[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5143-S5148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent
resolution.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Amendment No. 3971 to Amendment No. 3965
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the
second degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
No. 3971 to amendment numbered 3965.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the pending amendment:
On page 30, line 5, decrease the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 30, line 6, decrease the amount by $7,000,000.
On page 30, line 11, decrease the amount by $907,000,000.
On page 30, line 12, decrease the amount by $246,000,000.
On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,256,000,000.
On page 30, line 18, decrease the amount by $1,920,000,000.
On page 30, line 23, decrease the amount by $3,621,000,000.
On page 30, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,033,000,000.
On page 31, line 4, decrease the amount by $3,302,000,000.
On page 31, line 5, decrease the amount by $3,124,000,000.
On page 31, line 10, decrease the amount by $2,355,000,000.
On page 31, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,187,000,000.
On page 33, line 5, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 33, line 6, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
On page 33, line 12, increase the amount by $907,000,000.
On page 33, line 13, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by $2,256,000,000.
On page 33, line 20, increase the amount by $1,920,000,000.
On page 34, line 1, increase the amount by $3,621,000,000.
On page 34, line 2, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
On page 34, line 8, increase the amount by $1,708,000,000.
On page 34, line 9, increase the amount by $1,552,000,000.
On page 40, line 23, increase the amount by $1,594,000,000.
On page 40, line 24, increase the amount by $1,572,000,000.
On page 41, line 5, increase the amount by $2,355,000,000.
On page 41, line 6, increase the amount by $2,187,000,000.
On page 45, line 15, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
On page 45, line 16, increase the amount by
$10,952,000,000.
On page 47, line 9, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
On page 47, line 11, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
On page 47, line 13, increase the amount by $907,000,000.
On page 47, line 14, increase the amount by $246,000,000.
On page 47, line 16, increase the amount by $2,256,000,000.
On page 47, line 17, increase the amount by $1,920,000,000.
On page 47, line 19, increase the amount by $3,621,000,000.
On page 47, line 20, increase the amount by $3,033,000,000.
On page 47, line 22, increase the amount by $3,302,000,000.
On page 47, line 23, increase the amount by $3,124,000,000.
On page 48, line 2, increase the amount by $2,730,000,000.
On page 48, line 3, increase the amount by $2,623,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement the debate on the
Bond amendment is limited to 1 hour.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, my colleagues, this is a simple amendment. It
increases function 700 for veterans by $13 billion over the period of
1997 to 2002, and to pay for that it increases the reconciliation
instructions for welfare reform by $13 billion which raises the total
number under the President's plan from $39 to $52 billion.
I think it is time that we get back to talking about the budget which
is the subject in front of us today. We have just had a very clear-cut
indication in this body that people want to talk about a real budget
that does not make drastic cuts in the last year. They said it was a
bad idea. This is the first good opportunity to vote on the President's
proposal to achieve the balanced budget by taking a tremendous whack
out of discretionary programs including those items which he cited as
his high priorities in the last 2 years.
I am very pleased that our colleagues unanimously on both sides of
the aisle said that did not make any sense, and that we should not go
at it in a meat ax way. I think we ought to start taking a look at
responsible adjustments to try to bring this proposal back into the
realm of reality.
[[Page S5144]]
The amendment that I have just offered has a series of numbers. Those
numbers ensure VA medical care will not be one of the victims of the
President's drastic outyear cuts, and it also restores the cuts
proposed for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000 before the trigger--before
the cap--hits.
My amendment would bring the VA medical care up to what is included
in the Senate Republican budget proposal, an almost $13 billion add-on.
As I said, it offsets this by asking for greater savings in welfare.
Let me address the second part of that first. After 30 years of ever
more expensive and less effective approaches to poverty, last year
Congress came up with a plan that we sent to the President which he
vetoed which would have reformed welfare in a meaningful way. I think
our approach struck a fair balance between the role of the Federal
Government in providing a safety net and giving States increased
responsibilities. You would have saved $64 billion over 7 years in the
process.
Since the creation of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, public
aid has been regarded as an entitlement. If you meet the requirements
for eligibility, you receive the cash with no strings attached. The
current system has been rightly maligned by persons from all walks of
life, including researchers, advocates, politicians, and even the
recipients themselves. They know the system does not work. The system
is impersonal. It is inefficient. It encourages continued dependency.
