[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22952-22962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the resolution by title.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) making continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Presiding Officer explain what is 
before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. House Joint Resolution 68 is before the 
Senate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, that resolution is the 
continuing resolution that will keep the Government running for the 
next 3 weeks based on the 1999 spending figures; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will not interpret the content of 
the legislation. However, that is the topic of the resolution.
  Does the Senator seek recognition?
  Mrs. BOXER. I do. I yield myself such time as I may consume from the 
Democratic leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think we have reached a moment on the 
floor of the Senate that ought to be marked. Very sadly, it is a moment 
of failure for this Republican Congress, a moment of failure after 
promising a moment of success.
  Why do I say that? There were three promises made by the Republican 
leader to the people of the United States of America. The first promise 
was that the spending bills, all 13 of them, would pass on time and 
within the context of the balanced budget; the second promise was that 
the Republicans would not touch the Social Security trust fund to pay 
for their programs; the third promise was that they would stay under 
the spending caps that were approved before.
  In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, all three of those 
promises are being broken. In the lead story in the New York Times 
today, we read about the shenanigans going on in trying to get this 
budget accomplished.
  I have proudly served on the Budget Committee in the Senate for 7 
years; in the House, I served on the Budget Committee for a total of 6 
years. I know there have been times when neither side has performed as 
it should. However, I never, ever remember it being this bad. I never, 
ever remember it being this chaotic. It is very sad because the rest of 
the country is doing great fiscally. This is the best economic recovery 
we have had. In my lifetime, these are the best statistics I can 
remember for low unemployment, low inflation, high home ownership. 
Things are going really well. Yet in that context, when things are 
going really well, we cannot get our act together around here. I have 
to say it is a failure of Republican leadership.
  What is before us today is a bill that will continue the functions of 
Government for the next 3 weeks because, out of the 13 spending bills, 
only 1--only 1--has received a signature from this President. 
Therefore, we have to have a continuing resolution or the Government 
will shut down. I understand that. But let me simply say this. I think 
the reason my Republican friends are in so much trouble--and I hope 
some of them will come to the floor because this is their continuing 
resolution; I assume they are on their way so we can have a little bit 
of a debate here--I think the reason the Republicans are in so much 
trouble is, they have locked out the President, they have locked out 
the Democrats, and they are coming up with plans that are out of touch 
with reality and with what the American people want.
  Let me give an example. Everyone around here says children are a 
priority and education is a priority. Yet the last bill my Senate 
friends have looked at in the Appropriations Committee, the one they 
saved until last, is education. HHS--Health and Human Services--
includes education.
  Why do I say the Republicans are out of step with the American 
people? I say it based on three simple facts.
  There is nothing in that bill, not one penny, to continue to put 
teachers in the schools and to lower class sizes--nothing, not a penny, 
not even to continue what we started last year when Senator Murray and 
the President of the United States of America put before us a very 
important program to place 100,000 teachers in the schools.
  Last year, as a result of our getting together, we compromised at 
30,000 teachers. To be exact, 29,000 teachers have been hired under 
this program. There is not one penny in this education bill to continue 
that program. We were hoping we would have funding to continue the 
29,000 and go forward with the rest of the 100,000. We know that when 
there are smaller class sizes, kids do much better. We know that. It is 
a fact. It is indisputable. Yet in their Republican budget, not only do 
they not expand this program but they do not put one penny in to pay 
for the 29,000 teachers all over the country who are already in the 
classroom. This Republican budget is a pink slip for 29,000 teachers. 
How does that comport with what the American people want? How does that 
comport with the reality the American people expect from us? It does 
not.
  Another thing the American people say they want from us is to rebuild 
our crumbling schools. You do not have to have a degree in education or 
sociology to understand our schools are falling down. What kind of 
message is it to our children when we say how important education is in 
this global marketplace and their parents are telling them how 
important it is, and they walk into school, and what happens? The 
ceiling tiles are falling down on their heads. I saw it in Sacramento, 
CA. I saw it in Los Angeles County. Yesterday, the President was in a 
Louisiana school. He saw the same thing. We need to make sure we 
rebuild our crumbling schools. That is another issue the American 
people want resolved.
  Third, after school; I have brought the issue of after school to the 
Senate for many years. I am very pleased to say we are moving forward. 
But we have thousands and hundreds of thousands of children on waiting 
lists for afterschool programs.
  Why are they important? Because we know in many cases parents work 
and kids get in trouble after school. We know when they have good 
afterschool programs, they learn, they get mentoring, the business 
community comes in, the police community comes in, they learn about the 
dangers of drugs, they can get help with their homework, and they do 
important things. I have been to some fantastic afterschool programs, 
and I have seen the look on the kids' faces. I tell you, they are doing 
well. Studies show they improve their academic performance--by 80 
percent in one particular program in Sacramento--if they have 
afterschool.
  What does the Republican education budget do for after school? It 
comes in

[[Page 22953]]

$200 million below the President's request. What that means is that 
387,000 children will be denied after school.
  What I am saying is, we have a budget situation that is out of touch 
with what the American people want. I am just giving three examples--
teachers in the schools, school construction, afterschool programs. 
Those are just examples. Guess how they pay for it. As I understand 
it--and it keeps changing every day--essentially they tap into the 
Social Security trust fund. They do it in a dance, and a bob and a 
weave that is impressive, but I understand it.
  What I understand they are going to do is take $11 billion in 
authorizing funds out of the defense budget--OK?--and put it into 
education. Follow me on this. And then, as soon as they have done that, 
they declare that $11 billion of defense spending is an emergency. That 
is the way they get around the caps.
  There is only one problem: It comes out of the Social Security trust 
fund. All emergency spending comes out of the Social Security trust 
fund. So, yesterday what was not an emergency in the military budget 
today will become an emergency, and the Social Security fund will be 
raided. I have to say, this is gamesmanship.
  I think what we ought to do is pay as you go around here. If we want 
to spend more, we ought to pay for it. That is why the President's 
budget had well over $30 billion of offsets to handle the new 
requirements. It doesn't dip into the Social Security trust fund, and 
it doesn't play shell games between defense and domestic priorities.
  So here we are going to have a continuing resolution to get us 
through these next 3 weeks. I truly have not decided whether I am going 
to vote for it or not because, on the one hand, I understand we are 
coming down to the end of the fiscal year and we have to continue the 
Government; on the other hand, I believe, as the Senator from the 
largest State in the Union, the way they are doing this budget around 
here is something I do not want my fingerprints on. I really do not. I 
do not approve of it. I think it is wrong. I do not think it is honest. 
I do not think it is direct with the people. I do not think it is 
fiscally responsible. I think it takes us down the road we do not want 
to go down. I don't want more smoke and mirrors. We have had enough of 
that on both sides of the aisle. We are finally getting on our fiscal 
feet. We ought to stay on our fiscal feet.
  I just want to say to my friends, I have a solution to their 
problem--because they are having problems on this. If they will open 
the door to this President and work with him on some compromises here, 
we can finish our work and be proud and go home. Will everyone get what 
he or she wants? No. That is what compromise is. But we will each get 
maybe halfway there, and we can feel good about ourselves, that we have 
reached across the party lines. This President has his strong 
priorities. The Republican Congress has its strong priorities. I think 
if they add to that the Democratic leadership here, Senators Daschle 
and Reid, and then on the House side Congressman Gephardt, Congressman 
Bonior, and the other leaders, of both sides, I think we will find we 
can do business together.
  One of the reasons I hesitate to vote for this continuing resolution 
is, as I said, I am not sure I want my fingerprints on what has 
happened so far. On the other hand, it is not too late. In the next 3 
weeks, we could open up the doors. We could have a summit. We could 
bring everyone to it. We could all lay out what we want to have happen, 
show the American people we are willing to put them in front of 
politics, and come out with something we can be proud of, a true 
education plan that is going to meet their needs, a budget that is in 
balance, both in its actual numbers and in its priorities. I think we 
can go home and be very proud of ourselves.
  I was on my feet for many hours last week over an issue called oil 
royalties. It is very interesting, in this continuing resolution, that 
moratorium on fixing the oil royalty problem is nonexistent. It is 
possible that the Interior Department could issue rules and stop the 
thievery that is going on. I hope they will do it. I really hope they 
will do it.
  Talk about needing money. We estimate that $66 million a year is 
being lost out of the coffers because the oil companies are not paying 
their fair share in oil royalties. We had a vote on this, a very close 
vote. Senator Hutchison was able to defeat me by 1 vote on the cloture 
vote, and I think the final vote was 51-47. I was unable to defeat her 
on the substance of her amendment. But John McCain wrote in and said he 
would have voted with me, which would have made it 51-48.
  I hope Bruce Babbitt is watching this and he will take advantage of 
this 3-week hiatus we have in front of us where he is now able to fix 
this problem. I hope he will do it. I really appreciate the editorials 
across the country saying we have exposed a real scam and it ought to 
be fixed. I hope, again, if Secretary Babbitt is listening, perhaps he 
will do something good in these 3 weeks and move forward to resolve 
that issue.
  Be that as it may, that is a relatively small issue compared to 
keeping this Government going. I know we will keep this Government 
going with or without my vote. We will move it forward. I once more 
appeal to my colleagues: You made three promises, you have not kept 
them. Why not open the door and see if we can help you out because you 
cannot obviously come to this decision on your own. You have not done 
the bills on time, you are dipping into Social Security, and, in 
essence, you are bypassing the caps by calling things emergency 
spending today that did not warrant emergency spending yesterday. Why 
don't we stop the smoke and mirrors and shell games? Why don't we pass 
a budget that reflects all of us to a certain degree.
  In the House of Representatives, there are only 11 votes that 
separate Republicans and Democrats. I have been over there. I was over 
there when we were in the majority. We probably had a 50-, 60-seat 
majority. The Republicans have an 11-seat majority in the House and a 
10-seat majority in the Senate. They run the place. That is the way it 
is. Even if they had a 1-vote majority, they would run the place. I 
accept that. That is how the voters wanted it. But it is kind of tough 
when it is that close to do the right thing unless we all sit down 
together.
  We have good people on both sides of the aisle. I have so many 
friends on the other side of the aisle whom I respect very much, 
including the Presiding Officer with whom I have worked on many issues. 
There is no reason why we cannot sit down in these next 3 weeks and 
find the answers and make the compromises. But we are never going to do 
it if we put politics ahead of bipartisanship. That is my plea before 
we have a vote.
  I thank the Chair very much for his patience. I know it is sometimes 
hard to sit there and listen, and he has done that in a very fine way.
  I yield the floor and, of course, retain the remainder of the 
leader's time on this side. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume from the Democratic leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
what I consider is perhaps the most important issue facing us, and that 
is the future of our educational system.
  Everywhere I go in my State people are worried about the future of 
our education system. They are worried in the inner city; they are 
worried in the wealthy suburbs; they are worried in the rural areas; 
they are worried in the upstate cities. Everywhere we go, people are 
worried and concerned.

