Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy in yielding me this time. I wish to rise to echo much of what has been said here but also hopefully to expand upon it in an effective way. The issue which is being brought forth here is the fundamental issue that we have to address as a Governor. It is the issue of how to control our entitlement accounts. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I have the pleasure to chair the Commerce, State, and Justice Subcommittee. I am constantly petitioned by individuals coming to me who represent very legitimate organizations, asking that they receive funding at last year's level of expenditure, or maybe even a slight increase, maybe an inflationary increase in their accounts. I have to say to them, ``I am sorry, we are going to have to reduce this account,'' or in some cases we have to eliminate spending in that account because we do not have the money available. Why do we not have the money available? Primarily because of the fact we have not been able to control entitlement spending here in our body. Therefore, all the effort to control spending in this body falls on the discretionary side. Entitlement spending, as my colleagues know, is made up of five major items: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, and earned-income tax credit. There are also the farm programs and a variety of other mandatory programs. In fact, I think there are 400 of them. This Congress, in the balanced budget bill which we sent to the President, addressed the primary drivers of our spending problem on the entitlement side. We addressed Medicaid, we addressed Medicare, we addressed welfare, we addressed AFDC, we addressed the farm program. We did not take up the Social Security issue because that had been moved off the table. Regrettably, the balanced budget proposal which was passed by this Congress was vetoed by the President. So we have now proceeded to take up these items one at a time. There was a legitimate effort and a very good effort made in the farm area. It did not go as far as I would like on issues like sugar and peanuts, but it did make significant strides. However, there remains the core issues of the health care accounts, Social Security, and welfare. So today we take up one more leg of the school of entitlement spending which must be addressed and shored up, if it is to be stable, and that is the welfare issue. I regret, however--and I want to talk about this--that we have not addressed, also, the Medicaid accounts. It is very hard, logically, to separate these two because Medicaid is the health care benefit for people who are essentially on welfare. To separate them is to do something which, from a matter of substantive policy, makes little sense. It may make sense politically, because the administration and the other side of the aisle refuse to address Medicaid. More important, it makes no sense from a standpoint of how it affects our day-to-day life in this Congress in the area of controlling the Federal budget, because Medicaid is a much more significant problem than welfare in the area of spending. In fact, Medicaid spending, over the last 5 years, was $464 billion. But if we do nothing about it over the next 5 years, it will be projected to be $802 billion. That is a 73--percent increase in spending on those accounts. Now, at that rate of increase, we would soon see--it is projected-- that by the year 2010, all the revenues of the Federal Government would be absorbed in order to pay for the costs of the entitlement programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare benefits, and interest on the Federal debt. We would have no money available to do discretionary activities, such as defense spending, roads, environment, or education. So this Congress needs to address all those different entitlement accounts. Yet, it has decided not to address the Medicaid accounts--not because this side is not willing; this side is willing to do that. We proposed a bill which addressed it that was vetoed by the President. We reported out of the committee another bill which would have addressed it. The other side of the aisle is not amenable to this. Therefore, our failure to address the Medicaid account is, in my opinion, a fundamental failure to do the job that is required of us as Members of this Congress, because it is a failure to address what is one of the core issues that is driving the deficit of this country and driving the fact that this Nation is headed toward fiscal bankruptcy in the next century, unless we take control back of these entitlement accounts. I, therefore, am one who feels that we should have joined the efforts. We should have brought welfare and Medicaid to the floor together, and we should pass them together. But the decision has been made to pursue this welfare reform package. I simply want to say that, even though it does not include Medicaid as a package, it is a step in the right direction. Although it still has more strings attached than there need to be, it is a package which returns to the States pretty much authority over the management of the welfare accounts in this country. That is the essence of our effort, to take a program that has been an entitlement, directed at the Federal level, and turn it back to the States as a discretionary program, and basically allow the States to manage it in a way that is much more efficient and effective. In New Hampshire, the dollars that come back to the States without strings will be spent much more effectively than those that come back with strings. It will be able to take care of more people for fewer dollars than is presently occurring under the system as it functions today. I, therefore, strongly support the welfare part of this reconciliation bill. I regret that we are not taking up what I consider to be one of the other core elements that is driving our fiscal problems in this country--the Medicaid issue. I hope that as we move into this election cycle, however, we will not ignore those issues that are critical in getting this fiscal house in order, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and the Social Security issue, as we move forward.

Mr. GREGG. Which I guess leads to the point I wanted to ask about, which is that if you are essentially using the logic of this bill for the post-5-year period, why not use it for the pre-5-year period also? Or to state it another way, you said in your statement that it made no sense to you that people wanted to give flexibility to the States; they would not allow the States that flexibility after a 5-year period to spend the voucher. Doesn't that same logic apply to the pre-5-year period? In other words, shouldn't the State flexibility remain for the pre-5- year period as well as for the post-5-year period? Why should the Federal Government come in and direct the States to do it?

