[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 194 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15823-S15826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Constitution grants to Congress an 
extensive array of powers, each of which in one way or another touches 
the lives of every 1 of the 300 million people who live in America 
today. But of all of those powers so carefully inscribed in article I, 
none is so powerful or so necessary for the welfare of our country as 
the power to appropriate monies--monies from the Federal Treasury. But 
it is not simply within the power of the Congress to appropriate funds 
for the operation of the Government. It is a duty that must be 
exercised each year without fail and without excuses. The operation of 
the Government to enforce our laws, to serve our people, to protect our 
liberties depends upon Congress providing the funds that are necessary 
to do so.

  The bill that will soon be before the Senate, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2008, is essential legislation for the country. 
It includes 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. In all, it 
appropriates $473.5 billion--spelled with a B, Mr. President, a capital 
B. That is $473.50 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.
  It appropriates $473.5 billion for the operations of nearly every 
agency in the Federal Government, save for those funded by the already-
approved Defense Appropriations Act.
  The bill contains an additional $42.2 billion in emergency spending, 
including $31 billion for the war in Afghanistan and for force 
protection for our troops--American troops, our troops--in Iraq. I 
wasn't for going there; I was against our going into Iraq. But we are 
there. We are talking about our troops who are there in Iraq.
  The President's budget, as submitted, simply did not include 
sufficient funds for the health of our veterans. This bill provides 
$3.7 billion more than requested to make sure the Veterans' 
Administration can provide better care for our veterans.
  The bill also includes $3 billion of emergency spending for border 
security, $622 million for drought relief, $300 million for 
firefighting in the West, and $250 million for low-income home energy 
assistance. Emergency funds totaling $2.4 billion are also included for 
peacekeeping operations in Darfur, refugee assistance, and other 
foreign assistance programs. We also approved $194 million for the 
replacement of the bridge which recently fell into the Mississippi 
River.
  The consolidated appropriations bill contains an unprecedented level 
of transparency and accountability for Member-requested projects and 
earmarks. Each and every earmark contained in the bill or described in 
the explanatory statement is accounted for

[[Page S15824]]

in the tables that are part of the joint explanatory statement. These 
tables describe the project, they describe the level of funding 
approved, and they provide a list of the Members of either the House or 
the Senate who requested the item. It is there, as clear as the 
noonday's Sun in a cloudless sky. How is that, Bernie? We are not 
supposed to address other Members directly, but in this instance, I 
know I will be forgiven.
  These tables, as I say, describe the level of funding approved and a 
list of the Members of either the House or the Senate who requested the 
item. All information required by Senate rule XLIV is included in the 
explanatory statement accompanying the amendment. Read it, Senate rule 
XLIV.
  The total dollars that are earmarked is reduced--hear me now--by 43 
percent. That ``ain't'' chickenfeed. The total dollars that are 
earmarked is reduced by 43 percent compared to the appropriations bills 
signed into law by the President 2 years ago.
  It is imperative this bill be approved not the week after next, not 
next week but this week. Last May, Congress passed a budget resolution 
that balanced the budget by 2012 and permitted Congress to approve 
appropriations bills at a level of $21.2 billion above the President's 
request.
  The Senate was able to work constructively on a bipartisan basis to 
address the needs of the American people. After the deadly bridge 
collapse in Minnesota, the Senate voted 88 to 7 to provide additional 
funds to repair crumbling bridges. At a time when crime rates are on 
the rise, the Senate voted for a bill that puts more cops--yes, they 
protect you, they protect me--more cops on the street by a vote of 75 
to 19. While oil prices are soaring, the Senate voted 75 to 19 to pass 
a bill providing more help to low-income families so they can pay their 
heating bills this winter.
  After the shocking state of the Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital 
made the news, the Senate voted 92 to 1 to approve a bill increasing VA 
spending to allow better care for our returning warriors.
  Because our borders are in need of additional enforcement to stem the 
tide of illegal immigration, the Senate voted 89 to 1 to approve an 
amendment with billions more for border security.
  This bipartisan cooperation on moving the appropriations process 
forward, while addressing the crucial needs of this country, would not 
have been possible without the diligent work of the committee's ranking 
member. Who is that ranking member? The distinguished and able and 
venerable Senator Thad Cochran--may his tribe increase. That is from 
Abou Ben Adhem, in case you have forgotten.
  It is refreshing to know that in this era in which each political 
party is urged to view the other as a mortal enemy, there is hope for 
at least one oasis of comity in which the duty to govern is still taken 
seriously. I thank my friend, Senator Thad Cochran, and all the other 
Members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work, their 
diligent work to produce each--now listen to this--each of the 12 
appropriations bills and for all their cooperation in the assembly of 
this Consolidated Appropriations Act.

