[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9089-S9093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PROGRESS ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 APPROPRIATIONS BILLS

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the appropriations process is stalled. To 
use an overused expression: It is dead in the water. Certain Members in 
the other body have asserted that progress on the 13 appropriations 
bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1 has been slowed because 
Senate Democrats want to have a spending spree. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Nearly 2 months ago, on July 25, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
reported the thirteenth and final appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2003, the earliest this has been accomplished since 1988. All 13 bills 
are bipartisan, and all 13 bills are fiscally responsible. There was 
not a single vote in committee against any of the 13 bills. Republicans 
and Democrats on the committee voted for these bills.
  The bills totaled $768.1 billion and are consistent with the 
committee allocation approved by a vote of 29 to 0 in June. The 13 
bills are consistent with the $768.1 billion allocation that was 
approved by the Senate Budget Committee when it reported its budget 
resolution last March. The bills are consistent with the $768.1 billion 
allocation that was supported by 59 Members of the Senate when the 
allocation was voted on during floor debate on the Defense 
authorization bill on June 20.
  The holdup in the appropriations process is because the White House 
is giving marching orders to the House of Representatives. Regrettably, 
the House Appropriations Committee has reported only 8 of the bills 
compared to the Senate Appropriations Committee's 13. The House has 
passed only 5 of those 8 bills.
  I stress that the holdup is not the fault of the House Appropriations 
Committee chaired by Mr. Young of Florida. It is not the fault of that 
committee. They have wanted to do their work.
  The holdup is a result of the House Republican leadership decision to 
stop all House floor action on appropriations bills. Perhaps the 
decision is being handed down from on high to the House Republican 
leadership. The House has not adopted an appropriations bill since July 
24. With only 1 week to go before the beginning of the fiscal year, the 
House has not passed an appropriations bill in almost 9 weeks.
  For the record, let me state that there is no scheme in the Senate to 
explode spending--none. Surely I would have heard about it if there 
were such. The Senate Appropriations Committee has produced 13 bills 
that total $768.1 billion plus $2.2 billion in emergency spending for 
FEMA disaster relief, low-income home energy assistance, and funds to 
fight fires. The committee also approved an additional $2.2 billion of 
advance appropriations for programs to help educate disadvantaged and 
disabled children. No tricks. As Shakespeare said: There are no tricks 
in plain and simple faith. No hiding the ball; no hat trick here.
  Our 13 bills have been available for all the world to see for 2 
months. The House is not moving forward as a result of a political 
dispute over the ceiling for spending in fiscal year 2003. The House 
Republican leadership, in collaboration with the White House, is 
insisting on the level of $759.1 billion. Yet the House Appropriations 
Committee has not been able to stretch those dollars far enough to 
write their bills.
  The House Republican leadership has been informed by many members of 
their own caucus that they cannot vote for the Labor-HHS-Education bill 
at the levels requested by the President because that bill shortchanges 
America's classrooms and ignores our pressing health care needs. Yet, 
inexplicably, instead of changing course, the House Republican 
leadership has shut the appropriations process down.