[[Page 22954]]

  Their gut feeling, as usual with the American people, is right. They 
know we are entering a profound new time where ideas generate wealth. 
Alan Greenspan I thought put it best. He said: High value is added no 
longer by moving things but by thinking things.
  America, God bless us, does very well in this type of ideas economy. 
In fact, if one looks at probably a core sentence at the very key of 
our existence as Americans, it is competition of ideas. That is what 
the Founding Fathers fought for, that there could be a free and open 
competition of ideas, free speech, or in the spiritual sense, which is 
freedom of religion, or in a business sense which is capitalism, free 
enterprise, or in a political sense, which is democracy, all of which 
are at the core of this country.
  In general, we are doing extremely well as an economy because we 
believe in the competition of ideas. It does not matter who you are, 
from where you come; if you have a good idea, you can either go out and 
make money or become an author or professor or whatever. It works. But 
when our world is becoming so focused on the competition of ideas and 
ideas in general, we cannot afford to have a second-rate educational 
system. When I read that we are 15th, say, in math of the 25 or 22 
developed countries, or we are 18th in biology or 12th in geography, I 
worry, and I think every American worries, whether they voice it in 
these terms or in other terms.
  We face a real problem, and that is the future of our educational 
system. It is not the best.
  I can imagine a country, let's say an imaginary country, of, say, 20 
million citizens, many fewer than we have. It can be a complete desert: 
No fertile fields, no wealth in the mines, but if they had the best 
educational system and churned out top-level people, they could become 
the leading economy in the world.
  We have an imperative to create not the second best, not the third 
best, not the fourth best, but the best educational system in the 
world.
  We have pockets of excellence. I have seen them in my State. But we 
also have pockets--broader than pockets, we also have broad plains of 
schools that are not the best. I say this as somebody who is a father 
of two daughters who are both in public schools in New York City. One 
is 15 and one is 10. They are getting a good education. My wife and I 
do everything we can to see that the education is the best. But every 
parent and every grandparent and every young person worries about the 
future of our educational system.
  With the Education, Labor and HHS conference report, one of the first 
things I look at, perhaps the first, is how is it for education?
  At first glance, it does not look too bad. Funding levels are 
marginally better than last year on some of the major school programs. 
When you consider how contentious this bill can be, at first glance it 
seems this is a pretty fair, good-faith effort. But then there is the 
fine print. When you get to the fine print, it is frustrating and 
maddening. It is not a good bill for education. If we care about our 
country's future, our children and our grandchildren, we will not 
support a proposal that is as weak as it is on education.
  The most egregious item in the bill is the so-called teacher 
assistance initiative. This is our program to hire 100,000 new 
teachers. There is funding in the bill of $1.2 billion. That is all 
great, except when you read the fine print. It says this money is 
subject to authorization. To the average citizen, it means this money 
is not there at this point in time.
  We all know we are not going to authorize this program this year. So 
money for new teachers will disappear at a time when we need better 
quality teachers. I have introduced a ``Marshall Plan'' for education 
focusing on the quality of teachers. At a time when we need to reduce 
class size, what we are doing is taking away money that would now 
exist, and then we are afraid to say so.
  So we put in this chimerical program which says the money is here, 
and then it isn't. The language for this program is designed, in short, 
not to hire teachers but to fool parents; it is a bait and switch, 
because what is really going to happen to the $1.2 billion for new 
teachers is that it is going to be spent on something else. Who knows 
what it will be. It could be on anything. But it will not be on 
teachers.
  What disturbs me is that the shortage of good, qualified teachers is 
reaching crisis proportions. Half of our teachers are at retirement 
age; too few new teachers are taking their place; and in today's world, 
where the success of an individual depends more on the content of their 
mind than on the strength of their back, we cannot continue this 
holding pattern on education.
  But this proposal is not just a holding pattern. It is worse. It is a 
step backward because last year we made the initial downpayment on the 
hiring of 100,000 new teachers, and this year we are leaving cities and 
towns across the country in the lurch.
  It is a shame. It is a shame this bill makes a false promise that we 
are going to continue to fund this emergency teacher program, when we 
all know that unless the language in the bill is deleted, not a single 
dollar will be spent on new teachers.
  I would ask our Senate leadership--plain and simple--to allow us to 
vote on this language.
  There are two other problems with the education portion of this bill. 
The first is school construction--another national crisis. We have 
inner city schools that are overcrowded. We have kids in the suburbs 
going to school in trailers.
  I learned this firsthand from my own daughter when she was in 
kindergarten and went to an overcrowded school in my hometown of 
Brooklyn, NY. There were two classes in one kindergarten room on the 
day my wife and I went to Open School Day. We understood the difficulty 
because you had one class in one part of the room and one class in the 
other part of the room, and when our daughter's teacher was speaking, 
you could not understand her because you heard, in the background, the 
other teacher speaking in the other part of the classroom.
  We have students in New York who are in temporary classrooms because 
either their suburban school districts or their city school districts 
are growing or because the decrepit buildings that were built 40, 60, 
and 80 years ago are in desperate need of repair.
  Some might say, let the localities do all this. Have you ever seen 
the property taxes in localities throughout our States and large parts 
of our country? The local governments do not have the wherewithal for 
these kinds of major expenditures. So we can come up with some kind of 
rule that the Federal Government is not going to help, whereby this 
problem continues, or we can step into the lurch. I would like to step 
into the lurch.
  Our school districts need Federal help. This bill offers nothing for 
school construction and is a grievous blow to our schools and our kids.
  Last, there is no money for afterschool programs. These are programs 
that help students with tutoring and help gifted students with advanced 
learning. It is also an important part of our strategy of keeping kids 
out of trouble by keeping them in schools so they are not marching 
around the streets or the shopping malls. There is nothing in this bill 
for them.
  When I was a young man growing up in Brooklyn, I attended the Madison 
High School Afterschool Center and Night Center. I spent a lot of time 
playing basketball. I had fun. We were not very good. Our team's motto 
was: We may be small, but we're slow. But it kept me in constructive 
activity. It did not cost much. There is nothing in the bill for 
something like that.
  Again, could the local school district do this? Yes; and some are 
able to. But with property taxes through the roof in so many 
districts--in the suburbs, in the cities, in rural areas --most school 
districts say they cannot afford it and they simply let the localities 
fend for themselves.
  So there is nothing in this bill for students who need and want a 
place to go after the final bell rings.
  In sum, this bill, which on first blush does not look too bad, is a 
real disappointment. Much of the promised

