Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as is necessary. For the last several weeks, I have been raising concerns about the direction of our fiscal policy. Today, we reach a historic moment. Many were here in the 1980's and 1990's when the Federal Government, through annual deficits, acquired a record national debt of almost $5.5 trillion. In 1992, we reached the peak of this when we had a 1-year deficit of in excess of $290 billion. In the 1990s, we took a number of steps to try to rectify this situation and to mitigate this constant increase in the national debt. A key part of that process occurred in 1997. In 1997, we set spending limits for ourselves, including spending limits on the discretionary accounts of the Federal Government such as the account that we are dealing with today. We promised ourselves and the public that for every tax dollar cut there would be $1 less spent, and vice versa. That is the way in which a family would approach having to restrain its budget in order to come into line with its income. It would buy the holiday gifts that it could afford but not necessarily the ones that everyone in the family wants because for those family budgets there are some very real caps. But, for Congress, the commitment to realistic budget and fiscal responsibility was a novel, even a radical idea. We had not even thought about it that much in the preceding 20 or 30 years. Apparently, it was so radical that it was too much to ask. It is almost as if this Halloween season we have all turned into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On the campaign trail we put on one costume; that is, the costume of our better selves where we boast about the courage and foresight it took to balance the budget. We talk about all the good things we are going to do, whether it is saving Social Security, providing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, cutting taxes, or adding spending in other favorable programs. Then we return to Congress and we take off our mask. We begin grabbing for what we can get, a few billion here, a few billion there, regardless of the long-term consequences. We have doled out treats to line our political pockets while we are playing a trick on the American public. That trick is that we are sleepwalking through the surplus. We are about to deny ourselves and future generations one of the greatest opportunities that we have had in American political and economic history: to use this enormous period of prosperity to deal with some of those long-term issues that will affect, not just ourselves, but future generations. But as we vote to set the deficit monster free, we make the promise that this is only for this year. We are not really going to let him out of the cage; we are just going to open the door a bit and let him sniff some of the desirable consequences of profligate spending. This year we tell the American public this is our chance to celebrate this American prosperity. Next year we will cut the monster down to size, put him back in his cage, and no long-term harm will have been done. But the truth is for our children and our grandchildren this could be a very scary Halloween. My friends, are we really so humble as to believe that what we do today will not resonate through future years? I personally find it hard to believe that this will be just a 1-year exception to a constancy of fiscal discipline. In 1997, we planned for the future because we knew that what we did with the taxpayers' dollars would have real consequences. They are having real consequences. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post article aptly entitled ``Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare'' be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this story chronicles the crumbling of our wall of fiscal resolve in the face of a behemoth of appropriations bills. The bill we have before us, the foreign operations bill, carries a $14.9 billion price tag. It has been stated that this bill is actually lower than the bill that we passed last year. If I am in error--and it is very difficult to respond since we have only in the last few hours gotten a copy of a multipage bill, but as I read through the bill, it is my analysis that in calculating last year's $15.5 billion expenditure, we have included an almost $2 billion item, the Wye Plantation commitments for the Middle Eastern peace, which are nonrecurring. So if you are comparing apples to apples, those things that we spent money on last year and those things we are going to spend money on this year, actually last year's comparable appropriation for foreign operations was closer to $13.5 billion. So instead of the $14.9 billion being a reduction, it actually represents approximately a 10-percent increase over the spending that we had on this same account last year, a 10-percent increase, while we are operating under the rule that we are only supposed to spend the rate of inflation, which is 3.5 percent, as an increase from 1 year's budget to the next. But that is not what is the true monster in this bill. The true monster in this bill is stuck into the appropriations language, which for us on the floor is printed in the Congressional Record, since we do not have a copy of the actual bill and conference report. It is specifically stuck on page H10776, nestled in between a provision that relates to gifts to the United States for reduction of the public debt--and I am glad to know that we get some gifts to reduce the public debt--and a provision that provides debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries. It may be appropriate that this language I am about to quote is inserted in between those two provisions. In section 701(a), this language appears: Section 251 (c)(5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 . . . is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: ``(A) for discretionary category: $637,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $612,695,000,000 in outlays;''. That might seem fairly unexciting, but let me tell you what we are preparing to do. In that Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we provided a spending limit for discretionary accounts for each of the future years. For the fiscal year 2001, the year for which we are now appropriating, the spending limit was established at $542 billion. The legislation we are about to vote upon will increase that figure from $542 billion to $637 billion, a 17.5-percent increase in the allowable expenditure in this 1 year alone. That is the scale of the monster that we are about to let out of the cage by adopting this legislation. This figure will put far more than a dent in the surplus that we promised. It will put a massive hole in our budget projections. The fact is, by the time we are done, Social Security is more likely to be floundering midstream without a life vest than to be in a secure lockbox on dry land. Instead of fiscal responsibility, we are now practicing fiscal myopia. We are honing in on the magic number, a $4.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. However, what we are forgetting to completely level with the American people about is that that $4.6 trillion is predicated on the assumption we are only going to spend $542 billion this year. We are about to authorize a number that is almost $100 billion larger. The forecasters of the Congressional Budget Office do not have a crystal ball. They can only see the future the way we look at it and the degree of confidence they place in our actions. The CBO numbers, upon which the $4.6 trillion surplus is predicated, are based on those commitments made in 1997. This appropriations bill demonstrates that we are not committed to those commitments of 1997. The surplus projections assume that discretionary spending increases each year would be restrained to the rate of inflation. We are about to completely abandon that facade. What are we about to do as we go into this new reckless era? The best case scenario--and we can assume under that that we will, indeed, be able to increase discretionary spending for the future only by the rate of inflation, that this is just a 1-year aberration through which we are living; that Halloween is going to be repealed for future years--if we have that best case scenario, we can anticipate that our surplus will sink by about $100 billion over the next 10 years--$100 billion less than the projections. I do not think that is a credible scenario. I do not believe there is any reason to believe that what we are doing today is exceptional. Rather, what we are doing today is going to be precedential for the future. And assume that it is precedential. The discretionary spending each year increases by the same rate that we are increasing it this year; that is, approximately 9 percent, or 5.5 percent more than the rate of inflation. If we act in each of the next 10 years with the same abandon that we do this year, we will spend the entire 10-year projected surplus on this increased spending. There will be no money to strengthen Social Security. There will be no money to finance a tax cut. There will be no money to provide for prescription drugs through Medicare. In fact, spending at this rate will not only eliminate all of those potentials, but Congress will be forced to dip into the Social Security surplus, that thing which it has committed it would never ever do, by $400 billion over 10 years. So we are making some very serious decisions as we pass this appropriations bill with its enormous increase in the limitation on discretionary spending. Save Social Security, indeed. Could it be that when we talked about saving Social Security, we really meant preserving it as a museum piece so we could talk to our grandchildren about what it used to be like? We will tell them that back when we were young, the Government actually sent you money when you grew older and deserved a rest. But if discretionary spending will dent the surplus, the direction we are taking on mandatory spending will virtually hollow it out. Our lack of fiscal discipline is not only to be found in the appropriations bill but also in the creation of new entitlements. We have already passed the Defense Department authorization bill that changes the health benefits as a new entitlement and will reduce the surplus by $60 billion over the next 10 years. We are poised to approve give-backs to Medicare providers that will cost another estimated $75 to $80 billion of our surplus over the next 10 years. Another $260 billion disappears if we pass a tax bill, which it is rumored that it is about to be presented to us by our colleagues from across the hall in the House of Representatives. So when you add up all of this laundry list, you will find that we have reduced our surplus to another return to deficits. It is very easy to add up these numbers and simply say it is too much, but I am well aware that much of the spending is for worthy causes, many of which I myself support. But what these individual pieces of legislation do not add up to is a solid plan for the future. What they do not add up to is the requirement that we make choices, that we set priorities, that we decide which of all of these good things is most important, and that we have the discipline to stick to those priorities. I ask again, whatever happened to ``Save Social Security first''? Can we really say we have done anything to shore up the Medicare system which is desperately in need of an infusion if it is to remain viable for today's seniors, their children, and grandchildren? Are we ever going to be able to pay down the debt? Our colleagues in the House have suggested that 90 percent of the surplus for this year go to debt reduction. That proposal was for this year only, for fiscal year 2001, however, because they cannot do it over the next 10 years. Ten percent of the surplus would be $456 billion. Congress may very well enact legislation in the next few years that will exceed that amount by in excess of $100 billion. We have already committed ourselves to more spending than the House of Representatives pledge would require using 90 percent of the surplus to pay down the national debt. Mr. President, $100 billion is more money than most Americans can ever conceive of. In a few short months, history will move forward again and we will gather together in the Chamber of the House of Representatives to greet a newly elected President to hear his first State of the Union Address. By almost any measure, the state of our Union is strong. Our economy is the envy of the world. Incomes are up. Unemployment is down. Home ownership is up. Inflation is low. Mortgage rates remain modest. As we await a new President, and the first State of the Union Address from that new President--the first new President elected in the 21st century--I am reminded of the historic State of the Union speech delivered by President Clinton at the beginning of 1998. To provide context from that time, we, as a nation, were on the verge of shifting from annual deficits to a hope for a promised projected surplus. We were looking at a prospect we had not faced in years: What do we do with a possible surplus? In his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton answered that question. If I could quote from his eloquent words of that evening: For three decades, six Presidents have come before you to warn of the damage deficits pose to our nation. Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit--once so incomprehensibly large that it had eleven zeros--will be, simply, zero. If we balance the budget for the next year, it is projected that we'll then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security first. Mr. President, that simple four-word answer, ``Save Social Security first,'' brought all of us to our feet in January of 1998. And, Mr. President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, your greatest legacy will be the restoration of fiscal discipline here in Washington. Mr. President, you are being challenged as to the fidelity and sustainability of that commitment to fiscal discipline. We should now resist the temptation to allow the deficit monster to escape from the cage again. We should give to President Clinton the rightful recognition for reversing decades of rampant borrowing and, as a result of that courage, producing sustained national prosperity and the potential for even more prosperity. But, Mr. President, at the end of your administration, we need you to remain true to the principles that have produced this legacy. If we in the Congress are unable to exercise fiscal discipline, we will have to turn to you to provide us with the necessary restraints. We are talking here about our children and our grandchildren. Are we again going to return to the days when we expect them to pay our bills or are we going to accept the responsibility that virtually every generation of Americans--but for those who have lived in the last 30 years--were prepared to accept? And that is that we would--each generation, each year--pay our bills and not ask future generations to do so. That is the fundamental issue we face with this appropriations bill. Because I believe it fails to meet that test, I will vote no. Thank you, Mr. President. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2000] Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare (By Eric Pianin) Rules created more than two decades ago to impose fiscal restraint on Congress have broken down, helping fuel a year- end spending spree that is resulting in billions of extra dollars for highways and bridges, water projects, emergency farm aid, school construction and scores of other projects. Many budget hawks have derided the binge as a typical election year ``porkfest.'' But key lawmakers and experts on federal budgeting say another less visible problem is that the law aimed at reining in such spending has been effectively gutted by the congressional leadership. In particular, lawmakers are increasingly ignoring the annual congressional budge resolution, the document that is supposed to guide spending and tax decisions in the House and Senate every year. In years past, lawmakers might miss their budget targets by a few billion dollars, but now they are busting the budget by as much as $50 billion a year. This year's budget resolution, for instance, called for about $600 billion in spending this fiscal year on defense, health, education and other non-entitlement programs. When Congress and the White House finally complete their negotiations, probably this week, the total will be $640 billion or more. One reason, lawmakers say, is that the GOP congressional leadership has adopted--largely for political reasons-- unrealistic budgets that understate the amount of spending members want. Another is that the emergence of big surpluses has made Congress much less vigilant bout living within its means--and more prone to make up the rules as it goes along. ``I think the budget process has been destroyed and I think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily numbered among the assassins,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), a veteran of budget skirmishes. ``I think we've made a mockery of the process and it will be very difficult to revive it.'' Stanley Collender, a prominent expert on federal spending, added: ``What we're seeing is budget decision-making by the seat of their pants.'' Collender and other experts say the increased spending being approved by Congress could begin to cut into projected surpluses, leaving less for the spending and tax cut initiatives proposed by Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Outside of the Social Security program, analysts have projected the federal government will run a $2.2 trillion surplus over the next decade. But the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget watchdog group, estimates that the forecast surpluses are likely to shrink by two-thirds, to about $172 billion, if congressional spending patterns persist. Congress is on track to boost non-defense discretionary spending by 5.2 percent above the rate of inflation during fiscal 2001--the sharpest spending increase of its type in 25 years--according to a new analysis by Democrats on the House Budget Committee. The decision to ignore the budget resolution is only one sign of a general brreakdown of fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill, according to fiscal experts. Congress and the Clinton administration are also ignoring spending caps both agreed to as part of the 1997 legislation to balance the federal budget. Congress's enthusiasm for real budget constraints began to wane almost as soon as deficits gave way to surpluses beginning three years ago. Until then, the specter of towering annual deficits of as much as $290 billion had fostered a series of hardnosed policies, including a 1990 budget deal that for the first time imposed caps on spending and required Congress to offset tax cuts by reducing spending or raising other revenue. The emergence of surpluses has left it to lawmakers to produce budget plans that would impose spending discipline with an eye to the time when Medicare and Social Security will begin to run short of money. But that has not happened. In the politically charged environment of Capitol Hill, the House and Senate budget committees in recent years produced plans that budget experts say were more GOP political manifestors than practical blueprints. The problem came to a head in 1998, when House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich (Ohio), then a Republican presidential aspirant, produced a House budget resolution so top-heavy with tax cuts and tough on domestic spending that he could not sell it to Senate Republicans or the White House. For the first time in nearly 25 years, Congress completed that year without a budget. The following year Republicans managed to agree among themselves on a budget, but the document was largely ignored by GOP leaders when they negotiated a final spending agreement with the White House. This year's plan was somewhat more pragmatic, but even so it called for $150 billion of tax cuts--about twice what Congress will finally settle for--and spending cuts in many areas that GOP members of the appropriations committees refused to accept. Some of the additional funding this year will go for emergencies, such as restoration of western forest lands hit by fires last summer and security problems at the national nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos, NM. But much of the additional money will go to satisfy the election year demands of Clinton and special projects sought by GOP and Democratic lawmakers--ranging from $2 billion for extra highway and bridge projects to $5 million for an insect-rearing facility in Stoneville, Miss. ``The budget process can only do what the political will can support,'' said G. William Hoagland, the Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. ``I would argue that, if anything, what this year shows is that you need a [tough] budget process even more in times of surpluses than in times of deficits.'' Another phenomenon in recent years has been a growing propensity on the part of congressional leaders to overrule key committees--even in promoting big policy changes. Last year, for example, Republican leaders waited until late in the year to unveil details of a plan to wall off the Social Security surplus from the rest of the budget. They returned from this year's August recess with a new idea for using nine-tenths of next year's surplus for debt reduction. While both proposals, arguably, will help to impose some limitations on spending, they were presented without any meaningful debate or review by the committees with jurisdiction. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) defended the practice, noting that ``the leadership can't have any idea that holds water unless the [GOP] conference holds it with them.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what we are now doing in the fall of 2000 is characterized by some representative examples of our excess. The Transportation appropriations conference report was not available for Members to review the night before the final vote, but at least there had been some debate on the Senate floor on the Transportation appropriations bill when it originally passed the Senate. In the remaining days, we are going to be asked to approve measures for which there has never been Senate debate. As an example, we are going to be asked to make some significant paybacks to the providers of services through the Medicare program. This add-back legislation was never considered in the Senate Finance Committee, nor has it been considered on the Senate floor, but mark my word, we will soon be asked to vote on this substantial legislation. The Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill will also likely come to this body attached to an unrelated conference report without ever having been separately considered by the Senate. I suggest we all need to grab hold of our aspirin bottles because we are likely to need plenty of those pills when we find out what is in these measures, a disclosure that is likely to occur several weeks after we have adjourned. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record immediately following my remarks a column which appeared in the October 18 Washington Post by David Broder under the headline ``So Long, Surplus.''

