[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now resume consideration of Senate concurrent resolution 63, the 1995
budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for the
fiscal years, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the resolution?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MITCHELL. Am I correct in my understanding that under a prior
agreement Senator Domenici is now to be recognized to offer his
amendment to the budget resolution?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the next order of business.
Mr. DOMENICI. I lost my amendment. I was walking over here from my
house, and it fell down somewhere.
Mr. MITCHELL. We will wait until the Senator finds it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could I inquire what is the majority leader's
intention? We have a number of amendments and I understand, after
checking the time, that there are about 11 hours, a little over 11
hours total on the resolution at this point.
Could we not lay down the Domenici-Nunn amendment tonight and vote on
it in the morning?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank the colleague for the inquiry.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the Senate having been kept
in session for more than 6 hours on the reading of the prior conference
report at a time in which we could have been debating the Senator's
amendment, I think it appropriate now, in the best interest of all
concerned, that we proceed to the further consideration of the budget
resolution.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the leader yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. I do not have any time, but that is probably one of the
most important amendments we are going to face on this concurrent
resolution. We know of at least four Members who are absent who asked
us not to bring that amendment up now. Can we proceed with another
amendment? There are other amendments.
Mr. MITCHELL. That is the decision for the managers of the bill to
make. Under the prior ruling the Senator was to be recognized to offer
his amendment. That was the agreement entered into by all concerned.
I emphasized we were prepared to do that at 6 p.m. last evening and
were prevented from doing so by a requirement that we read the
conference report. Therefore, that is where we find ourselves in the
current situation.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the leader.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could we discuss it with the chairman and a couple of
Senators who have amendments?
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he might yield me 2
minutes.
Mr. SASSER. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from New
York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I wish simply to say, Mr. President, as I had occasion
to say earlier today, that the Nunn-Domenici amendment involves a
fateful decision by this body as to the future of health care reform.
It would transfer so much in the way of entitlement money, Medicare and
Medicaid, requiring them to be cut by the Committee on Finance. These
are amounts that were programmed, if you accept that word, for the
President's health care bill, and if this measure is to be adopted, it
has the most ominous implications for the future of that legislation.
So I would hope there will be a full and careful debate now for
whatever time.
This afternoon, when this matter was raised, there were only two or
three Senators on the floor. I would like to use this occasion when
most Senators are present to make that point.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Who yields time?
If neither side yields time, time will be charged equally against
both sides.
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of the budget resolution at 9 a.m. this morning;
that there then be 8 hours remaining on the budget resolution; and that
Senator Domenici be recognized at that time to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, would that be equally
divided?
Mr. MITCHELL. Eight hours, equally divided.
Mr. DOMENICI. could I just consult with one Senator?
Reserving the right to object, and I probably will not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will continue to be charged equally to
both sides.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request is pending. The
Senator from New Mexico reserves the right to object. He said he would
not do so, but will let us know very shortly.
Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the unanimous-consent
request.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever time Senator Specter desires at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order was to recognize the Senator from
New Mexico for the purpose of offering an amendment. Does he intend to
do so? The Senator need not offer the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Not at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania seeks
recognition. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield such time as the Senator desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been in session for about an hour
without a quorum call and awaiting some decision on action. I have had
an amendment, which I have been prepared to offer. I just said to my
colleague from New Mexico that I was either going to offer my amendment
or absent myself from the Chamber. I am not going to sit around all
night while we engage in fussing and fuming.
My point is that if there is no objection, I am going to offer this
amendment for its immediate consideration so that we can do something
instead of sitting around here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to offer his
amendment.
amendment no. 1565
(Purpose: An amendment by Senator Specter to restore full funding of
LIHEAP; provide supplemental funding for prisoner literacy training and
prisoner job training; and provide supplemental funding for unwanted
pregnancy prevention and prenatal care programs by transferring funding
from government consulting accounts)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an
amendment numbered 1565.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 41, decrease the amount on line 11 by $435,000,000.
On page 41, decrease the amount on line 12 by $326,000,000.
On page 41, decrease the amount on line 18 by $452,000,000.
On page 41, decrease the amount on line 19 by $339,000,000.
On page 41, decrease the amount on line 25 by $465,000,000.
