[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3458-3461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I spend a few minutes talking about the 
supposed continuing resolution we are going to have that is really an 
omnibus. Every time we have an omnibus, the American people get hurt. 
The reason is we play games.
  We came off an election in November of 2006 where we had the claim 
made that the party in power had used earmarks irresponsibly, had 
played the budget gimmicks, had done all these things. We had a claim 
we would work toward bipartisanship, be honest and open in what we do. 
I come to challenge that in terms of what I would call an ``omni 
terrible'' bill.
  First, under the rules of the Senate, although we are going to be 
shut out on amendments, it is harmful for the American public that 
there are no amendments to this. It is harmful because, first, it 
destroys comity in this Senate. It creates hard feelings. I would be 
the first to admit that the procedure that is being used on this was 
first used by a Republican. It is wrong.
  The second thing that is important is there are all sorts of budget 
gimmicks with it. The quote is we stay within the budget. That is a lie 
because what they do is they steal money from our grandchildren which 
they will get back on the next supplemental, but that won't have to be 
within the budget limitations. So we are playing games. Nothing has 
changed about the Senate and the wink and the nod to the American 
public about what is happening to our future financial conditions. Mr. 
President, $3.1 billion out of this will be transferred to the next 
supplemental to pay for things that absolutely have to happen with our 
troops in terms of transferring them from Germany and the BRAC 
relocation process. That has all been stolen so we can do other things. 
They may be a priority, but maybe something else should be eliminated 
rather than to break the budget and charge more to our grandkids. So 
that is not true.
  The third thing that is extremely wrong with this is the claim that 
this has no earmarks. In 2006 appropriations bills, 96 percent of all 
earmarks were in report language. That means there is a bill that is a 
law and then there is language that accompanies the bill that is not 
law. That is where we find most of the shenanigans going on in 
Congress. And it is equal among Democrats and Republicans as far as the 
earmarks.
  To make the claim that there are no earmarks in this bill is an 
outright falsehood that the American people should not accept. The 
reason it is false is there is a little statement in this bill that 
these earmarks don't carry the force of law. It doesn't say they 
eliminated them. But you know what. They don't carry the force of law 
now. They haven't for the last 10 or 12 years. They haven't ever 
carried the force of law, but they carry the force of coercion because 
the agencies know if this is written into the report language and they 
don't do it, there is retribution they will face when it comes to the 
Congress and the appropriations process.
  Ninety-four percent of all the earmarks that were in 2006 in these 
bills are in this bill. To claim otherwise is inaccurate and it should 
make the people of America reject with disdain how this Senate 
operates.
  I remind this Senate that it wasn't but 2 or 3 weeks ago that Senator 
DeMint put in transparency of earmarks, much like Congresswoman Pelosi 
had asked. That was voted against by the majority of the Democrats 
until they found out they were going to lose. Then we modified it so 
they could vote ``yes'' after they had voted ``no.'' That is okay if 
you don't want them, but be honest about it. The fact is, there is no 
transparency with these earmarks. Most Americans will never know how 
they got there. The lobbyists will know; the Members will know; the 
campaign checks that come from them will know. But the regular 
``American Joe'' won't know.
  So the claim that we are operating under a new standard, the claim 
that we are going to have bipartisanship, the claim that we are not 
going to use budget gimmicks is all a farce. It is a farce. Let's 
change that. Let's give the American people something to be proud of. 
Let's have the hard debates on the questionable areas on this bill.
  I will spend a minute and talk about one area of this bill. The one 
area where we have been very successful in eliminating HIV infections 
has been women who are pregnant and are having babies who are HIV 
infected. In 1996, New York passed a law saying all babies whose 
mothers' status with HIV wasn't known would be tested, and if they 
carried the antibodies for the mother, they would be treated. New York, 
since that time, has gone from at least 500 babies a year getting 
infected with HIV to less than 7.
  Connecticut passed a law in 1998. They have gone from whatever their 
level was to zero since 2001. It is an area of hope where we have made 
tremendous progress in terms of preventing transmission to young 
babies, identifying pregnant women so they can be under treatment 
earlier so they don't go to full-blown AIDS, and preventing infection 
of other people by identifying people who are infected.
  It is all based on an option of being able to opt out. If you do not 
want to be tested, you do not have to. This bill precludes any moneys 
to be spent on that. How dare we. How dare we stop the area where we 
are most effective in the country at preventing HIV infection.
  Let me detail that a minute. For a newborn baby--we don't know the 
mother's status--it only costs us $10 to identify whether that baby is 
carrying the antibodies from a woman who is infected with HIV. The 
treatment, which is 99 percent curative, costs $75.
  Now, to abandon all this, the treatment to treat a baby infected with 
HIV--which will result in this--costs a quarter of a million dollars 
for the first 10 years--$25,000 a year. So it is not

