[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5441-S5443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     VIOLATING THE BUDGET AGREEMENT

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express some concerns that I 
have about recent developments that are occurring in the House of 
Representatives related to the budget. It was just a few nights ago, a 
few evenings ago, that we got a conference report from the House that 
was passed by a substantial margin in the Senate that confirms that the 
work we did in the budget negotiations was satisfactory to both the 
Members of the other body and the Senate. We had been through it here 
once before, the conference report, to get the budget resolution 
confirmed. It passed 78 to 22. The vote was almost identical when we 
got the conference report back. That was Thursday evening. I was 
stunned to read in Friday morning's newspaper that there were 
challenges to the assumptions that were made, to the agreements that 
were made to try to get that budget done, to try to forge a consensus 
agreement.
  I must point out that this is not an agreement that I have heard 
people standing up and lauding and saying, ``I love it. It is the 
perfect budget agreement. It is everything my constituents want it to 
be.'' By no means. But there is in this budget agreement something I 
think both parties can salute. There is an investment in the middle 
class, there is an investment in education, there is some tax relief 
for the middle class. Once again, if we look at the extremes, we are 
all woefully short of things that I would have liked to have if I had 
an ideal opportunity to design it myself. But I do not, and we 
represent a consensus. Mr. President, 50 States are represented here by 
the two Senators from each State who are here to argue the case from 
their particular point of view.
  A bipartisan budget agreement was the product of extensive 
negotiations involving compromises by everyone involved, and many 
provisions were the subject of protracted discussion, with each word 
carefully considered and debated. In the end, we struck a delicate 
balance, and the resulting agreement, if implemented, will provide, I 
believe, great benefits to our Nation. It will give us the first 
balanced budget since 1969. It will provide tax relief, as I said 
earlier, to the middle class. It will protect Medicare, extend its 
solvency, and it will do something about cleaning up the environment, 
investments in education, and other significant national priorities.
  Unfortunately, since the handshake that took place here--it took 
place in the negotiating room between the chairman and the ranking 
members and the representatives of the President--two House committees 
are now moving to alter the bipartisan budget agreement when the ink is 
barely dry. It is a matter of great concern to me and it ought to be a 
matter of great concern to everybody here who thought we had 
accomplished something significant when we passed that budget 
agreement. Although the steps have been taken in the other body, I want 
to raise my concerns here before Senate committees begin the process of 
marking up their own reconciliation packages.
  For instance, one important provision of the bipartisan budget 
agreement would protect immigrants, legal immigrants who have come to 
this country, who paid their taxes, played by the rules, and who then 
suffer from a disability--perhaps from an automobile accident or an 
illness that robs them of their ability to function as they used to--
eyesight or other physical ailments that affect their capacity to walk 
or to work. The budget agreement says these people should be protected.
  It states on page 22 of the agreement of the budget resolution that 
Congress will:

       . . . restore SSI and Medicaid eligibility for all disabled 
     legal immigrants who are or who become disabled and who 
     entered the United States prior to August 23, 1996.