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the combined VA/HUD and Energy and Water appropriations bills. This combined bill follows the pattern established by previous appropriations bills considered by the Senate. Looking first to the VA/HUD appropriations bill, in the fiscal year 2000 that ended September 30 of this year, the appropriation for these accounts was $99.2 billion. We had committed ourselves to a standard of previous year appropriations plus inflation. The Consumer Price Index has risen 3.5 percent over the past year. Making that adjustment, we would have set as a target for the VA-HUD bill an appropriation this year of $102.7 billion. In fact, the bill we are about to vote on has an appropriation of $105.5 billion, or approximately $2.8 billion over the standard that has been set. This budget represents an increase from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, not of the 3.5-percent inflation but, rather, of 6.4 percent. Looking at the second bill which has been added to the VA-HUD bill, which is the energy and water appropriations bill, again in fiscal year 2000, the appropriation for this budget was $21.2 billion. Adjusting it for the 3.5-percent inflation increase, we would have had a target of $21.9 billion for energy and water. In this conference report, we are being asked to authorize spending of $23.3 billion, or approximately $1.4 billion over the scheduled maximum increase. The increase in the energy and water appropriations bill represents a 9.9-percent growth from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. What is the significance of this? The significance is we started with a budget plan, and the plan was that we would attempt to restrain the growth in spending to the rate of inflation. If we did that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we would have at the end of 10 years substantial surpluses not only in the Social Security trust fund but also surpluses in general government. There are many important events which are taking place in the world today: The tragedy of the U.S.S. Cole, the crisis in the Middle East and, of course, the heat of fall Presidential and congressional elections. All of these things are fighting for the attention of the American people. In that context, it is easy to understand why most Americans have not focused their attention on what is happening under this dome, but I suggest that in the autumn of 2000, some of the most important decisions for our individual and our national futures are being made in these changes. The House and the Senate are slowly closing the curtain on the 106th Congress. As the curtain draws to a close, we are in the midst of an orgy of spending and tax cuts, an orgy which threatens the fiscal discipline that many Members of this Congress and the administration have worked so hard to achieve. Worse than the decisions that are being made, however, is the process that is being used to make those decisions. Long gone is the normal legislative process where we had hearings on ideas in the committees with jurisdiction. We developed legislation on a bipartisan basis with amendments being offered and votes taken; Presidential consideration of individual bills; and, should the President exercise his or her veto power, further debate and congressional action to potentially override the veto; finally, the give and take of negotiation that results in bills which will secure a Presidential signature. In the place of this normal legislative process, we now have a process--if it deserves that word--where a handful of individuals make far-reaching decisions on legislation. Those decisions are then rushed to the House and Senate floors for final votes, often without the actual language of the measure being considered available to the Members of the House and the Senate. Lest we be overly critical of October 2000, I say sadly that, with some tactical variations, we were in exactly the same position in the fall of 1999. At that time, I wrote an article for the Orlando Sentinel which outlined my distress with what was occurring a year ago. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is hard to determine why we have fallen into this legislative abyss. It appears there is a strong desire to avoid the traditional legislative process in order to protect against having to take any votes at all, particularly any votes on controversial issues. In order to achieve that desire to avoid public commitment as to how we stand on various issues, we have abandoned all semblance of fiscal responsibility. Let me provide some large numbers. In 1997, we passed the Balanced Budget Act which was a key step toward achieving first the elimination of the annual deficits that had become so much a part of our Nation's fiscal life and ushered in this era of surpluses. In that 1997 Balanced Budget Act, we set a spending target for each of the future years. For the fiscal year 2001, our spending target for domestic discretionary accounts--these are the subject of the 13 appropriations bills, not taking into account expenditure for items such as Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national debt. But focusing on those things for which we in Congress have a responsibility to annually appropriate, we decided in 1997 that the spending limit for this year should be $564 billion. When the Senate passed its budget resolution in the spring of this year, we set a target, a constraint on ourselves, not of $564 billion, not even of $564 billion adjusted for some inflation, but rather $627 billion was the number to which we committed ourselves in the budget resolution. As of today, with one appropriations bill that is an amalgamation of two bills before us and three more appropriations bills yet to be considered, we have already committed ourselves to appropriations of $638 billion. It is estimated that when those final three bills are voted on, we will likely raise the final tally of total appropriations to as much as $650 billion, or some $85 billion more than the 1997 Balanced Budget Act indicated we should be spending this year. There has been an attempt to lay the blame for this orgy of spending at the White House step. In the Washington Post of October 13, there was an article under the headline, ``DeLay Urges GOP Showdown With Clinton Over Spending Bill,'' where the majority whip in the House made this statement: [He] argued that Clinton is ``addicted to spending'' and that Republicans must draw the line if they hope to conclude budget negotiations next week. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would say this is not the case; that we have both Republicans and Democrats alike entered into an enthusiastic, willing, and self-confessed role as coconspirators to the raiding of the surplus. Our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, stated it clearly last week when he chided his fellow Republican colleagues. ``We didn't come to the President with clean hands--we came with dirty hands,'' said Senator McCain. In another example of the lack of fiscal discipline--and it is part of the bill that we are going to be asked to vote upon this afternoon-- the President vetoed the appropriations bill covering energy and water projects because there had been added to the appropriations bill a provision prohibiting, under certain circumstances, the use of funds to revise the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Master Water Control Manual. This was not an issue of spending; it was an issue of the management of the Missouri River and who should have ultimate responsibility for that management. Nevertheless, when this bill came back from the President's office with his veto, the response was to revise the bill by excising the provision which had led to the veto and then adding $26 million in additional water projects. This spending spree is not limited to the appropriators. Others have eagerly joined in the party. Other spending and tax cuts which are being considered in the final hours include increases in spending for Medicare providers. I mentioned that earlier as an example of a provision that we are likely to get with no opportunity for debate or amendment. News reports indicate that this may total $28 billion over the next 5 years and perhaps as much as $80 billion over the next 10 years. We are about to be asked to do that without any debate, without any opportunity to amend or give the thoughtful consideration for which this institution is supposedly empowered. We passed a military retiree health benefit that will add $60 billion over the next 10 years--again, with no open debate or opportunity to amend. We repealed the Federal telephone tax, a provision that was tucked away in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. That will reduce revenues by $55 billion over 10 years. I understand that there may be further proposed tax cuts that could have a cost of $200 to $250 billion over the next 10 years. These are just examples of the almost total absence of any sense of fiscal discipline. It is possible to support many of these proposals, but I am concerned that we are operating without a blueprint. Congress is flying blind, and our plane has no global positioning system. In fact, we do not even have a hand compass to give us general direction as to where we should be going. You might ask, What difference does it make? Why should Americans care this fall in the year 2000 as to what we are doing? Don't we have an enormous surplus? Can't we afford to do all of these things? Americans can and do care because Congress is frittering away the hard-won surplus without a real plan for utilizing those surpluses and without addressing the big long-term problems facing our Nation. Americans should care because by sleepwalking through the surplus, we are denying ourselves the chance to face these major national challenges. A few days ago, the Congressional Budget Office released its long- term budget outlook. The Congressional Budget Office findings are not encouraging, but they are not surprising. That may explain why that report garnered such little attention by the media and by Members of Congress. What were those Congressional Budget Office findings? The Federal Government spending on health and retirement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--dominates the long-term budget outlook. Why? The retirement of the baby-boom generation will drastically increase the number of Americans receiving retirement and health care benefits. The cost of providing health care is growing faster than the overall economy. The number of Americans working to support that much larger retirement segment of our population will be essentially stabilized. Saving most or all of the budget surplus that CBO projects over the next 10 years--using those savings to pay down the debt--according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have a positive impact on those projections of future obligations and substantially delay the emergence of a serious fiscal imbalance. Despite the clear delineation of the long-term problems, and the even clearer outline of the short-term steps Congress can take to begin to address those problems--primarily, saving the surplus and paying down the debt--Congress seems content on frittering away the surplus. We have an obligation to not let this happen. In fact, it is not necessary. There are some basic principles to which we could recommit ourselves which would avoid the path that I fear is about to take us over the canyon cliff. First, we should return to that admonition that guided us so effectively just 2 years ago, and that was: Save Social Security first. The surplus should be used to pay down the debt. The kind of direction which the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has suggested to us--that we should use 90 percent of the fiscal year 2001 surplus for debt reduction--is not only a good idea for the fiscal year 2001 but should be a guiding principle into the future until we have met that first obligation of saving Social Security first. We also need to establish some priorities. In those ugly days of deficits, we were taught some valuable lessons. One of those lessons was the need to prioritize. The tool that forced us to do that was a requirement that for each additional dollar of spending enacted, a dollar of spending had to be reduced or a dollar of taxes had to be raised. That was a firm discipline. The surplus has eroded that discipline. Many of the proposals being enacted in these waning days are desirable. Perhaps they are even more desirable than commitments that are already on our law books. We are failing the American public by not having an honest, open debate about the tradeoffs that are necessary to enact these programs. If we are going to add a substantial new benefit--whether it be to Medicare providers or whether it be to military veterans--we should be prepared to answer the question, Where are we going to pay for that new commitment, either in terms of reducing spending elsewhere or raising taxes to pay for it? We should not be eating away at the surplus which is going to be the basis upon which we can meet some of the long-term significant challenges that face our Nation. There are few Congresses in the history of this Nation which have had such a wonderful opportunity to face and respond to important challenges to