  Could it be because, with an election looming some members of the 
House want to avoid certain votes? If the Republican leadership has 
forsaken its duty to make careful choices for the American people and 
is driving the Congress toward a long-term continuing resolution, that 
means putting the Government on auto-pilot. This is the worst possible 
way to govern. It allows for obfuscation and abuse. It ignores critical 
needs.
  In order to cover the politics involved which are the real reasons 
for the delay, the administration characterizes the $13 billion of 
additional spending in the Senate bills as ``wasteful spending.'' 
Frankly, this is just simplistic, political rhetoric.
  The administration tries to point political fingers at the Senate 
charging that we are spending too much on domestic programs. But where 
is the real growth in spending? The President proposed a 13 percent, or 
$45 billion, increase in spending for our Nation's defense programs. 
Let us note that the $759 billion ceiling forced the House to cut the 
President's request for the Department of Defense by $1.6 billion. The 
$768 billion ceiling available in the Senate allowed the Senate to 
restore $1.2 billion of that cut in DoD and the funds are being used 
for military readiness programs, for essential military construction 
programs, and for counter terrorism projects. In addition, the Senate 
was able to add $375 million to the President's February request for 
nuclear programs at the Department of Energy.
  The President proposed a 25 percent increase in domestic homeland 
security programs. The $768 billion Senate level permitted the Senate 
to fully fund essential homeland defense investments such as additional 
firefighting funds, additional funds for port security, State and local 
law enforcement, and border security. Unfortunately, the House ceiling 
on spending is so low that the House Appropriations Committee has not 
even been able to mark up the Veterans/HUD/Independent Agencies bill 
and the Commerce/Justice/State bill which provide funding for many 
homeland defense programs. Yet the White House requested these 
increases, and they are obviously critically important for the security 
of our people.
  When it comes to domestic programs other than homeland defense, the 
President proposed to freeze spending at the FY 2002 levels. That is a 
hard freeze with no adjustment for inflation or for other factors such 
as a growing population or growing unemployment. The $768 billion 
Senate level permitted the Senate Appropriations Committee to increase 
domestic programs by 2.6 percent. Not 13 percent, not 25 percent, just 
2.6 percent for the domestic programs that serve our Nation.
  And for what did we use that 2.6 percent increase?
  We used it to increase funding for veterans medical care by $1.1 
billion above the President's request. There are currently over 280,000 
veterans on waiting lists for VA medical care. The President's request 
just did not adequately fund veterans' needs.
  If I ever saw a veteran, there sits one in the chair presiding over 
the Senate of the United States. There is a man who has given 
everything but his life for this country. I would be ashamed to run 
against him.
  With war drums beating all around us, I think we ought to be very 
careful to send the message to our veterans that we will take care of 
their present and future needs.
  Last year, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act with broad, 
bipartisan support. But, this law becomes nothing but an unfunded 
mandate on our local governments if the Federal funding is not there 
for States to implement the new act. It takes money to reduce class 
sizes, to provide teacher training, to invest in new technology and to 
develop meaningful assessment tools. The Senate Committee bill 
increases education funding by $3.2 billion, or 6.5 percent, six times 
the meager 1 percent increase proposed by the President. Rhetoric is 
fine, but when it comes to our children's education we have to put our 
money where our mouth is, as the old saying goes.
  The Senate used the 2.6 percent increase to make sure that we could 
keep Amtrak operating. A bankrupt Amtrak would mean that 23,000 
employees would be thrown on to the unemployment line. Some 500 
communities served by Amtrak would lose intercity passenger rail 
service forever, including 130 communities that have no air service 
whatsoever, and 113 communities that don't even have intercity bus 
service. It means the termination not just of Amtrak service across the 
Nation but also the termination of commuter rail service from Boston to 
California because many of these services are either operated under 
contract

[[Page S9090]]

