[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 151 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12969-S12970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on the omnibus 
appropriations bill that we approved this morning. It was roughly a 
$500 billion omnibus appropriations bill. And I would like to begin by 
saying that I am thankful that we did not shut down the Federal 
Government to resolve our spending differences this year. That was 
clearly a failed approach that disillusioned our Nation and unjustly 
punished the dedicated Federal employees who serve the American people. 
But I also have to say I have enormous concern with how we got here, 
and with some of the consequences of the road we traveled.
  Like every one of our colleagues, I am pleased with many aspects of 
this bill, but disappointed with other aspects. I am pleased that we 
finally achieved justice for farmers who face racial discrimination at 
the USDA, that we have acted decisively to strengthen our Nation's 
defenses, that we have invested substantially in improving the 
education of our children, that we have refrained--for now at least--
from interfering in the local operation of our region's airports, and 
that we were able to eliminate some of the most egregious anti-
environmental riders.

  I'm disappointed that we abandoned fiscal discipline and avoided, 
once again, making the tough choices to pay for our priorities. 
Instead, we spent $21 plus billion of the so-called ``surplus,'' which 
we should be saving to protect Social Security, and we failed to enact 
another round of base closures to help fund needed military readiness 
improvements. I'm also disappointed that we couldn't make the cuts 
necessary to find the funds needed to help localities that are 
struggling to modernize their schools.
  Mostly I'm disappointed by the process that led us to an up or down 
vote, with virtually no debate, on eight separate annual spending bills 
consolidated into a giant roughly $500 billion package that funds 
nearly one third of our government. Mr. President, we have a obligation 
to debate our priorities in the open and make the tough decisions, just 
like American families are required to do every day.
  I believe this process amounts to a dereliction of our duty as 
representatives of the people. While I appreciate the hard work of the 
appropriations committees, this all-encompassing appropriations bill 
has ultimately been the work product of too few people with no 
realistic opportunity for amendment. Members were left to hope that 
their interests, and the interests of those they represent, were being 
advanced. This is heavy burden to ask the appropriations committee and 
the leadership to bear, and we shouldn't be placing them in that 
position.
  We should be able to debate, and vote, about whether funds should be 
spent on improving our system of education, and about how they should 
be spent. We should be able to debate, and vote, about how to remedy 
racial discrimination in the federal government. And we should able to 
debate, and vote, about the best way to protect the environment.

  But instead of the open debate we need, instead of the careful 
consideration by each and every member of the public policy 
consequences that affect our states and nation, we have what amounts to 
a take-it-or-leave-it appropriations bill that will, again, fund nearly 
one-third of the federal government.
  There's no question, Mr. President, that there are times when a take-
it-or-leave it approach is necessary. I support, for example, the base 
closure process because it is the only mechanism we have devised which 
forces members of Congress to vote for the politically unpopular 
closure of unnecessary military facilities. And in order to maintain 
our role as the world's sole remaining superpower, the need to 
undertake another round of base closures to increase funding in 
critical areas will become an imperative. I also support take-it-or-
leave-it fast track trade authority to promote free trade because it's 
the only way other governments will negotiate with us that can achieve 
meaningful results.
  But when it comes to deciding our priorities in federal spending, we 
need a more open and rational process. Each year that we proceed in 
this fashion, I become more convinced that we should follow the lead of 
many states, like my own, Virginia, and undertake biennial budgeting. 
We should alternate a year of appropriations with a year of oversight. 
Just today, I signed onto an effort by Senator Domenici to institute 
biennial budgeting.
  Due to our failure to pass a budget resolution this year, we have 
been guided in large part by the balanced budget agreement we reached 
two years ago. I supported that agreement, because when I came to the 
Senate in 1988, one of my highest priorities was fighting for fiscal 
responsibility.
  But the problems we've encountered this year in passing our 
appropriations bills stem directly from the unrealistic goals we 
established in the balanced budget agreement. We all but ignored the 
800 pound gorilla sitting in the room--entitlement spending--and 
instead focused on reducing our investments through future cuts in 
discretionary spending. I certainly support weeding out unnecessary 
discretionary spending, which is why I support the line-item veto, but 
effectively lowering discretionary caps in real terms, without regard 
to where those cuts might fall, is not the wisest approach.

  The discretionary caps we established in 1997 did not require that 
tough decisions be made. It merely left to a future Congress the 
difficult choices in dividing a shrinking pie. We are now that ``future 
Congress'' and we're having a difficult time reaping what we have sewn. 
So we cut ``phantom'' future investments to preserve current 
consumption spending. But to reduce federal spending, and to someday 
reduce the national debt, we really need to reform entitlement 
programs. And the longer we wait, the more difficult the task will 
become.
  So while I'm pleased that we reached our destination, I'm extremely 
disappointed with the road we took to get here. And I hope that during 
the next Congress, we will work to improve the appropriations process, 
to get our fiscal work done on time and in the open, and to begin the 
enormous task of reforming entitlement programs and saving Social 
Security by making the tough choices.
  Mr. President, I reluctantly supported the appropriations bill today 
because, while the process that produced the bill is a terrible one, 
the failure to enact the bill would have been far worse. Without this 
bill there would have been another government shutdown, and the funds 
wouldn't be there to bolster our military, improve the education of our 
children, and render long-denied justice for those who've suffered 
discrimination. Despite all the benefits this bill will provide, 
however, I strongly object to violating our fiscal discipline and 
spending $21 billion of the surplus, which will ultimately make the job 
of saving Social Security more difficult.
  Next year, we've got to do better.

[[Page S12970]]

  With that, Mr. President, I wish our departing colleagues well during 
our adjournment and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________