[[Page 3459]]

only that we are not preventing an infection, we are not preventing an 
infection after that through breast-feeding, we are wasting money that 
could go to buy drugs for those people who cannot afford drugs today 
who have HIV.
  The HIV epidemic is totally controllable. To block the funding, 
especially for African-American women who carry the burden of this 
disease in pregnancy, is unconscionable. There is not a good answer for 
why this prohibition was put into this. And whoever did it--whoever did 
it--does not care a whit about the innocent children who are going to 
get the HIV infection, does not care about the African-American woman 
who is carrying it but does not know she has it, who could be treated 
and never progress to AIDS. What they care about is politics and 
political correctness.
  Former President Clinton recently announced he thinks we need to 
reassess, we need to be testing. That is a 180-degree turn from where 
he was. Why? Because he looks at this country and says: Why aren't we 
controlling this epidemic? It is because we are not testing, we are 
making it too hard to be tested. We have had great advances in drugs. 
We have great ways to prevent transmission. But if we do not know who 
is carrying it--and one out of every three people in this country who 
have HIV does not know they are infected. So what we should be about is 
making testing easier--easier to do, more available, more accessible--
and in a way that will make a major impact on people's lives.
  I am sorry the majority leader has decided to run this bill this way 
because I think it portends lots of things for the future of this body 
that are not going to be good. Nobody can accuse me of being partisan 
on earmarks. I went after my own party harder than I went after anybody 
else. I did not see anybody last year from the other side come down 
here and challenge an earmark. I saw nobody in the last 2 years from 
the other side come down here and challenge an earmark. And then to 
claim there are no earmarks in this bill, and to try to do a wink and a 
nod to the American public that oh, yeah, we are fixing it, when in 
fact 95 percent of them are there, it gives us cause to pause: Has 
anything changed? It has not. It is still the game, American public. 
The only way you are going to have this place cleaned up is 
transparency in everything we do.
  I hope the majority leader will reconsider his position on not 
allowing amendments to this bill. If he does not, one, he hurts the 
next year and a half in this body in terms of relationship and 
fairness; but, No. 2, he hurts the American public worse than that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
beginning to talk about this Omnibus appropriations bill that is coming 
to the floor in the form of a continuing resolution.
  At this point, we are told the amendment tree will be immediately 
filled and there will be no amendments allowed to this over $400 
billion Omnibus appropriations bill. It is not too late for the 
distinguished leader of the Democrats, the majority leader, to allow 
some amendments. He said on the floor yesterday he was open to 
discussions and thought that probably maybe some amendments on the 
Democratic side and the Republican side would be in order.
  When you take something that is this big--$400 billion--this number 
of appropriations bills, and you see the incredible changes that have 
been made in these bills, without any hearings, without sufficient time 
to even digest everything that is in these bills, I think a few 
amendments are warranted.
  I think Senator Coburn pointed out something that surely no one 
intended--surely no one intended--to stop babies from being able to 
have the HIV/AIDS test that would give them a chance at a quality of 
life which they will not be able to get if they do not have this test 
and catch potential AIDS in their bodies right at birth.
  I am going to talk about one I know a lot about, and that is the 
military construction and BRAC. Military construction is completely 
dropped in this bill, completely dropped from last year's military 
construction bill. We passed this bill in the Senate. We tried to go to 
conference. The Senate sent it to conference. But we were not able to 
get the House to agree; therefore, the bill died last year.
  I will say that it is not the Democrats' fault that bill died last 
year. But, nevertheless, the Democrats now are in charge, and I would 
ask the distinguished leader to acknowledge we have bills that have not 
been fully passed, conferenced, and sent to the President, but a 
continuing resolution that is unamendable is not the right approach, 
particularly if we take to heart what the distinguished leader said was 
going to be different about the Senate under his leadership.
  In fact, there is precedent. In 2003, the Republicans took over the 
Senate after the Democrats had been in control. There were 11 
appropriations bills undone. Those 11 bills were put together in an 
Omnibus appropriations by the Republicans. There were 6 days of debate. 
There were 100 amendments offered. The majority of the amendments that 
were added to the bill were Democratic amendments.
  So I think that is the precedent we should follow in the Senate. This 
is a body that is supposed to allow for discussion, debate, 
transparency, and minority rights. We are in the minority. We know 
that. But we have never been denied on such a continuing basis the 
ability to even affect legislation or amend legislation. That seems to 
be a pattern in the first 5 weeks of this session. I do not think it is 
what was intended by the majority when they took control of the Senate, 
and I think there is a chance to come together and maybe go a different 
way; that is, to allow amendments on major bills.
  We now have a bill that is called a continuing resolution, and it 
strips BRAC, it strips the base closing construction that will keep the 
Base Closing Commission results that were adopted by Congress that are 
the law of this country from going forward with the 6-year timetable 
that was set out by Congress.
  We have 6 years to do the construction that will prepare bases that 
are going to receive troops and to close bases in an expeditious manner 
so the cities that have these large amounts of land will be able to 
take over those bases and do something productive for their respective 
cities with those bases.
  What we have now is a delay that will last 1 year. It is going to 
cause a backup in the system of adhering to the congressional 
responsibility for BRAC. It is going to begin to handicap the ability 
to move troops from overseas that are scheduled as early as this year 
to move.
  Mr. President, 12,000 troops will begin to move that are part of the 
rebasing operation from foreign bases to American bases. Twelve 
thousand will not be able to move with all of the amenities we require.
  Let me read excerpts from a few of the military leaders of our 
country, letters that were sent on behalf of the military of our 
country, asking that Congress act on both the military construction 
bills that were passed by both Houses of Congress but not conferenced 
last year and the $3 billion that was taken out of the budget and 
spread throughout the other bills that are in this omnibus continuing 
resolution.
  The Democrats have taken $3 billion out of military construction to 
effect our mandate of a 6-year period in which the military has to make 
the transfers we adopted in BRAC. It takes $3 billion out of this 
year's budget and transfers it to other priorities that have never had 
1 day of hearing and never had even a discussion in the committees.
  This is a letter from Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense:

