[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 23027-23029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            FEDERAL FUNDING

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this week, Republican Members who 
had pledged to support the fiscal year 2011 Omnibus appropriations bill 
changed their minds and chose instead to walk in lockstep with the 
House and Senate Republican leaders who believe that freezing spending 
at the fiscal year 2010 level is good politics.
  On the face of it that approach has an appeal to it--no new spending. 
What a nice sound bite. It makes everything seem so simple.
  But while one Senator of the minority party gleefully remarked on the 
Senate floor ``we won,'' it is worth taking a minute to consider what a 
continuing resolution means--not for the Republican Party but for the 
American people.
  That it is a short-sighted abdication of Congress's responsibility 
over Federal funding almost goes without saying. But in fact it is 
worse than that.
  The Senators who profess to care about the security of this country 
but refuse to put their money where their mouth is, bear responsibility 
for the consequences.
  Every American family--yours and mine--knows that in a year's time 
our budget priorities and the necessities of our families change from 
the year before. So do the budget priorities of a diverse country of 
more than 300 million people in a rapidly changing and dangerous world.
  Those who celebrated after defeating the Omnibus--a bill that is 
supported by a majority of Senators--are implicitly promoting the myth 
that priorities and circumstances do not change from one year to the 
next.
  They would substitute the mindlessness of a copy machine for the 
judgment that the American people pay their representatives to use in 
making these decisions.
  A robo budget is a disservice to the American people, to our national 
security, and to this Nation's needs and interests here at home. Yet 
that is the option we are left with.

[[Page 23028]]

  What is our job here? Is it to rubberstamp what we did last year, 
despite different circumstances and the passage of a year's time? I 
won't speak for the chairs of the other Appropriations subcommittees.
  They know the consequences of a continuing resolution for the 
programs in their jurisdictions better than I.
  But as chairman of the Department of State and Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, I can say unequivocally that freezing spending for global 
security programs--as we are about to do--will shortchange the American 
people--this generation and future generations, compromise the security 
of this country, and cost the lives of countless people in the world's 
poorest countries.
  Contrary to what some of our friends in the minority seem not to 
fully appreciate, the United States is a global power. We have vital 
interests around the world, from the Korean Peninsula to Mexico, that 
are important to the lives and livelihoods of every American.
  We are involved in two wars, with over 150,000 troops deployed in 
harm's way--wars that will not be won by military force alone.
  Our economy is tied to the economies of countries far and wide. Our 
security depends on what happens thousands of miles from our shores, as 
much as it does at our borders.
  Americans are traveling, working, studying and living in every 
country on Earth. We have diplomats and military personnel stationed on 
every continent.
  Our environment, the health of our citizens, the security of our 
borders, and relations with our allies as well as our adversaries, are 
not static. Time does not stand still. It marches on, either with us or 
without us.
  What the other party is saying is that while China and our other 
competitors aggressively expand their influence, the United States will 
pull back. While other countries become global markets, we will freeze 
our export promotion programs.
  While international terrorism, trans-national crime and corruption 
threaten American businesses and fragile democracies, including in our 
own hemisphere, we will retrench.
  That is the vision of the minority. It is myopic. It is self-
defeating. It pretends to help solve the deficit, when in fact it will 
have virtually no impact on the deficit. But it will weaken our 
influence around the world.
  In contrast, the Omnibus appropriations bill that was abandoned 3 
nights ago would have cut spending below the President's budget request 
by some $29 billion, as our Republican friends insisted just a few 
short months ago. Then they moved the goal posts.
  And 3 nights ago they walked off the playing field altogether, when 
those who said they would support it changed their minds--or had their 
minds changed for them.
  The Omnibus would have cut the budget for the Department of State and 
Foreign Operations by $3.2 billion below the President's request.
  The funding for the Department of State and Foreign Operations, which 
represents 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--is a far cry 
from what we should be allocating to protect America's interests.
  Fifty years from now I suspect our grandchildren or great-
grandchildren will look back and wonder why we were so penny wise and 
pound foolish, when so much was at stake.
  But if one asks which would be better for our national security, a 
continuing resolution or the Omnibus; or which would be better for 
protecting America's interests in the global economy; or which would be 
better for strengthening our alliances and improving our image around 
the world? There is no comparison.
  Let me cite a few examples.
  The Omnibus would have funded global health programs, including 
vaccines and nutrition for children, maternal health, and programs to 
prevent or treat infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, West Nile, the 
Asian Flu, and drug-resistant tuberculosis.
  These and as yet unknown viruses can become raging pandemics 
overnight. They can spread across the globe to our shores with the ease 
of an airplane flight.
  The other party may not want to talk about cutting these programs. 
But when there is an outbreak of a deadly disease like the Asian flu 
that could endanger the lives of millions of Americans, we can predict 
they will demand to know what the State Department is doing about it.
  It won't matter that they just cut the budget for disease 
surveillance and prevention.
  At a time when there are more than 7,000 new HIV infections each day, 
a continuing resolution will reduce the U.S. contribution to the Global 
HIV/AIDS fund by $75 million. That will almost certainly cause other 
donors to reduce their contributions too. Millions of people who need 
drugs to stay alive, won't get them.
  The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which is a 
cornerstone of our partnership with the Pakistani Armed Forces in 
fighting al-Qaida, will be cut by $300 million in a continuing 
resolution. It makes no sense.
  A continuing resolution will cut funding by more than $700 million 
for agriculture and food security programs, small business development, 
clean water, energy, basic education, trade capacity, and other 
priorities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as of American 
businesses, universities, and other organizations that implement these 
programs.
  There are thousands of American diplomats stationed in almost every 
country of the world, assisting American citizens and businesses, 
defending our interests and our security. They risk their lives in 
countries where Americans are targeted, and many have lost their lives 
in the line of duty.
  A continuing resolution will provide half a billion dollars less than 
the Omnibus would have for the State Department's overseas operations, 
including for Afghanistan and Pakistan, requiring cuts to personnel, 
information technology, and public diplomacy programs that counter 
extremist propaganda and other misinformation about the United States.
  How, in the world, does that make sense? Will anyone advocating this 
recklessness come forward to explain it to the American people? 
Apparently not. Better to declare ``we won,'' and hope the public never 
finds out that they lost.
  A continuing resolution will cut funding for U.S. Embassy security, 
construction, and maintenance programs, delaying the completion of new 
facilities to replace the most vulnerable embassies in some of the most 
dangerous locations.
  Security costs money, but the minority will cut these programs. Any 
delay in the completion of these facilities will extend the risks to 
American diplomats, consular officers, and other personnel overseas.
  A continuing resolution will cut funding for educational and cultural 
exchange programs--programs that Republicans have claimed to strongly 
support. That means thousands fewer participants in exchange programs, 
including those from Muslim-majority countries and Muslim communities 
worldwide, and a corresponding retreat for our national security 
interests.
  A continuing resolution will cut hundreds of millions of dollars for 
clean technology and other programs to reduce global warming. Whatever 
one may think about climate change, 95 percent of new births are 
occurring in the world's poorest countries, where the demand for energy 
is exploding. The environmental consequences of this exponential growth 
in energy consumption are staggering, and we ignore it at our peril.
  There are dozens of other examples, but the point is simple. The 
other party may think this is good politics at home, but it represents 
a dereliction of duty.
  It will have no appreciable impact on the deficit. In fact, over 
time, it is just as likely to cost the taxpayers more. But most 
important, the Omnibus, while billions of dollars below the President's 
budget request, would have at least enabled us to not lose ground.
  We would have at least been able to respond to new threats as they 
develop.
  We would have at least been able to continue the effort started by 
former

