[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5214-S5216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SENATE VOCABULARY

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have had to learn a new vocabulary 
since I have come to Washington. I would like to explain to people of 
America and particularly the people of Utah about this vocabulary, 
because they may have been watching this debate and have not learned 
the things that I have had to learn since I have been a Senator.
  When I came to the Senate, I came naively from the private sector 
thinking that the word ``cut'' meant that we would spend less on a 
program than we were previously spending.
  Indeed, when I talked to my children and I say, ``We are going to cut 
your allowance,'' that means we will give them less money per month 
than we were giving them before. When my wife and I sit down and we say 
we have to cut our household budget, that means we will spend less this 
month than we were able to spend last month. That is what the word 
``cut'' means to me in the outside world.
  When I come to Washington, however, I had to learn, as I say, a new 
vocabulary. I learned that the word ``cut'' does not mean that we spend 
less this year than we spent last year. In many instances, in 
Washington vocabulary, the word ``cut'' means that we spend more this 
year than we spent last year.
 But you do spend less than someone promised that you might spend at 
some future time.

  So, I have had my staff look through this rescission bill to help me 
understand this vocabulary, and they have come up with the list of 
cuts, Washington style, and then compared those to cuts as the term is 
used outside of Washington. I would like to share a few of those.
  One that caught my attention--I got letters from Utah saying, 
``Senator, this rescission bill will cut $42 million from Head Start. I 
do not want to do that. I am a very strong supporter of the Head Start 
Program.''
  Mr. President, $42 million, under my definition of the word ``cut'' 
means that we would spend $42 million less this year on Head Start than 
we would have spent last year. However, in Washington terms that $42 
million cut means that we will only spend $168 million more this year 
than we spent last year.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Two questions to the Senator, and I appreciate the 
graciousness of my colleague.
  First of all, and I do not remember the exact statistics, maybe he 
can help me out on this, is it not true that right now, those children 
who are eligible to benefit from Head Start, we only right now, in 
current appropriations, cover maybe half or a little more than half of 
those young children?
  Mr. BENNETT. Like the Senator from Minnesota I do not have those 
figures at my fingertips. I do know that the Head Start Program from 
fiscal 1990 to fiscal 1995 has had a 128 percent increase during that 
period, and as I said in my statement, in this rescission bill it will 
have a $168 million increase over fiscal 1994, for a total of $3.492 
billion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me try--if my colleague will take another 
question. This gets to the semantics about cuts, because I do not think 
either one of us are trying to be clever. I think it is an honest 
difference of opinion.
  Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, the background of the context 
seems to be the following. I do not have it precisely.
  First, we say, with Head Start, we intend to do exactly what the 
title of it is, give a head start to children who come from 
disadvantaged backgrounds.
  Second, even though we say that, we have never funded the program 
anywhere close to the level where those children who really could 
benefit from such support get such support.
  Third, my colleague says the fact that this is an increase over what 
is now, over the funding right now, means you cannot call it a cut. But 
if every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty in this country and 
the demographics are such and the trend line is such that by definition 
you have more and more children who are in need of Head Start and you 
are not funding it anywhere near up to the level to keep up with that 
increased need, then, in fact, that is a cut. That is a cut by any way 
in which I think you would imagine it.
  In other words, I say to my colleague, my family, we were living on a 
salary--take my salary when I was teaching, $40,000 a year. And by the 
same token, then the next year there was an increase in my salary, but 
it went up just a few percentage points, but the cost of living went 
up, in terms of food, in terms of utilities, in terms of housing, so in 
real dollar terms we 
[[Page S5215]] had less of a standard of living than I had before, that 
would be a cut.
  If the trend line is many more children are eligible so we are now 
losing ground, is that not a cut from what the program is about?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has given us 
the theoretical, with respect to his own employment which may or may 
not constitute a cut. He has not produced any figures in it. But 
ultimately the basic disagreement here has two points.
  No. 1, with respect to his issue regarding Head Start, is it not a 
cut because we have not fully funded it? That is based on the 
assumption that money alone will solve the issue of poverty that he 
raises when he talks about the number of children being born into 
poverty every year. That is a managerial decision involving an analysis 
of Head Start and its contribution, how well it works, how often it 
does not work, what the various problems are, what problems are 
addressed by Head Start, what problems are not. That is not the issue I 
am talking about here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. Let me finish my point here, if I may. I am not talking 
about that because that is not what is going out over the television to 
the American people. I am responding to letters, not addressing the 
question of whether Head Start is adequately funded or inadequately 
funded; whether it is being properly managed or improperly managed; 
whether it is achieving its goal or not achieving its goal. I am 
getting letters saying, ``You are cutting back Head Start by the rate 
of $42 billion. Senator, we do not want to cut Head Start from its 
present level. We do not want to cut Head Start from the job it is 
currently doing.''
  The point I am making is that we are not cutting Head Start back from 
its present level. The semantics of Washington are deceiving the 
American people by leading them to believe things are happening that, 
in fact, are not happening. And Head Start in this rescission bill 
does, in fact, receive an increase of $168 million, more than it had in 
fiscal 1994; and over the total period of time from fiscal 1990 to 
fiscal 1995, it has had a 128-percent increase.
  I want to say to the people of Utah and the people throughout the 
country who are saying, ``Do not cut us back $42 million from last 
year's level,'' we are not cutting back $42 million from last year's 
level. Begin to understand the Washington mentality and the Washington 
vocabulary. When we use the word ``cut'' on this floor, we do not mean 
what 99 percent of the American people think we mean, and we do not 
mean what 99 percent of the American people themselves mean when they 
use the word ``cut.'' That is the point I am trying to make. If the 
Senator wants to debate with me the issue of the efficacy of Head Start 
or the wisdom of Head Start on the adequacy of funding for Head Start 
in terms of what it does, that is a separate issue for a separate time.
  If the Senator has a further question on the issue, I will be glad to 
yield to him.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate that. Actually, this will be the last 
question because I want to enable my colleague to go forward with his 
remarks.
  First of all, I would say to the people of Utah who have written the 
letter to you that I honestly and truthfully believe that they have a 
fine Senator. The Senator's reputation here for fairness is unsurpassed 
by anyone else.
  Second, I want to say to my colleague, I think that, however, he is 
deceiving himself in making the case, the semantic case about cuts. 
Because it does not seem to me to be that strong kind of high ground 
you are standing on here--though you are considerably taller than I 
am--when we understand first, that right now, though we say we want 
children from disadvantaged backgrounds to have a head start, we do not 
anywhere near come close to fully funding it and second, in addition, 
unfortunately, it is the reality that we continue to see a dramatic 
rise in the poverty of children. Every 30 seconds a child is born into 
poverty in our country, and then third, we have a budget which was 
going to increase the funding for Head Start and that now has been cut 
back. That is exactly what this rescission is, a cutback.
  So based upon a program that is inadequately funded, that deals with 
the most important goal we could have, a head start for disadvantaged 
children, with more and more children, unfortunately, being 
disadvantaged, I do not see how my colleague can take any comfort in 
the very remarks he has made.
  Why would you want to trim this back at all? Why would you not want 
to expand the funding? What is the case for any kind of rescission in 
the Head Start area?
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks. I appreciate 
his comments and I reciprocate the personal friendship that we have 
because we do have a genuine personal friendship even though on the 
political spectrum we are probably about as far apart as we can get. 
But one of the delightful things that comes out of the service of this 
body is you become friends with people with different pasts, different 
attitudes, different backgrounds, different parties as well as 
different parts of the country, and you form the warm personal 
friendships that the common experience of serving in this body gives 
us. I thank the Senator for his comments. I do say that perhaps we 
should have the debate as to whether or not Head Start is the logical 
way to spend money in an attempt to eradicate poverty or, if there are 
other places to spend it more effectively I think that is the debate 
for another day and another time.
  I will return now, Mr. President, to some of other items that are on 
this list that I think appropriately belong in this debate.
  Here is one, Goals 2000. That was in the debate last year with 
respect to education. We are told that there is going to be a $55.8 
million cut in Goals 2000. Well, after that cut, the Washington 
vocabulary which is applied to the bill, we find that the increase for 
Goals 2000 is $224 million more will be spent on Goals 2000 in fiscal 
year 1995 than was spent in fiscal year 1994.
  So people who are worried about that, ``Gee, you are cutting back 
Goals 2000,'' be reassured we are spending $224 million more on Goals 
2000 than we did last year.
  Chapter 1, this is a very emotional area. If the Senator from 
Minnesota was concerned about Head Start, I am sure he is very 
concerned about chapter 1 children. In this bill, there is a cut, 
Washington style vocabulary, of $80.4 million. However, be reassured 
those of you who are afraid that there is going to be an $80 million 
cut from the level spent in 1994, the actual number spent in fiscal 
year 1995 will be $321.6 million more in fiscal 1995 than was spent in 
fiscal year 1994. The total spent on chapter 1 money is $7.1 billion. 
Again, Mr. President, $321 million more this year than last, not the 
$80 million cut that a lot of people think they are protesting.
  The Eisenhower Professional Development State Grant, a $69 million 
cut. I list this in the name of fairness because this is the only one 
on the list where I cannot say, in fact, we are going to spend more in 
1995 than we spent in 1994. The effect of this action in the rescission 
package will be that the Eisenhower Professional Development State 
Grant Program will be frozen at the same level in 1995 as it was in 
1994. So if you are concerned about that, you can be reassured there 
will be exactly the same amount of money this year as there was last 
year.