by Amtrak or they run over railroad tracks that are owned by Amtrak. 
Some 1.7 million citizens that ride Amtrak each month will lose 
service. So will roughly 4.2 million citizens that use those commuter 
rail services each month. If you think the highways are crowded during 
the morning and evening commuting times, just wait until Amtrak and the 
commuter rail systems are terminated overnight.
  Last, January, in the State of the Union, the President said, ``When 
America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be 
summed up in one word: jobs.'' Yet his budget proposed to dramatically 
cut highway spending below last year's level. For every billion dollars 
we spend on highways, we create 42,000 jobs. The Senate bill provides 
an obligation limit that restores the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the 
President's request, saving over 350,000 jobs. The President talks 
about jobs but the modest increase in domestic spending contained in 
the Senate bills actually creates jobs.
  We used the 2.6 percent increase to provide for a $184 million 
increase above the President's request for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. If the Congress is serious about rooting out corporate 
fraud, the SEC needs the resources to hire investigators and to fund 
the newly established Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, as 
authorized in the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Accountability Act of 2002.
  We used the 2.6 percent increase to increase funding for job-training 
programs by more than half a billion dollars over the President. This 
is at a time when more than 8 million Americans are unemployed and 
there has been an increase of more than one million unemployed persons 
in just the last 12 months.
  We used the 2.6 percent increase to restore over $94 million in cuts 
proposed by the President in Fossil Energy Research and Development 
programs and provide for a $58 million increase.
  If the administration wants to reduce the nation's dependence on 
foreign oil, it is not going to do so by cutting our investment in 
fossil fuels, as proposed by the President. At a time when a new war in 
the Gulf may have long-term implications for this nation's energy 
security, it is vitally important that the United States continue to 
explore and develop new technologies which allow us to tap our own 
abundant energy supplies. We should have been working on energy 
independence diligently for the last 20 years. But the oil interests 
that bankroll politicians have been too strong. Now we see the cost of 
bowing to King Oil.
  We used the modest increase in domestic spending to increase funding 
by $200 million above the President's request for Head Start. In his 
State of the Union Address, the President stated that: ``We need to 
prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head 
Start and early childhood development programs.'' The Senate bill would 
result in 17,000 more low-income children being served.
  We used the 2.6 percent increase to restore over $900 million of cuts 
proposed by the President in Justice Department programs for State and 
local law enforcement. With State and local governments cutting their 
budgets--and they are cutting them. We read about cuts in the budgets 
for the States of Maryland and Virginia. With State and local 
governments cutting their budgets in response to the recent recession, 
does the President think that we will make our Nation more secure by 
cutting law enforcement grants to State and local governments?
  These are just a few examples of how the Senate used the modest $13 
billion increase above the House allocation. Is that $13 billion 
increase excessive? No.
  Is it wasteful? No.
  I believe it is prudent. It is thoughtful. It is the result of 
careful decision making, done on a bipartisan basis. And most of it has 
gone to fund either national defense or homeland security.
  The choices we make in the Congress about how we allocate the 
people's money should be based on hard work and careful analysis. It 
should not be based on a simplistic review of the facts, nor should it 
be distorted by the save-your-hide mentality--the save-your-hide 
mentality--of an election year. Recently, the Congress approved a $5.1 
billion emergency contingency fund, including $2.5 billion for homeland 
defense programs. Based on the recommendation of Office of Management 
and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the President chose to cancel that 
funding, explaining that it was ``wasteful spending.'' Yet, with one 
exception, he chose not to identify the ``wasteful spending.'' Was it 
the airport security funding or the funding to secure our nation's 
nuclear weapons complex? Was it the funds to train and equip our 
Nation's firefighters? Was it the funding for veterans medical care or 
the funding to fulfill the President's commitment to fight the global 
AIDS epidemic? Which of these programs that protect American lives does 
the President consider to be ``wasteful''?
  The President never answered those questions. Instead, the one 
example of wasteful spending that the President chose to give was $2 
million for a single project, which the President himself has chosen to 
fund in the 2003 budget. If it was wasteful spending in 2002, why is it 
not wasteful spending in 2003? If it is worth spending in 2003, why not 
spend it in 2002? The rest of the money he did not spend, he gave no 
reason for withholding. It was money for homeland security. It was 
money to make us safer here at home. Sometimes, I just have to question 
the sincerity of an effort on homeland security which seems based 
almost wholly on sound bites.
  The President, through his Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, is currently working with the House Republican leadership to 
force the funding of the entire domestic side of the Government into a 
long-term continuing resolution for nearly half the fiscal year. 
Something is going on. They want to put the education of our children, 
the care of our veterans, and our investments in homeland security on 
automatic pilot at last year's funding levels because we are in an 
election year.
  Last week, the President's chief economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, 
was asked by a reporter for the Wall Street Journal what he thought the 
cost of the war in Iraq might be and what the impact of that cost might 
be on our Nation's economy. He responded by estimating that the cost 
would likely be between $100 billion and $200 billion. How about that. 
That is just pocket change--small. Oh, somewhere between $100 billion 
and $200 billion. When asked what the impact of that $100-$200 billion 
expenditure would be on the economy, the President's chief economic 
adviser said, ``That's nothing.'' Nothing.
  The administration believes that $100-$200 billion of spending on the 
war on Iraq will have no impact on the economy, but $13 billion more of 
needed spending on our nation's education, public health, veterans 
medical care and transportation systems is wasteful.
  In just 2 years the projected $359 billion surplus for Fiscal Year 
2003 has swung wildly to a projected deficit of $145 billion. The 
Senate Budget Committee estimates that of that $504 billion swing, $404 
billion came from reduced revenues or interest payments on those 
reduced revenues. In other words, 80 percent of the lost surplus in 
Fiscal Year 2003 came from reduced revenues. Another 5 percent came 
from increased defense spending. Another 9 percent of the lost surplus 
came from expenditures related to the response to the attacks of 
September 11, 2001. Approximately 4 percent came from increased 
mandatory spending such as the farm bill. And, how about domestic 
spending? How much of the $504 billion swing in the surplus estimate 
came from domestic discretionary spending? Just 1 percent.
  Just 1 percent of that dramatic swing in the surplus estimate for 
Fiscal Year 2003 came about from increased discretionary spending. Yet, 
this small portion of the budget is what the White House political 
manipulators will endeavor to highlight and blame for every blemish in 
our fiscal picture.
  The game, of course, is to wrap the bills up, take them behind closed 
doors--aha, I have been behind those closed doors--take them behind 
closed doors, where this White House is most comfortable and do deals 
that benefit the White House. Never mind about the horrendous and 
irresponsible policy of government by continuing resolution. Never 
mind, never mind C.R.s.
  Let me give you just a few examples of what will happen if we have a 
continuing resolution until March, compared to the levels in the bi-
partisan

