Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am willing to wait until we have a time agreement, until the time starts running, if you would prefer. I just do not want to loose our ability. If I have free time, I am going to take it. If I do not, then I will withhold.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I then ask, if the Senator will yield, if the other side of the equation will be able to speak as well? If there is no time agreement, at some point we would like to answer.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. As long as it is counting.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? Is the time now running on the time of the Senator from California and the Senator from Minnesota? The time, is it running against an agreement?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. One hour on our side will be sufficient.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I correct the Record, because it was in fact the great philosopher Yogi Berra who said, ``It ain't over till it's over.'' I did not want that to go unchallenged.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for his leadership in this area, because actually the Senator from Arizona and I have talked about this ever since the Government shutdown and then last year when we did not have a shutdown, but it really was not the normal course of negotiations when you get toward that September 30 deadline. We have a freestanding bill that will in fact take care of the needs of Government after September 30, if we do not have an appropriations agreement. But then when we started looking at the fact that this is the supplemental appropriations bill, the first bill that has really hit the floor from the Appropriations Committee--it is May--if we waited much later than this I think perhaps agencies could say, ``Well, but we can't plan.'' I think it is important that the Federal agencies know exactly what is going to happen. I think it is important that we lay the groundwork in the first bill that we have on the floor in May before the September 30 deadline of how the process of appropriations is really going to work. So that is why Senator McCain and I introduced this, which we actually thought and hoped would have bipartisan support. We thought that if we did something that would say this is the way we are going to do it, if we put it on the table, that everybody would agree, because clearly no one wants to shut down Government. The President certainly does not. I am sure the distinguished minority leader from North Dakota does not. I am sure that Senator Byrd from West Virginia would not want to shut down the Government, and neither do any of us. So what we are trying to do is say, how can we accomplish this in an orderly way? Senator McCain and I and Senator Lott and Senator Stevens believe that this is the time to do it, so that we are not talking in the heat of a negotiation that is not going well on September the 29th of this year. What we are saying is we are going to run Government responsibly. We had 98 percent of the 1997 expenditure level. Since that original amendment was filed, there has been a budget agreement. There has been a budget agreement between the President and Congress that has yet to pass Congress but nevertheless it is laying some parameters of higher spending levels going into 1998. But what we do not have is exactly what the policy is going to be in that 1998 level of expenditure. So there still is going to be negotiation about where the appropriations go within an agency's budget and what the policies might be. So it is very important that we continue to work on making sure that we do not have a Government shutdown because there may be legitimate disagreements that cannot be solved by September 30. Of course, we hope they will be solved, but we all have seen that many times this has not happened because we have a President who is a Democrat and we have a Congress that is Republican, and sometimes our priorities are different. And we need the ability to negotiate in good faith without the hammer of a shutdown of Government over our heads. So since we had the budget agreement that came into play that does have higher spending levels for 1998, Senator McCain and I are willing to go from 98 percent to 100 percent, because letting the agencies continue to spend at the same levels that they are spending now seems to be reasonable since we now know that the levels will be higher. There was a time last year when the President submitted his budget that the spending levels were not higher. Congress, in its original budget resolution, did not have the same 1998 level of expenditures. They are higher. So now that we know that, I think the 100 percent of present spending is certainly reasonable. You know, I go back to what I said in the first place. If you cannot continue to run Government at a 2 percent discount or 100 percent of what you had last year, then you probably should not be managing a Federal agency because everybody has had to cut their budgets from time to time. They have had to cut them a lot more than 2 percent in small businesses around our country, in families that are trying to make ends meet because they have two kids in college at the same time. People have to stretch. And they do not quite understand why their hard-earned tax dollars are out there and we cannot cut back 2 percent on Government expenditures that are actually their expenditures because they are paying for this Government. But 100 percent, since we are going to be going to higher levels, is fine and I can go along with that. I am certainly willing to try to make sure that we do not disrupt Government, but I think we need to take the step. I think we need to