[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10232-S10233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        EMERGENCY SPENDING BILLS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there are three issues which I think we 
need to be thinking about addressing as we move into the end of this 
session. The first is an emergency spending bill which is coming at us 
and how we pay for that.
  Traditionally, emergency spending bills have been paid for outside 
the budget process. We have worked very hard, however, as a Congress 
and as a country to get our budget in balance. It has not been an easy 
task. It has taken us 29 years to get the budget in balance. This year 
we will have a $60 billion surplus, and that surplus is projected to 
continue for a number of years into the future. But that surplus will 
be quickly frittered away if we add new spending programs that are not 
paid for, or if we arbitrarily increase the spending of the Federal 
Government in programs that already exist without looking at our 
budgeting process.
  The emergency supplemental, as well meaning as it is intended to be, 
represents, in my opinion, and raises the issue of how we are going to 
maintain our surplus and threatens that surplus.
  Since 1993, we have had $37 billion of spending under emergency 
bills. That is $37 billion that has been spent outside the budget 
process and has essentially added to the deficit, or in the case of 
this year, reduced the surplus.
  This year, the emergency supplemental is being talked about as a 
rather huge bill. In the past, since 1993, the average of those bills 
has been somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion or $6 billion. But now 
we are talking about an emergency supplemental of--I have heard a 
number as high as $20 billion. But anything in the range of even $10 
billion or $15 billion would be a huge number and would significantly 
reduce the surplus unless it was offset.
  The purpose of an emergency supplemental is to address issues which 
we had not anticipated which need immediate action and to do so 
promptly. I can agree with all those purposes, but unfortunately, the 
emergency supplemental process has become a process which has basically 
been used as a giant loophole through which we have generated new 
spending and, thus, are putting at risk, in many instances, our surplus 
as we finally reached it.
  Secondly, we have to ask ourselves, From where is this money coming? 
In the past, we were borrowing it and creating debt, which was bad 
enough. This time when we fund this emergency supplemental, if it is 
anywhere near the range of $15 billion or $20 billion, that is all 
basically going to come out of the Social Security trust fund. We will 
be borrowing from the Social Security trust fund because this year the 
surplus is essentially generated by the Social Security taxes which 
exceed the Social Security expenses. That, in and of itself, raises 
huge public policy issues.
  I hope that before we step into this or step off on to this road 
which leads to this giant loophole in our budgeting process, which 
generates expenditures outside of our budget caps, that we will think 
about the process and, hopefully,

[[Page S10233]]

take a hard look at offsetting a significant amount of this emergency 
supplemental.
  Much of it was anticipated. We already spent $1.5 billion emergency 
for Bosnia. We should have been able to anticipate it and offset it. 
Clearly, the situation that has occurred in the farming communities is 
a severe emergency, but almost every year we appear to have an 
emergency in the farming communities. We should be able to budget and 
offset it. Disaster events have become, regrettably, all too 
commonplace. They are severe, and they need to be responded to, but we 
should be able to anticipate and budget it with some sort of reserve 
account and be setting it off.
  The only event which is truly an emergency which we could not 
anticipate was the blowing up of the embassies in Africa. I happen to 
chair the committee that has jurisdiction over that. If I were asked by 
the appropriating authorities, by the leadership around here to find 
offsets for the purposes of paying for that, I would be willing to do 
that, or at least some portion of that. So as to the extent that 
emergency has occurred, I am willing to go back and see if we can't 
find some ways to pay the cost of that emergency with some sort of 
offset, some percentage of it anyway, maybe not the whole amount, but a 
percentage of it.
  I am simply saying in throwing up a word of caution here, before we 
step on to this emergency spending process without any offsets, let's 
look at what it will do to the budget in the outyear and what it will 
do to the Social Security fund and is it proper to do it without 
offsets. I don't think it is. Some percentage should be offset.
  Second, I want to talk about caps. Caps are ways we as Congress 
discipline ourselves, where we say we will not spend more than this 
amount in any one year. That is what the emergency issue is about, as I 
alluded to. The emergency spending designation allows you to exceed the 
caps, which is an appropriate action in the budget process, but is not 
necessarily a fiscally sound action.