our Nation's future. Few Congresses will be judged so harshly for avoiding, trivializing, and ultimately failing to seize that opportunity. I urge my colleagues in Congress, as well as those in the White House, to stop acting as the proverbial children in the candy store and start acting as statesmen and stateswomen. At the very least, let us follow the admonition given to all healers, which is: First, do no harm. I regretfully announce that I will have to vote against this appropriations bill because it fails to comply with the fiscal discipline we established for ourselves, first in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act and then this year in the development of our own budget resolution. I hope there will be a sufficient number of my colleagues who will join me in expressing our outrage as to what we are doing in terms of our Nation's future, what we are doing in terms of asking our children and grandchildren to have to deal with some of the issues that will be much more difficult for them than they are for us today. Now is the time to face the issue of dealing with these long-term commitments that we as a society have undertaken. We have the capacity to do so. The question is, Do we have the will to do so? I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 [From the Orlando Sentinel, Thurs., September 23, 1999] Congress' Spending Imperils Economic Growth In early 1993, a new U.S. Congress and a new presidential administration took office under the cloud of the largest deficit in our nation's history: $290 billion. In the past year, we have learned that five years of fiscal austerity and economic growth have transformed that record deficit into the first budget surplus in more than a generation--and paved the way for annual surpluses far into the future. This historic reconstruction of our nation's fiscal house was no small accomplishment. Both Congress and the president made tough choices--a combination of revenue increases, spending reductions and long-term budget restraints--in stemming the tidal wave of red ink that had threatened to drown our children and grandchildren's economic future. That fiscal life-preserver worked better than anyone could have imagined. In addition to eliminating the deficit, it powered one of the strongest economic expansions in our nation's history: --Nineteen million jobs have been created since 1992, including more than a million in Florida. --In the past six years, long-term interest rates have been reduced by nearly 20 percent while our national savings rate--personal savings plus governmental savings--has doubled. --We enjoy the lowest national unemployment rate in 29 years and the highest home-ownership rate in history. But these successes do not give lawmakers license to return to the fiscally irresponsible days of the past. If anything, we face an even more difficult test in preserving the discipline that has brought us to this enviable economic position. It is a test that requires us to forego instant gratification in favor of policies that will reap benefits for future generations. Thus far, it is a test that Congress is failing miserably. The current surplus is the result of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund and the federal government's annual operating budget. Congress has mishandled both. Earlier this summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a plan to protect Social Security by holding its surpluses in a so-called lockbox. One political pundit even asserted that this action removed Social Security as an issue for debate. Wrong. While a lockbox seems responsible, it does nothing to extend Social Security's solvency beyond its currently projected expiration date of 2034. In fact, it numbs us to the structural changes that will be needed to preserve Social Security until 2075, a life-span that will ensure that this important program is there for three generations of Americans. Worse yet, Congress seems determined to exhaust the surpluses before they can even enter the lockbox. Wisely, the president has said he will veto a risky tax scheme that would deplete nearly $800 billion from the federal government's operating surplus during the next 10 years--leaving no resources whatsoever to enhance Social Security's solvency further or to strengthen Medicare. The story gets worse when it comes to federal spending, where Congress' appetite is as voracious as ever. The historic deficit-reduction legislation enacted in 1993 and 1997 included strict discretionary-spending limits. Not surprisingly, it has been difficult to maintain these limits. But rather than dealing with this challenge in an honest manner that salutes fiscal austerity, Congress has reverted to using an escape clause that allows ``emergency'' spending to fall outside the budget limits and further deplete the surplus. When this emergency-spending provision was originally passed, many assumed that it would be reserved for natural disasters such as hurricanes or floods, urgent threats to national security and other sudden, urgent or unforeseen needs. For the past year, however, Congress has misused its emergency-spending powers in a manner befitting the little boy who cried wolf. In October of 1998, it stretched the emergency definition to direct $3.35 billion to the long-foreseen Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem and $100 million for a new visitors center at the U.S. Capitol. In June of 1999, Congress added non- emergency spending items to an ``emergency'' bill for the Balkans conflict. And this fall, Congress is expected to consider an ``emergency'' bill to pay for the cost of the 2000 Census, which was ordered by our Founding Fathers in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It took the federal government 30 years to turn its federal budget deficit into a surplus. Yet it has taken us less than 12 months to revert to the same irresponsible behavior that produced record deficits in the first place. For the sake of our economy and our children and grandchildren's futures, I hope that the American people will demand that the 106th Congress establish a new record of fiscal prudence. Exhibit 2 So Long, Surplus (By David S. Broder) Between the turbulent world scene and the close presidential contest, few people are paying attention to the final gasps of the 106th Congress--a lucky break for the lawmakers, who are busy spending away the promised budget surplus. President Clinton is wielding his veto pen to force the funding of some of his favorite projects, and the response from legislators of both parties is that if he's going to get his, we're damn sure going to get ours. As a result, said Congressional Quarterly, the nonpartisan, private news service, spending for fiscal 2001, which began on Oct. 1, is likely to be $100 billion more than allowed by the supposedly ironclad budget agreement of 1997. More important, the accelerated pace of spending is such that the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget-watching group, estimates that the $2.2 trillion non-Social Security surplus projected for the next decade is likely to shrink by two-thirds to about $712 billion. As those of you who have been listening to Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush know, they have all kinds of plans on how to use that theoretical $2.2 trillion to finance better schools, improved health care benefits and generous tax breaks. They haven't acknowledge that, even if good times continue to roll, the money they are counting on may already be gone. To grasp what is happening--those now in office grabbing the goodies before those seeking office have a chance--you have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town. A few conscientious people are trying to blow the whistle, but they are being overwhelmed by the combination of Clinton's desire to secure his own legacy in his final 100 days, the artful lobbying of various interest groups and the skill of individual incumbents in taking what they want. Here's one example. The defense bill included a provision allowing military retirees to remain in the Pentagon's own health care program past the age of 65, instead of being transferred to the same Medicare program in which most other older Americans are enrolled. The military program is a great one; it has no deductibles or copayments and it includes a prescription drug benefit. Retiring Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, himself a wounded Congressional Medal of Honor winner, wondered why--in the midst of a raging national debate on prescription drugs and Medicare reform--these particular Americans should be given preferential treatment. Especially when the measure will bust the supposed budget ceiling by $60 billion over the next 10 years. ``We are going to commit ourselves to dramatic increases in discretionary and mandatory spending without any unifying motivation beyond the desire to satisfy short-term political considerations,'' Kerrey declared on the Senate floor. ``I do not believe most of these considerations are bad or unseemly. Most can be justified. But we need a larger purpose than just trying to get out of town.'' The Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, joined Kerrey in objecting to the folly of deciding, late in the session, without ``any detailed hearings . . . [on] a little item that over a decade will cost $60 billion.'' Guess how many of the 100 senators heeded these arguments? Nine. Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican, may have been right in calling this the worst example of fiscal irresponsibility, but there were many others. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who made his condemnation of pork-barrel projects part of his campaign for the Republican presidential nominations, complained that spending bill after spending bill is being railroaded through Congress by questionable procedures. ``The budget process,'' McCain said, ``can be summed up simply: no debate, no deliberation and very few votes.'' When the transportation money bill came to the Senate, he said, ``the appropriators did not even provide a copy of the [conference] report for others to read and examine before voting on the nearly $60 billion bill. The transportation bill itself was only two pages long, with the barest of detail, with actual text of the report to come later.'' Hidden in these unexamined measures are dozens of local- interest projects that cannot stand the light of day. Among the hundreds of projects uncovered by McCain and others are subsidies for a money-losing waterfront exposition in Alaska, a failing college in New Mexico and a park in West Virginia that has never been authorized by Congress. And going out the window is the ``surplus'' that is supposed to pay for all the promises Gore and Bush are making. Exhibit 3 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 13, 2000] DeLay Urges GOP Showdown With Clinton Over Spending Bill (By Eric Pianin and Dan Morgan) After weeks of trying to accommodate the White House on key budget issues, House Republican leaders are pushing for a more confrontational strategy over a giant health and education spending bill, the largest piece of unfinished business in the final days of the session. Unable to resolve their differences over spending for new school construction and for hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes, GOP leaders are prepared to challenge President Clinton to sign or veto a GOP-crafted labor, health and education bill rather than making further concessions. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the chief architect of the strategy, has argued that Clinton is ``addicted to spending'' and that Republicans must draw the line of they hope to conclude budget negotiations next week. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) agrees that Republicans already have made ample concessions, according to an aide. ``If it's considered confrontational to reject the idea we should just write the White House a blank check, I guess we're being confrontational,'' Jonathan Baron, a spokesman for DeLay, said yesterday. But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and others have argued in private meetings that it would be politically risky to confront Clinton over education spending policy only weeks before the election. Those Republicans are worried about appearing to be resisting new spending for education when Vice President Gore and Gov. George W. Bush have made education a top priority in the presidential campaign. ``I've never been an advocate of a veto strategy,'' Lott said yesterday. ``I don't understand the wisdom of running a bill down to be vetoed and then bringing it back and doing it over. For one thing, it usually grows.'' GOP leaders have put off a decision on how to proceed until next week, when they determine whether they have the votes in the House and Senate to pass the bill without Democratic and administration support. A White House budget office spokeswoman said that Clinton would not back down on his demands for increased spending for education. The threatened showdown comes just when it appeared that the two sides were making substantial headway in completing work on the 13 must-pass spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The Senate approved two packages that each carried two compromise spending bills. One combined a $107 billion measure financing veterans, housing, environment and science programs with a $23.6 billion energy and water bill. The other contains the $30.3 billion Treasury Department bill, a $2.5 billion measure to fund the legislative branch and another repealing a 3 percent federal excise tax on telephones. The Treasury measure also would pave the way for members of Congress to receive a $3,800 pay raise in January, to $145,100. The spending bill for veterans, housing, space and environmental programs provides much of what Clinton had sought. That includes increased funds for AmeriCorps, the president's signature national service program; the Environmental Protection Agency; veterans' health care and housing vouchers; and other subsidies for low-income families. The energy and water bill to which it was attached was retooled after Clinton vetoed it in a dispute over water management along the Missouri River. The pairing of unrelated appropriations bills for final passage is part of the leadership's efforts to finish work on the spending bills as soon as possible, so lawmakers can return to campaigning. Congress yesterday approved its third short-term continuing resolution that will keep the government operating through next Friday. The festering dispute over the labor, health and education appropriations bill for the coming year has as much to do with how money will be spent as how much will be made available. Although the $108.5 billion bill worked out by House and Senate Republicans exceeds the president's original request, Democrats say it largely reflects Republican priorities, such as health research and special education. The White House and congressional Democrats want an additional $6 billion for their priorities. About half that amount would go to summer job programs, the training of dislocated workers, health care for the uninsured and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with smaller programs. But the largest differences are over education, where Republicans fall about $3.1 billion short of Democratic targets. The White House is pressing for another $1.8 billion to pay for initiatives to train high-quality teachers, renovate schools and fund after-school programs. At the same time, House Democrats want an additional $1.3 billion for special education and for Pell Grants for needy college students. In addition to the money difference, Republicans are insisting that more than $3 billion sought by Clinton for school construction and reducing class sizes be rolled instead into a block grant to the states. GOP officials contend the argument over this issue is more political than substantive, because federal funds going to states and school districts invariably are mixed with local money. But Democratic officials say that the Clinton plan would be far more effective in targeting the money to the neediest school districts.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come this afternoon to the floor for two reasons. The first is to express my general dismay at the status of the budgeting process for this year. Second is to give a specific example of how this process has resulted in a program--which was clearly outlined and approved by Congress and signed into law by the President as the Equity Transportation Act for the 21st Century, generally referred to as TEA-21--has been convoluted. Let me first talk about the general budgeting process for this year. We are now 10 days into the new fiscal year, and substantial parts of our budget have yet to be enacted and sent to the President for his consideration. Even more dismaying than that is what is in the budgets that we have passed and sent to the President. I use, as example, No. 1, the most recent budget this Senate has acted upon when, last Friday, we passed the Transportation appropriations conference committee report. First, the process. I was very interested in this bill, as will become apparent as I move to point No. 2 of my remarks. Yet it was not available until Friday morning, the same morning that we were called to vote upon this very complex bill which will allocate some $58 billion of our National Treasury. Even today, specific details are yet to be discerned. So we are operating as alleged pilots of the national fiscal trust through dark clouds and fog and driving rain, unaware of where we are or where we have gone. I am also very concerned about the specific numbers in this legislation. I know this has been an issue of great concern to our Presiding Officer, who has, in his period in the Senate, distinguished himself as one who is very concerned about our fiscal discipline. For the fiscal year 2000, which ended September 30, we had a Transportation appropriations amount of $50.7 billion. That is what we spent over the preceding 12 months. We have been operating under a budget resolution which, because of its own complexities, is difficult to align precisely with one of the specific appropriations bills, but we have had a general philosophy that the appropriations for fiscal year 2001 should not grow at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. According to the Consumer Price Index for the period July 1999 to July 2000, the rate of inflation for the United States was 3.5 percent. If you add 3.5 percent to last year's Transportation appropriations, you would add, in rounded numbers, $1.775 billion for a total of $52.475 billion. That would have been the goal, the destination, the ceiling for spending under this Transportation account using the principle that the budget should be restrained to the rate of inflation. The administration submitted a budget for this account that was $54.6 billion. The Senate passed a Transportation bill which was $54.8 billion. But when the bill came back from the conference committee with the House, the total amount of the bill that we voted on favorably last Friday was $58 billion, a 14-percent growth over the expenditure on the same account for the previous fiscal year. That is a staggering increase, and it is an increase which puts at risk many of the things upon which the political campaigns of the fall of 2000 have focused their attention: How are we going to spend the non-Social Security surplus? How will we utilize the $2.2 trillion that is projected to come into the National Treasury over the next 10 years? I underscore that the $2.2 trillion is on the assumption that we will hold spending for this 10-year period to the rate of inflation. That rate was 3\1/2\ percent. Yet in this one budget we have spent 14 percent. If this budget were to be the standard by which we operated--this budget represents about 8 percent of the total discretionary spending of the United States. If we exceed every budget by the same amount that we have done with this one budget of Transportation, we will diminish that non-Social Security surplus in the range of 35 to 40 percent. This is serious business because we are making representations to the American people that we are going to protect that surplus; that we are going to use it either for targeted tax cuts, to use it to build up our Social Security and Medicare program, and finance a prescription drug benefit or for large-scale tax cuts. We are about to make all of those options unattainable if we do not exercise a greater degree of discipline over our spending this year and set the standard for what the spending will be over the next 9 years of this decade. I first raise the alarm as to the process and the consequences of the budgets with which we are dealing as we conclude this session of Congress and lay out the fiscal plan for the Federal Government for the year 2001. The second reason for my being here this afternoon is to bring to the attention of the Senate and the American people what we have done to one of the most innovative aspects of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. In March of 1998, Congress overwhelmingly approved this groundbreaking transportation legislation to revamp the distribution of Federal highway funds. That legislation established, among other things, the intelligent transportation system, or ITS program, which sets aside money for research, development, and deployment of the components of an intelligent transportation system. The goal: to establish a sound policy for dealing with traffic congestion in the new millennium. The ITS program will work to solve congestion and safety, improve operating efficiencies in transit and commercial vehicles, and reduce the environmental impact of the growing travel demand. The intelligent transportation systems use things such as modern computers, management techniques, and information technologies to improve the flow of traffic. ITS applications range from electronic highway signs that direct drivers away from accidents or other sources of congestion on the highways, to advanced radio advisories, to more efficient public transit. Congress has sought to reward States that develop an intelligent transportation system. Demand for roads is increasing, particularly in the most populous and fastest growing areas of our country. Business commutes are getting longer, leisure travel options are becoming wider. States were encouraged to make use of advanced communications technology to ease gridlock. This plan, developed by the Environment and Public Works Committee, where our Presiding Officer serves as chair of the subcommittee that has responsibility for this very legislation, was thoughtful and the plan had a specific purpose in mind: to foster the growth of intelligent transportation systems and, in a scientific manner, to gather results from the new ITS programs so that we could make wise decisions about the future direction of ITS when the next transportation bill is authorized in approximately 2003. I am sad to report that this plan has come undone through the appropriations process. Allow me to explain how this has happened. The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University, in conjunction with many State departments of transportation, conducts a periodic study of the traffic conditions in our Nation. The latest annual mobility report produced in 1999 ranked the 70 most congested urban areas, cities, and small towns in America. It would seem reasonable, it would make common sense that those cities with the worst traffic congestion would receive Federal funds to implement, improve, or expand their intelligent transportation system. Indeed, the creators of the intelligent transportation system program in TEA-21 meant it to work that way. The law says that ITS projects must be selected through competitive solicitation and meet certain detailed criteria for program funding dollars. I will read a few excerpts from that law. The authors set out the gathering of effective data as a goal in TEA-21: To assure that Federal, State, and local transportation officials have adequate knowledge of intelligent transportation systems for full consideration in the transportation planning process. To me, that means we need to be able to offer to Federal, State, and local transportation officials accurate and scientific data on ITS. The authors of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century spelled it out more precisely when they said: The Secretary shall select for funding through competitive solicitations projects that will serve as models to improve transportation efficiency, promote safety. . . . And for other reasons listed in the statute. Unfortunately, the intent of the legislation has not followed. It was not followed first in the fiscal year 2000. Of the total $221 million made available in the fiscal year 2000, the year that ended September 30 of this year, all but about 10 percent of that $211 million was earmarked. For those who are not familiar with the jargon of the Congress, ``earmarked'' means there was a total amount of money available for a particular objective, in this case to fund the intelligent transportation systems, which, according to statute, was to be allocated based on competition. Of that $211 million, 90 percent of it had a specific designation to a particular State or community within the United States. According to the Texas report, the 15 most congested cities in the United States as of 1999 were: Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, San Diego, Houston, New York City, Portland, and San Jose. Mr. President, would you be surprised, would you be stunned and appalled, if I were to tell you that in the fiscal year 2000, none of those 15 cities received any of the intelligent transportation system money? The 15 most congested cities in America, according to the national survey upon which we rely, were allocated a penny for ITS money. Of the other most congested cities highlighted in the Texas transportation study, only five received funds, while a sixth city probably will receive funds from an overall earmark to the State in which it was located. Those funds, for the five cities and the one State, totaled only $7 million or 3 percent of the total ITS appropriation of $211 million. We have 75 of the most congested cities in America, cities in urban areas and smaller communities getting 3 percent of the money to assist them, through intelligent transportation systems technologies, in improving their traffic congestion. I was so offended by that that I, on September 15 of this year, wrote a letter to