[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9738-S9739]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE RESCISSIONS BILL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I read this morning in the paper that 
the majority leader has dismissed what I think was a very reasonable 
proposal about how to proceed on the rescissions bill. I want to be 
just very clear about where we are right now in the deliberations.
  Madam President, on Friday morning Senator Moseley-Braun and I came 
to the floor of the Senate to express our concerns about the most 
recent version of the rescissions bill that had been worked out the 
night before. There had been a deal struck by some parties on Thursday 
night, and it was coming over to the Senate from the House Friday 
morning around 10. It was about 120 pages long. We had not had an 
opportunity to examine it. There were some I think who wanted to just 
voice vote it. But at a minimum, we wanted an opportunity to propose 
several amendments and to have debate on each of them.
  Madam President, the position that I took then and I think Senator 
Moseley-Braun took as well--she certainly can speak for herself--is 
that when it comes to major spending bills, 

[[Page S 9739]]
I have always said we should have recorded votes. That is critically 
important. We should not have voice votes on large spending bills that 
are this crucial. By the same token, when you have a bill with $16 
billion in spending cuts, and there are changes made from what we had 
passed in the Senate, changes made at the last second--then clearly it 
is important to talk about those changes, to talk about the priorities 
reflected in these cuts, what kind of programs are going to be cut, how 
they are going to affect people in the country and what the 
alternatives are.
  So we talked some about our amendments. I focused on the Low-Income 
Energy Assistance Program. I will not take a long time on that right 
now. I spoke about that at some length on Friday. I talked about a very 
important Medicare Counseling program for senior citizens to make sure 
they do not get ripped off. And all too often that happens by insurance 
companies on supplementary coverage to Medicare. I talked about an 
important job training program for homeless vets, and other job 
training funds for dislocated workers. And Senator Moseley-Braun talked 
about school infrastructure and all the problems that go with the lack 
of investment in schools and lack of investment in children.
  As it turns out late Thursday night some of the funding we had 
restored in the Senate was then cut again. This was a deal that we did 
not think was such a good deal. What we said was that we at least ought 
to have the right to propose amendments, have debate and have those 
voted up or down.
  Madam President, at the end of this debate on Friday the majority 
leader pulled the bill from the floor, and said that it would not come 
back up except under a unanimous-consent agreement but certainly with 
no amendments. We are talking about a $16 billion spending bill, and he 
was insisting on no amendments. I sure think there is enough time for a 
few amendments. We made it very clear yesterday that we would agree to 
the four amendments. I have three amendments. Senator Moseley-Braun had 
one amendment. I think we were going to limit the debate to 1 hour on 
each amendment, equally divided, and we would stack votes for the next 
day. And I think we would have 40 minutes for summary of each amendment 
before votes, 10 minutes for each one. I was surprised that proposal 
has been turned down, because I thought it was eminently reasonable.
  I must say to you, Madam President, that it seems to me that there 
must be something more at stake here. I do not understand what the 
majority leader is worried about. I mean I suspect that he would have 
the votes to defeat these amendments, though I do not think these 
amendments should be defeated. Certainly, this is all about the whole 
question of the way the legislative process works.
  Madam President, I quote from a piece today in the New York Times 
about what is going on in the House:

       Draconian cuts; Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
     Resources yesterday did their work . . . eliminating jobs 
     programs, programs in the Department of Energy like the Low-
     Income Energy Assistance, Head Start, Safe and Drug-Free 
     Schools, assistance for the homeless, enforcement of 
     environmental laws, job training programs for summer youth.

  Madam President, in our amendments these are the very priorities we 
want to call into question. I believe that this rescissions bill was 
just a glimpse of what is to come. These are truly distorted 
priorities.
  And what is especially troubling is that there are alternatives to 
cutting these high-priority programs. For example, we do not see 
rescissions in any of the wasteful spending within the Pentagon. We 
wanted to transfer a little money out of the travel and administrative 
budget of the Pentagon; over 60 percent of all the Federal Government's 
travel and administrative funds is in this one agency; billions and 
billions of dollars, to make sure people do not go cold in the winter; 
to make sure there is some support for dislocated workers. We wanted to 
at least attempt to restore funding for that, offsetting the cuts with 
cuts elsewhere. The dislocated worker funding is also key to many 
Americans. For example, we see bases being closed throughout the 
country. We see people losing their jobs. And we are not going to 
provide people the opportunity to have retraining and find other work? 
We are unwilling to provide a little bit of a support for elderly 
people by way of consumer protection when they purchase health care 
policies? We are not interested in any support for homeless vets when 
it comes to some job training or cutting that? But when it comes to 
subsidies for oil companies, coal companies, tobacco companies, that is 
not on the table. When it comes to looking at some of the waste within 
the Pentagon and transferring some of that funding to some of these 
programs, that is not on the table.
  Madam President, let me be very clear about it. Our proposal was 
eminently reasonable.
  We wanted to have some debate on key parts of this bill, which makes 
$16 billion worth of cuts in Federal spending. We agreed to some time 
for each amendment. It was limited time. We wanted to talk about the 
priorities of these cuts, and propose some alternatives. My 
understanding is that the majority leader has now dismissed even that.
  Madam President, I do not think four amendments, a total of about 4 
hours, is too much time to spend in the legislative process on a $16 
billion rescissions bill. I do not think democracy works well when we 
shut off this debate and discussion. I do not think people in the 
country really know what we are doing when we shut off this debate and 
discussion. Frankly, I think that is the issue.
  I am determined, given the reasonableness of our proposal, that we 
will have an opportunity to have these amendments considered, and we 
will have debate, within limits, and people will vote up or down, and 
people in the country will know that we are cutting funds for job 
training for dislocated workers, low-income energy assistance, 
counseling programs for older people about consumer protection to make 
sure they do not get ripped off when they purchase health care 
coverage, job training for homeless vets, and basic repair of schools 
for kids.
  That is what we are doing. And now look at what the House 
Appropriations Committee is doing. This rescissions bill is just a 
glimpse of the distorted priorities that are now being put into effect 
in this Congress. Americans do not want to see their fellow citizens 
who have been laid off because of retrenchment or because of base 
closures without an opportunity to have job retraining. They do not 
want to see low-income people going cold in cold-weather States. They 
do not want to see senior citizens without consumer protections. They 
do not want to see homeless vets without some support. They do not want 
to see kids without some opportunities, learning in decent schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And I think the majority leader may be worried about 
that. So I am ready for the debate on these amendments, and I hope we 
will be able to work out some agreement.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________