[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3936-3955]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate resumes 
consideration of H.J. Res. 20, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res 20) making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 237, to change an effective date.
       Reid amendment No. 238 (to amendment No. 237), of a 
     technical nature.
       Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions to report back forthwith, 
     with Reid amendment No. 239, to change an effective date.
       Reid amendment No. 240 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit), of a technical nature.

       Reid amendment No. 241 (to amendment No. 240), of a 
     technical nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                        Alternative Minimum Tax

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think it was 48 hours ago I opened a 
discussion with my fellow Senators on the alternative minimum tax. As I 
pointed out at that time, it is generally recognized that the 
alternative minimum tax is a policy failure.
  Created in 1969, in response to the discovery that 155 wealthy 
taxpayers--and let me emphasize that I am talking about 155 wealthy 
taxpayers--were able to eliminate their entire tax liabilities through 
legal means, the AMT has now evolved into a place where, because it 
wasn't indexed, it has captured more than 3 million middle-class 
Americans as of 2004. The AMT was never supposed to affect anyone 
except the very wealthy people.
  I am using 2004 numbers because 2004 is the most recent year we have 
completed data. Three million people in that year were hit by AMT, even 
though since 2001 we have had in place a tax policy that no additional 
people should be hit by the alternative minimum tax.
  At the time I was visiting with my colleagues 2 days ago, I cited the 
widespread observation that the most significant structural flaw 
afflicting the AMT is the failure to index its rates and exemptions for 
inflation. This failure, then--and I alluded to this a minute ago--has 
resulted in the gradual encroachment of the alternative minimum tax to 
hit middle-class taxpayers who were never intended to pay this tax.
  Despite the widespread agreement that something needs to be done with 
the alternative minimum tax, agreement on what exactly to do is not so 
widespread. A major factor in the disagreement relates to the massive 
amount of money the alternative minimum tax brings to the Federal 
Government. In 2004, from these 3 million taxpayers hit by this tax, 
more than $12.8 billion was paid into the Federal Treasury. If we don't 
extend the most recent alternative minimum tax hold-harmless that 
actually expired at the end of 2006, the amount paid by those 3 million 
taxpayers is expected to balloon to a much greater amount. And, of 
course, when you go beyond that, into the long-term budget forecast, it 
is going to continue to grow and grow, with middle-class taxpayers 
paying a tax that was meant to be for 155 wealthy people.
  When forecasters put their projections together, they are working 
under the assumption that the hold-harmless that was extended in last 
year's tax bill will not be extended because they base their 
assumptions on current law. This means the hold-harmless provisions 
ended December 31, 2006, and money being earned right now is going to 
hit millions more people.
  People who guesstimate how much money comes into the Federal 
Treasury--and we have people both in the executive branch and the 
legislative branch who have that as their responsibility, so we can 
make good tax policy--take into consideration what is current law, and 
they are planning on these millions of middle-class taxpayers paying 
this alternative minimum tax, even though they were never intended to 
pay it. Because of this, budget planners make the assumption that 
revenues will be much higher than everyone who is frustrated with the 
AMT thinks that amount of money ought to be, as well as the number of 
people who are going to be paying it.
  The reason for that is the alternative minimum tax tremendously 
balloons the revenue base, as it is projected to increase revenues as a 
percentage of gross domestic product. There is a great deal of evidence 
to support this.
  On a side note, a senior, well-respected tax lawyer on the other side 
of the aisle in the other body took exception to my use of the term 
``ballooning.'' The staffer wrote an article and criticized me for that 
term. Well, I am not used to staff writing articles criticizing Members 
of Congress, so I happened to respond to that staffer's criticism 
through my own staff. The essence of the senior staffer's criticism was 
that the term ``ballooning'' ignored the accounting for the interaction 
of bipartisan tax relief with AMT costs. As we pointed out, ballooning 
revenue from the AMT occurs in the outyears, whether the bipartisan tax 
relief is extended or made permanent. I will talk more about that in a 
few minutes.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has consistently forecast 
this ballooning year after year. This chart which I have before me now 
for you to look at, reproduced from the Congressional Budget Office's 
long-term budget outlook, was published in December 2005 and shows how 
Federal revenues are expected to push through the 30-year historical 
average and then keep going up.
  You can take that historical average back 30 or 40 years for sure, 
and maybe longer than that, but the historical average is here and 
current law is actually going to bring in this much revenue, and that 
includes the ballooning of the alternative minimum tax.
  I want to note that although the Tax Increase Prevention and 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 was signed into law after this analysis was 
published, the 2006 tax bill extended the AMT hold-harmless through 
December 31 last year, and this chart shows Federal revenues all the 
way through to the year 2050. It is important to note the long-term 
effects then of the alternative minimum tax on the revenue base.
  There may be some doubters who hesitate to attribute this ballooning 
of

[[Page 3937]]

revenues to the alternative minimum tax, but this chart illustrates the 
drastic expansion of the AMT under current law over the next 43 years. 
Over the next 43 years. This is also from the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office. You can clearly see that the share of households 
subjected to the alternative minimum tax is alarmingly around 65 
percent.
  Let's go through that again. You can see from the new chart which I 
have put up here that the share of households subjected to the 
alternative minimum tax increases by the year 2050 to about 65 percent 
of taxpayers. The reason why this 65 percent--or even going back to 
here, or even back to here--is significant is because, as I told you 48 
hours ago, and as I tell my colleagues now, this alternative minimum 
tax was put in the tax law to hit wealthy taxpayers, 155 at that year, 
who didn't pay any tax whatsoever.
  It was felt that everybody, particularly wealthy people living in 
this country and who benefit from this country, ought to pay some sort 
of a tax. It was never intended to hit this percentage of taxpayers, or 
this percentage of taxpayers, and surely not this percentage of 
taxpayers. And if we do nothing, it is going to be 65 percent. I don't 
know what the population of this country is going to be in 43 years, 
but I know that 65 percent of the population in 2050 will be more, 
quite obviously more than the 155 taxpayers the AMT was intended to 
target.
  This chart also shows how the AMT will consume a greater and greater 
share of the total individual income tax liability. The Congressional 
Budget Office report states:

       By 2050, roughly 15 percent of the individual income tax 
     liability would be generated by the alternative minimum tax 
     compared with about 2 percent today.

  This is what will happen if we don't do anything. This is going to 
happen. The analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office clearly 
shows an upcoming ballooning of Federal revenues, accompanied by a 
corresponding bloating of the share of households and the share of 
total liability attributed to a tax that was only intended to hit 155 
people 39 years ago.
  A particularly wrongheaded argument that has been advocated is that 
the Bush tax cuts are responsible for increases in the number of people 
hit by the alternative minimum tax. Some think the Bush tax cuts are 
increasing some people's income so much that they are subject to the 
alternative minimum tax and that making the tax cuts permanent will 
only make those problems worse. This sort of reasoning is deceptive and 
could not be more wrong. First, the analysis that I presented--done by 
the Congressional Budget Office--looks forward all the way to 2050, and 
the Bush tax cuts under current law sunset in 2010. As I previously 
said, the AMT's greatest flaw is that it is not indexed for inflation, 
and inflation is going to continue whether the Bush tax cuts are 
extended or not. Inflation is going to be there.
  This next chart from the Congressional Budget Office illustrates how 
the alternative minimum tax will continue to be a money machine, 
regardless of any other factors. The bottom line illustrates individual 
income tax liabilities if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent and the 
AMT is modified, the middle line illustrates current law with the 
permanence of the Bush tax cuts, and the very top line--current law. If 
the Bush tax cuts are allowed to sunset and the AMT is allowed to grow 
and consume our middle class, the AMT will still balloon revenues 
anyway. Any argument that making the Bush tax cuts permanent will 
worsen our AMT problem is completely false, and this chart proves that. 
The AMT is a problem all by itself.
  As I said earlier, the problem with all of the projections showing 
the AMT ballooning revenues is that these projections are used to put 
together budgets. This means the central problem in dealing with the 
AMT is money. There are some people who say we can only solve the AMT 
problem if offsetting revenue can be found to replace the money that 
the AMT is currently forecast to collect. Anyone who says this sees the 
forecasts showing revenue being pushed up as a percentage of GDP--and 
they are high-tax people and yet higher tax people to satisfy them--and 
they want to keep it there. These arguments are especially ridiculous 
when one considers that the alternative minimum tax was never meant to 
collect so much revenue and collect it from the people who are going to 
end up paying it, the middle class people, if we don't do something 
about it.
  As a policy instrument, the alternative minimum tax has been and 
continues to be a complete failure, as I discussed 48 hours ago. The 
alternative minimum tax was originally conceived as a means to ensure 
that extremely wealthy taxpayers were not able to game the system and 
to avoid their entire tax liability. In 1969, the alternative minimum 
tax was calculated to hit only one out of a half a million people. 
There is absolutely no way anyone can call the AMT anything close to a 
success. The alternative minimum tax has even failed in its objective: 
to ensure that no citizen, regardless of how wealthy, was able to 
completely avoid paying at least a little bit of Federal income tax 
because we have this anomaly.
  In 2004, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Mark 
Everson, informed the Finance Committee that the same number of 
taxpayers, as a percentage of the tax-filing population at large, 
continues to pay no Federal income tax.
  So even to hit the people who were supposed to be hit, there are 
people in a tax situation, legally, able to avoid not only the regular 
income tax but to avoid the alternative minimum tax. So it is a failure 
by its own reason for existence.
  According to an IRS analysis of the tax year 2003 data, we had 2,366 
taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 or more who did not use the 
medical or dental expense deduction and had no income tax.
  The AMT has failed in every way except for the ability to raise very 
large sums of money, and it was never intended to be a tax-producing 
machine. It was only intended to hit people who were not going to pay 
any income tax and ought to pay a little bit for the privilege of 
living in America. While it may be hard for some to turn down 
taxpayers' money, whether we are supposed to collect it or not, no one 
seems to have trouble spending it. This means that some want the 
taxpayer to pay the price for a tax that was designed poorly and 
through the comedy of errors was allowed to flourish.
  It is simply unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax they were never 
intended to pay--and that means middle class America. And it is even 
more unfair to expect them to continue paying for that tax once we get 
rid of it. The reform or repeal of the AMT should not be offset because 
it is money we were never supposed to collect in the first place.
  The way to solve this problem is to look on the other side of the 
ledger, the spending side. Budget planners need to take off their rose-
colored glasses when looking at long-term revenue projections that 
include a tax by middle class people who were never intended to pay 
that tax, the alternative minimum tax, and to read the fine print. In 
general, it is a good idea to spend money within your means. That is 
true in this case as well. If we start trying to spend revenues we 
expect to collect in the future because of the AMT, from people who 
were never expected to pay it, it was never supposed to come in the 
first place, we will be living beyond our means. We need to stop 
assuming that record levels of revenue are available to be spent and to 
recognize that the AMT is a phony revenue source.
  As we consider how to deal with the AMT, we must first remember that 
we do not have the option of not dealing with it unless we want to kill 
the middle class. The problems will only get worse every year and make 
any solutions more difficult. We must also be clear that the revenue 
the AMT would not collect as a result of repeal or reform should not be 
offset as a condition for repeal or reform. We should not call it lost 
revenue because it is revenue that the middle class was never expected 
to pay. Making the offsetting of the AMT's ill-gotten gains a condition

[[Page 3938]]

of the AMT fix is to punish the American taxpayers for an ill-conceived 
and poorly executed policy that has been a total failure.
  Aside from not increasing the proportion of wealthy taxpayers who pay 
income taxes, the AMT is projected to balloon Federal revenues over 
historical averages and to become a greater source of revenue than even 
the regular income tax. Budget forecasters need to recognize that the 
AMT is not a legitimate source of revenue, and Congress needs to be 
disciplined enough to show restraint on spending so that an AMT 
solution doesn't boil down to the replacement of one misguided policy 
by another misguided policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my remarks, Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Chambliss of Georgia be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Iranian Threat

