[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14616-14617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, the Republican Party 
has enjoyed solid majorities in both the House and Senate. They control 
the schedule and they control the process. They can decide which 
legislation to call up for debate, and frankly, for all intents and 
purposes, they can decide whether anything gets done around here.
  A good example is the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme 
Court. If he had been treated like all other Supreme Court nominees 
throughout the entire history of this country in a Presidential 
election year, he would have received a hearing and a vote, and he 
almost certainly would have been easily confirmed, just as he was when 
he was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals. Instead, the Republican 
leadership did not even give Judge Garland a hearing, much less a vote. 
Republican Senators refused to do their job. And there are countless 
examples of this.
  It would behoove people in this country who complain about the ``do 
nothing'' Congress to remind themselves that Congress is controlled by 
Republicans in both the House and the Senate. They can make it possible 
for work to get done if they want to, or they can make it impossible. 
Their track record for the past 2 years speaks for itself. Instead of a 
Congress that sets the standard for the world's democracies, we have 
been treated to a lesson of how not to get things done.
  The latest example is the fiscal 2017 appropriations bills. I went 
back and reviewed the record. For months, the Republican leadership 
extolled the virtues of regular order, and I totally agreed with them 
on that. They spoke with great optimism and confidence about passing 
appropriations bills--individual bills, not even an omnibus bill that 
has become the norm. I agreed with the Republican leadership. They said 
over and over that they were going to do their job this year and pass 
these bills, the way we used to. We on the Democratic side fully 
supported Republicans in that goal. We negotiated 12 individual 
appropriations bills that were reported, with 1 exception, with 
bipartisan majorities--in most cases, overwhelming majorities--by the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. That was 5 months ago.
  Senator Lindsey Graham and I wrote the fiscal year 2017 State and 
foreign operations bill. As we always do, we wrote a balanced bill, and 
it was reported unanimously by the Appropriations Committee by a vote 
of 30 to 0. Our staffs have been meeting for weeks with their House 
counterparts to hammer out a conference agreement that the House and 
Senate can vote on and the President can sign. We could easily be 
finished by December 9, when the current funding resolution expires.
  So what is the problem? It is simple. Donald Trump was elected 
President, and now the Republican leadership has a different idea. 
Forget all those uplifting speeches about passing appropriations bills. 
Forget about so-called regular order. Forget about doing our jobs. What 
is their new plan? Throw 10 months of work into the trash can. Now we 
will punt the ball down the field for another 4 months. After that, who 
knows? Maybe we will do it again and have a continuing resolution for 
the rest of the year. There is no way to predict.
  For Members of Congress who may not be familiar with the intricate 
operations of Federal agencies and would

[[Page 14617]]

prefer not to think about it, the idea of another 4-month continuing 
resolution may not be a big deal. For those of us on both sides of the 
aisle who do know, it is an example of government at its worst. Funding 
the government by continuing resolution means putting priorities and 
budgeting decisions on autopilot. It stops us having any kind of a 
voice in what our government does. It negates the hard work that has 
gone into reevaluating priorities from one year to the next. It negates 
the careful process of looking at Federal agencies account by account 
to make adjustments as warranted. It means largely making a carbon copy 
of an earlier appropriations bill or bills regardless of changed 
circumstances or compelling need to modify earlier priorities.
  I can give all kinds of examples in the appropriations bills. Here 
are a few examples of what it means for the State and foreign 
operations bill, which comprises only 1 percent of the Federal budget.
  A continuing resolution will provide $433 million less than Senator 
Graham's and my bill for economic development, governance, and security 
programs, such as the Power Africa Initiative. It will mean $59 million 
less for programs to counter violent extremism. These programs have 
strong bipartisan support--and did in the Appropriations Committee--
because they are the building blocks for stability where we have 
critical national security interests that affect all Americans.
  A continuing resolution will provide $162 million less than our bill 
for global health, including for maternal and child health programs, 
such as vaccines for children, and to combat malaria and tuberculosis. 
These programs literally mean life or death for millions of people, 
which is why they have bipartisan support--or at least they did before 
the Republican leadership scrapped the appropriations bills that we 
passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  In fact, one of the things a continuing resolution will do is provide 
$454 million less than Senator Graham's and my bill for security for 
U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel, for security upgrades to U.S. 
Embassies and facilities overseas, and for cyber security programs.
  I mention that because the Republicans in the other body spent tens 
of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money decrying the lack of 
security at our embassies, even after they had already voted to cut 
money for embassy security, and now they are going to cut another $454 
million. Will they stop using their talking points about how we should 
spend more to protect our diplomats posted overseas? Of course not, 
because they hope the American people will not pay attention to the 
fact that they have cut another half billion dollars. When the 
Republican leadership blames others for not doing enough on security 
for our embassies and diplomats, as they have a habit of doing, they 
need to only look at themselves in the mirror.
  At the same time, the continuing resolution provides $538 million 
more for U.S. contributions to international financial institutions, 
than the amount Senator Graham and I put in our bill. That is because 
the 2016 omnibus provided $220 million for the Strategic Climate and 
Clean Technology Funds, which is not needed in fiscal year 2017 because 
the United States will not be contributing to either of those funds in 
fiscal year 2017.
  The balance of $318 million is not needed because U.S. contributions 
to several international financial institutions are lower in fiscal 
year 2017 than in fiscal year 2016. It boggles the mind. They cut money 
for the security of our diplomats and embassies, but then they spend 
half a billion dollars for contributions we don't need to make.
  In fact, the continuing resolution provides $161 million more than 
Senator Graham's and my bill for contributions to international 
organizations. We don't need to pay that additional amount because of 
reductions in assessments in exchange rate costs. It would be nice if, 
instead of wasting this money on things we don't need, we used it to 
protect our embassies.
  The continuing resolution will provide $90 million more than our bill 
for assessed contributions to international peacekeeping. Again, we 
don't need to pay that additional amount because of reductions in 
several peacekeeping missions.
  These are just examples for State and foreign operations. Every 
appropriations bill has its own laundry list of reasons why a 
continuing resolution makes no sense. It wastes taxpayer dollars and 
wreaks havoc for the agencies that run the government.
  Continuing resolutions beyond a few months are illogical, wasteful, 
and harmful. We end up spending less for things both Republicans and 
Democrats strongly support, and we waste money on things we don't need 
and nobody wants. It is bad government 101. It is what the Republican 
leadership 10 months ago said they wanted to avoid, and we all agreed 
with them. But that was then and this is now. Now it's forget what we 
said before. We have changed our mind. Let's just put the government on 
autopilot and waste the money.
  I heard Senator McCain, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
denouncing his colleagues for abandoning the regular appropriations 
process. He knows the problems it will create for the U.S. military.
  Senator Mikulski, the vice chairwoman of the Appropriations 
Committee, has called it ``absolutely outrageous.'' She called it 
``procrastinating'' instead of ``legislating.'' I agree with her.
  Another 4-month continuing resolution is completely unnecessary, not 
to mention outrageous, wasteful, and irresponsible. It can still be 
avoided. Speaking for State and foreign operations, we can complete our 
conference agreement in less than 1 week. We are perfectly willing to 
work into the evenings to do that. I suspect the other subcommittees 
could do the same or close to it. Certainly, we could finish these 
bills before Christmas.
  So why don't we? That is what the Republican leadership said they 
wanted. That is what regular order is. That is how the Congress is 
supposed to work. We should do it. We ought to show the American 
people, for once, that we will actually do the job we were elected to 
do. That is what this Vermonter wants. I would hope others would also.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________