[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11098-S11100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENACTMENT OF CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS, HEALTH, TAX, AND MINIMUM WAGE 
                 PROVISIONS--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to read some headlines from 
newspapers across the United States commenting on our work:

       ``Congress' Pork Roast'' The News and Observer (Raleigh, 
     NC)
       ``Imaginary Numbers Game: Congress Pork-Barrel Is Eroding 
     The Surplus'' The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
       ``Congress Rolls Out The Pork-Barrel Election, Surplus 
     Bring Free Spending'' The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville)
       ``Costly Delay: Politics Prompts Capitol Hill Feeding 
     Frenzy'' Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, MA)
       ``Bellying Up To A Pork Barrel'' The Christian Science 
     Monitor
       ``Dollars Flying In Congress' Flurry Of Final Spending'' 
     USA Today
       ``Congress Has Last-Minute Pork Feast'' Chattanooga Times
       ``Spending Bill Fat With Pork: Both Parties Engaged In 
     Budget-Busting Spree'' The Houston Chronicle

  I am saddened by these headlines because of the damage such words do 
to the reputation of our governmental institutions. But I am also 
angered by them.
  Why? Because we are deliberately, of our own free will, spending the 
surplus and jeopardizing future prosperity.
  With this year-end spending blitz, Congress and the President have 
blown away the last remaining vestiges of fiscal discipline that, for a 
brief, very brief moment in time, had put the brakes on the spending 
frenzies that all too often engulfed our Capitol and contributed to our 
huge national debt, which stands today at $5.7 trillion.
  Tens of billions in pork barrel and special interest spending have 
been packed into these appropriations bills, as well as numerous 
provisions pushed by Capitol Hill lobbyists that the American public 
will not know about until after these bills become law. In fact, Dan 
Morgan of the Washington Post aptly characterized this well-
coordinated, last minute lobbying offensive as ``high noon at Gucci 
Gulch.''
  I regard such a spectacle as demeaning to our Government.
  U.S. News & World Report, October 23, 2000:

       Nearly two weeks past its promised departure date, Congress 
     remains in Washington, locked in a standoff with the White 
     House and mired in its own disarray over the Federal budget. 
     And as the dealing crackles up and down Pennsylvania Avenue 
     and across the Capitol Rotunda, the shenanigans are going to 
     cost a staggering amount of money. By some estimates, if the 
     spending increases continue at the current pace--nearly twice 
     the rate of inflation--the non-Social Security surplus could 
     be eliminated in less than 5 years.
     
                                *   *   *   *   *


[[Page S11099]]


       Feast day. The $650 billion figure must be stacked against 
     the famed 1997 balanced budget deal. Under that agreement, 
     the government was supposed to spend $541 billion in 
     discretionary dollars this year. They should miss the mark by 
     a mere $100 billion or so. The Republicans will outspend 
     their own budget resolution passed this spring by about $50 
     billion. Election-year politics, an irrepressible instinct 
     for pork, and a unique moment of plenty have combined to 
     create a kind of fiscal third-base coach waving everybody 
     home to score whatever spending project his heart desires

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The spending comes in big chunks and small. In Alaska, 
     thanks to Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, 
     taxpayers will spend $176,000 to help the Reindeer Herders 
     Association. Stevens set aside a total of $43 million for 
     other Alaska transportation projects. Alabamians may be 
     forever grateful for the $1.5 million set aside to help 
     restore the venerable Vulcan statue in Birmingham, a 56-foot, 
     iron rendition of the Roman god of fire and metalwork. Built 
     as an entry for the 1904 World's Fair, it won the grand prize 
     in the Palace of Metallurgy. Stewart Dansby, executive 
     director of the Vulcan Park Foundation, says officials at the 
     organization talked to Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby about 
     helping to fund the renovation. ``Why are federal tax dollars 
     being spent on a statue in Birmingham?'' asks Dansby. 
     ``Because Vulcan is symbolic of American industrial strength. 
     He represents the working person and . . . . These are 
     federal dollars that would have gone somewhere.''
       There is ample evidence of that. The huge surpluses 
     projected over the next decade--$268 billion next year--may 
     have forever changed politics in Washington. The result is a 
     kind of giddiness. ``The surplus is burning a hole in our 
     pocket. It is affecting our judgment,'' says Republican Sen. 
     Phil Gramm of Texas

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Senators from both sides of the aisle have been treating 
     themselves to hundreds of spending programs of peculiar, and 
     perhaps dubious, value. Examples:
       Harry Reid has secured more than $14 million for five 
     projects in Nevada, including $2 million to enable airline 
     passengers to get boarding passes at their hotels.
  Who I see here.

