Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11774-S11780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 1650, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Amendment No. 1851

(Purpose: To prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1851.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 1851.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Congress and the President should balance the budget
excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security
trust funds; and
(2) Social Security surpluses should only be used for
Social Security reform or to reduce the debt held by the
public and should not be spent on other programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that conferees on the fiscal

[[Page S11775]]

year 2000 appropriations measures should ensure that total
discretionary spending does not result in an on-budget
deficit (excluding the surpluses generated by the Social
Security trust funds) by adopting an across-the-board
reduction in all discretionary appropriations sufficient to
eliminate such deficit.

Amendment No. 1889 To Amendment No. 1851

(Purpose: To prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 1889 to amendment No. 1851.)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the first word, and insert the following:

PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) Congress and the President should balance the budget
excluding the surpluses generated by the social security
trust funds; and
(2) social security surpluses should only be used for
social security reform or to reduce the debt held by the
public and should not be spent on other programs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that Congress should ensure that the fiscal year 2000
appropriations measures do not result in an on-budget deficit
(excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security
trust funds) by adopting an across-the-board reduction in all
discretionary appropriations sufficient to eliminate such
deficit if necessary.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the modification of the amendment is very
minor and technical. I will tell you what it is:

It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should
ensure that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measures do
not result in an on-budget deficit (excluding the surpluses
generated by Social Security trust funds) by adopting an
across-the-board reduction in all discretionary
appropriations sufficient to eliminate such deficit. . . .

The original amendment I filed said it is the sense of the Senate
that conferees would make sure they did not dip into Social Security
funds. Now I am saying the Congress should make sure we do not dip into
the Social Security funds and, if necessary, that we have across-the-
board reductions in spending to make sure we do not touch Social
Security funds.
I have stated--and I think all of our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle have done so as well--that we do not want to touch Social
Security, we absolutely do not want to touch the Social Security trust
funds.
We are going to have a surplus next year and it is in large part, if
not totally, because of the Social Security surplus. Many have drawn
the line and said: We are not going to touch that. Maybe because of
emergencies we will spend the non-social security surplus. Those funds
may well be spent--as a result of the hurricane, agricultural
disasters, the events in Kosovo or East Timor, or whatever. There may
be some emergencies that that $14 billion is going to be spent on, but
absolutely not a dime more.
As we total all of these appropriations bills--the numbers are
growing, or at least some people are trying to make them grow. I am
saying that no matter what we do, at the end of this process, we will
have across-the-board cuts if they are necessary. Hopefully, we won't
have to. If we do our jobs, we will not need to have across-the-board
cuts.
Senator Stevens, the Appropriations chairman, said we are not going
to need the cut because he is going to make sure we come in below the
amounts necessary. He said that he will make sure outlays do not exceed
the level that would intrude upon or have us spend Social Security
trust funds. I respect that and I agree with it. But just in case I am
saying--let's go on record; let's make sure that, if necessary we will
have across-the-board cuts.
What are we talking about? I have added up all the bills. Just for
the information of colleagues, I have added up all the bills including
the Labor-HHS bill we have before us. If you add them all up, we are
about $5 billion into the Social Security surplus right now. According
to the calculations I am using, the same ones I believe CBO and OMB are
using, we are about $5 billion over. That is about $5 billion out of
$500 billion on discretionary spending. It equals about 1 percent.
I hope we can avoid an across-the-board cut. I do not think it is the
best way to govern because we should be making reductions throughout
the process. But, it may be necessary if we can not accomplish the FY
2000 appropriations without dipping into Social Security.
Incidentally, in the bill we have before us, I see we have about a $2
billion increase in NIH, about $1.7 billion more than the President's
request; we have $2.3 billion more in education spending; we have $500
million in administrative expenses in the Department of Labor, and
much, much more. There is a lot of squeezing we could do. Even if we
went to the President's numbers on a few items, we could save $3.5
billion or $4 billion.
So I hope an across-the-board cut will not be necessary. But I think
it is important we do whatever is necessary to make sure we do not raid
the Social Security trust fund. A lot of us agree with that
rhetorically, but we should make sure that each and every one of us
mean it.
I have heard some of my colleagues saying: Well, we need to make some
fixes in various areas such as Medicare, to correct some of the
mistakes made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I will just say that
there are many on this side of the aisle who are willing to make some
adjustments in Medicare. We understand that some of the assumptions and
some of the guesstimates were inaccurate and fell disproportionately on
some different areas. So we are willing to make some adjustments.
Medicare is an important issue and I am very disappointed that the
administration would not work with and support the Bipartisan
Commission on Medicare, to make significant, real reforms that would
help save Medicare long term. The idea that the administration is going
to save Medicare by putting an IOU into the Medicare fund, is baloney.
It is false, it is misleading, it is deceptive, and it does not do
anything to save Medicare.
My colleagues have just talked about introducing a proposal that will
greatly increase Medicare spending. We are willing to make some
adjustments. I do not use the word ``fix'' because you are not going to
fix it with a few Band-Aids.

