[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 186 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17507-S17508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       LABOR, HHS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for several years I had the privilege of 
chairing the appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies. This year, the chair is 
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. We had our bill finished in pretty 
good time, but now it is being held up and there have been various 
unanimous-consents propounded about trying to bring it up. Last week, 
we hotlined it on this side, and I am informed that the Republicans 
hotlined it on their side to bring the bill up without the legislative 
riders and simply pass it on voice vote. No Democrat on this side 
objected to that. The objection came, as I understand it, from the 
other side.
  I thought perhaps over the weekend and in the spirit of compromise 
and in the spirit of moving this legislation forward I might try to 
propound a unanimous-consent request again.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the Senate proceed 
immediately to the consideration of H.R. 2127, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill; that the language on page 21, lines 3 to 10, 
relating to striker replacement, be stricken; that all other committee 
amendments be agreed to en bloc; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with the 
above occurring without intervening action or debate.
  Mr. BURNS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURNS. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I guess I probably expected that there 
would be objection to my unanimous-consent request.
  I wish to make the case again that this bill is ready to come to the 
floor but for a legislative rider that is on this appropriations bill 
which deals with striker replacement. It has no business being on an 
appropriations bill. There are other legislative bills that will be 
before this body before we adjourn on December 15, or whenever that 
occurs, that would be more appropriate for that to be attached.
  I would also point out that we have voted twice on this issue in the 
Senate and cloture could not be obtained. Again, I would just for the 
record repeat for the record what Senator Dole, our majority leader, 
said on this bill on September 29, 1995. He said, ``I agree with the 
Senator from Pennsylvania,'' meaning Senator Specter, ``and the Senator 
from Iowa,'' meaning me, ``that we ought to pass the bill on a voice 
vote. We cannot get cloture. There were two votes, 54 to 46, party line 
votes.'' That was on the striker replacement. ``So my view is we ought 
to do it, pass it and find out what happens after a veto in the next 
round.''
  I might also say for the record that I checked with the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] before I propounded this unanimous-consent 
request, and he also concurs that this is the way we ought to do it--
bring the bill up without legislative riders, pass it on a voice vote, 
go to conference with the House, and work on the legislation from 
there.
  So again I wanted to point out that it is really not this side 
holding up the Labor, HHS bill. We are willing to get it now in 60 
seconds, voice vote it through but for the legislative rider that was 
attached in committee, which, as I have pointed out, is a legislative 
rider and is not a matter of appropriations whatsoever. If that side is 
willing to strike that, we can bring up that bill and pass it, as I 
said, within 60 seconds.

  As I said, I hotlined this last week and no Democrats objected to it, 
and unless the majority leader has changed his mind I think he agrees 
with that process also, as he stated on September 29.
  So, Mr. President, I wanted to make that point because I feel 
strongly it is important we move ahead with that bill. It not only 
appropriates the money for the Department of Labor and for job training 
programs but also the Department of Health and Human Services to 
administer the Medicare program, for the Health Care Finance 
Administration, HCFA. It also appropriates money for the National 
Institutes of Health and for all of the programs there, for biomedical 
research, and also the Department of Education, some very important 
programs and agencies that need to be funded with the appropriations 
bill. And as I said, there is really no reason why we should not pass 
it except for the insistence by some that they have a legislative rider 
attached to it, which, again, I understand the process here.

  A lot of times people try to attach legislative riders. Sometimes it 
is done without too much concern, people support it on both sides; they 
will support a legislative rider on an appropriations bill. But I think 
in a case like this, where you have a legislative rider which is so 
adamantly opposed by at least a majority on this side--and I think 
maybe even a few on the other side--this is no place for that 
legislative rider.
  Lastly, Mr. President, let me say that I am glad that both sides over 
the weekend worked out an arrangement, an agreement on the continuing 
resolution, and also on the budget. As I have said before, the 
continuing resolution should not have taken that long since it is only 
a sense of the Senate anyway. It has no binding force and effect. But I 
am glad we did agree on the 7 years. I had voted for 7 years for 
balancing the budget. What I oppose, however, is the manner in which it 
was proposed that we do it.
  I still object to the budget that was passed here. That is why I 
voted against it. And I trust the President will veto it sometime later 
this week, and then we will begin in earnest next week in trying to 
work out some compromise on the budget. That will be the important work 
of the Senate and of the House in the next 2 weeks or so, because that 
is the budget, that is the money. That is where we sign on the dotted 
line, so to speak, as to who is going to pay and who is going to 
benefit in the next 7 years when we do reach a balanced budget.
  I must say that I agree with an article in the U.S. News & World 
Report written last week by David Gergen in which he pointed out that 
``the lowest 20 percent of the population [in income] would lose more 
income under these spending cuts than the rest of the population 
combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would gain more from 
the tax cuts than everyone else combined.''
  As Mr. Gergen pointed out, he said:

       Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this 
     revolution. How soon we forget that as President, Reagan 
     insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head 
     Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental 
     Security Income, school lunches and summer jobs for youth--
     would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the 
     knife. Reagan believed, as he said in his memorable address 
     accepting his party's nomination in 1980, that ``we have to 
     move forward, but we're not going to leave anyone behind.''

  This budget that this Senate passed, which I voted against, which is 
going to the President, moves a few people ahead. As a matter of fact, 
it is like 

[[Page S 17508]]
Monopoly. It moves them to the Boardwalk. They did not have to pay any 
rent either. But for everyone else, especially for the lowest 20 
percent, it is ``Go to jail'' and ``Do not pass `go,''' ``Go directly 
to jail,'' because that is where they are going to be kept.
  This budget pulls up that ladder of opportunity, that ladder of 
opportunity that I believe my party, the Democratic Party, has always 
believed in, in making sure that as you make it to the top, as others 
make it in this country--and there is nothing wrong with making it; 
there is nothing wrong with being rich and there is nothing wrong with 
being a success; that is the American dream--but we have always 
believed, and I have always believed as a Democrat, as an American, 
that one of the prime purposes of Government is to make sure, when you 
make it to the top and others make it to the top, that we leave 
that ladder down there for others to climb.

  And I choose my words carefully. I say a ``ladder.'' I did not say an 
``escalator.'' I did not say something that someone could get on and 
ride to the top. I said a ladder, or a ramp of opportunity. The ladder 
is the structure, but individuals have to exert their own energy to 
climb it. A ramp is a structure, but those with disabilities have to 
exert the energy to go up that ramp.
  And, yet, what this budget does is it takes away the ramp and it 
takes away the ladder. When you cut Head Start, when you cut education 
as deeply as the budget does, when you cut summer youth training, job 
training, when you cut education support, student loans, yes, even when 
you cut Medicare as much as this does and push it all to the upper 
income, you take away that ladder of opportunity.
  So, that is why I will fight as hard as I can over the next couple of 
weeks to make sure that as we reach a compromise--and I understand it 
has to be a compromise--that we--perhaps I will continue to invoke the 
words of Ronald Reagan that we should not leave anyone behind, and, no, 
those seven key programs ought to be left untouched, because those 
programs really do leave that ladder of opportunity down there. And 
that ought to be the sentiment that guides the Senate over the next 
couple weeks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The majority leader.

                          ____________________