[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 124 (Thursday, September 17, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10454-S10455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS AND THE SURPLUS

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I wanted to express some concern about what 
is happening in terms of Federal spending this year; about the fact 
that now, for two weeks, we have not passed an appropriations bill; 
about the fact that it is clear from watching the process now that the 
minority, operating strictly within its rights, has held up the passage 
of any of the remaining appropriations bills by simply drowning these 
bills in riders and amendments.
  We are beginning to hear talk, both in the administration and the 
Congress, about the need for a massive expansion in spending.
  I decided earlier this week to sit down and look at all the proposals 
that have been made under the name of ``emergency spending.'' That is 
important because, as my colleagues know--the public may not fully 
understand--while we have a binding budget, there is a gigantic 
loophole in that budget. That gigantic loophole is, if the President 
and the Congress agree to designate an expenditure ``an emergency,'' it 
doesn't count.
  Since President Clinton has been in office, we have had $31.5 billion 
worth of emergency spending. During election years, that level of 
emergency spending has ballooned to a whopping $8.6 billion per 
election year.
  Now, in looking at where we are and in looking at the threats of 
vetoing appropriations bills if we don't appropriate as much money as 
the President has called for, I put together the following list of 
emergency requests that have been made by the President or have been 
discussed in the Congress.
  The first is $2.9 billion for natural disasters. I remind my 
colleagues that we know at the beginning of every year that we are 
going to have disasters.
  Now, we don't know exactly where they are going to be. We don't know 
whether they are going to be earthquakes in California, or hurricanes 
in Texas and South Carolina and North Carolina, or floods in the 
Dakotas. But we know, based on experience, that every year we are 
spending about $5 billion on disaster relief. But instead of putting 
the money in the budget so that it is there, instead of setting 
priorities, as any family would, what we do is wait until a disaster 
occurs and then we designate it as an emergency, so we can spend beyond 
our budget. In the President's own words as he stood before the 
Congress in the State of the Union Address, he said: ``Save Social 
Security first, don't spend one penny of the surplus, and don't give 
any of it back in tax cuts.''
  But what we declare spending to be an emergency, it means that we 
are, in fact, spending the surplus and taking money away from Social 
Security.
  Let me go over this list of what is now being called ``emergencies.'' 
The next item on the list is the fact that we are about to enter a new 
century and a new millennium and, in the process, we are going to incur 
a computer problem called the ``Y2K problem.'' In other words, the year 
2000 is coming and we are entering a new millennium. Now, is that a 
surprise? Is anybody shocked that every day we get closer to the year 
2000? Is it news to anybody that we have a potential computer problem 
in the Federal Government? Yet, while we have known about this--in 
fact, we have known from the beginning of the calendar of Julius Caesar 
that we were going to reach the year 2000. We have known it since the 
ancient Greeks. We certainly have known that we had this problem for 
the last 5 or 6 years. Yet, suddenly, we have a proposal saying that 
there is an emergency, the year 2000 is coming and there is going to be 
a new millennium, so the Federal Government needs an additional $3.25 
billion to $5.4 billion. How can anybody say that that is an emergency 
if it is obviously a problem we knew we would have to face? It is 
something that we are going to have to face in the year 2000. But why 
should it not be dealt with within the context of the ordinary budget?
  Now we hear talk of emergency funding for the census. We are required 
by the Constitution to do a census every 10 years. Surely it doesn't 
come as a shock to anybody that we have known since 1787 that we are 
going to make preparations for doing a census in the year 2000. Yet, 
there it is, as if somehow there is an emergency in that suddenly we 
have realized that we have been grossly underfunding the census in 
order to fund other programs, and now we have a funding problem in the 
census. But is that a shock or an emergency? I would say no.
  Suddenly it has been realized that all these cuts we have made in 
defense are having a detrimental impact on defense. That hardly comes 
as a shock to me, since I and others have spoken out for the last 10 
years about the level of cuts in defense readiness. But now we are 
looking at a potential emergency supplemental appropriation for defense 
readiness of between $3 billion and $4 billion this year.
  Now the shock of all shocks: We have troops in Bosnia. You would 
think that as long as we have had troops in Bosnia, the President would 
have put in his budget this year funding for the troops in Bosnia. But 
what is going to happen in the next 3 weeks is that we are suddenly 
going to be awakened to the fact that we have troops in Bosnia and the 
President wants an additional $1.9 billion of funding that will be 
designated as an ``emergency.'' I submit that it is no emergency that 
we have troops in Bosnia. I submit that it is not a shock that we have 
troops in Bosnia. Everybody knows we have troops in Bosnia, and 
everyone has known we have troops in Bosnia. Yet, we are looking at an 
emergency supplemental to fund it.
  We are also seeing requests--our Democrat colleagues have proposed 
busting the budget by $7 billion to help agriculture. Others on my side 
of the aisle are talking about $2.7 billion to $3 billion or more. The 
bottom line is this. When you add it all up, we now have serious 
discussion at the White House and in the Congress about raising the 
total level of spending this year by almost $20 billion. That is $20 
billion that we may spend over the level of the budget that we set out 
just last year.
  I simply want to make several points. First of all, I have, because 
of the work I have done on Social Security, concluded that we would be 
well advised not to create any new spending and not adopt a tax cut 
until we have taken action to fix Social Security. And it is my hope 
that we can fix Social Security early next year, and the funds that are 
not required in the surplus to fix Social Security could be given back 
to the taxpayer in the form of substantial tax cuts.
  My problem is that, having concluded that it would be best to hold 
the money in the surplus to fix Social Security first, I now see the 
specter of the Congress and the President spending that money. I want 
to remind my colleagues that for the $20 billion of ``emergency 
spending'' that we are looking at this year, we could repeal the 
marriage penalty; we could give full deductibility for health insurance 
to all Americans who either don't get it provided by their employer or 
are self-employed; we could provide a change in the Tax Code so that 
farmers could income average and better shield themselves against the 
kinds of fluctuations in agriculture income that we have; we

