Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened, with interest, to the comments made by my colleague from Oklahoma. I read his amendment. All I can say is I will use a term that is very popular out in the Midwest: It is like closing the barn door after you let the horse out. I would have to ask my friend from Oklahoma--he's part of the Republican leadership--I wonder if he has talked to himself lately. I wonder if he has talked to the other Republican leaders. This is a great sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but the fact is, the Republican leadership has already dipped into Social Security. Don't take my word for it; take CBO's word for it. They have already dipped into it.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, don't take my word for it. Read the CBO's letter, dated August 26, almost a month ago. Things haven't gotten any better. You can read it in the newspapers. You can add it all up for yourselves. This is what they have done, all these schemes. Now they are going to designate the census as an emergency. Thomas Jefferson could have told you there was going to be a census in the year 2000, but they think it is an emergency. I said they want to delay the tax cut for low-income Americans, the one program that helps get people from welfare into work, the earned income tax credit. They want to cut that down to pay for their schemes and their tax cuts for the wealthy. They are using two sets of books-- CBO books, OMB books, one or the other, whichever make it look good on any one day or the other. They want to spread one year's funding over 3 fiscal years. They propose to defer approximately $3 billion in temporary assistance for needy families, TANF block grants, from fiscal year 2000 to 2001. The schemes go on and on and on, all because, it seems to me, the Republicans looked at the Clinton budget that was sent down this year, which was balanced, which moved us ahead in the areas of education and health, which moved this country forward but had some penalties on tobacco companies and some offsets, as we call it around here, which means we pay for some of this by penalties on the tobacco companies. It is obvious to me the Republicans said, no, we can't touch the tobacco companies. All year we have been having this jiggling going back and forth and back and forth about where they are going to come up with the money to fund the extra $4 billion that they put onto the Pentagon. Where are we going to come up with the extra money to pay for their tax breaks for the wealthy? So on and on, we get these schemes; they keep bouncing around. Now we are told that defense, I guess, is going to be an emergency. That is the latest scheme. The defense bill is now going to be an emergency bill, but there is no emergency out there. As I said, you can have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which says we should adopt an across-the-board reduction if we don't have a balanced budget. But quite frankly, why don't we have some penalties on the tobacco companies? Rather than cutting health care for the elderly, rather than cutting education for our kids, which his sense of the Senate would do, why don't we have some penalties on the tobacco companies for their failure to reduce teen smoking? CBO told us that would raise, if I am not mistaken, about $6 billion. There is $6 billion we could get right there for teen smoking. That is where we are. I find it odd, kind of amusing, kind of bemusing, I guess, that the Senator from Oklahoma, one of the leaders on the Republican side, would offer this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As I said, they have already dipped into Social Security. Now he wants to close the barn door. All I can say is, too little and too late. I think the Senator from Oklahoma needs to have some remedial math. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the article from which I quoted.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think the Senator and I do agree we should not raid Social Security. But I think it already has been under some of their proposals. That could be open for debate. The Senator says let's make an across-the-board cut if at the end have gone overboard. I made a list of some of the things we could cut, such as $13 billion in Medicare fraud and abuse; $6 billion in tobacco penalty; $2 billion in student loan guarantees, as fixes that we can make; $10 billion in corporate welfare; $4 billion cut in Defense to get just to the DOD request. That is about $35 billion. Why don't we take some of that money, if we have to, rather than cutting education and community health centers? That is what the Senator from Oklahoma would propose, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, the last time I checked, the Republicans do run the House of Representatives. Their education budget is below that. Ours is up a little bit, but you know what happens when you go to conference. And who runs the conference? The Republicans. I am saying, we may be up in the Senate, but the Republicans run the House and they have cut it down below. That is my point. The Senator said education was up. But under the Senator's scenario of an across-the-board cut, obviously, education would be cut, as would community health centers and Head Start, because it would be across the board. I am saying, if we want to have a balanced budget, which we do, where do we cut? Why won't the Senator accept penalties on the tobacco companies? The CBO gave us scoring of $6 billion just from penalties on tobacco companies for not reducing teen smoking to the level they said they were going to do. That is $6 billion right there. Yet the Senator doesn't seem to be willing to even entertain that as a possible source of revenue. No, he wants to cut across the board. So, again, this debate will continue, obviously, for the remainder of the fall as we get into the final crunch on our bills around here. But it seems to me that to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we do an across-the-board cut, without looking at some other things--as I mentioned, there are $2 billion in student loan guarantee fixes we can make, and the tobacco penalty I talked about, or bringing Defense back down to the DOD request. There are a whole bunch of things we can look at that will still let us increase Head Start and education, community health centers, all the things that meet human needs and invest in the human resources of our country, rather than doing it as the Senator from Oklahoma has suggested. I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator want me to finish and yield the floor?

