Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Well, this has been quite an enlightening experience on the floor this past 30 or 40 minutes. It shows how emotionally charged this body has become over this issue and perhaps other issues as well. But the challenge is, we are all entitled to our own opinions. We are just not entitled to our own set of facts.

I would like to take a moment to explain the so-called Medicaid fix for the State of Nebraska. Now, it has been described as the ``Omaha Stakes fix.'' I take issue--and I only wish my colleague from Nebraska had stayed on

the floor to hear this. I take issue with one of the premier businesses in the State of Nebraska used in a manner of derision to outline something that is factually incorrect on the basis of how they are presenting it.

You can twist and you can turn and you can try to distort what happens, but it does not change the underlying facts. The underlying facts are, this was pursued initially as an opt-in or opt-out for all States. It was impossible to do that at the present time, and so as a matter of fix, there was, in fact, the extension of the Federal dollars from the year 2017 on, well into the future, as a marker to lay down so that every State could object to this manner of unfunded mandates.

As a Governor--and my colleague is a former Governor--we fought against Federal unfunded mandates. As a Senator back here, I have also fought against unfunded and underfunded Federal mandates. This was, in fact, exactly that. While we were not able to get in this legislation an actual opt-out or opt-in for a State-based decision, what we did get is at least a line, if you will, so that in the future other States are going to be able to come forward and say: Hey, either the Federal Government pays for that into the future or the State will have the opportunity to decide not to continue that so that we do not have an unfunded Federal mandate.

So I am surprised. I am shocked. Well, actually, I am not shocked. I am disappointed this would be used and misused in this fashion, not only derisively against a great company in Nebraska--the Nebraska Steaks--I am also surprised my colleague would participate in a colloquy that would use the name of that company in such a manner.

I am surprised this colloquy went on without understanding the facts of what this so-called carve-out--which is not a carve-out--truly consisted of. There is no carve-out. Each State between now and 2017-- two-thirds-plus of a decade--will have an opportunity to come back in and get this bill changed.

Governors asked for relief. As Governors, we asked for relief against these continuing unfunded mandates. Time and time again, we fought against them. This was one more opportunity to fight. As a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska spotted this and wrote me a letter on December 16 and said, among other things:

The State of Nebraska cannot afford an unfunded mandate and

uncontrolled spending of this magnitude.

He goes on to say a number of other things about the bill. But he makes the point that this is an unfunded Federal mandate and wanted me to do something about it.

So I sent him back a letter on the same date, saying:

Thank you. . . .

Please be advised that I have proposed that the Senate bill

be modified to include an ``opt-in'' mechanism to allow

states to avoid the issues you have raised. Under my

proposal, if Nebraska prefers not to opt in to a reformed

health care system, it would have that right.

My colleague and others know this is the case. They know this is the case, but they choose to ignore it. They choose to ignore the facts.

On December 20, I again wrote to the Governor and shared with him my concern about this unfunded mandate, and I pointed out that:

Within hours after the amendment was filed, [my colleague

from Nebraska] objected to the inclusion of these funds. As a

result, I am prepared to ask that this provision be removed

from the amendment in conference if it is [the Governor's]

desire.

I got a letter back on the day after, on December 21, talking about this as a special deal. It is not a special deal for Nebraska. It is, in fact, an opportunity to get rid of an unfunded Federal mandate for all the States. Let me repeat that: for all the States. There is nothing special about it, and it is fair.

What we have done is we have drawn a line in the sand and said: This is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for all States as well. I cannot believe that this sort of a situation would continue. There is no misunderstanding here. I think it is just an opportunity to mislead, distort, and, unfortunately, confuse the American public all the more, and to use the State of Nebraska and the name of a good company for partisan political purposes on the other side of the aisle.

My colleagues know I am not a deeply partisan person and that I rarely come to the floor to speak, and that when I come to the floor, it is for something like this, to take exception with the misuse of information for partisan purposes. That is exactly what has been done with this situation.

I am prepared to fight for the State of Nebraska, and I hope my colleague is as well. Obviously, the Governor was prepared to fight for the State of Nebraska by bringing it to my attention. But I am not prepared to fight to get a special deal for the State of Nebraska. I did not, and I refuse to accept that kind of responsibility or that kind of a suggestion from anyone on that side of the aisle or anyone else.