the Transportation appropriations conferees urging them, for the year 2001, which began October 1 of this year, not to repeat the mistake made in the previous year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I quote the concluding paragraph of the letter, which states: I encourage you to adhere to the design created by TEA-21. The Congress has the opportunity, through ITS and other programs, to strengthen our national transportation infrastructure in a cost-effective, efficient manner. We undermine those efforts if we don't follow the criteria established and passed by Congress in TEA-21. So in that context, it was with dismay that last Friday morning, when I finally had an opportunity to look at the Transportation conference report, I realized that again we were committing the same mistake. For the second year in a row, none of the top 15 traffic-choked cities got funding for intelligent transportation system technology to assist them in alleviating their gridlock. Taking the list even further, none of the top 20 most congested cities received intelligent transportation system funding. Those additional five cities included Denver, Phoenix, San Bernardino, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Tacoma, WA. Those five cities are added to the 15 that I have previously read in the category of cities that are the most 20 congested cities in America, none of whom received any of the intelligent transportation system money. This suggests to me a total disconnect between the problem that led to the creation of ITS in the first place and the allocation of dollars by the appropriators. In addition to that fundamental disconnect, I am also concerned that the amounts of money that have been earmarked appear to be nonscientific. If you look at the conference report, you will see round figures, such as $200,000, $500,000, $1 million, $2 million, and so forth. Such figures are unlikely to be to the real dollar amount needed to fund well-designed, specific projects. Investment in intelligent transportation technology pays huge dividends, but it is expensive. As an example, on February 17 of this year, I did one of my monthly workdays with the evolving ITS technology in and around Orlando, FL. Orlando has the most advanced intelligent transportation system program in my State. The first phase of the Orlando system cost nearly $8 million. When complete, the Orlando ITS system will cost about $14 million. In these earmarks, I wonder whether such small sums, such round numbers, are actually calculated to reach the critical mass needed to get a project underway and completed. Small sums, distributed widely across the Nation, are not the most effective, efficient way to use these precious dollars to alleviate priority congestion concerns. Lastly and possibly most crucially, we are missing a critical opportunity: the opportunity to gather data in a scientific, meaningful way about an evolving technology, a technology which has the potential to mitigate traffic congestion and make our highways safer. Gathering this information is important because TEA-21 was the first surface transportation bill to focus to such an extent on intelligent transportation systems. The authors of TEA-21 wanted to push the envelope and emphasize the use of technology as a strategy to ease traffic gridlock. In 2 or 3 years from now, when we are reauthorizing the next surface transportation bill, we will need to ask: Did these ITS programs work? If so, what are the key elements in their successes? Should we expand ITS as a strategy to reduce traffic congestion? If we do not use the resources that we have devoted to ITS in a prudent, rational, scientific way, will we have the experience and information necessary to answer those questions in an informed way? The short answer to that is, no. The 2-year history of ITS causes concern for other Senate action. We have just finished debate on the Interior appropriations bill, a thoughtful piece of legislation. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, was sidetracked by that Interior appropriations bill and replaced with language which assures that the appropriators will control specific allocations. The CARA bill had a vision, a vision to provide the American people with a permanent, dedicated source of funding to invest in our children's futures by preserving and protecting our natural resources--the very cause for which our departed friend, Congressman Bruce Vento, spent so much of his life and his congressional career. This bill would have bolstered the Federal Government's relationship with our State governments by maintaining the Federal side of a respectful partnership, with the States to develop and support natural treasures, from urban parks and historic sites to the preservation of our coastal resources. But instead of this carefully constructed program, which enjoyed widespread support, we were left with the following by the appropriations conference report. Quoting from that conference report for the Department of the Interior: This program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. Continuing to quote: The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have discretion in the amounts to be appropriated each year, subject to certain maximum amounts as described herein. With that language, we have declared failure. We have failed to take advantage of our opportunity to enact landmark conservation legislation. We would be wildly optimistic to expect that the goals of the CARA legislation will be met. With what we now see has happened to ITS, to intelligent transportation systems, what confidence can Americans have that the goal of protecting our natural resources will be met? What reason do we have to expect a different outcome, with the dream of sustained investment in protecting our natural resources, than the shredded results of reduced traffic congestion through intelligent transportation systems? The short answer is, none. Returning to the Transportation appropriations bill, earmarks, in my view, are more acceptable in mature transportation programs than where we are attempting to learn about new technologies and policy approaches. We can and should address the needs of specific communities. ITS, however, is an evolving resource in transportation, and we should adhere to the intent of the law in seeking a competitive, scientific process to distribute these ITS funds. This appropriations process, with respect to ITS, has foreclosed the valuable information which a rational distribution of funds would have given us. In conclusion, I am concerned about the broad path upon which we are traveling as we conclude the consideration of the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. We are dramatically overspending the standard we set for ourselves just a few months ago. By that overspending, we are putting at risk the opportunity to use a significant Federal surplus for a variety of very beneficial purposes which will aid our people not only this year but for decades to come. And, within our appropriations, we are losing the opportunity to intelligently allocate funds against the targeted goals, such as the reduction of traffic congestion or the protection of our natural resources. Rather, we are succumbing to the temptation to earmark, to specify, based on considerations other than what is in a rational, long-term plan of prioritization of our Nation's needs. We have but a few days left in this session, I hope. It would be my fondest expectation--or at least my optimistic dream--that we would use these few remaining days in a more constructive manner than has been demonstrated in the past few days, that we would use these to exercise principles of fiscal discipline and vision and the willingness to put aside our personal and parochial interests for what is in the broader national interest. That is our challenge. That is what the American people expect of their elected representatives. It is a goal on which we have faltered in recent days. Let us use the remaining days to regain our solid fiscal footing. Exhibit 1 United States Senate, Washington, DC, September 15, 2000. Dear Conferee: I have been concerned about the distribution of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) money in the Transportation Appropriation process. The Environment and Public Works Committee designed TEA-21 so that ITS projects would be selected through competitive solicitation and meet certain detailed criteria. There was an overall plan: a portion of the money would specifically go to rural areas, and no state could receive more than $35 million per fiscal year. Other than that, the competitive process would be used to ensure the most efficient, effective use of the dollars. Essentially, the ITS theory is to make our highways, especially in high congestion areas, as efficient as possible, recognizing the tremendous costs of building additional lanes or other high capacity improvements. The intent is to make our existing highways serve to maximum capacity. There are two major concerns about the current manner of distribution of ITS funds. First, the current earmarks appear to be allocated on a non-scientific, non-competitive basis. The Texas Transportation Institute in the Texas A&M University System is the organization that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Congress look to for a professional assessment of highway congestion in our nation. Comparing recent appropriations bills with the institute's annual traffic congestion study show how far apart reality is from what is needed. For example, the ten most congested cities in the United States are: Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Detroit, Atlanta, San Diego and San Bernardino. Looking at the ITS FY01 earmarks, none of these most congested cities got funding for ITS technology to alleviate gridlock. Of the other 60 most- congested-cities featured in the study, only 5 receive funds, while a sixth city probably receives funds from an overall state earmark. These six funds total only $7,000,000 or 3% out of a total ITS appropriation of $211,200,000. Second, the amount of money that has been earmarked appears to be non-scientific. They are round figures of $200,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 and the like. Investment in intelligent transportation technology pays huge dividends, but it is expensive. We wonder whether such small sums, while helpful, actually reach the critical mass needed to get a project underway. Small sums, distributed widely across the nation, are not the most effective, efficient way to use these funds in alleviating priority congestion concerns. This is important because TEA-21 was the first surface transportation bill to focus to such an extent on ITS. We wanted to push the envelope and emphasize the use of technology to ease traffic gridlock. In two to three years from now when we reauthorize the next surface transportation bill, we will need to ask: did these programs work? If we do not use the resources that we have devoted to ITS in a prudent, rational, scientific way, we will not have the experience and information necessary to answer that question in an informed way. Earmarks, in my view, are more acceptable in mature transportation programs. We can and should address the needs of specific communities. ITS, however, is an evolving resource in transportation, and we should adhere to the intent of the law in seeking a competitive, more scientific process to distribute ITS funds. I encourage you to adhere to the design created by TEA-21. The Congress has the opportunity, through ITS and other programs, to strengthen our national transportation infrastructure in a cost-effective, efficient manner. We undermine those efforts if we don't follow the criteria established and passed by the Congress in TEA-21. With kind regards, Sincerely, Bob Graham, U.S. Senator.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I heard the remarks of our colleague from Nevada about our good friend, Bruce Vento. I also express my deepest sympathies to his family at their loss. It is a loss to them and it is a loss to America. Bruce Vento was a man who educated many of us, including myself, as to the great value of our national parks; that in many ways they are the repositories of America's dream, of what kind of a country we were and what kind of an America we wish to leave for future generations. I had the opportunity to talk to Congressman Vento just a few weeks ago on behalf of a national park that I feel very deeply about, Everglades National Park. As always, he was extremely solicitous of information and forthcoming in his willingness to be of assistance. I am saddened today at the news of Bruce Vento's passing. America, and particularly our great natural treasures, have lost a tremendous friend and articulate advocate on their behalf.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Is it correct, then, that if an individual or household was unable to obtain a loan from SBA, or assistance from another source, then they could be eligible to receive additional emergency home repair assistance, based upon the regulations that FEMA promulgates for this section, and as long as the total FEMA assistance received by that individual or household does not exceed $25,000?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chairman for the clarification.

