[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10501-S10503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are only 2 days--2 days--remaining in 
the fiscal year, and the Senate has passed only 2--only 2--of the 12 
appropriations bills. The Senate just adopted a continuing resolution 
to continue the operations of Government for 14 of the 15 Departments.
  This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the 
Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee did its work 
and, on a bipartisan basis, reported all 12--all 12--of its bills by 
July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job, a remarkable job in 
leading the Appropriations Committee.
  Yes, the Appropriations Committee did its work, did it well. Yet, 
here we are, just 2 days--2 days--away from the new fiscal year, and 
not one--not one--appropriations bill has been signed into law. And as 
everyone knows, the most vital bills that have to be done before we go 
home are the appropriations bills or the Government will stop running. 
Only two are likely to be sent to the President before the majority 
leader recesses the Senate for the elections.
  The appropriations process has once again fallen victim to politics. 
The majority leadership designated September national security month. 
As a result, conferees have completed actions on the Defense bill and 
on the Homeland Security conference report. These are good, bipartisan 
bills. But not one other appropriations bill has come before this body, 
the Senate of the United States.
  When it comes to the funding bills for domestic agencies, with the 
exception of Homeland Security, the majority leadership is apparently 
satisfied with a mindless continuing resolution. When it comes to the 
education of our children, when it comes to the health of the elderly, 
when it comes to the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to 
sustain a growing economy, and the fiscal health of our farms, the 
majority leadership wants no debate--no debate--no debate--just a 
rubberstamp of a formula-based continuing resolution for 13 of the 15 
Departments.
  The majority leadership made a specific choice to delay bringing the 
domestic appropriations bills to the floor because it wished to avoid 
an open debate in the Senate--in this forum, where debate is free and 
open and one may speak as long as his or her feet will sustain him or 
her--it wished to avoid an open debate in the Senate about the many 
issues confronting Americans in their daily lives. That is what we are 
talking about.
  The President submitted a budget for domestic programs that cut 
funding by $14 billion below the level necessary to keep pace with 
inflation. The President's proposal to increase fees on our veterans 
for their health care is indefensible. The White House proposed cuts in 
education, cuts in programs to fight crime. The President's budget is 
not sustainable. Yet, once more behind closed doors, the majority 
leadership inserted a cap on spending at the level proposed by the 
President's budget. This was done by jamming a cap on spending in an 
unamendable conference

[[Page S10502]]