I am concerned that, if we do not require recipients of public
assistance to work, or at least behave responsibly, or take steps to
wean themselves from public assistance, our efforts at reform are just
going to be another word for more of the same.
Our welfare bill which passed the Senate overwhelmingly on a
bipartisan basis had a real work requirement. In that bill, we also
permitted States to implement reform ideas without undertaking a
lengthy and cumbersome waiver process. States who wanted to require
welfare recipients to obtain preventive health care for their children,
or to ensure their children stay in school and wish to allow recipients
to keep more of their earnings from a part time job--all of them a good
idea--now have to go through a waiver process from HHS. It is costly,
time consuming, and silly.
I have addressed before a silly problem that came up in Sedalia, MO.
You have heard me talk about this on previous occasions. But this is
the example of what the Federal law, as it now stands, does not permit
States to do. The State of Missouri working through their local family
services office and the employers in the area decided in Sedalia, MO,
to try a pilot program to get people jobs in an expanding new industry
in town. People seeking food stamp assistance were sent, if they were
able bodied, to the employer for job interviews. If they were offered a
job then they got off the need for food stamps. If they refused to show
up, or if they were offered a job and refused it, then the State could
sanction them, and did not have to give them food stamps. There was a
real incentive for these people to make an effort to get work. A lot of
them did get work. Some of them did not like the work that was offered.
They went out and took another job. That is fine.
A lot of people in that community who had been depending upon public
assistance went back on the work rolls. Two of the people, however, who
were sent to the employer they failed the employer's mandatory drug
test. When they went back to the State the State could not cut them off
of welfare, or food stamps in this instance, because they had failed a
drug test. And the State wants a waiver. The State said this is crazy.
And they are right. If we want to get people off of welfare and to
work, and we prohibit States from saying, ``If you cannot get a job
because you failed the drug test, then we will pull you off the welfare
rolls. We will not give you assistance.'' That means, if somebody wants
to stay on public assistance and get food stamps, or welfare, all they
have to do is take drugs. What a perverse incentive.
The State has been battling to get a waiver. My view is the States
should not have to get a waiver. The States ought to be permitted to
make those commonsense determinations and see what works.
The current system that President Clinton is defending by his vetoes
keeps those nonsensical requirements in place.
Where States, despite the best efforts of the Clinton administration
to keep control, have been able to implement significant reforms the
results have been astounding. Welfare caseloads have dropped to 25
percent from 30 percent in some States including Massachusetts,
Indiana, and Michigan. That is why we are here. More families are able
to obtain self-sufficiency which has the added benefit of saving the
Federal Government money.
As I pointed out, the welfare reform plan that we sent to the
President which he vetoed would have saved $64.1 billion over 7 years.
In this amendment before us I am proposing that we save $53 billion in
welfare programs so that we can keep a promise we made to our Nation's
veterans who risked their lives for us that they would always have
health care.
This, I would think, is not an unrealistic number. The Senate Budget
Committee plan calls for $54 billion in welfare savings. Some of the
savings would be achieved in the Supplemental Security Income Program,
which, as the fastest growing entitlement, desperately needs reform. We
can make these savings by reforming the programs and returning them to
the States for them to administer, thereby eliminating huge Federal
bureaucracies.
I think the people of America want to see us get serious about
welfare reform. If you believe what the President says--he says we want
to change welfare as we know it--I think it is time we did what the
people want and the President says rather than rely on the President's
veto to keep the status quo.
Now, what this will do on the other side, for the Veterans'
Administration patients, is to ensure that when they need health care
they are not going to be denied. The people who are served in Veterans'
Administration facilities around the country are the ones who have been
injured in combat overseas and/or those who are medically indigent.
This is where they are cared for--in all of these locations. These
are 170 Veterans' Administration facilities across the Nation. Last
year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we could
not have a flatline of spending in veterans affairs because it would
result in closure of four of those hospitals. Frankly, there are
savings that can be made in the Veterans' Administration, and I think
that those savings are being pursued in the health care area by Dr. Ken
Kizer and others. But there is no way that an almost 25-percent cut,
$12.9 billion, can do anything but devastate the program. Millions of
veterans will not be served. At least a quarter of these hospitals and
veterans facilities will have to be shut.
Pick a State, any State. As I mentioned earlier, some of the major
States like California would probably have to have three or four
closures. My home State of Missouri would have to have at least one
closure. All of the States with veterans facilities would be faced with
losing some of those facilities, as well as service to many of their
most needy people.