[[Page 23029]]

Secretary of State Colin Powell, and strongly supported by Secretary of 
Defense Gates, to build the diplomatic corps we need.
  We would have at least been able to compete in new and emerging 
export markets. We would have at least been able to maintain programs 
with Mexico and Pakistan, transfer responsibility in Iraq from the 
Department of Defense to the Department of State, support public 
diplomacy and exchange programs with countries where large majorities 
have hostile and distorted opinions of the United States, and continue 
initiatives that are strongly supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  That is the choice. It is not theoretical; it has very real 
consequences. It should not be a political or partisan choice.
  Senator Gregg and I worked hand in hand to write our portion of the 
Omnibus within the allocation we were given, an allocation that was 
$3.2 billion below the President's budget request.
  I am not among those who believe the Congress should hand over our 
responsibility for the budget to an unelected, unaccountable 
bureaucracy, but there were no earmarks in our portion of the Omnibus. 
That has been the practice of our subcommittee for many years.
  The minority has elevated hypocrisy to a new level over the issue of 
earmarks. There are earmarks I have felt were a waste of money. Many of 
them were Republican earmarks. Other earmarks, by both parties, have 
been enormously beneficial to the people of our States.
  Less than 1 percent of the Omnibus appropriations bill consisted of 
earmarks--many of them requested by Republicans. Many of them would 
have improved the lives of their constituents.
  But to score cheap political points those same Republicans who took 
credit for earmarks, now want the American people to believe that 
eliminating a few billion dollars in earmarks will fix the deficit.
  And so they would hand to the administration total discretion to 
earmark every dollar of the budget. There will come a time, I predict, 
when they will regret having done so.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Inouye, for the herculean efforts he made this year--first to get 12 
individual appropriations bills reported by the Committee, and then to 
try to get the Omnibus passed.
  He did everything humanly possible, right up to the bitter end. But 
when those who had pledged their support walked away, there was nothing 
more he could have done. As he has said, this is no way to run a 
government.
  I also want to thank Senator Gregg, who is retiring this year, for 
the many years he has served on the Appropriations Committee, and as 
ranking member of the Department of State and Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee.
  It has been a pleasure working with him. He cares about these 
programs, he supports the people who serve in our embassies, he 
understands what is at stake for our country, he asks important 
questions, and he insists on accountability for the use of funds.
  Contrary to what some might think or guess, there were not many times 
when Senator Gregg, a conservative Republican Senator, and I, a liberal 
Democratic Senator, disagreed over the need to find the funds to 
support these programs. We will miss him greatly.
  One year ago, 37 Senators--Democrats and Republicans--wrote to the 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee urging full 
funding of the President's budget request for the Department of State 
and Foreign Operations. The funding in the Omnibus was $3.2 billion 
below that amount.
  Rather than voting for a sound bite, Senators should consider the 
consequences. The consequences are unmistakable.
  A continuing resolution says whatever was OK last year is OK this 
year. I understand that is where we are. Even though a majority of the 
Senate would support the Omnibus, the minority party has made it 
impossible to pass anything without 60 votes.
  It is no way to govern, and when it involves issues of national 
security, it is foolhardy.

                          ____________________