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, at this moment of challenge for our 
Nation, the vantage point of this august Chamber, we look onto a world 
filled with danger, deeply complex threats against our troops and our 
national interests abroad, and genuine risks to our security at home. 
Keeping our Nation strong and our people safe requires that we employ 
the best and smartest strategies available.
  In confronting enemies and threats we are fortunate to possess a 
great many assets, all of which we must wisely deploy, including our 
military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural assets. Our strongest 
asset remains the democracy that we are privileged to take part in as 
Members of the Senate and as representatives of our constituents. Our 
democratic institutions, under our Constitution, balance one another 
and check against excesses and concentrations of power that help us 
wrestle with difficult challenges in an open and forthright way. This 
constitutional framework is not an obstacle to pursuing our national 
security but the example that we should project to the world. Our 
democracy, with its tradition of accountable power and open debate, is 
America at its best. That is what we need, America at our best, as we 
deliberately and resolutely confront the threat posed by the Iranian 
regime.
  Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests 
in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian 
President has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued 
bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and 
the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more 
disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest 
to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and 
resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack 
Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian 
weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence, even beyond 
its borders.
  We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of 
attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own 
American soldiers. As I have long said, and will continue to say, U.S. 
policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must 
not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with 
this threat, as I have also said for a long time, no option can be 
taken off the table. But America must proceed deliberately and wisely, 
and we must proceed as a unified nation. The smartest and strongest 
policy will be one forged through the institutions of our democracy. 
That is the genius of our American system and our constitutional duty.
  We have witnessed these past 6 years, until the most recent election 
of a new Congress by the American people, the cost of congressional 
dereliction of its oversight duty--a vital role entrusted to Congress 
by our constituents and enshrined in and even required by our 
Constitution. So we are here today because the price that has been paid 
in blood and treasure through the rush to war in Iraq and the 
incompetence of its execution and managing the aftermath, in the 
excesses of military contracting abuses and the inadequate supply of 
body armor and armored vehicles on the ground, have led to a loss of 
confidence in this administration among our allies and the American 
people.
  Therefore, we cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat 
itself. We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked 
Presidential action. Sunlight is the best disinfectant but this 
President was allowed, for too long, to commit blunder after blunder 
under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress.
  In dealing with the threats posed by the Iranian regime, which has 
gained its expanding influence in Iraq and the region as a result of 
the administration's policies, President Bush must not be allowed to 
act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a 
mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 
2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for 
the use of force against Iran without further congressional 
authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution 
authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way 
authorizes force against Iran.
  If the administration believes that any--any--use of force against 
Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that 
authority.
  I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush 
administration. The administration has asserted evidence of the Iranian 
regime's complicity at the highest levels for attacks within Iraq. Yet, 
at the same time, GEN Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, questions these assertions--in particular, the culpability and 
intentions of the Irani Government. In this delicate situation, while 
making disturbing comments, the administration has also announced it is 
sending a third aircraft carrier to the gulf. The President owes an 
ongoing consultation to this Congress and owes straight talk to the 
country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our 
current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward 
our adversaries.
  I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such 
as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give 
us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian 
regime. And if we ever must, with congressional agreement, take drastic 
action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every 
other possibility.
  I welcome the agreement announced yesterday between the United States 
and North Korea. It demonstrates the central value of using every tool 
in our arsenal to achieve our objectives. I only wish the 
administration had pursued this course 6 years ago when an agreement 
with North Korea was within reach. The wasted time has allowed North 
Korea to develop nuclear weapons in the interim.
  Failure to use diplomacy has damaged our national security interests. 
The important step forward our country has made with North Korea raises 
the obvious question: Why will the President refuse to have any kind of 
process involving Iran, as I and others have urged? The United States 
engaged in talks with North Korea within a multilateral process but 
also had ongoing bilateral discussions. We should have such a process 
of direct engagement with Iran as recommended by many, including the 
Iraq Study Group. We need friends and allies to stand with us in this 
long war against terrorism and extremism and to contain and alter the 
regimes that harbor and support those who would harm us. During the 
Cold War, we spoke to the Soviet Union while thousands of missiles were 
pointed at our cities, while its leaders threatened to bury us, while 
the regime sowed discord and military uprisings and actions against us 
and our allies. That was a smart strategy used by Republican and 
Democratic Presidents alike, even though it was often a difficult one.
  As we discuss potential evidence of Iranian complicity in supplying 
arms

[[Page 3939]]

to insurgents along with the refusal to suspend their nuclear 
ambitions, we need to deliver a strong message to Iran that we will not 
stand by and tolerate this behavior. However, we need to deliver that 
message forcefully through direct talks. The lives of American soldiers 
are at risk, and we should not outsource our discussions with the 
Iranians on this and other issues. When I say no option should be taken 
off the table, I include diplomacy.
  Currently, our intelligence on Iran is of uncertain quality. We need 
to examine the facts closely and carefully. No action can or should be 
taken without explicit congressional authorization. And knowing what we 
know now, this body needs a steady stream of real, verifiable 
intelligence. We in the Congress cannot do our part in deciding what 
needs to be done if we do not know what is happening, and it does not 
appear that the administration has any real grasp on the facts on the 
ground, even after all these years. The public unclassified sections of 
the NIE recently issued made it very clear in their conclusions that 
sectarian violence would still exist in Iraq absent Iran.
  So we have a lot to sort out. We have all learned lessons from the 
conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations 
that are being raised about Iran because what we are hearing has too 
familiar a ring, and we must be on guard that we never again make 
decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty. If 
we find evidence of potential Iranian complicity, we will take 
appropriate action, but that requires a partnership to defend and 
protect America's national security interests between the Congress and 
the President.
  Oversight will also lead to a consensus approach that brings together 
the best judgment and strategies of our Nation and will examine the 
consequences of action, the reality of any perceived or alleged threat, 
and the consequences of taking action. I sometimes fear that the word 
``consequence'' has been taken out of the vocabulary of this 
administration. We have to look over the horizon. We have to make hard 
choices among difficult options.
  So there are no easy answers to the complex situations we confront in 
the world today. But if we do face threats, the congressional 
consultation and authorization will bring the American people into the 
debate. Whatever steps, if any, may be required should be taken by our 
Nation, not just by our President. We must act as Americans, not as 
members of one party or another. Our Nation has been divided by a 
failed policy and the relentless pursuit of it. We are facing that 
again with the escalation policy the President is pursuing today.
  Mr. President, if we face up to our constitutional responsibilities 
as the Congress, if we conduct the oversight that is required, if we 
exercise our checks and balances, then we are likely to reach a better 
conclusion than we have thus far. We must be tough and smart, 
deliberative and wise, and we must look at all of our assets, not just 
the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country. To 
implement the best policy, we should start by employing our best 
values: the democratic values that give strength to our Nation and our 
cause and that serve as an example and beacon to people who wish to 
live in peace and freedom and prosperity around the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                       Building Economic Security

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today before the Senate Banking Committee, 
the Federal Reserve Chairman testified that the economy is doing well. 
I was joined by my friend, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, 
who is in the chair. He told us that consumer spending is up, 
productivity is up, and that the labor market will stay healthy. At the 
very moment that the Chairman delivered a rosy prediction for our 
Nation's economy, an AP story broke that Chrysler is cutting 13,000 
jobs. One hundred of those jobs are in Cleveland. Those aren't just 
numbers; those are 100 families.
  Two weeks ago, before the same Senate Banking Committee, the Treasury 
Secretary testified that the economy was doing well. He repeated many 
times that the GDP had grown in excess of 3 percent. Earlier that same 
morning, at the Senate Agriculture Committee, Rhonda Stewart, a single 
mother from Hamilton, OH, testified that despite working full time, 
caring for her 9-year-old son Wyatt, and even serving as president of 
the PTA and a leader in the Boy Scouts, she and her son must rely on 
food stamps to survive. At the end of each month, she told us, she must 
forgo dinner so her son can eat because the food stamps just don't go 
far enough.
  Worker productivity is up, profits are up, the stock market is doing 
well, and millionaires are enjoying exorbitant tax breaks. Thirteen 
thousand more workers are about to lose their jobs, and a single mother 
working full time, involved in her community, doing her best, can't 
afford to eat dinner. There is a clear disconnect between the 
corporate-driven myopia of this administration on our Nation's economy 
and the real-world economic conditions working families in Ohio 
struggle through every day.
  Our middle class is shrinking in large part because our policies in 
Washington have betrayed the values of working families across our 
country, which is why we must revamp our economic and trade policies so 
that we invest in our middle class. We must shrink income inequality, 
grow our business community, and create good-paying jobs. We must 
establish trade policy that builds our economic security. That is not 
what we have now.
  Job loss does not just affect the worker or even just the worker's 
family; job loss, especially job loss in the thousands, devastates 
communities. It hurts the local business owners--the drugstore, the 
grocery store, the neighborhood restaurant. When people are out of 
work, they can't support their local economy, which forces owners to 
close, in too many cases, their small businesses. That means lost 
revenues to the community, which hurts schools, which hurts fire 
departments, which hurts police departments. The trade policies we set 
in Washington and negotiated across the globe have a direct impact on 
places such as Toledo and Steubenville, Cleveland and Lima, Zanesville 
and Portsmouth.
  We hear the word ``protectionist'' thrown around by those who insist 
on more of the same failed trade policies. It is considered 
``protectionist'' by some of them to fight for labor and environmental 
standards, but they call it free trade when we pass trade agreements to 
protect drug company patents and Hollywood DVDs. If we can protect 
intellectual property, as we should, if we can protect intellectual 
property rights with enforceable provisions in trade agreements, we can 
certainly do the same for labor and environmental and food safety 
standards. It is not a question of if we trade, it is how we trade and 
who benefits from that trade.
  While it is unclear whether the administration will ever acknowledge 
that our trade policy has failed, it is very clear that this Congress 
is already at work. Republicans and Democrats are working cooperatively 
to revamp our trade policy. We are working cooperatively to raise the 
minimum wage. We will work cooperatively to make education more 
affordable for middle-class families and to lower the cost of 
prescription drugs for our Nation's seniors, and we will work 
cooperatively to invest in new technology and new industry.
  In my State of Ohio, we have a talented and hard-working labor force 
and an entrepreneurial spirit second to none that needs only the 
investment dollars, predictable tax policy, and commitment from our 
Government to realize our economic potential.
  Oberlin College, in the county in which I live, Lorain County, has 
the largest building on any university campus in the country fully 
powered by solar energy. However, the builder had to buy the solar 
panels from Germany and Japan because we do not make enough of them in 
our country.
  Through investment and alternative energy, we can not only create 
jobs, we

[[Page 3940]]

can grow industry, and we can grow industry through biomedical research 
and development. Now is the time for Government to do its part and 
direct our priorities from favoring the wealthiest 1 percent to growing 
our Nation's middle class.
  Mr. President, on a personal note, I would like to take this 
opportunity to wish my wife Connie, who is home in Ohio under several 
feet of snow, a happy Valentines Day.
  Connie, I am blessed to have you as my wife.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.


                             SCHIP Funding

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to wish my colleague a 
happy Valentines Day, also. I am sorry his wife is under all that snow. 
It is 70 degrees in south Georgia, so you should come south this year.
  I rise today to bring to the attention of this body once again an 
amendment Senator Isakson and I filed to the continuing resolution. The 
amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. We have a program 
called SCHIP that everybody in this body is familiar with, and it has 
been a very valuable program to every State in the country because what 
it does is provide children all across America who are above the 
Medicaid limit but not able to afford health insurance the opportunity 
to be covered by medical insurance. It is called the SCHIP program, and 
it is exactly what it says it is: health insurance assistance for 
children.
  Unfortunately, the money that is block-granted under this program has 
created some shortfalls in several States. The shortfalls vary with the 
timing of the shortfalls, and the reasoning for the shortfalls differs 
in each of the States where we are about to run out of money for these 
children and then these children will no longer have health insurance 
coverage.
  The amendment that Senator Isakson and I have proposed will come up 
with an alternative that allows those States which have an excess 
amount of money to put that money into a pool of money from which the 
13 States that have a shortfall in the SCHIP program.
  Mr. President, in this amendment, for the 13 States that will have a 
shortfall, we take money from States that have an excess amount of 
money, money they cannot possibly use in their SCHIP program because 
this program expired at the end of this fiscal year. We allow them 
plenty of room for any emergency-type situation that might arise 
between now and the end of the fiscal year, and we give them the 
funding they need to cover the children in their States. We utilize 
that money to fund the shortfalls in States such as Georgia, where 
273,000 children participate in SCHIP.
  Frankly, the main reason we have a shortfall in Georgia is because 
following Hurricane Katrina last year we had an influx of some 40,000 
children who came from the hurricane-devastated areas of Louisiana and 
Mississippi into Georgia. They are now participating in the SCHIP 
program, and they should be allowed to have that coverage.
  We now have the opportunity, in this Senate--whether it is today when 
we vote on the continuing resolution, whether it is tomorrow or whether 
it is Friday--to look after these children who are very soon going to 
have this insurance safety net jerked out from under them. I implore my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to encourage the Democratic 
leadership to allow the amendment to come forward, let us have a vote 
on this amendment to make sure all of these children who participate in 
the SCHIP program in Georgia as well as the other 13 States that are 
going to experience a shortfall between now and the time we reauthorize 
this program before the end of the year, can continue to have that 
health care coverage they deserve and that they so badly need. It is a 
very simple request we are making of the Democratic leadership that we 
allow this amendment to come forward.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Cardin be 
recognized at 3 p.m., and when Senator Sanders is recognized today, he 
be permitted to speak up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 20 
minutes.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Federal budget is more than a long 
list of numbers which, in this case, adds up to about $2.9 trillion. 
The Federal budget, similar to any family budget or any company budget, 
is a statement of values and priorities. In fact, the Federal budget, 
in many ways, is a statement of what our country is all about.
  We would all find it irresponsible and strange if a family we knew 
spent all of its money on an expensive vacation but forgot to put aside 
money for the mortgage or the rent and suddenly the family and their 
kids found themselves out on the street. We would say: My goodness, 
that is irresponsible. The family was spending money where they 
shouldn't have been and not spending it where they should.
  Preparing the Federal budget and analyzing the Federal budget is 
exactly the same process. It is about spending the money of the people 
of the United States of America. It is about deciding where we should 
spend it and where we should not spend it. It is looking at the 
American people as a family. It is about taking a hard look at the 
needs of our people and prioritizing the budget in an intelligent and a 
rational way.
  Let me take a quick glance at the economic reality facing the middle 
class, the working families of our country, tens and tens of millions 
of Americans and their kids.
  Since President Bush has been in office, more than 5 million 
Americans have slipped into poverty, including over 1 million children. 
Not only does the United States of America have the highest rate of 
poverty of any major country on Earth, we also shamefully have the 
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, with 
almost 18 percent of our children living in poverty. Today, 37 million 
Americans live in poverty and 13 million are children.
  Last year, in the richest Nation in the history of the world, 35 
million of our fellow Americans struggled to put food on the table. The 
Agriculture Department recently reported that the number of the 
poorest, hungriest Americans keep rising. In America today, hunger is a 
growing problem.
  We have a crisis in our Nation in terms of affordable housing. 
Millions of working families in my State of Vermont and all over this 
country are paying 50 to 60 percent of their limited incomes for 
housing. And there are, as we well know, other families who are either 
living in their cars or living out on the streets--in some cases, with 
their children--in America.
  Last year, there were 1.2 million home foreclosures in this country, 
an increase of 42 percent since 2005.
  The cost of energy has rapidly risen since President Bush has been in 
office. Oil prices have more than doubled and gasoline prices have gone 
up by 70 percent since January of 2001. This increase in energy prices, 
in gas prices, is putting a huge strain on people from all over this 
country, including workers from rural States such as Vermont, who have 
to travel long distances to get to their jobs.
  As is well known, many middle-class families in our country today are 
finding it increasingly difficult to afford the escalating costs of a 
college education with average tuition and other costs increasing 
rapidly with the result that many families are now saying: We can't 
send our kids to college, while other young people are graduating 
college deeply in debt.
  In America today, millions of our workers are working longer hours 
for lower wages, and median income for working-age families has 
declined for 5 years in a row. Today, incredible as it may sound, the 
personal savings rate is below zero, which has not happened since the 
Great Depression. In other words, all over this country working people 
and people in the middle class are purchasing groceries, they are 
purchasing gas at the pump, they are purchasing other basic necessities 
through