Massachusetts would lose at least one; Washington, at least one;
Texas, two; Pennsylvania, two, probably three; Illinois, with six
facilities, one or two; and Florida, the same position, at least one or
two. I do not think that is acceptable. When we asked the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, who came before our committee, to comment on these
proposals, he said he could not live with that scenario.
He did not like our scenario, which was a flatline, but I believe
they can live with that. But he sure cannot live with a scenario that
takes a tremendous whack out of the budget and, beginning after 1997,
takes funding for the Veterans' Administration in a precipitous
decline. That is why I think we need to have a realistic budget. It is
time that we started talking honestly about what our needs are going to
be in the future.
We are joined in this concern by a number of organizations which have
expressed their grave concern over this. The Independent Budget, a
group comprised of Amvets, Disabled Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
[[Page S5145]]
States, wrote to Secretary Jesse Brown on May 14, 1996, which I will
submit. I received a copy. My colleagues, chairs, and ranking members
of the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee, received it. I will cite to you
just the middle paragraph of the letter. It says:
Our Nation's sick and disabled veterans deserve a viable
health care system devoted to them and their special health
care needs. Many of us have opposed budget plans brought up
in Congress because we believe they call into question the
continued existence of such a health care system. President
Clinton's 7-year balanced budget proposal does not provide
the funding necessary to meet these needs. This is true in
view of the fact that we have yet to witness true VA health
care eligibility reform.
I send that letter to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Independent Budget,
Washington, DC, May 14, 1996.
Hon. Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Brown: On behalf of AMVETS, Disabled
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the collective authors of the
Independent Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, we
are writing to inform you of our concern over President
Clinton's seven year budget plan as it relates to the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) medical care.
Our nation's sick and disabled veterans deserve a viable
health care system devoted to them and their special health
care needs. Many of us have opposed budget plans brought up
in Congress because we believed that they called into
question the continued existence of such a health care
system. President Clinton's seven year balanced budget
proposal does not provide the funding necessary to meet these
needs. This is true in view of the fact that we have yet to
witness true VA health care eligibility reform.
We all are aware that we live in fiscally constrained
times, and we all support taking steps to continue on the
path of deficit reduction. But we cannot, and must not, set
budgetary targets for VA medical care that are unrealistic
and which are not a clear response to the problems faced by
the VA, and the many veterans who rely upon the system. When
budget plans do not reflect the true needs of the VA medical
system, we will oppose them, and call on others to oppose
them.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Wolford,
National Commander,
AMVETS.
Richard Grant,
National President,
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Thomas A. McMasters III,
National Commander,
Disabled American Veterans.
Paul A. Spera,
Commander-in-Chief,
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Mr. BOND. I also would note that the American Legion, in a letter to
me dated May 10, 1996, states:
After reviewing President's Clinton's FY `97 budget
proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American
Legion is deeply disturbed with the outyear funding levels
recommended.
They conclude by saying:
The American Legion strongly believes there are acceptable
alternatives Congress should seriously consider before
turning its back on American veterans and their families.
Mr. President, that is simply what is at issue here. Are we going to
turn our backs on veterans, or are we going to make some responsible
choices and say it is time to get serious about welfare reform and make
sure we put people to work and use some of the funds that we save to
ensure that we care for our Nation's veterans, the elderly, the sick,
the war-injured, the medically indigent who need our help and care.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield.
Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield. I relinquish my time, and I will
be happy to yield the time on the other side.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I came over to speak on the budget, and I just came
out on the floor, and I apologize to my colleague. But if I understand
the context, could I ask the Senator, first of all, exactly what cuts
are being made in the welfare area? Is this food stamps? Is this the
Supplemental Security Income Program? Where exactly are you proposing
to make these cuts?
Mr. BOND. I say to my friend, we are proposing in the reconciliation
numbers, if you will look at the copy of the amendment, which is not
very descriptive unless you have the whole document with you, and I
assure him that these change the numbers for reconciliation so that in
the reconciliation process----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Is this in food stamps?
Mr. BOND. The Finance Committee will have to make the changes to come
up with the numbers which show the actual reforms made. We, on the
Budget Committee, cannot make those reforms. The Finance Committee has
to make those reforms. This will give them the same directions that the
current Budget Committee report, now on the Senate floor, makes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Is the Senator prepared to say that there would not be
reductions in, for example, the food stamps or the Supplemental
Security Income Program, or does the Senator believe there will be
deductions in order to make the target?
