[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13197-S13201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments 
made on the floor relative to where we are going with the budget. I 
specifically want to talk about the issue as it relates to a committee 
of which I am chairman. The committee I chair is the Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee. The President of the United 
States opted to veto our bill. In his veto message, his representation 
was that we simply had not spent enough money. That was essentially 
what it came down to.
  His representation on the other bills he has vetoed is also that we 
have not spent enough money as a Congress. In fact, in listening to the 
President and the proposals he puts forward, we find he is talking 
about spending billions and billions more than what the Congress 
suggested we spend.
  The Senator from North Dakota has come to the floor and said that the 
Republicans have used gimmicks, that we have forward-funded, which we 
have, which is not a gimmick; it has been done in the Congress before 
on many occasions; that we have declared items emergencies, which we 
have. In fact, the Senator from North Dakota supported, I suspect 
rather strongly and with enthusiasm, the declaring of the agricultural 
situation as an emergency. It has been declared an emergency every year 
since I have been here, so I don't know why it is an emergency. But it 
has been declared an emergency. It is a way of funding agricultural 
issues, and there are severe strictures in the agricultural community 
today.

  The Senator from North Dakota didn't mention where we are going to 
get the extra money the President asked for. Where are we going to get 
it? The Republicans have allegedly used gimmicks so we could not take 
it from Social Security--which we have not, by the way; we have managed 
not to take any money from Social Security. Where is the President 
going to get it from? The President is going to get it from Social 
Security because the only other option is to raise taxes and we have 
already seen a vote in the House of Representatives--415-0 I think was 
the vote--saying they were not going to raise taxes. So that is not an 
option. It is not even on the table.
  The President makes these proposals: We are going to raise spending 
here; we want more money here; we want more money here. The Democratic 
Members, on the other side of the aisle, say: Hooray, hooray, more 
money for this, more money for that. When Republicans say, Isn't that 
coming out of Social Security? there is just this silence from the 
other side of the aisle.

[[Page S13198]]

  Of course, it is coming out of Social Security because we have no 
other resource from which to draw those funds than Social Security. So 
there is a lot of gamesmanship coming from the other side of the aisle 
on this issue. There always has been, on Social Security, of course. 
There are literally generations, now, of Members of the other side of 
the aisle who have demagogged the issue of Social Security. As many of 
us have tried to put forward substantive Social Security responses, we 
have found this President, who allegedly wants to address Social 
Security, has failed to do so in a substantive way. But we hear now he 
wants to raid Social Security to pay for his new spending and they will 
not even admit to that. The statements from the other side of the aisle 
are hollow on that issue, to say the least. But let me go back to the 
specifics of this proposal.
  The President has vetoed the Commerce-State-Justice bill, which has 
under it the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, and the State 
Department. It also has a lot of agencies such as the Small Business 
Administration, FCC, FTC, SEC, elements of Government which are 
critical to the day-to-day operation of the Government and to our 
maintaining a sound economy and safe society. But the President has 
vetoed this bill. Why has he vetoed it? Basically, he has vetoed 
it because we did not spend enough money in some of the programs he 
wanted and because we did not include language he wanted in a couple of 
areas. He has vetoed it specifically on the allegations we do not spend 
enough money on the COPS Program.

