[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13178-S13182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to my colleague from
Massachusetts very carefully, not only on the child care amendments but
also on capital gains, on the so-called Republican amendment, and how
Medicare is going to be so seriously hurt if the Republican approach is
taken.
I do not think it is a Republican approach. It is a pro-American
approach. Right now, I do not know of anybody who does not agree that
Medicare is in serious financial condition and faces bankruptcy early
in the next century.
As of next year it starts to go broke. By the year 2002 it will be
broke, and 37 million Americans will be the losers. I do not know why
we have to make this so partisan because I have to say the Democrats
have basically been virtually in control of Congress for all of the
last 40 years, every year that Medicare has been in existence. And here
we are today with Medicare's financial crisis.
Now, rather than complaining about efforts to try to save it, it
seems to me they ought to pitch in and help us. The fact is, if we do
nothing but throw authorized dollars that are not there, it is not
going to solve the underlining problem. And under the approach that the
House Members are taking, Medicare is going to increase 6.4 percent
each year. Not only increase 6.4 percent, but the average payment under
Medicare is currently $4,800 a year per senior and that will increase
to $6,700 by the year 2002.
Clearly, nobody is cutting Medicare. The 37 million-plus
beneficiaries who currently are on Medicare will continue to be taken
care of. And, the program will be there for the rest of us in the
future. The American people understood this when they, for the first
time in 40 years, put Republicans in control of the House of
Representatives. The American people knew that if they kept business as
usual by keeping Democrats in control--who believe the answer to
everything is the Federal Government--then we would never solve
Medicare's financial situation.
And Medicare is soon going to be broke if it is not fixed. And the
Medicare trustees' April 3, 1995, report on part A, the Medicare
Hospital Insurance trust fund, under the most likely scenario, would be
bankrupt in 7 years by the year 2002. It will begin running a deficit
as early as October 1 of next year. The average two-income couple
retiring in 1995, according to the Trustees Report--and four of the six
Trustees are Clinton appointees--will receive $117,000 more in Medicare
benefits than they paid into the Trust Fund during their working lives.
Now, I do not have any problem with that as long as we have a fiscally
responsible approach to solving the problems. So Congress will save
Medicare, not by cutting it, but by slowing its rate of growth. This is
based not on rhetoric but on the Congressional Budget Office analysis.
The Budget resolution proposes to increase total Medicare spending
from $181 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $276 billion in fiscal year
2002--an increase of $96 billion or 52 percent overall.
As I said, the Budget resolution proposes to increase the amount
spent per beneficiary from $4,800 in fiscal year 1995 to $6,700 in
fiscal year 2002. That is $1,900 per person on Medicare or a 40 percent
increase over that 7-year period. Congress will increase spending over
7 years by $355 billion more than if it were held at its current level.
That amount of increase is equal to twice the total amount that will be
spent on Medicare this year.
Who is kidding whom? It is nice to get up and harangue about the fact
that we have to restrain the growth of Medicare. It is not a cut; it is
a reduction in growth. We cannot just assume that Medicare is going to
continue to run off the charts at 10.4 percent every year. That is
totally unrealistic. It would bankrupt Medicare and jeopardize the
program for future generations.
That is why we experienced a change in congressional leadership in
the last election. The American people, in despair, realized that the
only way they will get this problem under control is to get more
moderate to conservative leadership in the Congress. That is what they
did in voting for Republicans the last time.
Spending, as I said, is going to increase by 6.4 percent each year
for the next 7 years if the Republican budget resolution proposal is
adopted. The slowed spending rate is designed to save Medicare--not to
balance the budget or pay for tax cuts. If the budget were balanced
today, Medicare would still be broke tomorrow. Medicare's trustees,
three of whom are members of the Clinton Cabinet, have
[[Page S 13179]]
made this clear, but the President refuses to admit it. And so
apparently do others here in the Senate.