Mr. BOND. We are not saying, Mr. President, exactly what the outlines
of this welfare reform proposal will be. The Finance Committee has
previously presented welfare reform proposals. We presented and adopted
in this body a measure taking $64 billion out of welfare. It was
included in the Balanced Budget Act. I would expect that the beginning
point would be that point, and if Members wish to change that measure,
they can even reduce that by some $10 billion and still achieve the
savings that are necessary.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield, the Senator is saying now
in the Chamber--just a couple of other questions--that, in fact, there
would not be cuts in the Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamp
Programs? Because the Senate has gone on record in voting on the
proposition I introduced that we would not take any action which would
create more hunger among children.
The Food Stamp Program is a major safety net program. Is the Senator
prepared to say that we are not going to be taking any action by this
offset that would create more hunger among children?
Mr. BOND. This offset is not designed to create hunger among
children. I would point out to my colleague from Minnesota that if he
were here earlier, he would have seen the drastic slashes that the
President's budget proposes in the feeding program for women, infants,
and children. This is a program devoted to providing vitally needed
nutrition.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President----
Mr. BOND. Since the Senator from----
Mr. WELLSTONE. I did not ask about WIC.
Mr. BOND. Let me show this chart.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.
Mr. BOND. This is the President's proposed spending on women,
infants, and children. This drops off the cliff. We propose to continue
to fund it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the question, could I ask----
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the questions, I say to the
Senator from Minnesota. I have been asked for my attention by the
Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask a question? We had a debate for about an
hour and a half about this trigger idea. Lo and behold, we found the
position of the Democrats is this budget does not have any trigger in
it. You know, the trigger was the President's way of getting to a
balanced budget when he did not have a balanced budget. So they have
suggested they do not have a trigger.
But I say to my very good friend, sitting over in a little category
called function 920, allowances, is $68 billion in budget cuts. So that
was the trigger under the President's budget which permitted him to
say, ``We are not cutting anything. It is those bad Republicans who are
cutting everything, including veterans.''
Now the cat is out of the bag. Your budget, the President's budget as
submitted by the Democrats--which they are going to vote for, I
understand, willingly--it says to get to balance we really have to cut
a lot of things we have not told anybody about yet. Right?
Mr. BOND. This is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is the Oscar for fiction that I described: We do
not have
[[Page S5146]]
to cut anything except that big bunch of money that is there. You are
suggesting that even cuts more than Republicans expected to cut in our
budget, and on veterans you have shown what it does. Is that correct?
Mr. BOND. That is correct, the cuts in veterans are absolutely
devastating and would result in closing at least one-quarter of all
veterans facilities. To me that is totally unacceptable.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to just make one last observation and a
question. The amount of money that you say should be taken out of
welfare in the President's budget, Senator Well- stone wants to know
details. As a matter of fact, is it not true that the bipartisan
welfare bill which passed the Senate with 87 votes cuts more in
welfare, and had 87 votes, Democrats and Republicans, than the final
product even when you take the additional amount out? Is that not
correct?
Mr. BOND. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask one more question?
Mr. BOND. If this has been on our time, I need to reserve the time. I
will be happy to respond, if there are further discussions, on time on
the other side. But I wish to yield the floor. I will be happy to
listen to my colleagues.
Mr. EXON. How much time does the Senator need, I say to the Senator
from Minnesota?
Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time is left?
Mr. EXON. How much time do you need?
Mr. WELLSTONE. All the time that is left.
Mr. EXON. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for
up to 3 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I actually came out to talk about the President's
budget versus the Republican budget, but I will say to my colleague
from Nebraska I will do that later on.
I did want to, in responding to this amendment, just say to my
colleague from Missouri, I have not really sorted out the whole
amendment, but I did want him and my good friend from New Mexico to
know that, as a matter of fact, the Office of Management and Budget
came out with a report saying that that welfare reform bill that passed
would, in fact, lead to more poverty among well over 1 million
children. So, before we start talking about all these cuts, it would be
helpful to know exactly where you intend to make the cuts and what
impact it is going to have on the most vulnerable citizens in this
country. It is true they do not have lobbyists outside. It is true they
are not the heavy hitters. It is true that they are not the big
players. But I think we ought to be careful. Again, I have to look at
the specifics. But I never did hear a response to my question as to
what impact this would have on what has been a major food and nutrition
program.
