[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 120 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9565-S9566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AN ATTACK ANSWERED
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, when I was elected to the House of
Representatives back in 1992, I spent 2 years serving in the minority--
2 years; in 1993 and 1994--before the Republican victories in the 1994
elections brought about the first Republican majority in the House of
Representatives in 40 years.
Having now been on the majority side for 5\1/2\ years, I am very
appreciative of the 2 years I served in the minority. Having had the
experience of knowing what it is to be in the minority, to have the
agenda set by the majority side, to have the frustration of having vote
after vote in which you come up on the short end, is important. I think
it helps me in understanding the frustrations the other side has
experienced. It also helps me understand now, being in the majority,
how hard it is to lead and to govern.
I remember in those first 2 years, we were pretty organized in
lobbing criticisms and lobbing objections and in presenting our agenda
to the American people. We didn't have to worry about legislating. We
didn't have to worry about passing anything. We didn't have the votes
to do that. But we could do a lot in framing the debate.
As we approach the end of this session, it is much easier to
criticize in the minority than to govern in the majority. It is easy to
say no; it is easy to find even the slightest flaw with a legislative
proposal as a rationale for opposing it and blocking it. When you are
in the majority, the job of calling up tough bills, debating the very
tough issues, taking the very tough votes, that is what governing is
about.
That is why I have come to the floor this afternoon. I believe an
attack unanswered is an attack assumed.
Last week, Senator Byrd, for whom I have the greatest admiration,
came to the floor and noted that few Members in this body have ever
witnessed how the Senate is really supposed to function. I concur with
that; I agree entirely. I believe it takes a commitment, a commitment
from both sides of the aisle to complete our appropriations obligations
in a timely fashion and to ensure the Senate is governing and
functioning the way it is supposed to.
The fact is, there are a number of Senators who don't seem to want
bills signed into law but who want issues. Why? Because it is easier to
demagogue an issue than it is to legislate an issue. So who gets left
holding the buck? Who gets the blame if legislation, for any reason,
does not pass? It is clearly the majority in the Congress who will get
blamed if the Government shuts down, as we have already found out. It
is those who are in the majority in Congress, clearly, who get the
blame.
In terms of another Government shutdown, I assure the American people
and my colleagues that despite any dispute over issues pending, the
Government will not shut down if we have anything to say about it or
anything to do about it, if it can be prevented in any way. Social
Security checks will be delivered, health care services under Medicare
will be funded, and our Nation's veterans will not be left out in the
cold.
That being said, we still have 11 appropriations bills unsigned and
multiple unrelated issues on the table. The education of our kids,
prescription drugs, and a Patients' Bill of Rights are all there, still
on the table. Since these unrelated issues seem to get tossed around a
great deal, let me talk about them plainly for a few minutes and why
the minority continues to insist on their passage by holding up our
Nation's spending bills.
First of all, in the area of education, the other side maintains that
we are not having a debate on education in the 106th Congress. I
suggest that the other side of the aisle doesn't really want a bill;
they want an issue. They say that unless we vote for their few
education proposals, which, by the way, would concentrate even more
power in the Department of Education, we are not having a debate on
education. I think that is not fair, and it is not accurate.
During the 106th Congress, we have already voted six times on the
class size reduction initiative. Six times we have all been called upon
to cast our vote, to go on the record, even though that has been
misconstrued and misrepresented to the American people. We have been
willing to debate it. We have been willing to cast votes a half dozen
times during this Congress alone.
As my distinguished colleague from Alabama pointed out, the
Department of Education has failed to pass an audit for 3 years in a
row. They can't even account for how the money is being spent
currently. So it is not unreasonable that many of us have reservations
in giving them more power and more authority in the area of school
construction and the hiring of 100,000 new teachers.