A lot of us are somewhat knowledgeable on the issue, and we are
willing to take the bipartisan efforts of the Breaux Commission and put
together some positive solutions to help save Medicare for several
years. Maybe we can only do a Band-Aid this Congress.
Frankly, I think we could and should do more. Certainly this Senator,
and others on this side of the aisle are willing to work toward that.
It is the administration that has been unwilling to dedicate itself to
saving Medicare and as a result they have withdrawn their support of
the Medicare proposal that was chaired by Chairman Breaux and
Congressman Thomas.
Regardless, I hope we can lay aside the partisan guns and ask
ourselves what we need to do to fix the system? I know Senator Kerrey
of Nebraska worked on that commission and did some outstanding work.
Frankly, I think there are many of us who want to help fix and save
Social Security, not just apply a few Band-Aids to alleviate a few of
the problems. We are willing to try to work to help fix the entire
system.
In working on these various appropriations it has become apparent
that there is no limit to the appetite of some members of this body to
spend money. Democrats yesterday offered about $3 billion of additional
spending on the Labor-HHS bill that is already growing by tremendous
amounts. Chairman Specter has already come out with an amount that was
$2.3 billion over last year. Obviously, no matter what is reported out
of committee, it is not enough, so we have to have billions more.
I think the appropriations process is getting a little faulty when we
start appropriating so many years in advance. I do not quite subscribe
to some of the games that are being played. And how much money can we
move forward? We are seeing this happen time and time again.

[[Page S11776]]

Incidentally, the administration's budget had $19 billion in forward
funding. And now, evidently, the process will come out closer to $19
billion or $20 billion, but that is still not enough.
I know the Medicare fixes are going to cost money. My point is, I
already said, before we have the add-ons, we are $5 billion into the
Social Security trust funds. We are going to have to make those
adjustments in the conferences in the next couple weeks. It is going to
have to happen. It is going to have to happen by people working
together. If, for some reason, these conferences come out and exceed
the amount and raid Social Security, we should have across-the-board
reductions to stop it, to make sure we do not raid Social Security.
Maybe with the momentum for popular programs and we can't say no--if
we do not have the collective will to say we are going to vote down and
vote no on some of these appropriations bills, then let's set up a
mechanism to say the bottom line is, if these amounts are so large that
they actually raid Social Security, we are going to have to say no by
having across-the-board reductions.
I hope that is not necessary. I do not expect it to be necessary. I
think when it is all said and done, and the budgeteers finally start
scrubbing these numbers--the CBO and Budget Committee--Democrats as
well as Republicans will say: Wait a minute, let's limit the appetite
of growth in spending and make sure we do not raid Social Security.
That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a sense of the Senate.
Frankly, I was considering budget language that would implement it.
Senator Stevens has pointed out he will make a budget point of order
that it is legislation on appropriations. But at some point we are
going to have to get serious and say we are not going to touch Social
Security.
At this point, I offer this sense of the Senate. I hope 100 Members
of the Senate will support it. I am hopeful we will not need it, but we
will have it if necessary to make sure--absolutely sure--that we do not
touch the Social Security trust funds in our spending programs. Let's
make absolutely positive that does not happen for the fiscal years 2000
and 2001 or for the foreseeable future.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened, with interest, to the comments
made by my colleague from Oklahoma. I read his amendment. All I can say
is I will use a term that is very popular out in the Midwest: It is
like closing the barn door after you let the horse out.
I would have to ask my friend from Oklahoma--he's part of the
Republican leadership--I wonder if he has talked to himself lately.
I wonder if he has talked to the other Republican leaders.
This is a great sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but the fact is, the
Republican leadership has already dipped into Social Security. Don't
take my word for it; take CBO's word for it. They have already dipped
into it.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Let me finish a couple of things, and then I will. We
will get into a dialogue on this.
Mr. NICKLES. I want the Senator to be factual.
Mr. HARKIN. ``GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus, CBO
Cites Planned Use of $18 Billion.'' This was in the paper yesterday:

