[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9495-S9509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER 
   ASSISTANCE, FOR ANTITERRORISM INITIATIVES, FOR ASSISTANCE IN THE 
     RECOVERY FROM THE TRAGEDY THAT OCCURRED AT OKLAHOMA CITY, AND 
                         RESCISSIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we turn to 
consideration of H.R. 1944.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1944, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1944) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for 
     antiterrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery of 
     the tragedy that occurred in Oklahoma City, and making 
     rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also understand we will not be able to get 
unanimous consent that there be no amendments to the bill, so I will 
not make that request.
  I am advised that the managers are here. We would like to proceed as 
quickly as possible. If there are amendments we hope the amendments 
will be offered with very little debate. Certainly people have a right 
to offer amendments. We discourage amendments.
  I hope that those who want this bill passed--which will save $9.2 
billion and is supported by President Clinton--will join together in 
defeating any amendments or tabling any amendments that may be offered.
  I know there are a number of absent Senators on each side of the 
aisle. I must say they were never told there would be no votes today, 
so they left at their own risk.
  In any event, I think we are prepared to proceed on the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are prepared to proceed. While I know 
there are absent Senators on both sides, I think it is important we try 
to finish the business on this particular legislation.
  The ranking member has done an outstanding job of bringing the Senate 
to this point, and they deserve our support for the work they have 
done. We hope in the not-too-distant future today we can accomplish our 
task and pass this legislation. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like the attention of the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. President, before I engage in an opening statement, I would like 
to make one observation and describe a very unique situation we are in.
  In this rescissions package, we have, in effect, made cuts at current 
1995 appropriations counts that represents about $3 billion in outlays 
in the outyears.
  I want to make very clear to the Senator from Minnesota and others 
who may be interested in this--knowing of his concern for nonmilitary 
discretionary programs that involve people, children, poor people, 
needy low-income energy assistance, other such programs--if we cannot 
put this bill through before we adjourn at this time, let me indicate 
the time program and consequences.
  Anything that stalls this at this time to move on this and act upon 
this, puts the Senate into July 10 returning. On that date, and the day 
following, the Appropriations Committee will be, then, in a process of 
making allocations under the 602(b) of the Budget Act for 1996 
accounts.
  If we cannot make that $3 billion outlay action now, that means we 
are going to have to add that to the 1996 allocations in order to stay 
within the budget resolution.
  What any Senator would be doing would be taking the responsibility of 
cutting further, deeper, into those programs he or she may be 
interested in, by holding up this action today, because we are not 
going to be able to delay the 1996 action any longer.
  The House has already passed four of six out of their committee. If 
we cannot absorb in the 1995 period that $3 billion outlay, we will be 
absorbing it in the 1996. Any Senator would be compounding the very 
thing they are trying to defend. The Senator is creating a higher cut 
in 1996. We cannot escape that.
  Let me say, we also lost the battle of cutting out the Seawolf or the 
B-2 bomber or something and taking that money and putting it into 
programs of nonmilitary. We lost that battle. We are precluded in the 
appropriations in our 602(b) allocations of transferring money from 
defense discretionary to nondefense discretionary.
  Do not be misled with the idea that somehow we will face the battle 
on the Seawolf or the B-2, and we will reduce those commitments in the 
defense appropriation discretionary programs and be able to use them 
for low-income energy assistance or other welfare or people's need 
programs. That battle we have lost, much to my chagrin.
  I want to just add a word of caution. The very things that the 
Senator may feel he would defend in the 1995 rescission, the Senator 
will compound it in 

[[Page S9496]]
1996 by the very action of this Senate in the budget resolution and 
other decisions we have made. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I fully support the statement made by the 
chairman of the committee. If I had my way about it, I would change 
this conference report in a few particulars, at least. I am only one. 
We have been down this road, now, twice. We spent many hours, several 
days, on the first conference report.
  Mr. President, on May 25 of this year, the Senate adopted the 
conference report to H.R. 1158, the FEMA supplemental appropriation and 
rescission bill by a vote of 61 to 38. At that time, I spoke in support 
of the conference agreement even though it did not contain all of the 
provisions that were included in the Senate bill. In particular, a 
number of Members on this side of the aisle felt that the conference 
agreement did not include a sufficient number of the programs that were 
funded under the Daschle-Dole joint leadership amendment.
  Nevertheless, I urged the President to sign the conference report on 
H.R. 1158 because it was a result of long and difficult negotiations 
with the other body and because it contained many important items, 
including an appropriation of $6.7 billion for Federal Emergency 
Management Agency [FEMA] disaster relief effort. These funds were to be 
used to finance the relief costs associated with the Northridge 
earthquake, as well as to address declared disasters resulting from 
floods and storms throughout some 40 States, including the most recent, 
extraordinary rains and hail which occurred in Louisiana and some other 
States.
  With regard to the administration's request for emergency 
supplemental appropriations in the wake of the tragedy in Oklahoma 
City, H.R. 1158 provided approximately $250 million for antiterrorism 
initiatives and Oklahoma City recovery efforts. This included 
substantial increases above the President's request for the FBI, the 
Department of Justice, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, and the Judiciary. Included in this amount is $67 
million to meet the special needs of the General Services 
Administration created by the April 19, 1995, terrorist bombing attack 
at the Murrah Federal Building.
  The conference report on H.R. 1158 also provided $275 million for 
debt relief for Jordan--to which I object; I did not support that debt 
relief--as proposed by the administration. These funds would allow the 
President to fulfill a promise to help Jordan in its historic peace 
agreement with Israel.
  The President chose to veto H.R. 1158 against my wishes. I do not 
think he should have vetoed it. But he did so for a number of reasons, 
which he set forth in correspondence to the Congress accompanying his 
veto message. Since that veto, negotiations have been ongoing between 
the House and Senate leadership and the Appropriations Committees. And, 
as a result of those negotiations, last night the House passed H.R. 
1944, the bill which is presently before the Senate. In addition to all 
of the provisions contained in the conference reports to H.R. 1158 that 
I previously mentioned, H.R. 1944 also contains reductions in a number 
of rescissions as requested by the administration, as well as an 
increased appropriation for replacement of the Federal building in 
Oklahoma City. The total of these add-backs above the amounts contained 
in H.R. 1158 is $772 million. In order to offset this additional 
spending, new or increased rescissions are contained in H.R. 1944 
totaling $794 million, resulting in additional deficit reduction of $22 
million more than was contained in the conference agreement 
accompanying H.R. 1158.
  I support the passage of H.R. 1944 because it contains $6.55 billion 
in emergency disaster assistance for funds for victims of various 
disasters, including the California earthquake and flooding throughout 
the Nation, and, under the Byrd amendment, the bill, if enacted, would 
reduce the deficit by approximately $9 billion. I do not think we ought 
to lose sight of that. And, moreover, the 1995 rescissions which are 
contained in the bill, if enacted, will result in a decrease in outlays 
for fiscal year 1996 of approximately $3.1 billion, just as the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] stated a few minutes 
ago.
  This is so because the outlays which would have occurred in 1996 from 
the appropriations for which funds were rescinded will no longer be 
required. And this will free up approximately $6 billion in budget 
authority and $3.1 billion in outlays for use in fiscal year 1996--this 
is very important, for nondefense discretionary purposes--for 
nondefense discretionary programs.
  As Senator Hatfield has said, the walls are going back up. When the 
walls of Jericho came down, they were not rebuilt so soon, and the 
appropriations walls are now up again. I am very opposed to these 
walls, walling off defense moneys from nondefense discretionary 
funding, because nondefense discretionary funding will continue to take 
the brunt of the cuts, as it has for, now, these several recent years.
  I hope we will be able to pass this bill, and pass it quickly. The 
distinguished chairman has pointed out, when we get back we are going 
to be on the appropriations bills. The House is already passing them. 
These rescissions will then enable the Appropriations Committee to have 
more moneys to allocate in budget authority and in outlays for 1996. So 
I hope we will not cut off our nose to spite our face.
  I certainly can sympathize, however, with Senators who may be 
displeased with the product that we have before the Senate. But we can 
make it worse in the long run. I think we have to accept a reality.
  Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Hatfield, for the tireless efforts that he has put forth that resulted 
in the successful resolution of the differences between the President, 
the House, and the Senate on these difficult matters.
  As I say, I know that all Senators are not satisfied with the bill. I 
am not satisfied with it. But it is better than we could expect 
otherwise if it were to be delayed or, indeed, rejected, which I do not 
believe it will be.
  On balance, I believe it is an important appropriation and 
rescissions bill that deserves the support of the Senate for the 
reasons that I have set forth.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I know the 
Senator from Oregon also wishes to speak. I will be speaking from the 
floor with some difficulty because of an asthma condition, or allergy 
condition, and I apologize for the coughing.
  Mr. President, I find myself in a position of being out on the floor 
with several Senators whom I deeply admire but with whom, at least for 
this moment, I am in profound disagreement.
  I am extremely sympathetic to my colleagues, who are as good Senators 
as you could ever find, as accomplished legislators as you could ever 
find. But in all due respect, I did not vote for this budget 
resolution. I understand the pressures all too well. That is why I did 
not vote for the budget resolution. And I certainly am not someone who 
is in favor of putting walls back up between the domestic and the 
Pentagon spending.
  There are two issues I want to raise at the beginning of this 
discussion. First of all, I did not object to the motion to proceed. I 
just simply said that, as a Senator, I now know, as I look at the 
report that has come back, that there have been some changes. I voted 
initially for this rescissions package. I am all for--and I understand 
the position of the President vis-a-vis assistance to California and 
Oklahoma--I am all for it.
  But I am a legislator and this report came less than 1 hour ago. I 
cannot quite read--is it almost 11 now? This report came here at 9:55. 
This is the first time I had a chance to look at this rescissions 
package, at 9:55. I do not know about other Senators, but I do not even 
know what is in here. I know some of what is in here. I have not had a 
chance to examine this. This package, H.R. 1944, is some 120 pages long 
and we are just going to rush this through? Initially there was a 
proposal--some Senators were talking about voice voting it.
  I said, from the time I came here, that on all appropriations 
matters, all expenditures of money, we should 

[[Page S9497]]
never have voice votes. We should be accountable.
  I feel the same way also about these cuts, about this rescissions 
package. This has a very real impact on the lives of people we 
represent. I want to talk about that impact. But above and beyond that, 
I say to my colleagues, 9:55 is when this came here. I have not even 
had a chance to examine this piece of legislation, this rescissions 
package.
  I know enough to know what has been changed for the worse and I want 
to talk about that. But I just refuse to have this thing just sail 
through here, essentially jammed through the Senate. I do not think 
that is a responsible way to legislate. I feel strongly about that.
  What is the hurry? We ought to examine what is in H.R. 1944. For 
example, I have here--this is one of the reasons that I have such 
fondness for the Senator from Oregon. I would say the same thing about 
the Senator from West Virginia. This was a letter dated May 8.