[[Page S9091]]

Senate Appropriations Committee-reported bills. Now listen:
  The number of farm operating loans, during the most important part of 
the growing season, will be cut from 6,643 to 3,435. That is not all.
  The number of multi-family homes built in rural America will be 
reduced by 2,500.
  The number of homes in rural America that will be rehabilitated for 
low-income families will be reduced by 8,243.
  The funding to help State and local governments--hear me now. Can you 
hear me now, Governor Wise, down there in Charlestown, WV? Governor 
Wise, listen.
  Funding to help State and local governments develop their capacity to 
respond to or prevent terrorist attacks would be reduced from $2 
billion in the Senate bill to only $651 million under the continuing 
resolution.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service is at a critical juncture 
in developing a comprehensive entry/exit system to protect our Nation's 
borders. Only $13.3 million would be available under a CR compared to 
$362 million in the Senate bill, resulting in a significant delay in 
this system.
  I should repeat that statement.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service is at a critical juncture 
in developing a comprehensive entry/exit system to protect our Nation's 
borders. Only $13.3 million would be available under a continuing 
resolution compared to $362 million in the Senate bill resulting in a 
significant delay in this system.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission would have to terminate all 
hiring, including 100 additional staff funded in the last supplemental 
to investigate corporate fraud.
  Hear this now. Nuclear plants in Tennessee and Texas will have to lay 
off 240 security guards.
  Every 6 seconds another person is infected with the AIDS virus. Every 
6 seconds--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6--another person is infected with the AIDS 
virus.
  AIDS has killed more than 25 million people, and at the rate at which 
it is spreading, the number of people to die of AIDS-related causes may 
reach 65 million by the year 2020--just 18 years from now. Each year, 
mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS virus kills half a million 
children, and infects another 600,000. On June 19, President Bush 
announced, with considerable fanfare, a $500 million initiative to save 
children from AIDS. He said: ``Today, I call on other industrialized 
nations and international organizations to join this crucial effort to 
save children from disease and death.'' Yet under a continuing 
resolution, international AIDS funding would be cut by $225 million.
  Come, my western friends.
  Critical funding for fighting fires that have been raging across the 
land would be eliminated;
  $716 million worth of anti-terrorism, force protection projects 
sought by the Defense Department--projects that are designed to better 
protect our military installations at home and abroad from terrorist 
attack--would be put on hold.
  More than $1 billion worth of family housing construction projects 
and another $1 billion worth of barracks construction would be stopped 
dead in their tracks. Military personnel and their families, already 
facing the strains of war, would be dealt further delays in what is 
their number one quality-of-life issue.
  A long-term continuing resolution will severely undermine the ability 
of the new Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation 
security and security in all other transportation modes. Many of the 
requirements of the new Transportation Security Act are going to 
require large expenditures in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. 
These expenditures involve continued purchases of explosive detection 
equipment to keep bombs from being placed on our airliners. Funds are 
also needed to hire new federal screeners and make our nation's 
seaports more secure.
  A long-term continuing resolution will likely result in the 
bankruptcy of Amtrak. Amtrak is still just barely surviving, managing 
its available cash to survive on a day-to-day basis until Congress can 
provide it a major necessary cash infusion as part of the 
appropriations process for 2003. If we suspend the completion of the 
appropriations process until the third quarter of the year, Amtrak will 
be declaring bankruptcy before Christmas. Bye, bye, Santa Claus.
  A long-term continuing resolution would seriously undermine air 
safety. Just this past summer, we came within weeks of seeing the FAA 
furlough air traffic controllers for lack of available funding. A long 
term continuing resolution at current rates would result in not 
replacing the hundreds of air traffic controllers, safety inspectors 
and maintenance technicians that would retire or leave the agency 
during the first half of the fiscal year. The safety of our skies will 
be left to a continuously dwindling number of controllers. All this 
would be happening at a time when we are trying to get Americans to fly 
again after the events of September 11.
  A long-term continuing resolution would result in the Customs Service 
having to defer the hiring of more than 628 inspectors and agents for 
posting at high-risk land and sea ports-of-entry.
  Come on, now. Hasn't the President been out there talking about how 
we should ram through this homeland security bill?
  A long-term continuing resolution would result, as I say again, in 
the Customs Service having to defer the hiring of more than 628 
inspectors and agents for posting at high-risk land and sea ports of 
entry.

