[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24084-24094]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1650, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1650) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Nickles amendment No. 1851, to protect Social Security 
     surpluses.
       Nickles amendment No. 1889 (to amendment No. 1851), to 
     protect Social Security surpluses.

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have some housekeeping.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I still have the floor.
  I ask my distinguished colleague, the assistant majority leader, if 
we could propound a unanimous consent request to consider the pending 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, 
we are going to have to do that now. It would be appropriate if the 
debate started. We are in the process of checking to see who wants to 
speak against the pending amendment.
  I say in response to my friend's statement earlier that we want to 
move this along. The staff has worked very well the last several days 
since we had our break. We are down now to about 16 amendments, give or 
take a few, both Democratic and Republican amendments. We have on our 
side agreed. We have time agreements on most of ours--not all of them 
but most of them. I think we can move forward on that basis.
  I also say to my friend that I saw the Senator from Pennsylvania 
coming into the White House as I was leaving last night. I was invited 
down for a meeting. I should say to my friend that I had orange juice 
and some nuts. I see that he was served dinner. That is something I 
have to check into.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator and I had been there at the same time, we 
could have solved this problem.
  Mr. REID. Over dinner.
  Mr. SPECTER. The fact that I was arriving as the Senator from Nevada 
was departing led to the inability to solve it. If we had been there 
together, we would have had a very abbreviated meeting. We could have 
concentrated on dinner instead of debate.
  Mr. REID. I think maybe the Senator's great skills in debates may 
have had something to do with the Senator being served dinner and me 
getting by with just orange juice and a bowl of nuts.
  Anyway, I think we should proceed on this pending amendment and move 
forward with it. If the Senator from Pennsylvania has someone speaking 
on it, we will try to get people lined up to speak against it and try 
to move along as quickly as possible.
  We called some of our people to come over and offer amendments. We 
could set that aside and move on to some of these amendments on which 
we have time limits.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to setting the 
amendment aside. I have secured the agreement of the proponent of the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, Senator Nickles, to 30 minutes equally 
divided. It is a sense of the Senate. It does not have the import of 
some of the other amendments which involve real money and not 
confederate money. The next amendment would come from the other side of 
the aisle. If somebody is ready to offer an amendment, I would be 
agreeable to setting this amendment aside until we can reach a time 
agreement.
  Let me yield now to my colleague from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that several 
from our side of the aisle are coming to speak on this, and Senator 
Nickles will return at 10.
  While they are assembling their amendments, we might talk on this for 
the next few minutes and then get a time agreement with Senator Nickles 
and I for 30 minutes equally divided. He has indicated he will do that. 
We have a few minutes before they are ready to present their amendment. 
We might continue to discuss this amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think that would be appropriate.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire of my distinguished 
colleague from Nevada whether an amendment is ready now or when an 
amendment will be ready to be offered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have two Senators who are on their way. 
In Senate language, ``on their way'' doesn't mean they are walking into 
the building. They have indicated to us they are on their way. As soon 
as they are through the door, I will let the Senate know and we can get 
a time agreement on the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might say, for the information of 
all Senators who may be watching on television, we are very anxious to 
sort of queue up so we can move along with dispatch.
  If there are Senators on our side of the aisle who wish to speak on 
this sense of the Senate, it would be my request that they come over 
promptly so they can speak--the same thing about Members on Senator 
Reid's side of the aisle. If somebody has an amendment to offer, we can 
move this bill along and stack those votes and not have to have a late 
night session. The leader did talk about a window. We haven't had a 
window for a while. Windows which bring us back here late in the 
evening hours are not very much appreciated.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also say, if my friend will yield, to 
elaborate on

[[Page 24085]]

his statement, Friday is fast approaching and people have things they 
want to do on Friday. Friday is scheduled now, and it may be vitiated 
based on the statement the Senator from Pennsylvania has made. The way 
the unanimous consent order is now in place, we are going to start 
debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on Friday. There are a lot 
of people who have planned their schedules around that. If that is 
taken off for some reason, I am sure the majority leader will ask us to 
complete this bill, if it is not completed before Thursday.
  I say to my friend that we need to move forward on this bill, if 
anybody has any anticipation of going back to their States on Friday.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that was well said.
  Mr. President, may I yield to my colleague from Georgia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a moment or two 
about the pending business, which is the Nickles amendment numbered 
1851. It is a sense of the Senate and is quite short and very clear.
  It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should ensure that fiscal 
year 2000 appropriations measures do not result in an on-budget 
deficit, excluding surpluses generated by the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Basically, what he is saying is that if for any reason in our 
budgetary exercise we find ourselves having dipped into the Social 
Security receipts, go beyond non-Social Security receipts, there would 
be a sequester for across-the-board cuts to replenish it. The response 
from the other side is interesting because, of course, the President 
and the other side have said they don't want to use Social Security 
receipts and then they say current budgetary activities, depending on 
whose numbers you read, may have already done so.
  I point out, it is not over until it is over. There has been no 
concluding action on our budget decisions. What this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment states is ``if,'' depending on how much, it would 
require across-the-board cuts to protect Social Security--pretty clean 
and very simple. That is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution from 
Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, amendment No. 1851. It is simple. It says 
when we finish all of our budget activities, finish all the 
conferences, and have everything concluded, if we have gone beyond 
other surpluses and dipped into Social Security, they will be 
replenished by an across-the-board cut.
  The other side last week was imploring it is already maybe at $19 
billion. It depends on whose numbers you look at. That is a 5-percent 
across-the-board cut. We are not there, is the point. If the budgeteers 
and appropriators are neglectful and we get into Social Security at 
that level, it will be appropriate there be a 5-percent across-the-
board cut. Everybody has agreed--the President, the leadership on the 
other side and on our side--we should not use Social Security receipts 
to deal with this year's budget.
  I think Senator Nickles from Oklahoma offers a rational concept for 
assuring the American people--assuring those individuals who are 
concerned about Social Security, whether they are using Social Security 
or about to use Social Security--that this Congress is not going to use 
those to deal with the current expenditures.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I interrupt my distinguished colleague to propound a 
unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent, and it has been cleared with 
Senator Reid, that the pending amendment be subject to 1 hour of debate 
with time equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield time to the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, Senator Nickles should be here shortly 
to speak on his own behalf. Basically, he outlined a very simple 
premise and a very important principle, that we are not going to use 
Social Security for new spending; we are going to protect Social 
Security receipts.
  He has offered a concept by which that would be done. Its impact 
would depend on the amount to which appropriators and the Congress, 
through their budgetary practices, had used those receipts. They have 
two options: They can go back to the conference committee reports and 
make sure the spending does not get into Social Security, in which case 
this has no import. But if they do, if it is $5 billion, that will be a 
1-percent across-the-board cut; if it is $20 billion, it will be about 
5.
  It is up to the conscience, work, and dedication of our appropriators 
to resolve.
  He outlines early in the process a premise which I think is sound: if 
we get into Social Security, we will recover.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time does my distinguished colleague from New 
Hampshire desire?
  Mr. GREGG. Ten minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment 
of which I am a cosponsor along with a number of other Members of the 
Senate.
  This proposal addresses one of the underlying political debates we 
are confronting today in trying to reach conclusion on our entire 
budget, which is the manner in which we should handle Social Security 
surplus. It is a key element of how we can resolve this matter and 
resolve it in a way that fulfills at least the stated goals of the 
various parties.
  We have heard the President say on a number of occasions he wants to 
protect the Social Security surplus and preserve it for Social 
Security. It has been our position, as the Republican membership of 
this Senate, that we should do exactly that. In fact, we have offered 
time and again something called a lockbox which would essentially 
guarantee all Social Security surplus be held independent of any other 
spending and would not be available for any other activities of the 
Government but, rather, be reserved for the purposes of paying down the 
debt and being retained in the Social Security trust fund as debt 
instruments.
  Unfortunately, as we have moved down the road to address the 
operating budget of the Federal Government, it has been clear the 
administration wants to have it both ways: They want to say, on one 
side, protect the Social Security trust fund, and specifically the 
surplus which is now being generated by the Social Security accounts; 
but, on the other side, they want to propose a large amount of new 
spending which would inevitably lead to using up some portion of the 
surplus of the Social Security trust fund.
  Senator Nickles, other Members of this Senate, and I have come 
forward with this proposal which is a sense of the Senate and therefore 
isn't binding. Hopefully at some point it will be put into binding 
language. It says under no circumstances will Social Security trust 
fund dollars or the surplus now being generated by the Social Security 
taxes being paid be used to operate the general functions of the 
Federal Government, and that we should have a mechanism to guarantee 
what is known as a sequester which is a system of saying, if ever we 
should spend a dollar or it is looking as if we are about to spend a 
dollar of Social Security surplus funds, there will be a sequester in 
spending of the general fund, the general operating accounts of the 
Federal Government, the discretionary accounts of the Federal 
Government, the ``sequester'' meaning those accounts would be reduced 
to the extent necessary in order to be sure no Social Security surplus 
funds would be used.
  This, of course, is the proper way to proceed because it sets in 
place a mechanism which makes it clear, and which makes it absolutely a 
sure thing, that there will be not an invasion of Social Security 
surplus funds.
  To step back a second, let's understand what the Social Security 
surplus funds are. We all pay Social Security taxes on our earnings. 
They are called FICA taxes. Those taxes go into what

