[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20219-20220]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 20220]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________