[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9510-S9511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE RESCISSIONS BILL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be very brief and will be 
followed by the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. President, let me try to give the morning and part of this 
afternoon some context. We had a bill, which was about 120 pages long, 
come over from the House at about 9 o'clock today. This was the 
rescissions package voted on about 10 o'clock last night in the House 
of Representatives. It is my really strong view as a Senator that it is 
important to be able to review legislation, especially when we are 
talking about the cuts that directly affect people's lives. Sometimes, 
Mr. President, we get into the statistics and numbers and we forget the 
faces.
  I had voted for the rescissions package passed out of the Senate 
earlier. I voted against the conference report because of changes that 
had been made. It is no secret to any Senator in here that I feel 
especially strongly, as do many other Senators feel very strongly, 
about several programs--but it is not programs. It is really about 
people.
  I spoke about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and I 
had an amendment and wanted to introduce an amendment that would have 
restored about a 20-percent cut in the LIHEAP. In my State of Minnesota 
there are 110,000 households and 300,000 people who are depending on 
this. I come from a cold weather State. It is a small grant, but for 
many people it is the difference between heating and eating.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Idaho, because I 
know what kind of Senator he is and I think we respect each other 
whether we agree or disagree, I met with people in their living rooms. 
I saw the fear in their eyes. I know how strongly these people depend 
on this assistance, especially in such a cold weather State. And I said 
I would fight for these people, and that is what I have done. Because 
what happened last night in this final package is that we did not have 
the original Senate version, but we cut it 20 percent, some $315 
million.
  In addition, I fought for a counseling program for elderly people, to 
make sure they could not be ripped off. It was consumer protection. 
This was coverage that people asked for in addition to Medicare, to 
fill in the gap.
  Then I discovered there were some additional cuts in dislocated 
worker programs. The Senator from Illinois spoke eloquently, of course, 
about a program she had worked on, just a small amount of money for 
school infrastructure, for kids.
  So what I said today was I wanted the opportunity to go through this 
bill. I wanted an opportunity to talk about it. I wanted an opportunity 
to introduce amendments. The first amendment would have been offset, 
and I gave examples of some of the waste in the travel administrative 
budget in defense. That money would have been transferred so we would 
not have the same cut in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  I must say, Mr. President, looking at this in a slightly larger 
context, I find it unconscionable. Really, what we might be talking 
about, as we extend this rescissions bill into the future--this is a 
grim precedent of where we are going, since this is where the rubber 
meets the road. We could be seeing the cuts in the outyears for low-
income energy assistance, for children, for education, for counseling 
for seniors to make sure they do not get ripped off with health 
insurance--all used to finance tax cuts that go in the main to wealthy, 
high-income people. Cuts in programs for dislocated workers, job 
training, you name it. All in the name of tax cuts? We do not go after 
any of the subsidies for the oil companies but we cut low-income energy 
assistance? We do not go after any of the military contractors, any of 
the waste there, but we make cuts in low-income energy assistance, job 
training programs for kids, counseling programs for elderly people, for 
consumer protection.
  To me it was unacceptable.
  I just want to respond to one or two points that the majority leader 
made, and then I will conclude my remarks.
  This was not something just done on Friday. I just got this bill. I 
am not going to be bulldozed over as a Senator. I want to look and see 
what is in this piece of legislation. That is the responsible thing to 
do. And it certainly is true that those people, be they elderly people 
with disabilities, be they children, working poor people who are 
affected by low-income energy assistance may not have all the clout and 
make all the money and make all the contributions, deserve 
representation here in the U.S. Senate.
  The cuts, I believe, are unconscionable. So this was not something I 
just come to on Friday. This has been a priority issue for me as a 
Senator from a cold weather State where many people are affected by 
these cuts for a long, long time. And will continue to be so.
  Second, I care fiercely about the assistance for people in Oklahoma 
and California. We will be back to this bill. We all know it. Of 
course, we will be back to this bill. And, of course, there will be 
relief, and I have voted for that relief and will continue to do so. We 
all know we are going to be back on this piece of legislation--and we 
must. I hope there will be some discussion in the meantime and we can 
work out some reasonable compromise.
  Finally, I have the utmost respect for the manager of the bill, the 
Senator from Oregon, and certainly for the Senator from West Virginia. 
But as to what happens in the future, we cannot be bound by the 
priorities and the parameters of what the House of Representatives is 
doing in these kinds of budget resolutions. We can make changes next 
year. I just simply tried to say today, and I will say it over and over 
again--I will shout it from the mountain top, from the floor of the 
Senate, if that is what is necessary--that these are distorted 
priorities. To ask some of the most vulnerable citizens in this country 
to tighten their belts when they cannot, to cut low-income energy 
assistance for people in my State, a cold weather State, and not even 
look for offsets? Not to restore that kind of funding? That is 
unacceptable to me.
  So, I have no doubt that we will be back on this.
