[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11020-S11021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      URGENT SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I come to the floor not to discuss the 
pros and cons of an urgent supplemental, or any of the ingredients 
contemplated to be within it, but to render an accounting to the 
Senate, as best I can, of the request that the President has made for 
urgent supplemental funding that would come as an emergency funding, 
which means we would be spending the surplus that we have worked so 
hard to protect to pay for these items.
  The calculations that the Budget Committee staff has worked up for me 
would indicate that, as of now, the President's requests amount to 
$14.148 billion. That means that the President asks us to spend $14.148 
billion for such things as agriculture emergencies, Y2K emergencies--
the computer situation that may result in a disaster if we don't try to 
use some new system and the purchase of new computers to alleviate the 
problem that may occur in the year 2000--there is some Bosnia money; 
embassy security money; interior security, or terrorism money; state 
embassies money; treasury security; and an economic support fund. They 
are listed in detail in this statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that this part of the budget bulletin, issued 
by the Budget Committee staff on September 28, which encapsulates these 
and then goes through a narrative as to how each one has occurred, be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Emergency, Emergency: Who's Got the Request?


     President's pending request fiscal year 1998 emergency funding

                        [In millions of dollars]

        Request                                                  Amount
Y2K, contingency..................................................3,250
Agriculture:
  President.......................................................1,800
  Daschle/Harkin (net impact).....................................5,200
Defense:
  Bosnia \1\......................................................1,859
  Embassy Security..................................................200
  Disaster Recovery.................................................224
  Disaster Recovery, contingency.................................... 30
Interior--Security: Terrorism.......................................  6
State--Embassies..................................................1,398
Justice............................................................. 22
Treasury--Security.................................................. 90
Funds to President:
  Economic Support Fund............................................. 50
  Security Assistance............................................... 20
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total......................................................14,148

\1\ FY 1999 Emergency Funding.

       In terms of how much emergency spending has come out of the 
     surplus, the Bulletin notes that $5.7 billion in FY 1998 
     supplemental emergency appropriations has already been 
     enacted since the beginning of the year. The continuing issue 
     for this week is how much additional emergency spending does 
     the President thus far want to take from the surplus: $14.1 
     billion for a 1998 total of $19.8 billion.
       Last week's Bulletin, expected that the President's 
     requests for emergency appropriations for both Fiscal Year 
     1998 and 1999--but not yet acted upon by Congress--total $8.0 
     billion.
       Following last week's Bulletin, on Tuesday, September 22, 
     President Clinton made official the Administration's request 
     for emergency funding in a number of areas, that had been 
     assumed would be requested but had not been official 
     transmitted to Congress.
       The Bulletin now believes it can accurately quantify the 
     President's emergency requests pending before Congress. The 
     table above allocates the pending $14.148 billion of 
     Presidential emergency request to each affected agency, 
     except for Y2K contingency appropriations. The Y2K emergency 
     appropriation request transmitted on September 2 would be 
     made available to the Office of the President for 
     unanticipated needs to be transferred as necessary to 
     affected agencies.
       Officially, the September 22 emergency request for 
     agricultural programs was for $1.8 billion. However, 
     President Clinton states: ``The proposals I am transmitting 
     today do not include income assistance to farmers for low 
     commodity prices. On September 10, Secretary Glickman 
     communicated the Administration's support for such assistance 
     through Senators Daschle and Harkin's proposal to remove the 
     cap on marketing loan rates for 1998 crops.'' CBO estimates 
     the 1999 cost of such a proposal would reach $6.2 billion, 
     with repayments in 2000 of nearly $1.0 billion. Hence, the 
     table below includes a net cost for this Clinton supported 
     emergency proposal of $5.2 billion.
       On September 22 the President requested $1.8 billion for 
     emergency expenses arising from the ``consequences of recent 
     bombings of our embassy facilities.''
       The President has still not requested amounts anticipated 
     for defense readiness. The President did send a letter to 
     Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Strom Thurmond, on 
     September 22 stating that: ``I have asked key officials of my 
     Administration to work together over the coming days to 
     develop a fully offset $1 billion funding package for these 
     [defense] readiness programs.'' But this does not constitute 
     an official request for emergency defense funding from the 
     Administration.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I do not pass judgment on whether each 
and every one of these is something we should fund, nor whether each 
and every one of them is something we should not fund. I merely want to 
state to the Senate, and to those who are interested, that there seems 
to be a big argument going on now as to what is happening to the 
surplus and whether or not the Republicans in the U.S. House who want a 
tax bill are spending the surplus.
  Actually, I will tell everybody that in the first year, the 1999 
year, that bill spends $7 billion of the surplus--if anybody is 
interested. The President's request for supplemental funding, emergency 
funding, not included in the budget--therefore, using the same fund--in 
the first year already amounts to $14.148 billion, and I believe I can 
say it is growing, because there is nothing in this number for special 
moneys that the Defense Department might need. There is some indication 
of a billion dollars for readiness. But the President's people are 
quick to say that won't be new money, it will be offset. Well, we will 
see what they are offsetting it with.
  The chiefs of staff are meeting here in the Congress to tell us what 
they think they need for readiness, and I understand their message is 
not a good one. It is one that says we are really getting behind with 
reference to the kinds of things needed to keep a strong military which 
is totally built around voluntarism--such things as getting behind in 
the amount of pay we are giving them, the kind of pensions we are 
giving them, and the readiness equipment. So we don't have anything in 
this accumulation that equals $14.148 billion. There is nothing for 
that part of anything that would be an emergency.
  I want to make one observation. Again, on this occasion, in speaking 
to the Senate and to anybody interested, I am not passing judgment on 
the use of the surplus for any of these things, I am merely saying that 
there is one surplus and there are two ways to use it. One is to spend 
it; one is to cut taxes.

[[Page S11021]]

 They both, in a sense, spend it, or some small portion of it. I just 
want everybody to know that the President of the United States, who 
seems to be saying, ``Don't cut any taxes,'' is at the same time 
saying, however, ``Give me $14.148 billion in new money,'' out of that 
same surplus for things that the country needs that he calls 
emergencies. They are all listed and they are all detailed in this 
statement that has been printed in the Record.
  I repeat, I don't believe, from the surplus standpoint, that there is 
any difference between the two. In other words, if you want to spend a 
huge amount of the surplus and you want to spend it for $100 billion 
worth of American programs, needed or otherwise, you have diminished it 
by $100 billion. If you choose to cut taxes by $100 billion, you have 
diminished this surplus by $100 billion. It is the same diminution. It 
is the same reduction, the exact same effect. We estimate the surplus 
to be $1.6 trillion over the next decade. And now we will engage here 
and elsewhere in a debate with reference to these emergency 
supplementals, which will be year long, which will spend some of 
that. We will engage in a discussion of whether there should be some 
for tax cuts.

  I repeat. The tax cut bill that the House proposed in the first year 
is $7 billion. The new expenditures requested by the President is $14.1 
billion. It seems to me that deserves consideration when we start 
saying we shouldn't have tax cuts, but we should spend the money.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________