  That was a compromise date, I point out. Unfortunately, last week in 
the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, they reported 
a bill that fails to do this and suggests reducing the numbers of 
people and reducing the availability of these services, these programs 
for these disabled people. It directly violates this portion of the 
agreement, the compromise that they are proposing. The compromise was 
already done. The subcommittee's action is not an innocent mistake. It 
is not based on differences in interpreting the agreement. This is a 
blatant, intentional violation of the bipartisan budget accord which 
should not be tolerated. Certainly it should not be begun unilaterally 
so soon after the agreement is done.
  If we had things that we wanted to talk about, they ought to be 
talked about cautiously and not entered into the news media immediately 
as something they want to change.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
two letters from the Director of OMB, Frank Raines, to the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and to Representative Shaw, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources in the Committee on Ways and Means, 
that outline this and other similar concerns about the implementation 
of the budget agreement.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1997.
     Hon. John Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is a letter I sent earlier 
     today to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Ways and 
     Means Human Resources Subcommittee regarding Subcommittee 
     markup of legislation to implement the Bipartisan Budget 
     Agreement.
       The preliminary markup documents we reviewed were 
     inconsistent with the agreement in several important 
     respects. I hope that by identifying these issues as early as 
     possible, we will be able to implement the agreement in a 
     bipartisan manner.
           Sincerely,
     Franklin D. Raines.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1997.
     Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr.,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways 
         and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the Administration and the 
     bipartisan congressional leadership recently reached 
     agreement on a historic plan to balance the budget by 2002 
     while investing in the future. The plan is good for America, 
     its people, and its future, and we are committed to working 
     with Congress to see it enacted.
       With regard to welfare, the budget agreement called for 
     restoring Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid 
     benefits for immigrants who are disabled or become disabled 
     and who entered the country before August 23, 1996; extending 
     from five to seven years the exemption in last year's welfare 
     law for refugees and asylees for the purposes of SSI and 
     Medicaid; and making other important changes.
       We have reviewed the Subcommittee's draft markup document, 
     however, and we have found a number of provisions that are 
     inconsistent with the budget agreement in these and other 
     areas. Consequently, if the Subcommittee were to proceed with 
     its legislation in this form, we would be compelled to invoke 
     the provisions of the agreement that call on the 
     Administration and the bipartisan leadership to undertake 
     remedial efforts to ensure that reconciliation legislation is 
     consistent with the agreement.
       We appreciate the fact that the Subcommittee has a mark 
     that includes several provisions that the Administration 
     supports, such as in the areas of welfare to work and State 
     SSI administrative fees.
       Welfare to Work.--We are pleased the budget agreement 
     includes the President's $3 billion welfare-to-work proposal 
     and that the Subcommittee included provisions that meet many 
     of the Administration's priorities. Specifically, we are 
     pleased that the mark provides funds for jobs where they are 
     needed most to help long-term recipients in high 
     unemployment-high poverty areas; directs funds to local 
     communities with large numbers of poor people; awards some 
     funds on a competitive basis, assuring the best use for 
     scarce resources; and gives communities appropriate 
     flexibility to use the funds to create successful job 
     placement and job creation programs.
       Though your mark does not address a performance fund, we 
     appreciate your willingness to consider a mechanism to 
     provide needed incentives and rewards for placing the 
     hardest-to-serve in lasting, unsubsidized jobs that promote 
     self-sufficiency. In addition, we stand ready to continue to 
     provide assistance in refining targeting factors.
       State SSI Administrative Fees.--The Administration is 
     pleased that the Subcommittee has included a provision, 
     consistent with the budget agreement, to increase the 
     administrative fees that the Federal Government charges 
     States for administering their State supplemental SSI 
     payments and to make the increase available, subject to 
     appropriations, for Social Security Administration (SSA) 
     administrative expenses.
       In a number of areas, however, we have serious concerns 
     with provisions that do not

[[Page S5442]]