  Let's look at that for a second. This Congress authorized 100,000 
cops to be put on the street under the President's request, in a 
bipartisan way. We have paid for every one of those police officers in 
this appropriations bill. Not only have we paid for every one of those 
police officers, we paid for an additional 10,000 or 15,000 police 
officers in this bill. So we can go up to 110,000 or 115,000 police 
officers under this bill.
  What does the President say? He says that is not enough. He says he 
wants 130,000 to 150,000 police officers, even though there are only 
100,000 authorized. That in itself is a bit of a reach, to ask for an 
extra 30,000 to 50,000 officers when they are not even authorized. But 
what is really inconsistent about this, and what really shows what a 
sham statement this is, the administration, although they have the 
money for 100,000 officers since we paid for 100,000 officers in our 
bill, has only been able to get out of the door enough money to fund 
60,000 officers. In other words, down there in the White House they are 
now asking for another 30,000 to 50,000 officers when they cannot even 
undertake the day-to-day administrative event of paying for the full 
100,000 we gave them in the first place. They are still 40,000 officers 
short from the original authorized number.
  It takes 18 months to get this through the system, to get an officer 
on the street after they have agreed to pay for that officer. So they 
are literally a year and a half away at the minimum from even reaching 
the 100,000 level. So we said, OK, we agree more officers on the street 
makes sense so we will go over the 100,000 number; we will give you 
another 10,000 officers. Then the President vetoes it, saying he hasn't 
enough, when his administration has not even put out on the street the 
first 100,000. How blatantly political can this administration be? How 
hypocritical can this administration be? They did not veto this bill 
over police officers who were not there. They vetoed this bill because 
they want to put out a press release that they are vetoing bills. It 
had nothing to do with the actual substance of how many police officers 
we have on the street or how many police officers we paid for because 
we paid for every police officer they put out there, and we are willing 
to pay for another 40,000, another 55,000 if they could put them out. 
But they cannot because they are not able to do it. It is pure hocum, 
this language that they want more police officers, and they vetoed it 
over the lack of funding in this account. It is just a pure political 
thing.
  Then they said they vetoed it because they did not get enough money--
no, not because they didn't get enough, because we did not give them 
the money for the U.N. We did not give them the money for the U.N.
  Every dollar they asked for, for the U.N., is in this bill, every 
dollar for U.N. fees is in this bill. Every dollar for arrearages is in 
this bill. Yes, there is not the full money they asked for for 
peacekeeping, but every other account in the U.N. is fully paid for in 
this bill. Why can't they get it out? Why can't they send it up to the 
U.N.? Why can't they pay England the arrearages we owe them? Why can't 
they pay France the arrearages we owe them? That is where this money 
goes. It doesn't stay in the U.N. Most of it flows to other countries 
that have picked up our obligations. Because they have a bunch of 
activists down at the White House who are focused on a very narrow 
issue of international Planned Parenthood and are unwilling to release 
the money to fund the world organization known as the U.N., which is a 
major international organization, because they are willing to hold up 
funding over an extraordinarily narrow issue dealing with Planned 
Parenthood lobbying internationally. It does not have anything to do 
with the United States.

  Not only that, but the language which they are holding up the funding 
over is language which was in existence, which this Government operated 
under during the Reagan administration and during the Bush 
administration. It is, to say the least, genuinely innocuous language. 
But they have activists down there at the White House, activists who 
are willing to take down the U.N. and our relationship with the U.N. 
over this narrow piece of language.
  It is unbelievable they would blame the Congress, which has fully 
funded the arrearage issue, when it is just a small group of extreme 
activists serving at the White House who are tying up the release of 
this money. The money is there. The money is physically there. Every 
dollar, every cent, is on the table and ready to be sent to the U.N. to 
pay the arrearages. The only thing that stops us is, I suspect, one or 
two internationalists, activists at the White House who have decided to 
make a cause celebre for themselves over this really obscure piece of 
language which, by the way, as I mentioned, was the law of the land in 
the United States for the Reagan and the Bush administrations.
  So the idea the Congress has in any way interfered with the ability 
to pay the arrearages is, again, pure hocum. This is a classic example 
of the situation where the individual shoots his parents and throws 
himself before the court and asks for mercy because he is an orphan. 
The White House has decided to shoot its parents--in this case the 
U.N.--and then claim it has no role in the event and is pure when, in 
fact, it is the reason we cannot pay the arrearages. That is just pure 
hocum.
  We now know the two major reasons they vetoed this bill; the COPS 
reason has no substance to it, and the U.N. language is their problem, 
not our problem. We put the money in. They are the ones who are holding 
this up.
  Then they listed a whole series of little different items, one of 
which I found most interesting. In the Senate we took up two different 
hate crime proposals to move this bill through so we could actually get 
it to conference. Then in conference it became absolutely clear there 
was no way an issue such as hate crimes, as massive as it is, could be 
handled in our conference. We had two competing ideas. So we put them 
aside and sent them back to the authorizing committee. Ironically, the 
amendments were offered by the chairman and ranking member of the 
authorizing committee, so one would hope the authorizing committee 
could straighten this issue out and we, as appropriators, would not 
have to straighten it out.
  What does the White House say? It says it wants the hate crimes 
legislation on this bill. This is an appropriations bill. This is a 
bill that funds the FBI, DEA, and the INS. Those are real law 
enforcement issues. They are going to undermine the ability of the FBI 
to do its job, the ability of the INS to do its job, the ability of the 
DEA to do its job, so they can get hate crimes legislation? They are 
going to undermine the ability of U.S. attorneys to do their jobs, the 
ability of U.S. marshals to do their jobs, the ability of the U.S. 
court system to do its job, so they can get hate crimes legislation? 
They are going to undermine the FEC, FTC, and the FCC so they can get 
their hate crimes legislation?
  How outrageous. What sort of priority is this from this White House?