Then, as it relates to abortion, I think my colleagues know that we introduced legislation that is comparable to the Stupak legislation in the House dealing with barring the use of Federal funds for elective abortions. We introduced it over here, and it was bipartisan. It was Nelson-Hatch-Casey, and it did not pass. So I began the process of trying to find other solutions that I thought equally walled off the use of Federal funds and made it clear that no Federal funds would be used.

Now, apparently I did not say ``mother may I'' in the process of writing that language because others took issue with it, even though they cannot constructively point out how it does not prohibit the use of Federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just did not like the language.

Well, if in the conference the Stupak-Nelson-Hatch-Casey language passes, I will be happy, and so will Congressman Stupak, and so would, I would imagine, those who signed on to that legislation. It is unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens in the body of the Senate. It is difficult enough to have comity. It is difficult enough to have cooperation. It is difficult enough to have collegiality. When politics are put above policy and productivity, this is what we get.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed, somewhat disillusioned, by the use of this method and this approach that would undermine the good name of a company in Nebraska, as well as the name of the State of Nebraska, by associating it with something that has not been done, was not intended, and did not result.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes in the midst of this debate to acknowledge some individuals who work for us here in the Senate. As chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations subcommittee that funds these agencies, I have had the opportunity to get to know these staffs and have a good understanding of the work they do for us here in the Senate. These folks work tirelessly behind the scenes at all times to keep this institution running safe and sound under any circumstances.

We have been in session every weekend since Thanksgiving, including during the largest December snowstorm in Washington's history, and we have worked uninterrupted thanks to the dedication and hard work of these individuals. It is easy to take for granted the hard work they perform on a daily basis--and we often do, but today, on behalf of the entire Senate I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to all of them.

I want to start by thanking the U.S. Capitol Police Force, led by Chief Philip Morse and Assistant Chief Dan Nichols. This force of 1800 officers put their lives on the line every day to protect us and this institution, and they have all worked a tremendous amount of overtime lately. I want to particularly mention the terrific work of Inspector Sandra Coffman and her staff in the Capitol Division for all the extra hours they have worked in securing and protecting the Capitol and the Chamber. They have gone above and beyond their normal duty, and we are extremely grateful for their dedication to our safety and protection.

Next I want to thank the staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, led by Sergeant at Arms Terry Gainer and Deputy Sergeant at Arms Drew Willison. The SAA staff of nearly 900 people includes the doorkeepers who have worked nonstop through the last month keeping access to the Senate available for staff and visitors who have traveled to Washington to witness this historic debate firsthand. They have kept our computer systems and overstretched telephone systems running, kept the mail moving, and the recording studio functioning, not to mention the facilities staff who have kept the Capitol Building clean and warm, replenishing wood for the fireplaces nonstop.

I want to thank the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, led by Acting Architect Stephen Ayers, and the many, many folks who have worked around the clock from Ted Bechtel and the Capitol Grounds crew who have been removing snow from the road, sidewalks, and parking lots of the Capitol Complex, to Robin Morey and his staff who have kept the Senate buildings clean and warm throughout these long, long weeks. I truly appreciate the extra hours of work provided by these individuals.

I want to thank the Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, and her staff, including the legislative clerks, the bill clerks, the enrolling clerks, the executive clerks, Parliamentarians, official reporters of debates, captioning services, journal clerks, and the staff of the Daily Digest. These folks have been here around the clock, under some very tiring circumstances, to deliver the services that are needed to keep this institution running.

Last but not least, I want to thank Lula Davis and David Schiappa, our floor leaders, for their tireless guidance in keeping us--the Members--where we need to be when we need to be there. We are in your debt.

Mr. President, I have undoubtedly left out many people in the Senate who deserve to be thanked, and I hope they know who they are and how much we appreciate them.

The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan amendment which I have proposed with Senator Hatch, the Presiding Officer, and others. As my good friend and colleague from Utah has so eloquently explained, our amendment mirrors the language offered by Representative Stupak that was accepted into the House health care bill. Our view is that it should become part of the Senate health care bill we are debating as well.

It is a fact that the issue of abortion stirs very strong emotions involving strongly held principles all across America, from those who support the procedure and those who do not. We are hearing that passion at times here on the Senate floor.

But we are not here to debate for or against abortion. This is a debate about taxpayer money. It is a debate about whether it is appropriate for public funds to, for the first time in more than three decades, cover elective abortions. In my opinion, most Americans and most of the people in my State would say no.

