[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.
____________________