On page 42, decrease the amount on line 1 by $349,000,000.
On page 42, decrease the amount on line 7 by $475,000,000.
On page 42, decrease the amount on line 8 by $357,000,000.
On page 42, decrease the amount on line 14 by $488,000,000.
On page 42, decrease the amount on line 15 by $366,000,000.
On page 26, increase the amount on line 8 by $100,000,000.
On page 26, increase the amount on line 9 by $50,000,000.
On page 26, increase the amount on line 15 by $103,000,000.
On page 26, decrease the amount on line 16 by $52,000,000.
On page 26, increase the amount on line 22 by $106,000,000.
On page 26, increase the amount on line 23 by $53,000,000.
On page 27, increase the amount on line 5 by $109,000,000.
On page 27, increase the amount on line 6 by $53,000,000.
On page 27, increase the amount on line 12 by $112,000,000.
On page 27, increase the amount on line 13 by $56,000,000.
On page 30, increase the amount on line 20 by $225,000,000.
On page 30, increase the amount on line 21 by $214,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 2 by $232,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 3 by $221,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 9 by $239,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 10 by $228,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 16 by $246,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 17 by $234,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 23 by $253,000,000.
On page 31, increase the amount on line 24 by $240,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 8 by $100,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 9 by $62,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 15 by $103,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 16 by $65,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 22 by $106,000,000.
On page 35, increase the amount on line 23 by $66,000,000.
On page 36, increase the amount on line 5 by $109,000,000.
On page 36, increase the amount on line 6 by $68,000,000.
On page 36, increase the amount on line 12 by $112,000,000.
On page 36, increase the amount on line 13 by $70,000,000.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will explain this amendment.
The amendment transfers $435 million governmental consulting
accounts, where there is now some $2.1 billion, an account which is
largely recognized to have many items that we can do without. It
constitutes a 19.5 percent cut in those consulting accounts. In
transfers $225 million to LIHEAP, the Low Income Heat Energy Assistance
Program. It transfers $100 million for prisoner literacy education and
prisoner job training.
It transfers $100 million for prenatal pregnancy prevention.
Taking up the issue of low-income energy assistance first, that is a
fund which has been cut consistently over the past several years
regardless of which party controls the administration, and it has
resulted in tremendous pain and suffering across this country. The cut
in LIHEAP funding has given many families of America the stark choice
of heating or eating, and it has resulted in many deaths over makeshift
heating and lighting systems.
It is hard to get a total fix on the number of deaths, but in a short
period of time in Philadelphia, between August 1992 and January 1993,
11 people, mostly children, died as a result of makeshift heating
arrangements.
We have in the United States an enormous problems on adequate funding
for heating. With last year's allocations of $1.475 billion, only 24
percent of federally eligible households were covered by LIHEAP
assistance. Now the administration has proposed to have a cut of some
$745 million, more than half of the LIHEAP accounts, with an assertion
that there would be some discretionary funds applied to try to make up
the difference.
This Senator view that as totally inadequate. The Budget Committee
had reinstated some $520 million for the LIHEAP account, which still
leaves a shortage of some $225 million even to have the funds which
were available last year.
The families in the low-income bracket spend a significantly larger
proportion of their income on heating than do families in higher
brackets. For example, the amount spent on the average for heating is 3
to 4 percent of income, the people in the income brackets eligible for
LIHEAP funding spend between 11 and 13 percent of their funding.
This issue is one which is especially problemsome for my State of
Pennsylvania, but it is one that has enormous problems across the
country.
Senator Harkin chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health, Human Services and Education where this account is located, and
I am the ranking Republican on that subcommittee. It has caused
enormous difficulties as we have tried to allocated funds. The amount
which is currently in the budget is just extraordinarily low.
Mr. President, I shall be relatively brief in all of these items in
view of the lateness of the hours.
The second transfer is $100 million for prisoner literacy, education
and job training, and it is designed to take to come to grips with some
realistic rehabilitation. That figure is by no means sufficient to deal
with the problem in this country, but it would establish a fund for a
demonstration project to see if something meaningful can be done in
that line.
This is a legislation which I have proposed virtually every year
since 1981, and it is designed to try to stem the growth of the career
criminal in this country. It is also designed to try to set a realistic
scene for the imposition of life sentences on the so-called three-
strikes-and-you-are-out legislation.
