[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 113 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8879-S8881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     APPROPRIATIONS AND HEALTH CARE

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Senator Moynihan, Senator Daschle, and 
others have introduced a bill of which I am a cosponsor. It is really 
important. I didn't support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I thought 
it was a mistake. I didn't understand how this projected $116 billion 
in Medicare cuts was actually going to work on the ground with our 
hospitals, HMOs, and nursing homes--you name it. The projected cost is 
actually $200 million less by way of funding.
  Last year, we did a ``fix.'' We restored approximately an additional 
$16 billion or $17 billion. It did not solve the problem. We now have a 
bill and a request of $8 billion over the next 10 years. This is 
critically important. In Minnesota, in 1999, 54 of our 139 hospitals 
operated with less than a 2-percent margin, and 27 percent of them are 
in the red.
  Whether it is an inner-city hospital, such as Hennepin County 
General, or rural hospitals, I tell Senators--Democrats and Republicans 
alike--that we made a huge mistake. We should have never voted for 
these draconian cuts in Medicare reimbursements. I don't know what is 
in the world we were thinking. I didn't vote for it. But I say ``we'' 
because I am a Member of the Senate, and proud to be a Member of the 
Senate.
  But we have to restore a significant amount of this funding because 
both in the inner city and in the rural areas where there is a 
disproportionate number of elderly and low-income people, these 
providers are not making it. Rural hospitals will shut down. This is 
not just a crisis for rural communities. Employers lack health care for 
people. And Hennepin County General, which is, I think, a sacred place, 
is such an important hospital. They are struggling because of what we 
did in 1997.
  This piece of legislation we have introduced will call for $80 
billion to be restored for this funding. It is critically important if 
we care about the care for the elderly, low-income, rural, and inner-
city communities.
  I hope Democrats and Republicans alike in this final week of 
negotiations will come together and support not only our providers but 
also support the people in our State who really count on this care.
  As long as we are talking about the last couple of weeks, I want to 
ask Senator Harkin to share with me his reaction.
  We had a vote yesterday. We had two appropriations bills, Postal-
Treasury and legislative branch appropriations, which were merged 
together. Legislative branch got through and Postal-Treasury never came 
to the floor of the Senate. It was put into the conference report. Part 
of the idea was that you could have a salary increase, which may be 
fine, but of course we don't raise the minimum wage for people. The 
idea would be then we would have an opportunity to have up-or-down 
amendments and a vote on the minimum wage. If we can raise the salaries 
above $140,000, we ought to be able to vote for the minimum wage for 
the working poor people of the country. Senators voted against that 
bill.
  Now I hear that the majority leader is talking about a lame duck 
session. Am I correct? I ask my colleague from Iowa. I would like to go 
back and forth in some discussion with my colleague from Iowa about 
this.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota for 
bringing this up, and for his earlier statement on the plight of our 
small rural hospitals and relief for them. He was talking about the 
smaller hospitals, but it is really the people in our small towns and 
communities who need the relief. I thank him for bringing that up.
  I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I have been on it now for 15 
years. I am ranking member on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Subcommittee I also serve on a number of others--Agriculture, 
Foreign Operations, and others.
  I was disturbed, I say to my friend, to read in Congress Daily this 
morning that Senate Majority Leader Lott said our failure to pass these 
two bills yesterday ``increases the possibility of a lame duck session 
after the November elections.'' He told reporters: I always thought 
that was a possibility anyway. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman 
Stevens told reporters: In my opinion, now we are ready for a 
postelection session. We just don't have time to get 11 bills through 
in 9 days.
  I say to my friend from Minnesota, we have been here for 9 months, 
haven't we? What have we been doing? What has happened to the 9 months? 
We've done nothing. Eleven out of thirteen appropriations bills have 
not been passed--11. Here is what's going on: The Republicans in charge 
don't want to vote on a Patients' Bill of Rights. They don't want to 
vote on it. They don't want to vote on prescription drugs for the 
elderly. They don't want to vote on increasing the minimum wage. What 
do they want to do? Put it off until after the election, have a lame 
duck session.
  I don't understand how this complies with what our responsibilities 
are, what the people elected us for, what we get paid to do around 
here. That is, to