  My final point would have been that by amendment, I would have on the 
first amendment talked about other 

[[Page S9511]]
States, the number of people affected in Missouri, in Kansas, or in 
Minnesota by low-income housing energy assistance, or Illinois. I would 
have laid out some important data. I would have talked about real 
people who are behind these statistics, and I would have talked about 
offsets.
  But in all due respect to the majority leader to come out at the end 
and say: I will roll them all into one amendment and have 10 minutes 
and then move to table--I do not legislate that way. I do not know too 
many Senators who really find that acceptable when it is the issue you 
have been working on for the people you are trying to represent.
  So I hope that we will be back on this bill right away, and we will 
go forward with the discussion. I hope that we can work out a 
satisfactory agreement. In any case, I intend to keep on speaking and 
keep on fighting, not with malice, not with bitterness, but with 
dignity, and face the policy that I honestly believe in.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, this morning has been difficult for all of us. But I 
have to say that particularly when some of the pages came over and 
spoke to me a while ago, I could not help but be reminded of how it is, 
particularly in this U.S. Senate, in this legislative body, that one 
person really can make a difference.
  And if a person, a Senator, cares deeply about something, then that 
Senator has the right and the opportunity to make the case, to make a 
point, and to raise the issue. Sometimes in raising the issue, it 
results in change. Sometimes it does not. But certainly, raising the 
issue is of primary and critical importance.
  I have not been here long enough. But, at the same time, I am a 
Senator, and I was elected by my State. I am called on to be the voice 
for the people who sent me here, and to stand up for interests and 
concerns of the voters and citizens of my State.
  I believe that it is of real importance to raise the fact that the 
decisions in this bill represent misplaced priorities, that it ought to 
have been changed, and that the priorities represented ought to have 
been changed. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues on the committee 
who came up with this compromise--I know they worked hard and I know 
they felt strongly and feel strongly about the particulars in this 
bill. But if anything, that is what legislation represents--ideas. That 
is what it is. It is an idea. If the idea has a flaw in it, then I 
think it is our obligation to get up and say there is something wrong 
with it.
  That is why I came to the floor this morning with Senator Wellstone. 
I have and will continue to say that it is wrong to take money away 
from job training opportunities for our disadvantaged teenagers. I 
think it is wrong to take money away from senior citizens who may need 
heating assistance. I think it is wrong to say we are not going to 
start fixing up some of the schools that make it almost impossible for 
students to learn.
  I also thought that while there are some things about this bill that 
were good, that we could find the money to take care of these 
priorities.
  I came to the Senate floor with Senator Wellstone to try to offer 
some amendments. But, as you know, the procedures are sometimes 
convoluted; the procedures are sometimes complex.
  The bottom line result was that we were not given an opportunity to 
actually have a vote on our amendments in the context of the amendment 
process, and the bill was pulled.
  I thought we could go to the bill. I think Senator Wellstone is 
right, that the bill will come back, that we will have another shot at 
it at some point in time if, indeed, this is the will of the 
leadership. I certainly did not want--and I know Senator Wellstone did 
not want--to annoy anybody or to put anybody out or to impair anybody's 
plans for vacation. But we have a responsibility, it seems to me, to do 
everything that is within our power to speak to the ideas that get 
floated around here as legislation.
  I think this is one of those critical moments, as we start the debate 
of what kind of march are we going to take down that road to deficit 
reduction, we must also engage in the debate of how are we going to 
march down that road? Are we going to march down that road together, as 
Americans with a shared sacrifice and everybody pitching in, or are we 
going to march down that road stepping on the backs of the feet of the 
teenagers, the senior citizens, the poor, the vulnerable, and the 
people who cannot necessarily speak for themselves?
  I tell you, Mr. President, that I believe what happened here this 
morning, I hope that what happened here this morning, will help to 
shape the debate about how we go about achieving deficit reduction and 
how we get on that glidepath to a balanced budget; and that, in having 
come out here and exercised our rights as legislators, that Senator 
Wellstone and I reached our colleagues on the television sets in their 
offices, or wherever they are right now, that we reached some people to 
suggest that as we go down that path, we have to go down that path in a 
way that recognizes that our future as Americans is inextricably wound 
together and that we cannot, we must not, take more sacrifice from one 
group than another; that the contributions ought to be based on the 
ability to contribute; that we do not call on people who are already 
hanging on by their fingernails, call on the least able in our society 
to give the most; and that we can achieve this glidepath recognizing 
that investment in our people is the single most important investment 
we can make as Americans.
  That I think is what this debate this morning was really about, or 
what we hoped it would be about. I had hoped to offer two amendments. 
Senator Wellstone also had amendments. We did not get that chance. But 
I know we will have a chance to do so. I hope we will have a chance to 
do so on this legislation or some other legislation as we go down this 
process, as we move toward adjournment.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, as we approach these issues, 
let us recognize that really we do have an obligation to talk to one 
another and to try to work these issues out in a way that is fair to 
all Americans--not just some Americans, but every American--including 
those who do not have the wherewithal to weigh in with lobbyists and 
the like.
  I thank the Chair very much, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10 
minutes under the previous unanimous consent order.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________