  A long-term continuing resolution means thousands of FEMA fire 
grants, grants for interoperable communications equipment, grants to 
upgrade emergency operations centers, grants to upgrade search and 
rescue teams, grants for emergency responder training and grants to 
improve state and local planning would be delayed for at least 5 
months.
  Under a long-term CR, the VA health care system will be funded at a 
level that is $2.4 billion short of the level proposed in the Senate 
passed fiscal year 2003 VA-HUD bill. Without increased resources, VA 
may not be able to sustain open enrollment for all veterans.
  Here it is. Friends, Romans, veterans, lend me your ears.
  There are currently over 280,000 veterans on waiting lists for VA 
medical care. Under a long-term continuing resolution, the waiting list 
will more than double.
  The VA will schedule 2.5 million fewer outpatient clinic appointments 
for veterans, and 235,000 fewer veterans will be treated in VA 
hospitals.
  And these are only the items--I have just named a few--these are the 
only items which can be known and computed at this time. Only God 
knows--only God knows--what other nasty little problems will result 
from the OMB's--the Office of Management and Budget's--interpretation 
of the continuing resolution.
  If President George W. Bush is planning to take our Nation to war 
again in the Persian Gulf, the American people should not have to worry 
about whether we are securing our homeland, whether their children are 
in small classes, with qualified teachers, whether Amtrak will go 
bankrupt or whether our veterans are getting proper care. This 
President, so eager for war abroad, should pause for a moment, and lay 
aside the war plans long enough to work with the Congress on a prudent 
and responsible level of spending here at home for the American people.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, if he has a minute, a question.
  The President took office saying he was going to change the tone of 
the debate in Washington. The Senator has served with a number of other 
Presidents--Democrat and Republican--in the past. I wonder if the 
Senator believes that the tone has been changed for the better or for 
the worse?
  If I am not correct, hasn't the Senator attempted, on numerous 
occasions, to work in a constructive and cooperative fashion with the 
White House

[[Page S9092]]