[[Page S8880]]

enact legislation, to take the tough votes.
  They don't want to do that. They want to put it off until after the 
election, for a lame duck session. What kind of sense does that make? 
What kind of a statement does that make to the people of this country? 
Nine months we have been here. This morning we are doing nothing. The 
Chamber is empty. Yet we could be bringing these bills on the floor 
right now. We are doing nothing around here.
  I ask my friend from Minnesota, who gains the most from the lame duck 
session? Who gains the most by not having the votes now, but putting 
them off until after the election? HMOs, the gun lobby, the big drug 
companies. I bet they are just as happy as they can be after reading 
this morning that a lame duck session is likely because they know they 
can come in and control a lame duck.
  I meant to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Minnesota, but I 
am so disturbed by this, I think this needs a complete airing.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope other Senators will come to the 
floor and speak on this question, including members of the majority 
party, the majority leader included.
  The way I look at it, you cannot help but smile with a twinkle in 
your eye. We have had plenty of time to do the work of the people, and 
now to say we can't get this done. Part of the proposal is that maybe a 
few appropriators would stay here with the White House and the rest of 
us would go home and campaign. I have heard that being discussed, which 
means we are not here doing the work. Then the other part of it is the 
lame duck session.
  I think this is a breakdown of representative democracy. Basically, I 
think the majority party is trying to have it a couple of different 
ways. On the one hand, as a special favor to the insurance industry, 
they block sensible patient protection legislation. As a special favor 
to some of the bottom dwellers of commerce, they block raising the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over 2 years. And as a special favor 
to the pharmaceutical industry, they don't want to extend prescription 
drug benefits as a part of the Medicare program for elderly people. And 
as a special favor to some of the big packers and conglomerates, they 
pass Freedom to Farm, which we call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. But 
at the same time, they don't want to be held accountable for any of 
this. They don't want to have amendments on the floor. They don't want 
to have any votes. They don't want any accountability.
  What they would like to do--I think the actual meaning of this 
proposal, which we are going to raise some Cain about because we are 
here to work, about coming back for a lame duck session is that our 
Republican colleagues want to vote on prescription drug costs after the 
election. They want to vote on patient protection after the election. 
They want to vote on minimum wage after the election. They want to vote 
on whether we should have more teachers in schools and smaller class 
size, and something you have been working on, some funding for 
rebuilding crumbling schools, after the election.

  I don't think people in the country are going to go for that. I say 
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that is not the way 
representative democracy works.
  Mr. HARKIN. And we had the juvenile justice bill that included the 
school safety provision, the child safety gun locks and included a fix 
to close the gunshow loophole. Why are they only willing to vote on 
this important legislation after the election?
  We have been denied--I don't want to say the Senator from Minnesota 
and I have been denied; the people of this country have been denied the 
right to have their Senators come on this floor and vote on these 
issues, denied because the majority leader won't bring it up. That is 
why they keep putting these conference committee bills together. They 
now want to put together the Commerce-State-Justice bill. I wanted to 
offer an amendment to restore funding to the Byrne grants for local law 
enforcement. The Byrne grant is $100 million short from last year's 
funding level. But I'm not allowed to do that because they want to skip 
the process and attach to another bill.
  The VA-HUD and Transportation--again, we haven't voted on VA and HUD. 
Do you want to know why? Because we want to do something about 
veterans' health benefits. They want to vote on that after the 
election, too. They don't want the veterans of this country to know 
exactly how they vote on veterans' health benefits, I say to my friend.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may interrupt my colleague, the Senator is 
absolutely right. This is just an extension of what has been going on. 
The Senate is an institution where we should have the debate, the 
deliberation. That is what this is about. By filing cloture on bills, 
by not allowing debate, by putting unrelated provisions into a 
conference report, the majority party has decided they will not allow 
debate. The logical extension of this is, let's get out of town; let's 
not be held accountable.
  Regarding veterans, the veterans organizations, many of them put 
together what they call an independent budget. Senator Johnson of South 
Dakota and I have had amendments where we get a 99-0 vote that we 
definitely want to add an additional $500 million because we know 
veterans have fallen between the cracks. Every time, in some conference 
committee or now in some omnibus appropriations bill, they never 
actually vote to put the appropriations into veterans' health care.
  I think the Senator is right. Whether it is veterans, farmers, people 
in the country caring about education--this is all the people.
  Mr. HARKIN. And child safety locks on guns.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Absolutely. And prescription drugs.
  So am I correct that the lame duck proposal basically adds up to 
this: What some Republicans seem to be suggesting is, let's get out of 
here; let's not have to vote on any of this; let's come back after the 
election and then we will vote?
  Mr. HARKIN. That's it. That's what they're saying. Speaker Hastert, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, at the beginning of this year 
promised we would have all of the appropriations bills to the President 
before the August recess. We are at the end of September and we have 
only 2 out of 13 through.
  I say to my friend from Minnesota, this is the first time--and I know 
how much he cares about education--this is the first time since 1965, 
when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that we have 
failed to reauthorize. Because of time? No, we had plenty of time. Look 
at the Chamber this morning. The Senator from Minnesota, the Senator 
from Iowa are here. We are doing nothing out here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Don't say that. We are speaking. Don't say that. We 
are speaking.
  Mr. HARKIN. What I am saying is we are not doing anything to get the 
bills through.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I'm kidding.
  Mr. HARKIN. I point out to my friend from Minnesota, in contrast, 
Senator Daschle from South Dakota, the Democrat leader, said:

       Let's take them up. Let's have a debate. Don't let anybody 
     say with a straight face or with any credibility that it's 
     the Democrats holding things up. Let's get to the bills. 
     Let's get them done. Let's offer the amendments and move it 
     along.

  We are ready to debate. We are ready to offer amendments. We are 
ready to move the process--but we are denied. And again I say, the 
people of this country are denied the opportunity to have us vote on 
these measures.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can say to my colleague, some of what I said--
everything I said I meant, and it is meant to challenge the majority 
party and the majority leader. But in a very serious way--the Senator 
mentioned education; it really breaks your heart, too, if you want to 
try to the best of your ability to represent people--on the Elementary 
and Secondary Act, between myself and staff, we were in 100 schools 
just meeting with people, getting their ideas about how we could best 
help them. We took all their ideas. Then we worked on amendments. I was 
so excited to come on the floor and have amendments representing what 
people said. The whole idea was to try to do good for people.
  You cannot represent the people in your State; you cannot do good for 
people; you cannot be a good Senator unless the Senate becomes the 
Senate again. I think it is just outrageous that

[[Page S8881]]

the majority party just does not want to have the discussion, does not 
want to have the debate, does not want to vote--apparently doesn't want 
to vote. I just think that is not the way the Senate should operate, 
and it makes it very difficult to do good for people.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, it seems to me what we are facing is 
that the majority party, in charge of the Senate, in charge of the 
House, they want to replace the tough votes we have to take around 
here, that we should be taking around here--they want to replace the 
tough votes with slick 30-second TV ads to try to get through this 
election. That is breaking down, I think, the people's respect for the 
Senate.
  How can you have respect for an institution when we don't get 
anything done around here? When we say the only time we want to take up 
the tough issues is after the election, when there will be people here 
voting on these issues who may have been defeated or maybe not running 
again, what kind of responsibility, I ask the Senator from Minnesota, 
is that? We are shirking our responsibility. I hear more and more 
people saying they are getting dismayed with how the Congress is 
operating. People ought to be dismayed with the way this place is 
running right now. We are shirking our responsibilities around here in 
this regard.
  As I said, I have been on this Appropriations Committee for 15 years. 
I have been in the Senate for 15 years. I say to my friend from 
Minnesota, this is the most do-nothing Congress, the most do-nothing 
Senate I have seen in 15 years. It is really sad.
  The Senator talked about visiting schools. I spent all my summer 
going around visiting elderly people in the State of Iowa and getting 
story after story about their costs of prescription drugs.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is not something they need help with 10 years from 
now. They need it now. That is why we need to bring that legislation 
out here and vote on prescription drugs, helping those people out. But 
we are precluded from doing so. I am hopeful perhaps--maybe we ought to 
start, I say to my friend from Minnesota, maybe we ought to start 
asking unanimous consent to bring some of these bills out here. Let's 
bring them up. Let's see if the majority party will object to bringing 
up the bills on prescription drugs, on the juvenile justice bill, on 
minimum wage, Patients' Bill of Rights, Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Let's spend the next 9 days or whatever we have working 
on some of this legislation.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa, that 
may very well be what we do. I hope this suggestion of a possible lame 
duck session is an idea that will last about 1 hour and that will be 
the end of it. And I hope our discussion on the floor will be part of 
putting an end to it. But I am pleased to join with my colleague. I am 
pleased to start asking unanimous consent to bring up this legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. We ought to think about some way. Thinking about ``lame 
duck,'' I don't know where that term ever came from. I have to look it 
up. I am sure there is some history around here about what a lame duck 
session means, where that name came from. But it seems to me that a 
lame duck is a sick duck by definition. We don't need a sick duck 
around here doing the people's business. We don't need a lame duck 
session around here to be taking these tough votes. We ought to be 
standing up and doing it right now, not waiting for a sick duck to do 
it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I think we will be back on the 
floor and we may very well be trying our level best to put these issues 
back on the floor. I will be proud to do it with my colleague from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________