       Dear Paul: Thank you for your most recent letter regarding 
     the House of Representatives rescission of $1.319 billion for 
     the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

  Which I voted for. Which you know I voted for.

       As you know, the Senate bill did not include this 
     rescission. Please be assured that the Commmittee intends to 
     maintain this position during the on-going House-Senate 
     conference.

  I thank my colleague from Oregon for his assistance----
  Mr. HATFIELD. If the Senator will yield, just to make certain the 
Record is correct, this bill does not change this program, so it is not 
for the worse.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What has happened----
  Mr. HATFIELD. It is not for the worse. It is the same level as the 
vetoed bill. I can give you a list of the better parts of this bill, of 
the vetoed bill, if the Senator would be interested in that, too?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HATFIELD. So I just want to correct the Record. It is not for the 
worse.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the vetoed bill is the bill I voted 
against. I voted for a bill that we reported out of the Senate because 
we had restored the $1.3 billion funding. But now we have cuts of about 
$330 million in funding for the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance 
Program. That is now what is in this bill which just came to us at 
9:55. We have $20 million of cuts. That is different from what I voted 
for out of the Senate. I did not vote for the bill that the President 
vetoed.
  Mr. President, just to be clear about what is at issue here, I think 
it is a matter of priorities. I look at their rescissions package and I 
see a disproportionate number of cuts, in all due respect, that affect 
low- and moderate-income citizens in this Nation. I do not think it was 
my colleagues' choosing. But I just want to talk about some of these 
priorities. I am talking about restoring $330 million of assistance for 
low-income people.
  I say to the Chair, we come from the third coldest State. One B-2 
bomber costs over $1 billion. This is not even a third of a B-2 bomber. 
Mr. President, we have one of the finest fighting fleets of F-15's. 
Everybody will tell you that. We now have a proposal to replace the F-
15 with the F-27 to the tune of $162 million, and an overall costs of 
$70 billion additional dollars. In the post-cold-war period, the Soviet 
Union Empire no longer existing, and the Pentagon saying we do not need 
some of these weapons. There are no rescissions there at all.
  Later on today, Mr. President, I am going to talk about all the 
subsidies that go to the oil companies since we are talking about low-
income energy assistance.
  But President, I met at the home of Olita Larson in Richfield. She is 
a disabled senior citizen and a LIHEAP recipient. In addition to her, I 
met with several veterans, and several mothers with children. And what 
I learned from them is that, at least in my State of Minnesota, the 
Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program is not an income 
supplement. It is a survival supplement: 111,000 households receive 
LIHEAP assistance; 313,000 individuals; 28,000 seniors; 53 percent of 
those that receive this assistance which is about $300 a month or so. 
This is just to enable people to get by so that it is not ``heat or 
eat.'' Fifty-three percent were working at low-wage jobs; 32 percent 
were senior citizens; 41 percent were households with small children; 
about 50 percent earn less than $6,500 a year.
  Excuse me, Mr. President, for not understanding some kind of 
definition of reality here in the Nation's Capital. But for the life of 
me, I do not understand how in the world we can be cutting low-income 
energy assistance to people, people who really need the assistance, 
people who are the most vulnerable citizens in our country, but we go 
forward spending $1 billion on B-2 bombers that the Pentagon tells us 
we do not need. We have billions of dollars of subsidies to oil 
companies. We do not choose to close those loopholes.
  Mr. President, these are distorted priorities. Just because Olita 
Larson does not make big contributions, just because she is not well-
connected, just because she is not a player does not mean she should 
not be represented.
  Mr. President, I met at the home. I am not going to cave in right 
now. You meet with people. You talk with people. You make a commitment 
that you are going to do everything you can to support people. And that 
is where I thought we were. That is why I originally voted for this 
rescissions package. Now what we get H.R. 1944 from the House, which 
comes at 9:55, I find out that we have over $300 million of cuts.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Is the Senator aware that the B-2 bomber was killed last night by the 
Armed Services Committee? According to this morning's paper, the 
committee voted not to fund any additional B-2 bombers, which I hail as 
a great achievement. But I would also like to add there is no way we 
can take the savings of that B-2 bomber and transfer it into 
nonmilitary discretionary programs. We, on the Appropriations 
Committee, have our hands tied on that. I could not agree with the 
Senator more. I will not take a back seat to the Senator nor to any 
other Senator in fighting for the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance 
Program, and all these other programs that represent people's needs.
  But what I am saying to the Senator is that this speech is a little 
late. It should be repeated and repeated. But I am saying it is a 
little late as it relates to the current issue we have before us. The 
die is cast. What are we going to salvage out of this circumstance? I 
say to the Senator in all respect, that, if this is not acted upon 
today, the Senator will have led the appropriators and forced the 
appropriators into cutting $1.3 billion out of the subcommittee on 
Labor-HHS for 1996, over and above what we would otherwise have to do. 
If the Senator wants to take on that responsibility, keep that in mind. 
You are hurting the very people you are trying to help. That is not 
your making. It is not my making. It is the decision of the total body 
of this Senate, and we lost. We lost. But do not compound that 
terrible, terrible thing onto those very people by saying to the 
appropriators you have to cut another $1.3 billion. I say to the 
Senator with all due respect, that is reality. That is the reality we 
face.
  I find it a very, very unpleasant experience to have to cut any out 
of the Labor-HHS subcommittee of appropriations. The House cut $10 
billion from, $70 billion and $60 billion. We are going to be forced 
into allocations to cut further, if we do not get this passed today. 
That is the reality. Like it or not, that is the reality. That is the 
position the Senator from Minnesota is pushing the Appropriations 
Committee into. I do not want any part of it. I am wanting to ease the 
pain that we have already created. I do not want to increase them, and 
the Senator from Minnesota will be escalating that burden on the very 
poor of this Nation by $1.3 billion more out of the Labor-HHS that we 
do not get out of 1995.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I still have the floor. Let me just say 
that, first of all, one more time, I did not vote for the budget 
resolution. I did not vote--later on today when we get into the 
discussion--I did not vote for the tax cut. The Byrd rule I think 
protected us over the first year. I am not at all sure ultimately, as I 
stretch 

[[Page S9498]]
this out and project where this heads. This is the first time we have 
actually seen the rubber meet the road and some real decisions made 
that ultimately this money in the outyears is not eventually being used 
to finance tax cuts for fat cats in this country, frankly. But let me 
say to the Senator from Oregon, and I would like to proceed here, that 
in terms of the choices, about 60 percent of the administrative travel 
funds are in the Pentagon. We can make some further cuts there. We can 
also do the same thing with FEMA. We can make some cuts there. So I do 
not think it is quite true that there are no choices.
  In addition, Mr. President, I just simply want to go back to what I 
have been saying. I thought, though it was a close call for me, that my 
colleagues did an admirable job, a very admirable job given the 
constraints they were working under, so we passed this rescissions 
package. I had some questions about it, but I voted for it.
  Then the House goes to work and the President vetoes the conference 
report, and I support the President's veto. Then we get H.R. 1944 that 
comes here at 9:55. I have not even had a chance to examine this. I 
just refuse to be put in the position that somehow what I am doing 
right now is going to hurt low-income people.
  If I could just finish this, I will be pleased to yield. I have over 
and over again been talking about this. Now, I do not know where other 
Democrats are. I know that 150 Members of the House voted against this 
package yesterday, last night. I could just simply tell you that I 
think these are distorted priorities. I think there are other areas 
that could be cut that are not being cut. I think we are asking some of 
the most vulnerable citizens in this country to pay a price by 
tightening their belt when they cannot tighten their belt.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator. I say to the Senator from 
Minnesota and the distinguished Senators from Oregon and West Virginia, 
I cannot think of three people for whom I have more respect in this 
body, but I have to say I concur in and associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Minnesota.
  I want to say that in listening to the debate and the argument about 
the harm that we are doing, or might be doing, by taking the floor in 
opposition to this conference report, this resolution, I could not help 
but think about the old poem--and I think the Senator from West 
Virginia may remember this one--a poem from many years ago about: 
Lizzie Borden took an ax and gave her mother 40 whacks, and when she 
saw what she done, she gave her father 41.
  It seems to me that if you boil down the argument that the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon has made about what we are doing 
right now in this procedural setting, it is suggesting that the 40 
whacks the children and poor people have taken in this bill, in this 
compromise, might be increased to 41 if we do not sit back, accede to 
the decision of the conference committee, be quiet, say nothing and let 
this roll out of here on a moment's notice without examination or 
discussion.
  I just do not think that is an appropriate response for conscientious 
legislators who have real concerns about this bill.
  The Senator from Minnesota has talked about the low-income heating 
issue. I particularly am concerned about education and what has 
happened with the education funding for needy people, needy children, 
in this bill.
  I am not going to debate it, and I do appreciate the efforts that 
were made to restore education funding in this compromise, but I have 
to submit to you that the rescissions were not called for in education 
in the first place. Why would we, at this critical time in our Nation's 
history, do anything but begin to weigh in 100 percent to help support 
education, to give our youngsters the ability to compete in this world 
economy, to guarantee for this next generation that they will be able 
to compete in this world market?
  I want to point out specifically that in this compromise, the title 
II-C JPTA funding for poor children who are in disadvantaged 
circumstances was cut $272 million, cut down to now--out of $398 
million, which it was in the previous budget, to $126 million. That is 
a cut of $272 million for job training for disadvantaged young people.
  Well, you go out on the streets, at least in the State that I come 
from and young people are wondering what we are doing to help them. 
They want to be productive. They want to get the job skills and the 
literacy skills and the educational skills to be able to participate in 
our society, and this bill would just cut them off altogether. And to 
shut down activities that are working to stop school dropouts in order 
to give young people a hand up, to cut them by $272 million is just, in 
my opinion, unconscionable.
  I do not know how we can justify that on the grounds that, well, if 
we do not do it now, we will not have a chance again until after July. 
And if we do it in July, the money will not be freed up for 
appropriations and spending and then they will have to give them 41 
whacks in September.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator from Minnesota permit the Senator from 
Illinois to yield for just a moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with the understanding I have the 
floor, I will be pleased to have the Senator yield for a question.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Always, so long as it is yielding for a question.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I say to the Senator, I was giving those speeches 25 
years ago on this floor, and it was valid then, and it has been proven 
to be more valid today, as the Senator gives the same remarks about our 
priorities--our lack of priorities--our failure to put the focus where 
the needs are by our overwhelming lust and willingness to vote for 
greater capacity to destroy life than to sustain and improve life, 
namely the military versus the nonmilitary spending.
  But in all due kindness and respect, I ask the Senator, what is the 
option? I ask the Senator to put herself in my shoes and tell me what 
she would do as of this moment in this timeframe with 1996 upon us and 
having to make that decision, and every day we lose the money, the 
baseline in the rescissions--right or wrong rescissions--every day we 
lose that money. We come back here July 11, and it is all over. We will 
have not had this action.
  Now, in that timeframe, what is the Senator's option or alternative 
that she would take?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say to the Senator from Oregon, again for whom I 
have a tremendous amount of respect, and I know he has been on the 
right side of history for these 25 years trying to make this case, but 
it is a case that we have to make, it seems to me. And in response 
specifically to the Senator's question, I do not have an answer. We 
just got the bill 1\1/2\ hours ago. We have not had a chance really to 
even go through to see where the shifts and the changes might be. We 
are not on the committee.
  And please understand, I say to the Senator from Oregon and the 
Senator from West Virginia, no one is unmindful of the hard work that 
the Senators have done and the dedication and the long hours trying to 
hammer out a compromise. But compromise by definition means that some 
priorities get lost in the shuffle.
  I just submit--and the Senator from Minnesota submits--that the days 
in which we can continue to allow the children of this Nation and poor 
people who need heating assistance to get lost in the shuffle are over. 
We cannot afford to continue down this path.
  Our Nation's greatness depends on our capacity to allow individuals 
to contribute to this society and to function within it. No economy on 
this planet in this time is going to be healthier or be able to succeed 
more than the social fabric of what that nation will allow. To the 
extent that we allow Senator Wellstone's constituent to have to choose 
between turning on a gas burner in her house and eating dinner, we 
weaken our entire national fabric. To the extent we allow these 
teenagers to drop out of school and to stand on street corners, not 
only do we increase the crime rate, not only do we diminish the quality 
of life in our communities, but we have done serious injury to our 
national fabric as well.
  And so the only response I would have for the Senator, since we have 
only had 2 hours, maybe 1\1/2\ hours, to 

