APPROPRIATIONS FAILURE -- (Senate - December 05, 2006)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one of Congress's most fundamental duties is to make careful choices about how to spend the taxpayers' dollars. We are now over 67 days into the fiscal year. The Senate has passed only 3 of the 12 appropriations bills. Only two of the bills have been signed into law. The operations of government for 13 of the 15 executive branch Cabinet departments are being funded by a very restrictive continuing resolution. This dismal performance is not the result of the work of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations did its work and on a bipartisan basis reported all 12 of its bills by July 26. Chairman Cochran did an outstanding job in leading the committee. Yet the appropriations process, once again, has fallen victim to politics.
Before the November election, the Senate majority leadership decided that the Senate should not be given an opportunity to debate critical issues facing the Nation, so 8 of the 12 bills never came before the Senate. When it comes to the funding bills for domestic agencies, with the exception of Homeland Security, the majority leadership--and I say this respectfully--is apparently satisfied with a mindless continuing resolution. When it comes to the education of our children, the health of our elderly citizens, the ability of our deteriorating infrastructure to sustain a growing economy, the majority leadership apparently wants no debate, just a rubberstamp of a formula-based continuing resolution for 13 of the 15 departments.
The majority leadership made a specific choice to delay bringing the domestic appropriations bills to the floor because it wished to avoid an open debate in the Senate about many issues confronting Americans in their daily lives.
The President submitted a budget for domestic programs that cut funding by $14 billion below the level necessary to keep pace with inflation. The President's proposal to increase fees on our veterans for their health care is indefensible. The White House proposed cuts in education and in programs to fight crime. The President's budget is not sustainable. Yet behind closed doors the majority leadership inserted an $872.8 billion cap on spending at the level proposed by the President's budget. This was done by jamming a cap on spending in an unamendable conference report intended to provide disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to fund the efforts of our troops serving heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To avoid debate on the domestic appropriations bills, the Senate majority leadership kept the Senate operating at a snail's pace all summer. In July, the Senate had rollcall votes on just 9 days. In August, we voted on only 3 days. How about that? In September, we had votes on just 10 days. So in the 3 months in which the Senate should have been in overdrive to finish the appropriations bills, we had votes on only 22 days. That is a pathetic, a sorry performance.
Why? Apparently the majority wants to avoid debate about its broken promises concerning the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's budget proposed the largest cut to education funding in the 26-year history of the Education Department--a $2.1 billion or 4 percent reduction. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of our children, the American people's children.
The Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill underfunds the title I program, the cornerstone of the No Child Left Behind Act, by a whopping $12.3 billion. Rather than increasing funding to meet this commitment, the bill freezes funding for this program. As a result, this bill leaves behind 3.7 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the level promised by the No Child Left Behind Act. I offered an amendment in the committee markup to increase title I funding by $6.1 billion, half of this year's shortfall. What happened? The Republican majority rejected it. Was the Senate, the full Senate, given an opportunity to debate the need to invest in the education of our children? No. Let me repeat: Was the Senate given an opportunity--I am talking about the whole Senate, the full Senate--to debate the need to investigate the education of the country's children? No.
In June, the FBI released its violent crime figures. The FBI found that murders in the United States jumped 4 percent last year, and overall violent crime was up by 2.5 percent for the year, the largest annual increase in crime since 1991. Yet what happened? The President proposed to cut law enforcement grants to State and local governments by $1.2 billion and to eliminate the COPS hiring program. Was the Senate given an opportunity to debate how best to respond to the largest annual increase in crime in 15 years? No.
On July 19, the Commissioner of Social Security wrote to me a letter in which she stated that the level of funding in the Labor-HHS bill ``would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency-wide.'' That is what she said: ``would require employee furloughs of approximately 10 days Agency-wide.'' Has the Senate, the full Senate, the 100 Members of the Senate, had a chance to debate whether our elderly citizens want long lines at our Social Security offices? No.
The Environmental Protection Agency projects that our communities need in excess of $200 billion for clean and safe drinking water systems. Yet the Interior appropriations bill would cut funding from a level of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $687 million in fiscal year 2007, a cut of 38 percent. Has there been any debate in the Senate about the need for safe and clean drinking water in our communities? Has there? The answer is no.
If there is one lesson we all should have learned from Hurricane Katrina, it is that there are consequences to starving Federal agencies. FEMA, which performed marvelously after the North Ridge earthquake, the Midwest floods, and the September 11 attacks, simply was no longer up to the task when Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast last year.
Now, which other Federal agencies are going to be the next FEMA? I wonder. I wonder which other Federal agencies will be the next FEMA. Could it be the Food and Drug Administration? Has the Senate had an opportunity to debate whether FDA has the resources and the leadership it needs to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? I will ask the question, again. Has the Senate, the full Senate, had an opportunity to debate whether FDA has the resources and leadership it needs to make sure we have safe food and safe drugs? No.
The cost of attending a public 4-year college has increased 32 percent since the beginning of this administration. Yet the maximum Pell grant award has not been increased since 2002. Has the Senate discussed the wisdom of making it harder for our children to afford a college education? Hear me. No.
On the heels of the first cut to funding for the National Institutes of Health since 1970, the President proposed level funding of NIH in fiscal year 2007. As a result, the total number of NIH-funded research project grants would drop by 642 or 2 percent below last year's level.
The President's budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 Institutes of Health. Funding for the National Cancer Institute would drop by $40 million, and funding for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute would drop by $21 million. Has there been a debate about the wisdom of these cuts? No.
When the Congress returned to session after the elections, Senator HARRY REID and I urged the Senate Republican leadership to complete the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process prior to adjourning sine die. Apparently, this request fell on deaf ears. Even with the elections over, the Republican leadership could not bring itself to govern, to make choices.
Instead, apparently, the House Republican leadership has decided to send the Senate a third continuing resolution that will last until mid-February--mid-February. Instead of making careful choices, they, apparently, have chosen to punt--to punt--the funding decisions for 13 departments, for over $463 billion of spending, to the next Congress.
What a sad mess. What a sad mess.
Under the continuing resolution, 500,000 veterans will have to wait longer for their health care or not get health care at all. Lines at our Social Security offices will get longer. Our elderly will find it more difficult to get answers to their questions about the new prescription drug benefit or about their retirement benefits. Commitments to address our clogged highways with more funds for highway construction will have to wait. Efforts to protect the food supply will be undermined by furloughs of meat and poultry inspectors. This is no way--this is no way--to do our Nation's business.
When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee from 1989 to 1994, and in 2001, the Senate debated and passed every appropriations bill but one. And it takes persistence, determination, and a commitment to the Senate to debate and approve all of the bills. Chairman Cochran has that determination, and he was successful last year in bringing every bill to the Senate floor. However, the majority leadership, apparently, does not value that persistence, that hard work, that determination. Apparently, in an election year, the only thing of value was the politics of the moment.
Mr. President, the irresponsible actions of the Republican leadership are setting the stage for the beginning of the 110th Congress next year. In January, the new Congress will be faced with approving funding for 10 leftover bills for fiscal year 2007, a large war supplemental, and 12 bills for fiscal year 2008. Where the Republican leadership could do no more than pass two annual appropriations bills all year, the Democrats will be expected to pass 22 annual bills and a supplemental.
And this will be a huge, a huge--I would say a whopping--challenge. However, in the bipartisan tradition of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to meet this challenge.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/