  Sadly, the President does not share our view that we must invest in 
America, apparently. The President--your President, my President, our 
President--proposed to increase the Defense budget by 10 percent. The 
President proposed to increase foreign aid by 12 percent. The 
President--your President, my President, our President--proposed $195 
billion of emergency spending for the wars, and yet the President 
believes this 7-percent increase we sought for domestic programs was 
fiscally irresponsible. As a result, he, the President--your President, 
my President, our President--threatened to veto 9 of the 12 
appropriations bills.
  Under our Constitution, the President has the power to veto. He does. 
Nobody disputes that. And the President made it clear, crystal clear, 
as clear as the noonday's Sun in a cloudless sky, that he intended to 
veto our bills.
  We are already 10 weeks into the new fiscal year. It is time to 
govern. There is a time in the affairs of men when we say it is time to 
govern. There must be compromise from time to time, and so working 
together across the aisle, such as Senator Thad Cochran and I--we shake 
hands, we argue, we debate, and we contend with one another. At the end 
of the day, we put our arms around each other and walk out of this 
Senate together. So working together across the aisle, we have cut 
$17.5 billion from the original levels approved by the Appropriations 
Committee. As a result, domestic programs receive only a 3-percent 
increase. I am not pleased with this outcome, but I urge all Senators 
to support the consolidated bill.
  Within the limits set by the President, we have funded as best we 
could, the essential priorities of this Nation--your country, my 
country. For our veterans, this package includes a record $43.1 billion 
in funding for the VA. That is a lot of money, $43.1 billion in funding 
for the VA, an increase of $3.7 billion over the President's request.
  The bill provides $37.2 billion for veterans health care, and an 
additional $124 million is included to hire more VA personnel to reduce 
a 6-month backlog of benefit claims.
  Funding for the National Institutes of Health is $613 million above 
the President's request.
  Energy prices are going through the roof, and we provide $788 million 
more than the President requested for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, which gives 2 million more families additional help 
for winter heating bills at a time of these record oil prices.
  Despite the fact that violent crime is on the rise--hear this, 
violent crime is on the rise--for the first time in 15 years, the 
President wanted to cut State and local law enforcement, but--there is 
that conjunction ``but''--we have restored $1.2 billion to that unwise 
cut.
  Under the President's request, 600,000 women, infants, and children 
would lose important nutrition assistance. We fully fund--yes, we fully 
fund--the WIC program.
  This package also makes education a priority--education a priority--
by increasing Head Start by $114 million, stopping the proposed cut of 
30,000 slots for early childhood education. This additional $118 
million for No Child Left Behind means that tens of thousands of 
disadvantaged students will get the help they need to succeed in 
school. For college students, the amount for Pell grants is increased 
to $4,731 per year.
  The President proposed to eliminate or slash numerous programs for 
our rural communities, such as rural health, rural housing, and clean 
water programs, but we have restored money for all of those programs.
  The President wanted to slash funding for vital infrastructure 
programs, but we--the Congress--have increased funding: For highways? 
Yes. For repairing bridges? Yes. For airport improvements? Yes. And for 
Amtrak. Amtrak. All aboard for Amtrak.
  At my direction, the bill includes a $20 million increase above the 
President's request for mine safety. Now I know something about that. I 
know something about the need for mine safety. I am the son of a coal 
miner.
  This money will save lives.
  Despite the failure of FEMA to adequately respond to Hurricane 
Katrina, the President wanted to slash funding by over $1.5 billion for 
first responders. We restore those cuts--how about that--and actually 
increase funding by $544 million.
  I am pleased also that the bill includes $31 billion for the wars in 
Iraq--I was against that war. I said we ought not go in there; we have 
no business being in there, but we are in there--and Afghanistan--I was 
for that war--including $16 billion for the war in Afghanistan, over 
$10 billion for force protection in Iraq, such as body armor and 
systems to defeat IEDs, $1.1 billion for the Wounded Warrior program, 
and $4 billion for other programs. It is a balanced package--a balanced 
package--and I support it.
  The bill invests in the security of our homeland and supports the men 
and the women who are on the front lines of protecting our communities. 
The Border Patrol will hire 3,000 more Border Patrol agents to protect 
our borders. We nearly double funding for port security, chemical 
security--we know what that is about down in the Canaan Valley of West 
Virginia--and transit and rail security. The Justice Department will 
hire 100 new U.S. Marshals, 200 DEA agents, and 160 FBI agents, and we 
provide funding for hundreds of