[[Page 22955]]

money is ``phantom'' money, and it saddens me because our education 
crisis is anything but ``phantom.''
  The economic strength of this Nation, as I mentioned at the beginning 
of my little chat, is directly tied to the ability of our schools to 
produce young men and young women who are the best, who are innovative 
and creative and analytical, skilled in math and science and technology 
and communications.
  Just today I introduced legislation with the Senator from Virginia, 
Mr. Robb, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, which talks about how we are using 
foreign workers for the most highly skilled professions because we do 
not have enough Americans to fill those positions. Let's make sure we 
have enough Americans 5 and 10 and 15 years from now to fill those 
positions. This bill does not do it.
  In my view, we should be doing much more for our kids and for schools 
than what we would do in this bill, even if all the funding was real. 
This is the one place we should be spending more money. We should be 
spending it intelligently. We should be spending it with standards. I 
believe we should not have social promotion. I believe teachers should 
have standards and be tested and meet certain levels. But we should be 
spending it. This bill, even if the gimmicks were eliminated, basically 
treads water. With the gimmicks in it, it means we are drowning. I am 
disappointed we can't produce a bill that does more for our kids and, 
particularly, that there is funding here that we know is a phantom. The 
least we should do is make sure the 100,000 teachers provision is real 
and whole because our problems are not about to fade away.
  We need to embark on a massive effort to improve education. If the 
Federal Government can help do that, I think we should.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New York talked about the 100,000 
teachers program, the program to try to reduce class size all around 
this country and improve schools, improve learning as a result.
  I came from a markup of the appropriations bill that will provide the 
resources for various education functions. We had a discussion in that 
markup on this subject. It is the case, as the Senator from New York 
indicates, that unless something affirmatively is done, we will come to 
the next school year and 25 or 30,000 teachers across this country, 
teachers in every State, will get a pink slip saying: You are not any 
longer hired under this program.
  Last year, during the negotiation over the budget and appropriations 
between President Clinton and the Republicans and Democrats in 
Congress, a program was both authorized and funded that said it shall 
be the objective in this country to reduce class size and provide 
teachers to help accomplish that. Why? Because we know kids learn 
better in smaller classes. Does a kid have more attention from the 
teacher and more individualized instruction in a class with 15 or 16 
students than with 30 students? The answer is, yes, of course. From 
study after study, in State after State, we understand it makes a 
difference in a child's education to reduce class size.
  Unless this Congress continues to fund that effort, up to 30,000 
teachers will be fired. Isn't it the case that this program was 
authorized last year and appropriated last year, almost 1 year ago now? 
And the bill that will come to the floor tomorrow, by the way, will 
propose that we not fund that, that we decide not to fund that program; 
isn't that the case? And isn't it the case that we will have to wage a 
fight on the floor of the Senate for an amendment that affirmatively 
says: We as a country want to retain and continue this objective of 
reducing class size to improve education and improve the opportunities 
of young children to learn in schools?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota, 
he is right on the money, literally and figuratively--literally 
because, as I understand it, this proposal says they are going to use 
$1.2 billion, the amount we need to continue the program of hiring 
100,000 new teachers, but then it says only if it is authorized. The 
Senator may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the program is not 
authorized and there is virtually no chance we will authorize it this 
year. Am I right about that?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New York is correct. There is a 
circumstance in the markup document that we saw today, and that we took 
action on this afternoon, that says there will be money available, if 
authorized. But, of course, the authorization committee is not going to 
be on the floor reauthorizing elementary and secondary education. It 
sets up a circumstance where they know and we know they will not 
continue this program to reduce class size.
  How do you reduce class size? You hire additional teachers. We don't 
have a large role in education at the Federal level. Most of elementary 
and secondary education is handled locally. Local school boards, State 
governments, and others decide the kind of education system they want. 
What we have done is establish national objectives. One of our 
objectives is to say we can improve education, we know how to improve 
education, if we can devote more resources to teachers in order to have 
more teachers and reduce class size.
  Walk into a classroom bursting with 30 children. Then ask yourself, 
does that teacher have the same capability to affect each of those 
children's lives that a teacher who is teaching 15 children would have 
in the same classroom? The answer is, no, of course not. That is why 
this is so important.
  There is nothing much more important in this country than education. 
Almost everything we are and everything we have been and almost all we 
will become as a country is as a result of this country deciding 
education is a priority, that every young child in this country shall 
have the opportunity to become the best they can be.
  I walked into a school one day in North Dakota. I have told about it 
on the floor of the Senate. A little third grader--this was a school 
with almost all young Indian children--whose name was Rosie said to me: 
Mr. Senator, are you going to build us a new school? Regrettably, I 
couldn't say yes; I don't have the money. I don't have the 
authorization. I don't have the capability. But she needs a new school. 
One hundred and fifty kids, one water fountain, and two bathrooms 
crammed in a building that in large part is condemned. These kids need 
new schools. They need smaller classrooms, better teachers.
  How do we do that? We devote resources to it. If we have $792 billion 
to give in a tax cut over the next 10 years, maybe there ought to be 
some money to care about Rosie and to care about other kids crammed 
into classrooms across this country, classrooms that are too crowded, 
classrooms where learning isn't accomplished, where we know it can be 
accomplished if we have more teachers and reduce the size of the 
classroom. Isn't that the substance of this debate? Isn't that why it 
is important?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have to go to another meeting with 
folks from Binghamton, but the Senator is on the money again. We need 
to help improve our educational system. Instead of moving forward, this 
bill is a step backward on teachers and smaller class size, on school 
construction, afterschool programs.
  I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in the Senate 
to reject this bill until it does good for education. I thank my 
colleague from North Dakota for bringing forward these points so 
eloquently and so forcefully.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Eighteen minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are debating a continuing resolution 
for 3 weeks. The continuing resolution, which probably doesn't mean 
much to a lot of people, commonly called a CR here in Congress--means 
we continue

