[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3487-3488]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will take advantage of the 10 minutes, 
then, to talk about the pending continuing resolution or, as others 
refer to it, the Omnibus appropriations bill. I have watched bills of 
this nature come and go over the years. Obviously, it is not the best 
way to do the job.
  On occasion--I remember back in 1996 and two or three times since I 
have been in the Senate--we actually completed all of our 
appropriations by the end of the fiscal year, and that is the way it 
ought to be done. In order to get that done, we have to start working 
on it in May, not June, not July, and not in the fall. Regular order is 
the way it should be done, and I am pleased to hear our two leaders say 
that is the way they intend to proceed this year.
  But for a variety of reasons, sometimes in spite of our best efforts, 
we don't often complete our work by the end of the fiscal year because 
it is quite difficult to get agreement as to what the figures will be 
in providing funds for the people's business in the Federal Government.
  And so we pass these continuing resolutions. They always bother me 
because they pull in a huge number of agencies, bureaus, departments, 
and money into one big pile, and it is very hard to know all that is 
going to go on as a result of that kind of procedure. That is where we 
find ourselves.
  This is a $463 billion bill, as I am sure others have pointed out, 
and it funds most all of the discretionary programs of the Federal 
Government, from transportation and education to housing. The only 
thing it doesn't include is defense and homeland security. And so here 
we are trying to finish up that process for this year's funds, this 
fiscal year.
  We can certainly exchange criticisms of how we got here, and I think 
there is some legitimate criticism that is due. But the way we handled 
things the last time we had a similar situation, in 2003, we did go 
through an amendment process. According to Senator McConnell, I think 
we had close to probably 100 amendments. We voted about 30 times, but 
we got through it in a reasonable period of time, and we can do that 
here, too.
  I understand the leadership would like to go ahead and move through 
this as quickly as possible and get on to the regular business in the 
calendar year, so I can't be too critical about that. But I am very 
concerned about how we deal with some of the substantive issues in this 
legislation.
  I have no doubt Democrats and Republicans have issues they think 
should have been funded that are not going to be funded by this bill, 
and others believe some of the things that are funded shouldn't be. One 
should never believe that there are not earmarks on an appropriations 
bill. I have tried to deal with earmarks. I have tried to out-wrestle 
appropriators ever since I have been in Congress, going back to when I 
was in the House. You always lose because they know where all the 
numbers are buried. So don't be fooled. There are some earmarks in 
here. Maybe they are justified. There are what we call anomalies, which 
are those situations where if we do not increase the funding it will 
create some problems.
  The perfect example is the Federal Aviation Administration. We don't 
want the FAA furloughing air traffic controllers, so we have to add 
enough funds to make sure they have their straight-line funding or 
whatever is necessary to make sure they can continue their operations.
  There are, however, two or three areas that specifically bother me. I 
am not a fan of the base closure procedure. I have voted against it 
every time it has come up while I have been in Congress. I did it in 
the House, and I have done so in the Senate. I have always opposed 
BRAC. I think it is an abrogation of responsibility of those serving in 
the Congress. We shouldn't hand off to some commission the decision as 
to whether we leave a base open or close it, or what troops are moved 
in and moved out.
  Rightly or wrongly, we did it. As part of that package, we told our 
different communities that we were going to clean up the base 
facilities that were going to be closed and that we were going to have 
remediation so that when the community got it back they had something 
that was usable and not environmentally dangerous. We told communities 
in Kansas and in Georgia that we were going to move huge new numbers 
into their bases to take the place of bases that we were closing in 
Europe and other bases around the country.
  We said we were going to provide additional funds to provide training 
facilities and living facilities to improve the quality of life for our 
troops and their families, so that when they do come back by the 
thousands--and 12,000 are being added to at least one of the bases in 
the country--we will have the facilities to provide for proper housing 
and training.
  This bill, however, cuts out $3.1 billion that was to go for that 
purpose, and it redistributes that money around social welfare 
spending. We can debate the value of those other programs, but my 
question is: Is that a wise thing to do right now when we are trying to 
bring some of our troops home from Europe? Who are they defending the 
Europeans against? The Soviet Union? It is gone. Eastern Europe is part 
of Europe now. So I really am concerned.
  I do think we should have it paid for, and a .8-percent, across-the-
board cut will take care of the funds so that it is revenue neutral. I 
just think it sends a terrible message, once again, to our troops, 
troops whom we have been fighting to bring home from these remote 
assignments, that when they get here there is going to be a problem. 
They are going to be living in World War II barracks in Fort 
Leavenworth, KS. I am sure Senator Roberts talked about that. And that 
is an issue we need to address.
  Some people have said we will add the $3.1 billion back with the 
appropriations supplemental bill, but that means it will be added to 
the deficit. I think we should provide the funds and make sure they are 
paid for.
  There are a number of other areas to which others have referred. 
Education is one area. We can argue over our priorities, but I have 
every reason to believe that there are some areas in education where we 
need to be able to adjust the numbers a little bit.
  So I wanted to talk about the substance, first of all. I think 
Republicans and Democrats should be able to have a reasonable number of 
amendments. I am not for an unlimited number. I don't think we should 
use it to be dilatory. But there has never been a bill written that was 
perfect, and neither is this one. We need to have a few opportunities 
for Democrats and Republicans to offer some relevant amendments.
  I don't think we ought to get off and relitigate budget issues or 
budget process issues or issues with regard to Iraq but not directly 
related here, but I do think we should allow a few amendments. I would 
urge our leaders to come to that agreement. I would urge Senator Reid 
to be amenable to that. The majority is never going to be able to force 
their way in the Senate. It doesn't make a difference how big the 
majority is or how much power they have. It doesn't work that way. How 
do I know? I found out the hard way, more than once.
  I don't think we should have a permission slip in the Senate. We 
can't have a deal where in order to offer an amendment we have to have 
permission. No. This is the Senate. Senators are going to offer their 
amendments. Sooner or later, they are going to do it.

[[Page 3488]]

  I even filled up the tree. I am tied for the record of filling up the 
tree. Senator George Mitchell and I are the champs. I filled up the 
tree nine times, and I blocked amendments. What happened? They were all 
back on the next bill. If I out-maneuvered them and pushed them off 
from that bill, they were back on the next bill.
  In fact, it seemed as though the same 100 amendments appeared on 
every bill. Sooner or later in the Senate the majority has to ante up 
and kick in. We have to just let out a little steam, just a little 
pressure, turn the spigot a tad. If you don't, it is going to blow up 
in your face.
  We are all adjusting to our new roles. We are learning how, once 
again, to be in the minority. It is not the preferred role, but it is 
one where we can have an effect, and it can be fun. There is a new 
majority in town. Lots of power. They are going to run this thing.
  No. This is a consensus body. We will adjust. We will learn our new 
role, the loyal opposition within the Senate, as will the majority.
  The one thing I like about our leaders now in the Senate, these are 
experienced hands. These are not new kids on the block. They know what 
they are doing. They are naturally going to have to test each other out 
a bit, but I believe with time we are going to see the Senate make a 
little more progress.
  I wish we could begin that on this bill. We are not going to agree to 
a deal where the majority leader says: OK, I give you a permission slip 
to offer an amendment, and by the way, I am also going to tell you what 
that amendment is. No. No. That is not going to happen. It might happen 
here, or it might happen there, but the majority cannot ultimately 
dictate things like this, especially when we are talking about things 
such as abandoning assistance for AIDS babies.
  There are some things we can do with babies who have AIDS. There are 
drugs that can keep them from being born with AIDS, or to address their 
problems and they live a happy, normal life. So we don't want to 
eliminate that funding. That is just one example of where we need to 
have an amendment in order, and I hope that we will find a way to do 
that.
  Madam President, $460 billion is a lot of money, and most of it is 
for very good purposes, but this is the Senate, and I hope we can find 
order and a way to do this. We could probably get three or four 
amendments on each side, have some debate on those amendments, and be 
out of here by next Wednesday and feel as though we did the best we 
could. I think that would be a good idea. I think it would be good for 
the country.
  I am committed to being here and helping in any way I can. There is 
nobody here who has ever been in leadership who has clean hands, but I 
think we ought to learn from the past, learn from the recent past and 
find a better way to get the job done.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________