       As you prepare to complete the Joint Continuing Resolution, 
     we urge you to include provisions to permit the execution of 
     the Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget request [as it 
     relates to the Department of Defense].
       Funding programs at FY 2006 levels under a year-long 
     Continuing Resolution--

  Which is what is in this bill--

     would negatively impact critical priorities and missions 
     within the Department. If the

[[Page 3460]]

     [continuing resolution] levels are set at [these] enacted 
     levels, the Department will face shortfalls of over $1 
     billion in the Defense Health Program--

  Part of that is accommodated in this bill--

     $0.5 billion in Basic Allowance for Housing, and $4 billion 
     in the Base Realignment and Closure programs.

  Now, this was sent before this omnibus continuing resolution came 
over. Part of those are funded but not the Base Realignment and Closure 
programs. Mr. President, $3 billion of the $4 billion requested was 
taken out.
  Secretary Gates goes on to say:

       Delays in completing BRAC could result in postponing 
     scheduled redeployments from overseas stations to the United 
     States. Deferring BRAC implementation would also impede 
     community efforts to quickly transition the affected bases to 
     civilian use, so that the impact of BRAC on local economies 
     can be reduced. Furthermore, congressionally approved BRAC 
     recommendations were developed to provide cost savings 
     benefits; any delays will jeopardize those benefits.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I have just 
read, addressed to Senator Byrd, with a copy to Senator Cochran, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 2007.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you prepare to complete the Joint 
     Continuing Resolution, we urge you to include provisions to 
     permit the execution of the Fiscal Year 2007 President's 
     Budget request.
       Funding programs at FY 2006 levels under a year-long 
     Continuing Resolution (CR) would negatively impact critical 
     priorities and missions within the Department. If the CR 
     levels are set at FY 2006 enacted levels, the Department will 
     face shortfalls of over $1 billion in the Defense Health 
     Program (DHP), $0.5 billion in Basic Allowance for Housing 
     (BAH), and $4 billion in the Base Realignment and Closure 
     (BRAC) programs. Funding for the DHP is needed to avoid 
     reductions in health care benefits for members, retirees, and 
     their families; funding for BAH is needed to ensure that 
     members receive timely housing payments.
       Delays in completing BRAC could result in postponing 
     scheduled redeployments from overseas stations to the United 
     States. Deferring BRAC implementation would also impede 
     community efforts to quickly transition the affected bases to 
     civilian use, so that the impact of BRAC on local economies 
     can be reduced. Furthermore, congressionally approved BRAC 
     recommendations were developed to provide cost savings 
     benefits; any delays will jeopardize those benefits.
       Thank you for your help on this important matter. Our 
     warfighters will be the direct beneficiaries of your 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the $3 billion that has been cut out 
is going to affect many important bases in our country. One of the 
bases is in Texas. Fort Bliss is in great need of military construction 
because it is designated by the Department of Defense to receive 30,000 
troops, and there is much that needs to be done to prepare the base for 
those overseas redeployments.
  I happen to know that one the best, of course. But let's talk about 
Fort Riley, KS, where a good number of the redeployed troops are also 
going to be stationed. They are very concerned in Kansas. I know 
Senator Roberts and Senator Brownback plan to speak this afternoon. But 
I am speaking now because I am hoping the majority leader will decide 
that maybe we do need some amendments to this bill, that maybe we can 
work together in a bipartisan way and work these out.
  These BRAC budget provisions have been adopted by the Senate. The 
military construction appropriations bill was a quite bipartisan bill 
that was adopted last year by the Senate as well.
  When you look at Fort Riley in Kansas, which is one of the major-need 
areas for BRAC funding that we are going to talk about--I know Senators 
Roberts and Brownback will expand on it--you have a Battle Command 
Training Center. This is for troops coming from Europe to Fort Riley 
for training. The major part of the military construction for Fort 
Riley is a training center. You have runway improvements, a child 
development center for quality of life for our troops--all of this is 
at Fort Riley, KS--a soldier-family medical clinic at Fort Riley, a 
division headquarters. All of that is Fort Riley, KS, which is one of 
the major areas that would be hit by this delay in taking out the $3 
billion from BRAC.
  I have been talking to Senators Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia. 
They will have a huge hit as well in Fort Benning. Fort Benning is 
another of those that is in need of great enhancement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has consumed 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to extend my time for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not object, but may I inquire how 