Medicare reform is not related to Congress' promise of tax relief for
America's middle class. Clinton's charge to the contrary is
hypocritical. His own budget combines slow growth in Medicare spending
with $110 billion in tax cuts. So who is kidding whom? Let us quit
playing politics. Let us do what is right for Medicare and the American
people. We have got to restrain the growth of this program and we have
got to do it now. And that means, in part, some people are going to be
means tested, and some of us are going to have to pay slightly more
Part B premiums.
I think President Clinton and those who support him and who are
playing politics with this are playing politics with our senior
citizens' health. Rather than focus on Medicare's problems, you do not
hear any solutions from these people who have controlled Congress for
40 years and who will control the White House for at least another 1\1/
2\ years. You do not hear any solutions from them. Rather than focus on
Medicare's problems, its impending bankruptcy, President Clinton seems
to want to have us focus on politics and exaggerate spending
differences between his and the Republican's plan.
When I hear that the Republicans want to hurt Medicare so they can
fund their tax cuts for the wealthy, who is kidding whom? If you look
at the Republican tax cuts, they primarily benefit the middle class. So
let us not kid each other. And let us quit playing politics and start
facing the facts and work together to solve this problem while, at the
same time, developing prudent tax policy that encourages growth,
economic development, and jobs enhancement rather than encouraging the
growth of Federal spending.
A comparison of CBO's estimate of Congress' plan and the President's
own estimation by the Office of Management and Budget of his plan shows
the spending differences to be minuscule. Medicare spending will
increase under both the President's and Congress' plan, assuming
Congress will pass it.
Let us call it the Republican plan, if you want, because right now
that is fair. However, there are going to be Democrats who support it
who are as concerned about the future of Medicare as are Republicans
who now know that reform is inevitable. It is apparent that Medicare
spending cannot continue at current levels if the program is to survive
for future generations of Americans.
And what is this rhetoric that cutting taxes is to take care of the
wealthy? Proposed tax cuts are based on responsible reasons just as the
Republican Medicare reform proposals are based.
And, in fact, President Clinton's current budget is closer to
Congress' than it is to the first one he proposed just 4 months
earlier. The Clinton budget would spend 7.4 percent more every year for
the next 7 years. Congress would spend 6.4 percent.
(Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, also, according to the Senate Budget
Committee, Federal benefits spending is going to grow by 6.4 percent.
The difference between Congress' plan and the President's--1 percent--
is well less than the difference between projected spending under
current law--CBO says 9.98 percent--and the President's plan, a 1-
percent difference. Yet, we hear this rhetoric that the Republicans are
going to ruin Medicare and that they are going to take money away from
the poor and give it to the rich. That is simply not true, and it is
time for those who make those allegations to become more responsible
and to stop misleading the American people.
True, the Republicans restrain the growth slightly more than the
President's proposal, and I think there is a case, a very important
case, to be made that is an appropriate thing to do.
The reform differences are crucial, however. Under Congress' budget,
the problem is identified. Medicaid will be saved, and the budget will
be balanced. That is the difference. The problem is identified,
Medicare will be saved, and the budget will be balanced under the
Republican approach. I should say, the Republican--with moderate/
conservative Democrats--approach to solving the problem. Reform will
mean Medicare is not only secure for the future but strengthened with
more choices, less waste, and less abuse.
So I felt I had to make a few comments about this issue because of
some of the comments made by several of my dear colleagues.
I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, both of whom are close
and dear friends of mine, for their kind words about my involvement in
the enactment of the child care development block grant. I do, indeed,
consider this landmark legislation. I was proud to have played a role
in its passage, and I have to say that working with my friends, the
Senators from Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as Senator
Mikulski from Maryland, to accomplish this legislation was certainly
one of the highlights of my last term in the Senate.
I agree with the thrust of the Senator's amendment in this case. I
agree that we need more money for subsidized child care. I do not think
anybody can disagree with that. The figures just show we need more
money, not only to enable those on welfare to get off, but also to
enable those who are working but have low income to stay off welfare.
