[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 103 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7332-S7336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GREATER ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE PHARMACEUTICALS ACT OF 2001--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 17 minutes on the Republican side and 7
minutes on the Democrat's side.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me 8 minutes?
Mr. GRAMM. I would yield him 10 minutes. He deserves to be heard.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the budget point of
order that was raised by my colleague from Texas. I am a little
disappointed that the chairman of the Budget Committee didn't raise it.
It is the responsibility of the Budget Committee. I have had the
pleasure of serving with my colleague from Texas on the Budget
Committee. That is the reason why we have a Budget Committee and the
reason why we tried to pass a budget. We didn't pass a budget this year
for the first time since 1974. Shame on this Congress. Shame on this
Senate. Shame on, frankly, the leadership in this Senate for not
getting it done.
It is maybe the most fiscally irresponsible thing we have not done
and, as a result, there is no limit to how much money we can spend.
A budget point of order still lies on an amendment such as this, or
any amendment, until the end of September, so we are raising a budget
point of order for good reason. My colleague from Texas and the
sponsors of the amendment, say this is a $9 billion amendment. This
will increase Federal spending. You can come up with a list to show
that every State is going to benefit. I know my State is going to
benefit $93 million. I am sure my Governor would send me a letter
saying please vote for this; we need help. And they do.
I agree with my colleague and very good friend from Maine. A lot of
States are in very difficult times.
If you have an amendment on the floor that says here is $9 billion,
and cut it up, every State is going to benefit. You could have every
State Governor saying pass this amendment. What is wrong with it? Yes,
states are having a difficult time. The Federal Government is having a
difficult time, too. The Senator from Texas pointed out that the
Federal deficit is much larger than the States' deficits. The Federal
deficit, if you include Social Security, is $322 billion. Things may
have deteriorated for State revenues, but they have deteriorated
significantly for Federal revenues.
It is not just borrowing against Social Security. It is borrowing
against the American people. The American people are going to have to
borrow this $9 billion. They will have to pay interest on it. My
biggest concern is that it is not a $9 billion amendment. I know the
amendment is temporary. I know it is retroactive.
It is kind of interesting how we are going to spend retroactive
money. This goes back and says we are going to increase spending going
back to April of this year. And then presumably, we are going to do it
through this September, and then next year.
It is an amendment that is for about 1 \1/2\ years. My concern is it
won't be a year and a half. If you increase these formulas, States are
going to still be in difficult times next year. They are going to say:
Let's make this permanent. These formulas, in many respects, are good.
We don't want them to ever go down. We never want the States to get
less.
If it is temporary, and here is a 1.35 percent increase in Federal
match, what makes anybody think this won't be extended? This amendment
is a $100 billion amendment. If it is extended, I can tell you if we
pass this--and it may well be that my good friend from West Virginia
has the votes. The administration is very opposed to it, illustrated in
a letter from them that I have here. But if it becomes law, I have no
doubt whatsoever that a year from now colleagues will say: Let's make
this permanent. States are still in trouble. Governors will say: Let's
make this permanent. Let's just increase the Federal share. It is free.
It came from the Federal Government.
I just happen to disagree with that. If this is made permanent, we
are talking about spending $100 billion--$9 billion basically for the
first year--$100 billion. We are just going to do that? Next year we
may not be able to make a budget point of order if we don't figure out
some way to get fiscal discipline. We are just going to pass $100
billion, and have colleagues stand up and say: I can't believe these
deficits are so high.
This amendment increases the Federal share. It increases FMAP. Times
are tough, and we are going to increase the Federal share on Medicare.
Wait a minute. Times were good in the last several years when we had
the largest surplus in the country. Did we see an increase in the
Federal share when States were doing very well?
We have never said this should be based on the economy or on States'
ability to pay. The formula for the FMAP is based on the States' income
relative to the Federal income. The States' income was much higher than
the norm with Federal income. They
[[Page S7333]]
paid a greater percentage, or they weren't subsidized to get as much.
Another way to say this is that the poorer States were being subsidized
more.
This just kind of inverts and says the States that had the
significant growth last year are going to get the biggest benefit out
of this proposal.