My second point is it is my understanding from talking to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, that the agreement with the
President on the outyears is that each year this will, in fact, be
negotiated. The interesting thing is that many of us fought against the
last Republican budget which did have the reductions which we thought
violated a contract with veterans. As a matter of fact, the President
held very strong on that issue.
What I find interesting when I hear my colleague from Missouri
talking about veterans is I know what I have been trying to push, which
is what I hear from the veterans community, which is health care
eligibility reform, which would make a huge difference. So I wonder why
it is that all of a sudden we have this amendment out here on the floor
when in fact it is not clear exactly who is going to be cut. I cannot
get an answer to my question how it is going to affect children in this
country.
In addition, what has been left out, from what I heard from my
colleague from Missouri, is the very clear understanding between the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who has been a huge advocate for
veterans, and the President, is that of course there will always be
negotiation when it comes to the out years because we all know that we
take a look at this year by year with a very strong commitment to
veterans.
So I take rather serious exception as to whether or not the President
has been hanging in there strong for the veterans community versus the
Republican budgets that we have had before us.
I say to my good friend from Nebraska, I will not take any more time
now. Later on I hope I will have a chance to talk about this budget in
overall terms, but I gather we do not have time on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nebraska is
recognized.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I hope the manager of the bill, the chairman
of the committee, could be present because I would like to straighten
some things out. We had made an earlier agreement that we would move
back and forth.
I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, for being on the
floor.
We made an arrangement. Good-faith arrangements are something this
Senator has always lived up to in 18 years in the U.S. Senate. I was to
offer the next amendment. I could not do so since the Senator from Iowa
was on the floor, got the floor, and was talking as in morning business
for 5 minutes. It went on way beyond that.
In the meantime, I have been working diligently with the chairman of
the committee to try to work out the increasing number of amendments
that are coming forth. We had discussed this, either off or on the
floor. There were private discussions going on in good faith, I
thought, with Chairman Domenici and myself, as ranking member. I went
in to visit, to try to work that out and accommodate everyone. I came
back out to find that the Senator from Missouri, probably unknowingly,
broke the arrangement. The Senator from Nebraska had been faithfully
waiting to offer the next amendment and I thought my prerogative would
have been protected, as is customary in this body.
I ask the chairman of the committee whether or not it is true that
the Senator from Nebraska was to be next recognized to offer an
amendment, under the previous agreement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I am quite certain
that somewhere in the record it will reflect we were going to your side
after we had finished our last amendment.
I do not think we should cast any aspersions on Senator Bond. He came
to the floor. Nothing was going on. He was unaware of this. We had been
running him down at committee hearings to try to get him here. Frankly,
when he first arrived, I told him to sit down and rest, he had hurried
over here with such enthusiasm. He is not the great athlete he was 20
years ago. I should not say that. Obviously, he still is.
But what would the Senator like? He will finish his and you have one?
It was not ready a while ago, but your staff told me it is ready. Would
you like to offer yours and then what? Vote on yours first?
Mr. EXON. What I was hopeful of is that I would offer my amendment,
we would have a vote on that, then go on to your amendments and proceed
in the usual fashion. That is what I would like to have done. But it
seems to me now you have used up considerable time on the time that you
had. Is that right, I ask the Senator from Missouri?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time has the Senator used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 11 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Nebraska has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. On the Bond amendment.
Mr. EXON. I simply say what I would like, and I would like to work
our way out of this situation--the Senator from Nebraska was expecting
to be recognized to offer an amendment, and I would like to have had a
vote on that. Then you would go back to your side, and I assume the
Senator from Missouri would be next in line?
Somehow we got out of whack. My knowledge of the Senator from
Missouri is that he has always been a very fair and articulate person.
Maybe he came in here and maybe staff ignored him, maybe staff did not
tell him what the proper procedures were and he went ahead. Whatever
the situation is, the agreement that we have and entered into has been
violated, and I think it is
[[Page S5147]]
up to the chairman to say how he wants to straighten it out.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want anybody to have this idea that anybody
violated anything.
Mr. EXON. That was the result.
Mr. DOMENICI. I propose that we fix it this way: Whatever time is
left on this amendment, we complete the amendment. We set it aside, and
Senator Exon proceed with his amendment for whatever amount of time you
want. When you are finished, we will vote in sequence, voting on your
amendment first, but we will do them together so Senators will come
down and vote twice, vote on yours first, and then Senator Bond's
amendment second.
