[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7970-S7971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON H.R. 2158

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday I voted against H.R. 2158, 
the bill providing fiscal year 1998 appropriations for the Departments 
of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and various 
independent agencies. Funding

[[Page S7971]]

provided by that measure totaled nearly $9 billion more than the 
comparable amount provided last year--about a 10-percent increase.
  It would be one thing if the increase were devoted to improved 
services for our Nation's veterans. After all, they put their lives on 
the line in defense of our country and all of the rights and liberties 
we enjoy. We owe them a debt of gratitude--and the obligation to 
fulfill the promises our Nation made to them when they were called to 
serve.
  Yet the spending increase in this bill is not targeted to veterans. 
The VA sees only a 0.5 percent increase in its budget. Medical care is 
increased only 1 percent. But presumably, these increases were 
sufficient to fulfill our obligations to veterans, exceeding President 
Clinton's request by nearly $93 million. I support them, and I stand 
ready to do more if that is necessary.
  Mr. President, compare the virtual spending freeze that our Nation's 
veteran population is able to bear with what happens to HUD's budget. 
Last year, HUD received a total of $16.3 billion. H.R. 2158 proposes to 
take that figure to $25.4 billion--a $9 billion increase. An increase 
of nearly 56 percent. That is a huge increase, even by Washington 
standards.
  Now I know that part of the reason for the added funding is the need 
to renew expiring section 8 housing contracts. But I believe we have a 
responsibility to try to offset the extra spending with reductions in 
lower priority HUD programs, rather than just add to the total. I see 
little evidence of attempting to prioritize HUD and other programs in 
this bill.
  It seems to me that the opportunity to find offsets was certainly 
there. The AmeriCorps Program, for example, was funded at $405 million. 
Remember, this is a program that pays volunteers to work. In most parts 
of the country, paying someone to work constitutes employment. 
Volunteers provide their time and energy out of their own good will. 
But here we have a government program--a Clinton administration 
priority--that actually pays volunteers to work.
  AmeriCorps committed last year to try to reduce its cost per 
participant to $17,000 this year and to $15,000 in 1999. Yet that is 
how much a lot of people around the country earn from their jobs. This 
is an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds, and we would do well 
to eliminate it. Yet I know that President Clinton would probably veto 
the bill--veterans funding and all--just to preserve it. So there seems 
to be little incentive to do the right thing and trim expenditures.
  The Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program is another case 
in point. The bill provides $1.4 billion for the program, with funding 
earmarked for a variety of projects, including library expansion in 
West Virginia, the Paramount Theater in Vermont, the Bushnell Theater 
in Connecticut, and economic development in downtown Ogden, Utah, to 
name just a few. If we had to set priorities, just like any family back 
home, we would probably conclude that section 8 renewals might be a 
little more important than some of these CDBG grants.
  But when the sky is the limit, we do not have to prioritize. We 
simply add more spending on top of everything else. And that is how we 
get a deficit problem.
  Mr. President, we need a new way of conducting business. We need to 
get back to a politics of principle, and of being honest with the 
American people about whether we are serious about seeking more 
responsible use of hard-earned tax dollars and reducing the deficit. 
This bill represents the old way of doing things, and exemplifies the 
politics of pork.
  I voted against the budget agreement last month, in large part 
because it allowed too much new spending. And the HUD and independent 
agencies portion of this bill is evidence of what we can expect as the 
agreement is fully implemented. That is why next year's budget deficit 
is projected to rise--and not fall --as a result of the agreement.
  Mr. President, it is unfortunate that we do not have an opportunity 
to consider the various components of this bill on their own merits--
veterans, HUD, EPA, NASA, AmeriCorps, and the like. I would have 
supported the veterans budget, the NASA budget, and environmental 
spending in the bill. But as a package, with the very large increase in 
HUD spending and a lack of sufficient offsets for it, I concluded that 
it was necessary to register concern about the process and our 
country's future, and to vote ``no'' on the bill.

                          ____________________