[[Page 22956]]

the appropriations level of those appropriated accounts that now exist 
for a time until the appropriations bills are debated and voted on by 
the Congress.
  Normally, we should do that by September 30, and then, by October 1, 
the new fiscal year starts. When the new fiscal year starts, the new 
appropriations bills which we have passed come into effect and provide 
the funding. Because we have not passed, finally, between the House and 
the Senate, appropriations bills from the conference reports, we don't 
have funding that is assured for the coming fiscal year. Therefore, 
there will be a continuing resolution.
  Why haven't we passed the appropriations bills coming out of a 
conference with the House of Representatives? The answer is, simply, we 
have not been able to do that because the money doesn't exist to fit 
all of the priorities in the budget that was passed by the Republicans 
this spring.
  We can have a long debate about priorities: What is important and 
what isn't; what works, what doesn't; what we should do and what we 
should not do for the future of this country. Earlier this year, we had 
a debate in part about that with respect to the budget. I said then 
that 100 years from now, when we are all dead and gone, those who want 
to evaluate what we were about, what we thought was important, what our 
priorities were, can take a look at the Federal budget and evaluate 
what we decided to invest in, what we wanted to spend money on. Did we 
decide education was a priority, health care, health care research, 
food safety, or family farmers? Go down the list; there are literally 
hundreds of priorities. One could evaluate what people thought was 
important by evaluating what they decided to put in their budget and 
then what they decided to fund.
  The two largest appropriations bills have been held until the end of 
this Congress because the money didn't exist to fund them. We have 
budget caps that everyone in this Chamber knows do not now fit. We 
finish appropriating money for defense and a number of other agencies 
and then come to the remaining appropriations bills and are told: You 
have to do a 17-percent, 27-percent, or 30-percent across-the-board cut 
in all of these other issues: education, health care, and more.
  That is not something anyone would bring to the floor of the Senate. 
So we start doing creative financing. The majority party said: We can 
solve this problem by creating a 13th month.
  That was one of the ideas last week or the week before. We can just 
describe a 13th month. If you could just have a 13th month, then you 
could move money around and pretend you had solved the problem.
  Well, the Washington Post wrote about that and said ``GOP Seeks to 
Ease Crunch with 13-month Fiscal Year.'' That didn't work real well 
because nobody knew what to call it. Of course, folks immediately 
described it as smoke and mirrors and not a very thoughtful approach.
  The Wall Street Journal wrote this article: ``GOP Uses Two Sets of 
Books.'' It describes ``double counting.'' Of course, that doesn't work 
real well either. Double entry bookkeeping doesn't mean you can use the 
same dollars twice. Some described a new accounting system using two 
sets of books. That hasn't turned out to work real well either.
  Now we have what is called ``virtual money.'' I heard somebody 
described funding for a ``virtual university'' that Governors want to 
create. I thought that was appropriate. We now have a ``virtual 
funding'' scheme for the largest appropriations bill. We will see how 
that works.
  This process, at the end of this session of Congress, is about as 
disorganized and messy as any I have seen in the years I have served in 
Congress. This isn't the way to do the Senate's work or the country's 
work. The thoughtful way to do it is to pass appropriations bills, one 
by one, during this year when they should be passed, go to conference, 
reach accommodations and compromise between the House and Senate, 
between Republicans and Democrats, between the Congress and the 
President, and then fund the programs that are important for this 
country's future.
  None of that is happening. Earlier today, the majority leader 
indicated on one of the very important appropriations bills that I care 
about--the Agriculture appropriations bill--that the conference was 
``ongoing.'' He said, in response to the Senator from Minnesota, the 
conference is underway. I pointed out that the conference isn't 
underway. I am a conferee. That conference hasn't met for a week.
  I went back to my office after pointing that out to the majority 
leader and I read this memo that was sent to all conferees. This is 
from a staff person with the Republican majority on the conference 
dealing with agriculture. Mind you, there is not much that is more 
important as an issue to my State, North Dakota, than agriculture and 
the health of family farming. We face a very serious crisis with the 
collapse of grain prices, and dried up trade markets, and a whole range 
of issues, such as sprout damage with our grain, and just a range of 
issues. We are in a real crisis.
  We passed a bill on August 4 in the Senate to try to respond to the 
needs of family farmers. Then, for 6 or 7 weeks, there was this foot 
dragging with nothing happening. We finally went to conference last 
week, and it was adjourned abruptly and there has been no meeting 
since.
  The majority leader said the conference is meeting. It isn't meeting. 
After I had that dialog with the majority leader, I received this today 
from a staffer, a Republican staffer, on the conference, apparently:

       As of this morning, the Senate Majority Leader signed off 
     on a package which was offered from the Speaker--

  Speaker of the House--

     to resolve our stalled agriculture appropriations conference.

  It is interesting that the majority leader signed off on a package 
offered by the Speaker. If that is so, I have not seen the package; I 
never heard of it. There have been no meetings. Is there a group in 
this Capitol that is deciding what is going to happen outside the 
purview of the conference? Does the majority leader plan to tell us 
what is in this package he signed off on? Is it his decision or the 
Speaker's decision that conferences do not matter anymore? Can they 
make decisions about family farmers, agriculture, disasters, and farm 
emergencies without including input from those of us who represent farm 
States? Is that what is happening?
  It says:

       The conference will not reconvene and all items are closed.

  I am one of the conferees. We haven't met for a week. We are in the 
middle of a full-scale crisis and disaster on America's family farms. A 
week ago, we had 100,000 hogs floating dead in the Carolinas, a million 
chickens, untold cattle, crops devastated up and down the east coast 
from Hurricane Floyd. You think they don't have a disaster? You think 
they don't have a crisis? That needs to be addressed in this 
conference. How is it going to be addressed? Who is going to do it?
  The conference was adjourned. Do you know why it was adjourned? 
Because some on the conference--on the Republican side in the House--
didn't like what we did in the Senate with respect to embargoes on food 
and medicine. What we did, in a bipartisan way, with Senators Ashcroft 
and Dodd, was say that we ought not ever use food as a weapon again. We 
are sick and tired of it. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, you name it--
when you slap an embargo on countries that are not behaving well and 
you include in that the cut off of food and medicine to those 
countries, you shoot yourself in the foot. We all know it. We have 
known it for 40 years. This Senate, by 70 votes, said it is time to 
stop that--no more food embargoes or using food as a weapon.
  Well, we got to conference and the Republicans on the House side 
didn't like that, and so they adjourned and haven't met since. Now I am 
told, by notification of a staffer, that the conference is over, the 
conference will not reconvene, all items are closed and, as of this 
morning, Senate Majority Leader Lott has signed off on a package that 
was offered from Speaker Hastert to resolve our stalled appropriations 
conference.

[[Page 22957]]