[[Page S9499]]
look at this, is to say to the Senator from Oregon we do not have all 
the answers.
  I was going to talk about another set of cuts--the majority leader 
just entered, and I know he knows of my interest in this particular 
issue--education infrastructure. We have schools crumbling around this 
country. There have been articles in every magazine, every newspaper, 
about the state and quality of our schools that our youngsters----
  Mr. HATFIELD. Did I hear the answer to my question is the Senator 
does not have an answer?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say, in answer to the Senator's question, I have 
not had time to give the Senator an answer because we just got the bill 
1\1/2\ hours ago. I will be delighted, and I take the challenge----
  Mr. HATFIELD. I say to the Senator, that is not the question. I got 
the bill, too, the same time the Senator did. That is not the question 
I asked. I asked, what in this timeframe would the Senator instruct me 
to do? I am happy to hear any new idea that gives me an option, and I 
am just asking the Senator, other than protesting this particular time 
and this particular action, which I agree with the Senator, but tell 
me, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, what the Senator would 
do today.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could just----
  Mr. HATFIELD. Let her have a chance to answer.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. What I would do today is I would put together 
legislation that does not take those 40 whacks out of children and poor 
people.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Well, I say to the Senator, that is a fine statement, 
if I could----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Let me give specific dollar numbers. We want to 
restore $272 million.
  Mr. HATFIELD. That is not an option today. This body already passed 
the budget resolution. You may not have voted, I say to the Senator, 
for the budget resolution, but the body did. I have to function under 
the body, not under how I voted, but under the body's decision. So what 
is the option----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again----
  Mr. HATFIELD. This must be a protest statement, which is perfectly 
legitimate, and I join in addressing the protests both Senators are 
making toward the priorities in this budget, but that is not our option 
today.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. May I respond?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Then I would like to get the floor back.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I had not 
intended for this to become a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon. I 
can tell he is upset because time is upon us. He put in a lot of work. 
I certainly appreciate that and understand that and understand his 
frustration with having the Senator from Minnesota and myself standing 
here and saying, ``Well, this is not quite good enough.''
  But let me tell you, in response to the Senator from Oregon, we start 
off with a situation in which we are now being told, because of the 
procedure, that this is a fait accompli; that there is nothing we can 
do about this; that it has been served up to us a couple of hours ago 
based on a decision that happened 2 weeks ago, based on some decisions 
that were made a month ago; and that this train has gone too far down 
line for us to do anything about it.
  I say to the Senator from Oregon that at a minimum, if I am going to 
be Polly Pure Heart run over by a train, I do not have to do it 
quietly. I can at least stand on this floor and make the point that it 
is wrong to cut job training for disadvantaged young people by $272 
million, and it is inappropriate at this point in time, given the 
status of our Nation's schools, to cut $35 million out of education 
infrastructure. And it is wrong, in any event, to cut heating 
assistance for poor people in cold climates in communities all over 
this Nation.
  If I am going to be run over by this train, I say to the Senator from 
Oregon and the Senator from West Virginia and to anybody else who is 
listening, at least I can yell out about what is about to happen to me. 
I go back to my 40 whacks. It may be that I am asking, I am begging to 
get 41 whacks next month by making this point. But it seems to me that 
the worst thing we can do in this situation is to stand by and say 
nothing. And if we stand by and say nothing as these cuts occur, if we 
stand by and say nothing to cuts in low-income heating and cuts in 
disadvantaged youth job training--disadvantaged youth job training 
programs, how can anybody, red pencil notwithstanding, sit back and 
say, ``No, we want fewer job training opportunities for already 
disadvantaged teenagers''? This is just not logical to me.
  The Senator may be absolutely right. If we have a vote on the motion 
by the Senator from Minnesota or myself, whatever, we may lose, but it 
seems to me----
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I cannot yield. I yield back the time to the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield, if I can have 1 minute, 
and then I will yield for a question.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I will be happy----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Oregon to yield for a 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, just to kind of sort 
this out for a moment, I am in complete agreement with not only what my 
colleague from Illinois had to say but with the eloquence with which 
she said it. Absolutely, we did not know what was going to be in this 
bill, I say to my colleagues, until late last night--10 o'clock. We 
just received this at 9:55 this morning.
  Second of all, I do not view this as a protest. My distinguished 
colleague from Oregon talks about it is a protest. I am prepared to 
debate. I will have amendments, and I am prepared to debate those 
amendments, and I am prepared to have a vote on those amendments.
  This is not something like all of a sudden I have become interested 
in. My colleagues all know of my strong commitment to LIHEAP. They all 
know that I think it is unconscionable that we are making these cuts. I 
feel very strongly about the Summer Jobs Training Program.
  Mr. President, when we first finished up on the Senate rescissions 
bill late at night, with some assistance from the majority leader, we 
restored funding for a counseling program for senior citizens to make 
sure that they do not get ripped off in some of the supplemental 
coverage that they get to their Medicare. Now we are going to have all 
these cuts in Medicare and Medicaid--and this is great, I suppose, for 
some of the insurance companies for there not to be this consumer 
protection--but we are now going to go back to cutting, I think it was, 
$5 million--only $5 million.
  What is the purpose of cutting a counseling program for senior 
citizens to provide them with basic consumer protection? That is in, as 
it turns out, H.R. 1944, passed late at night, just sent over here 
today.
  So, Mr. President, I want to be crystal clear, this is not like 
something we just started saying.
  I read the other day in the paper about a general having a plane sent 
across the country to pick him and his cat up, at a cost of over 
$100,000 a year. Is that the kind of travel we are funding? I say to 
you, we have it within this budget, we have it within our power, within 
this bill to actually take more out of that administrative and travel 
budget from the Pentagon. We can do that. I have talked about FEMA. 
There are plenty of alternatives.
  But, Mr. President, first, let us just get back to the process. It is 
pretty hard for us to sort of lay out all the alternatives until we, 
first of all, know what is in this bill; and second, do not tell me 
that upon some time for deliberation and some time for discussion and 
some time for debate on amendments, we cannot come up with 
alternatives. Of course, we can come up with alternatives. This is not 
in concrete. Who said this is the day, that this is it, there cannot be 
any changes, we cannot make any changes at all, especially if we feel 
very strongly that there are some real distorted priorities?
  I can only speak for myself, but I really do not understand the 
priorities 

[[Page S9500]]
which say we go headlong with increases in the Pentagon budget, we have 
massive tax cuts, $245 billion, most of them going to wealthy people, 
and we are going to cut low-income energy assistance in the State of 
Minnesota.
  I say to my colleague, I may lose on this amendment, but I will not 
be silent about this, and if I lose, I will go down fighting, not on 
the basis of just some principle or some protest, but because I am a 
legislator and I know there are alternatives and I know as we have a 
discussion of this, we will get to those alternatives.
  But I just, again, have to say--I so appreciate what my colleague 
from Illinois said--here we are talking about children. We all love 
children. We all want to have photo opportunities with children, and we 
cut job training programs for young people, and we cut low-income--
LIHEAP is not coming anywhere close to meeting the needs of those 
people that are eligible. And now we are going to have additional cuts 
in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program?
  I come from a cold weather State. Sometimes it is 20 below zero, 
sometimes it is 40 below zero, sometimes, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, it can be 70 below zero wind chill. But for many of the most 
vulnerable citizens in Minnesota, this can be terrifying--this can be 
terrifying.
  Mr. President, I think that I went over these figures today, and I 
can give some figures for other States as well, but in Minnesota, 37 
percent of the households are working poor; 15 percent have a disabled 
household member; 26 percent of the households have an elderly 
household member; 33 percent of the households have a child of 5 or 
younger, and I can go on and on.
  When I met with Olita Larson in Richfield, and others, I made a 
commitment to them to fight hard for this program. I have been doing 
that all along. I do not come to this just now.
  So what we have here is a rescissions package that just came over. 
Some of the initial good work that we did in the Senate has been undone 
with cuts where there were not supposed to be cuts.
  Mr. President, I have to raise questions about the whole priority of 
this. I would be pleased, eventually, to get to amendments and to have 
discussion. I have the average fiscal net allotment and average heating 
and cooling benefits for households assisted by State and region for 
fiscal 1993. I am prepared to go through these figures and talk about 
what this means in human terms.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, nobody in the Senate believes 
more than I believe in the freedom of speech in the Senate, and in the 
right to debate, and the right to stand on one's feet and speak as long 
as one has breath. I have fought that battle many times. I respect the 
fact that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is protesting at 
this point and is speaking with great feeling. He speaks from the 
heart. He is doing his very best to represent his constituents. He is 
displeased with what he sees happening in connection with 
appropriations. I respect the right of the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois to do the same. And I am perfectly willing to sit here and 
listen to the Senators.
  But if the Senator will allow me, let me point out that I, too, voted 
against the conference agreement yesterday in the budget bill. I have 
spoken out against the tax cuts. I oppose the tax cut that our own 
President is advocating. I oppose the tax cut that the Republicans are 
advocating. I am against any tax cut at this particular time. We are 
just digging the hole deeper when we have a tax cut and we say we want 
to get out of that hole that represents the budget deficit. So I am 
against the tax cut. I voted against the conference report yesterday. 
Several Democrats voted against it because of the tax cuts that are 
likely to result from that agreement.
  But, Mr. President, I say to the two Senators that this agreement 
before us is better than the one that the President vetoed. I do not 
agree with everything that is in this package--not by any means. But 
the President himself says he will sign this bill. He vetoed the first 
one. He says the changes that have been made will bring about his 
signature. So if he is not satisfied with it, he is at least going to 
sign it.
  Now, Mr. President, I merely urge the distinguished Senators, if they 
feel compelled to offer an amendment, that they offer it, and let the 
Senate vote on it today. I hope they will not offer an amendment, but I 
recognize their right to do so, and I will protect their rights to do 
so as far as I can. I just suggest that they offer the amendments and 
have their go at it. But it takes a majority to carry an amendment. I 
do not believe they are going to get that majority. Nevertheless, they 
have the right to offer amendments. I have been in the position several 
times in my long service here of offering amendments and seeing them 
defeated--amendments about which I felt as strongly as any Senator 
could feel. But when I felt I had done my best, I got up off the 
carpet, dusted myself off, and went on to the next battle.
  I recognize the Senator's right to speak and his right to offer an 
amendment. I urge the Senators not to force us into a delay that puts 
us over the holiday, because I can assure the Senator that if that 
happens, we are going to be much the worse off. We will have less money 
and budget authority. We will have less outlays, and we are going to 
regret that if we do it.
  So I hope we will offer any amendment that we feel compelled to 
offer, speak on it, and let us vote on it. Let us not delay this matter 
so that it is still before the Senate when we return, because we will 
have lost and lost badly. Let me say this with the greatest of respect. 
The Senator has not seen anything yet. This is just a drop in the 
bucket to the cuts that are coming. I am on the Armed Services 
Committee, and----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I do not have the floor.
  I am on the Armed Services Committee, and I got rolled a couple of 
times in the committee yesterday. The Republican side in that committee 
is voting in lockstep. They are unanimous, and there is no way that 10 
members on our side of the Armed Services Committee can outvote 11 
members on the other side. So we might as well get used to it. We will 
not get used to it without protesting, and I will be protesting some, 
too. But I merely make my plea on the basis of at least getting on with 
this matter today, disposing of it, and getting up off the carpet and 
dusting ourselves off and getting ready for the next battle, which we 
will probably lose again. There may be some we will win. I appreciate 
the Senator's allowing me to make these remarks and for his yielding. I 
respect his right to speak, and I respect his right to offer an 
amendment, and I respect the way he feels. I hope he will finish his 
speech, but if he has an amendment, offer it and let us vote.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a minute?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, I yield.
  Excuse me, I yield for a question or comment, but I will retain the 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator was aware of the 
specifics that have been extrapolated, that increased in this 
particular new rescissions package: Adult job training, by $40 million; 
school to work, another $20 million; Goals 2000, by another $60 
million; safe and drug free schools, $220 million; drug courts, $5 
million; community schools, $10 million; TRIO, $11 million; child care 
block grant, $8 million; housing for people with AIDS, $15 million; 
national and community service, $105 million; safe drinking water, $225 
million; community development financial institutions, $14 million; 
community development grants $39 million, for a total of an add-back of 
$772 million over the first rescissions package.
  That is after weeks of working with the White House, after working 
with our colleagues in the House of Representatives. Sure, the glass is 
half full or half empty, depending on what you look at.
  Again, there has not been a word said about the Senator from 
Minnesota or the Senator from Illinois that I would not endorse 100 
percent. My views precisely. But let me also say to the Senator that he 
has talked about low-income energy assistance. No one has gone cold for 
a lack of money in that account. We do not predict the weather ahead. 
What we do in the appropriations is we set forth $1.3 billion in 1995 

[[Page S9501]]
appropriations for low-income energy assistance for this coming winter. 
We cannot predict that winter. Anytime in the past on the record where 
we have had less money than required to keep people warm, we have 
appropriated a supplemental.
  So the fear that the Senator is expressing on the basis of the figure 
here is not a justified fear. We appropriate supplementals.
  Now, let me say also to the Senator that in dealing with the White 
House, they had a higher figure for low-income energy assistance 
rescission than we had that they were willing to have rescinded. Was it 
because they were interested in people of low income? Not at all. They 
understood the funding mechanism. They knew that we would always put 
that appropriation out there in a supplemental form to keep those 
people warm.
  Therefore, that money was not yet obtained because we had no 
knowledge of the requirement of the amount of that money.
  I can say to the Senator, I participated in that time after time, 
leading the battle, in some instances, of putting that money in the 
supplemental to keep people warm. We cannot predict what that winter 
weather is.
  The Senator said a while ago he might lose on this. No, the Senator 
will not lose. The people of Minnesota will lose, the people of 
Illinois will lose, and anybody else who blocks this action at this 
time.
  Again, the fundamental bottom line that the Senator cannot escape--I 
cannot, the Senator cannot--is requiring the Appropriations Committee 
to gut $1.3 billion more in the 602(b)'s for 1996 if we do not pass 
this and get this acted upon today.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Actually, there are a couple of comments, and when 
we get into a colloquy like this, it is sometimes difficult to know 
what to respond to first.
  I have to point out to the Senator from Oregon, and even the Senator 
from West Virginia, it is very difficult to debate someone who has been 
on the right side of these issues for so long and who cares about them, 
as I know that the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from West 
Virginia do.
  However, I will point out that back home, we have an expression, ``If 
you are being chopped to death with an ax, you don't let them do it to 
you in the closet, you go out on the street corner.''
  Quite frankly, with regard to these cuts, I think it is not only 
appropriate, but I think it is essential that Senator Wellstone, the 
Senator from Minnesota, myself, and any other Senator who cares about 
these issues, come out and talk about what we are doing here.
  The Senator read off the numbers in terms of what we put back. I 
think it is important, also, to remember--and I wish I could remember 
the numbers but I do not have my glasses with me right now--to talk 
about what was cut to begin with.
  The fact is, these are meat ax cuts. They start off as meat ax cuts, 
and they are a little less--no question--they are a little less bad 
than they were previously.
  But that still does not mean that we should not take to this floor 
and talk about why it is important to restore the $272 million that was 
cut out of the JTPA Program, or the dollars that were cut out of 
heating, or the dollars that were cut out of the education 
infrastructure program to help start trying to fix some of the falling 
down, broken down schools across this country. We have to be able to 
talk about these issues. It is not symbolic.
  Frankly, I say to the Senator from Oregon, I find it more 
distressing--no one is trying to be uncooperative--I find it more than 
a little distressing that the Senator from Minnesota and I will be 
told, ``If you go out here and talk about issues you care about, then 
you are in danger we will do it even worse.''
  I started off talking about Lizzie Borden. The more this debate goes 
on, that is exactly where we are, Senator Wellstone. The threat is, if 
we do not go quietly down this primrose path, we will get 41 whacks 
after July.
  I just do not think that is what the people of Illinois sent me here 
to do--the people of Illinois or the people from Minnesota, or 
anywhere, if they knew what we were doing to people concerns, human 
concerns.
  Is there a way to predict and to make the offsets, the question was 
asked of me earlier? I could not respond, because we just got this bill 
a couple of hours ago.
  The fact is that we have given FEMA, our emergency management 
organization--and they do a great job, by the way--we have given them 
more money than they say they need. We could fix schools and we could 
provide for job training for disadvantaged youth, education 
infrastructure, and heating assistance out of the FEMA money alone.
  What are we looking at here--they say they need $1.3 billion and they 
got $3.2 billion. There you go. If you want to start, talk to FEMA and 
see how much more they can give up. There is a place to offset.
  Certainly, to take any cuts from disadvantaged young people when we 
are dealing with teen criminal activity, teen sexual activity, the 
explosion of illegitimacy, right down the list, things we talk about on 
the floor, and then turn around and cut job training for teenagers, I 
do not understand.
  Education infrastructure--kids going to schools with broken sewer 
pipes. How are they supposed to learn? Is that not critical to the 
future of this country? Why are we taking anything from there--not to 
mention heating.
  The Senator from Minnesota has been more than gracious and indulgent. 
I say to my colleagues and the Senator from Oregon--and I understand 
the Senator has a job to do, and this is saying we just have to go on 
down this track because everybody wants to go on vacation. That really 
is what this debate kind of is about. Senator Byrd, I worked every 
single day of last week, and I look forward to it.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator does not have a thing on this Senator when it 
comes to work.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I know that is true. I understand everybody here 
wants to go home, and it is hard to be the one person standing up 
saying, ``Well, let's not quite go home yet; we should talk about what 
we are doing.''
  Mr. BYRD. I am in no hurry to go home, but I want to make this point, 
if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. President, I ask that the Senator be permitted to yield to me 
without losing the right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, this is the bottom 
line: If we pass this bill and it becomes law, the Appropriations 
Committee will have $6 billion more in budget authority and $3 billion 
more in outlay for the 1996 appropriations bill, which will help the 
very programs, I am sure, that the Senators and I feel so strongly 
about.
  If we do not pass this, the Appropriations Committee is going to have 
$6 billion less in budget authority when we start marking up those 
bills after we come back--$6 billion less in budget authority and $3 
billion less in outlay. I hope the Senators will please keep that in 
mind. That is the bottom line.
  We may not be happy with this. The President has said that he will 
sign it. He feels that he has gained over what was the bill that was 
vetoed some time ago. And he has. The Senator from Oregon just read the 
list of decreased rescissions.
  I plead with Senators that it means heavier losses in your programs 
and my programs, when we mark up the 1996 appropriations bill, if this 
bill dies.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. This bill would terminate the education 
infrastructure program. Zero dollars in this rescission bill--zero 
dollars.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, wait until the Senator sees the bills that 
are going to come to this floor if this bill dies. Wait until the 
Senator sees the cuts that are going to be made if this bill dies.
  The cuts that are going to be made in the 1996--the Senators will 
come back and read what I said in the Record, if the Senators insist on 
killing this. The Senators will read it. The Senators will see that 
this is just a drop in the bucket.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A reminder that the Senator can yield for 