  The caps are in place only for the next 2 years because we do not 
have in place a budget. We did not reach a budget agreement, and it 
does not appear we are going to reach a budget agreement this year 
which would extend the caps over the lifetime of the budget agreement 
which we reached last year with the President. Last year, we reached 
the balanced budget agreement, a very important act in the history of 
this country, which has led to the surplus, in large part, this year 
and will lead to projected surpluses in the future years. But that 
budget agreement only had caps for 3 years. It was a 5-year agreement. 
So we are closing in now on the point when those caps are no longer in 
existence and we will no longer have any fiscal discipline around here.
  I intend, and I hope I will receive the support of my colleagues, to 
offer an amendment to whatever the emergency supplemental is to extend 
the caps for the last 2 years of the budget agreement which we reached 
with the President. I think that is only reasonable that we do that so 
that we can be sure that as we move forward in the future that we will 
have fiscal discipline here and we will stay on the glide path toward 
maintaining our surplus, which has been so difficult to attain and 
which is so important to the future of our country. That is the second 
fiscal point I wanted to make.
  The fiscal third point I want to make is about taxes. It is obvious 
we are running a surplus, and, yes, that surplus is significant and 
there is a big demand to cut taxes, which is totally reasonable.
  What is a surplus? It basically means people are paying more in taxes 
than we are spending in Government. So whose right is it to get the 
money back? It is the taxpayers' right to get the money back.
  So we should be looking at a tax cut. There are lots of different 
discussions around here looking at what the tax cut should be. But in 
looking at this tax cut, we have to look at where the revenue is coming 
from.
  Revenues for this surplus are coming from the Social Security tax. 
They are not coming from the general revenue tax. They are not coming 
from the income tax or the corporate tax or a variety of fees that we 
charge as a society, as a Government. They are coming from the fact 
that people are paying more into the Social Security trust fund than 
the Social Security trust fund is paying out today. As a result, we are 
running a surplus. That is true through about the year 2001 or maybe 
even the year 2002, that the surplus of this Government as it is 
projected will be primarily a Social Security trust fund surplus.
  So when we are looking at a tax cut around here, I think we ought to 
look at the people who are paying the taxes. That would only be 
logical. People who are generating the surplus should get the return of 
the taxes. And that should be the Social Security taxpayer.
  More importantly, there is no more regressive tax that we have on the 
books than the FICA tax. It is paid across the board. It is paid by 
everybody. No matter what your earned income is, you pay the FICA tax 
at the same rate. It is a regressive tax by any stretch of the 
imagination. No deductions, no exemptions, you pay it. Thus, if we are 
looking for a place to cut taxes which would benefit the most Americans 
and be the fairest place to cut taxes, we should be looking at cutting 
the Social Security tax.
  So as we move down the road to the discussion on tax cuts, let us 
take a hard look at cutting the FICA tax, returning to the American 
people more of their tax dollars through a FICA tax cut. In doing that, 
we ought to also be looking at increasing the savings of the American 
people and trying to make the Social Security system more solvent in 
the outyears.
  One way to do that is a proposal that I put forth with Senator 
Breaux. And a number of other people have talked about it in different 
machinations--including Senator Moynihan, Senator Grams, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Kerrey--to take the tax cut and put it into a 
personal savings account which would be owned by the individual who 
pays the taxes; and it will be their money, they will have it as an 
asset, and it will be available for them when they retire. I hope we 
will consider that as an option also.
  So as we move into this tax cut debate, I intend to raise this whole 
issue. And I believe we should raise this whole issue of where the 
taxes are coming from and who appropriately should be getting a tax 
cut.
  I ask unanimous consent for another 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. So three things we need to be concerned about are, first, 
as we step into this emergency spending water, let us be careful about 
where the money comes from, let us look at an offset; second, let us 
get those caps extended so we can have sound fiscal policy throughout 
the 5 years of the balanced budget agreement we reached with the 
President; and third is, we look at a tax cut, let us have a tax cut 
that flows back to the people who are paying the taxes, those folks who 
are paying Social Security taxes.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed 
for--I will not say a specific period of time, I simply say that I will 
yield the floor any time our leader or anybody working on the 
bankruptcy bill asks me to. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________