[[Page 24086]]

is known as the Social Security trust fund. That trust fund is used to 
pay for the operation of the Social Security system.
  The Social Security system for many years ran a deficit where the 
taxes being raised were not enough to support the money being paid to 
support the benefits, or it was about to run a deficit. Therefore, we 
changed the tax law and we changed the structure of the benefits back 
in 1983 so the system was put into a solvent situation.
  As the baby boom generation grew in its earning capacity and the 
older generations preceding, the World War II generations, retired, we 
found the earning capacity of the baby boom generation was so great it 
was generating a huge surplus. In other words, there was more money 
going into the Social Security trust fund than was needed to support 
the people on Social Security.
  For a number of years, because the operating accounts of the Federal 
Government, the day-to-day operation accounts independent of Social 
Security, were running a deficit, the Social Security trust fund was 
borrowed from to mask the deficit of the operating accounts of the 
Federal Government. We ended up with the Federal Government day-to-day 
operations, whether defense, education, or social services, being 
supported by the Social Security taxes which were being paid into the 
Social Security trust fund.
  With the occurrence of the good economy and a strict fiscal 
discipline put in place by this Republican Congress, we now are in a 
position where we are running what is known as a real surplus. In other 
words, the amount of money we are taking in in order to operate the 
Federal Government in its day-to-day activities is about the same, and 
it is starting to grow to the point where it is actually exceeding the 
amount of money necessary to operate the Federal Government. So things 
such as education, defense, and general social services can be paid for 
by the general revenues of the Federal Government. It is no longer 
necessary for us to invade the Social Security trust fund in any way to 
operate the Federal Government.
  Yet there is still some pressure, because there is this surplus 
running up in the Social Security trust fund, to say we can spend a 
little more on the operations side of the Federal Government--a little 
more for defense, a little more for education. All we have to do is 
take it out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for it.
  That is what this debate is about; there are many of us who believe 
that is not the proper way to do it. The money that goes into the 
Social Security trust fund should be reserved for the purposes of 
preserving and protecting Social Security. Some of us have even gone so 
far as to put forward major pieces of legislation, bipartisan in 
nature, which would structure a program to make the Social Security 
system solvent not only for today but for the next hundred years.
  In fact, there is a bill that would do exactly that which I cosponsor 
with Senator Breaux, Senator Grassley, and a number of other Members, 
Senator Kerrey, Bob Kerrey from Nebraska. It would make the Social 
Security system solvent for years. It would use this surplus in the 
Social Security trust fund to accomplish that solvency.
  That is really another story. But it points out it is important the 
Social Security surplus is preserved for Social Security, the 
preservation of Social Security, and it is not used to operate the 
general government.
  In order to keep Social Security solvent, in order to keep the 
surplus from the day-to-day operation of the Federal Government, we 
have put forward this sense of the Senate. As I mentioned, what the 
sense of the Senate essentially says is, if it occurs that the day-to-
day operation of the Federal Government--for national defense, for 
education, for general social activities--should exceed the operating 
income of the general government--income taxes, business taxes, various 
excise taxes we receive--if it should exceed those incomes, then rather 
than go into the Social Security trust fund to pay for that deficit, we 
will reduce the spending of the Federal Government to the point where 
the incomes of the Federal Government meet the expenses of the Federal 
Government on the operating side of the ledger and the Social Security 
surplus will, therefore, be kept protected and preserved for the 
purpose, I hope, of putting in place a large, comprehensive plan I just 
described to you, that Senators Breaux, Kerrey, and Grassley, and I 
have introduced.
  This proposal is a sense of the Senate. It is not even actually a 
legislative event. I hope someday it will be. But this legislation 
simply states that the Senate is not going to tolerate the invasion of 
the Social Security trust fund for purposes of operating the day-to-day 
functioning of the Government of the United States; that we are going 
to expect the Government of the United States to meet its day-to-day 
operating expenses from the traditional resources that are available to 
it for operations and not from the income that comes from those people 
who are paying Social Security taxes.
  Rather than just making that as a statement, we are also taking it a 
step further, saying we shall create a sequester mechanism whereby 
there will be an actual reduction in spending on the day-to-day 
operations side of the account should there ever occur a situation 
where the Social Security trust fund was going to be used in order to 
pay for day-to-day operations. Thus, we create this clear, enforceable 
protection for Social Security and for our Social Security trust fund.
  It is a very simple idea. It is a very appropriate idea. Most 
important, it is an idea that is absolutely consistent with everything 
we have heard from the White House and from the other side of the aisle 
as it has put forward its concepts of how we should protect and 
preserve the Social Security trust fund. Essentially, Senator Nickles, 
I, and the other Senators who support this legislation, most of whom I 
guess are Republican, are really doing the work of the administration.
  We know, for that reason, we are going to be supported both by the 
administration and Democratic Members of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have here an interesting saga. It started 
when the House decided to add another month to the fiscal year. That 
caused a little bit of controversy, to say the least. Then last week 
they came up with a new proposal, and that is the earned-income tax 
credit, which Ronald Reagan said was the best antiwelfare program he 
had ever known. The Republicans in the House decided what they were 
going to do was slow down the payments of this, the best antiwelfare 
program ever.
  This ran into a little bit of trouble, including the frontrunner for 
the Republican nomination for President, George W. Bush, who said he 
thought it was wrong to try to balance the budget on the backs of the 
poor.
  Just a short time ago, they came up with a new proposal. That is what 
we are here to talk about today, an across-the-board cut. Of course, an 
across-the-board cut would be devastating. In fact, it was attacked 
immediately by the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee as a political blunder. He said: ``It's a mistake. It sets a 
bad precedent. We have never done anything like that.'' This is the 
chairman, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee. So I think we should just step back and become more 
realistic and look at some reasonable offsets to fund Government the 
way it should be funded.
  In this morning's Washington Post, in something called ``In The 
Loop'' by Al Kamen, he gave us the results of a little contest he held. 
He wanted to find out what people thought the new month should be 
named. Remember, the majority wants to extend the calendar year 1 
month. Here are some of the names they have come up with. He said:

       We weeded out some suggestions that came as many as 10 
     times, such as Porkuary or Porkcember, Debtuary or Debtember, 
     Budgetary. . . .


