[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 148 (Thursday, October 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7229-S7231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the ranking
member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee. In that capacity, I rise to oppose
consideration of the fiscal year 2016 Energy and Water appropriations
bill.
Let me be clear, I do this reluctantly.
In my view, this is a very good bill. Senator Alexander and I have
put forth a well-balanced bill within the allocation levels we were
provided, which was a good level.
It has been a great pleasure for me over the years to work with
Senator Alexander. I have the utmost respect for him. We have always
worked things out, but this year I think we have a bigger issue, and I
wish to address that in my remarks.
First, 6 of the 12 appropriations subcommittees received base
allocations lower than last year.
Another four subcommittees received nominal increases but were still
forced to make cuts due to rising costs beyond their control.
That leaves only two subcommittees--Energy and Water Development and
Homeland Security--that received real funding increases.
That is why I believe considering the Energy and Water bill in
isolation as we are now, rather than debating larger funding issues, is
misleading. That is why I can't support the motion to proceed to the
bill.
We all know the vote today is not just about Energy and Water. It is
about the entire appropriations process, and that is the debate we
should be having.
Instead of debating just this specific bill, the debate should be
focused on
[[Page S7230]]
eliminating sequestration, negotiating a budget agreement with the
President and the House, and putting an end to the destructive cycle of
continuing resolutions, omnibuses, and threats of government shutdown.
The Republican leader has already initiated budget negotiations. I am
led to believe three meetings have been held. It can be done. It is
what needs to be done. I fully support that effort. That is where we
should focus our efforts.
Before I get into specifics of the Energy and Water funding issues, I
want to take a step back and discuss two very disturbing issues I have
seen from my seat on the Appropriations Committee, and I am not a
newcomer.
I have been on that committee since I came to the Senate, which is
more than 20 years ago. They are the negative effects of sequestration
and the unravelling of the overall appropriations process.
The strict budget caps put in place by the 2011 Budget Control Act
have been terrible for our country.
These spending caps, and the across-the-board cuts used to enforce
them, were designed to be so devastating that Congress would do
everything it could to avert them.
The problem is, the Supercommittee failed to reach the agreement in
2011, so those devastating cuts took effect.
These spending caps, which have essentially frozen spending levels
for the last 3 years, do not account for the increasing requirements
placed on the Federal Government.
The cost of veterans' health care is rising, insufficient, and has
been roundly criticized. The cost of low-income housing is rising, the
cost of educating our children is rising, and the cost of fighting
natural disasters, such as drought and wildfires, is also rising. But
the spending caps are not rising, meaning Congress is forced to make
cuts to vital programs, and of course you get into the battle between
the national security portfolio, such as defense, and the domestic
portfolio.
My portfolio on Energy and Water is part national security, because
of the nuclear weapons for our country, and the domestic part is the
Office of Science, the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of
Engineers, which is the only infrastructure program we actually have
functioning.
Having a static budget like this year after year, which does not even
account for inflation, is no way to run a country.
I am also disappointed by the collapse of the appropriations process.
At one time--and I hope this is interesting to the Presiding Officer
since he is a newcomer--it was the norm to pass each spending bill as a
stand-alone piece of legislation. All Members could offer amendments,
and each of us took ownership of the outcome. We haven't done that in a
decade.
It used to be that the entire Appropriations Committee, members of
both sides, would support bills drafted by each subcommittee chairman
and approved by the full committee. We haven't done that in 5 years. It
was heresy for a bill to come out on the floor and not have members of
the Appropriations Committee support it. That is all gone today.
Everything changed in 2011. My Republican colleagues decided to vote
against every appropriations bill to protest funding levels.
The die was cast, and we have had to cope with the consequences ever
since.
Since fiscal year 2010, we have passed 24 short-term continuing
resolutions, which do nothing but keep the government going at the
funding levels of the year we were in at the time we passed the
continuing resolution. That is nine more than in the preceding 5-year
period. It is a 60-percent increase.
When Congress can't agree on funding levels, we end up putting
Federal spending on autopilot.
Mr. President, 2011 also marked the year when Congress turned over
the power of the purse to the executive branch. By banning the use of
congressional adds, we not only admitted that we know less about our
States than executive agencies, we also removed a key reason many
Members voted for the appropriations bills.
And contrary to conventional wisdom, congressional adds were not out
of control.
In 2010, the last year they were allowed, they totaled just one-half
of 1 percent of spending approved by the Appropriations Committee. One-
half of 1 percent were adds made by Members of this body and the other
body to do public projects in their districts.
I believe every Senator knows a great deal about his or her State--I
really do--and projects that are important for the State's survival,
and I believe they evaluate them based on the importance to the public.
I believe they know what vital projects need to be funded. Removing
that ability has removed individual Member's stake in an appropriations
process that functions, and so it is nonfunctional today. It has
damaged our ability to govern, and I deeply believe that.
That is a long way of saying we need to return the appropriations
process to the way it was handled in years past, and today's political
vote on this bill doesn't move us in that direction.
Even though I do believe the Energy and Water bill represents an
acceptable compromise under the circumstances, there are still
significant issues with the bill caused by low spending caps.