[[Page S15825]]

new cops at the State and local level. Finally, we more than double 
funding, to a total of $108 million, for screening and treating 
illnesses suffered by those who bravely responded to the 9/11 attacks 
at the World Trade Center.
  Because so many Americans are worried about their mortgages and the 
specter of foreclosure, this bill adds $180 million to provide credit 
counseling and foreclosure mitigation to subprime borrowers.
  These are not just meaningless numbers on an obscure government 
ledger. There are consequences for our failure to invest in America. 
Did everybody hear that? There are consequences for our failure to 
invest in America. Bridges fall, fires destroy, hurricanes devastate. 
People get sick from food that is not inspected and drugs that are not 
adequately tested. Our schools, our roads, our transportation systems 
are all in need of serious attention.
  This bill is a genuine effort to compromise so that we can move 
forward. It is a balanced bill. It is the result of over a month of 
bipartisan negotiations. For the sake of the welfare of our Nation, it 
is time--time, time--to govern. The ``gotcha'' politics that prevail in 
Washington must end. To continue it damages our country from within and 
damages our country from without and discredits both political 
parties--your party, my party--both political parties.
  With respect to the explanatory statement for the bill, the House-
approved amendment to H.R. 2764, was filed with the House Committee on 
Rules by Representative Obey at approximately midnight Sunday night, 
December 16, 2007. Accompanying the amendment is an explanatory 
statement contained in the Congressional Record of December 17, 2007. 
That statement, like the amendment, is the product of bipartisan, 
bicameral negotiations. The joint explanatory statement is the final 
vehicle for conveying congressional intent with respect to purposes for 
which appropriations are made.
  In order to assure that there is no ambiguity as to congressional 
intent, the House amendment includes a provision that provides that the 
explanatory statement submitted by Mr. Obey and printed in the Record 
will serve the purpose of a conference report for determining 
congressional intent. I fully endorse this provision, for in its 
absence, this Administration, which strives to overturn statutory 
language in its bill signing statements, would completely ignore 
congressional intent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join my 
distinguished friend from West Virginia in advising the Senate that we 
have before us the Omnibus appropriations bill. It has been a long and 
difficult road getting to this point.
  The President, in February, delivered a budget request to the 
Congress that included a robust increase for our Armed Forces, very few 
increases for nondefense discretionary programs, along with many 
proposed program cuts. Then, in the spring, the new majority in 
Congress laid out a very different vision for discretionary programs, 
one that called for some $23 billion in additional spending. We have 
before us an Omnibus appropriations bill that reflects many of the 
spending priorities of the Congress, both from the majority and 
minority perspectives, but the bill also reflects the very real concern 
about overall spending levels held by the President and most Members, 
certainly on the Republican side of the aisle.
  The bill is, without question, an imperfect product of an imperfect 
process, but I think every Member of this body would rather have the 
opportunity to vote on appropriations bills individually rather than 
lumped together in one giant omnibus bill. I regret that the Senate did 
not take up and consider all 12 of the appropriations bills 
individually. When we fail to take up all of the bills, we invite the 
creation of an omnibus bill, lumping all the other bills together, such 
as this one, and we weaken the opportunity for the Senate to influence 
the content of these bills and shape the final legislation. I hope next 
year the leader will redouble his efforts to make time for 
consideration of all the appropriations bills, even though it is quite 
possible that we will again disagree with the President over 
appropriate amounts of discretionary spending.
  Having said that, this omnibus bill is, in my view, superior to many 
of its predecessors in one sense: It contains virtually none of the 
legislative matter that is so often added to omnibus bills. And I give 
great credit to the chairman, my friend from West Virginia, and our two 
leaders, Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell, for this fact. The business of the 
Appropriations Committee is complicated enough without importing 
legislative baggage from other committees in a way that often undercuts 
the delicate bipartisan and bicameral negotiations in other arenas.
  I also note that the bill includes none of the riders or funding 
prohibitions that the President previously identified as likely to 
prompt a veto. While I am sure this is a disappointment to some 
Senators, it is an important factor in our being able to support the 
omnibus portion of this bill.
  I also wish to touch briefly on the subject of earmarks. Much has 
been made about earmarking throughout the year. Clearly, there have 
been past cases of abuse, just as historically there have been abuses 
of legislative powers in other areas. I hope the heightened scrutiny 
and transparency of the appropriations process will eliminate any such 
abuses going forward. The Appropriations Committee and its staff have 
made extraordinary efforts to add transparency to the process going 
back to well before the enactment of the ethics reform bill.
  I think all Senators are comfortable in openly defending the funding 
priorities they advocate and suggest be included in appropriations 
bills, and they should be. This is another reason why it is so 
important that the Senate make time to consider all of the 
appropriations bills in an orderly process.
  The total amount of congressional earmarks funded in this bill is 
well below the level included in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations 
bills. I know the amount is reduced because we hear the protests from 
our colleagues and from our constituents as well. Whether the amount of 
earmarking in this bill is ideal, I don't know. I suppose it depends on 
the interests of the beholder. What I do know is Congress should never 
yield its right or its power to make annual spending decisions and 
include those decisions in the appropriations bills. Congress should 
not leave it up to the executive branch, and it should not be persuaded 
that last year's decisions are the right ones for the next year. That 
is why we have an annual process. Enacting a long-term, continuing 
resolution might appear to be an easy way to avoid controversy and 
disagreements. It is an abdication of our responsibilities.

