year. If the Senate 
passes this legislation and the President signs it, we will be able to 
close the books on this issue and focus our attention on the budget for 
fiscal year 2012.
  In reflecting upon how we got here, I wish to point out to my 
colleagues that the fundamental reason we find ourselves debating a 
continuing resolution today is because 1 year ago the Congress was 
unable to agree upon a budget resolution. The failure to reach a 
consensus agreement on the budget meant the Appropriations Committee 
was asked to resolve the differences in spending itself. After months 
of attempting to do so, the committee was unable to bridge the gap 
between the Republicans and Democrats.
  When the committee finally adopted a funding level proposed by the 
Republicans, a hostile political environment crippled the committee's 
efforts to enact a bipartisan budget plan. As we go forward I would ask 
all of my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I urge everyone 
to cooperate both here in the Senate and with our colleagues in the 
House. If we can fashion a compromise budget agreement this year it 
might allow our committee to restore the bipartisan working 
relationship which has long been the hallmark of the committee for 
generations. I sincerely hope that will be the case.
  In some respects today we can take that first step. The bill that we 
are considering reflects a bipartisan agreement reached among the 
leadership of the House and Senate and the White House with the details 
being worked out by the Committees on Appropriations. It is a very 
tough measure that cuts domestic spending more than I am comfortable 
with, but it is dramatically superior to the alternative passed by the 
House 2 months ago and equally superior to not passing an extension 
through the end of the year.
  In total, the measure reduces government spending $78.5 billion below 
the President's request. It is nearly $40 billion below the enacted 
level for fiscal year 2010. Never before have we cut our appropriated 
funding so drastically. By far and away this is the largest 1-year cut 
from the President's budget request in the Nation's history. The bill 
cuts all categories of spending: defense, international, and domestic, 
discretionary and mandatory. While some of my colleagues will argue 
that the Department of Defense was ``let off the hook,'' others will 
probably say the bill cuts more from defense than is prudent.
  Including military construction, the Defense Department's budget is 
reduced $20 billion below the President's request. In comparison to the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted funding, the department's budget is 
approximately $2 billion below a freeze, with military construction 
down by more than $6 billion and the rest of defense increasing by more 
than $4 billion.
  The priority in this defense bill is first and foremost to ensure 
that we treat our military personnel and their families fairly. This 
means a 1.4 percent pay raise. It means fully funding health care, but 
it also means ensuring that our forces have the proper equipment and 
the funding necessary to operate it. While funding is austere, the bill 
includes important enhancements such as buying more missiles for our 
Aegis missile defense ships, and more helicopters for search and rescue 
operations and medical evacuation in Afghanistan. It means investing in 
new technologies at a faster pace than requested, purchasing more 
drones to find and wipe out terrorists, and ensuring the safety of our 
soldiers and Marines by accelerating the purchases of safer Stryker 
vehicles and MRAPs.
  Accomplishing this while at the same time reducing defense spending 
has been a challenge, but working with our colleagues in the House we 
have put together a plan which fulfills all of these objectives.
  But this bill isn't just about defense. For the State Department and 
foreign assistance, we are providing $8 billion less than was 
requested. This low level of funding was the most we could get our 
colleagues in the House to agree with, and it means many important 
programs will have to be reduced. We won't be able to make as much 
progress on fighting AIDS and hunger. We won't have as much funding as 
I would like to support our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. But 
considering the budget situation we face, we will have to make do.
  It is in the area of domestic spending in which the bill makes the 
most serious reductions, with the total included being approximately 
$50 billion below the President's request. In achieving this rate of 
savings, this compromise measure sought out as many different ways to 
reduce spending as possible to allow us to preserve our critically 
important priorities. We were able to mitigate the damage by looking at 
areas where we could identify savings from mandatory spending and by 
rescinding lower priority funds. In total, domestic discretionary 
spending is cut by $38.3 billion while mandatory spending comes down by 
$17.7 billion.
  Many, many programs had to be cut to reach these levels. In health 
care, in education, in housing, in infrastructure, but this bill is 
much better than the approach adopted by the House in HR 1. For 
example, we were able to fully fund Head Start--restoring the House 
Republican cut of $1.4 billion which would have denied 218,000 children 
an opportunity to learn. We provided $30.7 billion for NIH, $1.4 
billion more than the House Republicans. We provided $2.1 billion more 
for food safety than the Republican plan.
  In energy, housing, our National Parks, our transit programs, in 
every area we forced the House to back away from their unwise cuts 
which would have devastated the progress we are making to restore the 
economy and protect our people. Crazy ideas like furloughing Social 
Security workers and shutting off food inspections were turned around. 
But there is more to this story. The House bill wasn't just about 
dangerous and drastic cuts; it was also an attempt to legislate 
terrible social policy on a must pass emergency spending bill.
  Here too we turned them around. Nearly a dozen provisions to overturn 
health care reform were rejected. Eleven riders to gut the 
Environmental Protection Agency were rejected. Provisions to eliminate 
successful programs like needle exchanges, and the Corporation on 
Public Broadcasting were denied. Their attempts to rewrite gun laws and 
net neutrality were rejected.
  It is true and regrettable that we had to accept limited provisions 
affecting the District of Columbia on abortion and school vouchers. We 
are not happy about that. Still, in comparison to what the House wanted 
to do, this bill is an enormous improvement even for the District of 
Columbia.
  As in any compromise, neither party to the agreement is happy with 
every item in the bill. Some on the other side would have preferred 
more cuts in domestic programs while most members on our side believe 
we have cut our domestic priorities too deeply. But, this is truly a 
bipartisan bill. When it is approved it will be the most significant