There it is. They already have dipped into Social Security. We have
already used up the non-Social Security budget of $14 billion,
according to CBO. Actually, it was by $19 billion, but that included
about $5 billion that was in the tax scheme they came up with, which
the President vetoed. So we get that back. We are about another $15
billion into Social Security already.
Again, this is a great sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The fact is,
though, the President sent a budget this year that was balanced, that
met all our needs. I might have wanted to add a few things here and
jiggle a few things there, but there were some penalties on tobacco
companies in that budget. But, no, the Republicans, they don't want to
penalize the tobacco companies, oh, no. Hands off the tobacco
companies. We can't penalize them. But what we can penalize are the
elderly on Social Security. They can pad the budget on the Pentagon.
They added more to the Pentagon budget than what the Department of
Defense even asked for. We have been playing all these shell games all
year, moving money around.
Well, we have a plan, and we have had a plan, to be able to balance
the budget, fund these programs by not dipping into Social Security but
by penalizing the tobacco companies that fail to reduce teen smoking.
It seems to me we could beef up our efforts to reduce Medicare waste
and abuse. There is $13 billion right there, by the latest estimates.
How about legislation that would save money by reducing student loan
defaults and cutting excessive administration fees that we pay to banks
for student loans? How about reducing some corporate welfare? How about
closing some special interest tax loopholes?
No, no, the GOP, the Republicans don't want to do that. They want to
cut education and health care. Oh, yes, and the earned income tax
credit; that is their latest scheme. I see in the paper this morning
that their frontrunner for the Presidency, Governor Bush of Texas,
couldn't even swallow that one. He said: What are the House Republicans
doing? He said: I am against balancing the budget on the backs of the
poor. Obviously, House Republicans want to do that; evidently, a few
Republicans over here, too, want to use the earned income tax credit to
pay for their schemes and for the faulty budgeting they have done.
I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I may come up with a second degree.
I guess he has already second degreed it. We can second degree it
again. We will have a vote on that. I think we need a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that we send the Republican leadership back for
remedial math so they can add things up a little bit better.
I yield to my friend from Oklahoma, having said that; I yield for a
question anyway.

Mr. NICKLES. Let me make a couple of comments.
Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator want me to finish and yield the floor?
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator doesn't mind.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, don't take my word for it. Read the
CBO's letter, dated August 26, almost a month ago. Things haven't
gotten any better. You can read it in the newspapers. You can add it
all up for yourselves.
This is what they have done, all these schemes. Now they are going to
designate the census as an emergency. Thomas Jefferson could have told
you there was going to be a census in the year 2000, but they think it
is an emergency.
I said they want to delay the tax cut for low-income Americans, the
one program that helps get people from welfare into work, the earned
income tax credit. They want to cut that down to pay for their schemes
and their tax cuts for the wealthy. They are using two sets of books--
CBO books, OMB books, one or the other, whichever make it look good on
any one day or the other. They want to spread one year's funding over 3
fiscal years. They propose to defer approximately $3 billion in
temporary assistance for needy families, TANF block grants, from fiscal
year 2000 to 2001.
The schemes go on and on and on, all because, it seems to me, the
Republicans looked at the Clinton budget that was sent down this year,
which was balanced, which moved us ahead in the areas of education and
health, which moved this country forward but had some penalties on
tobacco companies and some offsets, as we call it around here, which
means we pay for some of this by penalties on the tobacco companies. It
is obvious to me the Republicans said, no, we can't touch the tobacco
companies.

[[Page S11777]]

All year we have been having this jiggling going back and forth and
back and forth about where they are going to come up with the money to
fund the extra $4 billion that they put onto the Pentagon. Where are we
going to come up with the extra money to pay for their tax breaks for
the wealthy? So on and on, we get these schemes; they keep bouncing
around.
Now we are told that defense, I guess, is going to be an emergency.
That is the latest scheme. The defense bill is now going to be an
emergency bill, but there is no emergency out there.
As I said, you can have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which says
we should adopt an across-the-board reduction if we don't have a
balanced budget. But quite frankly, why don't we have some penalties on
the tobacco companies? Rather than cutting health care for the elderly,
rather than cutting education for our kids, which his sense of the
Senate would do, why don't we have some penalties on the tobacco
companies for their failure to reduce teen smoking? CBO told us that
would raise, if I am not mistaken, about $6 billion. There is $6
billion we could get right there for teen smoking.
That is where we are. I find it odd, kind of amusing, kind of
bemusing, I guess, that the Senator from Oklahoma, one of the leaders
on the Republican side, would offer this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. As I said, they have already dipped into Social Security.
Now he wants to close the barn door.
All I can say is, too little and too late. I think the Senator from
Oklahoma needs to have some remedial math.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the article from which
I quoted.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, September 30, 1999]

GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus--CBO Cites Planned Use
of $18 Billion

(By Eric Pianin and Juliet Eilperin)

On the same day House Republicans launched a new attack
charging Democrats with ``raiding'' Social Security to fund
spending programs, congressional analysts revealed that the
GOP's own spending plan for next year would siphon at least
$18 billion of surplus funds generated by the retirement
program.
Yesterday's report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office seemed to undermine a concerted GOP effort to blame
President Clinton for excessive spending and gain the high
ground in the high-stakes political battle over Social
Security. Indeed, only hours before the report was released,
House GOP leaders unveiled a national advertising campaign
vowing to ``draw a line in the sand'' in opposing Democratic
spending initiatives that they said would eat into the Social
Security surplus.
But in a new analysis, CBO Director Dan L. Crippen shows
that lawmakers writing the spending bills that would fund
government next year have already used up billions of dollars
of funding beyond what they were supposed to spend under
existing budget restrictions.
As a result, he shows, lawmakers will have to dip into the
projected government surplus next year of $167 billion to
fund programs at the level they are targeting. Because almost
all of that surplus will be created by extra money rolling
into the Social Security program, Crippen suggests that as
much as $18 billion will have to be drawn from the retirement
program.
This is up from an August CBO estimate that showed Congress
on the way to spending $16 billion of the Social Security
surplus, but it does not include the extra spending lawmakers
are likely to approve for hurricane and earthquake relief,
restoring cuts in Medicare and other needs that could drive
the number even higher.
The country has more than enough surplus funds to
accommodate the new spending plans under consideration on
Capitol Hill, but the CBO numbers are likely to sharpen the
intensifying political debate over Social Security. Although
the government has routinely tapped Social Security to
fund other agencies in years past, both parties have
elevated protection of the retirement program to the
highest priority this year.
``What the Republicans are protesting in their ad campaign
they already are guilty of themselves, and have been for two
months now,'' said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the
Ranking House Budget Committee Democrat who requested the CBO
study. ``They're . . . invading the Social Security surplus,
and these are conservative numbers.''
But one GOP lawmaker said the CBO numbers are premature
because Congress has yet to complete work on all the 13
spending bills, implying that the numbers could change. ``To
somehow suggest that CBO says the funding level is going to
be this or that for fiscal year 2000 is completely
hypothetical,'' said Rep. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member
of the Budget Committee.
GOP lawmakers remained defiant yesterday. ``Under no
circumstance will I vote to spend one penny of the Social
Security surplus for anything but Social Security,'' House
Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Tex.) said during a media event
dubbed ``Stop the Raid.''
Although Clinton and congressional leaders have agreed to a
three-week extension of Friday's budget deadline in an effort
to iron out their differences over sensitive spending issues,
the two sides still appear to be far apart on numerous
issues. If anything, the GOP may be forced to accept even
more spending--and to dip further into Social Security--to
accommodate Clinton.
By far the biggest fight is likely to be over the huge
labor, health and education spending bill, which trims or
guts many of Clinton's education initiatives, including his
call for the hiring of 100,000 new teachers. The Senate began
debating its version of the bill yesterday and voted 54 to 44
to kill an effort by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to restore
funding for the hiring of more teachers. Instead, senators
approved a plan providing $1.2 billion that states could use
for hiring teachers or other education goals.
The House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to vote
today on what the administration considers a far more
draconian version of the bill, and there is certain to be a
major dustup not only on funding levels but also on how
Republicans intend to pay for the additional spending in the
bill.
In an effort to keep from drawing on Social Security, House
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) outlined a plan to delay
the earned income tax credits to the working poor to save
$8.7 billion from the bill next year.
Republicans defended the measure, saying that it would
encourage better monthly planning by the beneficiaries. But
critics said it would create undue hardship on people
struggling to stay off welfare, and senators are balking at
the idea.
Hastert has been under pressure from some of his House
colleagues not to make significant concessions to the White
House, but criticism seemed to recede after the speaker
delivered an unequivocal declaration yesterday that
Republicans would safeguard the Social Security surplus.
Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff John D. Podesta, who
addressed Democratic lawmakers yesterday morning, called the
GOP's spending approach ``crazy'' and said ``the budget
process is headed toward chaos.''
Overall, Congress made little progress in completing work
on the overdue spending bills. Faced with opposition from
both Democrats and antiabortion Republicans, House leaders
were forced to postpone a vote yesterday on the foreign
operations spending bill.
The agriculture budget bill was also held up, a GOP leaders
scrambled to line up enough signatures to force it out of a
contentious conference committee. Yesterday, Democrats as
well as several Republicans accused the GOP leadership of
shutting down the committee in order to kill a provision
lifting trade sanctions on Cuba.

Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. I tell my colleague from Illinois, I will be very brief,
a couple comments.
I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Gregg and Gramm as original
sponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Very briefly, we don't have to debate all the budget
assumptions.
My colleague pointed out a lot of things he has read in the paper
that different people have tried. The earned income tax credit,
frankly, needs to be reformed. About 24 percent of that program is
waste and fraud. It needs to be reformed, but we are not going to do
it. I am probably the biggest proponent of reforming the program, but I
have already said it shouldn't be done in this bill and it will not be
done in this bill. It is not in the Senate bill. You haven't seen it;
you are not going to see it in the conference report. At least that is
my intention.
The Senator mentioned a few other things. My point is, we don't have
to play games. He mentioned tax cuts. We don't have a tax cut in this
bill.
When it is all said and done, let's not raid Social Security. The
Senator said we are going to have to cut education. We have more money
in the bill that is pending than the President requested for education.
Even if we had an across-the-board cut to make sure we didn't touch
Social Security, we would still have more than the President requested.
There is $500 million more than the President requested in this bill
for education, and if we had an across-the-board cut, it still comes
out. There would still be more money than the President requested, and
almost $2 billion more than last year. My colleague said: Hey, the
horse is out of the

[[Page S11778]]

barn. Well, it is not out of the barn. We have a lot of horses in the
barn. Big horses are still there, such as the Defense bill, Labor-HHS.
Those are two bills that are expensive. Most of the other bills are
coming in at last year's level, maybe a little less. There are big
increases in Labor-HHS and in the Department of Defense. Those are not
out yet. Defense is close to being finished.

If Defense and Labor-HHS, Commerce-State-Justice, and HUD, come in
too high--we do not know yet because they haven't been reported out,
but if they raid Social Security, let's cut everything across the
board. That is what this says. I hope they don't. I absolutely believe
if I had my say-so, they would not. But I am just one person.
I think if the conferees show some restraint, and if we show some
restraint on Labor-HHS, on the Department of Defense, and on the
remaining bills, we don't have to touch Social Security, not one dime.
But if, for some reason, we are not able do it, with the Agriculture
bill for instance, the Agriculture bill emergency funding, as
designated has blown from $6 billion to $8.7 billion; it grows by $1
billion every few days. I question that. I may vote against it. I think
it has grown too much.
I have a lot of farmers in my State who are going to be quite upset
when I vote against it, but I may well because I think it is getting
ridiculous how much we are spending. Even if we do, that will be
classified as an emergency; but I don't care if it is called emergency
or regular outlays. If it starts dipping into Social Security, this
resolution says let's cut all spending enough to make sure we don't.
Are we going to draw the line and stop at a certain level or not?
Let me make one other comment because we have heard a lot of
discussion on Medicare. President Clinton's budget proposal proposed to
freeze hospital payments. How many of us have had hospitals coming up
here and saying: You have cut too much? The President's proposal was to
cut it more. Nobody has talked about that. My colleague says President
Clinton's budget was balanced. It was not. The President's budget,
according to CBO, still raids Social Security by $7 billion in 2000. I
am saying, no, let's not let Congress do it, or the President; let's
not do it. But if we have to, let's have an across-the-board cut and
cut everybody a little bit.
Right now, the projections are that maybe it would take 1 percent if
we don't show a little restraint. We can show a little restraint. We
can save a measly $5 billion out of $500 billion of appropriations that
have not been passed. We can do that, and we should. Absolutely. I am
going to be disgusted if we don't do it. We used to have Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings that provided for an automatic sequester if we didn't meet
certain targets. I prefer that we not touch Social Security, but if we
do, let's cut across the board so it is a small percentage.
I urge my colleagues to seriously consider that and, hopefully, pass
this resolution when we vote next week.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator and I do agree we
should not raid Social Security. But I think it already has been under
some of their proposals. That could be open for debate. The Senator
says let's make an across-the-board cut if at the end have gone
overboard. I made a list of some of the things we could cut, such as
$13 billion in Medicare fraud and abuse; $6 billion in tobacco penalty;
$2 billion in student loan guarantees, as fixes that we can make; $10
billion in corporate welfare; $4 billion cut in Defense to get just to
the DOD request. That is about $35 billion. Why don't we take some of
that money, if we have to, rather than cutting education and community
health centers? That is what the Senator from Oklahoma would propose,
if I am not mistaken.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, my colleague has made several references
about Republicans cutting education. I have called him on it in the
past, and I am calling him on it again. The budget we have before us
increases education by $2.3 billion. If you took what I said, cut 1
percent, that increases education from $35 billion to $37 billion. And
that is a $2.3 billion increase. So I keep hearing him say Republicans
are cutting education, and it has grown every single year.

I think he needs to stay with the facts. If you adopted this
draconian proposal, you would reduce the growth of education from maybe
$2.3 billion to $2 billion, which is still a big growth. So I want to
make clear there is too much rhetoric that is too inaccurate which says
Republicans are cutting education, when education is growing by over $2
billion in this bill.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, the last time I checked, the
Republicans do run the House of Representatives. Their education budget
is below that. Ours is up a little bit, but you know what happens when
you go to conference. And who runs the conference? The Republicans. I
am saying, we may be up in the Senate, but the Republicans run the
House and they have cut it down below. That is my point.
The Senator said education was up. But under the Senator's scenario
of an across-the-board cut, obviously, education would be cut, as would
community health centers and Head Start, because it would be across the
board. I am saying, if we want to have a balanced budget, which we do,
where do we cut?
Why won't the Senator accept penalties on the tobacco companies? The
CBO gave us scoring of $6 billion just from penalties on tobacco
companies for not reducing teen smoking to the level they said they
were going to do. That is $6 billion right there. Yet the Senator
doesn't seem to be willing to even entertain that as a possible source
of revenue. No, he wants to cut across the board.
So, again, this debate will continue, obviously, for the remainder of
the fall as we get into the final crunch on our bills around here. But
it seems to me that to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we do
an across-the-board cut, without looking at some other things--as I
mentioned, there are $2 billion in student loan guarantee fixes we can
make, and the tobacco penalty I talked about, or bringing Defense back
down to the DOD request. There are a whole bunch of things we can look
at that will still let us increase Head Start and education, community
health centers, all the things that meet human needs and invest in the
human resources of our country, rather than doing it as the Senator
from Oklahoma has suggested.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to change the mood a little
bit and wish all of my colleagues a happy new year. Here we are on
October 1, a new fiscal year. I wish to say it is a pleasure to be in
the Senate debating the spending bills for our Nation, and it is a
pleasure to have the resolution brought by my friend, the Senator from
Oklahoma.
I have to agree with the Senator from Iowa; it is hard for some
people to keep a straight face when the Congressional Budget Office
reported just 2 days ago that the Republican leadership in the House
and Senate is already $18 billion into the Social Security trust fund,
and we are considering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says, by
all means, we are never going to touch the Social Security trust fund.
I don't think we can pull that off with a straight face. I think the
American people are going to see through that. I think they understand
what is happening. They understand we have not met our new year's
deadline of October 1 and passed our spending bills.
But very few Congresses ever do, in all fairness. What is different
about this Congress is, here we are on October 1 and we don't have a
clue how to finish. We don't have a dialog between the President and
Congress to try to bring us to a reasonable, bipartisan conclusion.
Instead, as my old friend, Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin, used to
say: ``Too many people are posing for holy pictures here.'' They want
to be known as the person who ``saved'' this or that.
I think the American people expect candor and honesty from us. Candor
and honesty would tell us several things. First, if we are so desperate
now that we want to do across-the-board cuts in spending, why in the
world were we ever discussing a $792 billion tax cut? That was the
Republican mantra a few weeks ago. We have so much money, we can give
away $792 billion. Well, the American people were

