THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
But in making those projections, CBO assumes that total discretionary spending will remain under the caps we agreed to in 1997, and that after 2002,
[Page: S3418] GPO's PDF
Mr. President, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, these assumptions mean that discretionary spending over the next 10 years will be $580 billion below current levels in real terms.
Put another way, if we simply held discretionary spending at a level which reflects current services, and adjusted only for inflation, nearly three-quarters of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years will vanish.
Mr. President, some will argue Congress and the White House will hold to the spending caps, and will cut the amount of spending necessary to produce the projected surpluses.
Let me suggest that given the omnibus appropriations bill of last fall, the military pay increase bill of last month, and the desire of so many to focus on the surpluses we hope for, those assumptions about limiting our spending appear to be extremely fragile.
Beyond our ability to live up to the spending and tax assumptions that produce the projected surpluses, we know that projections can change quickly.
Just since last August, the CBO projections for unified budget surpluses over the next 10 years have increased by about $1 trillion--a change that is itself larger than the non-Social Security surplus over that same period.
Estimates that can grow by $1 trillion in a few months can shrink by the same amount just as quickly.
Altogether, Mr. President, the projected surpluses are far from a sure thing, and we should not be writing budgets that commit us to spending and taxing policies that are so utterly dependent on them.
AMENDMENT NO. 211
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues about some of my thoughts about Amendment 211 that was authored by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator SANTORUM. This Amendment to S. Con. Res. 20, was accepted by the Senate by unanimous consent.
Mr. President, I know that I am not alone in stating that many of us in the Senate believe that, first and foremost, we believe that the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. If full repeal is not possible at this time, there are meaningful steps we should take in the meantime to get us to that end.
Mr. President, we must allow widespread use of ``helpers'' on federal construction projects. Considering our nation's changing welfare-to-work environment and with the importance of revitalizing disadvantaged communities, it is particularly critical that the government not limit opportunities for entry-level jobs.
Congress should exempt schools from the outdated rules and restrictions and give local school districts the flexibility to spend resources where they will most effectively meet students' educational needs.
The Davis-Bacon wage process has been shown to b e inaccurate, subject to bias, and
used as a tool to defraud taxpayers. In March 1997, a DOL Inspector General's
report confirmed that 2/3 of the wage surveys were inaccurate. In January 1999, a General Accounting
Office report found errors in 70% of the wage forms, and confirmed frequen t errors go undetected and the high
proportion of erroneous data ``poses a threat to the reliability'' of prevailing
wage determinations.
&nbs
VETERANS HEALTH CARE
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I was pleased that I was able to join with my colleague Mr. WELLSTONE from Minnesota in passing an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 budget resolution to increase funding for veterans health care. This amendment will help correct a serious injustice to our nation's veterans that I believe demands urgent attention by Congress and the Clinton Administration.
This will be the fourth consecutive year, that the Clinton Administration has proposed a flat-line appropriation for veterans' health care in its FY 2000 budget request. The VA's budget includes a $17.3 billion appropriation request for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Although, the Clinton Administration's request includes allowing the VA to collect approximately $749 million from third-party insurers--$124 million more than in FY 1999, this cap on medical spending places a greater strain on the quality of patient care currently provided in our nation's VA facility, especially when meeting the needs and high health costs of our rapidly aging World War II population.
In a memo to VA Secretary Togo West, Under Secretary for Health Dr. Kenneth Kizer expressed concern that the Administration's FY 2000 requested budget ``poses very serious financial challenges which can only be met if decisive and timely actions are taken.'' He indicates that cuts must be made now to preclude even deeper cuts such as ``mandatory employee furloughs, severe curtailment of services or elimination of programs, and possible unnecessary facility closures.'' Dr. Kizer also states that ``..... changes are absolutely essential if we are to prepare ourselves for the limitations inherent in the proposed FY 2000 budget.''
I have met with several representatives of South Dakota's veterans' organizations who have expressed their justifiable fears and frustrations that the VA's flat-lined health care budget is causing mandatory reductions in outpatient and inpatient care and VA staff levels. Since 1992, over 150 full-time employees at the Ft. Meade VA facility have been cut do to insufficient budgets. There are legitimate fears in South Dakota that inpatient care will be eliminated from one of our VA facilities if an immediate solution is not found to augment the VA's budget.