We have heard a great deal of rhetoric on three-strikes-and-you-are-
out, and it is my view, based on experience as a prosecuting attorney,
that judges will not impose mandatory life sentences. Under our current
system where they see the cycle of crime with recidivists coming back
again and again, where it is no surprise that a functional illiterate
without a trade or a skill will go back to a life of crime, in the
sentencing situation, as I think the Presiding Officer knows from his
experience as an assistant district attorney, the judge simply is not
going to impose a life sentence.
But, if there were realistic rehabilitation after juvenile offenses,
and after a first offense, and the individuals did not do better with
rehabilitation, with literacy training, and job training, and after a
second offense came back and committed a crime of violence--armed
robbery, for example--then I think it is realistic to have judges
imposes life sentences.
The Federal armed career criminal bill, which was passed as one of my
earlier initiatives in 1984, amended to include drug offenses in 1986,
has been acknowledged as a very important tool for law enforcement. If
we really came to grips with career criminals in America, we could
reduce violent crime very substantially.
The National Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals back
in 1972 estimated that violent crime could be reduced by some 50
percent. And if we make a real effort with rehabilitation, literacy
training, and job training, and the individuals fail at that, then I do
believe we can realistically move to life sentences for career
criminals.
The third item, Mr. President, on this amendment which would receive
$100 billion in funding, would be for prenatal care and pregnancy
prevention.
Mr. COHEN. Did the Senator say $100 billion?
Mr. SPECTER. I said $100 million. If I said $100 billion it was a
slip of the lip. At this hour I might have said $100 trillion. I think
I said $100 million, but I do know. Whatever I said, I meant $100
million.
But I thank the Senator for the interruption, if not the suggestion.
It sounds like a hollow tunnel. I thank the Senator.
The program which this $100 million is designed to address, again, is
a demonstration project to see if something can be done on this problem
of enormous magnitude.
The leader in the Senate is the distinguished Senator from New York
Senator Moynihan. If I might have Senator Moynihan's attention, I have
been very much impressed with the clarion call which our colleague from
the State of New York has made on the problem of rising pregnancies and
unwanted children. It is a source of enormous problem in America which
should have been addressed a long time ago. It is a very complex matter
as to how to address it. It results in enormous costs.
In 1991, the most recent statistics available, the Federal Government
spent some $29 billion for AFDC, aid to families with dependent
children, Medicaid and WIC payments. As to the families begun by
teenaged parents, more than 1 million American teenage girls between
the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant each year, and there are some
50,000 low birth-weight babies born to teenaged girls.
I first saw a 1-pound baby in 1984 when I visited a hospital in
Pittsburgh. It was an ominous sign, a child as big as a hand. It is a
human tragedy, because those children carry those scars throughout
their lives. It is a financial tragedy because the average cost is
$158,000 a child.
I introduced legislation on this subject back in 1985, and with the
cooperation of both the Bush administration and the Clinton
administrations, we have had a healthy start program which has done
some good on prenatal care. It is a very important factor in planning
health care reform because there are billions of potential savings
there.
But this program of teenaged pregnancy is one which is long overdue
in being addressed.
My colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who chaired the Subcommittee
on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, and I have sat down
with the Secretary of Health and human Services, Secretary Shalala, and
the Secretary of Education, Secretary Reilly, to try to find some
answers here.
Secretary Shalala made the observation that her study showed that
most teenaged pregnancies occur between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. And as
Senator Harkin and I tackled the problems in this subcommittee, with
the great shortage of funds--this $100 million transfer is from
consultants, and we have yet to really find out what consultants do.
This $100 million would be a tremendous aid in enabling us to structure
some programs to tackle this very, very important problem.
So, in summary, Mr. President, this amendment takes a look at an
account on consulting fees, $2.1 billion, which is bloated and
overspent, and it seeks a 19.5 percent reduction, and then seeks to
tackle three very, very important problems.
The issue of assistance of low-income heat and energy is one of the
most important ones that has been cut by the administration in a
draconian way, and this would at least restore funding to last year's
level.