[[Page S9502]]
  questions only during the course of this debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just one more time, to summarize. We 
received this bill at 9:55. That is not even 2 hours ago. I did not 
know everything in here.
  I am perfectly willing, as I said before, I did not object to the 
motion to proceed. There have been a lot of questions that have been 
put to me. I am more than willing to go forward with amendments and 
debate. I need a little time to look through this bill.
  But, Mr. President, when my colleagues talk to me about this being 
just the beginning, I am well aware of that. I did not vote for these 
budget cuts. I did not vote for these ceilings. I did not vote to 
increase money for military contracts.
  Again, the other day in the paper, the story in the paper about a 
general having a plane sent across the country to pick up him and his 
cat at a cost of $100,000--that is out of the travel and administrative 
account.
  I did not vote for that, Mr. President. These are distorted 
priorities. And my colleague from Illinois kept saying--and I 
understand the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from West Virginia 
have done their best within these boundaries that have been set by the 
votes that are here right now. I know that.
  But, in all due respect, we do not, in that budget resolution, decide 
we are going to take on any of the loopholes, deductions, subsidies--
for example for oil companies. But we are going to cut the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program for seniors, people with disabilities, 
and children. And, in addition, summer jobs training programs. And, in 
addition, infrastructure--some small investment in infrastructure in 
schools. What kind of message do we send to children about whether we 
have any hope for them or what kind of value do we attach to them when 
the ceilings--the buildings are decrepit and the plumbing does not work 
and all the rest. We cannot even begin to make any kind--we are going 
to cut expenditures in that area?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield in just a moment.
  Mr. President, I worked hard. I had support from colleagues for a 
counseling program for elderly people, to make sure they do not get 
ripped off on supplemental coverage from Medicare. That, now, gets cut 
again. My colleague from Oregon talked about the good things that have 
been done. Fine, I agree and I am glad.
  But he did not talk about some of the areas that have now been cut as 
opposed to the original rescissions bill. I only found out about what 
has been cut because I have had a little bit of time, just a little bit 
of time to go through this. What is the hurry? What is the hurry? I am 
pleased to go through this and I am pleased, today, to introduce 
amendments. I am pleased to have debate on those amendments and up or 
down votes. But I will tell you, I will have an amendment to restore 
that funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will.
  Mr. DOLE. When are you going to have the amendment? That is what I 
would like to find out.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I will be ready to go with that 
amendment--A, I have been responding to questions and comments from 
other Senators. I would like a little bit of time to look through this 
to get all my amendments together. But I will have amendments and we 
will have debate.
  Mr. President, I say to the majority leader in all due respect, this 
bill came here at 9:50. It was passed last night at 10 o'clock, in the 
House.
  I am not going to let this be jammed down my throat and I am not 
going to let it be jammed down the throats of a lot of very vulnerable 
people in my State. I will examine this. I am more than willing to have 
amendments--I said this to the majority leader--and we will have debate 
on those amendments and I am pleased to vote up or down. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the call for the regular order return 
the regulatory reform bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. I just say to the Senator from Minnesota, I am not going to 
be here all day while he is doing whatever he is doing. He has every 
right to do that, but I have listened very carefully to the two 
managers of the appropriations bill and I think they are trying to be 
helpful here, saying they are going to have less money if this is 
delayed.
  The President wants this bill, so I ought to be happy if he does not 
get it, I assume. That would be the conventional wisdom around this 
town. He says he wants it. He has written a letter. He sent up a 
statement. He has added $700 and some million he said he wanted to add 
for the very programs that have been addressed by the two Senators.
  But it is a little late in the day for game playing. If the Senator 
is going to offer amendments, offer amendments. If not, as soon as I 
get the floor, this bill is finished. It is finished. And it will not 
be brought up again until there is consent to bring it up without 
amendment and you explain to the people in Oklahoma City and you 
explain to the people in California and you explain to the people in 
Minnesota how you lost money on low-income home energy assistance 
because you would not let this bill pass.
  You have every right to object. You are doing a good job of it. That 
is your right.
  But I do not intend to tie up the entire Senate here the rest of the 
afternoon while somebody out here is making whatever argument they want 
to make.
  We will bring the bill back as soon as the administration convinces 
the Senators from Illinois and Minnesota that this is a good bill.
  If the Democratic President cannot convince the Democrats, certainly 
we cannot convince the Democrats.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader in 
response to his characterization of the Senator from Minnesota doing 
whatever he is doing, what I am doing is being a responsible 
legislator. This bill came to this Chamber less than 2 hours ago. I 
would like to have the opportunity to examine this bill. I have already 
spoken about areas where I am prepared to introduce amendments and to 
have debate.
  There are no games here. I do not think it is a game to speak in 
behalf of low-income people in my State who are really worried that 
there will not be low-income energy assistance available for them. I do 
not think it is a game to raise questions about what happened to the 
counseling program for senior citizens to make sure they are not ripped 
off on supplemental coverage to Medicare.
  I just realized, going through this, that now has been cut again.
  I do not think it is a game--Mr. President, I do not think it is a 
game to talk about what is going to happen to displaced workers. What 
is the significance of those cuts?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield in a moment.
  Mr. President, we have now zeroed out a program for homeless vets. It 
was not much of an appropriation, but it was important. I do not think 
it is a game to go through this piece of legislation and to highlight 
that and raise questions about it.
  I do not think any of this is a game. But what I find so interesting 
about this rescissions package is that so many of the cuts seem to be 
based upon the path of least political resistance. We did not go after 
any of the wasteful military contracts. In our budget resolution we did 
not go after any of the subsidies for oil companies. And, in addition, 
we have $245 billion of tax cuts mainly going to the wealthy people. 
And I have no assurance, by the way, over the years, as I project this, 
that most of this money will not be used to finance tax cuts for fat 
cats in our country, taken away from the people who are the most 
vulnerable. This is no game. 

[[Page S9503]]

  I would say to the majority leader and to my colleagues--and I will 
be pleased to yield for a question--that I think it is a matter of 
priorities and it is a matter of what we stand for. It is a matter of 
what we stand for.
  Before we just get a little bit too generous with the suffering of 
other people, do we not have an opportunity to look at what is in this? 
Do we not have a opportunity to talk about some alternatives?
  Just speaking for myself, just let me make it crystal clear--crystal 
clear--I can take a short period of time and I can look through this 
and I will have amendments and I am ready for debate on amendments.
  I say to the majority leader, if I had wanted to stop this I would 
have objected to the motion to proceed. We have had a discussion about 
what is in here, about where the cuts have been, about other 
priorities. I am just speaking as a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. 
I know what low-income home energy assistance means to people in my 
State and I know these cuts are cruel. I did not vote for this budget 
resolution. I am going to be an advocate for those people. And I do not 
care if they do not have any money to contribute to campaigns. I do not 
care if they do not have any lobbyists here. I do not care if they are 
not the heavy hitters, or are not the players, or are not well 
connected.
 I do not care if they are without a voice. They deserve 
representation. This Senator thinks the cut we had in the Senate bill 
before is cruel. I will have an amendment to restore that cut, and we 
will have a debate on it. There were many Senators who supported it the 
last time. And I hope to have support from Senators again.

  I am pleased to yield for a question.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator from Minnesota was talking about the 
suggestion was made that somehow this was---
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor to the Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much. I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I say to the majority leader that no one is trying to be 
obstreperous.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call to the Senator's attention that under 
the rules a Senator cannot yield the floor to another Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. In the opinion of the 
Chair the Senator from Minnesota yielded the floor, and the Chair 
recognized the Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, to the Senator from West Virginia, the suggestion was 
made that somehow or another we were just kind of fooling around here, 
and it seems to me that it really flies in the face of what is 
involved, and why this is so deadly serious. And to the Senator from 
Kansas, I consider the cuts in the JTPA title II program for 
disadvantaged youth very serious business. We are talking about $272 
million less for a program that serves economically disadvantaged 16- 
to 21-year-olds. These are the kids that we have a chance to save. We 
have a chance to get them educated, to give them a way out, to give 
them jobs.
  Specifically, you are talking about kids who are--well, I will just 
read it. Who is involved with this program? They are youngsters who are 
basic skills deficient, school dropouts, pregnant or parenting kids, 
disabled kids, homeless and runaway youth. I mean if we are going to 
take $272 million out of their hide and not look for other ways, 
assuming that we have to deal with the issue of deficit reduction, the 
Senator from Kansas knows I support it. I supported a balanced budget 
amendment against the wishes at the time at least of my President in 
large part because I know we have to get on a glidepath to fiscal 
stability.
  So deficit reduction is very important to me. But one of the reasons 
we are out here this morning is that, if we get off on the wrong foot 
in deficit reduction, we will be crippled thereafter in trying to 
achieve it in a way that does not destroy the fabric of this Nation. 
That is why these issues are so vitally important. If we start off 
assuming that it is OK to let the Federal Government pay for generals 
and their cats to fly around, but we do not support funding for job 
training opportunities for 16- to 21-year-old disadvantaged young 
people, what kind of way is that to balance the budget?
  Here we are cutting, zeroing out efforts to provide money to help 
build up some of our nation's deteriorating schools. You cannot do much 
worse than zero. You cannot do much worse than termination. We start 
talking about a balanced budget. I sit on the Finance Committee. How in 
the world can you talk about tax cuts when you have bills to pay off? 
The American people know this is just fiscal foolishness. Yet, we can 
provide for tax cuts and then turn around and say, ``Yes. But we still 
have to take a little whack out of the hide of poor people who get low-
income energy assistance.'' This is not logical.
  I have not been around to talk about 25 years worth of battles for 
social justice like the Senator from Oregon can. I know I do not have 
the parliamentary legislative skills of the Senator from West Virginia. 
But I do know this. That as a legislator elected from the State of 
Illinois the people in my State would not want to see me just lay down 
on this railroad track and get run over without saying anything.
  While we recognize that all of our colleagues want to go home, 
everybody wants this vacation, and we do not want to be obstreperous, 
we are not trying to be mean to anybody. At the same time what do you 
tell these teenagers when you go home, these runaways? We cannot 
provide them with job training.
  When we go home, what do we tell our senior citizens? ``It is 
summertime now. Don't worry about it. It is going to be OK. Guess what? 
If you freeze to death, we will appropriate some more money.'' I do not 
think so. I do not think that is an appropriate response.
  I think we have an obligation to stand on this floor and do exactly 
what we are doing to try to make sure that at least the American people 
know what is happening to them. So at least this does not just kind of 
hide and slip through and end up being an ax job in the closet. So at 
least we make the point out here that this is no way to start off 
balancing a budget.
  Yes. We have to balance the budget. Absolutely we have to do deficit 
reduction. I served on the President's Commission on Entitlements and 
Tax Reform. We did not come away with any recommendations. But it was a 
terrific experience. It told us what kind of trouble we would be in if 
we did not achieve a balance and a deficit reduction. So I am as 
committed on that issue as anybody here.
  But I say to my colleagues that we should not start off by taking 
away money that was appropriated last year. And, by the way, I do not 
know if that has come out in the debate, I say to Senator Wellstone. We 
are talking about rescinding money that was already appropriated last 
year. This is not even go-forward money. This is not even what we are 
going to do now, that we have kind of a consensus around here on the 
balanced budget. This is what happened last year. The bill before us 
says, ``You have appropriated this money but we are going to take it 
back.'' In some of these areas, the numbers were below what they had 
been previously anyway.
  So we are going to take it out of the hide of the young people who 
need job training, pregnant teenagers, disabled teenagers, homeless 
teenagers, and runaway youth. We are going to take it from them.
  We are not enforcing a sensible set of priorities with this. And I do 
not think it is inappropriate for us to stay a little while to talk 
about what we can do. Maybe this document can be made better. Maybe it 
can be made better. Maybe there is some room. I do not know. I mean we 
are not on that committee. I am on the Finance Committee. I know 
Senator Wellstone is not on committees that wrote this legislation. I 
understand that. You cannot consult with everybody. But certainly 
Senator Wellstone, the Senator from Minnesota, used the expression, the 
``path of political expediency.''
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Actually, I said, the ``path 
of least political resistance.''