in fashioning this budget, this spending plan; and hasn't the Senator 
been rebuffed in those efforts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May I respond to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. 
If the Senator is referring to the numerous occasions on which my dear 
colleague, Senator Ted Stevens--who sits across the other side of the 
aisle--and I sought to have the President send up to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, as a witness, the distinguished former 
Governor of Pennsylvania, the Homeland Security Director, Mr. Tom 
Ridge, the answer is, yes, yes, yes. And we met with failure in all of 
our efforts.
  We even wrote to the President, asking that he have Senator Stevens 
and myself come down to the White House and appear before the President 
to make our case.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, may I also ask----
  Mr. BYRD. May I say, Senator Stevens and I weren't even shown the 
courtesy of a response from the President. Some of his underlings--I 
have great respect for them--some of his underlings responded: The 
answer is no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I appreciate the Senator's candor with regard to the 
numbers that have been presented here today because it is my 
understanding--and I am glad the Senator refreshed my memory--that the 
spending proposals that the administration has sent to the Congress 
were, in fact, a significant increase, 9 percent, or I believe the 
Senator said a 13-percent increase in discretionary spending from this 
fiscal year over to the next, an unheard of increase in discretionary 
spending.
  It is also my recollection--I believe the Senator pointed this out--
that, with the change in the budget predictions, the country has gone 
from looking at surpluses over the next decade to looking at a string 
of deficits over the next decade.
  It is this Senator's impression that the administration is trying to 
put the blame for this fiscal disarray on the Senate or on the House 
when, in fact, it is the administration's own tax and spending 
proposals which have created these deficits for this year and for next 
year, and for as far as the eye can see, and has caused this financial 
burden to be placed on future generations.
  It seems to this Senator that this administration is trying, with 
these tiny little numbers, relatively speaking, to put the blame where 
it does not belong, which is on this body.
  I wonder if the Senator will comment on that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Minnesota is very perspicacious in his observations.
  I am at a loss to understand why we should not be working on our 
appropriations bills. Here we have had one on this floor stalled for 
many days.
  The distinguished Republican chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee and the Democratic ranking minority member over there, and 
the ranking minority member over on this side of the Capitol, Senator 
Stevens, and I have talked about it, moving our bills.
  We had a meeting a few days ago, and the very able chairman of the 
House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, from Florida, importuned me 
and my friend, Senator Ted Stevens, to please have a meeting with the 
able Speaker of the House and with the majority leader of the House and 
with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the ranking 
member of the House Appropriations Committee--have a meeting and 
explain to them how necessary it is for us to move, get on these 
appropriations bills, have the conferences, bring back the conference 
reports, show some action, some progress on these appropriations bills.
  And we got a turndown. We got a turndown, from what I understand 
through my staff. The House leadership, for whatever its reasons, did 
not want to have that meeting.
  So here we are, marking time. Time is passing. We will soon be at the 
beginning of a new fiscal year, and the appropriations bills are dead 
in the water. Why?
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
  On that subject, I say to the Senator, I recall last year, with the 
new administration, there was considerable delay in the Senate 
receiving the administration's spending request, so there were delays 
in the process resulting from that. This year I believe the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee took great measures to assure a timely 
disposition of these spending bills.
  It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations Committee 
reported these measures out in a very expeditious fashion so they could 
all be passed by the Senate and conferenced before the beginning of the 
new fiscal year.
  Is that the record as the chairman has lived through it?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, that is an accurate statement on the part 
of the able Senator from Minnesota. I believe the Appropriations 
Committee in the Senate completed our 13 appropriations bills almost 2 
months ago--July 25, the earliest since 1988. If the world wants to see 
a committee that really operates in a bipartisan way, take a look at 
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  The Republican former chairman, Mr. Stevens, and I and all of the 
members on that committee, Democrats and Republicans, work together. 
The subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members of those 
subcommittees work together. There is no bickering about politics in 
that committee.
  Again, we have reported these 13 appropriations bills, and they have 
been just hanging out there. We can't get any movement. We can't get 
any work done. Why? Why all this holdup?
  Why doesn't the White House, instead of pointing the finger at the 
Senate and saying, they are guilty of wasteful spending, or pointing to 
the Congress and saying, pass my homeland security bill, why doesn't 
the White House meet its responsibilities to the American people and 
provide homeland security by signing those appropriations bills?
  No, the President apparently was advised by persons who seem to 
prefer to play politics over serving the American people by moving 
these appropriations bills and enhancing the homeland security of all 
Americans.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. I will gladly yield.
  Mr. REID. Would the distinguished Senator from West Virginia explain 
to the American people what he and Senator Stevens did so that all 13 
appropriations bills would be within the so-called budget so that we 
would not exceed numbers that, if we had come here and passed a budget, 
it would have been the same?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the able Senator from Alaska, Mr. 
Stevens--a man who is deserving of the title of ``The Alaskan of the 
20th Century''--and I always work together closely. Our subcommittee 
chairmen and our subcommittee ranking members are equally as determined 
to serve their country by moving these appropriations bills along.
  Senator Stevens and I take the position that if Senators offer an 
amendment that puts us over the spending level, over the point where 
there have to be offsets, there will be offsets. The Senator from 
Alaska and I take a stand together. We will oppose amendments that add 
up to reckless spending. We don't have that in our committee. It is a 
fine example, and I am so proud of the service of Senator Stevens. But 
our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members are just the same.
  The Senator from Nevada is the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. He and Senator 
Domenici work together the same way in their subcommittee.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. All 13 subcommittees, under the direction of Senators Byrd 
and Stevens, made sure that we brought our bills out under the so-
called 302(b) allocations, even though we didn't have them; isn't that 
true?

