[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 79 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5403-S5404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first, I objected to the unanimous-
consent consideration. My friend and colleague from North Dakota 
expected it. He knew I would do so. He basically tried to pass the bill 
as designed by one Senator. That is not the way the legislative body 
works. The way the legislative body works is that there are procedures. 
It goes through committees. Senators add amendments trying to influence 
the behavior of Congress, trying to influence the behavior of 
Government, trying to set policy. That is what happened in this bill.
  I might tell my colleague from North Dakota I did not vote for the 
bill anyway. I think this bill was not just a disaster bill. This bill 
grew, and it grew too much. The President submitted a bill in, I think, 
early May, for approximately $4 billion. This bill grew to over $9 
billion. I voted against it.
  Now, the President vetoed the bill, and he vetoed it supposedly 
because Congress put in a provision that says if, for whatever reason, 
we do not get an appropriation bill passed by the end of September, we 
will continue operating at this year's level of funding. I happen to 
think that is a perfectly responsible thing to do. The President does 
not like it. Maybe some Democrats do not like it, I guess because they 
want to spend a lot more money than this year's level. I think it was a 
responsible thing to do so we would avoid a shutdown, so Government 
employees, Government agencies, everyone would know that if in the 
event we did not pass an appropriation bill, we could continue 
operating at this year's level. I think that is proper. They did not. 
The President vetoed the bill. I wish he had not vetoed it for that 
reason. If I was President, I would have vetoed it because it spent too 
much money. That is one of the reasons why we have divisions of power. 
We happen to be equal branches. We do not just write an appropriation 
bill just designed by the President. If so, we would not have a 
Congress. We would just let the President write the bill.
  But that is not the way the system works. We have equal branches of 
Government. So the President can submit his proposal, and then we will 
act on it.

[[Page S5404]]

 He vetoed it, and we have a couple of options. We can vote to override 
the veto--in all likelihood, we do not have the votes to override the 
veto, and so then we will work with colleagues to see if we can come up 
with a proposal that will pass and get his signature. And that is the 
proper way to do it. It is not the proper way to do it to try to pass 
it by unanimous consent, a bill designed by one Senator. I, for one, 
would object because I think it spends too much money not even related 
to the two objections that my colleague from North Dakota had outlined.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield just for a point?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield at this point.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's statement. The bill that I 
asked unanimous consent to have considered was not a bill written by 
me. It was the exact conference report just reported out by Congress, 
minus the two contentious provisions. So I do not want people to think 
it was a bill written by me. It was exactly what the conference did, 
leaving out the two very controversial provisions.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I understand my colleague did not like 
two provisions. Maybe the President did not like two provisions. It may 
well be the President will look at the rest of the bill and he will not 
like other provisions. My point being, we have two branches of 
Government, both equal, and the President can make a request and 
Congress disposes of it and he has the right to veto it. Evidently he 
has done that. I understand the majority leader of the Senate is trying 
to get in contact with him today and maybe some discussions will ensue.
  I also just happened to be looking at this report. The initial 
request was $4.5 billion in discretionary outlays. The committee 
report, the committee report as it came out of the Senate was $7.6 
billion, so, in other words, $3 billion more than originally requested. 
The conference report, after it went to conference, was $8.6 billion. 
And if you add budget authority with the mandatory it was over $9.5 
billion.

  So this, like a lot of urgent supplementals, grew, and many times 
they grow at the request of the administration. They did not make it in 
their initial request, but they asked for more money, and somebody else 
said, well, I think we should fund this and everyone was in agreement, 
both Democrats and Republicans, so we go ahead and fund it. What we 
wind up doing is we fund things in an urgent supplemental that, 
frankly, should be funded in the normal appropriations process. We 
should be in the process of passing normal appropriations bills now for 
next year so they do not have to be in the supplemental; we do not have 
to prefund them. We should fund it through the process. And I, for one, 
since evidently the President's vetoed this bill, hope we come in with 
a very streamlined, strictly urgent supplemental bill.
  And I, for one, have serious questions whether or not we should be 
funding Bosnia assistance in this. How can the Bosnia assistance be 
urgent? We have had the troops over there. We have known about it. You 
cannot say that is not expected. We have known the troops are over 
there. I know that they are raiding operation and maintenance accounts; 
they are drawing down those funds. We have underfunded defense in the 
past. But we have known we have had a significant peacekeeping force in 
Bosnia and we do not fund it. And so then we start saying, well, we 
need to fund it all of a sudden because we did not put enough money in 
for defense last time.
  We have known those troops are over there and should be funded. But 
the costs have risen significantly. We should get control of those 
costs. I have some reservations about whether or not we should have had 
those troops in the international peacekeeping force in the first 
place. The President puts them over there, underfunds them and asks us 
to bail him out with an urgent supplemental. I have some reservations 
about it.
  Mr. President, there is only two issues of dispute. One is on the 
census language, one is on whether or not we would have a continuing 
resolution to keep the Government open should we reach an impasse on 
appropriations.
  Just a couple of final comments. We have reached an impasse in 
appropriations the last 2 years, in 1995 and in 1996, prior to the last 
election. The way that was solved in 1996, prior to the election, was 
the President basically said I am going to shut Government down unless 
you give me a lot more money. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we 
succumbed to that temptation; we gave the President about $8.5 billion 
so we could get out of town. I hope we do not repeat that failure.
  Who was the real loser in that? Maybe Congressmen and Senators 
weren't, but I think the taxpayers lost. We wrote big checks. 
Discretionary spending really went up. It went up in some cases, Madam 
President, even more than the President requested so we could get out 
of town. I hope we do not replay that.
  So the essence of this continuing resolution was, if for whatever 
reason we have an impasse, let us at least continue operations at this 
year's level so we will avoid that disaster, so we will not have the 
curtailment, so we will not have the shutdown, and I still think it is 
good policy. I regret the President vetoing it for that reason. I think 
that was a mistake. He has that right to do it.
  I think it is important we follow constitutional procedures and keep 
in mind constitutional prerogatives. The President is President. He 
does not have the right to dictate every detail in an appropriation 
bill. He can veto every appropriation bill he does not like. I want to 
preserve that right. But likewise, we are an equal branch of Government 
and we have a right to put on language that a majority of Senators are 
supportive of.
  So I will work with my colleagues from North Dakota. I see another 
colleague, Senator Conrad, is here and wishes to speak on the issue, 
and I will not detain him. I know he has very strong feelings, as 
Senator Dorgan does, as well. And so I will work with my colleagues. 
Hopefully, we will be able to come up with another bill, one that will 
not cost taxpayers as much as the previous bill, and hopefully we will 
be able to break the impasse and provide needed relief in a timely 
manner.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what was 
the request?
  Mr. CONRAD. I was asking for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an order already standing for Senator 
Coverdell to be recognized at 4 o'clock.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right, then I will withdraw my request.

                          ____________________