go forward and say, here is how we are going to run the appropriations process. I think every American can understand that if we do not have the ability to negotiate, without the threat of shutting down Government, that we are not going to be able to stand on our principles. Perhaps the President does not feel that he can stand on his principles. And we would like to be able to do that and come to terms in the normal course of business. So that is why we are trying to plan ahead. That is why we are trying to make sure that the Government is not shut down, that Federal employees who would like to come to work, but cannot because it is a law that they cannot, are not in any way put to the test of wondering if they are going to be able to make ends meet because their salary will not be there. I cannot imagine, in my wildest dreams, that Congress would not pay the salaries of people who would like to come to work but cannot because of some artificial deadline that says Government stops if we do not have an appropriations bill. So we are trying to keep that from happening so that Federal employees will not be forced to take leave, so that veterans will not worry whether their benefits are going to be there, so that people who are traveling back from college to home will not be unable to do that because perhaps they do not have their passport, so that people will not be inconvenienced with their long-awaited family vacation to the Grand Canyon or the Washington Monument. I think it is important that we take this process step. There is one other point I think is very important to make. And Senator Stevens has made it many times on the floor, but I think it bears repeating, because there is somehow the implication that the flood victims in North Dakota, with whom all of us have great sympathy, might not get the payments they need to start rebuilding. In fact, Mr. President, they are getting the money now. There is no holdup in the emergency money that the flood victims are getting for rebuilding their homes or their office buildings. In fact, they are getting that money now. What we are talking about is a supplemental appropriations that would refill the coffers of the Federal Emergency Management Agency so that it will be ready for the next emergency. And we are trying to make sure that we cover all the expenditures that we are having to make right now. But does anyone, for 1 minute, think that the loan processors and the people who are processing the claims of the flood victims in North Dakota are sitting there waiting for an appropriations bill to come through? Does anyone really believe that that is not going forward right now? I hope not, because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is on the job. They are on the spot. They are beginning to rebuild in North Dakota. And the money is there for them, as it should be. But what we are talking about is making sure that the money that is being spent now is replenished. So we have time to do this in the right way. I think many people are concerned that there are other parts of this bill besides the emergency appropriations supplemental for North Dakota flood victims and for the people who are serving in Bosnia that--in fact, I would just make the same point for those in Bosnia who are serving there. They are not not getting what they would have. It is not as if this billion dollars that we are appropriating is going to do something that they do not now have. We are giving our young men and women who are protecting our country--if they are deployed to Bosnia on that mission, they are getting everything that they need to do that job. But what we are talking about in this supplemental appropriations is replenishing the money that has been taken out of the Department of Defense for training, for equipment, for spare parts, for quality of life issues, such as housing and pay raises for our military. We are putting the money back in that has been spent from the Department of Defense. And the Department of Defense does indeed need that money. And we are going to make sure that it goes in so that we do not interrupt the training and the equipment purchases and the spare parts purchases and the airplane purchases that are needed for our Defense Department. So we are replenishing the coffers, but no one that is on a mission in Bosnia or a flood victim in North Dakota is not getting the services that have been authorized in previous legislation, previous bills for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So I want to make sure that everyone understands the money is going out. But there are some concerns among many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about some of the other parts of the bill. There are some clearly nonemergency, nonsupplemental needs that are being met in this bill. And I think some people are questioning whether maybe that should be put off to an appropriations process that is not in any way supplemental but is just the normal course of business. So I think certainly debate is warranted. We do not want to in any way rush something through, because the people that need this money are getting the money that they need. I hope that we will be able to move forward on this. I hope that at some point all of us will be able to vote on a continuing resolution that will assure that our Government goes along in an orderly way, that we also are able to negotiate in an orderly way on September 30 of this year if we do still have differences. We need to provide for those differences in an orderly way. And that is what our bill is trying to do. I certainly appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona. I am certainly with him on the McCain-Hutchison Government Shutdown Prevention Act which we believe very strongly is a matter of principle, it is a matter of responsible Government, it is a matter of fulfilling our responsibility to the Federal employees who serve our country, to the men and women in uniform that serve our country, to the people of our country who depend on Government services, such as running the parks and passports and veterans' benefits. All of these people deserve to know that we will make sure that they are taken care of in an orderly way, even if we have not been able to come to agreements on some appropriations bills by September 30. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly appreciate once again the Senator from Arizona coming up and trying to make sure that we talk about this in an orderly way. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I know what we are really doing is supplementing the money already spent on Bosnia. But I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Alaska says that this is a sense of the Senate and that it does say that all of us now are serious about the end strategy, the preparation for the end strategy. The President has promised it and the Secretary of Defense promised it. Now Congress will, in a sense, be saying, look, this is real, this is now something that we are all in agreement on; the time has come for to us make sure that we have that end game in sight and that the money for training and quality of life will be there for our troops all along the way. So I appreciate the Senator from Alaska pointing that out. I do agree that it will be a sense of the Senate. I think it will be a unanimous one, and I think it will be significant. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a simple amendment. It basically says what the administration has promised is going to happen, and that is June 30, let us go ahead and plan so that we can let everyone know, our allies know, that that is a firm date. The President has said so. The Secretary of Defense has said so. As Senator Feingold said earlier, I think we have accomplished the mission the President wanted to accomplish. I do not think it serves a purpose for us to be taking funds from training, from readiness of our troops for this mission in Bosnia. In fact, that is why we are here doing the supplemental today. We are trying to put the money that has gone into Bosnia back into the defense budget. We need money for parts. We need money for airplanes. We need money for training and retraining the troops that have come out of Bosnia. We need to have the money for the pay raises and the quality of life for our military. That money has been spent in Bosnia. I am not going to quibble about spending the money in Bosnia because if my troops are there, I want them taken care of. But I do not want to hurt our ability to train the other troops for readiness to make sure we are able to fight two simultaneous or nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. So we have a job to do. That is what the supplemental is for. My second-degree amendment does in fact put a June 30, 1998, deadline, which is the promise of the President, onto this amendment. Then I think all of us will be ready to prepare for the eventual withdrawal of our troops and that money going into our training and our spare parts and our airplanes and all of the factors to make sure that our troops are ready to go in case of need. I thank the Chair. I appreciate Senator Feingold taking this initiative and for his work on this very important issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Feingold's amendment, I think, certainly lays down a marker. Senator Feingold and I cosponsored an amendment--actually a resolution--earlier that asked that we have more parameters around this Bosnia mission because many of us were concerned that we did not know enough about what would be done. As you know, the administration has missed one deadline. It was supposed to be a 1-year mission. That was passed 5 months ago. Now we are facing another commitment for a resolution that I think is June 30, 1998. Not only has the administration said that June 30, 1998, would be the end of the Bosnia mission, but Secretary Cohen has been very firm in saying I promise the Congress that is the end, and he is planning for that. I want to make sure that is set in concrete, that Congress speaks on this issue, and that Secretary Cohen has the ability to plan by knowing that the funds would be cut off in this supplemental appropriation at June 30. Now, Senator Feingold has a September 30, 1997, date in his amendment, so I am going to ask unanimous consent to call up second- degree amendment No. 177 to the Feingold amendment.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to repeal the provider reimbursement requirements of the Boren amendment. This bill will provide States with greater flexibility in setting provider reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Program. Under current law, States may set Medicaid payment rates at whatever level they choose for home and community-based services, but they must meet a minimum standard for nursing home and hospital reimbursement. This standard is prescribed by the Boren amendment, which requires that providers be reimbursed under rates the State ``finds and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations and quality and safety standards.'' Although the law was designed to relax previous standards and increase flexibility, unfortunately the opposite has resulted. The use of vague and undefined terms in the amendment created problems, compounded by the Federal Government's decision not to issue regulations defining these terms. To add further confusion, the law, while requiring reimbursement rates to be ``determined in accordance with methods and standards developed by the State,'' also requires the Federal Government to be satisfied with the State-determined rates. Implementing this requirement means State Medicaid plans must include both State processes for determining rates and the rates themselves, which are then subject to approval by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Moreover, beyond this federally imposed regulatory nightmare we've created for the States, many States, including Texas, have had to deal with substantial litigation resulting from the vagueness of the statutory language and lack of regulatory definitions. Some courts have viewed the Boren amendment as a cost-based payment standard in which all cost incurred by the providers must be reimbursed. In these instances, States may be liable for significant sums to cover the retroactive rate increases ordered by the court for the group of providers involved in the suit, even if their rate schedule was approved by the Federal Government. In some cases, the additional payments made as a result of a court-ordered retroactive rate increase are not eligible for cost-sharing from the Federal Government. For example, in 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the State of Louisiana Medicaid agency's findings on ``reasonable and adequate'' compensation for hospitals were inadequate, despite HCFA's approval of the State plan. In New York, the State's ``minimum utilization adjustment'' decreased reimbursement for psychiatric hospitals that operated at less than 75 percent capacity as a means to encourage ``efficiency and economy.'' In another New York case, however, despite recognizing the many strong policy reasons behind the adjustments, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined the State did not meet the procedural requirements of the Boren amendment. The decision not only has resulted in unjustified reimbursement increases for under-used facilities, but has also tied up the State in continuing litigation over retroactive damages. Returning to the States the flexibility to negotiate Medicaid reimbursement rates would allow them to avoid or mitigate large increases in spending because of such suits, and follow the example of private-sector purchasers of health care services by selectively contracting with hospitals and nursing homes on a competitive basis. California's Selective Provider Contracting Program [SPCP] is a good example of the economic benefits of this type of program. Because of rapid increases in inpatient hospital costs and a budget shortfall, California passed legislation in 1982 allowing its Medicaid Program [Medi-Cal] to negotiate contracts with providers. SPCP contains the overall expenditures for hospital services reimbursed by the Med-Cal Program and assures adequate access to quality services for beneficiaries through a competitive, rather than a regulatory process. The process saves California an estimated $300 million per year. Illinois had a similar program for several years and saved an estimated $100 million annually, but it was discontinued following a change in administrations and a switch to a different system of reimbursement. The average Medicaid cost per day in Illinois has since risen substantially. Both California and Illinois officials have been pleased with the high quality of care under this type of system. In addition to relying on strict regulations already in place for hospitals, both States independently audit hospitals for quality of care. Illinois contracted for a 2-year period, which meant that hospitals had to compete often to win contracts while maintaining quality standards. Mr. President, programs such as those in California and Illinois exemplify the efficiency and innovation offered within our Federal system. It is time to give other States free rein to experiment with similar programs, thus creating a more cost-effective and higher quality Medicaid system for their beneficiaries. I hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation to take a significant step in the direction of true Medicaid reform.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to repeal the provider reimbursement requirements of the Boren amendment. This bill will provide States with greater flexibility in setting provider reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Program. Under current law, States may set Medicaid payment rates at whatever level they choose for home and community-based services, but they must meet a minimum standard for nursing home and hospital reimbursement. This standard is prescribed by the Boren amendment, which requires that providers be reimbursed under rates the State ``finds and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations and quality and safety standards.'' Although the law was designed to relax previous standards and increase flexibility, unfortunately the opposite has resulted. The use of vague and undefined terms in the amendment created problems, compounded by the Federal Government's decision not to issue regulations defining these terms. To add further confusion, the law, while requiring reimbursement rates to be ``determined in accordance with methods and standards developed by the State,'' also requires the Federal Government to be satisfied with the State-determined rates. Implementing this requirement means State Medicaid plans must include both State processes for determining rates and the rates themselves, which are then subject to approval by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Moreover, beyond this federally imposed regulatory nightmare we've created for the States, many States, including Texas, have had to deal with substantial litigation resulting