As it is currently written, though, the Senate health care bill enables taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. We should not open the door to do so. As I said yesterday, when we offered the amendment, some suggested the Stupak language imposes new restrictions on abortion. But that is not the case. We are seeking to apply the same standards to the Senate health care bill that already exist for many Federal health programs.

But the bill does set a new standard. It is a standard in favor of public funding of abortion. Our amendment does not limit the procedure, nor prevent people from buying insurance that covers abortion with their own money. It only ensures that when taxpayer dollars are involved, people are not required to pay for other people's abortions.

Some have claimed that the amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan. That is not true, according to politfact.com, a prize-winning, fact-checking Web site, which looked at similar claims by a House Member during House debate on the Stupak amendment. PolitFact found, and I quote:

First, she suggests the amendment applies to everyone in

the private insurance market when it just applies to those in

the health care exchange. Second, her statement that the

restrictions would affect women ``even when they would pay

premiums with their own money'' is incorrect. In fact, women

on the exchange who pay the premiums with their own money

will be able to get abortion coverage. So we find her

statement false.

The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment only incorporates the longstanding rules of the Hyde amendment, which Congress approved in 1976, to ensure that no Federal funds are used to pay for abortion in the legislation.

This standard now applies to Federal health programs covering such wide and broad groups as veterans, Federal employees, Native Americans, active-duty servicemembers, and others--all of whom are covered under some form of a Federal health program.

Thus, this standard applies to individuals participating in the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, veterans health, and military health care programs.

I wish to emphasize another point. All current Federal health programs disallow the use of Federal funds to help pay for health plans that include abortion. Our amendment only continues that established Federal policy. Some have said the Hyde amendment already is in effect in this bill. But that is not the case at all. The bill says the Secretary of Health and Human Services may allow elective abortion

coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option--the public option-- if the Secretary believes there is sufficient segregation of funds to ensure Federal tax credits are not used to purchase that portion of the coverage.

The bill would also require that at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered on every State insurance exchange.

Federal legislation establishing a public option that provides abortion coverage and Federal legislation allowing States to opt out of the public option that provides abortion coverage eases--let me repeat the word ``eases''--the standards established by the Hyde amendment.

The claim that the segregation of funds accomplishes the Hyde intent falls short. Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick. The reality is, taxpayer-supported Federal dollars would help buy insurance coverage that includes covering abortion.

I wish to offer some other points about the effect of the Nelson- Hatch-Casey amendment.

Under the amendment, no funds authorized or appropriated by the bill could be used for abortions or for benefits packages that include abortion. The amendment would prohibit the use of the affordability tax credits to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion. It would also prohibit Federal funding for abortion under the Community Health Insurance Option.

In addition, the amendment makes exceptions in the cases of rape or incest or in cases of danger to the mother's life.

In addition, the amendment allows an individual to use their own private funds to purchase separate supplemental insurance coverage for abortions, perhaps even what is called a rider to an existing plan.

The amendment allows an individual whose private health care coverage is not subsidized by the Federal Government to purchase or be covered by a plan that includes elective abortions, paid for with that individual's own premium dollars.

Under the amendment, a private insurer participating in the exchange can offer a plan that includes elective abortion coverage to nonsubsidized individuals on the exchange, as long as they also offer the same plan without elective abortion coverage to those who receive Federal subsidies.

On another point, under Federal law, States are allowed to set their own policies concerning abortion. Many States oppose the use of public funds for abortion. Many States have also passed laws that regulate abortion by requiring informed consent and waiting periods, requiring parental involvement in cases where minors seek abortions, and protecting the rights of health care providers who refuse, as a matter of conscience, to assist in abortion.

But perhaps most importantly, there is no Federal law, nor is there any State law, that requires a private health plan to include abortion coverage. But the bill before us, as written, does.

As I have said, the current health care bill we are debating should not be used to open a new avenue for public funding of abortion. We should preserve the current policies, which have stood the test of time, which are supported by most Nebraskans and most Americans. The Senate bill, as proposed, goes against that majority public opinion. I think most Americans would prefer that this health care bill remain neutral on abortion, not chart a new course providing public funds for the procedure. Public opinion suggests so. So does the fact that over the last 30-plus years Congress has passed new Federal laws that have not broken with precedent.

Finally, as President Obama has said, this is a health care reform bill. It is not an abortion bill. So it is time to simply extend the longstanding standard disallowing public funding of abortion to new proposed Federal legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to summarize the reasons for and the intent of the amendment that Senator Hatch and the Presiding Officer and I, together with others, have proposed to the health care bill.

First of all, I should say the examples our very good friend from California has outlined would not have been covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan either because the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan does not provide abortion coverage for such circumstances.

Our amendment mirrors the language that has been offered by Representative Stupak that was adopted into the House health care bill, and we believe it should be applied to the Senate bill as well. As I said earlier, the issue of abortion certainly prompts strong opinions, fierce passions, and deep-seated principles for millions and millions of Americans, those who support the procedure and those who don't. But our amendment does not take sides on abortion. It is about the use of taxpayer money.

The question before us is whether public funds, for the first time in more than three decades, should cover elective abortions. Numerous public opinion polls have shown that most Americans, including a number who support abortion, do not support public funds paying for abortion. But the Senate bill we are debating allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans to cover abortion. That is out of step with the majority of Nebraskans and of all Americans.

Our amendment does not impose new restrictions on women despite what some have claimed, and I respect but strongly disagree with them. We are seeking to just apply the same standards to the Senate health care bill that already exist for every Federal health program.

Our amendment does not add a new restriction, but the bill does add a new relaxation of a Federal standard that has worked well for more than 30 years. Under our amendment, abortion isn't limited, nor would people be prevented from buying insurance on the private market covering abortion with their own money.

Our amendment only ensures that where taxpayer money enters the picture, people are not required to pay for people's abortions.

The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment incorporates the longstanding standard established by the Hyde amendment which Congress approved in 1976. Today it applies to every Federal health program. That includes plans that cover veterans, Federal employees, including Members of Congress, Native Americans, Active-Duty servicemembers, and a whole host of others.

Some people have called our amendment radical. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is reasonable. It is rational because it follows established Federal law. It is right. Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for people's abortions. It is just that simple.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help finance the war effort without sharp tax increases or increased foreign borrowing, The United States War Bonds Act of 2009 will authorize the Treasury to issue and market War Bonds to the American people to help finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe that we need shared sacrifice and fiscal discipline in financing the war effort. I don't believe our first instinct should always be a rush to tax. The government has gone to great lengths to address the economic downturn and adding new taxes right now could undermine those efforts. We need to work to reduce Federal spending wherever possible and reduce the growth in spending to finance the war.

War bonds are a cost-effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign creditors and create an outlet for Americans to express their patriotism and support for our servicemembers and America's mission. War bonds allow us to borrow from ourselves, rather than other countries.

This legislation finds a precedent in World War II savings bonds. From May 1, 1941 through December 1945, the War Finance Division and its predecessors were responsible for the sale of nearly $186 billion worth of government securities. Of this, more than $54 billion was in the form of War Savings bonds.

Although the times and economic circumstances are different than the 1940s, America's commitment to protecting freedom and our way of life has not waned. My hope is that we can tap into the same spirit of patriotism and create a sense of participation in the war effort akin to that shown by the greatest generation.

The new military strategy increasing troops by 30,000 for Afghanistan announced last week by President Obama is estimated to cost $30 billion beyond the baseline for Iraq and Afghanistan funding, which stands around $130 billion for 2010. The United States public debt is currently more than $7.6 trillion and nearly $3.5 trillion--46 percent--of the debt is held by foreign investors.While there are no simple solutions to our fiscal woes, while we endeavor to get our fiscal house in order, we must also be responsible borrowers and reduce our dependence on foreign creditors; this is a step in that direction.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2962.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Yes.

Madam President, my lead cosponsor, Senator Hatch, will appear sometime later and speak in favor of amendment 2962. He is unable to be here at the moment.

Before the Thanksgiving break, I voted with a number--and the majority, actually--of my colleagues in favor of beginning this debate. Debate is essential in our democracy. It keeps our country resilient and strong through changing times.

Before that vote, some argued here on the Senate floor that we shouldn't hold this open and full debate. They seemed to suggest that obstruction was better than action. Some also argued here on the floor that the November 21 vote was about abortion. They were wrong. That vote was whether to begin a debate on an issue that has consumed the American public. Now is the time to start debating the issue of abortion, as we are addressing many other issues in health care reform.

I wish to discuss the amendment that I propose, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, which includes Senators Hatch, Casey, Brownback, Thune, Coburn, Johanns, Vitter, and Barrasso. The amendment we offer today mirrors the Stupak language added to the House health care bill.