     reflect the budget agreement. The Administration has 
     separately transmitted draft legislation that reflects the 
     budget agreement's provisions on benefits to immigrants.
       Continued SSI and Medicaid Benefits for Legal Immigrants.--
     The Administration strongly opposes the provision that denies 
     coverage to many legal immigrants who were in the United 
     States when the welfare law was signed but who become 
     severely disabled after that date. The budget agreement 
     explicitly states, ``Restores SSI and Medicaid eligibility 
     for all disabled legal immigrants who are or become disabled 
     and who enter the U.S. prior to August 23, 1996.'' The mark 
     fails to reflect that agreement by only ``grandfathering'' 
     those now receiving SSI, therefore dropping those who would 
     become disabled in the future and would be eligible for 
     benefits under the agreement. Instead of enacting the budget 
     agreement, the Subcommittee would grandfather immigrants who 
     were on the SSI rolls on August 22, 1996, thus protecting 
     75,000 fewer immigrants than the budget agreement by the year 
     2002. By contrast, the agreement targets the most vulnerable 
     individuals by providing a safety net for all immigrants in 
     the country when the welfare law was signed who have 
     suffered--or may suffer in the future--a disabling accident 
     or illness.
       In contrast with the budget agreement, which was designed 
     to restore benefits, the markup document would provide SSI 
     and Medicaid benefits to immigrants now on the rolls only if 
     the immigrant has no sponsor, the sponsor has died, or the 
     sponsor has income under 150 percent of the poverty level. 
     The Administration strongly opposes this provision, which 
     would cut off about 100,000 severely disabled legal 
     immigrants who would receive benefits under the budget 
     agreement. We understand that the Subcommittee may drop this 
     provision, and we hope that is true.
       As noted above, the agreement provided for both SSI and 
     Medicaid eligibility for disabled legal immigrants. The mark, 
     however, also fails to guarantee Medicaid coverage for all 
     disabled legal immigrants who continue to receive SSI. For 
     States in which SSI eligibility does not guarantee Medicaid 
     coverage and for States that choose not to provide 
     Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants who were in the U.S. 
     prior to August 23, 1996, legal immigrants who receive SSI 
     would not be guaranteed to continue receiving Medicaid. To 
     conform to the policy in the budget agreement, the 
     Subcommittee should include a provision in its bill to 
     explicitly guarantee Medicaid coverage to disabled legal 
     immigrants who continue to receive SSI.
       Refugee and Asylee Eligibility.--The budget agreement would 
     extend the exemption period from five to seven years for 
     refugees, asylees, and those who are not deported because 
     they would likely face persecution back home. However, the 
     Subcommittee's proposal would provide that extension for 
     refugees and not for asylees and others. Such asylees and 
     others should receive the additional two years to naturalize.
       In addition to the provisions in the Subcommittee markup 
     related to immigration, the Administration has the following 
     concerns:
       Unemployment Insurance Integrity.--The Subcommittee draft 
     does not include the provision of the budget agreement that 
     achieves $763 million in mandatory savings over five years 
     through an increase in discretionary spending of $89 million 
     in 1998 and $467 million over five years. These savings are a 
     key component of the budget agreement. The discretionary 
     spending that the agreement assumes, and which would be 
     subject to appropriation, would support the necessary 
     additional eligibility reviews, tax audits, and other 
     integrity activities that, the evidence demonstrates, will 
     yield the savings. We urge the Subcommittee to adopt this 
     provision to achieve the specified savings.
       The Federal Unemployment Account.--The Administration 
     supports the proposed increase in the Federal Unemployment 
     Account ceiling, which reflects the budget agreement. The 
     mark, however, does not accomplish another aspect of the 
     agreement, because it only ``authorizes'' $100 million to the 
     States in 2000-2002 for Unemployment Insurance administrative 
     funding, rather than making the payments mandatory as the 
     agreement provides. We look forward to working with the 
     Subcommittee to address this issue.
       The Subcommittee mark also includes a member of provisions 
     that were not specifically addressed in the budget agreement, 
     and about which the Administration has serious concerns. They 
     include the following:
       Minimum Wage and Workfare.--The Administration strongly 
     opposes the Subcommittee's proposal on the minimum wage and 
     welfare work requirements.
       First, the proposal goes beyond the scope of the budget 
     agreement and, thus, should not be included in the 
     reconciliation bill.
       Second, the proposal would undermine the fundamental goals 
     of welfare reform. The Administration believes strongly that 
     everyone who can work must work, and those who work should 
     earn the minimum wage--whether they are coming off of 
     welfare or not. The proposal does not meet this test.
       Worker Protections in Welfare to Work.--We are deeply 
     disappointed in the Subcommittee draft's lack of adequate 
     worker protection and non-displacement provisions. We 
     strongly urge the Subcommittee to adopt, at a minimum, the 
     provisions included in H.R. 1385, the House-passed job 
     training reform bill.
       Repeal of Maintenance of Effort Requirements on State 
     Supplementation of SSI Benefits.--Historically, the 
     Administration has strongly opposed the repeal of 
     maintenance-of-effort requirement because it would let States 
     significantly cut, or even eliminate, benefits to nearly 2.4 
     million poor elderly, disabled, and blind persons. Congress 
     instituted the maintenance-of-effort requirement in the early 
     1970s to prevent States from transferring Federal benefit 
     increases from SSI recipients to State treasuries. The 
     proposal also could cause some low-income elderly and 
     disabled individuals to lose SSI entirely and to lose 
     Medicaid coverage as well. The Administration opposed this 
     proposal in last year's welfare reform debate.
       Other TANF Provisions.--The Administration is concerned 
     with several provisions in the mark that were not in the 
     budget agreement. For example, the agreement did not address 
     making changes in the TANF work requirements regarding 
     vocational education and educational services for teen 
     parents. The Administration opposes the provision allowing 
     States to divert TANF funds away from welfare-to-work efforts 
     to other social service activities.
       The budget agreement reflects compromise on many important 
     and controversial issues, and challenges the leaders on both 
     sides of the aisle to achieve consensus under difficult 
     circumstances. We must do so on a bipartisan basis.
       I look forward to working with you to implement the 
     historic budget agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                               Franklin D. Raines,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today the House Commerce Committee, 
the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, will consider legislation 
introduced by the chairman of that subcommittee that also breaks the 
bipartisan budget agreement. The budget agreement calls for $1.5 
billion to ease the impact of increasing Medicare premiums on low-
income beneficiaries. This provision was included because the budget 
agreement calls for phasing in increases in Medicare premiums to 
accommodate the shift of home health care expenditures from part A to 
part B. We were worried because there is going to have to be, in order 
to provide the solvency that we found for Medicare to continue, or the 
Medicaid programs, we had proposed expanding Medicaid premium coverage 
for Medicare recipients who had incomes of 120 to 150 percent of 
poverty. That is pretty modest going.
  The final agreement threw out the specifics of the premium proposal. 
However, it did call for spending the $1.5 billion on whatever policy 
Congress chose to enact. But that was not the understanding. 
Regretfully, the House committee with jurisdiction of Medicaid will 
only include $300 to $400 million for this provision, one we labored 
long and hard over. It is another clear violation of the budget 
agreement, and it is very troubling.
  I am also concerned about the tax bill that the chairman of the House 
Ways and Means Committee outlined yesterday. The chairman's bill would 
only provide $30.8 billion--not an insignificant amount--in tax 
incentives for higher education. But that was fought for very stoutly; 
that it was to get $35 billion. And only about $22 billion of the 
proposal of this type is for the benefits that were advocated by the 
President, understood to be something we could agree on, falling far 
short of, and I quote here, the ``roughly $35 billion.'' That language 
was struggled over, ``roughly $35 billion.'' I tell you this, no one 
can buy a house for ``roughly $35,000,'' or a car for ``roughly 
$15,000.'' How much is it? Well, that is what it ought to be. That 
language was compromise language, because we knew the intent or 
believed the intent of both Speaker Gingrich and/or the distinguished 
leader here, Senator Lott, was their commitment to the program. 
Although the word ``roughly'' was there, it should be interpreted 
broadly, and I think this, frankly, goes too far, when they start 
making the cuts in the House committee that are inconsistent with the 
agreement.
  Mr. President, the bipartisan budget agreement calls on the House and 
Senate leadership to take remedial efforts to ensure that this document 
is implemented in the legislative process. Leadership action is 
critical if the agreement is to be implemented properly. And, 
therefore, I hope that Speaker Gingrich will intervene promptly and 
require that in all cases I have mentioned the relevant committees make 
the changes necessary to be consistent with the agreement that we have.