[[Page 24087]]


  But some of those he thinks were winners were: ``Abracadember'' which 
is, magic, It is like ``abracadabra.'' And then ``Payupuary'' was also 
declared a winner. This is clearly voodoo economics; one of the names 
that won was ``Voodoober.''
  We have another one that sounds pretty good--I certainly agree it 
should be declared a winner--``Gridlocked-ober,'' based upon the 
gridlock that occurred just a few years ago because of the Republicans 
shutting down the Government. Another one is ``Busta-cap-uary.'' This 
was submitted by a Member of the House of Representatives.
  Another one that was not submitted by a Member of the House of 
Representatives, but probably should have been--is called 
``DeLaypril,'' named after the House whip.
  I think it is good to add a little bit of levity to what is going on. 
But the levity should end and we should get serious about getting rid 
of the appropriations bills. When I say get rid of them, I mean just 
that. We should get them so they can pass muster here and be signed by 
the President. The way things are going now, I think the President is 
going to veto almost every appropriations bill that is going to be sent 
to him. It is apparent to me the appropriations bills have too much 
magic in them and really are pieces of legislation that deserve these 
derogatory names. We must get serious and pass a budget the American 
people will accept.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, might I inquire of my colleague from New 
Jersey how long would he wish to speak.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have, by unanimous consent, established a half 
hour on each side. If the Senator from Nevada has used 6 minutes, then 
we have roughly 24 left.
  Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, now the Senator from 
New Jersey, has 25 minutes 30 seconds. The Senator from Pennsylvania 
has 18 minutes 19 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may yield to 
the Senator from Oklahoma for 5 minutes without losing any time on our 
side. That comes off their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for 
his cooperation. Of course, this will be charged to our time.
  I appreciate the comments by Senator Coverdell and Senator Gregg. I 
know Senator Grams from Minnesota will be speaking shortly on this 
amendment. I will make some quick comments, and maybe I will not take 5 
minutes.
  I hope we do not have to have across-the-board cuts to meet our 
objectives, but our objective is to make absolutely certain that we do 
not dip in, as some people say, or spend some of the Social Security 
surplus money.
  Right now there are surplus taxes coming from Social Security. There 
are more taxes going in than going out. We want 100 percent of that to 
be used to pay down the national debt. We do not want to spend it. We 
do not want to spend it for anything other than paying down the 
national debt. Period. We are drawing the line.
  I heard my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee--and I have 
great respect for the members on that committee; I served on it at one 
time--say: We do not want to; we do not have to. I agree with that. We 
even put in the resolution we would have across-the-board cuts only if 
necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. I do not think it will be 
necessary.
  Right now, in totaling up the bills, from the Budget Committee and 
the Congressional Budget Office, basically if we have discretionary 
spending above $592 billion or $593 billion, then we will start dipping 
into the Social Security money. Current projections are if we continue 
spending, as outlined in all the appropriations bills, we will be above 
that figure by about $4 billion or $5 billion. We have not concluded 
major appropriations bills. We have not concluded the Ag bill, but we 
are very close. We have not concluded the Department of Defense bill, 
and we have not concluded the Labor-HHS bill which is the biggest bill. 
Among those three bills, we can find $5 billion, and there would be no 
reason whatsoever to have to make this cut.
  In the event we do not, for whatever reason, then let's have some 
adjustments. If it turns out we are $5 billion over--and those are the 
figures given by the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee--we 
will have across-the-board reduction cuts of about 1 percent. It will 
apply to Defense, Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. It will apply to all agencies. 
That is minuscule, that is affordable, and that is doable. It will keep 
us from dipping into Social Security trust funds as we have done year 
after year.
  A lot of us have been pretty resolute in saying we ought to have a 
line. We are breaching the line on the caps because we are exceeding 
the caps by using emergency designations. We are now saying the 
absolute line is let's not grab Social Security money. That money comes 
from payroll taxes. It is supposed to be set aside for retirement. It 
is not to be spent on a variety of programs, whether that is a $2 
billion increase in NIH or a $2.3 billion increase in education, or a 
big increase in defense, or an $8.7 billion emergency Agricultural 
bill. It should not be spent for those things. If necessary, and 
hopefully it will not be necessary, we will implement across-the-board 
reductions to make absolutely certain that we do not dip into the 
Social Security trust funds.
  I thank Senator Gregg, Senator Coverdell, Senator Grams from 
Minnesota, Senator Gramm from Texas, and others in supporting this 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and hopefully it will not be necessary; 
Congress will pass its bills and show at least enough discipline to not 
dip into the Social Security trust fund.
  Again, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his accommodation so 
I can attend another meeting. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer to let our friends on the 
other side who want to speak in opposition go ahead now if they want. I 
will pick up my time when that is done, if that is all right, if 
anybody has any interest.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for another half second?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hagel be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to make sure we mean it when we 
say we are going to protect Social Security. Right now I ought to say 
welcome to the magic show because what we are hearing is rather 
hypothetical: If we want to protect Social Security by adopting across-
the-board reductions in all discretionary appropriations, it should be 
sufficient to eliminate such deficit if necessary.
  I believe it is more important to say how we are going to do that 
without at the same time dipping into Social Security. It is not 
realistic. This is pie in the sky, and the American public ought to 
know about what we are talking.
  I do not support deep, indiscriminate cuts in education, defense, or 
law enforcement. Tell the veterans you want to cut further. I want to 
hear anybody stand on this floor and say to the veterans who served our 
country when we needed them and we made promises: Sorry, we are going 
to cut your benefits. I want them to talk about that. I want to hear 
them talk about how we are going to provide the kind of law enforcement 
we want when we will be getting rid of FBI agents and Border

[[Page 24088]]

Patrol people. Cuts to the Immigration and Naturalization Service could 
result in a reduction of approximately 2,000 Border Patrol agents, when 
everybody is screaming about the number of illegal immigrants pouring 
across our borders. I want to hear them talk about programs such as 
Head Start that give children a chance to learn if they have not had 
the benefit of a home life that encourages learning. Mr. President, 
43,000 children will be cut from the program.
  I hope the American public listens. I know they get tired of our 
droning, but this is the kind of thing they ought to view with 
interest. I hope we are going to defeat this amendment.
  Everyone knows it is now October 6. The fiscal year is almost a week 
old. But obviously, the Republican majority still does not know how 
they are going to put together their budget. They have declared they do 
not want to use Social Security surpluses. No, but the declarations 
ring hollow. In fact, they have been moving legislation that would raid 
those surpluses of billions of dollars, and they do not want to admit 
it.
  The Republican tax bill, for instance, would use Social Security 
surpluses in the years 2005 through 2008. That is not very far away 
from our initial attempt to increase the longevity of Social Security.
  In fiscal year 2008, that raid on Social Security would reach almost 
$50 billion. Public, listen to this: Now they are pushing bills that 
will use roughly $20 billion in Social Security funds this very year, 
the year which started October 1. That is not just my opinion, it is 
the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, which is directed by a 
Republican appointee.
  The majority has that right. Over the past few weeks, the majority 
has twisted itself into knots to evade the discretionary spending caps. 
They have used gimmick after gimmick, to the point where, frankly, the 
integrity of the whole budget process has been compromised.
  I hope my colleagues can see this chart.
  This is what a prominent paper, the Wall Street Journal, had in its 
issue of July 27: GOP using ``two sets of books.''

       Lying about the numbers.

  That is a budget expert, a fellow by the named of Stan Collender on 
the GOP. ``Directed Scorekeeping''--we will talk about that in a 
minute.

       Republicans are double-counting a big part of next year's 
     surplus, papering over the fact that their proposed tax cuts 
     and spending bills already have exhausted available funds.

  In the House, the Republicans have declared the census that we are 
required to take, mandated by the Constitution; it comes around every 
10 years--they want to declare that an emergency so it gets out of the 
spending loop. It is hardly an unexpected crisis. Calling it an 
emergency gets around the discretionary spending caps. For House 
Republicans, apparently, that is more important than direct, honest 
budgeting.
  The Republicans are also using two sets of books, as we see described 
here, to get around the discretionary spending caps. When it suits 
their purposes, the majority uses CBO scoring; when it does not, they 
use OMB scoring. This is mumbo jumbo. For those who are not familiar 
with what goes on here--using this set of books on the one hand and 
that set of books on the other hand.
  If someone was the chief executive of a major corporation--I had the 
honor of serving in that capacity before I came here--and did that, 
they could wind up in jail--using books here to describe what is going 
on on one side, and using books over here to describe a different 
picture to the public. That is unacceptable behavior but certainly not 
in this institution. That way, they can pretend they are spending less 
than they technically are.
  Today, I am releasing a report that explains this so-called 
``Directed Scorekeeping.'' As the report explains, the majority is 
forcing CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to fudge the numbers in 
an unprecedented way. The report is available from my office. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of that report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   How the GOP Is Using ``Two Sets of Books'' To Hide Use of Social 
                            Security Surplus

            [From the Office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg]


                 The Abuse of ``Directed Scorekeeping''

