[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19147-19148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           THE BUDGET PROCESS

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what I thought I might do for a few moments 
this afternoon is talk about the state of play of where we are as a 
Senate and as the 106th Congress trying to complete its work and 
adjourn for the year.
  I think a good many of us are frustrated at this point. We have tried 
mightily to produce the appropriations bills, to work with our 
colleagues, Democrat and Republican. Obviously, there are differences 
in how to resolve those differences. We are spending billions and 
billions of dollars more than we spent a year ago. Yes, we have a 
surplus. But, yes, the American people are telling us government is as 
big as it ought to be. There are new national priorities, and we are 
attempting to address those.
  But what I think needs to happen, and what has historically happened, 
at least, is an effort to move the 13 appropriations bills through the 
process, to vote them up or down, and get them to the President. We 
tried that last week, to move two of them together: the Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill and the Treasury-Postal bill. Out of 
frustration on the floor, and our colleagues on the other side 
deserting us, those bills failed.
  I think the average public listening out there says: What's happening 
here? Why are we almost at the end of the fiscal year and yet a fair 
amount of the budgetary work needed to be accomplished in the form of 
appropriations bills to fund the Government for the coming year have 
not been accomplished?
  You saw Senator Bob Byrd lament on the floor of the Senate last week, 
about the Senate working and getting the appropriations bills passed 
and sent to the President. And I have to lament with him. I agree that 
this work should go on. He said: There are Senators in this body who 
have never seen a situation work as it has been meant to work. I think 
he was denoting the budget process itself and whether it worked and 
functioned on a timely basis. How well has the appropriations process 
worked?
  I began to ask that question of my staff, and we did some research 
over the weekend. I thought it was important that I come to the floor 
today to talk a little bit about it because I, too, am concerned.
  Since 1977, Congress has only twice--in 1994 and in 1988 --passed all 
of the 13 appropriations bills in time for the President to sign all 
into law before the October 1 legal fiscal year deadline. Let me repeat 
that. Only twice since 1977 has Congress passed all of the 13 
appropriations bills in time for the President to sign all into law 
before the October 1st deadline.
  Now, that either says something about the budget process and the 
appropriations process itself, or it says how very difficult this is in 
a two-party system, and how difficult it is to make these substantive 
compromises to fund the Government of our United States.
  Most years, the Congress only gets a handful of appropriations bills 
through all the congressional hurdles by October 1, and so, more often 
than not, has had to pass some, what we call, a stopgap funding bill 
before it adjourns for the year.
  Senator Byrd, on Thursday, said that huge omnibus appropriations 
bills make a mockery of the legislative process. They certainly don't 
subscribe to the budget process under the law that we have historically 
laid out. But, then again, from 1977 until now only twice has that 
budget process worked effectively.
  So I could lament with Senator Byrd about huge omnibus bills or I 
could simply say how difficult it really is. Yet bundling the funding 
bills has been more the exception than the rule in the last 23 years. 
In other words, what we were attempting to do on the floor of the 
Senate last week was not abnormal. We were trying to expedite a process 
to complete our work and to do the necessary budget efforts. In fact, 
in 1986 and in 1987, Congress was unable to send even one funding bill 
to the President by the legal deadline of October 1. That is an 
interesting statistic. Let me say it again. In 1986 and 1987, by the 
October first deadline, the President of the United States had not 
received one funding bill for Government from the Congress of the 
United States. In 1986, one of those years when Congress passed zero 
funding conference reports, Senator Robert Dole was the majority leader 
of the Senate.
  I am here today to say I agree with Senator Byrd, and I lament the 
fact that bundling is not a good idea. But in 1987, he took all 13 of 
the appropriations bills, put them together, and sent them down to the 
President as one big bill. I think a little bit of history, maybe a 
little bit of perspective, adds to the value of understanding what the 
Congress tries to do. That was 1987. All 13 appropriation bills bundled 
and sent to the President before one separate bill was ever sent to the 
President.
  The year 1986 was the first time since 1977. In 1987--I want to be 
accurate here--was the second time. In 1986 Republicans were in charge. 
They couldn't get it done. And in 1987, when Senator Byrd was in 
charge, they couldn't get it done. So here are 2 years, two examples, 
one party, the other party, 1986 and 1987, that all 13 appropriation 
bills were bundled into one and sent down for the President's 
signature.
  Let's take a closer look at 1987. On October 1, the legal deadline, 
not a single appropriation bill that passed the Congress had been 
transmitted to the President. Compare this year, when two have already 
been signed. That is now, the year 2000, two have already been signed 
by the President, and we expect to send additional bills to the 
President before October 1. At least that is our goal. We will work 
mightily with the other side, whether we deal with them individually or 
put a couple of them together. In fact, no appropriation bill ever went 
to the President, I am told by our research, in 1987. Of the 10 funding 
bills both Houses of Congress passed, none emerged from the Democrat-
controlled House and Senate conferees. It was a difficult year.
  President Reagan was the first to sign an omnibus 13-bill long-term 
continuing funding bill on December 22 of 1987. Remember, the Congress 
continued to function late into the year and up until December 22, just 
days before Christmas, so we could finally complete the work and get it 
done. Of course, during those years I was not in the Senate. I was in 
the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Now, all said, during that budget battle in 1987, we passed four 
short-term CRs. During that time, we kept extending the deadlines 
necessary and passed four short-term CRs to complete the work of the 
Congress. President Reagan did not even receive a bill until the 
morning after the final short-term CR had expired. The CQ Almanac 
described it as a 10-pound, 1-foot-high, mound of legislation. I 
remember that well. In fact, I was involved in a debate on the floor of 
the House that year when I actually helped carry that bill to the 
floor.
  All 13 bills were passed and signed twice in 1994 and 1998. Excuse 
me, 1988; I said 1998. That is an important correction for the Record.
  On October 1, the Senate had passed only four appropriation bills, 
and this was with a 55-45 majority. Compared to this year, as of 
September 7, this body had passed nine bills so far.
  I think it is important to compare. It is not an attempt to 
criticize. Most importantly, it is an attempt to bring some kind of 
balance and understanding to this debate.
  I have been critical in the last several weeks. I have come to the 
floor to quote minority leader Tom Daschle