Mr. GREGG. If I may continue this question, basically what you are saying, then, is the State is required to use the voucher for a child up to the 5 years.

Mr. GREGG. That differs from the pending legislation. The pending legislation leaves it up to the State to make that decision during the 5-year period; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. Well, I appreciate the Senator's courtesy of yielding to me for these questions. If the logic of the Senator's position is correct--and I think there is a lot of attractiveness to the Senator's logic in the post-5-year-period--if this bill, as it is presently structured, basically takes that logic and applies it to the pre-5-year period, would not the Senator's amendment be a lot stronger and consistent, if the Senator would essentially use his language for the post-5-year period, but not change the language for the pre-5-year period to create a mandate on the States which is going to put the States in a position of basically being instructed as to how to govern the welfare system in that 5-year period?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield for an additional comment.

Mr. GREGG. I simply state that the question and the point I make is that the Senator's amendment is, on its face, inconsistent because in the first 5 years it puts mandates on the States, the second 5 years it gives the States flexibility. I think the flexibility part is very refreshing.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. Is it my understanding that in your proposal, the States are mandated to use the vouchers during the 5 years, permitted to use vouchers after 5 years.

Mr. GREGG. The State identifies the need.

Mr. GREGG. And then you are saying that after the 5-year period, the States would be given the flexibility to continue the voucher, but even if there was a need at that time, it would be identified by the State, it would not be required.

Mr. GREGG. So, essentially, you are putting the State in this position--as the bill is presently structured, you are taking that language and moving it into the post-5-year period, and then for the pre-5-year period, you are requiring that the payments be made for need--

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with Senator Daschle in control of the first 40 minutes and Senator Coverdell in control of the remaining 20 minutes. At 10 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1864, the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to that appropriations bill. Therefore, all Senators can expect rollcalls throughout today's session. I anticipate that the Senate may be in session into the evening in order to make progress on the Defense appropriations bill. Senators should plan their schedules accordingly. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Fine. After that, we will be on my amendment. I wish to proceed on my amendment. I understand I have 10 minutes to discuss this amendment at this time. This amendment is supported by myself and Senator Reid of Nevada, and Senator Bryan of Nevada and Senator Nickles are also original cosponsors of this bill as introduced. This goes to the issue and the fact that a large number of-- unfortunately, 34--Members of Congress over the last century have been convicted of felonies, which is obviously a serious act. Some of these individuals were convicted of felonies that involve a violation of the public trust. Under the laws of this country, in certain instances when the public trust is violated, Members of Congress who are convicted felons for doing that lose their pensions--or at least the public part of their pension, that which is supported by the taxpayers. Unfortunately, it does not apply to all actions that involve violation of the public trust. For example, somebody could be convicted of bribery, of a conflict of interest, of defrauding or conspiring to defraud the United States, of theft or embezzlement of Government property, false or fraudulent statements to the Government, perjury, insubordination in actions relative to their duties as a Member of Congress and, still, while serving time for a conviction, receive pension benefits, which is rather ironic and clearly inappropriate. So this amendment simply expands those areas of the present law which terminates pension benefits for people who are convicted of crimes while serving in the Congress and when those crimes are directly related to their service. It means that, for example--I will use a hypothetical--a person convicted of a crime in recent times, who is receiving a pension from the Federal Government of over $70,000, would no longer be able to receive that part of that pension, which is basically a public tax contribution. That person would still receive the pension, to the extent that they contributed to it. They would get their money back, under the usual course of law, but they would not get the additional benefit of having the taxpayers support them--actually, in many instances, while they are still in jail with these pension benefits. This is an issue which is timely, and it is important that we act on it in a timely manner. That is why I offered it on this bill, even though it is not directly related to defense matters, although it would obviously impact a defense individual who committed this sort of action. I would yield at this time to the Senator from Nevada for any comments he might have.

Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding the Senator hopes to proceed with these hearings as soon as possible?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that under the rules and under the unanimous consent agreement, we have about 10 minutes here of general debate, during which amendments can be offered, and then there are 5 minutes to be debated on the amendment that is pending, with a vote at 3:30; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG. I note that the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Arizona are here. I have an amendment which I wish to offer. I suspect they have a colloquy they want to pursue. I ask unanimous consent that after we return and complete the vote at 3:30, that I be allowed the floor to offer my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I simply ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed after the regular order has been completed on that vote.

Mr. GREGG. No.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the leader yield?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to note for the Record, Senators Bond and Ashcroft were unavoidably absent at the last vote due to the attendance of the funeral of Congressman Emerson.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.