[[Page S9504]]

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct. ``Path of least political 
resistance.'' That is better than the ``path of political expediency.'' 
That is correct.
  I appreciate that correction from the Senator from Minnesota. That 
was the expression that he used, and I think it is very well taken--
least political resistance. I just think that even in situations like 
this, in which the people who sat around in the wee hours and hammered 
this out--and again, we appreciate the effort and we know there is an 
attempt here at compromise, but at the same time I think it would be 
inappropriate for us not to discuss these issues.
  Do we have amendments? Well, one nice thing about the Senate is that 
it is a traditional legislative body. I listen very closely to Robert 
Byrd when he starts talking about this institution. I love it, too, 
because it allows you to be a legislator; it allows you to be a 
lawmaker; so much so that you can write an amendment down on a piece of 
paper. I would like to get it typed up. I know we do not have a whole 
lot of time. I know we are in a hurry. I have an amendment here. It is 
handwritten. I just would like to have it typed. It would restore the 
money for job training of disadvantaged young people, restore the money 
for school construction; $35 million is a drop in the bucket. It was 
cut from $100 million.
  The original appropriation was $100 million, reduced to $35 million, 
in this bill reduced to nothing, taking back money that was 
appropriated.
  This is not logical, it seems to me, nor is it fair, nor is it 
sensible, nor is it forward-looking, nor is it appropriate, nor does it 
comport with our obligations to the American people. Job training 
started out at $398 million, reduced by $272 million. In this bill, it 
is $126 million. So that is a pretty good whack on job training for 
disadvantaged young people.
  I do not have the numbers. The Senator from Minnesota may have the 
numbers on what the whack was on last year's appropriation for heating 
assistance, but the point is this is not something that I think we 
should just roll over and not say anything about and say, well, you 
know, it is the time, it is just open season on disadvantaged youth and 
schools and school kids and poor people who need heating assistance and 
just roll over and let this happen. I just think it is inappropriate.
  I say to my colleagues again, this legislative body permits for this 
kind of dialog, and it would be inappropriate for us as legislators not 
to raise the issue, not to raise the question whether or not we can fix 
this a little bit.
  Maybe the amendments will go down. I do not know how many --I just do 
not know. Maybe my colleagues will go lockstep on that side of the 
aisle. I say to the Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, maybe his 
guys will go in lockstep because of a political agenda. Maybe the 
letter from the President means the folks on this side of the aisle 
will go in lockstep, and we will lose. But I want everybody to know 
that I am prepared to talk about job training for disadvantaged youth 
today, tomorrow, the next day, the day after that, the day after that, 
to talk about why we need to try to make certain that these kinds of 
efforts do not get the ax.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Only for a question, and I retain the right to the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator retains her right to the floor. She can just 
yield for a question.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. I thank the Senator. For a question. I will 
yield for a question, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is the Senator from Illinois yielding to?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The first question I think was asked by the 
Senator from Oregon and then the Senator from West Virginia. I will 
yield for a question from both of them.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  I was wanting to ask the question, did the Senator support the 
Daschle-Dole compromise in the rescissions package that originally 
passed the Senate?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator from Oregon has some very good staff 
members. Yes, I did, I supported it, but the education infrastructure 
was not restored in that compromise.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The cut for youth job training centers was $272 
million.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct.
  Mr. HATFIELD. The Senator supported it, and in this package it is 
$272 million, the precise same figure that the Senator supported in the 
Daschle-Dole compromise.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is true. That is correct. And I make the 
point that procedurally that was an interim step to where we are today. 
It was my hope always that we would be able to work toward closure and 
resolution in a way that made sense.
  That vote was not the ultimate vote. This vote is the ultimate vote 
with regard to fiscal year 1995 rescissions. And so I make the point to 
my colleague----
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Senator is correct. The Senator from West 
Virginia had a question, also.
  Mr. BYRD. My question was based on the statement that I understood 
the Senator to say earlier that her amendment was not typed up; it was 
just in handwriting. My question was, is she aware that an amendment 
does not have to be typed, that it can be sent to the desk in one's own 
handwriting?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, yes, 
I am.
  Mr. BYRD. And she may----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, I think that is a wonderful thing about 
this institution.
  Mr. BYRD. Is she also aware that she may orally state the amendment?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I was not aware of that. I say to the historian of 
the Senate, I was not aware that an oral amendment was appropriate.
  Mr. BYRD. And if she sends it to the desk or orally states it, she 
loses the floor?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator. I was not aware of that 
either. I appreciate the counsel from the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. For a question by the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I make an inquiry. Does the Senator intend to offer it or 
not? I wish to find out--if we are just going to have a filibuster here 
with two Senators, that is fine--so we can make other plans. If we are 
going to offer amendments, we hope Senators offer the amendments so we 
can have a vote.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator. I say to the Senator from 
Kansas, the majority leader, I have an amendment to offer. I have not 
yet offered it. I am looking at offering it. I would like to get it 
typed up. I would like to have a chance to talk about the offsets and 
the numbers and where the money is going to come from. I understand the 
Senator from Minnesota has an amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield, I have several amendments 
in exactly the areas that I was speaking about that I intend to offer 
and have debate upon, absolutely, and hope to win on them. I said that 
from the very beginning.
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, why not offer the amendment? We 
have been here almost 2 hours on this measure and nothing has happened 
except for a lot of discussion. And if the Senators are going to offer 
amendments, let us offer amendments. If Senators do not mind 
disaccommodating colleagues on that side, I am not going anywhere this 
weekend, so I will be here all weekend. It is up to Senators. If the 
President does not have any influence with either one of his colleagues 
on that side, that is his problem. But we would like to complete the 
bill because the President would like to have it done. And I wish to 
make the best effort I can on behalf of the President, but if I am 
thwarted by members of his own party, I am not going to spend a lot of 
time trying to help the President. Maybe he ought to pick up the phone 
and make a couple of phone calls.
  But in any event, if we offer the amendments, as the Senator from 
West Virginia said, we can have a vote. It will be an amendment vote. 
And then we will see where we are. I do not know how many Members are 
left. Many Members had to leave early to make plane reservations. We 
are still enough 

[[Page S9505]]
here to do business. We are prepared to do business. Let us do 
business.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could respond----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. For a question, yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The question is in response to the majority leader.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. For a question.
  Mr. DOLE. For a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me be clear one more time. I am 
drafting amendments and am pleased to have the debate. But I would say 
to the majority leader, it is not a question----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois may yield for a 
question.
  Does the Senator from Illinois yield, for a question, to the Senator 
from Minnesota?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. To the Senator from Minnesota. I just did.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me restate it. Will the Senator from Illinois 
agree with me that when you get a bill at 9:50 in the morning and you 
have not had any opportunity to even examine what is in that bill, that 
the way to represent the people back in your State and the way to be a 
conscientious legislator is to, first of all, have a chance to look at 
it and then to be drafting amendments? I have several amendments, I 
would say to the Senator, already that I am working on. But I want also 
to look at this bill to see what is in it, and I may have some others.
  Would the Senator agree with me that that is a conscientious 
approach; it is a mistake having something come over here and go 
through without having a chance to look at it and have discussion and 
have amendments?
  Would not the Senator also agree with me that during a large part of 
the discussion this morning we have been responding to questions from 
other colleagues? It is not as if we have just been speaking by 
ourselves, only to ourselves. And we have been trying to highlight the 
priorities in this legislation. Would the Senator agree with me? Or 
some of the distorted priorities and talking about why not some 
alternatives? Would the Senator agree that that has been what is going 
on here?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would not only agree, but I would underscore the 
remarks of the Senator from Minnesota. And I do not have in front of 
me, since we just came to the floor--again we just got this bill. I did 
not have a chance to put together the normal amounts of information. 
But the fact is I do not understand--we are now in the position of 
being accused of trying to stall something. There is this hurry, hurry, 
we have just got to pass this and it has to be today.
 We have to have this rush of what we are going to rescind from last 
year's legislation. This process has taken a long time. It has gone 
step by step by step. We had the vote that the Senator from Oregon 
referred to, which I consider to be an interim step in the process, and 
we just got this bill this morning, quite frankly.