Mr. EXON. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we
finish the debate with the allotted time----
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. EXON. Then allow me to come in and have whatever time I need that
can be agreed to, then we will vote on my amendment first and his
second, to get back on the right course.
I have no objection to that, and I say to my friend from Minnesota,
if he needs additional time, I will be glad to yield. The reason I did
not yield unlimited amounts of time before was because I thought it was
important that we get straightened out the violation of what I thought
was the agreement. Now that we have done that, I yield----
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me get a unanimous-consent agreement on this so
nobody will be objecting.
I ask unanimous consent that when the time has expired or yielded
back on the Bond amendment, that it be set aside temporarily for the
purpose of permitting Senator Exon to offer an amendment; that when the
time has expired on the Exon amendment or yielded back, that we will
vote on the Exon amendment or in relation thereto first, to be followed
by a vote on Senator Bond's amendment, and I also ask at this point
that the second vote be a 10-minute vote, since the Senators will be
here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. EXON. May I suggest one other extension? Maybe we do not have to
have a unanimous-consent agreement on this because we generally go with
a gentlemen's agreement. Our side would offer the first amendment after
the two votes; is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. By agreement, that is the way we are doing it. I do not
know we should put it in the consent. I do not intend to violate the
agreement.
Mr. BOND. First, I was going to ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let us get the unanimous-consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, just so I understand, so we do not have
another disagreement, the agreement that we have gone back to, to
recognize the agreed-to procedure, that the Senator from Nebraska will
go next--I will do that--then we will have the vote on my amendment,
then we will vote on the amendment from the Senator from Missouri.
After we finish the second vote, then it will be a Democratic amendment
up at that time?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have kicked this one along and
around far enough. I am very happy that we have reached an
accommodation where we will finish debate on this and then we will set
it aside to go to Senator Exon's amendment.
To set the record straight, I was called out of a hearing that I was
chairing because it was envisioned that I would offer an amendment at 3
o'clock. I came to the floor. There was a quorum call, and then the
Senator from California was speaking. When she concluded, there was no
one else around, and I offered an amendment. I figured that we might
get on to the business of the Budget Act.
I apologize for preempting the Senator from Nebraska, but I trust
that everyone is happy now, that his vote will be ahead of ours, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. May I ask my friend from Minnesota, we may have some other
speakers on this amendment, you sought additional time. We have 21
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mr. EXON. Can I yield 7 minutes, will that be adequate?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That will be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska.
I want to respond to some of the comments of my colleagues on the
other side, from Missouri and New Mexico, about the President's overall
budget, what has been presented by my Republican colleagues.
I will say that as I look at the Republican's plan, I really do not
quite understand what I think is a real disconnect with the people we
represent, because as I look at this plan over a 6-year period of time,
I see the same too deep of reductions in both Medicare and medical
assistance.
Just to talk about this from a Minnesota perspective, I want to make
it very clear that in my State, we are the skinny kids on the block. We
have kept our costs down. We do not have the same fat in our system
and, therefore, the effects of these cuts would, in fact, do harm to
the quality of care for elderly people within our State. I am talking
specifically about Medicare.
Some of the changes that the Republicans have made in their plan now
put even more of an emphasis on the reimbursement to the providers. But
in greater Minnesota, Mr. President, as high as 60 percent of the
patient payment mix for some of our rural hospitals is Medicare,
already below the cost of delivering care.
So I will say what I have said many times on the floor of the Senate
in this debate, the numbers cannot drive the policy. The policy has to
drive the numbers. This is a rush to recklessness. It will not work for
Minnesota and, therefore, I hope that it will be rejected, and I know
that people in Minnesota will reject it.
Mr. President, on the medical assistance, I will just say, again, to
my colleagues, you have chosen to target some of the citizens who are
the most vulnerable in America. In the State of Minnesota, 60 percent
of medical assistance, which is what we call it in Minnesota as opposed
to Medicaid, goes to people in nursing homes. I ask my colleagues, why
do we want to make cuts there?
We have about 300,000 children in my State who receive medical
assistance. It is the best safety net program in our State to make sure
that children receive health care. Why do we want to cut there?