Mr. GRAHAM. The bill includes a provision that caps emergency home repair assistance for individuals and households at $5,000. Could the Chairman elaborate on this provision to describe what additional assistance might be available to individuals and households should their emergency home repair costs exceed $5,000?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, you understand, of course, that Part B of Medicare requires, first, a voluntary election to participate and then, second, a monthly premium which today is approximately $45?

Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, it is $25 a month or $300 a year. No. 2, it is a voluntary election, exactly the same way that you had a voluntary election for Part B for 35 years. No. 3, you understand that the plan of the Vice President is a universal plan like all the rest of Medicare; over 39 million Americans who are eligible for Medicare are eligible to make the voluntary election to participate in the prescription drug benefit?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thought $150 a month was the deductible. There is a copay beyond that?

Mr. GRAHAM. You also understand the Vice President's plan would require a second voluntary election to participate in prescription drugs, and the monthly fee would be $25, or $300 a year, not $600 a year? Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. So it would be a $150 monthly deductible and a $25 copay?

Mr. GRAHAM. Is that copay per prescription filled?

Mr. GRAHAM. How is that calculated?

Mr. GRAHAM. As you understand, all of the plans provide for no payment for persons who are above the Medicaid eligibility limit but generally below 175 percent of poverty, which means approximately $14,000 or $15,000. They would pay no premium. They would pay no copayments. They would have no deductibles. For those people, the Vice President's plan would be fully available without any charges. What we are talking about in both plans is the people who are above 175 percent of poverty. What percentage subsidization would you provide for persons over 175 percent of poverty?

Mr. GRAHAM. How can you offer a more generous plan by having the beneficiary pay only 25 percent as opposed to the Vice President's 50 percent and yet have such a lower cost?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on 23 May 2000, I introduced the Ecstasy Anti-proliferation Act of 2000, now known as S. 2612. The original bill text was not printed in the Congressional Record for that day. I am resubmitting the original text of the bill and ask unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe by previous order, I have 30 minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am here today in support of my colleague from Louisiana and to express my dismay at the content of the Interior appropriations conference report which we are considering. Senator Landrieu knows better than each of us the amount of work, dedication, and focus it took to produce the widely and wildly supported legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA, which has passed the House, passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and now awaits Senate floor action. We have a unique opportunity before us in this session of the Congress: the ability to enact conservation legislation that will have a positive impact not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren, long after we have left this Chamber. This opportunity is in the historical mainstream of the United States of America. We are starting a new century, the 21st century. It is the third full new century that has been started since the United States of America became a sovereign nation. The first of those full centuries was the 19th century. We were led into the 19th century by one of our greatest Presidents, whose bust is above the Presiding Officer, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had a goal, a goal to acquire the city of New Orleans, which ironically is the home of Senator Landrieu. The purpose was to secure water transit on the Mississippi for American commerce, as it was developing in the Mississippi Valley, the Ohio Valley of the Presiding Officer, and later in the Missouri River Valley. President Jefferson suddenly had a unique opportunity before him. While his negotiators were discussing with the French, the then-owners of New Orleans, the purchase of that city, they were met with a counter offer. Don't just buy New Orleans; buy the entire Louisiana territory. President Jefferson seized this opportunity and fundamentally transformed the United States of America. No longer were we an Atlantic nation. We were a continental nation. No longer were we a nation in which Americans were quickly using up their original land; we were a nation that had an enormous new area to develop. America suddenly had also been saved from the prospect of North America becoming a battleground for European rivalries because, with Louisiana in hand, the United States would be the dominant force in North America and would not have to contend with the prospect of the English, the French, the Spanish, and other Europeans attempting to settle their long animosities on our territory. That was a truly bold idea, an idea that led us into the 19th century and has forever transformed our Nation. We began the 20th century with another similarly bold leader, Theodore Roosevelt, whose bust is just outside the main entrance to the Senate Chamber. Theodore Roosevelt had an idea that America should become a place which respected its natural heritage. So in his almost 8 years as President, he added to the national inventory of public lands an area that is the size of all the States which touch the Atlantic Ocean from Maine to Florida--an enormous contribution to our patrimony which, again, has served to transform both our idea of America and our access to America. We had an opportunity to start the 21st century with an idea which, if not of the scale of either the Louisiana Purchase or Theodore Roosevelt's commitments to public lands, would have been a statement that our generation still recognized its obligation to prepare for the future, as those two great leaders had done. That was what the Conservation and Reinvestment Act was about--to take a portion of the Anglo revenue, which the United States receives from Outer Continental Shelf drilling, and invest those funds in a better America for our future generations. I submit that this opportunity for a bold, grand idea in the tradition of Jefferson and Roosevelt--an idea that could have come close to being a legacy--is now, in fact, sadly a travesty, a mere shadow of what could have been. I suggest that there is no more inappropriate time for us to turn timid and retreat from what could have been. When Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, the United States had a population of approximately 125 million people. By the end of the 20th century, the United States has a population of 275 million people. The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects that by the year 2100--100 years from today--the population of the United States will be 571 million Americans. It is our obligation--as it was Thomas Jefferson's and Theodore Roosevelt's and those who supported their vision of the future--to begin the process of preparing for that next America that is going to arrive in the next 100 years. That next America has to be our grandchildren. They are the people who are going to make up the 571 million Americans in the year 2100. It is possible that some of the young people who are here with us today may live through this full century and experience what that new America is going to be like. How well we are preparing for that new America is being tested by what we are doing today. I am sad to say that in the retreat from providing for an ongoing, significant source of funding to provide for the variety of needs of that new America, we are failing the next America. Like the occupant of the chair, I have served as Governor of a State. I believe one of the most lamentable aspects of this failure is the way in which we have treated States. States are our partners in this great Federal system. Probably of all the contributions the United States has made to the theory of government, none has been as significant as the concept of federalism: That we could have within 1 sovereign nation 50 States that were sovereign over areas of their specific responsibility, and that in many areas those sovereignties would merge in respectful partnerships in order to accomplish goals that were important to the citizens of an individual State but also important to all Americans. Many of the programs that were the objective of the CARA legislation were in that category of respectful partnerships between the Federal Government and the State. For those respectful partnerships to be effective, in my judgment, there are some prerequisites. One of those prerequisites is that on both sides of the partnership there must be sustainability, predictability; both partners must bring to the table the capacity to carry out their mutually arrived at plans and visions. The CARA legislation, as it was passed by the House of Representatives--I might say by an overwhelming vote--and voted out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, had such a vision because it would have provided through this source of funds of the Outer Continental Shelf a guaranteed source of revenue to meet the Federal side of that respectful partnership with the States in everything from urban parks to historic district redevelopment, to the development of urban forests--a whole array of needs which our growing population requires. With that assured source of financing, there could have been some other things accomplished. One would have been good, intelligent planning as to how to go about using public funds to the greatest benefit. Part of that planning would have been to have set priorities in which people would have had some confidence. When you say priorities, by definition, you are telling some people they are at the absolute front of the line, other people are a few spaces back, and some are toward the end of the line. But if those who stand in line believe their turn in fact will come if they are patient and, if they do the planning that is asked of them, they will finally receive their reward through Federal participation in funding, I am afraid that what we have just done is lost that opportunity because of what we have in the conference report of the Department of the Interior. Under title VII, the land conservation, preservation, and infrastructure improvement title, which is offered to us as the substitute for CARA, we have this language: This program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. The House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations have discretion in the amounts to be appropriated each year, subject to certain maximum amounts as described herein. So we have no respectful partnership, and therefore we have no