  That is some bipartisan way to run a Senate or a Congress. It 
shortchanges America's family farmers, and it shortchanges those of us 
who serve here who are supposed to have an opportunity to serve on 
these conference committees. In my judgment, it really turns a blind 
eye to the needs of rural America.
  We will discuss this at some greater length, but we have to do a 
continuing resolution now--that is what this debate is about--because 
this bill wasn't done. This bill wasn't done because we have been 
stalling for months and months because they didn't feel they had the 
money to do it. Then we have full-scale emergencies arise with the 
collapse of grain prices, Hurricane Floyd, a drought in some parts of 
the country, and, finally, it is decided we have to do some kind of a 
bill and then it gets into conference, and we have all these folks who 
can't decide to agree, so they just quit. The majority leader and the 
Speaker made a decision on how this is going to go, and they will bring 
it to the floor.
  That is not satisfactory to me and my colleagues, a number of whom 
serve on this conference committee and have waited for that conference 
committee to be called back into session. That is not the way to do 
business. A CR is not the way to do business, and we all know it. I am 
not going to object to a 3-week continuing resolution. I will vote for 
it. I told Senator Daschle I will vote for it. But we all know it 
represents a failure of this Senate to get its business done on time, a 
failure of the Senate to describe the right priorities and support 
them.
  I hope this is the last of those kinds of failures. I hope that at 
the end of 3 weeks, we will have had the opportunity to debate, offer 
amendments, and consider a range of opinions in this Chamber on a range 
of issues, going from education to farm policy, and more.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to address the 
pending issue for a couple of minutes.
  It is with some reluctance that we find ourselves in a situation of 
having to support a continuing resolution for the next 3 weeks. 
Although most Democrats will support this resolution, I don't know that 
our caucus will be united in its support. And on behalf of those of us 
who are supportive, I think it has to be said--and I haven't had the 
good fortune to hear any of the debate--we do so with great reluctance 
and great disappointment. We hope this will be the only CR that will be 
voted on and addressed this year.
  Our Republican colleagues made three promises last spring. The first 
promise was, they would not use Social Security trust funds to pay for 
other government programs; the second promise was, there would be no 
lifting of the discretionary spending caps, that we could live within 
the caps we all agreed to in 1997; the third promise or commitment was, 
we would meet the deadlines.
  We all understand the new fiscal year begins October 1, and we strive 
to complete our work by the first day of the new fiscal year. Here we 
are, a couple of days away from the new fiscal year, and what has 
happened? Our Republican colleagues told Members during the budget 
debate: No, we really don't want any Democratic amendments. We will do 
this on our own. We will pass a Republican budget--not a bipartisan 
budget but a Republican budget. That Republican budget passed without 
Democratic support and without Democratic involvement.
  We then had a Finance Committee markup, and our Republican colleagues 
again said: No, we really don't want any Democratic input. We will pass 
a tax cut of a magnitude that goes way beyond anything the Democrats 
could support--recognizing it cuts into the very investments we have 
expressed so much concern about today, recognizing it cuts into Social 
Security as they promised they would not do.
  Then we had the appropriations process. With the exceptions of the 
VA/HUD and defense bills, Democratic Members were largely shut out of 
the appropriations subcommittee markups, the full committee markups, 
and the conferences with the House
  We hate to say we told you so, but that is exactly where we are 
today: We told you so. We knew they could not do what they said they 
were going to do earlier this spring and this summer. We knew 
ultimately they would have to cut Social Security to get to this point, 
and they have. We knew they would probably be forced to increase the 
caps, and now they have admitted that is most likely what they will do. 
We knew they wouldn't make the deadline, and, unfortunately, that too 
has come to pass.
  Our Republican colleagues are coming to the floor now asking we join 
with them in passing a continuing resolution to give them 3 more weeks 
in spite of the fact we were told they really didn't need our help this 
spring, they didn't need it this summer. In fact, one of the leadership 
in the House, Congressman DeLay, was quoted as saying: We are going to 
trap the Democrats. We are going to trap them into recognizing they 
have to use Social Security. They have to break the caps.
  I have to say, this is no way to legislate. The word I use to 
describe our current appropriations and budget circumstances is 
``chaos.'' In all the years I have been here, I don't recall a time 
when there has been greater appropriations disarray than there is right 
now. I frankly don't know whether we can put it back together in 3 
weeks. But we ought to try. We know we cannot go home until this is 
done. We are hopeful.
  I was a little concerned when the Speaker was asked, Will you shut 
the Government down? He said, I hope that won't be necessary, or 
something to that effect. I would have hoped there could have been a 
more definitive statement--that under no circumstances would the 
Government be shut down.
  Our Republican colleagues are in a box. They violated their promises 
on Social Security and raising the caps and not meeting the deadlines. 
They can't mask it over now with some charade of bipartisanship when, 
up until this point, there has not been any.
  Democrats have voted in good faith on many occasions, opting to move 
this process along with an expectation and hope that somehow in 
conference or at some point prior to the end of the fiscal year we 
could come together. That hasn't happened yet. As a result of our 
inability to come together, the President is now threatening to veto up 
to six of the thirteen appropriations bills. And after he vetoes them, 
then where are we?
  This is a disappointing day. Republican responsibility day is October 
1. Republican responsibility day is the day when we should all ask the 
question, Have the promises been kept? On Social Security, the answer 
is no. On keeping the caps, the answer is no. On meeting the deadline, 
the answer is no.
  Now we are faced with an appropriations dilemma on education. They 
have cut education budgets by 17 percent. They are using a new, 
extraordinarily innovative approach to offsetting the shortfall in 
education by moving money we have already appropriated out of defense 
into education. They will then make defense whole again by declaring 
billions of defense spending an emergency. If that isn't the most 
extraordinary demonstration of flimflam budgeting, I don't know what 
is.
  This is quite a moment. We have not yet talked about education. We 
will save that for tomorrow. I am disappointed we have to be here today 
with the recognition that those promises have not been kept, that we do 
need a 3-week CR, that we are facing up to six vetoes, and that we 
haven't been able to come together as Democrats and Republicans in a 
bipartisan way to resolve these problems before it is too late.

[[Page 22958]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the budget gridlock 
we are now facing. We are considering a continuing resolution today 
because Congress has failed to do its job. Congress is supposed to pass 
the 13 appropriations bills by the new fiscal year. The fiscal year 
starts October 1. To date, only 1 of the 13 appropriations bills has 
been signed into law--1.
  This is failure on a grand scale. If you look back over the last 
several years, in 1995, 5 appropriations bills had not been acted on 
and had to be wrapped into a year-end omnibus measure. In 1996, it went 
to 6 appropriations bills that had to be wrapped in one package, put on 
the desk of Members with no chance for review and voted up or down. In 
1998, it was 8 appropriations bills that had not been acted on in a 
timely fashion, that had to be wrapped together. This year maybe we are 
headed for 12. I do not know. Maybe we can get some others done. But so 
far, only 1 of the 13 appropriations bills has been signed into law.
  Does anyone see a pattern here? Does anyone see we have gone from 6 
appropriations bills in 1996 not enacted to 8 in 1998 and now we have 
only 1 done on the eve of the new fiscal year? Our Republican 
colleagues who are in charge here, in the House and the Senate, bear 
responsibility for this failure to get the job done.
  I must say, the other side promised very clearly three things. They 
said they would get the budget done on time this year. They failed. 
They said they would hold to the spending caps that were put in place 
by the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement. They failed. They said they 
would not raid Social Security. They failed. On each and every one of 
these counts, our Republican colleagues have gone back on what they 
promised. In each and every case, they have said one thing to the 
American public and done another thing in Congress.
  I understand today they are getting really creative. Today, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee came up with $15 billion for the Labor-
HHS bill. Where did they get it? They borrowed it from the defense 
bill. That is a new tactic. We have already passed the Defense bill. 
That is not signed either, by the way. Now they decide to go and borrow 
from that bill, they will put it over in the Labor bill, they will 
spend it there, and then they will come careening back and say they 
need emergency spending for the Defense bill. All of a sudden 
everything is an emergency with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle.
  There are things that really are emergencies. The agriculture 
situation facing this country, that is an emergency. Hurricane Floyd, 
that is an emergency. But our Republican colleagues are calling 
everything an emergency. They are calling the census an emergency--the 
census. We do that every 10 years. We have done that since we started 
as a country and now they are calling that an emergency; something that 
was not foreseen, an emergency, something we did not know was coming.
  I must say, the former House Appropriations Committee chairman, the 
former Speaker-to-be, Bob Livingston, said:

       . . . the census has been with us since the conception of 
     the Constitution of the United States. This is not an 
     emergency.

  He is right. This is not an emergency. Nor is it an emergency as they 
have now designated the LIHEAP program, that is low-income heating 
assistance. We have had that program for 20 years. Now they say that is 
an emergency.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot in the last few days. We heard we 
were going to a 13th month; that was going to solve the problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 1 hour of debate for the minority has now 
expired and 54 minutes 53 seconds remain to the majority.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for 30 additional seconds, if I might, and ask for 
it to be added on both sides.
  Mr. THOMAS. The request is for 30 seconds?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the other point that should be made is now 
our friends on the other side have started the raid on the Social 
Security trust fund. That is wrong. I had a reporter ask me: Senator, 
didn't you put them in this box a number of years ago during the 
balanced budget debate by insisting we not raid Social Security?
  I said:

       Absolutely, I am proud of it. We should not raid Social 
     Security. If they want additional spending, they ought to pay 
     for it. And they ought to do it without raiding Social 
     Security. That ought to be a litmus test for any budget.