       Congress generally relies on the Congressional Budget 
     Office (CBO) to evaluate the budgetary effects of 
     legislation. This year, however, the Republican majority has 
     repeatedly directed CBO to modify its scoring of 
     appropriations bills, in order to make the bills appear less 
     costly. Although such ``directed scorekeeping'' has occurred 
     occasionally in the past, the extent of the practice this 
     year is unprecedented.
       According to a recent CBO analysis, congressional 
     Republicans have directed CBO to make more than $18 billion 
     in scorekeeping adjustments in the FY 2000 appropriation 
     bill.\1\ CBO generally includes these modifications in its 
     reports on legislation by creating a special account called 
     ``Budget Committee discretionary adjustment.'' This year, the 
     adjustments in the Senate range from $5 million for the 
     District of Columbia to $13 billion for the Department of 
     Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       By forcing CBO to modify its scoring of legislation, the 
     GOP has sought to hide more than $18 billion in new spending. 
     This total exceeds the entire non-Social Security surplus, 
     which CBO estimates at $14 billion.
       Of course, changing the scoring of legislation does not 
     alter the actual budget impact of that legislation. If CBO's 
     actual estimates are used based on their own assumptions, it 
     becomes clear that congress is on its way to spending at 
     least $18 billion of Social Security surpluses in fiscal year 
     2000, and perhaps considerably more.\2\
       Some Republicans defend ``directed scorekeeping'' as 
     necessary to reconcile differences between OMB and CBO 
     spending assumptions. But if accuracy is the goal, we should 
     stick with CBO. A review of outlay estimates for 
     appropriations enacted between 1993 and 1997 found that CBO's 
     estimates were almost identical to the actual amounts spent 
     in each year.\3\ A more recent comparison of CBO and OMB 
     estimates of defense outlays found that CBO's estimates were 
     consistently higher than OMB's between 1997-1999, but that 
     both CBO and OMB came in below actual defense outlays.\4\
       The Republicans are also ``mixing and matching'' 
     estimates--combining OMB's lower spending estimates with 
     CBO's higher surplus projections. Choosing the best 
     assumptions from each agency increases the potential for 
     estimating error beyond what would occur under one set of 
     assumptions. This practice is in clear violation of Section 
     301(g) of the Congressional Budget Act which states that the 
     budget resolution and determinations made for Budget Act 
     points of order ``shall be based upon common economic and 
     technical assumptions''. Unfortunately, there is no practical 
     remedy for violations of this section of the Budget Act since 
     the chair in the Senate relies exclusively on the Budget 
     Committee for all budget rulings.
       Scorekeeping directives have been used in previous years, 
     but not on this large a scale. Between 1991 and 1999, CBO was 
     asked to change its estimates of appropriations bills four 
     times by amounts ranging from $1.9 billion in 1993 to $5.5 
     billion in 1992. The adjustment this year, $18.7 billion, is 
     $5.7 billion higher than the previous nine years combined.
       Section 312(a) of the Congressional Budget Act gives the 
     Budget Committees the prerogative to use their own estimates 
     in the budget process. When this discretion is abused, there 
     is no penalty, other than higher deficits. Ironically, 
     American companies don't get off the hook so easily. In 
     recent months, the SEC has cracked down on businesses that 
     use accounting gimmicks to exaggerate profits. Several 
     companies have been charged and some have paid fines. 
     Unfortunately, only the American taxpayer picks up the tab 
     when the Congress cooks the books.
       The following table shows CBO estimates of scoring 
     adjustments for the ten year period, fiscal years 1991-2000.

                     DIRECTED SCORING, FY 1991-2000
                    [Outlays; in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fiscal year                Defense    Nondefense     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 est.\1\.......................     -13,073       -5,596     -18,669
1999 \1\...........................      -2,383         -235      -2,618
1993...............................      -1,291         -565      -1,856
1992...............................      -2,937       -2,532      -5,469
1991...............................      -2,929  ...........      -2,929
1991-99............................      -9,540       -3,332     -12,872
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates based on House adjustments.
 
Source: CBO.

                    [Memorandum of October 4, 1999]

     To: Sue Nelson.
     From: Janet Airis.
     Subject: Across-the-Board Cut to Discretionary 
         Appropriations.

       This is in response to your request of an across-the-board 
     cut to FY 2000 discretionary appropriations. You asked us to 
     calculate an across-the-board cut that would result in an 
     estimated on-budget deficit for FY 2000 of zero, assuming 
     that the current status CBO

[[Page 24089]]

     estimate (excluding ``directed scoring''), as of October 4, 
     is enacted into law. Given your assumption, our estimate of 
     the projected on-budget deficit is $19.2 billion. Our 
     estimate of the outlays available to be cut is $351.7 
     billion. Dividing the projected deficit by the available 
     outlays results in an across-the-board cut of 5.5%
       This calculation is preliminary and done without benefit of 
     language. If you have any questions, please contact me at 
     226-2850.

                      FY 2000 ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT
              [In billions of dollars, as of Oct. 4, 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Senate
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       BA         OL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current action:
  Current Status (as of 10/4/99), excluding           564.0     613.1
   directed scoring...............................
  CBO July, 1999 Baseline.........................    539.3     579.8
                                                   =====================
  Excess over Baseline............................     24.7      33.2
  Debt service on increase to disc. spending over   .......       0.4
   baseline.......................................
                                                   ---------------------
      Total, excess over baseline.................  .......      33.6
  Less projected on-budget surplus (CBO Economic    .......      14.4
   and Budget Outlook, 7/1/99)....................
  Projected on-budget deficit as of 10/4/99.......  .......     -19.2
Calculation:
  Current Status (outlays new, excluding scoring      564.0     351.7
   adjustment)....................................
  Percent A-T-B cut to reduce deficit to 0          .......       0.0546
   (projected deficit divided by new outlays).....
  Across-the-board cut amount.....................     30.8      19.2
  Current Status after across-the-board cut:
      BA and new outlays..........................    533.2     332.5
      Prior year outlays..........................  .......     261.3
                                                   ---------------------
        Total.....................................    533.2     593.8
  CBO baseline plus $14.4 billion (estimated        .......     593.8
   surplus).......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This calculation assumes discretionary budgetary resources (e.g.
  budget authority, obligation limitations) are subject to the across-
  the-board cut.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

                               footnotes

     \1\ CBO has been asked to adjust the House appropriation 
     bills downward by $18.6 billion. The total adjustment from 
     normal CBO estimates in the Senate is $18.3 billion. This 
     includes a $2.6 billion reduction in the projected cost of 
     the defense appropriations bill that Committee staff made to 
     reflect OMB's scoring of a provision that accelerates a 
     spectrum auction.
     \2\ Letter from CBO Director Dan Crippen to Rep. John Spratt, 
     September 29, 1999.
     \3\ Congressional Budget Office, ``An Analysis of CBO's 
     Outlay Estimates for Appropriation Bills, Fiscal Years 1993-
     1998'', October 1998 memorandum.
     \4\ Congressional Budget Office, ``An Analysis of the 
     President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2000'', April 
     1999, page 75-82.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Beyond using the emergency designation and using two 
sets of books, the majority has resorted to the gimmick of artificially 
shifting huge amounts of spending into the next fiscal year.
  The Washington Post described this as adding a 13th month to the 
fiscal year, kind of changing the calendar. It is a gimmick, and the 
public, again, ought to take notice. It is like getting out of debt by 
putting existing debts on a second credit card. It may make you feel 
better today, but it is sure going to make things tougher tomorrow.
  These are a few of the gimmicks that are being proposed in this 
legislation. But no matter how many are used, there is no getting 
around the fact that the majority has busted the spending caps, and 
they are spending Social Security surpluses. Let's make sure that is 
clearly understood. They are using the budget surpluses created in the 
Social Security account to fund Government. They want to take even 
larger cuts out of programs.
  There is a better alternative. Instead of using scorekeeping 
gimmicks, we can use real offsets; that is, take it from another place. 
For example, we can close special interest tax loopholes. The 
Republicans even included some of those loophole closers in their tax 
bill, so this should not be at all that hard.
  Another option that I personally favor is to simply go to the source 
that cost this country of ours lots and lots of money, the tobacco 
industry. Let them fully compensate taxpayers for the costs of tobacco-
related diseases that they create. Why should they be protected? I do 
not understand it. Why cannot we get our friends across the aisle to 
join us in saying to the tobacco industry: Pay the $20 billion that you 
cost us with the diseases that you have helped render on our society?
  It is an outrage. We are going to let them get away with what they do 
while we say to our citizens: OK, we are going to cut veterans 
benefits; we are going to cut police efforts; we are going to cut 
education. Come on. That by itself could virtually eliminate the raid 
on Social Security--$20 billion by the bills already approved by the 
Senate.
  To its credit, the Justice Department is trying to recoup these costs 
through civil litigation against the tobacco companies. But as we all 
know, that could take years. Meanwhile, Congress can act now to make 
the taxpayers whole. We ought to do it.
  The Nickles amendment, however, proposes another approach. It says: 
Rather than closing tax loopholes or asking the tobacco industry to pay 
its fair share, let's cut education, let's cut defense, let's cut the 
FBI, let's cut the Border Patrol, let's cut environmental protection, 
and let's cut veterans health care.
  We heard it said that these across-the-board cuts might be a 2- or 3-
percent difference. But those figures are not based on CBO's own 
estimates; they are based on the so-called ``Directed Scorekeeping.'' 
That is a direction from the Budget Committee or the leadership to say: 
Hey, you say it's going to cost $10 billion. I tell you what, let's say 
something else. Let's say it's only going to cost $9 billion. OK, $9 
billion. There is no basis in fact, but let's say it.
  It is based on politically driven assumptions about how much bills 
will cost, not the objective analysis of CBO estimators.
  The truth is that if we are serious about protecting Social Security 
surpluses, the across-the-board cuts would have to be much greater. And 
if we look at the bills the Senate has already approved, we would need 
a 5.5-percent cut. And that is not my figure; that comes from the 
Congressional Budget Office--5.5 percent. The Transportation bill that 
we just processed through here--and I shared the Democratic leadership 
in getting that bill to the floor--would take a cut of over $2.5 
billion.
  But even that is unrealistically low. First, many Senate bills still 
need to be reconciled with the House, which has adopted a variety of 
emergency provisions--gimmickry--to allow for increased spending. In 
addition, Congress almost inevitably will increase spending for other 
items in the near future: Funding for hurricane victims--that ought to 
be fresh in our minds--for health care providers that are suffering 
from excessive cuts, preventing the expected closings of long-term care 
facilities in major quantities, for operations such as Kosovo; and then 
it is also a good bet that at some point this year there will be other 
emergencies: earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes--who knows what--that 
will also require more funding. If we do not offset that spending, it 
will come straight out of the Social Security surplus--cut the Social 
Security surplus.
  When you account for these additional costs, you would have to cut 
discretionary spending roughly 10 percent under this amendment--10 
percent. Do my colleagues want to go on record in supporting cutting 
education by at least 5 percent, more likely 10 percent? Do they want 
to call for cuts in defense, veterans programs, crime initiatives, and 
health research? I am sure the American public does not want that to 
happen, and none of us elected to represent them ought to support this 
wild scheme.
  Senator Nickles has offered his amendment as a second degree to his 
own underlying amendment. But at an appropriate point, once his second-
degree amendment is disposed of, I plan to offer an alternative 
amendment. My amendment will call for rejecting scorekeeping gimmicks 
and indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. Instead, it will urge that we 
protect Social Security surpluses by closing special interest tax 
loopholes and using other appropriate offsets.
  My alternative amendment does not limit the types of offsets that 
could be used, nor does it single anything out. But it would put us 
clearly on record in opposition to the broad-based cuts proposed by the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, and in strong 
opposition to the continued use of budget gimmickry to avoid tough 
decisions.
  For now, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Nickles amendment. I ask 
the public who may learn of this amendment to let their Representatives 
know they do not like it, that they want to protect Social Security 
surpluses. Let's not make the deep cuts that are arbitrary in 
education, defense, crime, veterans, and other programs. Instead, let

[[Page 24090]]

us close special interest tax loopholes, find other appropriate offsets 
that will allow us to save Social Security, as all of us agree should 
be done, in a direct and honest way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 14 minutes 
18 seconds, and the Senator from New Jersey has 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise strongly to support Senator Nickles' 
pending amendment on the Labor-HHS bill, and I commend his leadership 
and vitality on this very important issue.
  This amendment reassures the American people that Congress is not 
going to spend one penny of Social Security money, and it will put the 
Senate on record that we will honor that commitment.
  We hear our colleagues from the other side of the aisle say 
Republicans are already dipping into Social Security. They want to 
spend more money.
  That is not true. What we are trying to do is say we are going to go 
up to the edge but not go over; that is, not spend one dime of Social 
Security money. By being able to do that, we don't want to dip into the 
Social Security trust fund. We think everybody, across the board, on 
discretionary spending should make sure that doesn't happen.
  That means we have an across-the-board cut. In other words, reduce 
all spending, in order to protect Social Security. That, I think, would 
be a fair and even way to do it.
  Our colleagues on the other side don't want to cut spending. They are 
not talking about cutting spending at all in any programs. What they 
are saying--and the gimmicks they would use or the magic they would put 
into this budget--is simple tax increases. Let's penalize big tobacco, 
they say. But they don't tell us there are dozens of other tax 
increases buried in their proposal that would also affect every other 
average working American in this country. In other words, to support 
their higher spending level, they want to go out and attack the 
taxpayer. ``Let's raise taxes,'' ``close loopholes,'' are some of the 
words they use. The magic they put in it is tax increases.
  That means every American out there can face higher Federal taxes in 
order to support larger spending. We are saying, let's do it the other 
way around. Let us be fiscally responsible. Let us not ask more of the 
taxpayer. Let us reduce spending across the board and do it in a very 
fair and equitable way.
  I believe this is a crucial step to truly protect the Social Security 
surplus and save it exclusively for Americans' retirement, not for tax 
relief, not for government spending. This is a line we absolutely have 
to draw in the sand.
  In fact, over the past few days I have been working on legislation 
which is related to Senator Nickles' amendment. I will introduce the 
bill today.
  This legislation will be complimentary to the Nickles amendment. His 
is a sense-of-the-Senate--my bill would create a mechanism to enforce 
our commitment. It would prevent anyone, whether it be the Congress or 
the administration, from raiding the Social Security surplus. This 
enforcement mechanism is simple and straightforward. Because we won't 
know whether we are spending the Social Security surplus until we get 
the CBO revised numbers in January, this bill will trigger an automatic 
across-the-board cut in discretionary spending to make up any 
differences if the January reestimate shows we are spending any Social 
Security surplus. It would work similarly to the sequester of Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings, but applies to Social Security surplus spending.
  Let me address why it is so important to pass both the Nickles sense-
of-the-Senate and my legislation. Economic forecasting is more of an 
art that a science. Many uncertainties, risks, and factors are 
involved. We have a budget of $1.8 trillion based on a variety of 
assumptions, estimates, forecasts and projections, with people using 
both CBO numbers and OMB numbers. It is highly likely that there are 
errors in this budget. While we should learn from our past mistakes and 
take a very prudent and conservative approach in our economic outlook 
and our spending, a $10 billion error in forecasting of $1.8 trillion 
is not uncommon.
  However, some of our colleagues are out there accusing us of spending 
the Social Security surplus. the truth is, we don't want to, but 
honestly we don't know for certain at this point. Neither does the 
President nor our Democratic colleagues. That is, whey we need my bill 
as our insurance that we will live up to our commitment.
  Some wave the CBO August letter to prove they are right. But Mr. 
President, as one economist observed, ``If you torture numbers long 
enough, they will confess to anything.'' This is true with the CBO 
estimates. As you know, the CBO is a scorekeeping office and it scores 
based on whatever assumptions Congress requires it to use. We could 
continue to argue indefinitely over the right assumptions. That does 
not solve the problem.
  Since both Congress and President Clinton have agreed that saving 
Social Security should be our top priority and have committed to not 
spending the Social Security surplus for government programs, we must 
find a better way to keep our promise to the American people.
  Republicans have made a number of attempts to create a lockbox to 
lock in every penny of the Social Security surplus, not for government 
spending, not for tax relief, but exclusively for Americans' 
retirement. Unfortunately, opposition by the Democrats has blocked the 
establishment of this safe lockbox.
  In the absence of the Social Security safety lockbox, I hope that all 
of our colleagues and the President agree with us that we must draw a 
line in the sand. And live up to our pledge that not a penny of the 
Social Security surplus will be spent to fund this year's 
appropriations. Personally, I will vote against any spending bills that 
our right plans to spend Social Security money. If our spending plans 
do pass and we would, unintentionally wind up spending Social Security, 
my bill allows us to keep our commitment to the American people, by 
scaling back other spending to save Social Security.
  Again, since we must use economic assumptions, the difficulty we are 
facing is because the numbers are so close we won't know if this year's 
appropriations have spent the Social Security surplus--or which 
specific spending bill or bills have spent the money--until next year 
when we receive the CBO re-estimate. Therefore we need an effective 
enforcement mechanism to ensure that Congress and the President do not 
touch the Social Security money.
  The best mechanism is that proposed by Senator Nickles' sense-of-the-
Senate and my legislation. If this year's appropriations end up 
spending the Social Security surplus as a result of estimate errors, we 
will automatically rescind that amount by reducing government spending 
across-the-board and return it to the Social Security trust fund. This 
will affect discretionary spending only--not entitlement programs for 
seniors or the needy.
  My biggest fear, is that without this mechanism Congress and the 
President may spend some of the Social Security surplus by using 
erroneous estimates. We would be forced to legislate after the fact if 
there is a re-estimate that shows spending of the Social Security 
surplus. The atmosphere of panic could cloud the type and speed of the 
remedy. The remedy should be my bill, and it should be passed before we 
face a problem, so we cannot play the blame game once we have a re-
estimate.
  The President's revised budget plan would have dipped into the Social 
Security surplus by $24 billion. Counting his $12 billion emergency 
spending request, the President would spend $36 billion of the Social 
Security surplus for fiscal year 2000. Compared with his original 
budget, which would have

