[Page: S6463]
---

   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

[Page: S6464]

   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.

END