Mr. HARKIN. ``GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus, CBO Cites Planned Use of $18 Billion.'' This was in the paper yesterday: On the same day House Republicans launched a new attack charging Democrats with ``raiding'' Social Security to fund spending programs, congressional analysts revealed that the GOP's own spending plan for next year would siphon at least $18 billion of surplus funds generated by the retirement program. Yesterday's report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office seemed to undermine a concerted GOP effort to blame President Clinton for excessive spending and gain the high ground in the high-stakes political battle over Social Security. There it is. They already have dipped into Social Security. We have already used up the non-Social Security budget of $14 billion, according to CBO. Actually, it was by $19 billion, but that included about $5 billion that was in the tax scheme they came up with, which the President vetoed. So we get that back. We are about another $15 billion into Social Security already. Again, this is a great sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The fact is, though, the President sent a budget this year that was balanced, that met all our needs. I might have wanted to add a few things here and jiggle a few things there, but there were some penalties on tobacco companies in that budget. But, no, the Republicans, they don't want to penalize the tobacco companies, oh, no. Hands off the tobacco companies. We can't penalize them. But what we can penalize are the elderly on Social Security. They can pad the budget on the Pentagon. They added more to the Pentagon budget than what the Department of Defense even asked for. We have been playing all these shell games all year, moving money around. Well, we have a plan, and we have had a plan, to be able to balance the budget, fund these programs by not dipping into Social Security but by penalizing the tobacco companies that fail to reduce teen smoking. It seems to me we could beef up our efforts to reduce Medicare waste and abuse. There is $13 billion right there, by the latest estimates. How about legislation that would save money by reducing student loan defaults and cutting excessive administration fees that we pay to banks for student loans? How about reducing some corporate welfare? How about closing some special interest tax loopholes? No, no, the GOP, the Republicans don't want to do that. They want to cut education and health care. Oh, yes, and the earned income tax credit; that is their latest scheme. I see in the paper this morning that their frontrunner for the Presidency, Governor Bush of Texas, couldn't even swallow that one. He said: What are the House Republicans doing? He said: I am against balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Obviously, House Republicans want to do that; evidently, a few Republicans over here, too, want to use the earned income tax credit to pay for their schemes and for the faulty budgeting they have done. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I may come up with a second degree. I guess he has already second degreed it. We can second degree it again. We will have a vote on that. I think we need a sense-of-the- Senate resolution that we send the Republican leadership back for remedial math so they can add things up a little bit better. I yield to my friend from Oklahoma, having said that; I yield for a question anyway.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me finish a couple of things, and then I will. We will get into a dialogue on this.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I don't mind that.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, what is the unanimous consent request?

Mr. HARKIN. I object. If the Senator wants to speak, why not have the Senator yield time?

Mr. HARKIN. Regular order, please.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I also ask for the regular order.

Mr. HARKIN. I do not have the floor yet.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear.

Mr. HARKIN. I could not hear all of this.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me a couple minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. I don't mean to take any more time of the Senator from Arkansas. I can't help poking a little bit at him before the vote. It is interesting that the Senator from Arkansas is trying to take $25 million out of the NLRB for the community health centers. Why didn't the Senator from Arkansas try to take $25 million out of the defense appropriations to help the community health centers? Why didn't he try to take $25 million out of energy and water or all the other 12 appropriations bills that came down here? Why go after the NLRB? As I pointed out, I just spoke with the Association of Community Health Centers. They said that while they appreciate his intentions of giving them more money, they don't want to do it at the expense of the NLRB. I hope the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. A unanimous consent was asked. Was there approval that there be a time limit on this amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Hlavacek, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of this appropriations bill.

Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HARKIN. I object.