It doesn't do anything to fix some of the biggest fraud that is being
perpetrated in this system right now--the upper payment limit. I wish
my colleagues new something about it. Maybe some do. Maybe former
Governors do. But there is a fraud, an accounting scheme and scam that
is going on today called upper payment limit. It is being done by about
30 States that are ripping off the Medicaid Program and the Federal
Government that is having difficulty. They devised a clever little
gimmick to have the Federal Government--not pay 50 percent, not pay 60
percent, not pay 70 percent--pay 100 percent of Medicaid costs.
Are we fixing that? No. If we are going to deal with Medicaid, I tell
my colleague from West Virginia and others that we are going to deal
with the upper payment limit.
It is sickening to me to think we are telling people we are going to
hold private America to a strict accountability standard; we are going
to have you sign truth-in-accounting statements, fiscal statements and
financial statements; and, we have Governors who are ripping off the
taxpayers of this country with an upper payment scheme and scam to
where they get the Federal Government to pay 100 percent of their
Medicaid costs.
It is happening in State, after State, after State, after State.
Have we fixed that? No. Should we fix it? Yes. Let us deal with that.
If we are going to get into Medicaid reimbursements, let us wrestle
with that. Have we had a markup in the Finance Committee? No. Have we
requested it? Yes. Did we mark up this FMAP proposal? No.
Some said: We will deal with the upper payment limits. This didn't go
through the Finance Committee. Maybe it is just a continual stream.
Maybe the Finance Committee, which used to be an important committee,
doesn't matter whatsoever. Maybe we don't need hearings anymore. Maybe
we don't need markups in committee. Maybe we will do everything on the
floor of the Senate.
I disagree with that. I disagree with the abuse that is being put on
some States by the upper payment limit; and, then to come up with this
amendment and say let us increase the Federal share on Medicaid--a
Federal-State program--and have the Federal Government take more and
more of the program. It used to be a Federal-State combination. Now
there is this idea to let us make the Federal Government pay more.
If you are going to do a 1.35 percent increase, why not make it all
Federal? Make it 70 percent in every State, or make it 80 percent.
There has to be some kind of limit. The Federal Government happens to
have deficit problems, too.
Just to increase this entitlement and really kind of turn the formula
upside down--this goes all the way back to the creation of Medicaid, a
successful program to help low-income States; a program designed to
benefit the poorer States, to assist them. Medicaid is a good program,
but this amendment says, well, we want the Federal Government to make
up more, and when some States are abusing it, we don't stop that abuse.
We are just going to have the Federal Government pick up more. We can
hand out cards. Your State is going to get so many billion dollars.
We'll just borrow some Federal money.
The Senator from Texas said it is Social Security money. It is Social
Security, plus we are going into debt $165 billion.
We will borrow every penny that we are talking about. We will pay
interest on that debt and write a check for that interest. It is not
just an accounting gimmick. It is not just crediting some fictitious
trust fund. We will write a check for every dime that is spent in this
program.
I question the wisdom of doing that. The administration is opposed.
I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, dated
July 18 that says:
The Administration is opposed to this amendment. A
temporary change in the FMAP rate would be an unprecedented
disruption of the longstanding shared fiscal responsibility
for the Medicaid program. FMAP rates are not designed to
change according to short-term economic developments. Such
cyclical movements are contrary to the intent of the Medicaid
statute, and in the long term, would serve the interest of
neither the States nor the Federal Government.
I believe that is exactly right.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2002.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Minority Leader Lott: We understand that Senators Jay
Rockefeller, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, and Gordon Smith will
offer an amendment to S. 812, the ``Greater Access to
Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act.'' The amendment would provide
temporary increases in the Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) under the Medicaid program under Title XIX
of the Social Security Act. It would also provide grants to
States through Title XX to be used for a variety of social
services programs.
The Administration is opposed to this amendment. A
temporary change in the FMAP rate would be an unprecedented
disruption of the longstanding shared fiscal responsibility
for the Medicaid program. FMAP rates are not designed to
change according to short-term economic developments.
Although FMAPs are based on State per capita income levels
and other economic indicators, they have not typically risen
and fallen with short-term economic trends. If State logic
suggests raising FMAPs now, then it would also imply lowering
them in times of economic boom. If we had followed such a
course, after nine years of economic recovery, current FMAP
rates would be much lower than they are today. Such cyclical
movements are contrary to the intent of the Medicaid statute,
and in the long term, would serve the interest of neither the
State nor the Federal government.
An FMAP increase is unlikely to increase health insurance
coverage. Instead of using increased funds to provide more
health services, States would likely use the increase in
Federal dollars to lower their spending on health care.
Increasing the FMAP would not lead to more coverage; it
simply shifts additional health care costs onto the Federal
government.
The President has introduced a nunber of initiatives to
help alleviate State fiscal pressures and to increase access
to health care coverage for millions of uninsured Americans,
including:
$89 billion over 10 years for health credits for the
uninsured;
A Medicaid drug rebate proposal that would save States
billions of dollars over the next ten years;
A proposal to provide Federal funding for prescription drug
coverage to low-income seniors prior to implementation of
comprehensive improvements in Medicare. Such a proposal has
already passed the House and would provide quick fiscal
relief to States, which have had to take responsibility for
prescription drug coverage in the absence of Senate action;
Medicaid coverage for families transitioning from welfare
to work through FY 2003;
A proposal to make available State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds that under current law would
return to the Treasury at the end of FY 2002 and 2003; and
The Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability
Demonstration Initiative that gives States more flexibility
using Medicaid and SCHIP funds to expand health insurance
coverage to low-income Americans.
All of these proposals would provide both temporary and
long-term fiscal relief for States, which is the right policy
response given that State' health care obligations are
expected to continue to increase rapidly. In addition, these
proposals would help provide more secure and affordable
health care assistance for low-income Americans right away.
These are far more effective approaches than an increase in
the FMAP.
The Administration also opposes the temporary increase in
funding for the Social Service Block Grant under Title XX of
the Social Security Act. We believe that States already have
sufficient access to other Federal block grant funds to
supplement the Social Services Block Grant and other social
services-related programs.
We understand that some States continue to have financial
difficulties and that Medicaid constitutes a large share of
State spending. However, we do not feel that this temporary
increase in FMAP is an effective or proper way to address
these final difficulties. We will continue to work with the
Senate to implement effective approaches of providing relief
to states while improving health care coverage and
affordability.
[[Page S7334]]
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection to the submission of this report from the
standpoint of the President's program.
Sincerely,
Tommy G. Thompson.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Seven minutes remain on both sides.
Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from West
Virginia if I might have 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator
Rockefeller.
Back in the early nineties when I tried to balance our budget as
Governor and had a difficult time doing it, the Federal Government
reduced its share and increased ours.
Today, the Federal Government is not having the same difficulty the
State of Nebraska is having in terms of revenue. For only the second
time in history, Nebraska's revenues are less this year than they were
last year.
If we are trying to talk about who is going to do what during
difficult times and how this partnership is going to work, I think it
is a little inconsistent to say the Federal Government doesn't reduce
its share. It does. If it reduces it, it can increase it; and it does
in the ordinary course of events.
What we are saying is, this is an unusual set of events--not a
temporary downturn, although we think it is but it is an unusual set of
events where the Federal Government continues to have growing income
and the States are having a reduction in their income.
It is a recognition that this partnership, which was created by the
Federal Government with the States, is one that needs to work as a
partnership where the two partners can work together to make this
program work. That is what it is.
Certainly, I am not suggesting the Federal Government take over the
entire partnership, take it over as a stand-alone program at the
Federal Government level. But I think it is interesting to say that
somehow the Federal Government's share should not increase when, in
fact, from time to time it has increased, as well as from time to time
it has decreased.
I think it is important to recognize that the program is about
people. It is not about giving money to the States, it is about
recognizing the importance of the program to the people--the faces of
people who are elderly, working parents, usually single parents who are
struggling to get out of the welfare system, who currently have
transitional benefits in Medicaid, who could in fact lose those
benefits and lose their capacity to be able to work.
It seems to me we have to be able to look beyond what is being
suggested here.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining for the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes, and there are 7
minutes for the other side.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I failed to hear the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining for the Senator
from West Virginia and 7 minutes remaining for the Senator from Texas.
And the Chair understands that the final 5 minutes to close belong to
the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Presiding Officer, I am not going to
use all my time at the present time. I will just make a couple very
quick points.