I personally believe that child care is one of the key components to
the reduction of welfare rolls in virtually every State. These points
are well made, they are well taken, and I do not know many Senators in
the Senate who would disagree with them. I have to say that if the
distinguished Senators were suggesting the mere addition of funds to
the CCDBG, the child care development block grant, or to the child care
carve-out that I am suggesting in title I, I think it would be a pretty
tempting proposition. But I have several reservations about this
approach. I am going to keep an open mind as we debate it, but I still
have several reservations.
First, it is a separate program, a new separate program established
completely apart from title I. I believe we need to delineate funds for
child care under the welfare program, and the reason we do is because
if you just block grant them to the Governors, children do not vote and
it becomes too easy to use those funds for other children's programs.
That is a pretty wide array of programs, some of which may or may not
benefit children and may or may not benefit them very much, if at all.
So I think we do need to delineate funds, but I do not believe the
two efforts should be so completely separated that they cannot be
effectively coordinated. I believe this is particularly important if we
want to reduce the strain on the CCDBG, the child care development
block grant, to provide child care for a welfare population at the
expense of services for the working poor.
Second, one of the primary purposes of this block-grant approach is
to simplify things for States. We want to spend less on bureaucracy at
all levels and more on services at all levels. So I see no reason for a
separate State application and a different format, which is what this
amendment does. It just adds more bureaucracy, more Federal control,
less money, less services, even though they are adding 6 billion new
dollars.
Third, while I certainly appreciate what I take to be an effort of
flexibility, I think subsection (e) is a little too flexible. Here I
believe it is appropriate to specify that the use of funds are
exclusively for child care services, not for a whole host of other
child-care-related functions performed by States and localities.
Along this line, I would like to see some indication that parents
will have a full array of child care options. My amendment, which we
will take up later, states that ``eligible providers'' are centers,
family-based or church-based.
Then, finally, there is the dreaded ``M'' word, and that is
``money.'' As I stated earlier, I agree that an excellent case could be
made for child care funding. In fact, I will be using similar arguments
about the need for child care during my presentation on my amendment to
split child care funding out from title I funding. I hope I can deliver
my statement with as much passion as the Senator from Connecticut and
the Senator from Massachusetts have done, because I wholeheartedly
[[Page S 13180]]
believe that we must enable parents to access safe, affordable child
care.
The problem that I have with a quarter-billion-dollar add-on in the
first year and a ballooning of that add-on to more than $3.7 billion in
the year 2000 is that unless the Appropriations Committee has been
holding out on us and has a money tree somewhere that can grow an
additional $6 billion between now and the year 2000, I just do not
think that it is very wise or even fair to authorize this money and
pretend that it is going to materialize. Sitting on the Finance
Committee, I have to tell you, the Finance Committee already has to
come up with almost $600 billion in savings over the next 5 years.
I think an authorization should be realistic. It creates an
expectation among the States, local governments, and potential
recipients of this child care assistance, and we should not be
promising that which we cannot deliver, and we cannot deliver at this
time an additional $6 billion on top of the moneys that we have. I wish
we could. If we could, I would certainly be in favor of doing it.
For those who work on these very crucial money committees, like the
Finance Committee, I have to tell you, there are a lot of programs that
are going to have to pay their fair share. I wish they could all be
funded to the fullest degree. It is a lot more fun to spend money than
it is to conserve, but there comes a time in everybody's life when they
have to conserve, where they have to live within their means, where
they have to try and balance budgets, and this is that time. We cannot
continue on the way we are going.
It is not enough to believe child care is the right thing to do; we
have to make it happen as well. I do have these problems, among others,
with my friend's amendment today. It is a matter of great concern to
me, because as everybody knows, I take a very strong and vital interest
in child care and have from the beginning and would like to think I
played a significant role in passing the Child Care Development Block
Grant Act, which I think was long overdue.
I suggest to my colleagues who agree with both the Senator from
Connecticut and me that child care is an essential component of this
bill that they will have an opportunity later on in this debate to
support a carve-out for child care within the title I block grant.
I have offered my amendment, and I will be bringing it up during the
debate. I do believe that Senators will find that the Hatch child care
amendment is more workable and more viable as an alternative in the
overall context of this welfare reform bill.