Peter Henry, Director of the Ft. Meade/Hot Springs VA facilities has been raiding from other budgets and has been forced to close other services in order to provide health care for veterans in western South Dakota. If the FY 2000 VA budget is not increased, Dr. Henry will soon be forced to reduce inpatient care and could result in possible denial of certain category veterans.
South Dakota's veterans are tired of hearing what the VA cannot do for them. It is time for Congress and the VA to tell veterans ``Yes, we can and will help you.''
Many of South Dakota's 70,000 veterans contend that four years of flat-lined budgets for VA health care has left the system in danger of losing as many as 8,000 employees nationwide, eliminating health care programs and possibly closing VA facilities like the one in Sioux Falls. I have heard from people like Harry VandeMore, a Korean war veteran, who said, ``There was plenty of money to send me to Korea. There was plenty of money for hand grenades, plenty of money for rifle shells. I guess the government would like to throw me out in the weeds. I don't know where I would go for health care [without the VA]. The days of the hospital here in Sioux Falls are numbered if this keeps up.''
Gene Murphy, a former national commander of the Disabled American Veterans and now state adjutant for the South Dakota DAV, feels that ``. . . our government is always happy to send us off to war, but apparently they're not so happy to take care of us when we come back.''
Since I began my service in Congress over twelve years ago, I have held countless meetings, marched in small town Memorial Day parades, and participated in Veterans Day tributes with South Dakota's veterans. As the years go on their concerns remain the same. To ensure that Congress provides the VA with adequate funding to meet the health care needs for all veterans. Without additional funding South Dakota VA facilities will continue to face staff reductions, cutbacks in programs, and possible closing of facilities.
Too often, I have received letters from veterans who must wait up to three months to see a doctor. For many veterans who do not have any other form of health insurance, the VA is the only place they can go to receive medical attention. They were promised medical care when they completed their service and now many veterans are having to jump through hoops just to see a doctor.
Our nation's veterans groups have worked extensively on crafting a sensible budget that will allow the VA to
[Page: S3419] GPO's PDF
The remaining $1.7 billion is needed to keep up with medical inflation, COLAs for VA employees, new medical initiatives that the VA wants to begin (Hepatitis C screenings, emergency care services), long term health care costs, funding for homeless veterans, and treating 54,000 new patients in 89 outpatient clinics.
Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee I was encouraged that an additional $1 billion was added for veterans health care. Although this will help relieve some of the VA's budgetary constraints, I believe that more needs to be done. The veterans community has requested that VA health care needs to be augmented by $3 billion to ensure the provision of accessible and high quality services to veterans. That is why I offered an amendment during the Budget Committee mark up of the budget resolution that would have raised VA health care by an additional $2 billion. The nation's top veterans groups (AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America) voiced their strong support for my amendment in a letter that I shared with members of the Committee. Unfortunately, my amendment failed 11-11.
Therefore, I along with Senator WELLSTONE offered an amendment that once again increased veterans health care by $2 billion. I was pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment by a vote of 99-0. The future of health care for veterans at the Sioux Falls, Hot Springs, and Ft. Meade VA facilities and in VA hospitals across the country will be sustained by this $3 billion total increase for veterans health care. The VA must be provided with every resource to provide quality care for all eligible veterans who walk into a VA facility.
Mr. President, I feel that our VA facilities are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse if we continue to remain idle on this issue. In 1972, the Sioux Falls VA medical facility contained 269 beds for inpatient care. Today, they are down to 44 beds. This is a facility that saw 75,000 people walk through their doors last year. Some veterans have told me that when they go to the VA they see more janitors than nurses. This is unacceptable. If we want to provide care for all eligible veterans who walk into a VA facility Congress needs to act now.
The funding required for this amendment represents a minute fraction of the total federal budget that we are debating here today. However, the funding we set aside to improve accessibility and quality of care within our veterans health care system will provide a tremendous boost for an already stretched and fractured VA medical system.
As we enter the twilight of the Twentieth Century, we can look back at the immense multitude of achievements that led to the ascension of the United States of America as the preeminent nation in modern history. We owe this title as world's greatest superpower in large part to the twenty-five million men and women who served in our armed services and who defended the principles and ideals of our nation.