[[Page S13199]]

 What sort of priority puts language on hate crimes ahead of the FBI, 
DEA, INS, ahead of the U.S. attorneys, ahead of the U.S. marshals, the 
FCC, FEC, FTC--what type of priority is it when they know in order to 
get that language they have to go through an authorizing committee 
anyway? It is beyond belief they would put at risk the law enforcement 
agencies of this country in order to get hate crimes language, which in 
the first place is a State issue.
  I note the State of Wyoming--the Senator from Wyoming is on the 
floor--is doing one heck of a job in pursuing that issue at the State 
level.
  It is first a State issue. The irony of it is, he is undermining the 
entire law enforcement community of the United States because he wants 
a new criminal act on the Federal books.
  Is there a total disconnect at the White House? There appears to be. 
The veto of this bill--and there are a lot of other miscellaneous 
points--but the veto of this bill has nothing to do with the substance 
of this bill. It was done purely for political reasons so the President 
could look as if he was in charge or he could look as if he was 
standing up to the Congress.
  The practical effect of vetoing this bill, however, is to undermine 
law enforcement across this country, to make it impossible for us to 
pay our U.N. arrearages, and to make it extremely hard for these 
agencies, which are so critical to the functioning of our country, to 
continue to function in an effective way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Wyoming 
for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Idaho, the chairman of the majority policy committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I especially thank the Senator from Wyoming 
for coming to the floor this morning to discuss with all of us some 
very important issues and building a perspective that I do not think 
the American people hear or have an opportunity to read or understand 
as it relates to the politics inside the beltway and what is good or 
not so good for the American people.
  We just heard the chairman of a key appropriations subcommittee who 
spent the last 6 months crafting an appropriations bill to run a major 
portion of our Government while the President was out traveling around 
the world and traveling around this country not engaged and not focused 
on the budget. When the appropriations bill to fund these key areas of 
Government finally arrived at his desk, the President vetoed it and 
said: I didn't get my way.
  I am always frustrated by an executive branch of Government that does 
not come to the Hill and sit down with us and work out our differences 
in the proper forum but chooses to set the stage of politics over the 
key issues that are substantive when it comes to law enforcement and 
safe streets and safe communities for our families and our country.
  I have struggled with this President over the last several months, 
especially when he decided to allow terrorists out of prison. That is 
exactly what happened. I do not know of any other way to say it. This 
President personally decided that he was going to offer clemency to 
convicted terrorists. What were they convicted of? Violation of Federal 
firearms laws. That is law enforcement. Those are Federal laws violated 
by people who killed others and violated Federal explosive and firearms 
laws. And this President says he is for law enforcement by putting more 
cops on the street, then he totally demoralizes or destroys the very 
foundation of law enforcement by saying: Arrest them and put them in 
prison and I will let them out because it is ``politically correct'' to 
do so.