For more than three decades, taxpayer money has not been used for elective abortions, and it shouldn't under any new health reform legislation either. Some suggest that the Stupak language imposes new restrictions on abortion. I disagree. We are seeking to justify the same standards on abortion to the Senate health care bill that already exist for Federal health programs. They include those covering veterans, all Federal employees, Native Americans, active-duty servicemembers, and others.

I note that the Senate health care bill, if enacted, would indeed chart new ground--it covers abortion. The language in the bill goes around the Federal standard disallowing public funding of abortion. A clear majority of Americans, including my constituents in Nebraska, support this prohibition against using public money to cover abortion. Our amendment formally extends that standard to this health reform bill.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may regulate abortion and may disallow public funds being used for elective abortions. Beginning in 1976, with the Hyde amendment, Congress has prohibited public funding for elective abortion in all significant health-related bills. Exceptions have been preserved for when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. And except for those exceptions, public funds may not be used for any health care benefits package that covers abortion.

Some have now cited the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-- FEHBP--as a possible model for health care reform. The FEHBP helps pay premiums for many different private health insurance plans. That way, Federal employees may choose the insurance plan that best suits their budget and personal needs. It is important to note that none of the benefits packages offered to Federal employees provide health insurance coverage for abortion. I repeat: None of the benefits packages offered to Federal employees provide coverage for abortion, nor do benefits packages that are offered to individuals in other Federal programs, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, veterans health, and military health care programs.

Some have argued that the Stupak language imposes tougher restrictions than in current law. That is not the case. Our amendment merely aims to extend the current standard to this new legislation.

On another point, under Federal law, States are allowed to set their own policies concerning abortion. Many States oppose the use of public funds for abortion. Many States also have passed laws that regulate abortion by requiring informed consent and waiting periods, requiring parental involvement in cases where minors seek abortions and protecting the rights of health care providers who refuse, as a

matter of conscience, to assist in abortions. And perhaps most importantly, there is no Federal law, nor is there any State law, that requires a private health plan include abortion coverage.

I believe the current health care reform we are debating should not be used to open a new avenue for public funding of abortion. We should preserve the current policies prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for abortion that have existed for more than three decades.

A number of polls this year have again shown that most Americans do not support using taxpayer money for abortion. The Senate bill, as proposed, goes against that majority public opinion. The bill says the Secretary of Health and Human Services may allow elective abortion coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option--the public option-- if the Secretary believes there is sufficient segregation of funds to ensure Federal tax credits are not used to purchase that portion of the coverage.

The bill would also require that at least one insurance plan cover abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered on every State insurance exchange. Federal legislation establishing a public option that provides abortion coverage and Federal legislation allowing States to opt out of the public option that provides abortion coverage eases the restrictions established by the Hyde amendment.

Our amendment would prohibit Federal funds from being used for elective abortion services in the public option and also prohibit individuals who receive tax credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions.

I have always been pro-life and I have a strong record opposing abortion. As Governor of Nebraska in the 1990s, I signed into law the parental notification law and the ban against partial birth abortion. In the Senate, I cosponsored and voted for legislation that prohibits taking minors across State lines to avoid parental notification laws and voted for legislation creating a separate offense for harming or killing an unborn child in utero during the commission of specified violent crimes.

Aside from my personal views, however, I think most Americans would prefer that the health care reform we are working on remain neutral on abortion. Public polls suggest so. So does the fact that over the last 30-plus years Congress has passed new Federal laws that have not provided public funding for abortions.

So the question has been settled: Most Americans, even some who support abortion, do not want taxpayer money to be used for abortions. We should not break with precedent on this bill.

And, finally, as President Obama has said, this is a health care reform bill. It is not an abortion bill. It is time to simply extend the standard disallowing public funding of abortion, which has stood the test of time, to new proposed Federal legislation.

I look forward to debating this and other issues in the health reform bill as we work to address solutions to our troubled health care system. Today it costs too much and delivers too little to the people of my State and to most Americans.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, this afternoon I voted against the amendment offered by my colleague, the senior Senator of Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.

I voted against this amendment with regret because I strongly support the underlying goal of furthering preventive care for women, including mammograms, screenings, and family planning. Unfortunately, the amendment did not incorporate language I suggested to specifically clarify that abortion would not be covered as a future preventive care service. I appreciate the assurances from Senator Mikulski in a colloquy on the floor that abortion would not be covered as a preventive service, but words do not supersede the language in the legislative text. I do

look forward to ways in which Congress can further preventive care services for women.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 191, a correcting resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise today to present the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010.

