[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:

       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.

  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.

                          ____________________