That is not to disparage the efforts of my friends, because like I
say, if the moneys were there, if we had a reasonable chance of getting
those moneys, if we really go could go out and find them somewhere,
certainly I would be very much in favor of trying to do that.
But I am not in favor of creating an additional program to be run by
HHS. The purpose of this is to block grant the funds to the States and
let the States use less bureaucracy and get the moneys to the people
who really need them--they claim they can do it better, and I have no
doubt about that--than if we launder it through the HHS, this humongous
bureaucracy bank that eats it up as fast as we launder it through.
I should say there are some differences between our amendments, and
maybe I will speak on that later. I cannot find fault with anybody who
feels deeply about this, arguing for this amendment. I know my friends
from Massachusetts and Connecticut feel very deeply, as do I, about the
whole issue of child care. We fought together on this floor for it, and
we fought a very difficult battle, which was very costly to some of us.
I would do it over again. But I also think we have to look at reality,
too. I just plain do not want to start another separate child care
program when we have one that is working very well right now, that we
fought for and gave a lot for and have seen work well once it was
enacted.
Mr. President, I feel so deeply about child care issues. I feel
deeply about the single heads of household--primarily women, who do not
know where to turn, who really cannot work because they worry about
their children. I worry about latchkey children, who do not have
anybody to supervise them at home. I worry about 6- and 7-year-olds
watching over babies. These are all important points.
I think we should carve out and make it clear that we are going to
protect these people who do not have votes right now, because over the
years, as we have been concerned about our seniors--and rightly so--the
bulk of the money is going to seniors because they vote, and the people
who are being left out are children because they cannot vote. That is
why I think we should have a carve-out so they have to use this money
for child care and for the purposes of child care. But I do not think
we should be sending messages that we have $6 billion when we do not.
There is no real reason why we are going to have it.
Having said that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum--I
withhold that.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I know there
are others of our colleagues who want to speak on this issue. I want to
respond very briefly to some comments that my friend and colleague from
Utah made with regard to the Medicare issue.
Of course, as the Senator from Utah knows, it is not part B of
Medicare that is in trouble now, it is part A. That is the part of the
Medicare system that needs focus and attention. The increase in the
premiums that the Speaker has talked about and that is part of the
Republican program is in the part B program. That is important to
understand right at the outset.
We saw earlier in the year where the Republicans in the House of
Representatives took $87 billion over ten years out of the Medicare
part A trust fund in order to support their tax fund program. And still
they continue to advocate for $245 billion in tax relief, while they
are cutting Medicare $270 billion. So while Medicare part A is the part
that is in difficulty, it is part B that we are going to have the
increases in. But part B is not subject to bankruptcy, from a statutory
point of view. That is important to understand. Again, it is part B
where we are going to see the dramatic increases. Under the Republican
plan, individuals will have to pay an additional $442 in the year
2002--a premium of almost $1,200 a year. These increases will cost
individuals about $1,750 more in Medicare premiums over the life of the
program, which means each senior couple will pay $3,500 more.
I just say, in response to my friend and colleague, that it does very
little good, at least to the seniors in my State, to say, well, we are
increasing the amounts which we are expending for you in terms of
Medicare, but we are not increasing them to the extent to cover your
health care needs, as we have in the past. And you are going to have to
pay some $3,500 more. Maybe the seniors in Utah have a different
reaction than the seniors in Massachusetts. People have paid into the
Medicare system; they are working families. Two-thirds of them are
making less than $17,000 a year, and $3,500 is a great deal of money
for any family, any middle-income family and any retirees. And to say
to the seniors, well, we are raising the expenditures on Medicare, but
not the amount to cover the same range of health care services to the
extent of $3,500 to the seniors in my State. They say that is a cut.
Here is the final point I will make with regard to the Medicare.
First of all, we find that the statement the Speaker made with regard
to a $7 a month increase in the part B premium is absolutely wrong.
According to the Health Care Financing Administration, the monthly
premium will go up to $96 a month in the year 2002, an increase of $37
a month, not $7 a month.
