[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.'')
____________________