[[Page 24091]]

taken $150 billion from the trust funds, this revised plan is a great 
improvement.
  However, the President still wants to spend money he pledged to save. 
That's not acceptable. We must say no to anyone who wants to spend even 
a penny of the Social Security surplus because we promised the American 
people we would save it. There is no excuse in an era of budget surplus 
to continue raiding the Social Security trust funds. Washington has 
done enough damage to America's retirement system.
  In 1998, American workers paid $489 billion into the Social Security 
system, but most of the money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out 
to 44 million beneficiaries the same year. That left a $106 billion 
surplus. The total accumulated surplus in the trust fund is $763 
billion.
  Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The Government has 
consumed all the $763 billion for non-Social Security related programs. 
All it has are the Treasury IOUs.
  Despite Washington's rhetoric of using every penny of Social Security 
surplus to save Social Security, last year's omnibus appropriations 
bill alone spent over $22 billion of the Social Security surplus. 
Without the enforceable mechanism provided by the Nickles amendment and 
my legislation, the Social Security surplus is likely to be spent to 
fund other government programs in fiscal year 2000 and the outyears.
  Enough is enough. We must stop this outrageous practice. The time is 
now to show our resolve in protecting every penny of the Social 
Security surplus to ensure it will be available for Americans' 
retirement income security.
  Do not mistakenly think that our colleagues across the aisle have 
changed their big spending ways by their rhetoric opposing spending the 
Social Security surplus. Do not believe for a second that they want to 
maintain fiscal discipline. They still want to spend more by taxing 
more.
  Instead of controlling spending, the President and the Democrats have 
increased government spending and created even more government 
programs. They believe they know best how to spend taxpayers' money and 
that they can do more by spending more.
  This solution to continue to grow funding for government programs at 
unprecedented high levels is to raise taxes. In the President's budget, 
he has not just proposed to penalize American tobacco companies, but to 
raise taxes on also small businesses, homeowners as well as millions of 
other Americans who are already overtaxed.
  Again, the President's solution to avoiding spending the Social 
Security surplus will be to increase taxes. He will penalize American 
small businesses by changing their tax rules; he penalizes millions of 
American seniors who rely on life insurance products for their 
retirement; he penalizes non-profit trade organizations, which serve 
the disadvantaged in their communities so well, by taking away their 
tax exempt status; he penalizes other American companies by imposing 
environmental surtaxes and excise taxes. The President also penalizes 
millions of American homeowners by increasing their mortgage 
transaction fees; he penalizes millions of American travelers by 
raising taxes on their domestic air passenger tickets.
  Is there anyone left who hasn't been penalized by the President and 
his colleagues in the Congress?
  A tax increase is not the solution to this year's serious spending 
problem. Exercising fiscal discipline is our best solution. Although we 
don't know if we already have spent the Social Security surplus for 
fiscal year 2000 due to uncertain and incomplete estimates, we should 
take a very prudent approach on spending. On principle, we must do 
everything we can to ensure Washington will not have a chance to touch 
any Social Security money.
  I am disappointed that instead of solving the problem, Washington is 
trying again to hide behind creative financing, forward funding, 
emergency spending and so-called technical adjustments to give the 
appearance we are not breaking the spending caps or eating into the 
Social Security surplus. I am also disappointed that Congress spends 
every penny of the $14 billion on-budget surplus for increased 
spending. Remember, this $14 billion is the tax overpayment which we 
promised to return to working Americans in the form of tax relief. I 
proposed this in the budget resolution and Congress included this in 
our budget resolution early this year.
  I have warned repeatedly that if we don't return tax overcharges to 
the taxpayers or reduce the debt, Washington will spend it all, leaving 
nothing for tax relief or the vitally important task of preserving 
Social Security. This year's appropriations bills have proven my fear 
to be well founded. The last thing we want to do is to spend these tax 
overpayments to enlarge the government. Since President Clinton's veto 
prevents major tax relief this year, we at least should dedicate this 
on-budget surplus to reduce the national debt. But we are spending 
every penny of it, in violation of our commitment in the budget 
resolution.
  Twenty-five years ago, the Congress passed the Congressional Budget 
Act, which created an annual budgeting process in the hope of 
controlling spiraling government spending. Twenty five years later we 
have made progress but are still unable to tame this beast.
  Today, spending is at an all-time high, and so are taxes. The 
government is getting bigger, not smaller. Government spending is 
growing twice as fast as personal income. Discretionary spending has 
increased by over 20 percent since 1993.
  The budget process has become so complicated that most lawmakers have 
a hard time understanding it. Of course, that hasn't stopped the 
proliferation of budget gimmicks to circumvent the intent of the 
Congress. The flawed budget process allows Members to vote to control 
spending in the budget and then turn right around and vote for 
increased appropriations.
  Spending caps are the best example of the phrase ``fiscal 
discipline'' means nothing in Washington. Spending caps were supposedly 
a good tool to control spending--if the President and lawmakers could 
stick to them. But since the establishment of statutory spending 
limits, Washington has repeatedly broken them because of a lack of 
fiscal discipline. In fact, the first budget criteria in the past has 
been to first break the caps so spending could be accommodated.
  Washington set new spending caps in 1990 after it failed to meet its 
deficit reduction targets. In 1993, President Clinton broke the 
spending caps for his new spending increases and created new caps. But 
in 1997, the President could not live within his own spending caps, and 
he broke them again. New spending caps were again re-negotiated and 
established in BBA.
  By 1998, one year later Congress and President Clinton could not live 
within their new limits and proposed over $22 billion of so-called 
``emergency spending'' and other unauthorized spending in the omnibus 
spending legislation to get around the caps. The use of ``emergency'' 
spending is far too broad, and has become a common budget gimmick.
  This year Washington may spend $37 billion or more above the spending 
caps and use more creative bookkeeping to give the impression we are 
maintaining the caps. It demands more spending to fully fund government 
programs, but delays payment of the bills until the next fiscal year, 
placing more and more pressure on future caps and spending commitments.
  Again and again, Washington lowers the fiscal bar and them jumps over 
it, or finds ways around it, at the expense of the American taxpayers. 
This is wrong. If we commit to living within the statutory spending 
caps, we must stick to them. We must use every tool available to 
enforce these spending limits. If we were still facing a budget deficit 
we would not be spending this much money. But because there is a 
surplus, the feeding frenzy continues. Again, a lack of fiscal 
discipline.
  I understand the upward spending pressure the Congress is facing this 
year and in the outyears. But I believe we should, and can, meet this 
challenge by prioritizing and streamlining government programs while 
maintaining