  If Congress has to undergo vetoes of appropriations bills and make 
modifications to bills as a result, so be it. But ultimately we need to 
finish our work in a timely fashion and provide Federal agencies and 
departments with a set of directives and spending priorities that 
reflect the collective will of the legislative branch in consultation 
with the executive branch. That is why we have hearings at the 
beginning of the annual appropriations process, to get the views of the 
administrators of the programs, to invite executives from the various 
departments to tell us what their challenges are, tell us what the 
President's priorities are, what the Cabinet Secretaries have to say 
about their needs and their suggestions for appropriate funding levels. 
We take those into account. These are serious issues that have to be 
considered by the Congress. That is what the Appropriations Committee 
tries to do every year, in reviewing the President's budget requests 
and the information we receive at our annual hearings.
  Finally, I wish to say something about a part of this bill that is 
without question one that has to be fixed. The amendment adopted by the 
House of Representatives includes $31 billion to fund the deployment of 
American men and women overseas in the global war on terror. But the 
House amendment restricts operating funds to those fighting in 
Afghanistan and does very little to support our troops deployed in 
Iraq. While I understand the political needle the House was attempting 
to thread when it wrote this amendment, I think the message it sends to 
our men and women who are deployed in these countries is unfortunate.

[[Page S15826]]

  The Senate dedicated a serious amount of floor time to the debate of 
Iraq policy this year. The debate was, of course, earnest and sometimes 
informative. Amendments have been offered and votes were taken on 
issues related to the war. Yet while the debates demonstrated a strong 
and sincere desire among Members to successfully conclude operations in 
Iraq as quickly as possible, there remains no broad consensus on any 
particular alternative to the policy currently advocated by the 
President or Ambassador Crocker or General Petraeus.
  Let's be honest, that policy has produced undeniable successes in 
recent months. I am sure deeply felt disagreements remain on the 
subject of Iraq policy. But we have tens of thousands of American men 
and women who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, performing missions 
assigned to them by our Government and with the blessing of Congress at 
the outset. Those men and women need the resources to succeed. To try 
to change American policy in Iraq by slowly starving our troops of 
resources they need is unfair to them and very dangerous to our 
Nation's interests. We should reject the House language and provide 
adequate funding to support our troops until well into next year.
  I wish to end my remarks by thanking and commending our chairman, Mr. 
Byrd, my dear friend. We have worked together in writing and 
negotiating these appropriations bills and this package that is coming 
before the Senate. I know we haven't been able to agree on everything, 
but we have reached an accommodation so that we present this now at 
this point and urge its adoption. I thank all Senators who served with 
us on the committee for their diligent efforts.
  Last year, we had a large appropriations train wreck. We do not want 
that again. It produced a large supplemental funding bill. But we 
brought together a bill this year, despite new rules and hard 
negotiations--renegotiations. I thank all our members for their hard 
work on both sides of the appropriations committee, and I am happy we 
will be able to present this bill to the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my able friend for his generous 
remarks, for his good work on the committee, and for his kind 
leadership. I wish for him and all his loved ones a very merry 
Christmas, in the old-time way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for about 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________