[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.

                          ____________________