According to the Congressional Daily Monitor, a press conference was
held recently with Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Education
Secretary Dick Riley, ``demanding that Republicans accept their
positions.'' So after voting six times against the class size reduction
initiative in the Senate, you would think the attitude would not be
their way is the only way. Our side of the aisle has been more than
accommodating in providing funding that was reserved for class size
reduction. In the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS appropriations bill,
Republicans have appropriated the $1.3 billion for class size reduction
in the title VI State grant so that schools who want to use the funding
for this initiative are able to do so. But schools that have already
achieved the goal of class size reduction or have more pressing
problems can use the funding for other priority items such as
professional development or new textbooks.
[[Page S9566]]
One would think that is a reasonable, acceptable compromise, a middle
ground. But instead, we hear the other side saying: It is our way or no
way. We are going to block the appropriations bills unless you do it
exactly the way we want it. They contend, again, unless we are voting
for class size reduction, we are avoiding the issue of education, even
though we have already voted on class size reduction six times in this
Congress.
The Democrats considered bringing this issue up again in the HELP
Committee just last week as an amendment to a bipartisan bill to fully
fund the IDEA program. If a debate on education is what the other side
really wants, then why did they object to multiple unanimous consent
requests on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act to keep the debate on education?
The ESEA debate was moving along very well on the Senate floor. There
was a consensus that only a few amendments should be offered and they
should be germane. They should relate to education. But then on the
other side of the aisle there were those who objected to those
agreements to keep the debate limited to education. I know that I and
my colleagues on this side of aisle would be more than willing to
return to S. 2, the reauthorization of this critical elementary and
secondary education bill, to debate education, if we would simply have
that agreement to limit the amendments not to everything under the sun,
not to prescription drugs and a Patients' Bill of Rights and minimum
wage and everything else, but to limit that debate to education.
I am not going to allow Members on the other side of the aisle to
have it both ways. You claim that we are not dealing with education and
then object to agreements to keep education debates on education bills.
I suggest you are looking for an issue, not the passage of legislation.
Then on the issue of prescription drugs, my distinguished colleague
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, last week--I had the opportunity to
preside as he made this speech, but I want to quote him--said:
On the other side, they make a proposal which sounds good
but just will not work. Under Governor Bush's proposal on
prescription drugs, he asserts for 4 years we will let the
States handle it. There are fewer than 20 States that have
any drug benefits. Illinois is one of them, I might say. His
home State of Texas has none. But he says let the States
handle it for 4 years. Let them work it out. In my home State
of Illinois, I am glad we have it, but it certainly is not a
system that one would recommend for the country. Our system
of helping to pay for prescription drugs for seniors applies
to certain illnesses and certain drugs. If you happen to be
an unfortunate person without that kind of coverage and
protection, you are on your own.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I know Senator McCain is waiting. I appreciate very
much his graciousness.
The fact is, while Senator Durbin made that comment, every State does
have a Medicaid program that offers prescription drugs today. In
addition, they have State employee drug programs already in existence.
These programs are separate from the State pharmaceutical assistance
programs, of which 25 currently exist. So Senator Durbin's argument is
unfair and unjustified because the money given to the States is not
required to be used to only start a new pharmaceutical assistance
program.
They can be used to expand the existing Medicaid drug programs. So
Governor Bush's helping hand drug plan provides greater assistance to
low-income seniors, and provides it now, while Vice President Gore's
plan requires an 8-year phase-in for those drug benefits. So I suggest
that we are getting a lot of demagogy.
The Patients' Bill of Rights is the final issue I wanted to talk
about, but I will reserve that for another time. I will say this, and
say it clearly: We have an active conference that has been working, and
working hard. We had numerous votes on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We
had endless amendments in the committee on the Patients' Bill of
Rights. To suggest this isn't a deliberative body, as the Democratic
leader suggested last week, is unfair. This issue has been debated, and
debated thoroughly. It is the Democrats who stifled the debate by
walking out on the conference in the spring. We can still have a
Patients' Bill of Rights enacted if we have cooperation. There are two
sides to every story, and both should be told. Let's not allow two
competing agendas to prevent us from getting our work done on the
spending bills. They are too important.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________