  There are more on the list. I will just touch a few of them. School 
to Work, people say, ``Oh, there is a $15 million cut in School to 
Work. We love School to Work.'' In fact, School to Work has more than 
doubled in fiscal year 1995 over the level it had in fiscal year 1994. 
So if you like School to Work in fiscal year 1994, be reassured there 
is more than double the money available in fiscal year 1995, and so on 
it goes on through.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list appear in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will leave this issue without getting 
into the merits of the cuts, or the Washington style cuts, rather, that 
we have been debating here. But I think it is something that everyone 
in America needs to understand. In these programs I've listed, we are 
not talking about 
[[Page S5216]] cutting back from prior levels, as many people are 
afraid we are. We are simply talking about holding down the increases, 
increases that in many cases, as I say, are double what they were last 
year, which seems to me in many cases that is enough.
  To my colleagues who say, no, these problems are so pressing that 
even a doubling of the money is insufficient to solve the needs, I 
share with you my perspective from the experience I have had in the 
business world, which is that many times the worst thing you can do to 
a promising program or a business circumstance, product development 
activity, is to give it too much money too fast. There are many times 
the temptation to say, ``Oh, this problem is not solving itself fast 
enough. Let us give it more money. This problem is not moving as 
rapidly. Let us fully fund it.'' And you push money at a problem at 
such a rate that the managers of the program simply cannot absorb it 
and spent it intelligently.
  I served, Mr. President, in the executive branch. I can tell you the 
most hectic day in the life of anyone who serves in the executive 
branch is the last day of the fiscal year because on that day the 
spending authority expires, and all effort is exerted to get the money 
spent before the year ends. And money is being pushed out the door as 
rapidly as it possibly can be because they live on a use-it-or-lose-it 
circumstance. They say, ``If we do not spend the money this year, we 
will not get the same appropriation next year.'' Then the managerial 
data come back. And they say, ``You know. We had to spend it so fast 
that we had to take care of this artificial requirement that we do it 
by the end of the fiscal year that we spent it badly, we spent it 
sloppily, in many cases we spent it in a fashion that was 
counterproductive to the program we were supporting.''
  That is the real reason for these rescissions, Mr. President. As a 
Member of the Appropriations Committee I can assure you and the 
American people that we went through these programs, and said, ``Where 
is the money that is not likely to be fenced in 1995 for intelligent 
management reasons? And, if we can find money of that kind, let us 
rescind the budget authority and only give them the amount of money 
they can intelligently and properly spend as good managers.'' And for 
that we are being accused of cutting vital programs and throwing people 
out into the snow, and all of the other rhetoric that has come along on 
this floor.
  I hope, Mr. President, that the information developed by my staff and 
available to readers of the Record following my remarks will make it 
clear that in many programs, we are not cutting, we are simply 
rescinding money that could not be intelligently spent and properly 
spent during this fiscal year, and, in fact, in the programs listed we 
are funding at a level equal to, or in some cases double, that of the 
level of fiscal year 1994.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

    WHEN IS A CUT A CUT?--LIST OF CUTS THAT INCREASE FY 1994 APPROPS    
                    [As Contained in Rescission Bill]                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Proposed                               
           Program               ``Cuts''    Increases over FY94 (Total:
                                (millions)        Approp w/cut'').      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JTPA: Adult Job Training.....        $33    $33 million increase 3.4%   
                                             increase over FY94. Total: 
                                             $1.02 billion.             
JTPA: Title III: Dislocated        \1\35.6  $142 million increase 13%   
 Worker.                                     increase over FY94. Total: 
                                             $1.3 billion.              
School to Work...............      \1\15    More than doubled. Total:   
                                             $110 million.              
Employment Service (One-Stop       \1\20    Doubled. Total: $100        
 Career Center).                             million.                   
Healthy Start................       \1\2.5  $10 million increase. Total:
                                             $107.5 million.            
Head Start...................      \1\42    $168 million increase FY94--
                                             $3.324 billion. Total:     
                                             $3.492 billion (128%       
                                             increase FY90-95).         
Child Care Development Block        \1\8.4  $33.6 million increase.     
 Grant.                                      Total: $926 million.       
Goals 2000 (Title III).......      \1\55.8  $224 million increase; FY94:
                                             $92.4 M. Total: $316       
                                             million.                   
Disadvantaged (Chapter 1)....      \1\80.4  $321.6 million increase.    
                                             Total: $7.1 billion.       
Eisenhower Professional               69    Freeze at 1994 level. Total:
 Development State Grant                     $251 million.              
 (Education).                                                           
Education Infrastructure\2\..         20    $80 million increase. Total:
                                             $80 million.               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\20 percent reduction of increase.                                    
\2\New program: Feds should not fund this at all.                       

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THOMPSON). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________