The Senator from Oklahoma--it is very important my colleagues and
their staffs, who may be listening to this debate, understand this--
used two arguments, and only two arguments.
One, he said, we may extend this. In other words, that is a classic
argument. If you do not want to do something, you say, we may extend
this. That is why, just like when the tax cut was written into law, it
will not be extended. We have written into law that will not be
extended.
The Senator from Oklahoma is saying we do not want it extended
because he does not want this to happen. And I understand that. It is a
good debating technique. But it isn't going to be extended. It is
temporary. It is a year and a half for a very specific reason.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will when I am finished.
Mr. NICKLES. It is a very friendly question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The other is the upper payment limit, which in fact
is understood by some of us. And I do not know whether the Senator is
aware that the Bush administration, which writes a letter against
this--which maybe is not surprising, I don't know, but it is
disappointing--has already promulgated a new regulation, which took
effect in April, which solves most of the problem about which the
Senator is talking. The problem he is taking about is real, but it has
no place in this debate. First, the administration has moved to solve
it. Secondly, it has no part in this debate.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 14 seconds
remaining.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a very brief question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. On my time.
Is the Senator saying that should his amendment become law, there
will not be a request to extend this next year?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, I think there probably will not be, No. 1. And,
No. 2, I would probably oppose that because this is an emergency
measure. That is what the Senator understood right after September 11.
That is why it was in the emergency package. It is an emergency
measure, not a permanent measure. It is a way of helping people.
It is interesting, the Senator from Texas talked about the budget
deficit. He never talked about people. This is about 40 million people
who are suffering.
Mr. NICKLES. Do I have the commitment of my colleague to oppose an
extension of this next year?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have no instinct to extend this program because
the States----
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am going to yield time--3 minutes--to the Senator
from Massachusetts, if he can arrive at his distinguished point of
oratory.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Of course.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from West Virginia needs
a little more time.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask the Senator, approximately how much time do you need
on your side?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Four minutes.
Mr. REID. So 5 minutes on each side. Is that OK with the Senator from
Oklahoma, an additional 5 minutes on each side?
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Senator from West
Virginia be given 5 additional minutes and the Senator from Texas 5
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I thank our friend from West
Virginia for his excellent presentation and strong support.
I welcome the opportunity to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I
know there has been a good deal of debate and discussion about the
technicalities of this amendment, but what we are really talking about
are real people being hurt in the most egregious way if we fail to
respond.
We know that our States are facing economic challenges, and those
economic exigencies have required cutbacks in some of the very
important programs that reach out to the neediest people in these
States.
We are talking about real people who are being hurt. Pregnant women
in
[[Page S7335]]
Florida will lose their current Medicaid coverage if their income just
happens to fall between 150 and 185 percent of poverty.
A North Carolina family of four, with a child suffering from juvenile
diabetes, could see their drug coverage shrink, potentially limiting
their access to vital medicines.
Some 45,000 children could be cut from the Medicaid rolls in New
Mexico because of the proposed cuts to deal with the $47 million
shortfall.
Some 50,000 children, pregnant women, disabled, and elderly could
lose their Medicaid coverage in Oklahoma because of the $21 million
shortfall.
It may be expressed in dollars, but it is really being expressed in
real people's lives: real suffering, real sacrifice, and real pain.
We have a chance to do something about that. This can be an
expression of our values as a society and our concern about our fellow
human beings. These are the neediest of the needy in our society, and
this amendment will help them.
I commend the Senator for bringing this matter to the attention of
the Senate. I am very hopeful it will be accepted and that the point of
order will be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2
minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. President, I just want to make a couple points.
First of all, an increase in the Federal match under Medicaid was
part of the Centrist Coalition's economic recovery package we
considered. It was part of virtually every version. It had widespread
support. It was supported by the administration. It did not make it
into the final package. But this is not a new idea. This is an idea
with widespread bipartisan support.
The second point I want to make is in response to an argument made by
my friend and colleague from Oklahoma. My friend from Oklahoma said
Medicaid spending does not get cut in economically good times. In fact,
it is countercyclical. In good times, far fewer people qualify for
Medicaid. In fact, Federal and State spending on Medicaid declined
dramatically during the 1990s, when the economic times were good.