Then, Mr. President, I see another disconnect. I say to my colleagues
here--I see the Senator from California--it was not more than about 2
months ago I had an amendment on the floor. We received 84 votes for it
where we restored the funding that had been cut in title I, school to
work, safe and drug-free schools, Head Start, and all the rest. Now I
see similar kinds of cuts in education and job training.
The cuts proposed in the Republican budget are too extreme, they are
too harsh, they are shortsighted, they go beyond the goodness of
Minnesotans, they go beyond the goodness of America, and they should be
rejected.
Mr. President, then I look to the higher education. I am going to
have an amendment out on the floor. It is an amendment Democrats are
going to offer, and we will have a vote on it. I will say to my
colleagues, once you go beyond the tax credits that go to children and
families, anything else you have left over in your budget should go to
tax deductions to pay for higher education.
Mr. President, I do not see tax cuts that flow disproportionately to
higher income people. I think we ought to reinvest it in education. If
you want to talk about a middle-class issue, talk about making sure
higher educational is affordable.
Mr. President, I have said it before, at least in committee--I will
say it on the floor of the Senate today--I do not think some of my
colleagues with their proposed cuts, again, in higher education,
understand the squeeze that students and their families feel.
[[Page S5148]]
We have students in Minnesota that sell plasma at the beginning of
the semester to buy textbooks. We have students in Minnesota working at
two or three minimum-wage jobs--it would help if we raised the minimum
wage--while going to school. Therefore, it takes them 6 years. We have
students in Minnesota no longer 19 living in the dorms. They are older.
They have families. They are trying to afford the education to get back
on their feet, to be able to obtain decent employment.
I am going to have an amendment out on the floor that will hold all
of us accountable and see who is committed to making sure there is
affordable higher education.
Mr. President, I want to mention two other amendments that I am going
to introduce, one of them which speaks to the question I raised for my
colleague from Missouri, by the way, who I think is a great chair of
the Small Business Committee. I think we are good friends. We do not
always agree on issues.
But I am going to have this time a recorded vote, because I had an
amendment at the beginning of this Congress. I could see it coming,
that it was the sense of the Senate that we would not take any action
that would create more hunger or homelessness for children. And I lost.
People voted against that amendment.
The third time around it was voice voted for approval. I wish I had
not done that because I think it was dropped in the conference
committee, as I remember. As I look at some of these proposed
reductions, I see the same kind of action taken.
So this time I am going to have a recorded vote where we go on record
that we will not pass any legislation that could create more hunger or
homelessness among children; and if in fact the result of some of these
cuts is to do just that, then the next year we will revisit the action
that we have taken. It is important that the Senate go on record this
time with a recorded vote.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues, we went
through the battle on the COPS Program, community policing, and we made
sure that it was not block granted. We made sure that there was a focus
on community police. I could brag for the next 24 hours, and I only
have probably 2 minutes--I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. About some of the work of the police chiefs and
sheriffs in Minnesota and the men and women in law enforcement; very
creative work to reduce violence in homes, very creative work with some
of the kids, at risk kids, some of the kids that have the most trouble
in schools, very creative work in some of the neighborhoods and some of
the cities, but a program that has been extremely effective in
metropolitan Minnesota and greater Minnesota.
I think I may come out with an amendment that makes sure that we in
fact have the funding this next year for that program and make a
commitment over the 6-year period.
Finally, Mr. President, let me just say that on the President's
budget I do not find everything in there to be perfect. I think there
is too much for the Pentagon. I think there is too much by way of tax
cuts.
If I had my way--but I could never get my colleagues to vote for
this; in fact I could not get quite a few Democrats to vote for it; I
hardly got any support among Republicans. I want one more time on the
floor of the Senate, with 1 minute left, to shout it from the
mountaintop.
Why are you so anxious to cut educational opportunities for children,
and job training, and not adequately fund community police, but you are
more than willing to give away the wasteful subsidies to the
pharmaceutical companies, to the oil companies, to the tobacco
companies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?
Where is the Minnesota standard of fairness? What we have here, with
the Republican proposal, is deficit reduction, a balanced budget, one
more time, based on the path of least political resistance. You have
your deepest cuts that affect those citizens who have the least amount
of political clout. And when it comes to the big players, and the heavy
hitters, and all the wasteful subsidies that go to so many of these
large corporations, you hardly touch it. You hardly touch it. It is not
credible. It is too extreme. And it should be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from
Missouri yield me 2 minutes for a brief statement?
Mr. BOND. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
____________________