From the battlefields of Lexington and Concord, to the beaches of Normandy, and to the deserts of the Persian Gulf, our nation's history is replete with men and women who, during the savagery of battle, were willing to forego their own survival not only to protect the lives of their comrades, but because they believed that peace and freedom was too invaluable a right to be vanquished. Americans should never forget our veterans who served our nation with such dedication and patriotism.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator WELLSTONE and my Senate colleagues for supporting my amendment. Acceptance of my amendment was just one victory in the war to provide decent, affordable health care for South Dakota's veterans. By passing this amendment we live up to our obligation to our nation's veterans and ensure that they are treated with the respect and honor that they so richly deserve.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator GRASSLEY in introducing this legislation to permit federal trials and appellate proceedings to be televised, at the discretion of the presiding judge.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once said of the U.S. Supreme Court, ``A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other. Unreviewable power is the most likely to indulge itself and the least likely to engage in dispassionate self-analysis . . . In a country like ours, no public institution, or the people who operate it, can be above public debate.''
I believe that these words are applicable to the entire federal judiciary. As such, I strongly support giving federal judges discretion to televise the proceedings over which they preside. When the people of this nation watch their government in action, they come to understand how our governing institutions work and equip themselves to hold those institutions accountable for their deeds. If there are flaws in our governing institutions--including our courts--we hide them only at our peril.
The federal courts are lagging behind the state courts on the issue of televising court proceedings. Indeed, 48 out of the 50 states allow cameras in their courtrooms in at least some cases. Moreover, a two-and-a-half year pilot program in which cameras were routinely permitted in six federal district courts and two courts of appeals revealed near universal support for cameras in the courtroom.
Our bill would simply afford federal trial and appellate judges discretion to permit cameras in their courtrooms. It would not require them to do so. Furthermore, to protect the privacy of non-party witnesses, the legislation would give such witnesses the right to have their voices and images obscured during their testimony.
A version of this legislation passed the House in the previous Congress. I eagerly anticipate Senate passage and the day when openness is the norm in our federal courtrooms, not the exception.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican Budget Resolution because it supports the wrong priorities.
1998 was an exceptional year in this country's modern economic history. We enjoyed the first budget surplus in 29 years and the economy exceeded expectations and continued to expand in the face of international instability--unemployment remained low; wages continued to increase; welfare recipients declined; home ownership increased; and interest rates remained low. All of is good news has allowed the White House, the Congress, and the American people to begin debating how to use future surpluses which are projected for the foreseeable future.
As a Member of Congress who arrived in Washington when the annual federal budget deficit was over $220 billion and still growing, I am extremely pleased and a little amazed that we have gotten to where we are today. That said, I think it is extremely important that Congress proceed carefully in the coming years to ensure we make wise choices that will keep this country's budget running in the black for years to come.
Writing the FY 2000 budget is our first test of how we will handle existing and future surpluses to ensure long-term economic growth and stability, and it is a test too important to coming generations for us to fail. I believe that this year's budget resolution should follow four principles: first, we must save Social Security and Medicare; second, we should pay down the national debt; third, we should support targeted tax relief to low and middle-income Americans; and finally, we should identify and support critically needed discretionary priorities.
Unfortunately, the Republican Budget Resolution doesn't follow these principles, which I believe are critical to balancing the many pressing needs of this nation. First, the Republican Budget Resolution does nothing to preserve Medicare. Second, while I support targeted tax cuts, I cannot support the
[Page: S3420] GPO's PDF
AMENDMENT NO. 197
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a Sense of the Senate resolution as an amendment to the Budget Resolution. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators SANTORUM, BINGAMAN, and ABRAHAM. As my colleagues know, saving is empowering. It allow families to weather the bad times, to live without aid, and to deal with emergencies. But more than just being a safety net, savings offer families a ladder up. That is because saving is the first step towards developing assets. And assets beget assets. Having them can actually change a family's economic station and set a better course for generations to come.
Yet, despite our booming economy we know that fully a third of all American households have no financial assets to speak of. For those with children the outlook is even worse. Almost half of all American children live in households that have no financial assets. This, in my view, is an untenable situation that should be changed.
Mr. President, we in the Senate have produced some innovative legislation in recent years that are designed to encourage Americans to build assets for retirement. That is due in no small part to the leadership of Senator ROTH and Senator MOYNIHAN; Senate leaders who understand the importance of savings. However, I believe that we have been remiss in neglecting the American that assets can benefit the most: the working poor. They need to build assets not just for retirement, but also for the betterment of their lives and those of their children.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents