[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 13711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 FISCAL YEAR 2001 LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS AND THE MILITARY 
             CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on June 30, the Senate passed S. 2553, 
the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, by a vote 
of 52-43. I voted against this measure because of my belief that it 
provides an unjustified increase in federal spending and employs a 
variety of gimmicks that are meant to hide the true size of its costs.
  As my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, recently pointed out, the 
fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS bill increases discretionary spending by 
more than 20 percent when compared to last year's bill. As it is, this 
is incredible growth in discretionary spending; however, to truly 
emphasize the enormity of this increase, my colleagues should consider 
that this growth in spending is roughly 10 times the current rate of 
inflation.
  The bill hides this massive increase in discretionary spending by 
using a variety of gimmicks. First, it proposes to offset the new 
spending by making cuts in crucial mandatory programs, such as the 
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF). After a number of colleagues and I expressed our concern over 
using these programs as spending offsets, Appropriations Committee 
Chairman Stevens pledged his support to vitiate these cuts when the 
Labor-HHS bill is considered in Conference. While I commend Chairman 
Stevens for his commitment to restoring these funds, it is my belief 
that the Appropriations Committee never should have tapped into these 
programs in the first place. It is my hope that the Conferees will, as 
they remove these offsets, look to decrease the overall level of 
discretionary spending in the bill rather than search for other 
sources.
  Second, the bill moves up by 3 days the first Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) payment date of Fiscal Year 2001 so that it falls, 
instead, in Fiscal Year 2000. Although such a change sounds innocuous, 
the ramifications of this action are tremendous.
  As my colleagues know, the start of the next fiscal year begins on 
October 1, 2000. By moving the first SSI payment date of the year a few 
days earlier, it will fall in the waning days of fiscal year 2000 and 
be paid for out of the fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus. The end 
result of this gimmick is that not only does it increase spending in FY 
2000 by $2.4 billion, which is, by the way, money I would rather see go 
to debt reduction. But it also frees up another $2.4 billion in Fiscal 
Year 2001 for Congress to spend.
  Finally, despite the fact that the bill increases discretionary 
spending by a whopping 20 percent, it still fails to prioritize and 
target resources towards those programs that are the responsibility of 
the federal government, such as fully funding our commitment under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The high cost of 
educating disabled students continues to place a heavy burden on our 
local school districts. If the federal government met its obligation to 
fund IDEA at the level it promised in 1975, local communities would 
have resources left over to fund their own education priorities.
  Instead, this appropriations bill, while increasing funding for IDEA 
by $1.31 billion over last year's bill and by $984 million above 
President Clinton's request, does not make enough progress on IDEA. 
Before the federal government increases spending on new programs, it 
should be fully funding its promise to supply up to 40 percent of the 
cost of educating disabled children.
  Mr. President, what Congress has done in this Labor-HHS bill proves 
that we must face facts: Congress is addicted to spending. We will use 
any gimmick, any trick, any scheme we can think of to spend money. 
Often, it is for things that we don't need, things that are not a 
federal responsibility or things that we cannot afford.
  Instead of using cuts in mandatory programs and accounting shifts to 
pay for massive increases in discretionary programs, we need to 
prioritize our spending and make the hard choices when necessary. We 
have used budgetary shenanigans far too often to obfuscate the size of 
spending increases, and it is long past time for this practice to end.
  It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that I felt compelled to vote 
against the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, and I do not believe that I 
am alone in my concerns regarding this legislation. It is my sincere 
hope that when the conferees meet to put together the final version of 
this legislation, they will consider and address the items that I have 
mentioned.
  Mr. President, I also would like to take this opportunity to voice my 
concern over the conference report to H.R. 4425, the Military 
Construction Appropriations bill, which the Senate approved on June 30 
by a voice vote. If it had been the subject of a roll call vote, I 
would have voted against final passage of this bill.
  My concern with this legislation does not rest with the Military 
Construction portion of the conference report. Indeed, I voted for the 
bill when it originally came before the Senate in May. Rather, my 
concern lies with what was added to the bill since the time the Senate 
first passed it.
  While in conference, the Military Construction Appropriations bill 
became the vehicle to which Fiscal Year 2000 emergency supplemental 
appropriations were attached. In times of true emergency, Mr. 
President, I believe that Congress has an obligation to ensure that 
supplemental funds are provided to cover unexpected expenses. That is 
why I have no objection to providing emergency funds for our operations 
in Kosovo and to those unfortunate Americans who have been the victims 
of natural disasters.
  However, I do not believe that we should provide emergency funding 
for items that are not true emergencies in an effort to avoid budget 
rules. Unfortunately, that is precisely what H.R. 4425 does. This bill 
provides taxpayer dollars for such ``emergencies'' as the winter 
Olympic Games, a sea life center in Alaska and a new top-of-the-line 
Gulfstream jet aircraft for the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
  In recent years, we have seen remarkable growth in the use of 
emergency designations as a way to bypass the spending caps so that 
Congress can avoid making tough choices. Fiscal year 2000 is certainly 
no exception. In fact, we will be setting a new record for 
``emergency'' spending in this fiscal year with a final tally of more 
than $40 billion.
  I should also add, Mr. President, that H.R. 4425 speeds up government 
paydays and uses other accounting shifts to move nearly $12 billion of 
fiscal year 2001 spending into fiscal year 2000. Just as with the 
Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill, the conference committee used this 
gimmick in order to free up an additional $12 billion for Congress to 
spend in Fiscal Year 2001.
  Mr. President, rather than devising new, more ingenious ways to avoid 
fiscal discipline, we should be endeavoring to restore honesty and 
integrity to the congressional budget process. As I have stated on 
previous occasions, if any American was to cook his or her books the 
way the federal government does, that individual no doubt would be sent 
to jail very quickly. We cannot continue to apply a double standard. We 
must live within our means, delineate responsibility between the state 
and local governments and the federal government and pay for those 
items accordingly, and for Heaven's sake, if we have any on-budget 
surplus funds, use those funds to pay down the National Debt.
  I will continue to monitor the progress of the remaining 
appropriations bills, and I encourage my colleagues to work with me to 
make sure that we spend federal tax dollars wisely.


  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________