  Shame on you, Mr. President; shame on you and your politics at this 
moment because somehow you cannot have it both ways, at least I hope 
you cannot, but you are trying. You are also trying to make the use of 
a firearm a major political issue. Yet you offer clemency to those who 
violate the very laws you ought to be enforcing. Shame on you, again, 
Mr. President.
  The Senate worked its will and did an excellent job with those 
appropriations bills. I do not deny the executive branch the right to 
participate. They have a legitimate role to play in the shaping of the 
budget. But in the final analysis, it is the Constitution that says it 
is the right and the appropriate role of the Congress to appropriate 
moneys, and it is the responsibility of the Executive to administer 
those moneys within the policy and the framework established for the 
Congress of the United States.
  Mr. President, I am pleased you are finally going to lay off Social 
Security. Remember what our President said 2 years ago? Save Social 
Security; don't spend a dime of the surplus. Then this year in his 
state of the budget message he says: Well, gee, there is so much money 
there, why don't we spend a little of it. We will save 60 percent and 
we will spend the rest over the next 15 years and, oh, by the way, I 
also want to raise taxes during a time of unprecedented surpluses in 
our country because I have so many great ideas that I want for people, 
and I want to spend all this money and I want to raise your taxes to do 
it and I also want to spend some of the Social Security money to do so.
  Thank goodness the Congress, the Republican Congress, stood up and 
said: No, Mr. President. The House passed a provision to provide a 
lockbox so that Social Security surpluses would be dedicated to Social 
Security and would pay down the liabilities of Social Security and 
strengthen the ability of that great system to support its obligations 
in the outyears.
  We tried to pass it in the Senate, and guess who opposed it. The 
Democrats. They filibustered it and would not allow a vote and 
constantly said: We are all for Social Security. Why would they not 
guarantee that its moneys would be assured a lockbox provision? The 
American people said they wanted it. The seniors of America, 
recognizing the importance of Social Security to their very existence, 
said that is the right thing to do, but the President said: No, I want 
to spend about 30 percent or 40 percent of the Social Security surplus 
over the next 15 years.
  Just in the last month, it is fair and important to say the President 
has finally agreed that he will leave Social Security surpluses alone 
and, thank goodness, Mr. President, you have agreed with us because 
that would have been a phenomenal fight because we were committed and 
dedicated, even though it was filibustered in the Senate by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to protect the 
Social Security surplus. Period. End of statement.
  Let's talk about the rest of the budget we are battling. A couple of 
weeks ago, I was amazed to see the President kind of quietly come out 
and then not so quietly say: We need more money to spend besides the 
record surpluses we have.
  I have served Congress and the people of Idaho longer than I want to 
admit--19 years. I am amazed that only last year did I begin to see a 
slight surplus and this year a substantial surplus. Never at a time of 
surplus have I ever heard of a President asking for a tax increase. But 
this President did because of all these great new social ideas, that 
somehow is going to help people by taking more money away from them and 
then giving it back to them in politically correct ways.
  I am not sure that ever helps the American family to take money away 
from them and then try in some form to decide what is the right way to 
give it back. We said: No, Mr. President.
  Finally, just this last week, after having tried for well over 6 
months, the President is slowly backing away from the tax idea, 
although yesterday he came through the backdoor again and said: Well, 
let's adjust some fees and let's see if we can come up with a little 
more revenue. Shame on you, Mr. President. America's taxpayers are 
being taxed at an all-time rate--high rate. While you are saying it is 
only a tobacco tax, a tax is a tax is a tax.
  And, of course, while I do not smoke, and I wish that others would 
not--there are many who do who should not--yet we are going to tax 
them. Well, we are not going to tax them because I don't think this 
Congress will stand for it.
  I have always understood the politics of surplus is more difficult 
than the politics of deficit spending. When I

[[Page S13200]]

first came to Congress in 1980, we had deficits, and they grew very 
rapidly over fights on budget priorities. But it was not until 1994, 
when the American people said: Enough of deficits. I'm sorry; a 
Democrat-controlled Congress is out of control, with a President who 
wants to spend more money, and we're going to change those dynamics, 
and they elected a more conservative Congress, a Republican Congress.
  We said we were going to balance the budget by the year 2002 and we 
would shape a process that would take us there. Thank goodness for a 
strong economy and for a fiscally responsible Congress and a monetary 
supply that stayed in sync. We are now at a balanced budget. We had it 
last year. We now have a balanced budget and surpluses this year. And I 
see more wrangling over budgets and spending priorities than I have 
ever seen in all my years here.
  I understand the politics of surplus are difficult. But why shouldn't 
we be giving back to the American people some of their hard-earned 
money? It is their money. But, no, we have had a President who has 
insisted on constantly spending it. We put a marvelous tax package 
together this year, going right at middle America, to enhance the lives 
of our citizens, to improve the condition of America's families and 
communities, and this President vetoed it because he wants to prescribe 
how the money gets spent because somehow we have a White House that 
says: I know better. I know I can outthink the American family. I can 
shape a school system better than the American family and the American 
community because somehow I abide by this unique knowledge of knowing 
how to do it better.
  I disagree with you, Mr. President. Thank goodness, we have a 
Congress that does. That does not mean we are not going to work out our 
differences. The President has a right to participate. But I do not 
think he has a right to do one thing and say another, and do another 
thing and say something else. And that is what he has done with law 
enforcement. That is what he is doing in education. That is clearly 
what he has done on Social Security. That is what he is now trying to 
do with the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for acquiring this time 
to speak on these key issues. It is very important the American people 
see the difference. Politics should not be the business of hypocrisy. 
It ought to be the business of fact. Saying one thing and doing another 
should not stand. Yet we have had about 7 long years of it with this 
President.
  Mr. President, I say no to those kinds of attitudes and reactions, 
and I think it is important that some of us speak out on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it has been an interesting morning to listen to the 
Senator from North Dakota talk a little bit about the economy and about 
spending. There are interesting figures in terms of growth. I do not 
happen to have one of the charts. I guess it is getting to be where you 
have to have a chart to speak, but I hope not.
  Let's go back to the second half of the 1970s, when we had a 
Democrat-controlled Government. All spending grew 12.2 percent 
annually; nondefense discretionary spending grew 15 percent.
  In the first half of the 1980s, all spending grew 10 percent, but 
nondefense discretionary spending was only 2.8 percent. Defense was 
where the money went--10 percent.
  Then we scoot on down to currently. All spending grew in the second 
half of the 1990s, with this Republican-controlled Congress, 2.8 
percent totally; nondefense discretionary spending was 1.4 percent.
  If our goal over time is to control the size of Federal Government, 
if our goal is to be efficient, if our goal is to control spending, 
then these are the numbers; these are the figures. Really, spending is 
the key.
  Of course, our friend on the other side of the aisle talked about 
having the largest tax increase in the history of the United States--
which was true in 1993 with the Clinton tax increase. But what we 
really ought to talk about is the size of Government.
  There is a great deal of talk about going into Social Security. Let 
me read this short letter dated September 30 from the Congressional 
Budget Office.

