Continuing Appropriations

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - February 08, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, when we convened here in January, we had an unprecedented meeting of the new Members of the U.S. Senate, both Republican and Democratic, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber where the Senate used to meet. There were a lot of very nice speeches by the new majority leader, Senator Reid, and by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, about efforts at bipartisan cooperation. I think those were welcomed by all of us and I think welcomed by the American people as well because, frankly, I think they believe--and I think they are right--sometimes there is too much emphasis put on party and not enough emphasis put on the well-being and the welfare of the American people at large.

Well, we had a good start. We started out on ethics and lobbying reform. As you will recall, we initially had a vote to close off debate, and we got over that minor hurdle after that cloture motion lost and we were able to shape a bill that got the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate on lobbying and ethics reform. So that was a good start.

Then we moved on to the minimum wage and small business tax and regulatory relief. And we had, I guess, another period of testing there, people trying to figure out what all this new majority and new minority meant and how we might work together. Lo and behold, we got through that in a bipartisan way, and we passed a minimum wage bill, with

small business tax and regulatory relief that, again, I think we could all look at and say: I don't agree with 100 percent of it, but on balance this is a good bill. This is the kind of thing we ought to be doing together.

Well, I would say that notwithstanding that good start--and I think it was a good start--we have stumbled a little bit in recent days. We see a resolution on the Iraq war where we have requested the opportunity to present alternatives that reflect the diversity of views in the Senate. Yet the majority leader, in his wisdom, decided we were not going to have an opportunity to vote on those different views, some of which are espoused by his own caucus. So we are not able to get to a vote on any of those resolutions--yet. I predict they will come back. We will be back on those issues. The issue itself is not going to go away. We are going to have plenty of opportunities to vote on whether we are going to support our troops and the mission we have called upon them to do.

But, here again, we have stumbled again on this continuing resolution. It is not, as we all know, technically speaking, a continuing resolution, which would be to continue the spending at levels of 2006 into the 2007 year. This is really what would probably more properly be called an Omnibus appropriations bill. Rather than breaking things down into their constituent parts and passing, let's say, a Department of Defense bill, a Labor, Health and Human Services bill, and different appropriations bills, this is one big, huge, appropriations bill and I think most appropriately called Omnibus appropriations.

Although I will correct myself. I think this is really--if I had to give it a name, I would call it an ``Ominous' appropriations bill. The reason I say that is for the reason that has been pointed out by a number of our colleagues today. What it does is it demonstrates an unwillingness to provide the financial resources necessary for our military during a time of war. And I think that is ominous. I hope it does not give us a foretaste of the future, when we have seen our military underfunded at times and resulting in a later effort to try to catch up.

I remember the Secretary of the Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, just a couple days ago, in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, said: Do you know what. We would accept a lower level of funding if it was kept relatively constant so we could actually plan rather than have the spikes and the valleys, the changes from year to year, from appropriations bill to appropriations bill.

But my point is, this bill, by cutting $3.1 billion from our military during a time of war, is simply penny-wise and pound-foolish. I may be too generous when I say it is penny-wise because the money that is actually cut from the military is then distributed through a variety of other programs, which means in the end, when we pay the bill, which we ultimately will have to pay, we are going to add to the debt rather than--and we have seen $3.1 billion in new spending that could not otherwise be done without cutting the military--but causing us problems by exacerbating a deficit that none of us would like to see compounded.

But I want to mention--because I just met with MG Robert Lennox, who is the commanding general at Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX--El Paso will, as a result of this last Base Realignment and Closure Commission, receive an additional 20,000 new uniformed servicemembers and about 25,000 in addition to that, for a total of 45,000 people, including the family members who will move there. The $3.1 billion that was cut from this bill will have a direct impact on General Lennox's ability to build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate those 45,000 servicemembers and their families in El Paso, TX.

It also will have an impact on places around Texas such as Camp Bullis where an Armed Forces Reserve Center is in jeopardy; places at Fort Sam Houston, which is a principal location for Army medicine; places such as Grand Prairie; Seagoville; Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base; Carswell Air Base; Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, my hometown; Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, TX; and Randolph Air Force Base, also in San Antonio, TX.

All of those various programs to try to build the infrastructure and accommodate this Base Realignment and Closure Commission are in some jeopardy, and it is because our colleagues, the leadership on the other side, has determined that, without an opportunity for amendment, without an opportunity to vote on alternatives, we are going to take $3.1 billion from the military and give it to other programs and projects.

The problem we have in an All-Volunteer military is that we depend not only on our ability to recruit service members but also to retain those service members in our All-Volunteer military. And, of course, quality of life issues are very important--housing, various facilities. Of course, I mentioned this earlier today, but the saying goes: You recruit a servicemember, you recruit an individual, but you retain a family because it is important we provide the services to sort of cushion the sacrifices that so many family members make when their loved one is serving in our Armed Forces.

I am disappointed to see what started out as laudable efforts at bipartisan cooperation in the way we craft legislation on the floor of the Senate sort of degenerate into partisan railroading of important legislation. I fear what will happen is, when we come back to the supplemental appropriations bills that will be necessary to fund our military, we will then, out of these emergency supplemental appropriations, try to make up for this $3.1 billion.

The only difference is that it will result in $3.1 billion in new spending rather than the required offsets that would be necessary to maintain fiscal responsibility. An amendment that the senior Senator from Texas and I have cosponsored, along with others, would provide such an offset. And if allowed to have a vote on that amendment, for less than a three-quarters of 1 percent, across-the-board cut in this Omnibus appropriations bill, exclusive of defense spending, we could restore the complete $3.1 billion that this current Omnibus appropriations bill cuts. We could tell our men and women in the military that we not only appreciate and support them but actually back that up with real action and a real financial commitment to make sure they have what they need.

I am disappointed that after we got off to such a good start in terms of bipartisan cooperation, we find ourselves now where the majority party is attempting to dictate the terms of this Omnibus appropriations bill, without any input, without any opportunity for votes on any amendments that some of us believe are in the best interests of the military and in the best interests of the country. It represents an unfortunate and unwelcome development.

In the end, I predict the new majority will learn what the old majority learned, that no single party gets to dictate how things happen around here because of the 60-vote requirement to close off debate. The magic number, of course, for the majority is 60. The magic number for the minority is 41. That gives us the power we need to get a seat at the table. But it is clear that the majority leader has made a calculation that he can pass this legislation without any contribution, any amendments, any opportunity to vote on important amendments. Unfortunately, not only is the kind of bipartisan cooperation we started off with during the first month we have been here in January the loser, I am afraid as a result of this ill-advised cut in our military that our military is the loser as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/