  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about 
where we are, what we are faced with this afternoon, and what we are 
faced with over the next few weeks. We have heard, of course, a great 
deal from my friends on the other side of the aisle, some of which is a 
little hard to understand, I believe, but nevertheless I guess 
legitimate conversation.
  We, of course, are prepared now to take a vote within the next hour, 
or less, on the idea of a continuing resolution. It is not a new idea. 
It is one that has been used a number of times. Would we all like to be 
through now? Of course we would. This matter of appropriations is a 
very difficult task.
  I must tell you at the outset, one of the bills I have had in since I 
have been in the Congress--I brought it with me from the legislature in 
Wyoming--says we ought to have a biennial budget. Instead of going 
through this every year, we ought to do it every 2 years: Budget 1 
year, appropriations the other year, which would give us more 
opportunity to have the kind of oversight Congress is responsible to 
do, but we do not do that. We go through this each year. Unfortunately, 
the appropriations becomes kind of the direction for the Congress, 
which is wrong. It seems to me we ought to set our priorities, do that 
in the authorizing committees, and then we fund it.
  The process, of course, is to have a budget. The budget was passed 
this year on time. The budget is designed to break down the total 
revenue, the total amount we are willing to spend, break it down by 
various subcommittees within the appropriations, and those are the 
amount of dollars with which each has to work. So we have done that, of 
course.
  This is a pretty positive year in many ways. I certainly wish we were 
further along. I think everyone does for various reasons. I have a few 
ideas as to why we are not, I might say to my friends on the other 
side. But there are some positive things about which we ought to talk. 
How long has it been, I say to my friend, how long has it been since we 
have had a balanced budget? How long has it been since we have had 
income more than our expenditures? Has it been 25 years? Has it been 30 
years? I think so. I think so. So this is kind of a positive thing 
about which we are talking.
  This year's caps were less than last year's. Why? Because last year 
we took some out of this year to pay for it. This year's caps were less 
than last year's. I would like to stay with the caps; I voted for the 
caps. But when we bring up the kind of emergencies that my friend from 
North Dakota insisted on in agriculture--good idea? Sure. Nevertheless, 
that is over the caps, isn't it? That is an expenditure, and we have 
had a good deal of that.
  We have some positive things. We will not get into Social Security. 
We have not gotten into Social Security. That is one of the things we 
are dedicated not to do. We had about $14 billion, I believe, in this 
budget, that is not Social Security, and we are not going to spend 
Social Security. That is a commitment that we have.
  What are the pressures? The pressures have constantly been, from the 
White House, from the other side of the aisle, for more spending. That 
is the principle of this administration: Spend more. Spend more taxes.
  We are not willing to do that. On the contrary, we have been 
dedicated to keeping spending down, keeping Government size down. So it 
is not an easy project.
  I am not an appropriator. I am not familiar with the processes that 
have

[[Page 22959]]

gone on internally within the committee. Talk about not being 
involved--I don't know that. But I do know this has been a very 
difficult task. I am told within these 13 bills, about 12 of them that 
have pretty much been completed on this floor are within the spending 
caps--except for the emergencies. Emergencies in military? Of course. 
Not a bad idea--Kosovo, all those kinds of things that were here to do 
something to strengthen the military, to which everyone on this floor 
agrees.
  These are the kinds of things, certainly, that got us where we are. 
One of the reasons it has been difficult, of course, it has been hard 
to move things on the floor. We, just this last week, have gone through 
a couple of filibusters, as a matter of fact, in which the very folks 
who have been up this afternoon talking participated. That kept us for 
2 or 3 days talking about MMS, Minerals Management Service. That is one 
of the reasons we are where we are. It has been difficult to move along 
that way. But that is the way a legislative body works.
  We tried very hard to do some things to ensure Social Security would 
be kept as it was--the Social Security lockbox. How many times did we 
bring that up? There was unwillingness to accept it on the other side 
of the aisle. They did not want to do it, so we put that aside.
  They have not been willing to talk about what we want to do with 
Social Security and individual accounts so that the money will be 
there.
  When there is surplus money in this place, it will be spent. Could we 
get tax relief? No. No, our friends on the other side of the aisle did 
not want to do that; we ought to keep this money here so we can spend 
it. That is how we get into some of these things.
  I am persuaded there has to be a system if you have excess money: You 
either have to get it out to people on Social Security, put it in those 
accounts, or you have to give it back to the people who paid it, if 
there is an excess amount of money.
  No, they do not want to do that. What they want to do is spend more 
of it. That is where we got into this.
  Gridlock? Yes, indeed, we have had some gridlock. I have been here 
for less than one term, but I do not believe I have seen as much 
gridlock as there has been this year in terms of bringing up amendments 
to bills we have had to take 2 or 3 days to deal with, constantly 
bringing up an agenda that was different from the agenda that was on 
the floor.
  These are the things that, to me, certainly, have created 
difficulties in getting our task done. I agree, however, that is our 
task, that is what we are here to do, and I am disappointed we have not 
gotten it done by the end of the fiscal year. But we have not.
  We are not going to allow ourselves to get into the position--I do 
not think anyone wants to have that happen--where there is a closure 
and a shutdown of the Government. Certainly we are not interested in 
allowing that to happen, or encouraging it to happen, or promoting an 
opportunity for it to happen. Indeed, we want to move forward with the 
appropriations as they should be dealt with, and we are persuaded that 
is the thing we are going to talk about doing.
  Again, however, I do think there are some very positive things that 
have happened. For the first time in 25 years, we are not spending 
Social Security money, we are not spending deficit money in this 
budget. It has been a very long time since that has happened.
  Mr. President, I suspect what we ought to do is move forward. I yield 
back the time allotted to the Members on this side of the aisle and 
ask--I was going to ask for the yeas and nays, but I don't think I can 
do that. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on adoption of House 
Joint Resolution 68 occur at 5:15 this evening and that paragraph 4 of 
rule XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer, in his capacity as a 
Senator from the State of Washington, reserves the right to object and 
suggests the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the fiscal year 2000 rapidly approaches, 
Republicans find themselves scrambling to pass appropriations bills 
before the October 1, 1999 deadline. Once again the majority has proven 
incapable of managing the appropriations process. Only four of the 
thirteen appropriations conference agreements have been completed, and 
the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill has yet to be voted on in 
either House. I recognize there is going to have to be some time so we 
can try to work out the differences.
  What has gone on this past year is something about which we need to 
talk. We know they have put the most important of the 13 appropriations 
bills, Labor-HHS, at the bottom of the totem pole. Instead of doing 
this bill first, a bill that is vital to our country in dealing with 
health research and education, it has been put at the bottom. I do not 
think that is appropriate.
  They have done all kinds of things: The majority has added a 13th 
month to the fiscal year. They are talking about delaying tax credits 
for low-income Americans. They are trying to spread 1 year's funding 
over 3 years. They are talking about making certain things an 
emergency, such as the census. This is just nonsensical.
  I suggest that putting off for 3 weeks decisions we are going to have 
to make is unnecessary. The majority has consistently failed to finish 
their work on appropriations bills. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Conrad, has done an excellent job of illustrating this point. We had 
two Government shutdowns in 1995, and this year, rather than developing 
legitimate spending offsets to increase funding available for the next 
fiscal year, we have come up with all these gimmicks.
  It is like a Ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, which, if you did 
outside the Halls of Congress, is illegal. We have developed a massive 
Ponzi scheme while ignoring all of the budget rules. What they are 
driven toward and are already looking for is to spend Social Security 
money even though the talk is different. They are trying to spread this 
funding over 3 fiscal years, adding a 13th month, declaring things 
emergency that really are not emergencies, and waiting to do the most 
important bill the last, Labor-HHS. This is a Ponzi scheme, a pyramid. 
It is a house of cards that is just about to fall.
  We keep delaying this. We have to sit down and work out our 
differences. We have to do the business of this country, and that means 
passing the appropriations bills in this body, finishing the 
conferences quickly, and getting the President to sign these bills.
  If we have to do a continuing resolution that takes us through the 
year on some or all of these appropriations bills, we have to get to 
that right now. We have spent a lot of time treading water and going 
nowhere. Extending this funding for 3 weeks is doing just that, it is 
treading water.
  We have to start doing something that is meaningful, and that means 
making tough decisions. Tough decisions, is not extending the year for 
another month. It is not declaring things like the census an emergency. 
It is not using welfare moneys that the Governors have kept to offset 
the problems we are having here. The Governors should be able to use 
that money any way they want. And there are many other things they have 
attempted to do in an effort to avoid the tough decisions. The tough 
decisions have to be made. They should be made now rather than 
prolonging this for 3 weeks.
  Mr. President, has there been a time set for a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Not yet.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield such of the Republican time to 
myself as I may use. And for the information of the Senator from 
Nevada, I believe I may be the last speaker on this side, and I have 
been instructed, unless someone else on this side comes to speak later, 
when I have finished, to