So it is important that seniors understand, as this debate takes
place, what the facts are. There is going to be up to $37 a month
increase, not $7 a month increase, in the year 2002 alone. And
individuals will pay $1,750 more over the next 7 years of the program
and couples will pay $3,500 more. So the argument that we will be
raising the reimbursement falls flat to the seniors of my State that
will be paying that much more--$3,500 more--over the next 7 years.
Finally, it is important in health care to understand what has been
going
[[Page S 13181]]
on in Medicare over the last 10 years. The fact is that Medicare, per
patient, has not increased as much as in the private sector. We
understand that. The increases in Medicare for treatment has not
increased as much as the cost for the treatment of those that are not
in Medicare. The increase in the costs, therefore, are a result of the
Congress not acting to hold costs down. And to say to our senior
citizens that it is just too bad that you are paying more out of your
pocket because we in Congress refuse to come to grips with the
escalation of health care costs, I find to be an unsatisfactory way to
approach this situation.
Mr. President, I daresay we will have more of a chance to deal with
and discuss the Medicare issue. I think it is obviously an overarching,
overriding issue, because it involves the social compact which is a
part of Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are part of one
single contract. We heard a great deal around here about how we are not
going to cut Social Security, but somehow that promise did not, for
some reason, extend to Medicare. And now we have seen at the beginning
of that debate, which will continue over the period of these next few
weeks, serious misrepresentations in terms of the costs for our
seniors. That is a disservice to the debate and discussion which needs
to take place.
So, Mr. President, finally, let me just say this regarding the
Senator's comments on the child care proposal. As the Senator from
Connecticut and I have stated during the course of this debate, the
provisions in the child care and the discretionary program would not be
law today if the Senator from Utah had not supported those provisions.
That was at a time when we had real renewed attention and focus on
the issues of children. It was at a time we were debating the Family
and Medical Leave Program on which my friend and colleague, the Senator
from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, was a leader up here, as well as on the
child care program where, again, he, Senator Hatch, Senator Kassebaum,
and others were the real leaders.
When he speaks and expresses his commitment and concern, all who have
been a part of this whole process respect that.
The only point I make is that we are, in characterizing this
amendment, as the Senator provides $1 billion for earmarking for the
child care program in a way that it will work its way through the block
grants to the States and through the State organization, we have
accepted that same approach in terms of the Dodd-Kennedy increase in
funding.
We are following identically the same kind of process. The difference
is we will meet the responsibilities to the increased demand for child
care, we think. We all respect the approach of the Senator from Utah
that falls far short.
Mr. President, I see my friend here from Minnesota. I expect the
Senator wants some time.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes and 22 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I say to my colleague from
Massachusetts that I will not use any of this time to talk about health
care, but I do want to associate myself with his remarks. I think we
really will have a nationally and historically significant debate about
Medicare and health care policy soon which will be extremely important
for this Nation.
I hope people throughout the country are very engaged in this debate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an
original cosponsor of the Kennedy-Dodd bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment would provide a direct
spending grant to States of $11 billion over the next 5 years, which is
precisely the amount that HHS estimates the child care would cost under
the Dole bill.
I say to my colleague from Utah and I say to the rest of my
colleagues, as well, that you cannot have real health care reform, as
opposed to what I describe as reverse reform, which is what we have
right now with the Dole bill, unless you have a commitment to family
child care. This amendment really invests the necessary resources.
Mr. President, there have been any number of different studies in
Minnesota, and I cite one study by the Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association in 1995. I am not even going to go through all the
statistics because sometimes I think our discussion on the floor of the
Senate becomes too cut and dried when we just focus on statistics.
The long and the short of the study is that there are many families,
single-parent and two-parent families, that really are doing everything
they can to get on their own two feet and be able to work. The problem
is affordable child care.