[[Page 3941]]

their credit cards and, in the process, are going deeper and deeper 
into debt.
  Over the last 6 years, we have lost in this country 3 million 
manufacturing jobs, often good-paying manufacturing jobs, including 
10,000 in my small State of Vermont. Many of the new jobs that are 
available to those displaced workers, if they are lucky enough to find 
new jobs, will pay wages and benefits substantially lower than the jobs 
they have lost.
  It is no secret that in America today our health care system is 
disintegrating. There is little dispute about that. Health care costs 
are soaring. Today, we have 46.6 million Americans with zero health 
insurance, an increase of 6.8 million since President Bush has been in 
office.
  Today, 3 million fewer American workers have pension coverage than 
when President Bush took office and half of private-sector American 
workers have no pension coverage whatsoever.
  Throughout our country, American workers who now work the longest 
hours of any people in the industrialized world--husbands working long 
hours, wives working long hours, people being stressed out by having to 
work so hard to earn the living they need to pay for their basic 
needs--are finding it harder and harder to come up with jobs, to get 
jobs which provide them a decent amount of vacation time. The 2-week 
vacation is something many workers no longer can have in this country.
  While the middle class is shrinking and while poverty is increasing 
in our country, there is another reality taking place. That is that the 
wealthiest 1 percent, the people at the very top of the economic 
ladder, have not had it so good since the 1920s. The middle class is 
shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the people on the top are doing 
phenomenally well.
  According to Forbes magazine, the selective net worth of the 
wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 
trillion; 400 families, $1.25 trillion in worth. The 400 wealthiest 
Americans are worth an unbelievable amount of money and their wealth is 
soaring.
  Sadly, however, the United States today has the most unfair 
distribution of wealth and income of any major country and the gap 
between the very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider. This was a 
country formed around egalitarian principles--we are all in it 
together. When one goes up, others go up. Yet what we are seeing today 
in an almost unprecedented way is the people on the top making out like 
bandits, earning huge increases in their incomes, in their wealth, 
while the middle class shrinks and poverty is increasing.
  Today the wealthiest 13,000 families in our country own nearly as 
much income as do the bottom 20 million families. That is 13,000 
compared to 20 million. And the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth 
than the bottom 90 percent.
  I have given a brief sketch of the economy in terms of how it impacts 
the middle class and working families of our country. Let me, within 
that context of what is happening to tens of millions of Americans, 
take a look at the President's budget.
  At a time of a major health care crisis, with more and more Americans 
uninsured or underinsured, the President's budget would cut Medicare 
and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade, lowering the quality 
of health care for approximately 43 million senior citizens and people 
with disabilities who depend on Medicare and more than 50 million 
Americans who rely on Medicaid.
  At a time when our childcare and early childhood education system are 
totally inadequate to meet the needs of working parents, the Bush 
budget reduces the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 
300,000. Childcare in crisis. The President's response: Deny childcare 
to 300,000 children.
  In addition, the President's budget provides a $100 million cut for 
the Head Start program at a time when only about one-half of the 
children eligible for this important and excellent program actually 
participate in it due to a lack of funding. Huge numbers of kids cannot 
get into Head Start. The President's response: Cut Head Start funding.
  While hunger in this country, as I mentioned earlier, is shamefully 
increasing, the President's budget denies food stamps to 280,000 
families and eliminates nutrition assistance to over 400,000 senior 
citizens, mothers, and newborn children.
  We are in a war in Iraq. We are in a war in Afghanistan. The number 
of our veterans is increasing. Twenty-two thousand have been wounded, 
many seriously. Many will come back to this country with post-traumatic 
stress disorder. Yet the President has significantly cut funding for 
the VA over a period of years, and some years ago made hundreds of 
thousands of veterans ineligible to get VA health care.
  In this great country, with so many people struggling desperately to 
keep their heads above water, we should not be cutting back on health 
care. We should not be cutting back on nutritional benefits. We should 
not be cutting back on Head Start, affordable housing, the needs of our 
veterans, and educational opportunities for middle-class families. That 
is what we should not be doing.
  This is especially true when the President's budget provides $739 
billion in tax breaks over the next decade to households with incomes 
exceeding $1 million per year. The average tax break for this group of 
millionaires will total $162,000 by the year 2012.
  Let me be very blunt. In my view it is wrong, in my view it is 
immoral to give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires--the 
people who need them the least--while cutting back on the needs of the 
middle-class and working families of our country. That is wrong.
  Is this budget, the President's budget, a reflection of the values of 
the people of our country? I do not believe that. I do not believe 
ordinary Americans think it is right and appropriate to give tax breaks 
to billionaires and then provide inadequately for our veterans, for our 
children, and for our seniors. That is not, in my view, what America is 
about.
  We are told over and over again we do not have the money to reduce 
childhood poverty in this country. We are told we do not have the funds 
to wipe out the disgrace of hunger in America. We are told we do not 
have enough money to make sure the young people who graduate from high 
school in this country, who are excited about going to college, will be 
able to do so without coming out deeply in debt.
  We do not have the money to help those families. Yet--yet--while we 
turn our backs on the middle-class and working families of our country, 
it appears we have plenty of money for the millionaires and 
billionaires of this country. We have tens of billions, in fact, to 
shower on those who need it the least, yet we have nothing, and we are 
cutting back on the programs, for those who need it most.
  Included in the President's budget, amazingly, is the complete repeal 
of the estate tax which would take effect at the end of 2010. As you 
know, the complete repeal of this tax would benefit only the top two-
tenths of 1 percent of the American people. Let me repeat that. The 
complete repeal of the estate tax would benefit solely the upper two-
tenths of 1 percent of the American population.
  These are families, of course, who already are millionaires and 
billionaires, and these are families who in the current economy have 
been doing exceedingly well. In other words, 99.8 percent of Americans 
would not benefit by one nickel from the complete repeal of the estate 
tax, as proposed by the President.
  According to the President's budget, this repeal of the estate tax 
would reduce receipts for the Treasury by more than $91 billion over 
the next 5 years and more than $442 billion over the next decade. But 
the long-term damage to our fiscal solvency is even worse.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing 
the estate tax would cost over $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021--over $1 
trillion. In other words, if the President's plan to

[[Page 3942]]

permanently repeal the estate tax succeeds, the children and family 
members of the very few most privileged families in America will reap a 
massive tax break. Instead of closing the gap between the rich and the 
poor, instead of addressing the huge national debt and deficit problems 
we have, we make both situations worse by fully repealing the estate 
tax.
  I have brought with me a few charts to demonstrate who are the 
winners and losers in the President's budget. Obviously, fortunes go up 
and down, and we do not know what anyone is going to be worth tomorrow, 
let alone in the coming years. And the estimates I am giving to you and 
the charts I am using are based on two reports.
  The first is an April 2006 report by United for a Fair Economy and 
Public Citizen, entitled ``Spending Millions to Save Billions,'' 
reflecting the financial position of the wealthiest 400 Americans in 
this country as compiled by Forbes magazine from the year 2005.
  The second is a May 30, 2006 report from the House Government Reform 
Committee, entitled ``Estimated Tax Savings of Oil Company CEOs.''
  Of course, no one can predict what the numbers will be in the years 
to come. But these are the best figures available to us at this time.
  Let me go to the first chart. The granddaddy of all of the winners 
under the Bush budget is none other than the heirs to the Wal-Mart 
fortune. If the estate tax was completely repealed, the entire Walton 
family would receive an estimated tax break of $32.7 billion--that is 
with a ``B''--$32.7 billion in tax relief for one family which today 
happens to be one of the wealthiest families in this country already.
  Meanwhile, in contrast, the President's budget proposes to cut 
Medicaid by $28 billion over the next decade, driving up the cost of 
health care for tens of millions of Americans. In other words, while 
one of the wealthiest families in this country gets a tax break of over 
$30 billion, tens of millions of Americans--children, seniors--will 
suffer. Now, that may make sense to someone, that may appear to be fair 
to someone, but it sure does not make sense to me. In other words, if 
the President's proposed budget passes, millions of Americans will 
lose, including some of the most vulnerable people in our country, 
while one very wealthy family wins.
  A second major beneficiary of the President's tax cuts is the heirs 
of the Mars candy bar fortune. Now, I like Snickers as much as anybody. 
And I do not want to be seen here as attacking Snickers, one of the 
basic food groups of American society. But the family that owns Mars is 
slated to receive an estimated $11.7 billion tax break if the estate 
tax is fully repealed.
  Mr. President, $11.7 billion for the Mars family. They are winners. 
Yet, who are the losers? As I mentioned earlier, all over this country 
there are waiting lines for veterans to get into VA hospitals. We are 
not keeping our promises to the veterans. Veterans lose while one 
family wins big time. I think that is wrong.
  Another major winner in the President's budget is the Cox family. 
They are the heirs to the Cox cable fortune. They will gain $9.7 
billion if the estate tax is repealed. Meanwhile, while the Cox family 
would receive almost $10 billion in tax breaks, the President wants to 
cut funding for education by $1.5 billion.
  The President keeps talking about No Child Left Behind while his 
budget continues to leave, in fact, millions of children behind. In 
Vermont and all over this country, school districts are struggling with 
grossly inadequate funding for special education, which the President 
also wants to cut. We do not have the money to fund special education 
to improve public education in America. We do not have that money. But 
we do have $9.7 billion for one family, the Mars family.
  Another major beneficiary of the President's budget is the Nordstrom 
family, owners of the upscale department store chain. By repealing the 
estate tax, the Nordstrom family stands to receive an estimated $826 
million tax break, according to the April 2006 report from United for a 
Fair Economy. Tax breaks of over $800 million for an enormously wealthy 
family, and yet we see a $630 million cut in the President's budget for 
the Community Services Block Grant Program.
  As you know, the Community Services Block Grant Program provides the 
infrastructure necessary to deliver services to 15 million of the 
lowest income people in our country. These are people who are hungry. 
When they are hungry, they go to the community action program. When 
they are homeless, they go to the community action program. When they 
do not have any money to buy food, they go to the community action 
program. We are going to cut back on that program, but we do have $826 
million in tax breaks for the Nordstrom family.
  Another major beneficiary of the Bush budget is the family of Ernest 
Gallo, who would receive a $468 million tax break--$468 million. 
Meanwhile, the President proposes to cut $420 million from the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program.
  According to the latest available data, 5.4 million senior citizens 
on fixed incomes and low-income families with kids receive help paying 
their heating bills through this program each and every year. In the 
State of Vermont, trust me, it gets very cold, and we have a lot of 
people in Vermont and throughout this country who are dependent upon 
the LIHEAP program. But, as a nation, the President suggests: No, no, 
we have to cut $420 million from LIHEAP, which impacts the lives of 
low-income senior citizens. But--guess what--we do have $468 million 
available as a tax break for the Gallo family.
  The former CEO of ExxonMobil does very well from the President's tax 
breaks. As some will remember, while the cost of gas at the pumps was 
soaring, while the profits of ExxonMobil were soaring, the company 
decided, in its wisdom and generosity, to provide a $400 million 
retirement package for their departing CEO, Mr. Lee Raymond. Now the 
President wants to reward Mr. Raymond by providing his estate with an 
estimated $164 million tax break. On the other hand, there is a program 
called the Commodities Supplemental Food Program which provides a 
package of high-quality, nutritious food to some 480,000 seniors, 
mothers, and children. The President wants to eliminate this program. 
He is saying to the 4,000 seniors in Vermont who benefit from this 
program, the almost half a million seniors, mothers, and kids who 
benefit from this package of food once a month: We in America don't 
have enough money to provide for you who are hungry, for you who are 
old. We can't do it. But if you are the former CEO of ExxonMobil, if 
you have a $400 million bonus at the end of your career, guess what. 
Your family will get a $164 million tax break.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, it appears to me that the 
choice we as a Congress are facing and that the American people are 
facing is pretty clear. Do we continue to shower huge tax breaks on 
millionaires and billionaires, people who are already doing 
phenomenally well, while we cut back on the needs of the middle-class 
working families and the most vulnerable people in this country? It all 
comes down to the phrase ``which side are we on.'' Are we on the side 
of those people who make huge campaign contributions to Congress and 
the White House, or are we on the side of tens of millions of working 
families, struggling hard to keep their heads above water?
  That is the choice we face. As a member of the Budget Committee, I 
think the answer is pretty obvious. I will not be voting to provide a 
tax break to the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune. Rather, I will be 
fighting to substantially increase financial aid for low- and middle-
class families so that every American, regardless of income, can 
receive a college education. I will not support another tax cut for the 
former CEO of ExxonMobil and his family. Instead, I will be voting to 
give support to working families all over this country who are 
desperately seeking quality and affordable childcare.
  If, as a nation, we are serious about addressing the long neglected 
needs of

[[Page 3943]]

the middle-class and working people and creating a fairer and more 
egalitarian society, we have to invest in education, health care, 
housing, and our infrastructure. We have to deal with the crisis of 
global warming and sustainable energy, as well as many other areas. We 
also have to reduce our national debt. Given that reality, Congress 
must develop the courage to stand up to the big money interests, to the 
wealthiest families. We must roll back the tax breaks given to the 
wealthiest 1 percent, and we must demand that fortunate people rejoin 
American society and understand that like everybody else in this 
country, they are part of America and not a special breed. If we are to 
keep faith with our children, our seniors, our veterans, and with those 
people who have no health insurance, we can do no less. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to make sure we do just that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Access to Health Care

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak of an 
issue of great concern in my State of Alaska but also a concern we are 
seeing across the Nation, and this is access to health care and, more 
specifically, access to the professionals who provide for our very 
important health care needs.
  In just 20 years, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years 
or older, a percentage larger than any other time in our Nation's 
history. And just as this aging population places the highest demand on 
our health care system, the Council on Graduate Medical Education 
states that there will be a national shortage of over 100,000 
physicians in this country. Other experts look at it from a bit more 
dire perspective and predict a shortage closer to 200,000 physicians. 
If that becomes a reality, 84 million patients will be left without a 
doctor's care.
  A dozen States already report physician shortages. Across the 
country, patients are experiencing, or soon will face, shortages in 
many physician specialties, including cardiology, radiology, and 
several pediatric and surgical subspecialties. Demand for doctors is 
accelerating more rapidly than the supply, and yet the number of our 
medical school graduates has remained virtually flat for over a quarter 
of a century.
  During that same time period, the median tuition and fees at medical 
schools have increased by 750 percent in private schools and by nearly 
900 percent in public schools.
  To add to that, much of the Nation's physician workforce also is 
graying. They are simply getting older. They are heading for 
retirement. A third of the Nation's 750,000 active post residency 
physicians are older than 55 and likely to retire just as this boomer 
population generation moves into its time of greatest medical need. By 
the year 2020, physicians are expected to hang up their stethoscopes at 
a rate nearly 2\1/2\ times the retirement rate of today.
  A looming doctor shortage threatens to create a national health care 
crisis by further limiting access to physicians, jeopardizing quality 
and accelerating cost increases. People are waiting for weeks to get 
appointments, and emergency departments have lines that fall out the 
door, literally. Many will go without care entirely, and we know the 
consequence then in terms of the pressures on the health care system 
when they go without care. In rural America, patients have long gone 
without care. In fact, the shortage of physicians, especially primary 
care physicians, in rural areas of the United States represents one of 
the most intractable health policy problems of the past century. As a 
result, rural patients are often denied both access to care and quality 
of care. One-fifth of the U.S. population lives in rural America.
  Yet only 9 percent of the Nation's physicians are practicing in these 
areas. Over 50 million of these rural Americans live in areas that have 
a shortage of physicians to meet their basic needs.
  Additionally, physician recruitment to rural America has also been a 
problem. The high cost of medical school is in large part to blame. 
Most students, very severely in debt after medical school, are forced 
away from primary care and forced into more lucrative speciality 
medicine. Rural areas and their community health centers across the 
Nation report a declining ability to recruit primary care physicians.
  Alaska, as my colleagues have heard me say on the floor of the Senate 
many times, geographically is huge. It is a State larger than Texas, 
California, and Montana combined. In Alaska, ``rural'' really takes on 
a new meaning. The physician shortage crisis in Alaska has long been 
magnified. Health care delivery in the State is extremely difficult 
because, in part, there are fewer roads than in any other State. Even 
Rhode Island has more roads than Alaska. This means that for the vast 
majority of communities in Alaska, our medical supplies, our patients, 
and our providers all must travel by air, which adds to the cost.
  Alaska's population is growing, especially its elderly population, 
which is the second fastest growing in the Nation.
  People don't typically think of Alaska as having a fair number of 
seniors, but our senior population is growing at a very rapid rate. 
However, Alaska's physician workforce, as others across the Nation, is 
aging. The number of new residents is not keeping up with attrition. 
Mr. President, 118 physicians in Anchorage alone are expected to retire 
in the next 10 years.
  Currently, Alaska has the sixth lowest ratio of physicians to 
population in the United States. Outside of Anchorage, the ratio is the 
worst in the Nation. To put it into perspective, if Alaska were to 
reach its national average of physicians to population, if we were to 
reach it by the year 2025, we would need a net increase of 980 
physicians statewide or 49 more physicians per year.
  For some in States where their population base is significant, they 
might say 980 physicians between now and 2025 isn't that bad. We only 
have about 650,000 people in the State of Alaska. For us to find 980 
physicians, or 49 more physicians per year, is a tall order.
  In Anchorage, many specialties are in serious or in critical 
shortage, including general internal medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, 
rheumatology, and infectious diseases. Patients wait for months to be 
accepted as new patients for general internal medicine. Others have to 
be flown to Seattle for some critical specialties.
  I need to repeat this because we are not just talking about ``I don't 
like this particular doctor, and I want to find somebody else.'' We 
don't have the physicians to see the patients, so a patient will wait 
for months for an appointment or the other alternative is to fly 
outside to Seattle.
  There is a bright spot, though, on the horizon. Even though Alaska 
has only one residency training program--and I should also mention we 
don't have any medical schools in the State of Alaska--our one 
residency training program trains 12 family medicine residents each 
year--clearly a number that is far fewer than our population needs. 
Seventy-seven percent of the residents choose to stay in Alaska--the 
highest rate of return in the Nation. We know why it is. We figure we 
have an awful lot to offer those who come to the State, but the problem 
is drawing them to the State in the first place.
  In the last Congress, with great fanfare, we provided a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. But the question I was asking at that time 
is, What good is a prescription drug benefit if there is no physician 
to write prescriptions? In the 21st century, we cannot, as a 
Government, permit such dire access to care to continue. I do believe 
the situation is intolerable. We cannot sit by while potentially 
millions of patients go without care. That is why I am proposing a 
three-pronged plan to alleviate the Nation's rural health care access 
crisis.

[[Page 3944]]

  Earlier in the year, I introduced the Rural Physician Relief Act. 
This is legislation which would provide tax incentives for physicians 
to practice in our most rural and frontier locations in the country. 
Today, I am announcing a second step on improving access to health 
care. Soon, I will introduce the Physician Shortage Elimination Act. 
This is a strong step in improving access to our health system. Later, 
as the third prong of my plan, I will introduce comprehensive 
legislation for improving the plight of the uninsured.
  To get to the Physician Shortage Elimination Act, it essentially does 
four things:
  First and foremost, it doubles the funding for the National Health 
Service Corps. This program has operated with 37 years of excellence, 
providing primary care services to our most vulnerable populations. It 
is a solution to the many students who find the exorbitant cost of 
medical school prohibitively expensive. However, the program is just 
too small to meet the great need in underserved America. Right now, 
over 4,000 National Health Service Corps clinicians provide primary 
care to nearly 6 million people nationwide who otherwise would likely 
have gone without care. Tragically, this still leaves some 50 million 
people with extremely diminished access to health care. In fact, the 
American Association of Medical Colleges said the current program only 
meets 12 percent of the needs of the underserved. Yet this program is 
so popular with medical students that 80 percent of its applicants in a 
typical year must be turned away.
  This National Health Service Corps has a proven track record. Let us 
build on its success. Doubling our investment in the National Health 
Service Corps is the most prudent, most cost-effective and expeditious 
way to meet the current needs and future needs of America's 
underserved. In fact, the former president of the AAMC stated that the 
National Health Service Corps:

        . . . is ideally positioned to alleviate the shortage of 
     physicians in many medically underserved areas but has only 
     had sufficient funding to accommodate only a fraction of 
     those young physicians who are prepared to practice in those 
     areas.

  The second part of the bill will improve and expand current medical 
residency programs. Half of all physicians practice medicine within 100 
miles of their residency. This means the residents who train in rural 
or underserved areas are likely to remain in those areas. The small 
Alaska Family Residency Program, which is a program designed to help 
meet the needs in rural Alaska, is a great example of this. Of the 55 
graduates, 75 percent have stayed in Alaska upon completing their 
residency--the highest return rate of any graduate medical program in 
the country. Unfortunately, it is too small to meet the large needs of 
rural Alaska.
  Rural and underserved residency programs must be allowed to flourish. 
We have arcane barriers, and we have artificial caps on residency 
programs that need to be removed. Students must be allowed to learn 
their craft in the most rural and underserved areas of the Nation. My 
legislation will prevent residency programs from being penalized for 
training in locations where the need is greatest, such as the Indian 
Health Service locations. Additionally, it will remove barriers that 
prevent programs from developing rural training rotations and rural 
experiences in their curriculum. All the experts agree that this is 
likely one of the most effective ways to prepare students for a rural 
practice.
  Further, the legislation will reauthorize the Centers of Excellence 
Program and the Health Careers Opportunity Program. This did not 
receive funding for 2006, but these are important programs, and they 
target disadvantaged and minority students from as young as 
kindergarten on through high school. They target these young people to 
develop an interest in the health professions. The programs nurture the 
youth in rural and underserved areas, and they create a pipeline to 
careers in the health professions. This concept of ``growing your 
own,'' if you will, is the most effective way of achieving long-term 
retention in most rural locations.
  Finally, my legislation will bolster the cornerstone of health care 
in rural America, which is the community health center. Community 
health centers provide quality community-based health care for millions 
of America's medically underserved and uninsured. This bill will help 
them do their job. It will expand residency programs and primary care 
services offered by community health service centers and offer grants 
to health centers to assist them in recruitment, technical assistance, 
and physician mentoring programs.
  Mr. President, as a person coming from a rural area, you know a 
strong commitment to our community health centers is a smart, cost-
effective way of maximizing our health care dollars for our neediest 
populations.
  The prognosis for quality of health care in America right now does 
not look good. The prognosis is poor. Fifty million Americans in 
underserved areas across the Nation today already must do without care. 
Soon, we will have greater problems. We will have even greater 
physician shortages, which will mean another 84 million patients will 
be left without a physician's care.
  We must act here in Congress. I ask my colleagues to take a look at 
the legislation we are introducing, the Physician Shortage Elimination 
Act, and see if this isn't something we can join together to work on so 
we can continue to provide the level of care Americans across the 
country, in both rural and urban areas, deserve and expect.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Order of Procedure

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m., 
the Senate go into executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 
25, the nomination of Nora Barry Fischer to be a U.S. district judge; 
that there be 10 minutes for debate on that nomination equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and 
5 minutes under the control of Senator Casey; that at 4:45 p.m., the 
Senate vote on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then return to legislative session and resume 
consideration of H. J. Res. 20; that all amendments and motions be 
withdrawn, the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate 
vote on final passage, with the preceding all occurring without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 darfur

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the people of the Darfur region of Sudan 
are crying out for help during their time of despair. It is time for 
the U.S. Government to exercise greater international leadership and 
take greater strides to stave off a humanitarian disaster.
  Darfur has been identified as genocide and the international 
community is permitting it to continue. This is not acceptable.
  It is not enough to posture and threaten the government in Khartoum. 
It is time to exercise moral leadership and exercise more muscular 
diplomacy in an area where so little has been accomplished for so many.
  The conflict in Darfur has been raging for 4 years. Since 2003, the 
Sudanese Government and its allied Janjaweed militia have been fighting 
the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army--SLA, and the Justice and Equality 
Movement--JEM. The SLA and the JEM claimed their aim was to force the 
Sudanese Government to address the underdevelopment and political 
marginalization in the region.
  In response, the government and the Janjaweed targeted the region's 
civilian population and the ethnic groups from which the rebels draw 
their support.

[[Page 3945]]

  Since the fighting began, over 200,000 people have been killed. 
Approximately 3 million people have fled to internal displacement camps 
within Darfur, or to neighboring Chad and the Central African 
Republic--C.A.R. None of these options have shielded them from violence 
as the Janjaweed has patrolled outside the camps and Sudanese warplanes 
have attacked inside Chad and C.A.R.
  In the face of these horrendous conditions, an estimated 14,000 aid 
workers risk their lives to provide basic human services and comfort to 
one-third of the population in Darfur. The majority of these aid 
workers are Sudanese nationals who have banded together to create an 
unprecedented relief operation.
  For its part, the United States provides approximately $1 billion in 
food aid to the Darfur region. This contribution is one of the few 
positive developments for the people in Darfur as we have been able to 
increase the daily nutritional intake. Nonetheless, the violence rages 
and many aid agencies working in Darfur are unable to gain access to 
vast areas because of the fighting.
  Thus far only the African Union--AU--has responded to the call to 
protect civilians. Unfortunately, the AU troops have been deployed in a 
slow and limited manner.
  The Darfur region is roughly 160,000 square miles, and the AU force 
is far too small to cover this vast territory. The AU should be 
commended for shouldering the burden this long.
  In August 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted 
Resolution 1706, to expand the mandate of the U.N. mission in Sudan--
UNIMIS--to include Darfur. The resolution ``invites the consent of the 
Sudanese Government'' to allow U.N. forces into Darfur and ``authorizes 
use of `all necessary means' to protect U.N. personnel and civilians 
under threat of physical violence.''
  Resolution 1706 calls for a total of 27,000 armed personnel for 
Sudan. The breakdown includes the 7,000 AU soldiers, 17,000 U.N. blue 
helmets and 3,000 police officers. This is a significant mission by the 
United Nations and one that underscores significant international 
concern about Darfur.
  Without question, U.N. Resolution 1706 caused concern and then foot 
dragging by the Khartoum Government. Khartoum is wary of a robust U.N. 
troop presence on its soil for two reasons. First, it fears the 
investigators from the International Criminal Court--ICC--who will have 
greater latitude under a U.N. presence. Second, it fears the presence 
of the U.N. will force them to follow through on the oil revenue 
sharing agreement with the southern Sudanese.
  Khartoum views a U.N. presence as a surrender of sovereignty. 
However, what it really fears is the ICC investigators being able to 
gather evidence within its borders. Since the ICC accepted the 
responsibility of looking into genocide in Sudan, Khartoum has 
maneuvered mightily to keep its investigators away, out of the country.
  Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has resisted the U.N. force since 
its inception. As he has done repeatedly throughout the Darfur crisis, 
he commits and later reneges on commitments and pledges of cooperation 
in Darfur. For this reason, former U.N. General Secretary, Kofi Annan, 
gave us a viable Plan A to implement the U.N. force in Sudan.
  Plan A implements a hybrid U.N.-AU force which the government of 
Sudan initially agreed to.
  Plan A is a workable option and a win-win for everybody. 
Unfortunately, President al-Bashir has back pedaled from his initial 
embrace of Mr. Annan's plan. On November 18, 2006, it was reported 
Sudan's U.N. ambassador declared ``there will be no U.N. peacekeepers 
in Darfur.''
  The ambassador's comments came as Sudanese war planes and Sudanese-
backed militias staged fresh attacks in neighboring Chad and the 
Central African Republic.
  It is imperative the United States and the international community 
reinvigorate diplomacy with Sudan in order to move Khartoum to reason. 
This is what I would describe as the administration's potential Plan B.
  The immediate next steps for Darfur are complex, yet achievable. 
These include securing a cease fire and protecting humanitarian relief 
corridors, establishing the hybrid U.N.-AU peacekeeping operation and 
advancing the political dialogue in Darfur.
  Additionally, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 
must place Sudan higher on the U.S.-Chinese agenda. Sudan produces some 
500,000 and 600,000 barrels of oil per day. China purchases 80 percent 
of this oil and invests heavily into Sudan's oil producing 
infrastructure.
  As China continues its diplomatic and economic courtship of African 
nations, she should be clear about how she intends to deal with 
despotic and authoritarian governments. The international community has 
worked hard over the past 20 years for greater progress on democracy 
and human issues in Africa. Having China thumb its nose at these 
accomplishments would set a bad precedent for Africa and should have 
consequences in the West.
  China should be afforded an opportunity to become part of the 
solution in addressing Sudan's humanitarian concerns.
  Diplomacy and economic leverage should be applied to Sudan with the 
cooperation of China.
  The United States has clearly shown what can be accomplished through 
sustained and concerted diplomatic efforts. After 21 years of fighting 
we were able to persuade Khartoum to negotiate with the Sudanese 
People's Liberation Front--SPLF.
  This administration was able to marshal international humanitarian 
support and the attention of the world to what is happening in Darfur. 
The United States must provide the vision and the leadership to protect 
innocent civilians in Darfur.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement I am recognized until 4:15; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. I will try not to take that much time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  (A portion of the remarks of Mr. Coburn are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to turn to the bill in front of us 
and make a few remarks about how things change, but they never change. 
We had an election this last fall. The election was based on changing 
the control so we can control the spending, so we can secure the 
future, so we can eliminate wasteful Washington spending. I would put 
forth that the bill in front of us is more of the same--actually I want 
to guard the words I use--more of the same lack of clarity, lack of 
transparency and game playing that Congress has been known for the last 
25 to 30 years.
  The bill before us manipulates the numbers. The bill before us is 
untruthful about the costs. The bill before us is put on the floor of 
the Senate without any debate to bring forth transparency. No 
amendments are going to be offered to bring forth transparency. No 
amendments are going to be offered to offset the cost. This $3.1 
billion expense is going to go directly to our grandchildren because 
what is not spent for military construction and BRAC costs will be 
added to the supplemental which we are going to be taking up in March. 
We are going to be taking up more of the same games, so what you got 
for what you thought was change is not a change at all. It is just a 
change in name only. It is important for the American people to 
understand it is not Republican or Democrat, it is short-term vision 
versus long-term vision for our country.
  We have a bill before us on the floor of the Senate that does a lot 
of things--a lot we should have gotten done. There is no question. The 
majority is within its rights to do what it has done. The predicate 
that Senator Reid used, that it was used on the Democrats before--there 
was no complaint with that. It has been done. It is

[[Page 3946]]

not a good process. But what we are seeing is not what was promised. We 
thought we bought a new car, and what we bought, what the American 
people bought, was a car that had been wrecked and repainted and sold 
as new.
  I want to talk about several of the problems, things that are wrong 
with this bill. I want to raise the question why should we not fix it 
now. I will start first with the BRAC money--$3.1 billion to move tens 
of thousands of troops out of Germany, back here. It is not going to 
happen. The money may come with the omnibus but not in time to achieve 
the savings that we were hoping to achieve through the BRAC process. So 
there is a double cost. One is, if we took that money and we spent it 
to grow the Government--debatable. It is not debatable that some of the 
things that are funded with that are not good--but are they the 
priority? We are going to grow the Government, No. 1, and then we are 
going to take that money and put it on the supplemental bill.
  A supplemental bill is a bill that comes forward outside the budget 
parameters, so therefore any of the money spent doesn't have to be 
within the budget limits. That money goes directly to the credit card 
of your grandkids. There is $3.1 billion. Then we are going to lose the 
benefits through delay of the BRAC closure process which is going to be 
another $3 to $5 billion. So by playing the same games Washington has 
been known for for years, we are going to add $7 or $8 billion more to 
the debt of our grandchildren.
  If you thought things changed, they didn't. They changed in name 
only. This game with this maneuver in it is a sham for our grandkids 
and anybody else who thinks we are going to be fiscally responsible 
with your money.
  The second thing it does is it destroys some of the help that was out 
there to help the most vulnerable. There was a provision in the new 
Ryan White AIDS bill that saves the life of newborn babies. We know it 
works. The two States that have done it have reduced HIV infection in 
newborn children by about 98 percent--for $85: $10 to test and $75 to 
treat newborn children.
  In New York they used to have 500 babies a year born who were 
infected with HIV. Last year they had seven. Why? Because women who did 
not know their status were given an opportunity to opt out of being 
tested. If they didn't want to be tested, they didn't have to be. But 
if they did, they were given an opportunity to get tested. And if they 
didn't want to be tested, their baby was tested, so if, in fact, they 
were carrying HIV, we could prevent, 99 percent of the time, those 
children from becoming infected with HIV.
  The money was taken out in this bill. This is a chart for the 
infections, perinatal infections. Just in these States alone, for which 
we have a record, these are going to be the preventable cases of 
newborn baby AIDS that are going to not happen because of what this 
bill does. Thousands of babies are going to get infected with HIV 
because we are taking away the incentives. In terms of this bill, it is 
small numbers, $30 million--incentives to get States doing what New 
York and Connecticut have done.
  Shame on us, shame on us, to claim we care and then to take this and 
eliminate it. They went so far as to talk to the administration about 
this, hoping that they would have a letter coming that would say we 
don't want the money. In fact, they want the money. It is in the 
President's budget. He wants the money. Why? Because it actually does 
something. Your dollars actually go to make a difference. How do they 
make a difference? Not only do they save the life, the cost to treat a 
baby over their life--their life expectancy is only 25 years if they 
get HIV. But that is a quarter of a million dollars versus $85, and the 
vast majority of that money is going to be paid by the American 
taxpayers. So shame on us. Shame on us for doing that. These are, just 
in these States alone, the number of children who are going to get 
infected with HIV without this program going forward.
  Another amendment I wanted to offer so we could offer ways to try to 
change these things is to delay the CR for 2 weeks and let's have the 
debate about these issues, but we are not going to be allowed to even 
offer an amendment to continue it for 2 more weeks so we can actually 
debate it. That is the majority's right. I respect their right. It was 
probably done to them before I got here. It doesn't mean it is the 
correct process for our country to solve the big fiscal problems that 
are in front of us.
  One of the items which Barack Obama and I got through the last 
Congress in coordination with several key Members in the House was the 
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. What that act says is by 
January 1 of next year, you as the American taxpayer are going to start 
finding out how we are spending the money. The whole idea behind it is 
if you know, we are going to be held to a higher standard. We are going 
to be held more accountable. Also the idea behind it is if you know the 
American people are going to know, maybe you won't do some of the 
things for your buddies you are up here doing.
  But in this bill there are 40 reports that are demanded of the 
administration that aren't available to you, that have nothing to do 
with national security. I can't even get them. The President pro 
tempore of the Senate right now can't get them unless he sits on the 
appropriations subcommittees of those reports coming back. That is not 
transparency. What that is is working in the dark so the American 
people don't know what is going on. I have an amendment that says those 
reports ought to be made public to the American people. It is their 
money. It is our money. But we have--here we go--an appropriations bill 
that has 40 reports from the Federal Government agencies to report back 
to Congress. Yet the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Oklahoma 
cannot see those reports, and neither can you. What is that all about? 
Why shouldn't you be able to see those reports? You should be able to. 
But that amendment is denied under this process. More of the same. More 
work done in darkness without the light of day for the American people 
to see what is going on in their Government with their money. They 
should reject that. We all should reject that. But change comes slowly.
  The reason I am out here talking about it is I think the American 
people ought to know what is going on in this bill. Yes, the threat is 
if we don't pass this, the Government will shut down. The Government 
doesn't have to shut down. We could continue this for 2 weeks, but we 
are playing the game. Who will look worse if you vote against it. What 
the American people care about is whether we have an open and 
transparent government. That is what I am about: making sure we know 
the cost of what we are doing, making sure we know who is responsible, 
and holding those accountable when they are not doing what is in the 
best long-term interest of our country rather than what is in the best 
short-term political interest of either political party or any 
individual Member of Congress.
  Another amendment I was going to offer but have been precluded from 
doing so is we have thousands of people waiting for assistance with 
their drugs for HIV. As a matter of fact, there are several hundred, 
350-some in South Carolina alone who don't have any money, are not 
getting treated, their HIV is progressing, they are going to AIDS, and 
they are going to die. That number is in the thousands across the 
country right now, and although we have increased the AIDS drug 
assistance program, we haven't increased it enough to where we are 
taking care of those who do not have any other resource with which to 
get the medicines to save their lives. That amendment is foregone. We 
can't do that, not available.
  Another amendment I had, which is certainly necessary--and we have 
had the Senators from North Dakota and South Dakota talking about it--
is the fact that we have had a disaster in the Central Plains of this 
country, in western Oklahoma and many other agricultural areas, where 
we have a tremendous need--an agricultural disaster by any means that 
we have addressed before. We tried to address it before we

[[Page 3947]]

went home, but we didn't want to pay for it. So that didn't go 
anywhere. That is going to go somewhere when the supplemental comes. It 
will be a part of the supplemental package that comes out of the 
Appropriations Committee and we will pay $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 
billion. It won't be paid for, we will charge it to our kids, and we 
will help these farmers. There is $1 billion in my amendment that is 
paid for--paid for; we don't have to charge it to our grandchildren--
that will help immediately those farmers who have suffered through this 
tremendous drought in the Central Plains. We can not offer that 
amendment. We can not help the people who need us to help right now 
because we are playing games. We are playing the same old political 
games that were played when the Republicans were in charge. This isn't 
a new day; this is just a new manager under the same scams. It is a 
scam, and the American people need to know it is a scam in terms of 
their money.
  Finally, the money we are stealing from the BRAC, a portion of that 
we are giving to the Global AIDS Fund. We are the largest contributor 
to the Global AIDS Fund--$300 million. We are going to bump that to 
$750 million, except there is no accountability in the Global AIDS 
Fund. The Boston Globe recently released a report on some inside 
auditor work inside the Global AIDS Fund showing the slush funds, 
showing the money that has been wasted. Yet we can't have access to 
those reports. We are the largest contributor, but we are denied 
access. I have an amendment that says if they want the money, then they 
have to show us the internal transparent workings of that organization, 
since we are the largest contributor. That is denied. That is common 
sense. If you were giving money to a charity and they were wasting it, 
you would want to know how they were spending your money.
  As a matter of fact, we make charities in this country show how they 
are spending their money. We actually audit them. We are precluded from 
knowing how $750 million of your money is going to be spent. And the 
waste we have found out about in that program is denying the very 
people we are hoping to help, those innocent young African children who 
are infected with HIV, with their medicines every day.
  So the way to have great government is to have transparency. The way 
to get rid of wasteful Washington spending is to have transparency. The 
way to lower the taxes on everybody in this country is to get rid of 
the waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication that is present within our 
Government. This bill does none of that. What this bill does is spend 
more of your money and with sleight of hand and under the cover of 
darkness transfer billions to our grandkids that they have shut out now 
but will ask for again when we have a supplemental and, consequently, 
our children will be directly impacted.
  If you are born in this country today--if you go talk to David 
Walker, the Comptroller General, who is a nonpolitical person; he is a 
straight shooter; he knows what we are facing is an impending crisis in 
this country and that we are on a crash course toward fiscal 
bankruptcy. But here is what we know. If you are born today in this 
country, you have a birth tax of $453,000. That is what your share is 
of the unfunded liabilities we refuse to fix that we are adding to with 
this bill--we are going to add $10 billion to $12 billion actually with 
this bill when the new supplemental comes out--that is my prediction--
at a minimum, $3 billion, probably $10 billion to $12 billion. What we 
are doing is going to add to that birth tax.
  What is the great thing about our country? The great thing about our 
country is it was built on the sacrifice of one generation creating 
opportunity for the next. This bill does the opposite of that. This 
bill steals from the next generation to take care of us now. There is 
no long-term thinking in this bill; there is only short-term thinking. 
Is it partially my fault we are here? Sure. I will take that. But the 
process and the false claims that we are under a new day, that we are 
under a new fiscal paradigm, is hogwash. There is no fiscal 
responsibility in this bill. This bill actually claims that it 
eliminates all the earmarks. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
As a matter of fact, hopefully today, I understand, the President is 
going to say they are not going to honor the unwritten earmarks. There 
is $17 billion worth of unwritten earmarks that will continue in this 
bill the way this bill is written.
  Now, they get to claim in the press that they have a little section 
in the bill that says none of the earmarks in this bill carry the force 
of law. Well, that doesn't do anything. None of those earmarks carried 
the force of law last year. None of those earmarks next year will carry 
the force of law. It does nothing to eliminate those earmarks from 
continuing to be spent. We know what earmarks are. We know how they 
create conflicts of interest within this body and within the lobbying 
community and individuals throughout this country. They ought to be 
gone. None of them should be honored, unless they are in the bill and 
people are willing to stand up and defend those and they have been 
vetted by the committees of this Congress.
  So bear in mind as I vote against this bill, it is not because I want 
to shut the Government down; it is because it is a vote saying it is 
more of the same, American people. You didn't get what you bargained 
for, again. Hold us accountable, come ask the questions, and don't take 
the spin. The fact is there is a $453,000 birth tax for every child who 
is born this year in this country, and it is going to grow by over 
$1,000 with this bill. So it is going to go to $454,000. Now, imagine 
what you have to earn a year to pay the interest on that.
  The fastest growing portion of our Government budget--what is it? It 
is not health care. It is interest. It is interest on the debt, and we 
have perpetuated that with this bill.
  I know none of my amendments will be made in order, but I am inclined 
to show the ridiculousness of this process. So with notice to the 
Presiding Officer, who I expect to object, as is his right as a Senator 
from Vermont, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
set aside and my amendment No. 234 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I do object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have another unanimous consent request, 
which is that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment 
No. 235, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I 
object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 236 be called up and the pending amendments be set aside. This is 
an amendment that will allow us to continue to discuss this for 2 
weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I 
object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 250, which allows all report requests by the Appropriations 
Committee--40 of them--be made public, that the pending amendments be 
set aside and that it be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I 
object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and my amendment No. 251 that will apply $1 
billion for the farmers who are in dire need in this country today be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I 
object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and my amendment No. 252, which asks for the 
transparency of our contributions into the Global AIDS Fund be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Vermont, I 
object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I went through that exercise, and I know 
the Senator from Vermont does not disagree with all those amendments, 
but

[[Page 3948]]

he is doing what he has been instructed by the majority to do. The fact 
is we could have a debate, we could delay this for 2 weeks, and we 
could make this bill far better. We could decide not to spend an 
additional $3.1 billion of our grandkids' money if we allowed a true 
debate.
  In the last Congress I took a lot of criticism for going after my 
party on fiscal issues. I am not going to quit going after my party on 
fiscal issues, but I will tell my colleagues, I am certainly not going 
to quit when the majority party claims--falsely claims--to be doing 
something in the best interests of this country in terms of fiscal 
responsibility when, in fact, they are not.
  There is no question what I have laid out here today is factual. 
There is no question that what we are seeing is more of the same in 
Washington. It is time for it to stop. It is time for the American 
public to hold everybody accountable, and we ought to be about America, 
not the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. We ought to be 
nonpartisan for the long-term future of this country. We ought to be 
nonpartisan in order to restore the idea of sacrifice and service for 
the next generation, rather than taking it for us today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding 
is that the matter before the Senate at this time is the continuing 
resolution and that Senators may address aspects of that resolution at 
this point in time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senate has before it the continuing 
resolution which is an absolutely essential piece of legislation to 
permit our Government to go forward. We are about to have a vote, I 
understand, at 4:45 in relation to that resolution. The resolution has 
been consistent with the rules and precedent of the Senate, put before 
the Senate in such a way as to make extremely restrictive the ability 
to amend that resolution.
  Nevertheless, a group of Senators have felt ever so strongly about 
our initiative, which is contained in S. Con. Res. 7, a document that 
was filed at the desk in connection with the debate on Iraq. We feel 
very strongly that the program announced by the President on January 20 
of this year contained therein aspects to which we could not give our 
full concurrence. There is a range of differences of opinion between 
our group, and when I say ``our group,'' they have identified 
themselves from time to time as being cosponsors and other Members of 
the Senate.
  Speaking for myself, I felt the plan, as announced on January 20, did 
not speak to the clarity I thought necessary, to say this operation 
should be highly dependent on the Iraqi-trained military and other 
security forces.
  Our Nation, together with coalition partners over the period of this 
long conflict--in the not-too-distant future months or so it will begin 
a fifth year--have invested heavily in dollars and sacrifice and 
otherwise to train the Iraqi forces to take on their own security 
obligations. The figure ``over 300,000'' has been frequently referred 
to in briefings and otherwise, that we have thus far, in one way or 
another, trained and equipped.
  As a member of the Committee on Armed Services in the course of 
briefings and, indeed, in the Intelligence Committee, both of which I 
serve on, it has been represented through the years, most particularly 
the last 2 to 2\1/2\ years, there has been a steady improvement in the 
quality and the professionalism of these Iraqi forces.
  Now, 2\1/2\ years is a long time to train a military person. In the 
United States, we have prided ourselves since the days of World War II 
in taking a 17- or 18-year-old individual and training that individual 
to be a fighting person in 6, 8, 9 months and then some training with a 
unit and therein to a combat situation. Throughout our history, they 
have discharged themselves with the highest degree of professionalism. 
Many of the forces we currently have in Iraq have followed that pattern 
of less than a year's training. How well we know the courage with which 
the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, with the 
strong support of their families, have fought, suffered severe wounds, 
and died to enable the Iraqi people to have their freedom, to have a 
nation which is regarded as a sovereign nation today, to have a 
government elected by themselves.
  I find it highly perplexing that in that cadre of some 300,000, there 
are not those elements that could have been utilized to a far greater 
degree in this campaign.
  We have heard reports--within the last 2 days I received 
confirmation--that those Iraqi contingents, those troop commitments to 
this surge plan which is now in operation still fall short of the level 
of numbers in the commitment to have them in place.
  Nevertheless, given the magnitude of that force, in our resolution, 
we specifically say the President should charge--we use the word 
``charge''--hold them accountable for taking the lead, for taking the 
point, for bearing the principal burden of this operation called 
``surge'' in Iraq as enunciated by the President on January 20. 
Therein, rests this Senator's grave concern about the utilization of 
21,500--and even a somewhat larger force than originally announced--in 
this operation.
  We gathered together individuals of honest thinking, clear thinking--
not by political motivation--and have tried to continuously push our 
resolution before this Senate such that each and every Senator could 
express his or her agreement, concurrence, or disagreement. We have not 
yet succeeded, but we are going to continue to press on. There is some 
representation--I don't know whether it is final--that the Senate may 
see after we come back from this recess the measure that will be 
presumably passed by the House this week and presented in what I'm told 
could well be an identical form. We feel very strongly our resolution, 
S. Con. Res. 7, without any changes in it, should be brought up as a 
substitute amendment, but at the present time, given the few minutes 
remaining, I see my distinguished colleague who has joined me in this 
effort, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. We 
have put forward this S. Con. Res. 7, which requires the funding for 
the Government.
  At this time, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer 
amendment numbered 259 which is our S. Con. Res. 7, in identical form, 
which is pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Missouri, I 
object on behalf of the request of the leadership.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I receive that with a great deal of 
disappointment because I felt, in this critical period of time as this 
operation in Baghdad is getting underway, the constructive 
recommendations to the President, as embraced in our resolution, should 
be brought before this Senate for full discussion. I see my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. House Joint Resolution 20.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order and I ask to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the Senate to comment on H.J. 
Res. 20, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007 which, 
as I understand, is the pending business before the Senate.
  I think most of us agree that funding the Federal Government should 
be done through the regular order, not through a patchwork of 
continuing resolutions. The reality is that all but two

[[Page 3949]]

Federal agencies are being funded through a measure to which no Member 
is being permitted to offer, debate or vote on a single amendment. That 
is wrong. We are not the House of Representatives. We are not the other 
body, I say to my colleagues. We are the Senate, a deliberative body. I 
hope the Senate leadership on both sides will work to ensure we do not 
repeat this fate.
  I have been in this body for a little over 20 years. I have watched, 
over those 20 years, an increasing use of parliamentary procedures--the 
so-called filling up the tree and motions for cloture filed at the same 
time the legislation is before the Senate increase to an ever-
accelerating process.
  I was very disturbed about that process being exercised when my side 
of the aisle was in the leadership, and I am even more concerned as I 
watch the new majority conduct business in the Senate. I could submit 
for the record the fact of literally every measure before the Senate 
that at the same time a cloture motion is proposed, the tree is filled.
  The Senate is here to debate and amend. The other body, 
understandably, has different rules. Given the mechanisms that are 
being put in place by the majority side, what is the difference? It 
seems to me that 20 years ago--and I would ask my friend from Virginia, 
who has been here considerably longer than I have--the routine was a 
piece of legislation would be before the Senate, there would be 
amendments proposed, debated, with second-degree amendments, if 
necessary. And the process was something where literally every Member 
of the Senate, if a Member so chose, could come to the floor and debate 
and amend and improve the legislation, if that was a Member's desire.
  Where are we now? We file cloture. We vote on cloture. We stand 
around for 30 hours or so. And then we vote up or down. This is a very 
dangerous process we are going through. So now we are examining a bill 
which funds all but two Federal agencies in a measure which no Member 
is permitted to offer, debate or vote on a single amendment. That is 
not why I came here. That is not why. We are sent here--we are sent 
here--to express the views and ambitions and hopes and dreams of our 
constituents.
  I have been in discussion with several other Members about how this 
trend continues to accelerate and literally deprive this institution 
from being described as not the greatest deliberative body in the world 
but a deliberative body.
  And I say to the leadership, please sit down and work these things 
out. Have a reasonable number of amendments. Have debate. Agree to time 
agreements. Agree to time agreements. I had several amendments to this 
bill for which I would have agreed to an hour time agreement, which 
would have been plenty of time to debate the amendments and render the 
Senate's judgment, which I would have respected whether it succeeded or 
failed.
  Now, there are many of us who are very unhappy because we think we 
could have improved this legislation, which covers all but two--two--
Federal agencies of the entire Federal Government. And we are going to 
consider an up-or-down vote on it. That is not right. It is not fair to 
the American people. And it is not fair to the hallowed traditions of 
this institution.
  I do not know exactly what to do about it. But there are some of us 
who are looking for ways, perhaps, to express our dissatisfaction on 
this issue. In all deference to my dear friend from Virginia, all I 
asked for on this issue of the ``surge'' or ``change in strategy'' in 
Iraq was 2 hours of debate on our amendment, with a time agreement and 
a vote. I do not think that is a lot to ask. I do not think that is a 
great deal. I do not think that is a huge request. The two leaders 
sitting down together could have--and, by the way, I know my friend 
from Virginia supported that. I am not in any way denigrating----
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I would have it reflected in our colloquy that I did 
support that because it has always been my understanding, this being 
the greatest deliberative body in the world's organization, 
legislatures should have that as a fundamental precedent.
  I supported the Senator, much to the risk--and I was defamed from 
coast to coast--but I stood by the Senator's right to have his 
amendment, along with mine, considered by this body.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. And let the record be 
clear, the Senator from Virginia supported the proposition that we 
would consider more than one amendment.
  Now, I am absolutely convinced--I hate to keep going on this aspect 
of it because I wish to discuss the continuing appropriations bill 
before us--but we could have sat down and said: OK, we will have four 
amendments, a certain amount of time on each amendment for debate. Time 
agreements would have been entered into, and then everybody could have 
had their say or certainly the majority of the Senate would have agreed 
to that.
  Instead, unfortunately, we ended up without addressing the issue in a 
comprehensive fashion, in fact at all, because of the process that went 
through. But equally as important--equally as important--I say to my 
friend from Virginia--and I would ask him, when he first came here, 
would he have ever seen a situation where the entire funding of the 
Federal Government was in a measure before this body without a single 
amendment being allowed to it?
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief 
colloquy with the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I----
  Mr. McCAIN. For the record, you might want to say how many years you 
have been here.
  Mr. WARNER. I certainly recall, over a period of 29 years, the 
importance of the continuing resolution and the greater utilization, 
regrettably, of the necessity for leaders on both sides to resort to 
that. But I would have to say to my good friend, the imperative of the 
ability for our Government to function requires the flow of money. And 
unless this particular continuing resolution is acted upon by this body 
within the next few days, it will, indeed, impair the ability of our 
Government to function. So we have to take into consideration those 
things.
  Madam President, might I ask my friend, our good friend from Nebraska 
was to have had 2 minutes to rejoin in my effort to get the amendment 
up. At some point, might he be recognized and----
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that without 
losing the floor, my friend from Nebraska be recognized for 3 minutes 
to make a statement on the issue which has been raised by the Senator 
from Virginia, which I heartily disagree with.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his 
usual good humor and courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my friends from 
Virginia and Arizona for the courtesy being extended to me and I 
appreciate their forbearance.
  Madam President, the Senate is about to embark on a weeklong recess 
in the next couple days, and I would be remiss to allow this week to 
end without at least trying with my colleague from Virginia one more 
time to get the Senate to consider our resolution on the Iraq troop 
surge.
  For days we have seen Senators deliver speeches on this floor, some 
for a vote, others against allowing a vote. We have heard great calls 
to action, and we have heard that doing nothing would be better than 
doing something. We even had Senators participate in an exercise to 
block an up-or-down vote on a resolution, some for reasons they think 
were certainly important.
  But I am not a believer in doing nothing, and I believe the Senate 
has an obligation to lead. I have said that before, and I will say it 
again. The Senate is not only a deliberative body, but

[[Page 3950]]

it is a governing body and has oversight interests. Each Senator, as a 
Member of the body, has an obligation to lead.
  I would like to commend my colleagues, the Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Maine, for exhibiting great leadership and courage in 
forging this resolution that includes many important issues that need 
to be covered in a vote of this magnitude. Both of my colleagues and 
others have overcome fierce political pressures, including the 
Presiding Officer. But we have come together to do the right thing.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, from Michigan, my colleague from Nebraska, and the 
other Senators who have signed on in support of our resolution. 
Together, we are able to begin the process of oversight, the process of 
leadership, the process of living up to our obligations.
  And we are here today to try to continue to do the right thing. The 
House of Representatives is engaged in a historic debate today over a 
resolution that does, in part, what our resolution does. It expresses 
opposition to the President's planned surge of troops in Iraq.
  Although their resolution and our resolution come at it from 
different directions and points of view, in essence, they have some 
similarity. But I would prefer the Senate to take up the Warner-Nelson-
Collins resolution because we have spent considerable time and energy 
drafting a complete and comprehensive resolution that includes many of 
the priorities Senators have expressed over the duration of that war.
  Our resolution includes the need to establish benchmarks for the 
Iraqi Government to meet in order to continue involvement of the United 
States in Iraq. It includes the desire to continue fighting the 
terrorists in Anbar Province. It expresses clear opposition to the 
President's proposal to deposit 21,000 troops at the crossroads of 
civil war in Baghdad.
  The House resolution does express opposition to the President's plan, 
but it does not include these other important measures which we think 
are very important.
  So I hope we can resolve our differences and vote on this resolution 
in a timely fashion. The American public deserves an up-or-down down 
vote on this most important issue of today. The time is now to express 
our opposition to the troop surge and the use of American soldiers to 
stop civil war in Iraq.
  Thank you, Madam President. And I thank my colleague and friend from 
Arizona and my colleague and friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might be recognized to thank my 
colleague from Nebraska and then thank our colleague for his courtesy.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have to insist on the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues.
  Madam President, I understand at 4:15 we are turning to a judge. I 
ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, before we do that, I was under the 
impression I might be able to speak for about 5 minutes or so at around 
4:15. If I could add another 5 minutes at the end of that so we each 
have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for executive session is not until 
4:30.
  Mr. ALLARD. Meaning we have time? OK.
  Mr. McCAIN. We have time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I was misinformed.
  Madam President, I will not go on, on this issue, but I believe we 
need to, as a body, sit down and try to fix this unfortunate situation 
where we are not allowing amendments nor sufficient examination of 
legislation before the body.
  Madam President, there is one silver lining to the measure pending 
before us. It is largely free of wasteful earmarking and porkbarrel 
spending. This is the first time during my years in Congress I have 
witnessed such an occurrence. Compare this to the last fiscal year, 
2006. According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, 
the appropriations bills and accompanying reports for the last fiscal 
year included $64 billion in earmarks--the largest earmarked funding in 
history.
  So again, this CR, which does not have an accompanying report where 
historically 95 percent of earmarks are included, is a welcomed change. 
I can only urge the Appropriations Committee to let this be a guide for 
future appropriations measures when it comes to earmarks: Do not 
include them and do not waste the taxpayers' dollars.
  I was pleased to join with several of my colleagues in writing the 
President last week to urge his leadership on this issue and ensure his 
administration understands clearly and fully that it is under 
absolutely no obligation to continue to fund earmarks that were 
included in past committee reports or urged by Members of Congress or 
their staff. As stated by the President in his State of the Union 
Address last month, when it comes to earmarking, ``The time has come to 
end this practice.'' Now it is up to the administration to abide by the 
President's directive, and I assure you, we will be watching.
  Also, last week, Senator Coburn and I received a response from the 
Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in response to our letter 
of the previous week stating our serious concerns about reports that 
the Department may be planning ``business as usual'' and would fund 
conference report earmarks.
  Fortunately, the Secretary has clarified his Department's position 
and will only fund programs or activities that, in his words, are 
``meritorious and effective'' and ``support and advance the 
Department's missions and objectives . . . ''
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of our correspondence with the 
Secretary be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibits 1 and 2.)
  Despite what I have described as a positive consequence of this CR, 
the measure is imperfect and, like many of my colleagues, I believe we 
should have had an opportunity to improve it. I am particularly 
concerned about underfunding the Base Realignment Closure, BRAC, 
account, and was pleased to join in cosponsoring the amendment filed by 
Senators Hutchison and Inhofe to fund the account at the amount 
requested by the President and the amount we authorized for 2007.
  The 55 percent cut to the BRAC account, submitted without any type of 
justification or explanation, seriously jeopardizes the Department of 
Defense's ability to meet a statutory deadline to complete all BRAC 
actions by 2011. Congress imposed this 6-year deadline specifically to 
limit the negative impact on the military units and local communities 
around the country affected by BRAC. Congress intended that a 
concentrated period of investment would accelerate the economic 
development and recovery of communities affected by BRAC. This callous 
decision to deny funds to the Department at this critical juncture 
directly harms these communities as much as it does the military units 
placed in limbo by the sudden denial of funds.
  The administration noted in its recent response to the CR that the 
BRAC cut will ``reduce BRAC savings, delay or postpone scheduled 
redeployments of military personnel and their families from overseas 
locations to the United States, and negatively impact many communities 
throughout the country that have begun making specific plans in 
response to BRAC.''
  Surely our colleagues who developed this CR proposal did not intend 
to cause additional harm to the local communities that are already 
trying to cope and recover from the BRAC decisions. Quoting Congressman 
David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, about the 
CR, ``I don't expect people to love this proposal, I don't love this 
proposal, and we probably have made some wrong choices.''

[[Page 3951]]

  So, why are we in the Senate not allowed an opportunity to correct an 
obvious mistake?
  I've heard from the other side of the aisle during debate of H.J. 
Res. 20 that they understand this problem and that they plan to correct 
this $3.1 billion BRAC underfunding in the fiscal year 2007 emergency 
supplemental request of $93.4 billion. What kind of solution is that? 
Supplemental funds have been requested by the President for military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are critically needed 
to purchase equipment for force protection and IED defeat initiatives. 
These funds will be used to train and equip Iraqi security forces. 
Since when is BRAC an emergency related to the global war on terror?
  Furthermore, we are having this discussion because my colleagues who 
developed the resolution share with us the common goal to reduce 
overall Government expenditures. In that spirit, what critical 
warfighting requirement will we cut in the supplemental to pay for the 
BRAC increase they propose? What do we deny to our front-line fighting 
troops? While I have heard the idea of funding BRAC in the 
supplemental, I have not heard one idea on how to pay for it. Do they 
instead advocate for an increase to the supplemental? Why not just 
provide the funds to BRAC by offsets in the pending measure before us, 
as proposed by the Hutchison amendment? We should be addressing full 
fiscal year 2007 funding for BRAC in this CR. Using budget gimmicks and 
shell games in a supplemental, which could have devastating results for 
the military and local communities, is not the way to provide 
appropriations for critical military requirements.
  Finally, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, 
Dr. Coburn. He has been on the floor several times to discuss the very 
serious ramifications of the provision in this bill that will prohibit 
funding for what is known as the ``baby AIDS'' program. I've often 
commented that we need to start making tough fiscal decisions around 
here among competing priorities. But I have yet to hear anyone defend 
or even attempt to explain the decision that was made to prohibit 
funding for this critical program.
  I completely agree with Dr. Coburn. This funding prohibition is 
regrettable, and may have far reaching and devastating consequences for 
those helpless babies who could otherwise be given a better chance at 
having and keeping healthy lives.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                         Department of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 2007.


            MEMORANDUM FOR ALL PROGRAM SECRETARIAL OFFICERS

     From: Jeffrey Kupfer, Chief of Staff, Office of the 
         Secretary.
     Re: FY 2007 Funding.
       As you know, the House of Representatives recently passed 
     H.J. Res. 20, which would provide funding for the Department 
     of Energy's programs through the remainder of FY 2007. Even 
     though the Senate has not yet acted on that legislation, we 
     must begin to evaluate how we would operate if it is enacted 
     into law.
       One important matter that must be addressed in implementing 
     H.J. Res. 20 is how we will handle the matter of earmarks. As 
     President Bush noted in his recent State of the Union 
     address, special interest funding earmarks often are included 
     in committee reports that are never voted on by Congress or 
     presented to the President for approval, and these earmarks 
     cost the taxpayers billions of dollars each year across the 
     Federal Government.
       There is no House or Senate committee report accompanying 
     H.J. Res. 20, and therefore there are no committee earmarks 
     for the funding it would provide. Furthermore, section 112 of 
     this proposed legislation states that ``[a]ny language 
     specifying an earmark in a committee report or statement of 
     managers accompanying an appropriations Act for fiscal year 
     2006 shall have no legal effect with respect to funds 
     appropriated by this division.'' Nonetheless, I understand 
     some of your offices have begun to receive requests from some 
     Congressional offices, asking that the Department continue to 
     fund programs or activities that received earmarked funds in 
     prior years.
       Because the funding provided by H.J. Res. 20 will not be 
     subject to nonstatutory 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. As a result, and at the Secretary's 
     direction, any proposal by a recipient of an earmark in prior 
     years who seeks continued funding in FY 2007 needs to be 
     carefully reviewed and evaluated. Only those with meritorious 
     proposals or programs that effectively support and advance 
     the Department's missions and objectives, and who have 
     submitted appropriate advance documentation justifying their 
     request, should receive FY 2007 funding. Of course, all 
     funding-related decisions and actions must be made in 
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
       If H.J. Res. 20 is enacted into law, I will ask each of you 
     to submit a report containing your recommendations about 
     which, if any, earmarks from prior Congressional committee 
     reports you believe should continue to receive funding in FY 
     2007. No final decisions are to be made concerning those 
     potential recipients until after you have submitted your 
     report and received further guidance from the Secretary's 
     Office. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer will 
     provide instructions on the timing and the content of your 
     report.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2007.
     Hon. John S. McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your February 2, 2007 
     letter concerning H.J. Res. 20. In your letter, you inquire 
     whether the Department of Energy (DOE) intends to continue 
     funding earmarks that have appeared in committee reports 
     accompanying prior year appropriations bills. You note that a 
     recent press report, citing unnamed sources, states that DOE 
     has told Congressional appropriators it will continue to fund 
     earmarks despite H.J. Res. 20 language that says agencies are 
     not bound to continue funding prior year earmarks.
       The press story cited in your letter does not accurately 
     reflect DOE policy or the direction that has been given to 
     DOE program offices. Late last week, the Department's Chief 
     of Staff issued a memorandum to all Program Secretarial 
     Officers concerning how they should evaluate earmarks that 
     appeared in Congressional committee reports accompanying 
     prior year appropriations bills. A copy of that memorandum is 
     enclosed.
       Among other things, the memorandum states that DOE 
     officials must carefully review any requests for continued 
     funding of prior year earmarks. Only those project sponsors 
     ``with meritorious proposals or programs that effectively 
     support and advance the Department's missions and objectives, 
     and who have submitted appropriate advance documentation 
     justifying their request, should receive FY 2007 funding.'' 
     This means that DOE may continue funding some programs or 
     activities that have received earmarked funds in prior years, 
     but only if the programs or activities are meritorious and 
     effective. DOE is prepared to be fully accountable for making 
     those decisions.
       As you know, H.J. Res. 20 has not yet been enacted into 
     law. We hope that Congress will act quickly on that 
     legislation so that necessary funds will be provided for the 
     remainder of Fiscal Year 2007, not only for DOE but for many 
     other federal agencies as well. If you have any further 
     questions, please call me or Jill L. Sigal, Assistant. 
     Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at 
     202-586-5450.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Samuel W. Bodman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may make 
some introductory remarks on S. 589, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 589 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 3952]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are to proceed to executive session at this 
time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, there is a vote coming up on the 
resolution. We already had one vote on a cloture motion. I have to say 
publicly one more time the reason I have so vigorously opposed this 
whole concept, and it is because in a very partisan way, in a very 
partisan manner, the Democrats were successful in taking out the money 
that would have implemented the fifth and last BRAC round.
  BRAC is the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In this BRAC 
round, we would have saved $20 billion by 2012, but by delaying it a 
year, the costs are going to be far greater. There is $5.7 billion to 
implement BRAC, and the Democrats took out effectively $4.1 billion and 
then put $1 billion back--$3.1 billion out. That means we cannot 
implement these BRAC policies and actually effect the savings.
  The problem I have with this is they say this is going to come out of 
the emergency supplemental, we will get it all taken out of that. That 
means it comes out of money that otherwise would have gone to our 
fighting troops in Iraq. This is not what I want to happen. Right now, 
we are underfunded over there. We have great needs in armored vehicles, 
operating costs, and training costs for Iraqi security forces, and this 
translates into American lives.
  To have $3.1 billion come out of this BRAC process to me is 
unconscionable when we are at war. This means the units that were 
planning to return stateside will have to remain abroad. It means the 
temporary and old housing will continue to be used, further increasing 
the upkeep in costs. And it means it is going to cost a lot more to 
implement it. Each week that goes by, each time it is delayed, it is 
going to cost additional money.
  Here is the other problem we have, if we stop and think. All the 
communities that are surrounding our various military establishments 
have participated in the BRAC process and have said: If you will do 
this and expand this base, we will put in free housing, we will do 
health care for the children of our military people. All these very 
generous contributions which are made by the private sector very likely 
will not even be made.
  It is not too late to change our mind. I just wish I could reach a 
number of people here to convince the leadership, such as my good 
friend from North Dakota. I know he is interested in accommodating the 
BRAC needs. If we could just get this one amendment in to allow us to 
do the military construction and to pull that out of the continuing 
resolution, it would be appreciated very much by our troops who are 
fighting a very difficult battle.
  I will make my one last appeal. We cannot take the $3.1 billion out 
and adequately support the military operation.
  I yield the floor.


                       Funding For Iraq: Refugees

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend Senator Leahy, chairman of 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, 
for including an additional $20 million for Iraqi refugees in the 
continuing resolution.
  More than 3 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes, and 
many of them have fled the country. America has a special obligation to 
help them and the neighboring countries in meeting their needs.
  The UNHCR has made an international appeal for $60 million to deal 
with this emerging crisis, and the United States plans to provide $20 
million to that appeal.
  Our invasion of Iraq led to this crisis, and we have a clear 
responsibility to do more to ease it. We should provide at least half 
the funding for this $60 million appeal to help this growing refugee 
population.
  I believe $10 million of the funds in this bill should be for the 
UNHCR appeal, in an effort to raise the total U.S. contribution to $30 
million. Is that the chairman's intent?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, it is. Senator Kennedy, who is the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Refugees, makes an important 
point. I believe that the United States should contribute half of the 
funds, and I will work with Senator Kennedy and with the State 
Department to ensure that those funds are provided. I agree that 
America should show greater leadership by providing at least half the 
funds for this appeal.