  Were it not for just some pretty fast action to even find out that 
the JTPA youth training program was being cut by $272 million and 
education infrastructure was being terminated and low-income heating 
assistance was being slashed--there may even be more provisions in 
there of which we are not aware. We have not had a chance--I have been 
on my feet since 10:30, almost 2 hours. I have been standing right 
here. And I understand that it is part of the process that you have to 
stand right here, you cannot move, you cannot go to the telephone, you 
cannot stop and read things, and you cannot go through and do the kind 
of research that is required.
  But just to ask us to rush to judgment on something as significant as 
a rollback of money that was appropriated last year, and particularly 
when that rollback rolls over disadvantaged youth and it rolls over 
people who want to see our schools repaired and it rolls over poor 
people who may freeze to death next winter, we are going to roll back 
and roll over simultaneously, and we have to sit here and say, ``Oh, 
well, we have to go along with the program. It is not appropriate for 
us to get up and yell and argue; well, on the one hand, we have been 
told we may make it worse for those people next year. You have seen 
these cuts. Well, it is just going to get worse.''
  Lizzie Borden took an ax and gave her father 40 whacks. Next year it 
will be 41, maybe even 42. Well, I am sorry. My attitude about this 
is--I am not trying to be obstreperous. I think the Senator from Kansas 
and everybody in this body knows I come out of a legislative tradition. 
I understand compromise. I understand working with people. I try to 
work with everybody. But I will tell you, there is a point at which you 
have to say you stand for something, and among the things we stand for 
is seeing to the disadvantaged youth, teenagers, 16-to 21-year-olds who 
are disabled, homeless, school dropouts, runaways, that they do not 
take a $272 million whack.
  I mean, come on. Education infrastructure. I may have to bring out 
the pictures, I do not know. I was not looking to have to be on my feet 
this long time, but I have the pictures sitting in the back. You have 
seen them. Most of the Members of this body, I hope, have seen them if 
they were listening at all. We have schools falling apart. Kids are 
having to study next to broken sewer pipes, not to mention broken 
windows, floorboards cracking through. I can go through--and bring out 
the pictures --the safety and health hazards, not decoration, not 
cosmetic, but basic kinds of stuff, and it gets terminated, all $35 
million.
  It started off at $100 million and went down to $35 million. The 
Senator from Oregon asked why I voted for the previous compromise. 
Well, being a legislator, I am compromising. ``We're going to go, yes, 
it's OK, we'll cut from $100 million to $35 million because, boy, we 
have to have shared sacrifice in this time of deficit reduction. So, 
yeah, I'll give up some of the millions of dollars, given the fact we 
haven't invested in our schools, given the fact they are falling apart. 
But I am prepared to make some investment in the process, to go along 
with the program.''
  So we went from $100 million to $35 million, and then I look up and 
it is zero in this bill. I do not think that is sensible. I do not 
think the spirit of compromise goes to the point where you just 
strangle yourself, or the spirit of compromise says you necessarily 
have to just go quietly into the closet and let somebody cut you to 
death with a meat ax. I just do not think that is what the spirit of 
compromise means.
  I think there are offsets. We were talking about where is the money 
going to come from? Well, we looked at it just very briefly. Here is 
money--we give FEMA more money than they think they need. OK, it is 
important to have some money for emergencies sitting there, but could 
you not do that by supplemental appropriations? We could not find a few 
dollars to put back some of the money for disadvantaged youth, for 
education infrastructure?
  So I ask the Senator from Minnesota--I want to applaud his 
leadership, because last night we had a conversation here on the floor 
because we did not know what was going to be in this bill, and the 
Senator from Minnesota said, ``Well, I am waiting to see what is going 
to be in it, because I hear some pretty bad things about it, and if it 
turns out it is as bad as I hear, I am just going to have to take to 
the floor and object.'' I applaud him for that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield, yes, for a question.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senator may yield for a question but not 
for debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield for a question.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Last night, is it not the case I said to the Senator 
that I did not know what was going to be in the bill, but what I wanted 
to have was at least an opportunity to look at it? Is it not true I 
said I did not want this to be steamrolled, and I also wanted to have 
an opportunity to have discussion and offer amendments to restore some 
of the cuts which I think are cruel to some of the most vulnerable 
citizens? Is that not the gist of our discussion, which is what I 
intend to do?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is the gist of the Senator's statement to me. 


[[Page S9506]]
I applaud him for his leadership and foresight.
  I guess I am a little optimistic. I had hoped that the compromise 
would mean we would not take any whacks out of kids and poor people and 
the vulnerable population. I had hoped we had moved in the direction of 
saying, ``Well, we pushed it this far, we are going to leave education 
funding like it is, we are going to leave job training like it is, we 
are not going to fool around and take any more out of the people who 
need heating assistance, money to help heat their homes in communities 
like the Senator's and like mine.''
  The Senator from Minnesota was talking with the Chair earlier about 
how the wind chill gets to be 70 below in Minnesota. I do not know the 
last time the Senator from Minnesota visited Chicago and Lake Michigan 
in the dead of winter, January. It gets so cold people say its the hawk 
coming off the lake, and what looks on the thermometer to be 10 below 
feels more like 50 below. There are a lot of senior citizens, a lot of 
senior citizens who live on fixed incomes who do not have the ability 
to heat their homes in the winter, to withstand that. Will the Senator 
from Minnesota advise the Senator from Illinois, what is the cut on 
home heating assistance?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator from Illinois 
that she can only yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It is the Senator's understanding based upon the 
answer that I am about to give to the Senator that it is about $320 
million, or so, of cuts. And does the Senator understand that what 
happened was that on the Senate side, when we voted for this 
rescissions package, I voted for it? We had restored the full funding, 
though the House had eliminated the whole program. I have strong 
support, letters that I have here when we get to the debate on the 
amendment from the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee 
that we would hold firm in our position. But now we have over $300 
million of additional cuts that just came to us late last night.
  Would the Senator agree with me that in terms of priorities, what is 
the hurry? Would the Senator agree with me in terms of the focus we 
keep getting this pressure about hurry, hurry, hurry? Why are we in 
such a hurry to cut low-income energy assistance for elderly people, 
people with disabilities, people with children?
 What is the hurry to do that? Would the Senator be able to answer that 
question for me?

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Well, there is an answer, I say to the Senator 
from Minnesota. There is an answer, and the answer is: Vacation, I 
think.
  I think the answer is that folks want to go home. The answer is, the 
deal is cut, the deck is stacked, this game has moved on down, talk 
about games. This train is on the track and, unfortunately, people who 
are concerned about $272 million cuts in job training for disadvantaged 
young people and who are concerned about $319 million cuts in heating 
assistance for poor people, and are concerned about termination of the 
program altogether to fix the schools--well, our bodies are just here 
on the track. Guess what? Our bodies being on the track is considered 
to be an annoyance. That is the phenomenal thing about it.
  We are talking about substantive issues, and the response is that we 
are getting in the way, we are an annoyance. It is annoying to talk 
about homeless teenagers who will not get job assistance. It is 
annoying to talk about senior citizens found frozen to death. You know 
and I know, as well, that you get these stories every winter. It is 
annoying to talk about young people sitting up in classrooms, expected 
to learn. Goals 2000 calls on all Americans to reach certain 
educational levels by the year 2000. How can you expect a child to 
learn when he is sitting there trying to study English next to a broken 
sewer pipe? How can you expect him to get on the information 
superhighway when there is only one plug in the classroom and it does 
not work? But that is an annoyance to talk about that, and it is an 
annoyance to get in the way of the program. Heaven forbid that we stand 
on the train track while this train is coming down and raise these 
issues.
  I tell you, in response to the Senator from Minnesota, I do not know 
what the hurry is. I do not know why we could not have time to--I 
understand the procedures. If you want to talk about these issues and 
the train is on the track, you have to actually stand on your feet in 
the Senate Chamber and talk about it and, no, you do not get a chance 
to sit down and read the bill. It is called a done deal. Do not pay 
attention to the details. But, you know, I would like very much to pay 
attention to the details. I would love to read that bill.
  You know the old expression, ``The devil is in the details.'' Quite 
frankly, I am glad I found them on two of them. I caught them trying to 
take $272 million out of job training for young people. I caught them 
trying to take money out of LIHEAP. There are probably more, I do not 
know. I look forward to a chance to do it.
  But, as the Senator from West Virginia advises, our amendments--I say 
``ours'' because I know the Senator from Minnesota, who actually has 
precedence in that regard since he was here before I was, has some 
amendments. And I have two--at least two. That is based on what I have 
seen so far.
  I have not had a chance to read the whole thing. I am sorry, I say to 
the majority leader; we are not trying to be obstreperous. We are not. 
I do not mean to annoy. I do not. I really care passionately about 
these issues and what happens to these kids, and what happens to these 
old people. I do not know what else to do, unless the negotiators are 
willing to take the amendments or fix the compromise. There is money in 
there to do it with.
  Like I said, this bill would give FEMA almost $1.9 billion more than 
they say they need. I hope they will not need it. If anything, the 
money that FEMA needs is for disasters. We had a terrible thing happen 
in Illinois. We had flash floods down in southern Illinois, following 
the floods of 1992. FEMA is doing a great job and nobody wants to 
impair them. But to give them more money than they say they need does 
not make a lot of sense to me, either. We can pay for these programs 
out of that.
  Again, not being on the committee, I do not mean to be a Monday 
morning quarterback. I know the committee members worked hard and they 
meant well. But you cannot start off this balanced budget march by 
stepping on the feet of disadvantaged kids and senior citizens who need 
heating, and school systems that need windows repaired. You cannot 
start off down this road.
  If we start taking back money from last year in this regard and then 
we go to reconciliation and the appropriations process this year and 
make it worse, by the time we achieve a balanced budget, we will have 
blown our country's fabric out of the water. I do not know about you--
again, I guess because I am still on my feet and I have to stay on my 
feet--I do not know about you, but sometimes I watch--I have a teenage 
son. My son, Matthew, is 17 now. His generation watches a lot of these 
futuristic movies. So I get a chance to see some of this stuff.
  I am appalled by the vision of the future that they have. Societies 
with people living in rusted-out cars and alleys, and the very rich 
with the corporations running the countries, with the very rich up here 
and the very poor, everybody else, digging in garbage cans. That is the 
vision they have. And then here we are today saying that teenagers and 
runaways and dropouts and homeless youth 16 to 21, take that $272 
million--the only thing that gives them any job training hope.
  Are we buying into that vision? I hope not. We talk about making it 
an opportunity society. How are you going to make it an opportunity 
society if you do not say our kids are our priority, jobs are our 
priority? We want to give people the ability to be productive. How do 
you do that? I guess there are some here. I think one of the secrets in 
all this budget stuff --some of my colleagues use the term ``defense 
spending.'' It is not really defense spending; it is military spending. 
Lord knows that everybody wants to be patriotic, and we all want to 
stand by a strong military, because it is still a dangerous world out 
there. We want to give them what they need to work with. 

[[Page S9507]]