[[Page 22960]]

yield back the remainder of our time, and we will vote then, which 
probably means a vote before 5:30.
  Mr. REID. The minority's time is all used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, yesterday in this Chamber, I was engaged 
in what I believe was a debate on a fantasy. The minority party spent a 
great deal of time debating two resolutions on education, one proposed 
by their side and one proposed by our side, with the resolution 
proposed by their side based on the proposition that Republican 
appropriations bills were going to reduce the amount of money spent on 
education from last year by some 17 percent.
  That resolution was long and detailed, and ``17-percent cut,'' ``17-
percent reductions'' appeared all the way through it.
  I say this was a fantasy debate because by the time the debate began, 
every member of the Appropriations Committee knew that not only was 
education not being reduced in the Republican proposal but it was being 
rather significantly increased, in fact, being increased by some $500 
million more than the amount for education recommended by President 
Clinton in his budget at the beginning of this year. So there was the 
exercise of a process of beating a dead horse for at least an hour on 
the other side of the aisle before we voted on our respective 
proposals.
  There was a significant second difference in that debate over 
education that was not a fantasy and was not beating a dead horse 
because the Democratic proposal was that we do more of the same thing 
that we have been doing the last 30 years with respect to our Federal 
involvement in education, without any particular or notable success, 
while we on our side were proposing not only that we focus more of our 
attention in dollars on education but that we begin to trust the 
parents and professional educators and principals and superintendents 
and elected school board members across the United States of America to 
make the decisions about the education of their children, which they 
have devoted their lives to doing, rather than making all of these 
decisions and saying that the same rules should apply to a rural 
district in North Carolina as apply to an urban district in 
Massachusetts.
  That is a real debate. It is a debate which I suspect we will be 
engaged in tomorrow when we take up the appropriations bill for Labor-
Health and Human Services, and it is a debate in which we will be 
engaged in, in an even more spirited fashion, when we come up to the 
renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  But in the course of the last hour, it seems to me, we have been 
engaged in another fantasy debate. The minority leader, and several of 
his members, have been on the floor making a number of statements that 
have very little relationship to the reality that is before us at the 
present time. They said, among other things, that they were cut out of 
the debate on a budget resolution. They were not. They voted against a 
budget resolution, not on the grounds of its spending policies but 
because they were vehemently opposed to any tax relief for the American 
people, tax relief which we desired to give to the American people.
  At one level, we won that debate. We passed significant tax relief 
for a wide section of the tax-paying people. It has been vetoed by the 
President. So at that level, at least, they ultimately won. That money 
will come to the Treasury of the United States and will stay in the 
Treasury of the United States.
  But they also said, now that they got their way, now that there was 
no 17-percent reduction in spending on education--always a fantasy--now 
that we are spending so much, we are raiding the Social Security trust 
fund.
  I am here to say these appropriations bills do not eat into the 
Social Security surplus. They do, in fact, eat into some of the non-
Social Security surplus, not only for the year 2000 but probably for 
the year 2001 as well. But they are within the estimates of those non-
Social Security surpluses in the years in which all of the moneys in 
these appropriations bills will, in fact, be spent.
  That criticism, that we are raiding the Social Security trust fund, 
while it has no statistical validity, would at least have a certain 
degree of moral caution attached to it had we, during the course of the 
last several weeks, in debating appropriations bills, heard from a 
single Member of the other side that we were spending too much. But we 
did not hear that at all.
  In fact, an hour or so ago, when the Appropriations Committee was 
approving this large bill for Labor and Education and Health, the only 
significant Democratic amendments were to spend more money, without any 
offsets whatsoever. So the cries that somehow or another we are 
breaking caps that that side did not want to break or that we are 
raiding the Social Security trust fund by spending too much money are 
in direct contradiction--as rhetoric--to the actions that, in fact, 
have taken place by the minority party, which consistently has said, if 
anything, not that we are spending too much money this year but that we 
are spending too little.
  I have no doubt that within a few days the President of the United 
States, backed by many Members on that side, will say; yes, we need to 
spend even more money. If the President vetoes some of these bills, his 
veto will likely be based on the fact that we are not spending enough. 
And, in fact, he will ask us to increase taxes, having vetoed the 
opportunity to provide some tax relief for the American people.
  Finally, we have heard complaints about the fact that we have not yet 
completed all of our work on appropriations bills. That is true; we 
have not. In fact, in the last 20 or 25 years, we have only done that 
on one occasion. If, however, within 2 days, we complete action on the 
13th and last of these appropriations bills, at least the Senate will 
have passed its versions of all of these bills before the end of the 
fiscal year.
  I had to manage one of those bills, one of the smaller of the bills, 
the one dealing with the Department of the Interior and other similar 
agencies. While it was spasmodic and interrupted by debate on other 
matters, we began the debate on that bill in the first week of August 
and ended it last week. Why did it take so long? Because one single 
amendment literally was filibustered by a Member on the other side of 
the aisle--unsuccessfully, as it turned out--delaying the passage of 
that bill by a good 2 weeks, and making it certain that--just 
physically--we cannot settle our differences with the House, modest 
though they are, in time to send such bill to the President of the 
United States by the day after tomorrow.
  Nor has this Senator noticed that Members of the other party were not 
consulted or did not participate in the drafting of all of these 
appropriations bills. The overwhelming bulk of them in this body--
perhaps not in the House of Representatives--were drafted in a 
collegial and bipartisan fashion by the Appropriations Committee and 
were supported by most of the members of both parties in almost every 
single instance.
  Three or 4 hours ago, we passed a final conference report on the 
energy and water appropriations bill by a vote of 96 to 3.
  Mr. President, does that sound like a partisan exercise in the 
deliberations in which one of the parties was excluded?
  The Senate version of the Interior bill passed last week, if memory 
serves me correctly, by a vote of something like 87 to 10. I pride 
myself, as the chairman of that appropriations subcommittee, in 
consulting with members of both parties, listening to their priorities, 
and meeting their priorities to the maximum possible extent. It was in 
no way a partisan exercise. Last Friday, a much larger and more 
controversial bill on the Veterans' Administration and the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development was passed by a voice vote. No one 
even bothered to ask for a rollcall because agreement on that bill was 
so widespread.
  Yes, it is too bad we have to pass a 3-week continuing resolution at 
the