report--unamendable conference report--intended to provide disaster 
relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to fund the efforts of 
our valiant troops serving so heroically, yes, so heroically in Iraq 
and in Afghanistan.
  To avoid debate--get that: to avoid debate; to avoid free and open 
debate--on the domestic appropriations bills, the Senate majority 
leadership has kept the Senate operating at a snail's pace all summer--
all summer.
  In July, the Senate had rollcall votes on only 9 days. In August, we 
voted on only 3 days. In September, we have had votes on just 10 days. 
So in the 3 months in which the Senate should be in overdrive to finish 
the appropriations bills, we have had votes on only 22 days. That is a 
pathetic--that is a pathetic--sorrowful performance.
  Why? Why? The majority wants to avoid debate. The majority wants to 
avoid free and open public debate about its broken promises concerning 
the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's budget proposed the 
largest cut--hear me now--the President's budget proposed the largest 
cut to education funding in the 26-year history of the Education 
Department--I was here--the 26-year history of the Education 
Department, a $2.1 billion, or 4 percent, reduction. How about that.
  This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children. Hear 
me. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children. 
The Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill underfunds the title I 
program--the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act--by a whopping 
$12.3 billion. Mr. President, $12.3 billion--that is $12 and 30 odd 
cents for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Get that: a 
whopping $12.3 billion; the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind 
Act, by a whopping $12.3 billion.
  It freezes funding for this program, even though the law calls for an 
increase of $2.25 billion--$2\1/4\ billion. As a result, this bill 
would leave behind 3.7 million students who could be fully served by 
title I if the program were funded at the level promised by the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  I offered an amendment in the committee markup to increase title I 
funding by $6.1 billion--half of this year's shortfall--but the 
Republican majority rejected it. Was the Senate given an opportunity to 
debate the need to invest in the education of our children? No.
  In June, the FBI released its violent crime figures. The FBI found 
that murders in the United States jumped 4 percent last year and, 
overall, crime, violent crime--violent crime--was up by 2.5 percent for 
the year, the largest annual increase in crime in the United States 
since 1991. Yet the President proposed to cut law enforcement grants to 
State and local governments by $1.2 billion and to eliminate the COPS 
hiring program.
  Was the Senate given an opportunity to debate how best to respond to 
the largest annual increase in crime in 15 years? No. No.
  More than 30 farm groups--ranging from the National Farmers Union and 
the American Farm Bureau Federation to the American Sugar Alliance, the 
National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, and 
the Independent Community Bankers of America--are pressing the Senate 
to enact agriculture disaster relief. Sixty-six percent--66 percent--of 
all counties in the United States have been declared disaster areas by 
the Agriculture Department this year, and 88 percent--88 percent--of 
the counties were declared disaster areas in 2005.
  The Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, adopted a $4 
billion disaster relief package back in June--back in June. Has the 
Senate had an opportunity to debate whether that relief package meets 
the needs of our farmers for disaster relief? No. No.
  On July 19, the Commissioner of Social Security wrote me a letter in 
which she stated that the level of funding in the Labor-HHS bill: `` . 
. . would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency-
wide.''
  Has the Senate had a chance to debate whether our elderly citizens 
want long lines at our Social Security offices? No. American seniors--
yes, American senior citizens, the elderly--are dealing with a serious 
health crisis. At issue is how to cope with the burden of high 
prescription drug prices. Seniors should not be asked to skip doses. 
Seniors should not be asked to split pills in half. Seniors should not 
be asked to choose between food and medicine in order to make ends 
meet. No. Never. Never, I say.
  According to a research report released by the AARP, the average 
annual increase in the cost of a senior's medication is $300. Has the 
Senate had an opportunity to debate a provision in the House version of 
the Agriculture bill to allow drug reimportation? Has it? No. No.
  The Environmental Protection Agency projects that our communities 
need in excess of $200 billion for clean and safe drinking water 
systems. Yet the Interior appropriations bill would cut funding from a 
level of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $687 million in fiscal 
year 2007, a cut of 38 percent. Has there been any debate? No. Has 
there been any debate? No. Has there been any debate about the need for 
safe and clean drinking water in our communities? Has there been any 
debate on the Senate floor, in this forum of free speech--free, 
unlimited speech and debate? No. No. No.
  If there is one lesson we all should have learned from Hurricane 
Katrina, it is that there are consequences to starving Federal 
agencies. FEMA, which performed marvelously after the Northridge 
earthquake, the Midwest floods, and the 9/11 attacks, simply was no 
longer up to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast last 
year. I wonder which other Federal agencies could be the next FEMA. 
Could it be the Food and Drug Administration? Has the Senate had the 
opportunity to debate whether the FDA has the resources and leadership 
necessary to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? No.
  The cost of attending a public 4-year college has increased 32 
percent since the beginning of this administration. Yet the maximum 
Pell grant award has not been increased since 2002. Has the Senate 
discussed the wisdom of making it harder for our children to afford a 
college education? No.
  The Labor-HHS bill cuts funding for the Centers for Disease Control's 
immunization program--one of the most cost-effective tools in 
preventing disease. For every dollar spent on vaccines, we save up to 
$27 in medical and societal costs. Has the Senate had the opportunity 
to debate the value of investing in the health of our children? No.
  On the heels of the first cut to funding for the National Institutes 
of Health since 1970, the President proposed level funding of NIH in 
fiscal year 2007. As a result, the total number of NIH-funded research 
project grants would drop by 642, or 2 percent below last year's level. 
The President's budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes. 
Funding for the National Cancer Institute would drop by $40 million, 
and funding for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute would 
drop by $21 million. Has there been a debate about the wisdom of these 
cuts? No.
  The summerlong hiatus from our legislative duties makes us wonder why 
we bothered to keep the lights on in this Chamber.
  After the coming recess, when the Congress returns in November, the 
prospect for the domestic bills is just as grim. Last week, under a 
veto threat from the White House, the majority agreed to carve another 
$5 billion out of the domestic bills. Nothing but another monstrous 
omnibus bill or a long-term continuing resolution is on the horizon for 
all of the remaining domestic bills.
  When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, from 1989 to 
1994 and in 2001, the Senate debated and passed every bill but one. It 
takes persistence, it takes determination, and it takes a commitment to 
the U.S. Senate to debate and approve all of those bills. Chairman 
Cochran of Mississippi has that determination, and he was successful 
just last year in bringing every bill to the Senate floor. However, the 
majority leadership does not, apparently, value that persistence and 
hard work. He does not value that persistence and hard work and 
determination. In an election year, the only thing of value is spend 
and win.
  Mr. President, I regret that we have, once again, so markedly 
demonstrated in the Senate that keeping our jobs far outweighs the 
desire to do our jobs and do those jobs well for the American people. 
Make no mistake, the American people will judge us accordingly.

[[Page S10503]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________