[[Page S11779]]

skeptical and folks on this side of the aisle were also skeptical, and
they dropped the idea. But now they come back and say we are in such
dire straits that we have to pass this sense-of-the-Senate resolution
to discipline ourselves, keep our hands off Social Security.
Some of the schemes the Republican leaders are coming up with to try
to end this budget debate are, frankly, not only greeted with
skepticism by Democrats, but even by fellow Republicans. Gov. George W.
Bush of Texas, yesterday, took a look at the House Republicans'
proposal to end this budget impasse, and this is what he said:

I don't think they [Congress] ought to balance their budget
on the backs of the poor. I am concerned for someone who is
moving from near poverty to middle class.

The nominal front runner for President of the Republican Party has
tossed congressional Republicans overboard because of their extremism
and their budget policy. What is it they want to do? They want to cut
the earned-income tax credit--a credit that goes to 20 million low-
income working Americans to help them get by. That is their idea. Some
would argue that is painless. I don't think anyone among the 20 million
families would. They understand that can hurt a family when they are
trying to meet the basics.
The balanced budget amendment which is being debated on the floor--
and the reason I came over--passed in 1997, established caps on
spending and wanted to make some cuts in areas such as Medicare to save
money to move forward a balanced budget. It was a sensible thing to do.
I supported it. I did not believe that I was in any way voting for the
Ten Commandments. I thought instead I was voting for a reasonable
legislative attempt to bring this budget into balance.
But I will tell you that at this point in time I don't believe
Senators on either side of the aisle can ignore what is happening
across America when it comes to health care.
I support the legislation introduced by Senator Daschle this morning.
I have my own bill, introduced a few days ago, which is very similar
which tries to come to the rescue of many of these hospitals across
America.
I am worried about the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is pending
now before the Senate because it suggests we can ignore problems such
as this. And we certainly cannot.
As I travel across my State, I find hospitals are really in trouble,
particularly teaching hospitals. In Illinois, we have about 66 teaching
hospitals. These are hospitals where young men and women are learning
to be the doctors of tomorrow. It is not the most cost-efficient thing
to do at a teaching hospital. You have to take extra time to teach, and
many insurance companies don't want to pay for that now that Medicare
is not reimbursing adequately for it. Hospitals come to me--St. Francis
Hospital in Peoria, St. Johns Hospital in Springfield, hospitals in
Chicago, and all across the State--and say: If we are going to meet our
teaching mission, we need help.
I think Senator Daschle is right. Before this Congress pats itself on
the back and goes home, we need to address this very serious problem--
this problem that could affect the quality of health care, the quality
of future doctors, and not only teaching hospitals as educational
institutions but also because they take on the toughest cases. These
are the academic and research hospitals which try to institute new
procedures to deal with disease and try to find ways to cure people in
imaginative ways. We don't want to in any way quell their enthusiasm
and idealism. Unfortunately, these Medicare cuts are going to do just
that.
I might also add that these teaching hospitals in my State account
for 59 percent of charity care. In other words, the poorest of the poor
who have no health insurance, who are not covered by Medicaid, who may
be working poor, for example, come into these hospitals. They are taken
care of free of charge.
If the Senator from Oklahoma thinks we can just walk away from this,
make a 1-percent cut and go home and accept that as the verdict of
history, I think he is wrong. I think, frankly, whether you are in
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, or Illinois, these hospitals are in
trouble. Rural hospitals are in trouble, as well.