[[Page 24092]]

fiscal discipline. We can reduce wasteful, unnecessary, duplicate, low-
priority government programs to fund the necessary and responsible 
functions of government. We could if we tried, but it seems it's easier 
just to throw more money at the budget. Many believe we can help more 
if we spend more, but the spending comes at the expense of somebody--
and that somebody is usually the average, middle-class taxpayer.
  It's true that our short-term fiscal situation has improved greatly 
due to the continued growth of our economy. However, our long-term 
financial imbalance still poses a major threat to the health of our 
future economic security. The President said tax relief was 
irresponsible. Wrong. It's spending appetite that is irresponsible.
  Breaking the caps through more and more spending will only worsen our 
short-term fiscal outlook and affect our ability to deal with long-term 
budget pressures.
  We can run but we cannot hide from our budget problems. We must make 
hard choices and be honest about it. While ``advance appropriations,'' 
``advance funding'' and ``forward funding'' are not uncommon practices 
here, it does not mean they are the right thing to do, particularly 
when these budget techniques are used to dodge much-needed fiscal 
discipline.
  In the past 5 years, ``advance appropriations'' have increased 
dramatically, jumping from $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $11.6 
billion in fiscal year 2000, an increase of $9.7 billlion over 5 years. 
This year, President Clinton proposed advancing nearly $19 billion into 
fiscal year 2001. Advance appropriations create even worse problems for 
us in the outyears. We must end this irresponsible practice.
  I realize how extremely difficult it is for appropriators to get 
their job done this year. I appreciate the fact that tremendous efforts 
are being made to keep our promise not to spend any of Social Security 
surplus. My point is, in an era of budget surplus, extra prudence and 
effort is needed to keep ourselves from spending more than we can 
afford. If we can maintain fiscal discipline, we will be able to honor 
our commitment to the American people not to take any money from Social 
Security.
  Protecting the Social Security surplus from funding government 
operations is the last defense of fiscal discipline. I cannot emphasize 
how vitally important this line of defense is for both the Republican 
Party as well as the Democratic Party. If we lose this defense, our 
credibility and accountability with the Americn people will be gone.
  Mr. President, the best protection is the Nickles sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment coupled with my legislation. If more accurate or actual 
numbers show Congress and the President have spent the Social Security 
surplus for fiscal year 2000 and beyond, an effective mechanism will 
ensure the money is returned. It is plain and simple. I hope my 
colleagues from both sides will support the Nickles amendment and my 
legislation.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMS. I will yield.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that the cut would probably have to be 
around a 9 percent across-the-board cut?
  Mr. GRAMS. Why would it be 9 percent? Some of the latest numbers I 
have seen are anywhere from $3.8 to $5.6 billion, and all of the 
appropriation bills are not yet completed. They have not been submitted 
or voted on, so we are still estimating. If the Senator is talking 
about $30 billion or $40 billion, we are not in that range right now. 
Those accusations have been made, but according to the numbers I have 
seen, we are not in that range.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the Office of Management and Budget, in 
a meeting last night, indicated at least 9 percent. The House has a 
number of things in bills they have passed; they have declared those as 
emergencies. There are other matters that are double funded. For 
example, in order to pass this bill, there has been money taken from 
the Defense appropriations bill. There comes a time when we have to 
fund everything in realistic terms. As I have indicated, the Office of 
Management and Budget believes across-the-board cuts now would have to 
be about 9 percent.
  Mr. GRAMS. Without agreeing to the Senator's numbers, let me say that 
if that were the case, wouldn't it show that we are spending more than 
we should and that that kind of a cut would be something that we should 
do? If we are going to go back and say to the taxpayer: We can't manage 
the books and somehow we have spent 9 or 10 percent more in 
discretionary spending than we have, and the only way we can make it up 
is to go out and penalize, as my colleagues have said, big tobacco, but 
also penalize in dozens of other ways with other tax increases--in 
other words, if we can't do our job responsibly--then we should go to 
the taxpayer and say, let's just have a little more revenue to make up 
those differences. I don't think it is going to be in the range of 9 or 
10 percent. If that would be true, I think that would be a glaring 
argument we are overspending by 10 percent in discretionary spending 
and we should make every effort to trim that spending.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? If the Senator 
will yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAMS. I will yield just for one.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have a letter from CBO that says dividing the 
projected deficit by the available outlays results in an across-the-
board cut of 5.5 percent. That is from the CBO. I ask the Senator, if 
he hasn't, if he would take a look at that. I think he will see that is 
some pretty deep cuts he is talking about, 5.5 percent.
  Mr. GRAMS. I think we are overspending by that much, too. I will say 
this once again, as I mentioned earlier in my statement. We are using a 
lot of different numbers. We are using a lot of assessments, 
projections. We are taking a lot of risks in a $1.8 trillion budget. If 
some of these numbers are wrong, then I think we need to go back and 
adjust them. The question, I guess, comes down to how do we adjust 
them. My colleagues on the other side would adjust them by raising 
taxes so they could keep spending more. What we are advocating is we 
would adjust our spending habits and spend less across the board. I 
think we need to do that because taxpayers today are paying taxes at an 
all-time record high. Forty-two percent, on average, of everything 
people in my State of Minnesota earn goes to pay taxes. I think that we 
can't continue to ask them to pay even more because we can't hold down 
their spending.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 25 seconds. The Democratic side 
has 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. The CBO has 
projected that we are heading toward using at least $19 billion of the 
Social Security surplus next year. Again, I agree with Senator Nickles 
that we should not be dipping into Social Security to pay for this 
year's appropriations bills. But, quite frankly, I believe the other 
side already has dipped into Social Security by the fact of what they 
have been doing with their spending bills.
  While I do agree with Senator Nickles on not dipping into Social 
Security, I don't agree with his solution. Again, he calls for an 
across-the-board cut against all discretionary programs, even those 
that we have already passed. They were passed by both sides, went to 
conference, came back, and they have been signed into law by the 
President. Now they want to take that back.
  OMB has estimated a 9-percent across-the-board cut. We have a letter 
from CBO which shows that this across-the-board cut that Senator 
Nickles is proposing would be about 5.5 percent. Well, let's take a 
look. The Senator from Minnesota said we are

[[Page 24093]]