[[Page 19148]]

talking about ``dragging their feet and not getting the work done, 
expecting Republican Senators to cave.'' Well, certainly with those 
kinds of quotes in the national media and then watching the actions on 
the floor of this past week, you would expect that maybe that is a part 
of the strategy.
  On October 1, only seven bills had been reported to the Senate. This, 
according to the 1987 CQ Almanac, is because the Appropriations 
Committee could not even agree how to meet its subcommittee 
allocations. Compare that to this year. As of September 13, all 13 
bills have been reported to the Senate.
  Well, I think what is recognized here is that while bundling bills is 
not a good idea--and I see the Senator from West Virginia has come to 
the floor; he and I agree on that. He and I agree that bundling is not 
a good process because it does not give Senators an opportunity to 
debate the bills and to look at them individually and to understand 
them.
  At the same time, both sides are guilty. Certainly when Senator Byrd 
was the majority leader of the United States Senate, that was a 
practice that had to be used at times when Republicans and Democrats 
could not agree. That is a practice that we will have to look at again 
here through this week and into next week as we try to complete our 
work and try to deal with these kinds of issues.
  You can argue that some of these bills did not get debated on the 
floor of the Senate. That is true now; it was true in 1987. You can 
argue that they didn't get an opportunity to have individual Senators 
work their will on them by offering amendments. That is going to be 
true now; it was clearly true in 1987.
  The one thing that won't happen this year--I hope, at least--is that 
13-bill, 10-pound, 1-foot-high mound of legislation. Clearly, I don't 
think it should happen, and I will make every effort not to let it 
happen. That isn't the right way to legislate, and we should not 
attempt to do that.
  The leadership, last year, in a bipartisan way, along with the White 
House, ultimately sat down and negotiated the end game as it related to 
the budget. Many of our colleagues were very upset with that. They had 
a right to be because they didn't have an opportunity to participate in 
the process.
  The reason I come to the floor this afternoon to talk briefly about 
this is that, clearly, if we can gain the cooperation necessary and the 
unanimous consents that must be agreed to, that very limited amendments 
should be applied to these appropriation bills, then we can work them 
through. I am certainly one who would be willing to work long hours to 
allow that to happen. But to bring one bill to the floor with 10 or 12 
or 13 amendments with 60 percent of them political by nature, grabbing 
for a 30-second television spot in the upcoming election really does 
not make much sense this late in the game. We are just a few days from 
the need to bring this Congress to a conclusion, to complete the work 
of the 106th Congress and, hopefully, to adjourn having balanced the 
budget and having addressed some of the major and necessary needs of 
the American people. It is important that we do that.
  I am confident we can do that with full cooperation and the balance, 
the give-and-take that is necessary in a bipartisan way to complete the 
work at hand.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The period for morning business has just 
expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________