much time remains to the minority under morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 15 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I did not realize that. I ask the Senator from Texas 
how much time he would like to have.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was hoping to have at least 5 minutes, 
but I see that time is running short.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will give him 5 minutes. Just let me 
have the rest of that time and notify me when there is 5 minutes 
remaining then I will yield to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 1 minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. In Georgia, Fort Benning is going to be a major loser 
because of the delay. You have two major training barracks and training 
brigade complex units that will not be able to be started, a fire and 
movement range, a modified record fire range, brigade headquarters, 
training barracks complex No. 2, and the stationary gunnery range.
  Again, we are trying to enhance training for our troops. Many of 
those being brought home, the 70,000 troops being brought home in the 
Department of Defense plan, are being brought home to increase their 
training capability.
  I encourage and ask Senator Reid to reconsider. Let's have some 
agreement on equal numbers of Republican and Democratic amendments. 
Let's have some say in this Omnibus appropriations bill. I cannot 
imagine we would pass a bill such as this with no amendment whatsoever 
in either House of Congress. I don't think that is what the American 
people hoped for when they voted last November.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for the 
remainder of the time, 4 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from 
Texas in giving me a few minutes to speak on this continuing 
resolution.
  This is, to say the least, disappointing. We have a bill that 
addresses more than $400 billion worth of spending but cuts $3.1 
billion from our men and women in uniform for the Department of Defense 
at a time when we hope to be able to build facilities in the United 
States to accommodate them and their families as we bring them back 
from places such as Europe and Korea and elsewhere. We know that we 
have an all-voluntary military. As a member of a military family 
myself--my father was in the Air Force for 31 years--it is more than 
just the individual servicemember who serves; it is a family 
proposition.
  I urge the majority leader and the majority to reconsider this cut of 
$3.1 billion in the very meat and bone of what it takes to recruit and 
retain a volunteer military. As the saying goes, you recruit an 
individual servicemember but you retain a family. These kinds of cuts, 
$750 million of which will come out of the money that is allocated for 
the State of Texas, are just extraordinarily unwise.
  I have heard rumors to the effect that the majority is going to try 
to add this money back in the supplemental appropriations bill we will 
be taking up, I guess sometime in March. Of course, that would be a 
budgetary trick

[[Page 3461]]

which would exacerbate the budget deficit and be in stark conflict with 
the kind of rhetoric we have heard from our colleagues on the majority 
side who have said that we need a pay-as-you-go budget. In other words, 
if there is going to be spending, there has to be commensurate offsets.
  Cutting out of this so-called continuing resolution or Omnibus 
appropriations this $3.1 billion for our military families and then 
coming back and adding it in as emergency spending in a supplemental 
avoids the budgetary requirement of an offset and, thus, will add to 
additional deficits which are irresponsible and certainly in conflict 
with the statements our colleagues have made on the other side.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Would the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I certainly will.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was just listening to his statement and agree that 
there is going to be a budget gimmick if this comes up in a 
supplemental. But is the Senator from Texas a part of an amendment we 
would like to proffer which would restore $39.1 billion but cut .73 
percent across the board in all of the other accounts in this bill 
except for defense, veterans, and homeland security, so that we could 
pay for it, be fiscally responsible, and yet do what we need to do for 
the Active-Duty military, not to drain their operations to fund 
military construction projects that should be funded in this bill? Is 
the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. CORNYN. I am proud to be a cosponsor, along with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Texas, of an amendment which would 
accomplish that goal. This is the way to handle our budgetary 
responsibilities appropriately. I implore the majority leader to allow 
us an opportunity to have amendments and to have a full and fair debate 
on this continuing resolution. We started this Congress in a spirit of 
compromise, but certainly if the amendment tree is filled and we are 
denied an opportunity to have debate and consideration of an amendment 
such as that, it would be extraordinarily disappointing and in conflict 
with some of the early rhetoric and hopes we all had for bipartisan 
cooperation.

                          ____________________