I will start by thanking the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Murkowski, for her help throughout the process of completing the bill. We worked very well together, and the result is a true bipartisan product.

I also thank Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chairman Cochran for their support and direction this year as well.

At the request of the full committee, a clean, 1-month continuing resolution has been attached to this conference report.

I believe the bill we have before us today is a good one. This bill will allow the legislative branch to continue to operate and move forward during the next year.

When Senator Murkowski and I began our hearings this year, we both agreed we should lead by example in the legislative branch--being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. Fiscal year 2010 would be a year of ``must haves'' versus a year of ``nice to haves.'' With one notable, important, and understandable exception, I think we have been successful.

The final conference report contains $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Office Building. The conferees included this funding at the request of the House. As a matter of comity, the House and Senate defer to the other body on funding decisions related to their side of the Chamber. The $50 million for the Cannon Building Historical Fund accounts for most of the new overall spending above the cost-of-living increases in our bill.

The conference report before us today totals $4.65 billion, which is $156 million, or 3.5 percent, over fiscal year 2009, $386 million below the budget request.

The bill provides $926 million for the operations of the Senate, which is $31 million, or 3.4 percent, above fiscal year 2009, and $83 million below the request. I am happy to say we were able to reduce the Senate funding by $8 million from the Senate-passed bill. In addition, $1.37 billion is included for the operations of the House in fiscal year 2010.

The bill also provides $328 million for the Capitol Police, which is $22 million, or 7 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This amount fully funds the current onboard strength of 1,799 officers and provides for an additional five civilian employees to assist with the implementation of the radio project. Congress made the decision earlier this year to move forward with this long-overdue project. So now it is critical that the Capitol Police has the personnel it needs to bring this project in successfully--on time and on budget. No excuses.

The Library of Congress is funded at $643 million, an increase of $36 million, or 6 percent, above current year, including full funding requested for the Library's information technology upgrades, which is a top priority of Dr. Billington.

The conference agreement includes $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol. Setting aside the $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Building, this mark represents a $22 million, or 4 percent, overall increase for the Architect of the Capitol. The bill includes a very good balance of energy reduction, deferred facilities maintenance, and code compliance projects within the funding provided.

The Government Accountability Office is funded at $557 million, an increase of $26 million, or 5 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This funding supports additional staff to assist GAO in carrying out its vital role in the oversight of the Federal Government.

The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, an increase of $7 million, or 5 percent, above current year. This increase provides funding for several of GPO's high-priority information technology projects and much needed repairs to the elevator system of the GPO building.

The conferees included $45 million for the Congressional Budget Office, which is an increase of $1 million above fiscal year 2009. This will provide CBO with the support it needs to fulfill its mission serving Congress.

The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, which is $305,000, or 7 percent, over current year.

Finally, the conference report includes $12 million for the Open World Leadership Fund. This represents a decrease of $2 million below current year and $2.5 million below the Senate-passed fiscal year 2010 level.

Mr. President, in closing, I thank the staff members who have assisted us throughout this process. First, from Senator Murkowski's staff, I thank Carrie Apostolou and Sarah Wilson for their hard work on this bill. From my staff, I thank Nancy Olkewicz, Kate Howard, and Teri Curtin for their assistance in producing this important legislation.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Without objection, yes.

Mr. President, I move to waive all applicable rule XXVIII points of order and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, it is important that this motion pass just like the previous one. If we do not get this done, we are sitting with a continuing resolution that will not be in effect, and we will be in trouble moving forward.

So just as the other one, I ask my colleagues to vote aye on it as they have in the past.

I will yield.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 9:45 a.m. in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Cooperation to Modernize Financial Regulation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Exploring U.S. Policy Options towards Zimbabwe's Transition.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Eight Years After 9/ 11: Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 30, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Advancing Freedom of Information in the New Era of Responsibility.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``U.S. Policy toward Burma: Its Impact and Effectiveness.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 412 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 30, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Responding to the Growing Need for Federal Judgeships: The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Prescription for Waste: Controlled Substance Abuse in Medicaid.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office building.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a good friend who touched the lives of many Nebraskans. Ronald Eugene Raikes of Lincoln passed away tragically at the age of 66 after a farming accident on September 5, 2009, at his farm in Saunders County,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.