[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3934-S3935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FISCAL YEAR 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, 
congressional recesses are not times during which Senators and 
Congressmen do nothing. In

[[Page S3935]]

fact, recess is a critical time for citizen legislators like ourselves. 
Recess is an opportunity for many of us to go home and live for a 
little while under the laws that we have passed. We talk with our 
neighbors. We visit local restaurants, grocery stores, and spend a lot 
of time with constituents all across our states. We hear what the 
people think about our work. I must say that while I was in Idaho over 
the Easter recess, the feedback I got on spending by this Congress was 
not good.
  We have before us another emergency supplemental funding bill. The 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has called these emergency 
funding bills ``shadow budgets.'' I agree with his view. We are simply 
funding outside of the regular budget process the known costs of our 
war on terror. That has to end. In the case of hurricane relief, I 
understand the need to provide emergency funding as quickly as 
possible, and I know we cannot always budget exactly for an emergency. 
However, I am increasingly frustrated with this Congress's refusal to 
make any adjustments to other spending priorities to account for the 
need to rebuild the gulf coast. We are now into our fourth emergency 
supplemental in less than a year for the rebuilding efforts along the 
gulf coast. It is time that we start paying for some of this spending.
  Before I left for the recess, I voted in favor of the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that was before the Appropriations 
Committee. I cast a ``yes'' vote with some hesitation, in light of the 
concerns I have just mentioned. The bill I voted for would have 
provided $96 billion in emergency spending, mainly for our efforts in 
the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and the continued 
reconstruction of the badly damaged gulf coast region.
  The President submitted a request to Congress for $92.2 billion. Yet 
I was voting to add $4 billion to the amount requested by the 
President. But I voted yes because I recognize that not all wisdom is 
found at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Congress has a 
responsibility to scrutinize and improve upon the administration's 
request. And we certainly have the right and the responsibility to add 
or subtract from that request based on needs that we identify. I 
believe the bill I voted for in committee did just that.
  Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd held hearings on the 
administration's request. They identified shortcomings and they changed 
the bill to address those needs. So I supported $96 billion as the 
level of funding needed to address urgent needs across this country 
related to our war on terror and our disaster recovery efforts.
  Unfortunately, a series of amendments adopted by voice vote by the 
committee after I left have pushed the cost of the legislation now 
before us to over $106 billion. That is $14 billion above what the 
administration requested and $10 billion above what Chairman Cochran 
and ranking member Byrd recommended to all of us.
  Every Member of this institution has to draw the line and decide how 
much is too much. In my mind, and in the minds of many Idahoans, this 
level of funding is simply too high.
  In fact, last week I joined with 34 of my Senate colleagues in 
sending a letter to President Bush saying we will vote to support his 
veto if the price tag of this bill does not come down. Enough is 
enough, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues and say so.
  The people of Idaho are honest, hard-working Americans who will 
continue to staunchly support our military and compassionately lend a 
helping hand to our fellow citizens on the gulf coast. That message has 
been loud and clear to me over this and other congressional recesses. 
However, when Congress tries to take advantage of their patriotism and 
generosity, the people of Idaho deserve to know that their Senator will 
stand up and say no. I believe that this bill is irresponsible, and 
that is why I am standing up and saying no.
  I want to be clear so that all of my colleagues and my constituents 
understand my position and why I am voicing my frustration with this 
bill. My frustration is not about supporting our military. I support 
our military and I am committed to providing them with the tools they 
need. My frustration is not about supporting recovery efforts in the 
gulf coast. I am committed to helping the people in that region rebuild 
and move on with their lives. My frustration is with the Senate 
spending billions upon billions of dollars in such an irresponsible 
manner. The people of Idaho have charged me with being a good steward 
of their taxpayer dollars, and they expect me to work hard and make 
sure those dollars are being spent wisely. This bill does not do that. 
We can meet the needs of our military, the gulf coast, and other 
national priorities in a fiscally responsible manner. We have to be 
willing to make tough decisions and tighten our belts. Together, we can 
get spending under control and regain the confidence of the American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I also wish to talk a little bit about the budget as 
it relates to where we are on the supplemental, along with this 
important issue of energy because, when I was home over the recess, as 
most of us were, the public was talking about a lot of issues. They 
were talking about energy, although it hadn't spiked the way it is 
spiking now. But they were also talking about deficits and responsible 
spending on the part of Government and making sure we do it right. And 
it is tremendously important that we do.
  The supplemental is too big at this moment. The President has sent us 
a message, as he should have--and I support that message--that we have 
emergencies, and we ought to address emergencies. But we ought not put 
on emergency budgets those kinds of expenditures that could well be 
utilized and brought into the appropriate budget. I have said to our 
chairman--and I respect his work, and I am on the Appropriations 
Committee--that we have to bring this supplemental down a bit and get 
our deficits under control. We have a war, we have Katrina, we have a 
national disaster beyond anything we have ever faced.
  Americans understand belt-tightening. They also understand sharing. 
This is about belt-tightening; it is about sharing. It is not about 
funding every idea that comes along, as worthy as it might be, against 
making sure that we get Louisiana and we get Mississippi responsibly 
financed in a redeveloping, restructuring mode--not excessively--and 
that we make sure our men and women in Iraq are appropriately funded. 
Those are the critical issues.
  My time is limited, but I have said to our chairman and I say it 
again: It is important we understand that the $92 billion to $96 
billion range is where we have to get this supplemental, and I am going 
to work hard with the chairman to do it, to do it appropriately, to be 
selective in that which we fund but to be responsible in that which we 
send to the President in our work with the House to assure that we have 
the emergencies funded.
  Supplemental emergency funding ought not be a shadow budget. Here we 
are now in our fourth emergency supplemental within a budget cycle. I 
don't think our budget system works very well if we can't do better 
than that and argue that everything is an emergency and, therefore, 
somehow it doesn't fit under the caps. That is not the way our public 
and our taxpayers who finance this big government of ours want us to 
operate. Somehow we have to get that under control.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

                          ____________________