reasonable expectation that the kind of goals that were at the heart of the CARA program will in fact be realized. I suggest that our partners in the States who, from virtually every organization that represents State interests, had advocated passage of the CARA legislation will find this to be a particularly disappointing and sad day. In addition to the fact that we are squandering the opportunity that comes with the enthusiasm of the new century, in addition to the fact that we are failing to meet the challenge for the new America, which will occupy this great Nation in the next hundred years, and in spite of the fact that we have acted in an arrogant and disrespectful way to our partners, the States, there is yet another tragedy in what is being proposed. That tragedy is our national parks. On July 25, 2000, the Senate Energy Committee passed its version of the CARA bill, containing what I consider to be one of its most important aspects--the national park protection fund. This fund would provide $100 million in assured, guaranteed funding for the parks for 15 years, $100 million a year, for the purpose of natural, cultural, and historic resource preservation and restoration. This was a critical section of the bill. It was mirrored after a bill which I introduced in April of 1999. During our markup in the Energy Committee, I supported this section. I did believe that it should have included even more money to adequately address the needs of our national parks. I might say in that view that I was joined by a number of members of the Energy Committee who advocated a more significant commitment to the protection of our national parks. I am blessed to say that since this bill was reported by committee, we have had even another ally join in this effort. We have had the Republican candidate for President of the United States, Gov. George W. Bush. Governor Bush, on September 13 of this year, stated that he would commit to spend $5 billion on maintenance of the national parks over the next 5 years ``to renew these national treasures and reverse the neglect.'' We are rejecting the advice and recommendation of the Governor of Texas, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, with this legislation because what it provides for national parks maintenance is only $50 million for 1 year. Fifty million dollars for 1 year is all we are going to be voting for if we accept this conference report--not the $5 billion over 5 years that Governor Bush has wisely recommended we invest in the restoration and revitalization of the great national treasure of our national parks. The conference report today takes a tremendous step in the opposite direction in terms of a commitment for the rejuvenation of our national parks. It is wholly inadequate. I rise today to plead for our national parks. As Senator Lott said at a press conference in support of the CARA legislation earlier this year, even Kermit the Frog supports this bill. To borrow a phrase from America's favorite frog, ``It's not easy being green.'' It is also no simple matter maintaining the beautiful pinks and rich browns of Utah's canyons, the bright reds and oranges of Virginia's leaves in the fall, and, of course, the myriad colors that comprise America's Everglades. It is not easy. But it is critically important. It is our responsibility. The parks tell the story of what and who we are and how we came to be. They contain the spirit of America. Maintaining these national treasures takes commitment to conservation and environmental preservation. That commitment takes money--reliable, sustainable, predictable money--in order to be able to undertake the kinds of projects which are necessary to preserve our great natural and cultural heritage. There are many examples I might use to demonstrate this necessity for a sustained, reliable source of money to protect our heritage. Let me just use one that I have had the occasion to visit twice in the last few months; that is, Ellis Island. Ellis Island, as we all know, is the place through which some 15 million persons seeking the freedom and liberty and opportunity of the United States first entered our country. It is a site which is seeping with the history of America. It is a site which is composed of about 40-some buildings, including the first public health hospital in the history of the United States; it is on Ellis Island. You may have seen some television programs which were broadcast from Ellis Island that show a series of buildings which have been renovated to their 19th century style with brilliance and beauty. Unfortunately, what you do not see are the other 35 buildings in back of those that have been rehabilitated. When you walk through those buildings, what you see is some of the history of America crumbling literally before your eyes and feet. The reason for this crumbling is that there has not been an adequate, reliable source of funds to maintain this and many others of our national heritage. The superintendent of the park told me that if she had a reliable source of funds, she could organize a rational plan for the rehabilitation of these historic buildings and, at considerable savings to the taxpayers, commence the process of saving these buildings. What we have before us is not a bill that gives us the opportunity of salvation. Rather, it is a program that virtually assures the disintegration of Ellis Island and other invaluable parts of our Nation's history and culture. Today, protection of our natural resources and our historic and cultural resources has fallen further and further behind. Suffering takes many forms. Wildlife is suffering. In the park I know the best, America's Everglades and the great Everglades National Park, the number of nesting wading birds has declined 93 percent since the 1930s. One study of 14 national parks found that 29 carnivores and large herbivores had disappeared since these parks were established and placed under our trusteeship and protection. Only half the islands in the Park Service's historic collections are cataloged. Often it takes an act of individual intervention in order to save an important national treasure. I have had the good fortune to have my daughter marry the son of a great American historian, David McCullough. David McCullough has sounded the national alarm at the disintegration of much of our historical and cultural treasures. One of those for which he sounded the alarm was the Longfellow house in Cambridge, MA. Not only was it the home of a great American family, it happened to be the home where George Washington lived when he was establishing the first components of the American Colonial Army that would eventually be victorious in the American Revolution--an extremely important site in American history, a site which, lamentably, was collapsing. David McCullough, a sophisticated person with considerable ability to energize action on behalf of a worthy project, went to one of our colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and brought to Senator Kennedy's attention what was happening at the Longfellow house in his State of Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy came to the Congress not too many years ago and got specific funding for the Longfellow house. Now it is on the road back to recovery. But do we have to depend upon the convergence of a historian and an influential Senator to save our national heritage? Are we going to say it is important enough that we do this on a predictable, sustained, professional basis? We have that opportunity with the CARA Act. We are about to lose that opportunity with this conference report. Only 62 percent of conditions needed to preserve and protect the museum collections within our National Park System meet professional standards for their protection. Considering only the park's portion of the CARA compromise--words which I find objectionable--but of only the park's portion of this alleged CARA compromise, we have nearly 290 million reasons to oppose it. Those 290 million reasons are the 290 million persons who last year visited our Nation's parks. That number grows each year as our children and our grandchildren take our place among the mountains, the forests, and the historic sites which comprise America's National Park System. The parks are more than just popular destinations. They are havens for more than 120 threatened and endangered species. The National Park Service also oversees a trove of historic artifacts that represent the story of human experience in North America, some 75 million items of our history. We owe to future generations, we owe to our children and our grandchildren, and their grandchildren, the chance to learn this story. We owe them the same opportunity to appreciate the majestic beauty of this land as we ourselves have been lucky enough to experience. In the words of President Lyndon Johnson: If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it. We are seeing that opportunity to leave to those future generations a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, we are seeing that opportunity unnecessarily and tragically slipping away. A steady diet of green will keep our natural treasures healthy well into the next century. We have the opportunity to do this. When the legislation establishing our Outer Continental Shelf drilling program and the royalties that would be derived was established, the theory was we would take the resources that we gathered as we depleted one natural resource, the petroleum and natural gas under our Outer Continental Shelf, and we would use it precisely as a means of investment in the future of our country by investing it in the protection of our most valuable natural historic and cultural resources. That is the opportunity that the legislation which was introduced, passed overwhelmingly in the House, passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--and I am proud to say with the support of our Presiding Officer--gave us. It is an opportunity we are about to fritter away. The CARA compromise does not achieve any of these significant goals. This Senate will diminish itself in terms of its appreciation of our American experience. We will diminish ourselves in terms of our political will. We will diminish ourselves as viewed by the history of our own grandchildren if we are to accept this compromise as being an adequate statement, the beginning of the 21st century of what we think our responsibilities to the future are. I urge we defeat this conference report, that we defeat this feeble compromise, and that we start again by bringing to the Senate floor the legislation which has passed out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and give us an opportunity to debate it. Those who have some objections should offer amendments. That is the democratic way. I am confident it will pass and that it will be accepted by the House of Representatives, and signed with enthusiasm by the President, and then we will be worthy of the offices we hold and worthy of our responsibility to the American past and to the American future.