So there is a countercyclical aspect of Medicaid. It does go down
when times are good and the program is less needed.
Now times are not good. There are more people in need of assistance
from the Medicaid Program. We know 40 million Americans rely on this
program.
What we are trying to do is preserve this essential, vital health
care program that provides services and care to the most vulnerable and
needy in our society. That is the motivation behind our proposal. It is
not to bail out the States, it is to help the States, our partners,
provide essential services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of this debate. I
would like to make note of how deficits occur.
If anybody wants to understand why the Federal Government, which is
the summation of all of the taxpayers in the country, owes trillions of
dollars, this is a classic example of how that comes about. We are
talking about spending $9 billion. There are 140 million taxpayers.
That is $64 per taxpayer.
The problem is, taxpayers are at work. It is 11:30 on a Thursday.
They don't know this debate is occurring. But all the special interest
groups that want this $9 million, members of the State legislatures who
ran for office to make decisions in the States, all the people who want
this money are looking over their Senator's right shoulder trying to
tell them that they ought to care about people on Medicaid or about the
State legislature or about the State's deficit.
That would be insignificant if the 140 million taxpayers were looking
over the left shoulder. The problem is, it is 11:31 on a Thursday
morning and all those 140 million taxpayers are at work. They don't
even know this debate is occurring. So as a result, what tends to
happen over and over and over again is that spending interests
dominate.
Our colleagues tell us: States have difficulty. I remind my
colleagues, the Federal Government has difficulty. A year ago we had a
$283 billion surplus. We were spending madly. Today we have a $165
billion deficit, and we are still spending like drunken sailors, as
Ronald Reagan would say. Only drunken sailors are spending their own
money, and in all fairness, we are spending somebody else's money.
We hear that the States in total could run as much as a $40 billion
deficit this year. I certainly am unhappy about it. My State faces
tough decisions. But we are running a $165 billion deficit. We are
running a deficit over four times as big as all the States combined.
Our colleagues say: This fits an emergency. This is unforeseen,
unpredicted, unanticipated. Well, it is created by a formula that has
only existed for 37 years. So for 37 years we have known what the
formula was. What is unanticipated, what is unpredicted about this?
Finally, as if the argument to waive this budget point of order and
bar this $9 billion and take it away from Social Security could be any
weaker, the argument basically comes down to: There are some States
that in the last few years have been doing better than other States,
better than the country as a whole, and unless we give them more money
now, they may be adversely affected by the formula.
The way the formula works is, the higher the State's income relative
to national income, the more of the Medicare share they pay. Should it
be the other way around? Should poorer States pay a higher share?
There is not one substantive argument in favor of borrowing this $9
billion. If the American people knew this debate was occurring at 11:35
this morning, if all 120 million taxpayers were following this debate,
this amendment would never have been offered and probably would not
have gotten 20 votes.
The problem is, those 120 million taxpayers are at work, and all the
people who want this money are looking over their Senator's right
shoulder, sending letters back home, telling people whether he cares
about State finances or she cares about Medicaid beneficiaries.
That is the dilemma we are in. I urge my colleagues to look at the
fact that in 12 short months, we have gone from $283 billion in the
black to $165 billion in the red. When does it stop? We are broke, and
we don't act like it. When do we stop spending this money that we do
not have?
I urge my colleagues to sustain this budget point of order. I urge
everybody who has ever lamented the spending of the Social Security
surplus to put their vote where their mouth is. I urge everyone who has
ever lamented the deficit, who has ever gone back to their State and
said, I am for fiscal responsibility, to put your vote where your mouth
is. I want to urge everybody who has ever said, we can't let working
people keep more of what they earn because we have a deficit, we need
the money, we can't afford it; I urge them to vote against this
spending.
I don't know how you can have any possibility of being consistent in
taking the position that we ought to borrow this money. This is totally
unjustified. I know some people want it. If you spend $9 billion, you
are going to benefit somebody even if by mistake. I am not in any way
denigrating that this $9 billion will help people. I am not saying it
won't. But the point is, we have a budget process. We have seen the
surplus go from $283 billion in the black to $165 billion in the red.
Let us stop that process here.