spending too much money. I am going to get into that in a second. Take 
a look at what we would have to cut with a 5.5-percent cut across the 
board. Our COPS program, our community policing program that puts cops 
on the streets, would have to be cut by $26 million; Head Start, $290 
million cut; meals for seniors, $29 million cut; NIH, $967 million cut. 
That is almost a $1 billion cut in NIH. While Senator Specter and I and 
others, in a bipartisan manner, have worked to get the $2 billion 
increase for NIH and get it on the track to double in 5 years, this 
would whack about a billion dollars out of NIH.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Iowa, who has spent so much time on 
Head Start, explain why it would hurt American children to cut almost 
$300 million from Head Start?
  Mr. HARKIN. First of all, we all agree this has been a bipartisan 
approach to put more money into Head Start to cover all 4-year-olds in 
the Head Start Program. We know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure. Every study done, all the educators, everybody says if we can 
put the money into Head Start, we are going to save a lot of money 
downstream.
  Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, that it has been proven and apparent 
that we save money in welfare costs and costs to our criminal justice 
system by helping these kids?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it also true that, even funded at current levels, 
most kids who need help don't get it?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I think right now on Head Start, we are a little 
over 50 percent. About 50 percent of the eligible kids are served by 
Head Start. We are trying to get it up to 80 percent.
  Mr. REID. If we cut almost $300 million, we are going to drop down to 
30 or 35 percent.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is correct--probably less than 40 percent. Four out 
of 10 kids who qualify, who need the Head Start Program, will be cut 
out of the program because of this cut.
  Mr. REID. You heard the Senator from Minnesota say we have to start 
cutting, that we are spending too much money. Does the Senator from 
Iowa think we are spending too much money for the Head Start Program?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has put his finger on it. We are spending too 
little on that program. We need to fund it so every eligible child can 
get into that program.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Minnesota said what Democrats want to do 
is raise taxes. Hasn't the Senator from Iowa been trying for more than 
3 years--would the Senator tell this Senator, because I want some 
understanding, as to what you are talking about for tobacco, for 
example, to cover some of these things?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am going to get to where we can get the money so we can 
have the offsets, so we don't have--
  Mr. REID. It is not out of taxes, is it?
  Mr. HARKIN. Not one penny in taxes. I want to say to my friend from 
Nevada that the Senator from Minnesota said we are spending too much 
money. I am thinking that I might offer an amendment to cut NIH by $1 
billion. Let's see how many votes we get on the other side. What if I 
offered an amendment to cut Head Start by $290 million? Do you think 
the Republicans would all vote to cut that? How about title I, 
education grants, $380 million in cuts to title I for our schools? How 
about veterans' health care, cut by $1.1 billion? Does anybody believe 
that if we offered amendments to cut those, we would get the votes to 
do that? Maybe the Senator from Minnesota would be the sole person who 
would vote to cut NIH by a billion dollars; I don't know. Perhaps we 
ought to have an amendment to see if that is what they want to do.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it true that if we had amendments to increase 
spending for veterans' benefits by a billion dollars, they would pass 
overwhelmingly?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is probably true. The Senator is absolutely right. 
When the Senator says we are spending too much and we have to cut 
spending, why doesn't he offer some amendments to cut NIH, title I, 
meals for seniors, and Head Start? No, they are going to try to hide 
behind this sort of across-the-board cut. An across-the-board cut means 
deep cuts in these programs.
  The Senator from Nevada said we have a proposal where we can pay for 
these programs and it would not require any tax at all. This is what we 
could do. I have a proposal that has been scored by CBO. If we just 
penalize the tobacco companies that fail to reduce teen smoking--they 
set the targets to reduce teen smoking, but they are not meeting them. 
We are saying that they pay a penalty for not reducing that and it 
raises $6 billion. CBO has given us the score on that. We could fund 
the Department of Defense at the requested level. What DOD said is, 
fund them at that level. That saves us $4 billion. We could enact the 
administration's proposal for student loan guarantee agencies. That is 
$1.5 billion in savings.
  I might add that the House, last week, went the opposite direction. 
They raised the student loan origination fees. I could not believe they 
did that. Talk about raising taxes; last week, the House raised the 
taxes on college students by making them pay more for their loans. They 
increased it by 25 percent. It affects about one-third of students. 
More than half of the students in my State of Iowa are affected by 
that. So they got a 25-percent increase in their origination fees.
  Well, that is the opposite way to go. If we enacted the 
administration's proposal, we would save $1.5 billion. Reduce Medicare 
waste, fraud, and abuse by $13 billion. Well, again, the House bill--
the counterpart to this--actually cuts funding for Medicare waste, 
fraud, and abuse. It retreats at a time when we have $13 billion 
estimated annually that we lose to Medicare for waste, fraud, and 
abuse.
  What the House GOP did is to cut $70 million from the audits and 
other checks that save us $17 for every dollar spent. We know from the 
audit agencies and others that for every dollar we have spent on 
audits, every dollar we have spent on the checks, we got $17 returned 
from waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet the House bill cut money from 
fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is inexcusable. If we want to go 
after it, we could save $13 billion.
  The last is reducing corporate welfare. We have a series of things--
$2 billion tax deductibility of tobacco advertising; underpayments by 
oil and gas industry royalties for use of Federal lands; billions lost 
because of tax loopholes and gimmicks that allow foreign companies and 
multinationals to avoid paying their fair share by bookkeeping methods 
that shift funds to foreign tax havens. By doing that, we can save 
about $4 billion. So our total offsets are about $28.5 billion, and we 
haven't raised taxes on any American. Nobody would have to pay more 
taxes.
  Yet this is the choice: Either have these kinds of offsets that will 
help pay for increased funding at NIH, veterans' health care, Head 
Start programs, meals for seniors; or what the Senator from Oklahoma 
wants to do, and that is to have a huge cut in all of these programs. 
That is really where we are.
  As I said, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma; we shouldn't be 
dipping into Social Security. But we shouldn't be cutting Head Start 
programs. We shouldn't be cutting Meals on Wheels, meals to seniors. We 
shouldn't be cutting NIH and biomedical research. We should focus on 
the waste, fraud, and abuse, focus on the tax loopholes, focus on the 
DOD funding at their requested level, and that will more than pay for 
the programs we have come up with on a bipartisan basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 4 minutes 25 
seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the consensus has been clear cut that 
Social Security trust funds ought not to be invaded. The pending 
Nickles amendment recites that the Congress and the President should 
balance the budget excluding the surplus generated by the Social 
Security trust funds. That is really agreed upon, I think on all sides.
  The second finding is that Social Security surpluses should be used 
only

[[Page 24094]]

for Social Security reform, or to reduce the debt held by the public, 
and should not be spent on other programs. That is generally agreed 
upon.
  Then the sense-of-the-Senate clause: It is the sense of the Senate 
that Congress should ensure that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations 
measures do not result in an onbudget deficit, excluding the surpluses 
generated by the Social Security trust funds, by adopting an across-
the-board reduction in all discretionary appropriations sufficient to 
eliminate such deficit, if necessary.
  The sense of the Senate is not binding, as we all know; it is what we 
think ought to be done.
  I do not like the idea of reducing the discretionary spending, 
although I think the figures cited by the Senator from Iowa are 
extreme. I don't think we are looking at a 5-percent across-the-board 
cut, which would have a deep impact on Head Start, which we ought not 
to do, or a deep impact on NIH, which we ought not to do.
  In proposing this amendment, Senator Nickles seeks to put the Senate 
on notice--and appropriately so--that we had better come within the 
confines, and not exceed the caps, and not go into Social Security. I 
think that is an appropriate objective.
  When the Senator from Iowa articulates proposals for savings in quite 
a number of other directions, I don't think they are realistic. I don't 
think the Congress is going to cut defense by $4 billion. When he 
articulates the view about penalizing tobacco companies that fail to 
reduce teen smoking by $6 billion, that is a laudable objective, if we 
can find more tobacco money. It is too bad we don't have some of the 
money which was worked out on the $203 billion settlement for the 
Federal Government. But I don't think that is likely either. Reducing 
waste, fraud, and abuse is the most lofty objective the Congress can 
articulate. But finding the money to achieve that is so hard.
  While I have worked very closely with my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa, I don't really think those figures are realistic. I don't think 
we are going to reduce Head Start. I don't think we are going to reduce 
NIH. But there is a stick. It is a stick to stay within the budget 
limitations.
  Among a great many alternatives which are undesirable, I believe the 
pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution is the least undesirable. So I 
am going to support it.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would Senator Nickles like the last word?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for going to 
the Finance Committee. I have just a couple of comments.
  I have heard some of the discussion which said if we enact this 
amendment, we will have a 5-percent reduction. That is not the case. I 
have heard my colleagues say the Congressional Budget Office says it. 
Well, frankly, you get into descriptions of who is doing the scoring. 
If you use the administration scoring, it is not 5 percent; it is 1 
percent. We use some administration scoring, OMB scoring. When we had 
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, we used OMB scoring. They were the ones 
who implemented it. We use OMB scoring in a lot of the bills we have 
before us. If that is the case, we are $5 billion off. I don't think we 
have to be $5 billion off. I think we can, within the last few bills, 
narrow it down. We can eliminate $5 billion of growth in spending. 
Across the board won't be necessary, it shouldn't be necessary, if we 
show just a little discipline.
  I know others on the other side said we can raise taxes. That may be 
their proposal. But it is not going to pass.
  Yet I know there is lots of demand for increases in spending. We are 
trying to say we should have some restraint. The restraint is that we 
shouldn't be dipping into the Social Security surpluses. If we are 
going to spend Social Security surpluses, let's have an across-the-
board reduction--if necessary. I hope it is not necessary. Let's do 
that if necessary to restrain the growth of spending, so we can ensure 
that 100 percent of the Social Security funds are used for debt 
reduction or for Social Security and not used for more Government 
spending in a variety of areas, whether it is defense, Labor-HHS, or 
you name it.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute 
so I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma stresses the 
difference between OMB and the Congressional Budget Office. It is the 
typical preference to use the Congressional Budget Office.
  I point out a letter dated October 4 sent to a senior member of our 
staff. It says:

       Dividing the projected deficit by the available outlays 
     results in an across-the-board cut of 5.5 percent.

  This is from the Congressional Budget Office. They are the gospel, I 
think, when it comes to making decisions in the Budget Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record, and 
I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [Memorandum of October 4, 1999]

     To: Sue Nelson, [Democrat Staff--Budget Committee].
     From: Janet Airis [CBO Staff].
     Subject: Across-the-Board Cut to Discretionary 
         Appropriations.

       This is in response to your request of an across-the-board 
     cut to FY 2000 discretionary appropriations. You asked us to 
     calculate an across-the-board cut that would result in an 
     estimated on-budget deficit for FY 2000 of zero, assuming 
     that the current status CBO estimate (excluding ``directed 
     scoring''), as of October 4, is enacted into law. Given your 
     assumption, our estimate of the projected on-budget deficit 
     is $19.2 billion. Our estimate of the outlays available to be 
     cut is $351.7 billion. Dividing the projected deficit by the 
     available outlays results in an across-the-board cut of 5.5%.
       This calculation is preliminary and done without benefit of 
     language. If you have any questions, please contact me at 
     226-2850.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have attempted to set this first- and 
second-degree amendment aside, but we cannot get consent to do that. We 
are now seeking unanimous consent to move to foreign operations. We are 
waiting for final clearance.

                          ____________________