                                 NDIIPP

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have come to the floor to engage in a 
colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and 
Administration, Senator Bennett of Utah.
  In 2000, Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, came to 
many Members of this Chamber with an urgent request. He wanted to begin 
preserving important cultural works which existed only in digital 
format.
  Soon after, Congress approved the creation of the National Digital 
Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, which is also 
referred to as ``NDIIPP.''
  Those of us in Congress secured $100 million over 10 years to start 
this program. With the Library's guidance, NDIIPP quickly became a 
broad-based coalition of Federal agencies, universities, non-profit 
organizations, and companies in the science and technology industries.
  Today, the NDIIPP partnership includes 67 public and private 
organizations nationwide. But the future of this effort is in serious 
jeopardy.
  The House-passed fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution rescinds $47 
million in NDIIPP funds--effectively destroying a program essential to 
our increasingly digital world.
  If funding for NDIIPP is not restored, the Library of Congress risks 
losing the resources which have already been invested--and the 
important work already completed--with regard to digital preservation.
  The Library's partners in the private sector have committed $37 
million in matching funds to this effort. If NDIIPP is eliminated, 
these funds will also be lost.
  NDIIPP is essential to our ability to identify, preserve, and provide 
access to digital content. This program is helping to ensure future 
generations will be able to access information needed for research and 
policymaking.
  Madam President, our choice is clear. A number of digital works have 
already disappeared. Many Web sites launched before 2000, for instance, 
were never preserved and will never be recovered. If funding for NDIIPP 
is eliminated, many future works will likewise be lost forever. If 
funding for NDIIPP is restored, we can help ensure these works do not 
suffer a similar fate.
  This project holds great possibilities, and I will work with my 
colleagues to assure it receives the funding it deserves.
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator from Alaska. Funding intended 
for NDIIPP serves a vital purpose for our Nation. I will work with the 
Senator and our colleagues to restore these funds.
  There is a wide assumption that digital materials will be available 
tomorrow and that we can put off taking measures to preserve them until 
sometime in the future. That is not the case. The average life of a Web 
site is 44 days and material not saved today will be gone tomorrow. 
Geospatial information, including records of land elevation, weather 
patterns, water levels, LANDSAT imagery, State and local maps and other 
statistical information about an area exist almost exclusively in 
digital format today. If these materials are not actively preserved, 
the vital information they contain will be lost. Outside of efforts 
being undertaken by government agencies such as the Library of Congress 
and its public and private sector partners, little is being done to 
preserve digitally created materials for the future use of the 
Congress. The expense is great, the technologies necessary for long 
term preservation of digital information are in their infancy and the

[[Page 3953]]

risks of loss are not widely known or understood. The legislators of 
the future will have access to only what we actively preserve today.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Utah for his commitment to this 
important program.


         Revised Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record the 
Budget Committee's official scoring of H.J. Res. 20, making revised 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007.
  The pending long-term continuing resolution appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2007, as passed by the House, provides discretionary budget 
authority for fiscal year 2007 of $463.5 billion.
  When combined with discretionary budget authority levels included in 
the 2007 Defense and Department of Homeland Security conference 
reports, total 2007 nonemergency budget authority is $872.7 billion. 
This level is $60 million below both the Appropriations Committee's 
302(a) allocation pursuant to the deeming resolution (Sec. 7035 of P.L 
109-234) and the President's requested level.
  When funding levels contained in the bill are combined with 
nonemergency budget authority levels included in previously enacted 
bills, all subcommittees are at their 302(b) allocation with the 
exception of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, which is $60 million 
below its allocation. No points of order lie against the bill as passed 
by the House.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous 
consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          H.J. Res. 20, Revised Continuing Resolution for 2007

                     [Fiscal Year 2007; $ millions]

                                                        General Purpose
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...........................................$463,456
    Outlays.....................................................532,456
Previously-enacted bills:
    Defense:
      Budget Authority..........................................377,357
      Outlays...................................................394,446
    Department of Homeland Security:
      Budget Authority...........................................31,905
      Outlays....................................................38,714
Total:
    Budget Authority............................................872,718
    Outlays.....................................................965,616

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on two matters 
concerning the 2007 continuing resolution.
  First, as the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, I want to let my 
colleagues know exactly what this continuing resolution means for the 
agencies within my subcommittee's jurisdiction.
  Second, I want to touch briefly on the appropriations process and why 
it is so important that Congress pass individual appropriations bills.
  Let me go through some funding highlights for the agencies and 
programs under my subcommittee's purview:
  The President recently announced his new, National Parks Centennial 
Initiative. This will provide up to $3 billion over the next 10 years 
to improve our national parks in preparation for their centennial in 
2016. This continuing resolution contains the first $40 million of the 
$100 million installment the President requested in his 2008 budget.
  The amount provided in the continuing resolution for basic operations 
at our national parks is $1.758 billion, a $40 million increase over 
last year's level.
  The continuing resolution also contains an increase of $70 million in 
the Forest Service firefighting account. Of that amount, $51 million is 
provided for basic fire suppression activities.
  We have added $19 million to the hazardous fuels reduction account so 
that important preventive work can continue as well.
  The continuing resolution provides an additional $125 million for the 
Indian Health Service so that the critical medical care so desperately 
needed in Indian country can be made available.
  There is also $60 million for basic operational needs for the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land 
Management. Together, these agencies manage a conservation and 
recreation network that spans more than 550 million acres.
  Finally, I would like to point out that under this continuing 
resolution, EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund will receive nearly 
$1.1 billion. That is $200 million more than the 2006 level, which will 
be used to help local communities meet their wastewater infrastructure 
needs.
  But while there are some funding increases in this continuing 
resolution, the fact that we are now considering this on the floor 
today--over 4 months into fiscal year 2007--underscores the problem 
with not going through the regular appropriations process.
  This resolution essentially provides the same level of funding as 
fiscal year 2006, with a few exceptions. But this means that dozens of 
programs and projects did not receive an increase over 2006 levels or 
did not receive funding at all.
  There are, however, a few bright spots in what has otherwise been 
tough times.
  For instance, there is an increase of $3.6 billion in veterans health 
care and $1.2 billion to help care for our brave military personnel and 
their families; over a billion dollars for State and local law 
enforcement assistance grants; $399 million for the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, the same as fiscal year 2006; $1.2 
billion for Ryan White CARE grants, an increase of $75.8 million to 
fund at the newly authorized level; $4.5 billion for Global HIV/AIDS, 
an increase of $1.3 billion; a $502 million increase for section 8 
tenant-based housing vouchers and the first increase in the maximum 
Pell grant in 4 years, from the current $4,050 to $4,310; and full 
funding of the Transportation Reauthorization bill for fiscal year 
2007.
  Yet many programs will not receive increases. For example, in 
California there is no increase for CalFed. This program plays an 
important role in increasing California's water supply, restoring 
fisheries and delta levees, and improving the water quality of the San 
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
  Additionally, programs of a critical nature in my State that I fought 
hard to secure funding for will not receive the resources they deserve. 
These include State agricultural pest detection, Perchlorate cleanup 
efforts, and important flood control projects.
  That is why it is so significant that Congress does its job to fully 
consider and approve each individual appropriations bill. This is the 
best way to ensure that needed projects and programs are funded 
adequately.
  For this reason, I am glad to serve on the Appropriations Committee 
under the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia. Under his 
direction, I believe we will pass all 12 bills for fiscal year 2008. 
First, however, we must dispose of the leftover business from last 
Congress.
  The Chairman is proceeding the best he can, and I believe we need to 
support this effort and get this done. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the passage of this continuing resolution.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, this joint funding resolution is not 
what anyone wanted. We are in this position because the last Congress 
failed to do its job. We had no choice. We were determined to stay 
within strict spending limits while trying to address compelling needs. 
I believe we have done the best we can do. We were able to take care of 
the most important priorities facing the nation without going over our 
spending limits.
  In the Commerce, Justice, Science chapter of this resolution, we were 
able to increase funding for the Department of Justice by $1.4 billion 
over last year to ensure there were no cuts to the FBI and the war 
against terror. We provided the FBI with a $333 million increase over 
the old CR which fully funds the FBI, U.S. attorneys and the Bureau of 
Prisons. More importantly, the additional $1.4 billion eliminates

[[Page 3954]]

the cuts to State and local law enforcement proposed in the President's 
budget. At a time when crime rates are going back up according to the 
most recent FBI crime statistics, we fully fund the COPS program, as 
well as programs to fight gangs and sexual predators. Protecting our 
neighborhoods and communities remains our No. 1 priority and this extra 
funding is proof of our commitment to make America safer.
  We were also able to make a down payment on our innovation and 
competitiveness agenda. We added $335 million to the National Science 
Foundation's research account to increase our commitment to basic 
research that will lead to new breakthroughs in science, technology and 
future innovation to keep America competitive in the global economy. In 
addition, we added $38 million to the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology to increase research grants and an additional $12 
million to modernize their laboratory facilities. Finally, we gave the 
Patent and Trademark Office the full $1.7 billion called for in the 
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and ensured that all patent 
fees stay with the Patent Office.
  While I would have liked to have increased funding for NASA, there 
was simply not enough extra funding available for us to do so. Within 
the limits of NASA's fiscal year 2006 operating plan, we added an extra 
$460 million to exploration while protecting other critical NASA 
programs in science and aeronautics. With only 7 months left in this 
fiscal year, I believe NASA will be able to manage their programs in 
exploration with minimal impact to the overall schedule.
  This bill cuts $3.3 billion in Military Constructions funds required 
to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round. By putting 
the entire year's BRAC Military Construction program on hold, the 
current situation has caused adverse disruptions to important military 
planning. In Maryland alone, the Defense Department is unable to 
execute over $300 million worth of projects, preventing the 
construction of badly needed facilities that directly support our 
warfighters. This delay also has a huge impact on the economy of the 
State of Maryland, in the construction industry and other key support 
industries. Finally, the continuing resolution blocks critical projects 
required to implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, 
recommendations, jeopardizing the ability of our military installations 
to complete required BRAC actions on time.
  I, along with the other members of the Maryland congressional 
delegation, have sent a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, urging them to fully 
fund BRAC Military Construction in the fiscal year 2007 emergency 
supplemental spending bill. Both the House and Senate majority leaders 
have pledged their support for our effort. I will fight to add this 
vital funding to the emergency supplemental when it comes before the 
Senate in March.
  So while this bill is not what anyone wanted, it is the best we could 
do considering what we were left with. I will support this continuing 
resolution and I will fight to do better next year.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to clarify an 
issue of concern to communities in my home state of Florida, 
particularly to those who have been affected by natural disasters in 
recent years.
  The continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 20, contains a revision to the 
formula for funding the critical section 8 tenant-based rental 
assistance voucher program. Inefficiencies in the voucher funding 
formula in place since 2004 have resulted in the loss of vouchers for 
an estimated 150,000 families nationwide. My understanding is that the 
revised formula will provide sufficient funding for the number of 
families assisted last year, and provides a $100 million pool to assist 
agencies who experience unusual circumstances during the transition.
  However, due to the devastating hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, several 
of our Florida communities helped unusually low numbers of families 
last year. This is because the hurricanes devastated their housing 
stock they simply did not have the apartments and houses to rent. In 
some areas, the amount of need did not decline; there was simply a 
shortage of affordable housing options.
  I rise to confirm my understanding that the section 8 funds for 
housing assistance payments already allocated by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to a local housing authority will 
remain accessible.
  If my understanding is correct, housing authorities may continue to 
use the funds in their possession, along with their fiscal year 2007 
funds, to lease up to the authorized level of units under contract. 
This will ensure that our hurricane damaged communities and others who 
have seen losses in recent years due to unforeseen circumstances or the 
dislocations that have occurred since 2004 will be able to recover. As 
our communities rebuild, I want to make sure that our housing agencies 
will continue to have access to the available resources needed to serve 
low-income families.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I will vote in favor of the 
continuing resolution not because it is perfect but because it is the 
responsible course of action for Congress to bring some fiscal sanity 
back to our Federal budget. The alternative, letting Government come to 
a screeching halt and blocking services to millions of Americans, is 
unacceptable.
  The resolution we vote on today was drafted under the guidance of a 
Republican Congress and Republican President. Yet that same Congress, 
the 109th, refused to make difficult fiscal decisions and instead 
simply passed the buck to the current 110th Congress. So today we meet 
our constitutional responsibility to determine the Nation's budget and 
provide funding for programs that millions of hard-working Americans 
rely on to make ends meet.
  Perhaps most unfortunate, today we are voting for appropriating funds 
for fiscal year 2007 that for most agencies are the same as fiscal year 
2006 levels. In addition, it concerns me that this resolution gives too 
much power to Federal agencies. Under the formula prescribed in this 
resolution, each agency seemingly has wide discretion to determine 
which specific programs get slashed and which receive additional funds. 
I fear this widespread Federal discretion could have a negative impact 
on programs critical to Maryland, like the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Small Watersheds Programs, the consolidation of the FDA Headquarters at 
White Oak, and the Ocean City hurricane protection project, to name 
only a few. I encourage the agencies to do the right thing and allocate 
appropriate funds for programs with track records of success because 
Congress will be watching.
  Despite the shortcomings in this resolution, it does include some 
modest increases for important programs. In Maryland, scientists at the 
National Institutes of Health are on the cutting edge of unlocking some 
of our most complicated and devastating diseases. The additional $620 
million that this resolution allocates to NIH may lead to a 
groundbreaking cure or vaccine.
  We must continue to do more to make a college education a reality for 
all families, and I am pleased to see that Pell grants will be expanded 
to help students afford college. In Maryland, the cost of receiving a 
public education has increased by nearly 40 percent at some State 
universities. A college education is key to achieving the American 
dream, and we must continue to make sure all children regardless of 
what zip code they live in or how much money their parents make have 
that opportunity.
  Although some of Maryland's environmental programs might be affected, 
the increased funding in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund will 
enable Maryland communities to continue upgrading sewage treatment 
plants to help cleanup the Chesapeake Bay. This is a step in the right 
direction.
  Maryland's transportation systems will also receive a much-needed 
boost, with an additional $86 million in highway funds and $14 million 
more for

[[Page 3955]]

transit funds. Amtrak will also receive much-needed funding so it can 
continue to help thousands of Marylanders get to work each day.
  Again, this continuing resolution is far from perfect, and the 
circumstances under which we are passing it are far from ideal. It is 
unfortunate that this Congress was forced to finish the work of the 
prior Congress, but it is our responsibility to do so. Therefore, I 
support the continuing resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the 
same.

                          ____________________