       Tom Harkin added more than $7 million to next year's 
     Agriculture bill to fund ``integrated cow resources 
     management and agriculture-based industrial lubricants 
     research.''

  Perhaps Senator Harkin can enlighten us on that.

       Robert Byrd has earmarked $5.25 million for a new dorm at 
     the National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, a 
     facility run by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
       Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the appropriator in chief, scored 
     $400,000 for a parking lot in Talkeetna--a slice of the $43 
     million in special projects he pulled out of the 
     Transportation bill.
       Pete Domenici a nominal budget hawk, claims that the 
     $200,000 he got for a railroad museum in Las Cruces ``could 
     improve transportation for the entire nation.''
       Richard Shelby opposed Federal involvement in peanut 
     allergy research in 1998, but he has secured $500,000 for the 
     same in fiscal year 2001.

  Mr. President, I have included the top 10 list on several occasions. 
One of my favorites was insect rearing, bug raising for fun and profit. 
There are many others that my colleagues may be entertained by, but 
also American taxpayers may be somewhat disturbed by.
  The Washington Post, Eric Pianan, October 25:

       Rules created more than two decades ago to impose fiscal 
     restraint on Congress have broken down, helping fuel a year-
     end spending spree that is resulting in billions of extra 
     dollars for highways and bridges, water projects, emergency 
     farm aid, school construction and scores of other projects.
       Many budget hawks have derided the binge as a typical 
     election year ``porkfest.'' But key lawmakers and experts on 
     federal budgeting say another less visible problem is that 
     the law aimed at reining in such spending has been 
     effectively gutted by the congressional leadership.
       In particular, lawmakers are increasingly ignoring the 
     annual congressional budget resolution, the document that is 
     supposed to guide spending and tax decisions in the House and 
     Senate every year. In years past, lawmakers might miss their 
     budget targets by a few billion dollars, but now they are 
     busting the budget by as much as $50 billion this year.
       This year's budget resolution, for instance, called for 
     about $600 billion in spending this fiscal year on defense, 
     health, education, and other non-entitlement programs. When 
     Congress and the White House finally complete their 
     negotiations . . . the total will be $640 billion or more. . 
     . .
       The decision to ignore the budget resolution is only one 
     sign of a general breakdown of fiscal discipline on Capitol 
     Hill, according to fiscal experts. Congress and the Clinton 
     administration are also ignoring spending caps, both agreed 
     to as a part of the 1997 legislation to balance the federal 
     budget.
       Congress's enthusiasm for real budget constraints began to 
     wane almost as soon as deficits gave way to surpluses 
     beginning three years ago. Until then, the specter of 
     towering annual deficits of as much as $290 billion had 
     fostered a series of hard-nosed policies, including a 1990 
     budget deal that for the first time imposed caps on 
     spending and required Congress to offset tax cuts by 
     reducing spending or raising other revenues.
       The emergence of surpluses has left it to lawmakers to 
     produce budget plans that would impose spending discipline 
     with an eye to the time when Medicare and Social Security 
     will begin to run short of money. But that has not happened.

  All of this maneuvering and horse trading predictably has been 
conducted behind closed doors, away from the public eye, bypassing a 
process whereby all of my elected colleagues should evaluate the merit 
of each budget item.
  The big winner in this budget ritual is not the American people but 
bigger Government and bigger bank accounts for special interests.
  As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, ``Facts are stubborn things,'' 
and the facts swirling around the fiscal year 2001 budget are 
disheartening to anyone who believes in smaller Government, fiscal 
restraint, and the responsibility of elected officials to do everything 
possible to ensure prosperity for our children and grandchildren.
  A few months ago, Republicans outlined our spending plan, calling for 
about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending. That is 
spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest 
on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623 
billion in discretionary spending.
  But the unsavory mix of Members adding billions upon billions more in 
special interest spending, in what the Associated Press described as a 
``bipartisan spending bazaar,'' combined with a President determined to 
squeeze as many taxpayer dollars as possible as the price for letting 
everyone go home, led to a ``compromise'' only Washington could love. 
In the end, bidding up the final spending tally in the range of $640 
billion to $650 billion, give or take a few billion, but this explosion 
of spending does not seem to bother the White House. Just last week, I 
was amused to read the words of the President's Chief of Staff, who 
said in a speech that at the end of this budget process, ``We will have 
a budget that is fiscally responsible.''
  It is a mind-boggling comment, at odds with the facts.
  For the fiscal year 2001, we have already spent at least $30 billion 
past the discretionary spending limits set by the budget resolution for 
this year. When all is said and done and all the bills have been 
properly reviewed, we could very well spend up to $50 billion more. 
What is going on here?
  The Congress has not always acted this way. As a matter of fact, in 
1997 and 1998, when we still had deficits, we spent less money than the 
actual budget caps. Since the era of surpluses began in 1999, the 
Congress and the President have taken this to mean they now have a 
license to spend freely without any adherence to limits. In fact, a 
recent Cato Institute study of congressional budget habits found that 
from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000, domestic spending grew by 
more than 14 percent in real terms.
  Our continuing irresponsibility is threatening to consume a 
substantial portion of the projected on-budget surpluses before they 
are realized. Do any of my colleagues genuinely believe we will 
actually spend less next year?
  According to a CBO report released this month, even if we are to save 
all of today's projected surpluses, we still face the possibility of an 
uncertain long-term fiscal future as the aging of our population and, 
thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, the lengthening of our 
lifespans lead to surging entitlements costs.