       Dear Mr. Speaker: You requested that we estimate the impact 
     of the fiscal 2000 Social Security surplus using CBO's 
     economic and technical assumptions, based on a plan whereby 
     net discretionary outlays for the year will be $592 billion.

  That is the cap we put there.

       CBO estimates this spending plan will not use any of the 
     projected Social Security surplus for the year 2000.

  We keep talking about that differently. That is the way that is. So 
one of the things that is interesting--I will not take long today, but 
we have differences of view here. We have differences of view in the 
country. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what the political 
system is about: To bring together people who have different views 
about attaining goals, even, indeed, different views about goals. So we 
ought to have legitimate arguments. That is what this system is about.
  But we ought not to spin it off into things that we are not really 
able to document. We ought not to spin it off into motives and 
different kinds of political things. We ought to talk about the basic 
differences we have, and then decide whether we want more Federal 
Government or less; decide whether we want to spend more, send more of 
the decisions back to the State and local governments as opposed to one 
size fits all on the national level.
  These are the real issues.
  Mr. President, we ought to be talking about some of the positive 
things we have done this year.
  Surplus: 2 years in a row with no deficit, for the first time in 42 
years. Pretty good stuff. We even have a non-Social Security surplus 
this year. We reduced Federal spending as a percentage of growth.

  Unfortunately, we still have taxes as the highest percentage of gross 
national product we have had since World War II. Those things are hard 
to reconcile. Growth now is a little over 2 percent, compared to 10 
percent in the early 1980s.
  So these are the kinds of things we have done. We passed tax relief 
here. Unfortunately, the President chose to veto it.
  Our budget goals, of course, for the rest of the year are: No 
Government shutdown; no new taxes; pay down the debt; protect Social 
Security. We are going to do those things. We are going to do it in the 
next 10 days.
  Social Security: We talked a lot over the last few years about ``save 
Social Security first,'' but we have a plan to do that with individual 
accounts, taking the money off the table and letting it belong to the 
people who have paid it in, to earn additional money by having it 
invested in equities.
  Those are the things we are prepared to do and have done.
  Education: We have done a lot this year for education. We have 
increased spending for education, more than the President asked for. We 
have more flexibility in educational decisions so that parents and 
school boards and States can make those decisions.
  I can tell you what is needed in Greybull, WY, is quite different 
than what is needed in Pittsburgh. And that is the way it ought to be. 
We have done that. We have done a number of things.
  National security: For the first time, more money is going to defense 
than we have had before. We have had more deployments over the last few 
years in foreign countries than ever, and yet this administration has 
reduced the dollars that go there. We have changed that.
  Health care, the Patients' Bill of Rights: We passed it here. 
Hopefully, we will get it passed.
  A balanced budget on Medicare changes: We are working on that.
  Rural provisions in Medicare: We will get that done.
  Financial modernization is ready to come to the floor for the first 
time since the 1930s.
  We have a lot of things to talk about and be proud of in this 
session. I am very pleased we have done it. Despite the partisan 
rhetoric and the tactics, we have had achievements in the budget, in 
Social Security, in education, in

[[Page S13201]]

defense, in tax relief, health care, and in finance and banking. I 
think we ought to move forward and make the most of those advantages 
that we have had.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

                          ____________________