[[Page 22961]]

present time. It is too bad there are differences between the House and 
the Senate. It is too bad there are such disagreements between the 
President and the Congress. That is the way we arrive, in a society 
such as this, at appropriate answers to all of these questions. It is a 
long way from being unprecedented. With any luck, this year, we won't 
have one agglomeration, one huge bill that no Member understands at the 
end of this process, but we will deal with 13 individual appropriations 
bills for determining the priorities of the United States.
  Tomorrow, we will once again be engaged in a debate on education, 
among other subjects. I hope that debate will be more realistic than 
the debate that took place yesterday, that had no relationship to 
reality whatsoever, in connection with the basis for the Democratic 
resolution on the subject.
  I hope it will be on a serious subject matter, not just of the amount 
of money we in the United States are going to devote to education--
though that is vitally important, and this bill is quite generous in 
connection with it--but on the way in which that money ought to be 
spent. It ought to be spent in a way that increases the student 
performance of the children in the United States in our schools through 
grade 12 all the way across the board.
  We ought to have the imagination to revise a system that has not been 
a notable success by any stretch of the imagination and go forward to a 
new system that looks not at forms to be filled out by school districts 
all across the country, not at the presumed wisdom of 100 Members of 
this body, many of whom seem to think they know more about education 
than the professionals who deal with it every day, but one that trusts 
in the genius of the American people and the dedication of the American 
educational establishment to make their own decisions in communities 
all across the United States of America about what may very well be the 
most important of all of our social functions--the education of the 
generation to come.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, who is very 
knowledgeable and, of course, is involved. I want to talk about an 
interesting thing that has to do with the last year Democrats were in 
charge of the majority--fiscal year 1993. I don't think it is an 
excuse, but I think it is interesting, given all the conversation we 
have had.
  These are the dates that the appropriations bills were passed in 
1993: The foreign assistance bill was passed in the Senate on September 
30 and approved on September 30; the legislative branch bill, of 
course, which has to do with operating the Congress, was passed early, 
August 6, and approved on August 11; Treasury-Postal was approved in 
the Senate October 26 and signed on October 28--this, of course, was 
the same fiscal year we are dealing with now--Energy and Water was 
passed on October 26, signed on October 27.
  This was the year the Democrats were in the majority. This is the 
kind of thing they are talking about today.
  Military construction was passed in the Senate on October 19, signed 
on October 21; VA-HUD, October 28, when it was approved; District of 
Columbia, October 29; Agriculture, October 21; Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, October 21; Commerce, Justice, and State, October 
27; Interior, passed November 11 and signed; emergency supplementals, 
of course, were before that; Transportation, October 27; Defense, 
November 11; the continuing resolution, the first one, on September 30, 
and a further continuing resolution on October 29.
  This was 1993. The Democrats were in the majority. The idea of a 
continuing resolution is not a brand new idea.
  Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that the vote occur immediately 
following the comments of the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I am here to express my disappointment in this process 
and the vote we are about to cast this afternoon. I will probably vote 
for the continuing resolution because I don't want to shut down the 
Government. I will also probably vote with the expectation that we will 
get our work done in the 3 following weeks. I am not happy about it, 
and I don't believe we have fulfilled our obligation and commitment to 
the American people.
  For over 200 years, it has been the responsibility of Congress to 
pass the 13 appropriations bills that make the Federal Government tick. 
It is our only constitutionally mandated responsibility, the only thing 
we absolutely have to do.
  We have had 9 months. In the same amount of time, I produced twins. 
It wasn't easy, but we did it. My chief of staff, unfortunately, had an 
accident at Christmas, has been through two major surgeries, and has 
made a resounding comeback, unbelievably. My legislative director has 
gotten married. She has finished law school and bought a home in those 
9 months. Amazing things can be done if one actually works at them.
  I came to Washington, sat through an impeachment trial, bought a 
house, and moved two 3-year-old boys, one husband, and a dog to 
Virginia so I could work in the Senate. It is time to get down to work.
  I fully expect us to end this monkey business. To pass fair, thought-
out appropriations bills within the next 3 weeks is certainly not 
something we should take for granted.
  I will not support an omnibus appropriations package similar to the 
one passed last year. One of the most frightening stories I heard, when 
I first arrived in the Senate, was the process that happened in the 
last few days of the session last year when only a couple people came 
around a table and decided the budget for this entire Nation without 
the assent of all of those who should have been at that table. What an 
irresponsible way for us, as Government, to work on behalf of the 
American people.
  This way of governing is absolutely irresponsible, ineffective, and 
it is not what I came here to do. I imagine many of my colleagues did 
not come here to act in such an irresponsible way. To do so is to sell 
the American people down the river. I hope my colleagues will put 
politics aside and get our business done, the only constitutional 
responsibility that we have in this body; that is, to take care of the 
American people's business.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments on the 
other side of the aisle about the management of things around here and 
how we could not get this bill finished on time and what a mess 
everything is. I remind Senators, obviously, we are going to have to 
make some major change beyond the process we have because it might 
startle some to know that since 1950--that is almost 50 years--we have 
completed our appropriations bills on time twice--twice.
  What is all the talk about? Since 1950, that side of the aisle has 
controlled the Senate three-quarters of the time. So three-quarters of 
the time since 1950, all the appropriations bills--including Labor, 
Health, and Human Services--have been completed twice on time and sent 
to the President.
  I submit, if my colleagues want to get things done on time, let's 
change the process and let's not do it every year; let's do it every 2 
years. At least if we go over, we will be all right for 2 years rather 
than have it right back in our laps in 6 months, doing it all over 
again.
  In addition, I heard from the other side of the aisle some comments 
about how difficult it was to meet the caps,

[[Page 22962]]

how difficult it was not to take any money from Social Security, as if 
it were a Republican problem. One Senator--I will not use names, but 
the Senator who mentioned that was a Senator who came to the floor and 
asked for $8 billion on an emergency basis for the farm problem in 
America.
  If my colleagues are wondering how come we have a difficult time, it 
is because somebody comes down and adds $8 billion that we did not 
expect to spend and we have to accommodate in some way so we do not use 
Social Security money, and that does not make it any easier.
  I am not objecting to that. It will probably come out of the Senate 
and House before long at $7 billion, $7.5 billion, and an overwhelming 
number of House Members and Senators will think it is right. I am 
suggesting it is not always those who are trying to manage things on 
the majority side who cause the problems that make it difficult to get 
things done.
  I do not choose to go beyond that. The President submitted a budget 
to us that was totally in error of the budget caps. It used Social 
Security money. And then we are criticized because we are having a 
difficult time dealing with it. The President had new taxes he added 
and then spent them in his bill. We have chosen to have a policy of no 
new taxes to meet our appropriations bills.
  There are a number of things the President did that we cannot do. 
Here is one: The President is talking about Medicare, saying we ought 
to reform it before we have a tax cut for the American people. The 
President had $27 billion of cuts in Medicare in his budget. He did not 
tell us about that. We told you about that. It is long forgotten. In 
fact, the number may be higher. It may be 35. Anyway, it is 27 or more.
  We had to pay for that in our budget; it was not the right thing to 
do. The President might have thought so, but nobody in the Congress 
did. It has not been easy.
  Nonetheless, we are going to have a pretty good year. We are going to 
have a pretty good year because when we are finished, we will have 
dramatically increased defense, and part of it will be an emergency 
because that is what it is. We will get all the appeals done and some 
of the advance funding that is legitimate and right.
  The President had $21 billion in advance funding, and now there are 
people on the other side wondering what that is, as if we invented it. 
It has been around for a long time. In fact, there is $11 billion of it 
in the budget we are living with right now, which means nothing more 
than, you account for the money in the year in which you spend it 
rather than the year in which you appropriate it. We will have some of 
that, too--maybe as much as the President had; I don't know. But how 
are we going to meet these targets if we are not permitted to do that, 
when the President is challenging us that we are not doing what he 
wanted us to do--that is his big challenge. How can we do that?
  I yield the floor.


                     department of interior funding

  Mr. NICKLES. I would to address a question to my friend from New 
Mexico, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. This continuing 
resolution essentially funds government programs and operations at 
fiscal year 1999 levels under the authority and conditions provided in 
the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. Since Congress 
has not yet completed its work on the fiscal year 2000 Interior and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill, I would conclude that Department 
of Interior agencies, programs and activities will be funded under this 
resolution at fiscal year 1999 levels under the policies and 
restrictions in effect during fiscal year 1999.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his question. I 
too believe that this resolution will allow Interior Department funding 
to be continued at fiscal year 1999 levels in accordance with fiscal 
year 1999 policies through October 21, 1999.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on H.J. Res. 
68.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is before the Senate and 
open to amendment. If there be no amendment to be proposed, the 
question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Ashcroft
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________