  The CBO projected the three main entitlements programs--Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will rise from roughly 7.5 percent of 
gross domestic product today to 17 percent by the year 2040, absent 
structural reforms. One line in particular in the report should grab 
the attention of my colleagues. It reads:

       Projections of future economic growth and fiscal imbalances 
     are quite sensitive to assumptions about what policymakers 
     will do with the budget surplus that are projected to arise 
     over the next decade.


[[Page S11100]]


  Remember, today's official budget surplus projections assume 
discretionary spending will grow for the next 10 years at the rate of 
inflation, which makes the conclusion of a recent Concord Coalition 
report even more alarming. The report warns ``that if discretionary 
spending continues to grow at the same rate it has in recent years, 
two-thirds of the projected 10-year non-Social Security surplus would 
disappear.'' That will translate into a reduction of the non-Social 
Security surplus by $1.4 trillion.
  While the White House was the chief engineer pushing the spending 
bonanza, my party, yet again, let pass a golden opportunity to showcase 
our fiscal discipline and resolute devotion to debt reduction. We could 
have supported spending bills with no hard-earned taxpayers' money 
spent at the behest of individual lawmakers without authorization and 
adequate congressional review, but we did not.
  As we are close to the end of this Congress, we must look to the next 
Congress, indeed the next President, to address many of the pressing 
problems that plague our Nation. The real question that faces us is 
whether we will end the Washington partisan gridlock and achieve 
results for the American people on a range of critical issues, such as 
prescription drugs, HMO reform, Social Security reform, and military 
reform.
  I strongly submit that to break the gridlock that cripples 
Washington, we must break the stranglehold of the special interests on 
our political process.
  For example, we have been trying for nearly 2 years to get a decent 
health care bill of rights passed into law. The purpose of the 
legislation is to provide every American who is caught in a squeeze 
play between employers' HMOs and their doctors with some basic rights 
designed to ensure they get the quality health care they have paid for 
and deserve. Yet the trial lawyers and the health care industry lobbies 
have succeeded in derailing any hope of reaching a meaningful 
compromise. So Americans, average Americans, will go on suffering at 
the hands of health care bureaucracy decisions often guided more by the 
bottom line than the best interests of the patients.
  We must have courage to say no to the special interests who pay the 
soft money fee to gain access to the high political councils while the 
average taxpayer is left out in the cold. It will not be easy breaking 
our addiction to soft money.
  Roll Call newspaper reports that in a recent survey of 300 senior 
corporate executives conducted by the Tarrance Group:

       Nearly three-quarters said pressure is placed on business 
     leaders to make large political donations, and half of the 
     executives said their colleagues ``fear adverse consequences 
     for themselves or their industry if they turn down requests'' 
     for contributions.

  And 79 percent said the campaign finance system is ``broken and 
should be reformed.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. I will make the rest of my remarks 
brief.
  Such pressure for campaign contributions seems to be paying 
dividends. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 1992, 
soft money accounted for 18 percent of the political parties' overall 
fundraising. Today, that figure has more than doubled to ``40 percent 
of everything the parties raise.''
  We are going in the wrong direction, and it is undermining our 
democracy. That is why I pledge to bring campaign finance reform to the 
Senate floor when the Senate convenes next year.
  Let me be clear; no matter which party prevails in November, our 
democracy will be the loser unless we clean up our political process. 
Without real change in how we conduct our politics, cynicism will 
prevail and continue to eat away at our public square, fueling even 
lower voter turnout and turning more and more Americans away from 
public service.
  Mr. President, this is too high a price to pay. That is why I am 
committed to clean up the budget process and the way we fund campaigns. 
Please join me in this process.

                          ____________________