These hospitals have seen dramatic cutbacks in reimbursement. In my
part of the world, these hospitals are a lifeline for farmers who are
injured in their farming operations or in traffic accidents. These
small hospitals keep people alive. If we turn our backs on them and say
that because we are enmeshed in some theoretical budgetary debate we
can ignore what is happening to these hospitals, we are making a
serious mistake. Some of the hospitals may close, some will merge, some
will be bought out, some may keep the sign on the door that you have
seen for years, but what is going on inside the hospital is going to
change. It is going to change for the worse instead of the better.
When we consider sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that try to strike
some position of principle--and I respect the Senator from Oklahoma for
his point of view--I say: Let's get down to the real world.
Let's be honest with the American people in the closing days of this
budget debate. And I sincerely hope we are in the closing days of this
debate. Let's tell them what is going on here.
We are no longer awash in red ink as we have been for 20 years. We
are starting to move toward a surplus. The economy is strong. We feel
good about that. We would borrow less from Social Security this year,
if it is held to $5 billion, than probably any year in recent memory,
and all of it will be paid back with the interest. We would use it to
meet emergency needs of America--such as the farm crisis the Senators
from Iowa and Nebraska have shown such leadership on--and we would be
responsive to these crises at a time when what is at stake is, frankly,
a major part of our economy and a major part of America.
Second, we would address the health care needs of this country. If we
think we can go home and beat our chests about how pure we were in the
budgetary process and don't lift a finger to help these hospitals that
are struggling to survive, we will have made a very serious mistake.
I salute the Senator from Iowa and other colleagues, such as Senator
Boxer of California and Senator Murray of Washington, who have tried to
make sure this Labor-HHS bill does not lay off 29,000 teachers at the
end of this school year. This bill would do it. The bill that some
Republican Senators are so proud of would lay off 29,000 teachers
across America because of cuts that are made in that bill and 1,200
teachers in my home State of Illinois.
Is that how we want to welcome the new century? Is that how we want
to tell our kids we are going to greet a new generation, by laying off
teachers and increasing class size? No.
There are important priorities for us to face. I sincerely hope
before we get caught up in some theoretical debate, as Senator Harkin
has said, about whether the horse is out of the barn, that we talk
about whether or not we are going to protect Americans in their homes
and protect them in their communities.
I support Senator Harkin's remarks. I support--maybe one of the few
times--Gov. George W. Bush, who has reminded his congressional
Republicans to keep their feet on the ground and to realize there are
real people out there who, frankly, are going to be injured and damaged
and their lives changed if congressional Republicans have their way in
this budgetary process. Governor Bush is on the right track. We will
stay tuned to see if he stays there.
I sincerely hope before we leave and before we think we have
completed our responsibility that we will pass a budget we can explain
to American families is in their best interests.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I voted against Senator
Hutchinson's amendment to transfer $25 million from the budget of the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to increase funding for community
health centers. I am not opposed to expanding the services provided by
community health centers--to the contrary, I believe they are an
important element in health care delivery in West Virginia.
However, Mr. President, the National Labor Relations Board is also
important to West Virginia. During the first half of this century,
labor conditions in West Virginia coal mines, and the resulting growth
in unions, led to a virtual state of war, in some instances.

[[Page S11780]]

Having an orderly process in place to resolve these kinds of issues,
such as that managed by the NLRB, helps to keep management-labor-union
relations on a civilized path.
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency created
by Congress to administer the National Labor Relations Act, which is
the primary law governing the relationship between unions and employers
in the private sector. The NLRB has two principal functions: first, to
determine, through secret ballot elections, if employees want to be
represented by a union in dealing with their employers; and second, to
prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by either employers or
unions. The NLRB investigates violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, seeks voluntary remedies to violations, and adjudicates
those businesses that refuse to comply with the Act.
Opponents of the NLRB have been eager to eliminate it in recent
years, but have not had much success in doing so on the merits.
Instead, they have been attacking its financing. The NLRB's budget has
not kept pace with inflation over the last six years, and, even though
the case load has decreased since last year, overall, staffing levels
have fallen at a greater rate. The NLRB had 6,198 unfair labor practice
cases pending initial investigation at the end of Fiscal Year 1998. The
Hutchinson amendment, according to the NLRB, would have caused them to
process six thousand fewer cases, and cut all staff training and
information technology activities in Fiscal Year 2000.
I support community health centers. They provide a vital service to
low income persons who cannot afford health insurance. However, in my
opinion, it is not practical to underfund one valuable program in order
to fund another. Rather, I would prefer to see the funds come from
other sources less disruptive to agencies as valuable to our nations'
laborers as the NLRB.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Georgia.

____________________