[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10472-S10473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              RESCISSIONS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had sought recognition prior to the 
votes on the amendments offered by the Senator from Illinois, Senator 
Carol Moseley-Braun, and the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Paul 
Wellstone, prior to those votes. But since all time had expired and 
there was a tight timetable because other Senators wished to catch 
planes, there was not an opportunity to speak, and I would like to make 
a few brief comments at this time.
  I opposed those amendments not because I would not have preferred to 
have seen the additional funding in those important accounts, but 
because those issues had been resolved in a very extensive negotiation 
session with the House of Representatives and further proceedings with 
the White House.
  When Senator Moseley-Braun made the statement, yes, we have to make 
cuts, that they have to be made fairly, I certainly agree with her 
totally. The measure which came out of the subcommittee which I chair, 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, was 
a vigorous, incisive, strenuous effort to make those cuts as fairly as 
we could and to establish priorities.
  When the amendment offered by Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-
Braun included veterans job training, displaced workers job training, 
education infrastructure, safe and drug free schools, education 
technology, Eisenhower professional development, job training 
partnership youth job training and the job training partnership adult 
job training, I would have wanted very much to have included those 
additional sums. My voting record is plain on that subject.
  In fact, when the House of Representatives sent over a rescissions 
package of $5.9 billion, as a result of action taken by the Senate 
subcommittee which I chair and then the full Senate in extended 
proceedings, that $5.9 billion in cuts was reduced by some $3 billion 
so that we did restore a tremendous amount of money.
  When it comes to the question of LIHEAP, low-income heat and energy 
assistance, as Senator Wellstone noted--I was on the floor at the 
time--he referred to the Senator from Pennsylvania as a champion of 
LIHEAP, which I thank him for and I think the record of the last 15 
years will support.
  When the House of Representatives had sent over $5.9 billion in cuts 
and had zeroed out $1.319 billion, I made a fight of it. I started that 
fight and won it by reinserting $1 billion of those funds and seeing to 
it that we added an additional $300 million to the President's 
emergency fund. That means 

[[Page S10473]]
that we brought the amount practically to the full $1.319 billion. I 
would have to say that was a total victory.
  So when Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun seek an amendment 
to add $319 million, I would like to see that extra funding. I have 
said on the Senate floor that when it comes to the poor and the 
elderly, that it is a matter of heating or eating. Those funds are 
really very, very important. But we are going to have further 
negotiations with the House of Representatives, and the House has 
already indicated that they want to eliminate all funding for LIHEAP in 
the future.
  It was not easy for me to vote to table the amendment adding $319 
million for LIHEAP funding, but I did so because we had already crafted 
a hard-fought-out compromise which had, in effect, restored $1.3 
billion, leaving only $19 million short. I am going to have to go back 
and deal with the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education and try to work the matter out. So I am hardly 
in a position to support Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun.
  We are looking at a very, very difficult budget, Mr. President, as we 
all know. I am convinced that we need to balance the budget. We have a 
7-year glidepath to get that done. These votes are not easy to explain, 
and it is not difficult for other Senators, after seeing the work done, 
to come in and say, ``I'd like to add some more money here.'' We all 
would. But it is simply not realistic to do.
  The final budget, the final figure was worked out. After we looked at 
the House figure of $5.9 billion in cuts, we reduced it very 
substantially in the subcommittee. The cuts were reduced further by an 
amendment which was sponsored by the leadership, the Dole-Daschle 
amendment, which the Senator from Minnesota voted for. Then the measure 
was vetoed and came back, and then it was approved after difficult 
negotiations with the White House. So that the net effect was, looking 
at the first cut of $5.9 billion, we reinstated $3 billion of those 
funds.
  On this date of the record, I think that it was just too much to come 
back and say let us add in more money for these projects and these 
programs, important as they may be.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senate stands in morning business. 
There is an order pending to go to the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 20 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________