I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the budget point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 30 seconds or such time as he might need to
the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
Appointment of Conferees
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry I was not here when the unanimous
[[Page S7336]]
consent agreement was entered assigning conferees to the antiterrorism
legislation. It is very important legislation. It is going to help all
over the country.
I compliment and applaud Senator Lott and others who allowed us to go
forward. It is an important day. Construction will be able to go
forward as soon as we complete this conference in Nevada, Delaware, all
over the country. It is important legislation. I compliment and applaud
the Republican leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me make a couple comments.
No. 1, my friend from Texas speaks with enormous passion about the
overriding power of the budget, and at the very last moment of his last
statement, for the first time he used the word ``people.'' I sat in the
same Finance Committee with him for a long time when we were debating
tax cuts--and I am not here to argue whether it was a good or bad
thing, but there was no question that we went from a $5.6 trillion
surplus to a $165 billion annual deficit probably for the next 10
years, if nothing gets worse--and I never heard him make the argument--
for some reason, maybe I missed it, maybe I wasn't there at the
moment--that we shouldn't do that tax cut which was the largest tax cut
that this particular Senator from West Virginia, who does not need it,
has ever received from the Federal Government--I never heard him talk
about the possibility of budget deficits.
So it does become a matter of priorities. It is fair, as the Senators
from Nebraska, Massachusetts, and Maine have mentioned, to talk about
40 million people. And to say we are doing this to bail out the States,
good grief, it is quite the opposite. The States are not powerful in
the same sense that the Federal Government is. The States cannot go
into deficit financing--with the exception of Vermont--as can the
Federal Government. They have to balance their budgets.
I was a Governor; I know that. The Senator from Nebraska was a
Governor; he knows that. The States are not being bailed out. If the
States cut their Medicaid eligibility, they cannot receive any of this
money, unless they restore their portion through legislative action to
the proper eligibility rate and, only then, on a temporary basis, for 1
and a half years, written into law, do they get this money.
I want to close on the concept of people. Sometimes it appears to me
on this floor that helping people is sort of a bad thing to do because
if you help people, it implies that it might cost some money. It almost
always does. It also costs an awful lot more money if you don't, on
some occasions. This is one of those occasions. If we do not support
the motion to waive, then health infrastructure all across this country
is going to be hurt because of its dependency upon Medicaid. Forty
million people are going to be hurt, including disabled people,
children, seniors, and others, because of this motion.
I need to tell you that this is not a bailout. This is temporary.
This was in the original emergency stimulus package. Nobody argued
then. Now, all of a sudden, they argue. It is very important for the
States to be healthy and for the States to be able to balance their
budgets, and therefore I strongly urge colleagues to support the motion
to waive the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRAMM. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 51 seconds
remaining.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, anybody who has not heard me talk about the
deficit has not been listening in the last days, weeks, and years.
Secondly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the
accounting of the Office of Management and Budget on where this deficit
has come from. We have gone from $283 billion in the black to $165
billion in the red, and only 9 percent of that change had anything to
do with the tax cut.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
CHANGE IN SURPLUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2002 FY2003 FY2002-FY2011
--------------------------------------------------------
Billions Percent Billions Percent Billions Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total surplus (OMB February 2001)...................... $283 ....... $334 ....... $5,637 .......
========================================================
Economic and technical changes......................... 278 64 194 49 1,669 43
Bush tax cut........................................... 41 9 94 24 1,491 38
Appropriations......................................... 45 10 40 10 409 10
Farm bill.............................................. 2 0 13 3 81 2
Stimulus............................................... 59 14 39 10 42 1
Other.................................................. 9 2 15 4 228 6
--------------------------------------------------------
Total change in surplus.......................... 434 100 395 100 3,920 100
========================================================
Total deficit/surplus (OMB July 2002)............ 150 ....... (62) ....... 1,718 .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO; provided by Senator Don Nickles, 7/16/02.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying that we have come
down to a decision about whether or not we are going to borrow $9
billion, which we don't have. Given the state of the American economy
and budget, given that our deficit is four times as big as the
cumulative deficit of the States, I urge my colleagues not to bust the
budget, not to waive this budget point of order, but instead to be
fiscally responsible.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have
been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:
(Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.)
YEAS--75
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--24
Bond
Brownback
Carnahan
Carper
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Feingold
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--1
Helms
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 75, the nays are 24.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________