The demonstration projects were $100 million. That on prisoner
literacy training and prisoner education would enable us to try to deal
with a major problem, and at least set the stage so that inmates who do
not take advantage of realistic rehabilitation or do not succeed at it,
then we would be able to impose life sentences on career criminals and
make America's streets safer.
The $100 million for prenatal care and pregnancy prevention would
give us at least some start on this problem of enormous magnitude.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Who yields time?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields 5 minutes
to the Senator in Maine.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I will be very brief.
First, I want to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering
this amendment. It focus particularly on the amendment dealing with
LIHEAP, the low-income heating energy assistance program. This is a
program which is vital to States like Maine.
Over the years, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has pointed out this
program has been cut and cut again, and we find our citizens faced with
heating bills they cannot pay. Just a couple years ago there was one
incident when it was so cold in Maine, there was no fuel available, and
they could not pay for the heating fuel. They were, in some cases,
breaking up their furniture and using that for firewood in order to
heat their homes to keep from freezing.
This is a very important program for the State of Maine.
I might point out it seems to me we are perhaps not allocating the
funds in the correct fashion. We need to be allocating more resources
for weatherization programs as opposed to just providing the assistance
to purchase the heat and fuel in order to keep warm during winter
months or keep cool during the summer months in the more southern
climates.
But I think the Senator has done an outstanding job of making his
presentation. I intend to support him, and I am going to ask, if the
Senator is not going to do it, for the yeas and nays on his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, will the proponent of the amendment yield
me time to speak in favor of his amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. I do not control the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, as a proponent
of the amendment, does control 44 minutes 52 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time does the Senator from Tennessee wish?
Mr. SASSER. Five minutes or less.
Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields 5 minutes
to the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, we restored in the Budget Committee 70
percent of the President's cut of the so-called low-income home energy
assistance, and we also tried to increase funding for prenatal care.
The thrust of this amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania
is in agreement with the priorities that we are pursuing in the Budget
Committee.
So I would just say, Mr. President, in the absence of any request for
a rollcall vote on this particular amendment, that we would be pleased
to accept the Senator's amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been requested and
ordered. I think we ought to stick with that and have the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my colleague from Pennsylvania has made a
request of me for 2 minutes, and I do yield that time to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter)
yields 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Wofford).
Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I commend the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania for putting this amendment forward. I look forward to our
accepting that amendment. The yeas and nays have been asked ordered. I
look forward to an affirmative vote for it.
We have had hearings. Senator Dodd has brought forth witnesses that
have made very clear that, on the LIHEAP matter, this is a matter of
great urgency. People have died in our State. Full funds should be
restored. This amendment will make that possible.
The other elements of the amendment, I think, are good steps for us
to take at this time in sending forth a signal that we are getting our
priorities right.
I think we can cut down on consulting and we can bring up to full
funding our support for LIHEAP and the other parts of this amendment,
so I urge an affirmative vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields 5 minutes
to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding me that time. I will not
take that much time.
I just want to compliment my good friend from Pennsylvania for
offering this amendment. I do compliment the distinguished chairman of
the Budget Committee for all that they did to replace the money on
LIHEAP. They did a great job in doing that. I am most appreciative of
their doing that and the funding they put in for paternal and child
health care and all those programs.
But, nonetheless, they were operating under some constraints and
could not quite get all of the money in that I think was required.
So I just want to say that everything that Senator Specter said is
absolutely right. He is absolutely right in everything he said about
the problems we had in the subcommittee in meeting those targets. He
crafted a good amendment. It is needed, and I support it
wholeheartedly. I hope it passes overwhelmingly.
I thank the Senator for his help on our subcommittee in meeting the
human needs of our citizens in the country. He is a valued member of
that subcommittee, and I enjoy working with him.
Again, I compliment him on offering this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields time?
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there are no speakers in opposition, I
am prepared to yield back my time so we can proceed to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, we would be in a
position to vote.
Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield back his time?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields back his
time.
The Senator from New Mexico controls 59 minutes 35 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time if we
are at a procedural vote stage. If there are going to be counter-
arguments, then I would want to reserve some time to reply.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 59
minutes 35 seconds. The Senator from Pennsylvania controls 45 minutes
41 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I yield back my time and we vote, will we have an
inordinate delay because Senators are not here, or how would that work?
Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, it has been my practice to accommodate
Senators on both sides of the aisle who are not in the Capitol to give
some notice of the vote so that they would be able to return.
In view of the hour, I am prepared to do that or not, as Senators
wish. A large number of Senators, of course, have remained.
I inquire of my colleagues on the Republican side whether they wish
to, in accordance with the usual practice, give notice of 10 minutes or
so before the vote begins, to give people the opportunity to get back
who wish to get back to do so?
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be prepared to give time of about
7 hours to come back in. It is now 2:22. My suggestion would be that we
stack this vote and later this morning. It is my amendment, and I will
be prepared to do that.
If we are going to give time, what time would the majority leader
suggest; 2:45, 3 o'clock?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I was going to suggest a 10-minute
notice for people, to give those who wish to come back the opportunity
to do so.
Mr. SPECTER. I would not object to that, if that is the wish of the
majority leader. My preference would be to stack the vote for later in
the morning.
Mr. MITCHELL. I inquire of my colleagues, then, if there is any
objection to setting the vote for 10 minutes from now to give Senators
not present an opportunity to be present?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise that the Senator from
Pennsylvania controls 39 minutes and 50 seconds and the Senator from
New Mexico controls 59 minutes and 5 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to yield back my time if the Senator from
New Mexico does so, and we can follow the schedule propounded by the
majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, after time is yielded back, the amendment
would be subject to a second-degree amendment, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yields back his
time.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 1565. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
amendment no. 1566
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk
and ask it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment numbered
1566.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasser). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time on the amendment?
No time has been yielded. The time will run equally on both sides on
the second-degree amendment that is offered by the minority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment not be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays
on the Specter amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Specter amendment, all time having
been yielded back.
The amendment (No. 1565) was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
dodd-jeffords amendment no. 1561
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
Jeffords-Dodd amendment to transfer $30.5 billion to special education
programs over 5 years--$6 billion in fiscal 1995 alone. I have a long
history of support for many education programs. As the ranking member
of the Labor Committee's Disability Subcommittee, I am committed to
improving educational opportunities for all Americans, particularly
those individuals requiring special education. I am sensitive to the
criticism by State and local governments that the Federal Government
has not lived up to its commitment to contribute 40 percent of the
national average per pupil cost for special education services to
children with disabilities. The current 8 percent contribution is
woefully inadequate. The 20 percent level achieved by this amendment
still hardly addresses the need.
However, Mr. President, this country is in the midst of a budget
crisis. We simply do not have the luxury to fund all of our worthy
programs at their authorized levels. I wish we did. But right now we
have a $4.7 trillion debt, and we are loading $173 billion more onto
that debt in fiscal 1995. Our priorities must be to reduce the deficit
before we can think about expanding current programs.
The amendment pays for this spending increase by a corresponding
decrease in funding for the Milstar program as well as certain
intelligence funding. These cuts have been opposed by the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee. Even though the Appropriations Committee
would have the option of cutting another defense program, or any other
program, $30 billion is a sizable hit on our discretionary spending
areas, particularly to fund an increase that was not recommended by the
President or the Budget Committee. I am not sure we are ready to make
this kind of sensitive choice today. If we do choose to cut spending,
as we have under the Exon-Grassley amendment, the critical need is to
dedicate these cuts to deficit reduction.
The sponsors of the amendment also indicate that the amendment would
be partially paid for by restoring half of the Exon-Grassley cuts made
in the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I don't see how restoring some
of these cuts creates a new pool of money that can be spent for worthy
programs. It would avoid certain spending cuts that will be made by the
Appropriations Committee, but it should not be considered a new pool of
money that can be used for programs that were not addressed in the
President's budget. I strongly support the Exon-Grassley cuts as an
important effort to reduce the deficit and will oppose any efforts to
eliminate these cuts.
The intent of this amendment is commendable, but the result could be
that we will cut other programs that should not be cut, possibly other
education programs. The Appropriations Committee and its Labor, HHS and
Education Subcommittee will have the responsibility to decide whether
this or other programs will be increased or cut. Even if we pass this
amendment, we cannot guarantee that this specific increase would be
made by Appropriations. If this is a critical spending need, we should
appeal to the Appropriations Committee rather than to pass this
amendment.
____________________