The bill provides--and this is important--$35.4 billion. That is an
increase over fiscal year 2015 funding of $1.2 billion for defense and
$8 million for nondefense programs, and that is where you can see the
problem. Those national security projects get an add of $1.2 billion--
and it is largely the nuclear weapons--and all of our domestic
projects, such as the Office of Science, all of the energy projects,
all of the innovations, the Energy Department, the Army Corps of
Engineers, fixing rivers, fixing dams, dredging, and everything the
Army Corps of Engineers does only get $8 million as opposed to the $1.2
billion that is added for defense. But even with that increase, there
are significant shortfalls.
I will give a few examples. For the past 4 years, California and the
West have been suffering from a historic drought. I just came from the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting. Senator Boxer and I
have put together a drought bill. We have worked on it for 2 years, and
we finally have a bill with some short-term fixes and some long-term
projects which can increase water supply in California.
Our reservoirs are at historic lows, and the Sierra Nevada snowpack,
our major source of water, is at the lowest it has been in 500 years.
We have millions of dead trees littering the State, increased
lightning strikes, big wildfires that go up like explosions into the
air because it is so dry, and the State's agriculture sector, which
feeds the country, has been heavily affected. This is a $43 billion
industry that saw losses of $2.2 billion last year, has lost 17,000
jobs, and on and on and on.
Here are some other ways the Energy and Water bill is weakened by low
spending caps. I will talk for a moment more about the Office of
Science. This is money used to expand research at our National
Laboratories, and we are $196 million below the President's budget
request in this bill. Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
have seen an even bigger deficit with funding levels at $773 million
below the President's budget request. This delays the development of
vital technologies to reduce energy consumption and slash consumer
spending.
Defense programs are also underfunded. With higher spending caps, we
could be putting into place strategies to keep nuclear materials out of
the hands of terrorists. We just heard about a cesium sale to shady
people that I can't remember ever happening before, and whether this
opens the door to more, I don't know, but I do know it is a real
weakness we have.
If we had some money, we could secure radiological resources at
medical and industrial facilities, we could install mobile and fixed
radiation detectors at ports and border crossings. We could also use
additional funds to modernize the nuclear reactor infrastructure that
supports the Navy. This includes developing more efficient reactor
designs that can last 40 years without refueling.
These are weaknesses we see in the funding picture and in our bill.
As I said, I actually believe it is a good bill when you know the
circumstances under which we are functioning.
But this isn't just about Energy and Water, and we can't view it in
isolation. As I said, Energy and Water had a decent allocation, even
with the overall budget restrictions. But cuts made
[[Page S7231]]
to other bills are far more dangerous, and we can't ignore these cuts.
I will highlight a few of them. The Subcommittee harmed by the
current spending caps is responsible for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education. The subcommittee received an
allocation of $3.6 billion below last year. The Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education received cuts. These are
draconian, and these programs affect our most vulnerable Americans.
That is what the Presidential election is all about right now--the
discontent over our inability to solve some of these problems.
There is a $331 million cut to employment and training services for
youth, veterans, and the unemployed. There is an $87.8 million cut to
teen pregnancy prevention programs. There is a $215 million cut to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--disease control. They are
seeing diseases that I haven't seen since my childhood, such as
measles, spring up all over the State of California, and we need to do
these things to keep our people safe. Vaccinations are important.
There has been a $198 million cut to shelter and services for
unaccompanied immigrant children, a $69 million cut to Federal student
aid programs, and the elimination of a $250 million program to expand
access to preschool. Expanding access to preschool is something
everybody wants for low- and moderate-income 4-year-olds.
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, on
the other hand, did receive an additional $1.9 billion this year.
However, the committee required a $3.4 billion increase just to
maintain current services.
As a result, the Subcommittee was forced to cut funding for mass
transit projects by more than $500 million below last year.
Affordable housing assistance is slashed by $834 million, and the
Community Development Block Grant Program that I used as the Mayor of
San Francisco a long time ago, which could always be counted on, was
reduced by $100 million.
These cuts affected millions of Americans and hurt communities across
the country. We should not have to choose between providing rental
assistance to low-income families and providing transportation options
so they can get to work.
I see the Presiding Officer is nodding. I have about 3 more minutes.
I ask unanimous consent to finish my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my friend. I appreciate it.
The Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee also received a
misleading increase in its allocation. While the Subcommittee received
an extra $965 million on paper, it actually needed $1.1 billion just to
account for last year's credit from the Toyota settlement that is no
longer available this year. As a result, the subcommittee was forced to
cut numerous important programs below last year's levels.
They include the U.S. Marshals Service, which was cut by $141
million; legal representation for immigrant children, reduced by $55
million; and Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement
agencies, cut by $139 million.
Here is my conclusion. My good friend and colleague Senator Alexander
is rightly proud of the work he and his staff have put into the Energy
and Water bill, and, as I said, it is a good bill.
I sincerely wish the circumstance we find ourselves in today were
different. Those of us on this side of the aisle should have a voice in
what happens and how we can solve this problem.
So what I plead for is, in these negotiations that are starting, by
Leader McConnell, to move ahead, let's get it started and let's stop
the CRs, let's stop the omnibuses, and let's stop the fights over the
debt limit and shutting down the government. Let's go back to an
appropriations process that this country did well by and that worked.
I thank the Presiding Officer for his forbearance, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
____________________