[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 44 (Friday, March 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2988-S2989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGETS

  Mr. THOMAS. I wanted to take an opportunity in morning business, Mr. 
President, to comment just a little bit on this whole business of 
budgeting; I guess more specifically, supplemental budgets and the 
problems that are there.
  First of all, with respect to the budget that is before the Senate, I 
congratulate the leadership and the Appropriations Committee for the 
good work that they have done. I know that it is difficult. I think 
they have done a good job in seeking to offset the costs.
  But I really believe that one of the things we need to change in the 
Senate is our method of budgeting, our method of supplemental budgeting 
particularly. First of all, in the broader sense, I am hopeful that we 
will consider this year the idea of a biennial budget, that we will 
come in at the beginning of the 2-year period, put down a budget, and 
have 2 years under which to operate so that in the second year we can 
do more of what we should be doing, and that is oversight of the 
expenditures of that budget.
  I understand that under that circumstance there would be supplemental 
budgets, that you would probably be more likely to have one if you had 
the 2-year budget, but I think that is the thing we ought to be doing. 
Now we spend such a high percentage of our total time doing budgetary 
things and quite often bringing in things that are nonbudgetary on to 
budget bills. I think that is a mistake.
  We are set up to have a Budget Committee. We are set up to have an 
Appropriations Committee that deals with the expenditures. We are set 
up to have committees of jurisdiction that are responsible for the 
policy. Unfortunately, many times we find that issues on policy come to 
the appropriations, particularly on supplementals, without ever going 
to the committee of jurisdiction, and we find ourselves with policy on 
Appropriations Committee measures, which I think is inappropriate.

  There again let me say, I congratulate those who have been involved 
with this bill, because I think they have done a good job--something 
around $2 billion, I believe, that has been generally offset. And I 
know how difficult it is to keep the amendments from coming. Everybody 
sees that as an opportunity to put on there the things they have been 
seeking to do.
  We talk about having surpluses; we talk about what we are going to do 
with those surpluses. The real issue before us, particularly if you are 
interested in keeping the size of the Federal Government under control, 
is spending and spending caps.
  I am pretty proud of what has happened here in the Senate, in the 
Congress, over the last several years, when we have been able to have 
some spending caps, and we have been able to at least hold spending at 
a relatively level. Yet we have a surplus, and we begin to think, ``Oh, 
we can do this.'' If you really want to keep control over the size of 
the Federal Government, if you really want to encourage governance to 
take place more at the State and local level, then we have to be very 
observant, I think, of spending caps.
  There is a justification for emergency spending, certainly, when we 
have things like storms and earthquakes and so on, but emergency 
spending can also result in all kinds of things being called 
``emergency spending,'' and the result is we spend more than our caps.
  So I think most people in Wyoming believe that $1.6 trillion is 
plenty of money. That is what our spending is. In the natural event, we 
spent last year about $20 billion in emergency spending, much of which 
would be very hard to really honestly identify as emergency spending. 
It was an ``emergency'' way to have more spending, encouraged by the 
administration, encouraged by this President. And his budget is going 
to cause us to consider that even more, where the President has cut 
down spending that needs to go on, to put in new spending in the hopes 
that the total spending will be increased.
  So, Mr. President, I just think that is the wrong way to go. I do, 
again, appreciate our chairman trying to hold and offset spending. I 
voted against the supplemental bill last year even though obviously 
there are always things there that you would like to have happen.
  I think we need to look very closely at this bill to make sure that 
spending is in fact offset or that it is indeed emergency spending.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share some general 
feelings about our budgeting system and to urge that we take a very 
close look at what we do in terms of our total spending and how it has 
been impacted by these kinds of supplemental budgets.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2989]]

  The distinguished Senator from Alaska is recognized.

                          ____________________