In cases of a single-parent family--and when we talk about welfare
families, we are talking in the main about a family with a woman as a
single parent. I wish men would accept more responsibility. I know the
Chair agrees with me 100 percent on that. In the case of a single-
parent family welfare mom, quite often the pattern over a period of
time is that a mother will move from welfare to workfare. But then what
happens is the cost of child care is so prohibitively high or it is
just so difficult to find the child care in the first place, or the
child becomes sick for a week and the mother loses her job, you name
it, that she has to then go back to welfare.
I am all for the welfare reform. Guess what? It is not just Senators
that are for the welfare reform. The citizens that are most for real
reform as opposed to something which is punitive and degrading are the
welfare mothers themselves, the ones who all too many Senators have
been bashing for the last week and a half.
Mr. President, this amendment is extremely important. If we want to
have the reform, we have to invest the resources into affordable child
care.
Mr. President, I noticed there is a provision now in the Dole bill
which I think is interesting and I think it is relatively important,
which essentially says, as I understand it, that if, in fact, the State
does not allocate the money or does not have the resources for the
affordable child care for the mother, then the mother would not be
sanctioned by not taking a job and going into the work force.
That makes a lot of sense because these mothers, like all parents,
are worried about their children.
By the way, Mr. President, if we have silly cutoffs like 1 year, it
does not make any sense. I am a father of three children, a grandfather
of two, going to be a grandfather of three in the next month or so, and
I can tell you that a child at 1 year and 1 week is not exactly ready
to clean the kitchen, do the housework, stay at home alone, et cetera.
The question is, what happens to these small children? The last thing
in the world we want to do is punish children.
This commitment of some resources to child care goes some way toward
making this real welfare reform as opposed to reformatory; that is to
say, something which is punitive and puts children in jeopardy.
The second point I want to make, Mr. President, with this provision
that is now in the Dole bill, is that as I see it, if this provision is
taken seriously, what will happen is a lot of this is just going to be
at a standstill because as a matter of fact without the commitment of
resources for child care, and we did not have that commitment of
resources in the Dole bill--this amendment attempts to invest those
resources--a lot of mothers will be in a position back in our States of
saying with the long waiting lists already for affordable child care,
without the resources to be able to afford it, these are low-income
women, they will be able to say we cannot go to work because we do not
know what will happen to our children, there is no affordable child
care for our children, in which case according to the provision in the
bill they would not have to go into the work force.
There is some good news to that, because I do not think we should
coerce a mother into going into the work force. Taking care of children
at home is very important work, whether it is a mother or a father.
Without the child care, she cannot do it.
[[Page S 13182]]
On the other hand, then, the whole promise of this reform of enabling
welfare mothers, sometimes welfare fathers, to be able to work becomes
a promise that is never fulfilled. This amendment goes a long way
toward enabling us to fulfill that promise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in a minute, I cannot even do justice
to the point I will try to make.
What has cropped up in this debate I think is a very interesting
argument, which is all too often some of my colleagues will say, well,
look, if you have a family with an income of $35,000, maybe two
parents, they are paying for child care, why should we talk about
investment of resources for affordable child care for welfare mothers?
I do not know why we are paying off middle-income and moderate-income
citizens versus low-income women. We should focus on what is good for
the children.
The fact of the matter is our country has not made a commitment to
affordable child care. It is a shame. This is a perfect example of
where we could allocate some of the resources at the Federal level and
decentralize it and let all the good things happen at the community
level, at the neighborhood level --be it for low income, moderate
income, middle income--with some sort of sliding fee scale.
That is really the direction we ought to go, not in the direction of
not investing resources in child care and therefore putting mothers in
a difficult position, and most important of all, punishing children.
This is a very important amendment which really kind of is a litmus
test as to whether we are serious about reform as opposed to
reformatory.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I might, let me inquire how much time
remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 14 minutes
and 18 seconds.
Mr. DODD. On the side of the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 67 minutes and 22
seconds.
Mr. DODD. I would just inquire of my colleague from Utah if I might
take 5 of his minutes? I am fearful he may not be on the floor, someone
else may come over, and we will have run out of all of our time.
Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Should I say a few words first? Or I will be happy to wait.
Mr. DODD. No, go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
____________________