  So one side of the budget goes to those activities--whether there is 
a firewall, real or not, there. One side of the budget goes to those 
activities, and the other side has to feed on itself. So we are pitting 
senior citizens against kids. That is no approach. That is no approach.
  Our social fabric depends on our ability to provide jobs. We should 
be able to provide job training for our young people. The Senator from 
Oregon said, ``You voted for the first compromise.'' Well, yes, 
everybody will probably have to give up a little something this time, 
because we have these huge deficits and we have to get past them. We 
have to get on a sound fiscal footing. Yes, we are all going to have to 
tighten our belts a little.
  But that means shared sacrifice. It does not mean tax cuts--tax 
cuts--tax cuts on the one hand and cuts in investment in people on the 
other. This is not logical. This is not logical.
  You say we have to do this to comport with the budget resolution. 
Well, okay, but the budget resolution is what has the tax cuts in it; 
and, parenthetically, tax hikes on people who make less than $28,000.
  How can we maintain the fabric of this Nation if we are going to 
exacerbate income disparities like that, if we are going to eat away at 
people's hope like that, if we are going to buy into the future of the 
movies that Matt's friends look at? How can we do that?
  Again, that is why I am on the floor, and I will yield to the Senator 
from Minnesota for a question at this time. But that is why we are on 
the floor here. No, it is not fun to be seen as a ``sticky wicket'' 
person in the way, standing on the train track, about to get run over. 
It is not fun. But I do not have a problem doing it.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Two questions: First of all----
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Illinois has lost the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield for a 
question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I have done that. I yielded for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator must stay on her feet.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. During the question, while he is responding to my 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. If the Senator does sit again, the Chair 
will assume that she has relinquished the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair for that courtesy.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have two questions.
  First of all, I assume the Senator realizes how pleased I am that the 
Senator is out here speaking with me. These are very important issues, 
as the Senator realizes, and it is very important to be out here 
speaking on these concerns.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. To the Senator from Minnesota, I not only realize 
how important it is, but I have just been told I cannot even sit down, 
so it is going to get tougher by the minute. I understand that.
  I think that the sacrifice of standing on my feet, however many hours 
this is going to take, pales in comparison to the sacrifice of that 
constituent the Senator read about and talked about this morning who 
may not be able to pay for heating in the winter in Minnesota, which is 
almost a fate too horrible to contemplate. Being on my feet pales in 
comparison to those teenage runaways, disabled teenagers, school 
dropouts, homeless teenagers, 16- to 21-year-olds.
  Standing on my feet helps to save and give them some hope, and to 
preserve some portion of rationality in this debate about whether they 
are a priority or not. I am prepared to do that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield for another question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator was talking about tax cuts. Is the Senator 
aware that this rescissions package, beyond the first round of about $5 
billion in cuts, the real issue is what happens in the years to follow 
in the outlays?
  Does the Senator understand that if we extend this to the future, 
that actually some of this money that is cut could very well be used--
in other words, some of the money that is cut--for nutrition, for fuel 
assistance programs, for elderly people, or for that meat for children, 
for the job training program, for education, for counseling assistance 
to older people to make sure they do not get ripped off by supplemental 
insurance policies to Medicare? Does the Senator realize that actually 
some of that money, as we look down the pike, some of these cuts, this 
money could be used to actually finance the tax cuts which go 
disproportionally to people on the top?
  In other words, what could be going on here if this is the first 
round, where the rubber meets the road, we have priority programs 
extremely important to the most vulnerable citizens. Does the Senator 
realize this money could be used to finance tax cuts for fat cats in 
the country, the most affluent people?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, not only am I aware of it, I say to 
the Senator from Minnesota, I serve on the Senate Finance Committee, 
and I am very much concerned about, again, the direction. I think that 
is probably the most significant thing about where we are with this 
bill.
  This bill relates to last year's money, really--the appropriations 
happened last year. I am just afraid if we go forward and say that it 
is okay to cut JTPA, education infrastructure, and LIHEAP, assistance 
for seniors, if we start off that way, it is just going to get worse.
  Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator intend to offer an amendment or talk the 
rest of the afternoon?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. We have amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. When does the Senator intend to offer the amendments?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Talking about a timeframe?
  Mr. DOLE. We have been on this 2\1/2\ hours. The Senator could have 
read the dictionary in 2\1/2\ hours.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I have not been able to sit down.
  Mr. DOLE. Please do.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Perhaps the Senator from Illinois could respond to my 
concerns. I have amendments. I have said that all along.
  The question is whether there could be an agreement. Maybe we could 
work this out where we could have some assurance that I do not 
introduce the amendment, and right away the majority leader tables it. 
I would want there to be time for debate.
  Will the Senator from Illinois agree that we are interested in that 
assurance? Otherwise, what could happen, we could introduce amendments 
and immediately they could be tabled. I wonder whether the Senator from 
Illinois would agree to move on to amendments; that it is critically 
important that there is agreement we have time to debate the 
amendments. Otherwise, we will introduce the amendments and the 
majority leader will rise to the floor and move to table, and we will 
not have any discussion at all.
  Does the Senator agree that is critical?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I think so. That would be very important. The 
whole idea is to get a vote on these amendments and to get some 
discussion on these amendments. I am prepared to put the amendments 
down if we can get that kind of an understanding with the majority 
leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I cannot yield to the majority leader, but I could 
yield for a question.
  Mr. DOLE. You could yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. No, I cannot.
  I say to the majority leader, I would love to yield the floor. I 
would love to introduce my amendments. I would love to move this 
process forward. I am not looking forward to just standing here and 
talking--I would.
  But I think the problem is, because I am kind of stuck in this spot, 
I have not been able to have a discussion about any time arrangement or 
whether or not we will be able to have discussion and a vote on the 
amendments, including Senator Wellstone's.
  So I am searching for a way, within the context of the Senate rules, 
that I can reach some kind of understanding regarding the procedure 
without losing my rights to the floor. 

[[Page S9508]]

  Senator Wellstone, and I think appropriately--is right. I think at 
this point, the majority leader, as always, has an interest in moving 
forward on this. I cannot imagine he would keep us from having a real 
vote and debate on this amendment. So I will yield to the Senator from 
Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would say, the Senator from Illinois 
cannot yield to the Senator from Kansas. She can yield for a question 
or she can yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thought we had been debating the 
amendments the last 2 hours. I have listened to debate on the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program and counseling program and the 
job training program now for 2 hours. I do not know how much debate we 
need. I think everybody understands precisely what the issues are.
  I am prepared to offer the amendment myself. I will offer the 
amendment. I will offer it all in one amendment, move to table the 
amendment, and there will be a vote on the amendment, if that satisfies 
the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Illinois. We want to 
bring this to a conclusion.
  Again, let me repeat, I have a couple of options. I understand the 
President may be trying to reach you on the telephone. That is an 
option I had not thought of--because I can reach you right on the 
floor.
  This has become the President's bill. He is concerned about the 
people who suffered in Oklahoma City. He is concerned about the people 
who suffered in earthquakes in California--as he should be. I think 
there are 39 States affected by disasters that are going to be affected 
by this bill, and we are still going to save $9.2 billion. It is a $16 
billion bill; we spend about $6.8--but we still save about $9.2 
billion.
  I have one option, just to call for the regular order, which brings 
back the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. The other option 
is just go out of here, adjourn, recess. I will not bring this bill up 
again until there is an agreement it will be brought up without any 
amendments and we will have a vote on it.
  But if the two Senators want to frustrate their own President, I do 
not know why I should complain. Maybe I ought to be happy about it.
  But I am concerned. This whole thing should have been settled about 
30 days ago. We have been waiting 30 days, the White House has been 
negotiating with the House and the Senate--it has not been in secret. 
Everybody has known it. It has been brought up in our caucus. I am 
certain the Democrats discussed it in their caucus.
  It is no surprise when something comes to the floor and it is 
something Senators had not read. If people voted on only things they 
read around here it might be a lot better because we would not have so 
many votes. But I suggest we have reached a point where we are either 
going to pass this bill or we are going to pull it down. That is going 
to be up to the Senators from Illinois and Minnesota. They have every 
right to do what they are doing. I do not quarrel--I do quarrel with 
the course they are following, because I think it is going to mean we 
are probably not going to pass this bill. It is not going to go to the 
President.
  I do not want there to be any illusion we are going to jump on this 
bill as soon as we come back and give them all the time they want for 
debate. It is not going to happen. We are going to be on regulatory 
reform and we are going to stay on regulatory reform, and after that we 
will be on something else. And the longer we wait, the less money we 
save in this bill. Maybe that is the strategy of the two Senators. If 
you can wait until the end of the fiscal year, we do not save any 
money. But neither do you help the victims in Oklahoma City or the 
victims in California or the victims in some 37 or 38 other States who 
have been hit by disasters. Nor do you, as pointed out by the Senator 
from West Virginia and the Senator from Oregon, the two experts here on 
appropriations--in effect, you are going to be hurting the people in 
your own States, in Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, Montana, Washington, 
New Hampshire, wherever, by frustrating and by delaying this bill.
  I do not know how many Senators are left in town. I think that is 
probably another strategy the two Senators have used. I hope there are 
51. But if the two Senators will permit me to, I can offer an 
amendment, one amendment that would cover everything they have raised; 
have one vote. We would have low-income home energy assistance, the 
counseling program, and job training--have one vote on that. I would 
offer the amendment, then I would move to table my own amendment. But 
you would have a vote. You would have made your case. You would have 
fought for principle. And you may succeed. I am not certain.
  But my view is--I think the Democratic leader shares this view--we 
need to move very quickly. We have had 2\1/2\ hours. We have had a lot 
of debate. There has been a lot of debate. I think all these amendments 
have been debated. I do not know why we need additional debate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. BURNS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have got to take a trip to examine----
  Mr. BURNS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Flood damage in Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is in progress.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of 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.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a number of us, including the two leaders, 
have been trying to figure out some way to accommodate those who have 
concerns about this bill. But I do not think it is going to happen.
  So I am going to propound a unanimous-consent request, the two 
Senators can object to that, and then I will ask for the regular order 
and put us back on another bill.
  Let me just say, I am not going to bring up the rescissions bill 
again until there is an agreement we will pass it without any votes. We 
are trying to accommodate the President of the United States. We are 
trying to accommodate the House, which passed this bill late last 
night. More important, we are trying to accommodate people in Oklahoma 
City who suffered a tremendous tragedy, and a lot of this money would 
go to help in that area. We are trying to accommodate the people in 
California who suffered earthquakes. We are trying to accommodate 
people in 39 other States who have had disaster problems.
  Here we are on the floor talking about adding $5.5 billion, or x 
dollars, which can be done in later appropriations bills or 
supplementals. This debate does not make any sense to me, and I have 
been around here a long time.
  Obviously, two Senators on a Friday before a recess can frustrate 
anything, and they have discovered that, and I commend them for it, 
because now they know every time there is a recess, on a Friday, they 
can say ``Oh, I can't let this pass, I feel strongly about this.''
  We all feel strongly about this, but ask somebody in Oklahoma City 
and ask somebody in California or ask the President of the United 
States if we should pass this bill, and he would say yes.
  We have dawdled around here for 3 hours. All these things have been 
debated. It is obvious that the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 
from Minnesota do not want anything to happen. They can object. But do 
not come around and say you want to bring the bill up after the recess. 
It is not going to happen. 

[[Page S9509]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
offer an amendment to the pending bill for Senators Wellstone and 
Moseley-Braun, the text of which restores the LIHEAP funding, adds back 
$5.5 billion for insurance counseling, $35 billion for education, and 
restores $272 million for Job Training Partnership, and that there be 
10 minutes for debate divided between Senators Wellstone and Moseley-
Braun, at the conclusion of which time the Senate will proceed to vote; 
that the bill then be advanced to third reading, and passed, the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. First of all, let me, 
one more time, make it crystal clear, Mr. President, that I have an 
objection to the characterization of discovering on Friday that you can 
stall. I have been working on the Low-income Housing Energy Assistance 
Program for a long, long time, as each of my colleagues knows. This is 
a critically important issue to some of the most vulnerable citizens in 
my State of Minnesota, a cold weather State.
  Second of all, Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want 
to make it very clear that when it comes to assistance for California 
and Oklahoma City, in no way, shape, or form do I intend to be held 
hostage to that, Mr. President. We are all for that.
  Mr. DOLE. I call for the regular order, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President----
  Mr. DOLE. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. I call for the regular order.

                          ____________________