[[Page S10455]]

could repeal the earnings test under Social Security. All of those 
things would cost less as a tax cut than the money we are talking about 
spending on an ``emergency basis.''
  So I want to conclude by making the following points. No. 1, I intend 
to resist these emergency spending items. If somebody wants to sit down 
and come up with a real emergency, I am willing to look at it. But if 
we are talking about this kind of spending where we knew it was coming 
but decided to call it an emergency--and I now understand that the 
President is considering designating research and education spending as 
an emergency--if we are talking about this level of spending, I intend 
to resist, and we are going to have to have 60 votes in the Senate if 
this kind of spending is to occur.
  Secondly, I have been among those who have publicly stated that we 
should set aside the budget surplus this year, not spend the money, not 
give it back in tax cuts, until we fix Social Security. But if the 
other side decides that we are now suddenly going to start spending 
massive amounts of money, I would much rather give it back to working 
Americans by cutting their taxes than to see the Federal Government 
spend it, although my first choice is to save the money for Social 
Security. I remind my colleagues that the tax burden on working 
families in America at the Federal, State, and local levels is at the 
highest level in American history.
  So my two points are: No. 1, I intend to resist this effort to begin 
a massive spending spree, the likes of which we have not seen in a 
decade. No. 2, if this effort continues to have the government spend 
the surplus, the argument that we must wait to do tax cuts is over. If 
we are going to see one group in Congress try to spend the surplus, 
while asking those of us who believe it should be safe for Social 
Security but who also believe that giving it back to the taxpayer is a 
much higher and better use than seeing the Government spend it, then 
that argument is over.
  So I wanted to alert my colleagues to this problem. I hope that we 
can serve the public better than we would be if we simply ignite a new 
spending spree, because for the first time since 1969 we have a 
surplus.
  I think that is wrongheaded policy.
  Let me say also to the threats that the administration might veto 
appropriations bills if we don't spend enough money that I think the 
Congress should stay in session, pass appropriations bills at 
reasonable and responsible levels, and, if the President wants to veto 
them, let him veto them. And then we can be here and we can pass them 
again; then pass them again, pass them again. I believe at some point 
that the public would awaken to the fact that this is a debate about 
how much money is being spent, and thats what we are seeing here is a 
very subtle blackmail where the administration says, ``If you do not 
spend more money, I am going to veto bills, and I am going to shut down 
the Government.''
  I believe, if we will stand our ground on fiscal principle, if we 
will save the surplus for Social Security, that we will serve the 
public interest well. But, if the money is going to be spent--if that 
is the alternative--then I would much rather move ahead with a major 
tax cut and give the money back to the American worker than to see the 
Government spend it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________