[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 132 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11161-S11162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         APPROPRIATIONS FAILURE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one of Congress's most fundamental duties is 
to make careful choices about how to spend the taxpayers' dollars. We 
are now over 67 days into the fiscal year. The Senate has passed only 3 
of the 12 appropriations bills. Only two of the bills have been signed 
into law. The operations of government for 13 of the 15 executive 
branch Cabinet departments are being funded by a very restrictive 
continuing resolution. This dismal performance is not the result of the 
work of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on 
Appropriations did its work and on a bipartisan basis reported all 12 
of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job in 
leading the committee. Yet the appropriations process, once again, has 
fallen victim to politics.
  Before the November election, the Senate majority leadership decided 
that the Senate should not be given an opportunity to debate critical 
issues facing the Nation, so 8 of the 12 bills never came before the 
Senate. When it comes to the funding bills for domestic agencies, with 
the exception of Homeland Security, the majority leadership--and I say 
this respectfully--is apparently satisfied with a mindless continuing 
resolution. When it comes to the education of our children, the health 
of our elderly citizens, the ability of our deteriorating 
infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, the majority leadership 
apparently wants 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 about many issues confronting Americans in 
their daily lives.
  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 and in programs to fight crime. The President's budget is not 
sustainable. Yet behind closed doors the majority leadership inserted 
an $872.8 billion 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 report intended to provide disaster relief for 
the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to fund the efforts of our troops 
serving heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  To avoid debate on the domestic appropriations bills, the Senate 
majority leadership kept the Senate operating at a snail's pace all 
summer. In July, the Senate had rollcall votes on just 9 days. In 
August, we voted on only 3 days. How about that? In September, we had 
votes on just 10 days. So in the 3 months in which the Senate should 
have been in overdrive to finish the appropriations bills, we had votes 
on only 22 days. That is a pathetic, a sorry performance.
  Why? Apparently the majority wants to avoid debate about its broken 
promises concerning the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's 
budget proposed the largest cut to education funding in the 26-year 
history of the Education Department--a $2.1 billion or 4 percent 
reduction. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our 
children, the American people's children.
  The Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill underfunds the 
title I program, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, by a 
whopping $12.3 billion. Rather than increasing funding to meet this 
commitment, the bill freezes funding for this program. As a result, 
this bill leaves 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. What happened? The Republican majority rejected it. Was the 
Senate, the full Senate, given an opportunity to debate the need to 
invest in the education of our children? No. Let me repeat: Was the 
Senate given an opportunity--I am talking about the whole Senate, the 
full Senate--to debate the need to investigate the education of the 
country's 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 violent crime was up by 2.5 percent for the year, the largest 
annual increase in crime since 1991. Yet what happened? 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.
  On July 19, the Commissioner of Social Security wrote to 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.'' That is what she said: ``would require employee furloughs of 
approximately 10 days Agency-wide.'' Has the Senate, the full Senate, 
the 100 Members of the Senate, had a chance to debate whether our 
elderly citizens want long lines at our Social Security offices? 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 in the Senate 
about the need for safe and clean drinking water in our communities? 
Has there? The answer is no.
  If there is one lesson we all should have learned from Hurricane 
Katrina,

[[Page S11162]]

it is that there are consequences to starving Federal agencies. FEMA, 
which performed marvelously after the North Ridge earthquake, the 
Midwest floods, and the September 11 attacks, simply was no longer up 
to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast last year.
  Now, which other Federal agencies are going to be the next FEMA? I 
wonder. I wonder which other Federal agencies will be the next FEMA. 
Could it be the Food and Drug Administration? Has the Senate had an 
opportunity to debate whether FDA has the resources and the leadership 
it needs to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? I will ask the 
question, again. Has the Senate, the full Senate, had an opportunity to 
debate whether FDA has the resources and leadership it needs 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? Hear me. 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 
of Health. 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.
  When the Congress returned to session after the elections, Senator 
Harry Reid and I urged the Senate Republican leadership to complete the 
fiscal year 2007 appropriations process prior to adjourning sine die. 
Apparently, this request fell on deaf ears. Even with the elections 
over, the Republican leadership could not bring itself to govern, to 
make choices.
  Instead, apparently, the House Republican leadership has decided to 
send the Senate a third continuing resolution that will last until mid-
February--mid-February. Instead of making careful choices, they, 
apparently, have chosen to punt--to punt--the funding decisions for 13 
departments, for over $463 billion of spending, to the next Congress.
  What a sad mess. What a sad mess.
  Under the continuing resolution, 500,000 veterans will have to wait 
longer for their health care or not get health care at all. Lines at 
our Social Security offices will get longer. Our elderly will find it 
more difficult to get answers to their questions about the new 
prescription drug benefit or about their retirement benefits. 
Commitments to address our clogged highways with more funds for highway 
construction will have to wait. Efforts to protect the food supply will 
be undermined by furloughs of meat and poultry inspectors. This is no 
way--this is no way--to do our Nation's business.
  When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee from 1989 to 
1994, and in 2001, the Senate debated and passed every appropriations 
bill but one. And it takes persistence, determination, and a commitment 
to the Senate to debate and approve all of the bills. Chairman Cochran 
has that determination, and he was successful last year in bringing 
every bill to the Senate floor. However, the majority leadership, 
apparently, does not value that persistence, that hard work, that 
determination. Apparently, in an election year, the only thing of value 
was the politics of the moment.
  Mr. President, the irresponsible actions of the Republican leadership 
are setting the stage for the beginning of the 110th Congress next 
year. In January, the new Congress will be faced with approving funding 
for 10 leftover bills for fiscal year 2007, a large war supplemental, 
and 12 bills for fiscal year 2008. Where the Republican leadership 
could do no more than pass two annual appropriations bills all year, 
the Democrats will be expected to pass 22 annual bills and a 
supplemental.
  And this will be a huge, a huge--I would say a whopping--challenge. 
However, in the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to meet this challenge.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia yields.
  The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________