[[Page S2491]]

legislation to pass the Congress this year.
  I believe this bill provides a road map on how we can continue to 
work across party lines to achieve what is necessary for the country. 
Yesterday the President unveiled his long-range strategy to reduce the 
deficit. His approach is extremely different than the approach of the 
House Republicans. In 2 weeks our Senate Budget Committee will unveil 
its plan on regaining fiscal control. It is not overstating the case to 
say that it is truly a matter of urgent national security that we reach 
across party lines and conclude an agreement with our colleagues in the 
House to regain control over our government's finances.
  Both parties feel strongly about their recommendations and the 
structure of future budgets. The philosophical divisions are wide. But 
as I watched the President's speech, I thought about this continuing 
resolution and how we were able to bridge a huge divide between the 
Houses and the political parties. Because of this experience I became 
more optimistic that we can find a way to work with our House 
colleagues and come up with a deficit reduction plan that would 
represent all of our best efforts to act in the Country's interest.
  Today it is vitally important that we take that first step toward 
putting our fiscal house in order by adopting this bill. It is also 
critical that the Congress demonstrate that it can act in the spirit of 
compromise and in the national interest. This bill represents a fair 
compromise which will meet our country's needs, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support it.
  Madam President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       I certify in accordance with rule XLIV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate that there are no congressionally 
     directed spending items contained in H.R. 1473.

  Mr. INOUYE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I regret that the Senate must consider in mid-April an 
appropriations bill for a fiscal year that is already half over. It 
disturbs me that we have subjected the Federal Government to eight 
short-term continuing resolutions over the past 6 months. Such measures 
are inefficient, add hidden costs to Federal contracts and 
procurements, and make it difficult for State and local governments to 
plan effectively. Such measures also have a detrimental impact on the 
morale of the Federal workforce, including our men and women in uniform 
who last week, even while engaged in hostilities overseas, were left 
wondering about their next paycheck.
  However, this delay has made possible significant spending 
reductions. The bill cuts $38 billion from the spending levels in place 
at the beginning of this Congress. It also cuts $78 billion from the 
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. These reductions in 
spending will compound over time and, if sustained, will result in a 
significant reduction in our national debt. These reductions don't come 
without consequences, however. The bill cuts programs that are 
important both nationally and in my State of Mississippi. This bill 
contains rescissions of funds I once fought hard to appropriate but 
which have not been spent for a variety of reasons. In many cases, we 
don't yet know the precise impacts of the various cuts because so much 
discretion is left to the implementing agencies. We all recognize, 
however, that sacrifices must be made in order to achieve the greater 
good of fiscal solvency.
  We also recognize that the bill is only one step toward addressing 
our Nation's debt problem. Although discretionary spending will be an 
important component of any solution to that problem, we will fail to 
solve it if we focus on discretionary spending alone. Hopefully, the 
agreement reached on this bill will lay a foundation for the much more 
difficult decisions on entitlements and taxes that lie ahead.
  We also realize some will think this bill cuts far too little and 
some will think it cuts too much. I suspect that, individually, each of 
us could write spending bills at much lower levels than are contained 
in this legislation. We could fund those things we deem to be 
priorities and significantly cut back or eliminate the rest. But this 
legislation, instead, represents the priorities of the people of the 
entire Nation as expressed and negotiated by their duly elected 
Representatives, Senators, and the President.
  On balance, the process has worked well. But without a budget 
resolution or any agreement on an appropriate top-line discretionary 
spending level, there was little agreement on the level of funding in 
appropriations bills. As a result, we are once again presented with a 
single trillion-dollar package that no Senator has had an opportunity 
to amend. The bill gives enormous flexibility to the executive branch 
because it does not contain the detailed directives typically found in 
appropriations bills and reports. And, of course, it is 6 months late.
  I hope in the coming months that Congress and the President will 
reach consensus on a budget plan that will address each of the major 
drivers of our current fiscal imbalance, including discretionary 
spending. We need to find a way to bring fiscal year 2012 
appropriations bills to the floor individually and get them to 
conference with the other body. I believe such a process would provide 
needed constraints on spending levels while allowing all Members to 
influence the content of the individual bills.
  Madam President, I will vote for this bill, and I urge the Senate to 
approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
148 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________