[[Page S5443]]

  If the congressional leadership fails to enforce the agreement, it 
will not be worth the paper it is written on and in the process of 
reconciliation we could be looking at very serious problems getting 
this program into place.
  Mr. President, I also want to take a moment to talk about the 
disaster supplemental. I am pleased to note that yesterday the 
President vetoed the bill because it contains the so-called automatic 
CR. The automatic CR also violates the bipartisan budget agreement for 
two reasons.
  First, it would lower the amount of discretionary spending available 
for fiscal 1998. The budget agreement calls for $527 billion in 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998, which is $17 million over 
last year's level. If the automatic continuing resolution is enacted, 
the majority could refuse to pass the 13 appropriations bills, thereby 
cutting the $17 billion in discretionary spending. That would 
absolutely violate one of the basic Democratic accomplishments in the 
budget agreement and, again, the consensus.

  The automatic CR would make deep cuts in programs that are protected 
in the budget agreement. The bipartisan negotiators agreed to provide 
large increases in 13 major discretionary programs. Examples of these 
programs include elementary and secondary education, Pell grants, child 
literacy, Head Start, national parks, job training, Clean Water Act, 
Superfund, and the COPS Program. Some of the programs are preferred by 
Democrats, some preferred by Republicans, but the fact is we arrived at 
a consensus. Both parties wanted this done. An automatic CR would 
freeze these programs at last year's level, and they would not get the 
increases promised in the budget agreement, at least without further 
congressional action.
  So, I hope the leadership will comply with the budget agreement, put 
the plight of disaster victims above politics, strip the automatic CR 
from the bill and send the President a clean version of the disaster 
relief bill that he can sign.
  Mr. President, I conclude and I thank you for your indulgence with 
this simple message: A promise is a promise. A deal is a deal. The 
Republican leadership made a promise to the Democrats in the Congress 
and to the President. What I am asking here today is that they make 
sure that promise is kept by their committee chairs, subcommittee 
chairs, and those who would violate the agreement after all of that 
labor and what I think was a smashing success.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask for 
its appropriate referral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Senator, we have passed the hour for recess.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we extend this 
time for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time 
is extended for 10 minutes.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
866 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________