  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely true.
  Mr. REID. So all the Senate bills we passed were not budget busters; 
is that a fair statement?

[[Page S9093]]

  Mr. BYRD. None of them were budget busters.
  Mr. REID. If someone came to the floor and said: The reason we can't 
pass appropriations bills is because we haven't passed a budget, would 
it be a fair statement to say that is without basis in fact?
  I should say, we don't have a budget, but as far as being the reason 
we don't do appropriations bills, that wouldn't be a very good reason, 
would it?
  Mr. BYRD. No. We agreed in the committee that we would have a certain 
top line. We voted for that top line. It was unanimous, Republicans and 
Democrats there, and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate voted for 
that $768 billion top line. Yet the administration insists on standing 
by the $759 billion figure. That is just a $9 billion difference, just 
$9 billion. We are hung up over that $9 billion.
  Ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House. He 
knows what the problem is. He knows that the administration has its 
feet in concrete when it comes to that top line figure. He, the 
chairman on the House side of the Appropriations Committee, knows that 
we need that top line which we in the Senate have already agreed on, 
$768 billion, if we are to come close to meeting the needs of the 
American people, talking about homeland security also.
  Mr. REID. What the Senator is saying is for the Defense 
appropriations bill, which was approximately $350 billion, you are 
saying the other 12 appropriations bills were $9 billion over what the 
Office of Management and Budget wanted; is that what the Senator is 
saying?
  Mr. BYRD. I am saying that is the difference, $9 billion. That is all 
that is holding us from going forward. Yet Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, the 
President's economic adviser, says with respect to what the anticipated 
cost of the war in Iraq will be----
  Mr. REID. Up to $200 billion.
  Mr. BYRD. Somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion, chicken 
feed. That is nothing, he says. That is nothing. Yet $9 billion is like 
a bone in the throat to this OMB Director down here, Mitch Daniels, and 
the President and the administration. They are hung up on $9 billion. 
But when it comes to Iraq, no; $100 billion, no, $200 billion, no.
  Mr. REID. One last question to the Senator from West Virginia, if we 
passed all of our appropriations bills out of here, including the 
Defense bill, passed them and took them to the House, we still have to 
go to conference; is that not true?
  Mr. BYRD. That is true.
  Mr. REID. And maybe if the President made a good case in conference, 
we would come back with less than $9 billion over the OMB; is that 
right?
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I suppose if there were a good case made. But the 
good case has already been made to the contrary that we need that $9 
billion more.
  Mr. REID. But my point is that the process has been going on for 215 
years. The House does its work; the Senate does its work. We go to 
conference. There you work out differences. It is my understanding they 
are not letting us pass bills because they are not passing House bills 
that we can even go to conference.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. The House has not passed the appropriations 
bills. The House Appropriations Committee--no fault of the Republican 
chairman of that committee and others on the committee--has not passed, 
has not reported out all of the 13 bills in the House. The House has 
reported eight bills. The House Appropriations Committee has reported 8 
of the 13 bills. I am just talking about the reporting out by the 
committee.
  We haven't done very well over here, either, because we are stalled 
on the Interior appropriations bill which has been before the Senate 
now for many days.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield for a question.
  Mr. DAYTON. From what I understand from the discussion, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has come out on time and on budget, and yet we 
are hung up in these delays. The Senator who chairs that committee, who 
has done everything right in order to meet these deadlines, today is on 
the Senate floor expressing the catastrophic effects that will result 
across the country from the failure to meet these deadlines.
  This Senator presides a great deal and has not heard anyone else come 
before the Senate to express his dismay at the human consequences of 
the failure to come to this agreement.
  I thank the Senator for bringing these matters to the attention of 
the Senate and ask, as a final question: What can we do now to try to 
stave off these catastrophes?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I hope the administration will come to its 
senses and stop playing politics. What I say, I say with great respect 
personally and individually to the leadership of the House, but for 
political reasons the House has not passed an appropriations bill--not 
a single one--in 9 weeks.
  I have been in Congress now 50 years this year, and I don't recall, 
may I say to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania over here, 
ever in any administration, Democratic or Republican, seeing the likes 
of this. The House will not move its appropriations bills. The House is 
getting orders from on high--from on Mount Olympus, up there with the 
gods. So there we are. We are stalled, dead in the water. Here we are, 
within a few days of the new fiscal year.

                          ____________________