from the vagueness of the statutory language and lack of regulatory definitions. Some courts have viewed the Boren amendment as a cost-based payment standard in which all cost incurred by the providers must be reimbursed. In these instances, States may be liable for significant sums to cover the retroactive rate increases ordered by the court for the group of providers involved in the suit, even if their rate schedule was approved by the Federal Government. In some cases, the additional payments made as a result of a court-ordered retroactive rate increase are not eligible for cost-sharing from the Federal Government. For example, in 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the State of Louisiana Medicaid agency's findings on ``reasonable and adequate'' compensation for hospitals were inadequate, despite HCFA's approval of the State plan. In New York, the State's ``minimum utilization adjustment'' decreased reimbursement for psychiatric hospitals that operated at less than 75 percent capacity as a means to encourage ``efficiency and economy.'' In another New York case, however, despite recognizing the many strong policy reasons behind the adjustments, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined the State did not meet the procedural requirements of the Boren amendment. The decision not only has resulted in unjustified reimbursement increases for under-used facilities, but has also tied up the State in continuing litigation over retroactive damages. Returning to the States the flexibility to negotiate Medicaid reimbursement rates would allow them to avoid or mitigate large increases in spending because of such suits, and follow the example of private-sector purchasers of health care services by selectively contracting with hospitals and nursing homes on a competitive basis. California's Selective Provider Contracting Program [SPCP] is a good example of the economic benefits of this type of program. Because of rapid increases in inpatient hospital costs and a budget shortfall, California passed legislation in 1982 allowing its Medicaid Program [Medi-Cal] to negotiate contracts with providers. SPCP contains the overall expenditures for hospital services reimbursed by the Med-Cal Program and assures adequate access to quality services for beneficiaries through a competitive, rather than a regulatory process. The process saves California an estimated $300 million per year. Illinois had a similar program for several years and saved an estimated $100 million annually, but it was discontinued following a change in administrations and a switch to a different system of reimbursement. The average Medicaid cost per day in Illinois has since risen substantially. Both California and Illinois officials have been pleased with the high quality of care under this type of system. In addition to relying on strict regulations already in place for hospitals, both States independently audit hospitals for quality of care. Illinois contracted for a 2-year period, which meant that hospitals had to compete often to win contracts while maintaining quality standards. Mr. President, programs such as those in California and Illinois exemplify the efficiency and innovation offered within our Federal system. It is time to give other States free rein to experiment with similar programs, thus creating a more cost-effective and higher quality Medicaid system for their beneficiaries. I hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation to take a significant step in the direction of true Medicaid reform.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. I want to thank Senators Jeffords and DeWine and Senator Ashcroft for their commitment to this bill. They have followed it through all the way from the beginning--Senator Ashcroft, as the key sponsor, and Senators DeWine and Jeffords, as the chairman of the subcommittee and full committee that shepherded this bill through because they believed so much in what this bill can do for the more than 60 million workers in this country, including 28 million women, who are paid by the hour. I was just listening to what Senator DeWine was saying, and I have to say, step back a minute and think about the fact that the Federal Government is saying to the hourly employees of this country, ``You cannot go in and ask your employer to take off at 3 o'clock on Friday and work until 7 o'clock on Monday.'' You cannot do that because the Federal law says your employer cannot offer you that option. So if your child is playing in a soccer game or a football game on Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock, which many schools across our country do have in their schedules, you cannot go in and get that opportunity to see your child, because the Federal Government says you cannot do it. Now, if you were a Federal employee you could do it because Federal employees have that option. If you are a salaried employee, you could do it. It is hourly employees who are not able to say, ``I want to work two extra hours on Monday so I can take off at 3 o'clock on Friday.'' Mr. President, all this bill does is give the same option to hourly employees that every Federal employee and every salaried employee has in our country. It is just amazing to me we did not do this years ago. It was only Senator Ashcroft who came in and said, ``Why have we not done this?'' Many of us were not even fully aware of the impact our out of date labor laws were having on Americans' modern lifestyles. What are our modern lifestyles? Mr. President, over two-thirds of the women who have school-age children in this country are working outside the home. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, we had a lot of moms that could and that chose to stay home. Today, there are 58.2 million women in the workforce, and roughly half--28 million--are paid by the hour. The other half are salaried employees or self-employed. The biggest stress factor they have in their lives is the inability to find the time in the average day to do the things they need and want to do for themselves and their families. Working mothers and their children want to be able to share more of life's activities--to be able to go to the PTA meeting, the soccer game, the football game, and still be able to make a full-time salary and make ends meet at the end of the month. The Family Friendly Workplace Act will enable those working mothers to do just that. Senator Ashcroft and I have made sure that these people who are working hourly are not going to lose their salaries because they do have budgets. They have to meet the mortgage payment. They have to meet the car payment or the rent payment. They simply cannot afford to take time off without pay, as the President and some Members of Congress have called for. That is the beauty of this bill. It allows the employee to be paid, while adding flexibility to their work week. Another aspect that Americans like so much about this bill is it would allow an hourly employee to say, ``I would like to work 9 hour days and take every other Friday off work, with pay.'' Federal employees have this option. Salaried employees have this flexibility. Mr. President, I think it is important to keep in mind that these scheduling options are all voluntary. There is nothing that requires an employer or an employee to choose any of these options. If any employee is asked to work overtime, that employee keeps the right to say ``Great, I want time-and-a-half pay,'' end of story. But if the employee says, ``I want to take time-and-a-half in paid time off and not outright pay now,'' or ``I would like to go ahead and work the extra hours and bank that time so that when my child's soccer game is scheduled'' that employee will have that option, in cooperation with the employer. And because this added flexibility and free time for employees has been proven to boost morale and improve productivity, giving hourly employees these added freedoms becomes a win-win situation for employee and employer alike. In short, this bill makes imminent sense. My only surprise is that we did not update this antiquated labor law earlier. I commend Senator Ashcroft, I commend Senator DeWine, and I commend Senator Jeffords for helping us get this bill to the floor so that we will be able to finally say to the 28 million women that are hourly wage working women and the 30 million hourly wage working men in America, ``You now have the same freedom to schedule time to spend with your loved ones that the rest of the workforce enjoys.'' For the Federal Government to stand in the way of those two individuals and say, ``No, you cannot do this because Big Brother Federal Government in Washington said 30 years ago when there were not very many working moms in the workplace, in a whole different era, that you could not do it.'' Mr. President, we must enter in to the 1990's and update our labor laws to address the needs of the struggling hourly wage families in this country.'' We are going to let the marketplace work and we are going to take one source of stress off the hourly employee in this country who wants to spend time at home with their children, time catching up on errands, or just time relaxing with loved ones and friends. That is what the Family Friendly Workplace Act does. That is why I am happy to be a cosponsor with Senator Ashcroft, and give the 28 million women and 60 million working Americans in this country the same scheduling freedom that other employees in this country have had for years. Those Americans who work so hard day in and day out at their jobs, then have that extra burden of having to work when they come home. Most do not come home from work and sit in a chair and rest. They come home from work and they fix dinner for the kids, they fix lunch for school tomorrow, and then they do homework with the kids or whatever it is that has to be done. Their day is not over at 5 o'clock. From time to time, they need to be able to take entire days or even weeks off from work. The Family Friendly Workplace Act will allow them to save up the hours to do that. Mr. President, we cannot give America's hardworking families any more than 24 hours in the day, but we can do the next best thing by enacting this important legislation. I thank Senator DeWine for yielding the floor. I hope we will be able to talk about this for a long time to come because if the Democrats are indeed going to filibuster and keep the Senate from responding to the needs of America's workers who overwhelming support this bill, then I am ready to talk for a long time. This bill means a lot to me and it will mean a lot to the families of our country. If we have to stand on our feet and talk for 2 weeks, count me in.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. The President----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is saying I was correct, then, that we are increasing over the President's own budget that he put forward last year. The Senator is making the point that there are new expenditures that you would like to make. I ask the Senator from California if she does not think it would be more responsible if the President would keep his word, keep to the $539 million that he asked for last year for this year, and set the priorities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have seen victims of floods. And I am glad the Senator from California suggested it because I have seen the victims of flood. I live on the gulf coast. I have lived through hurricanes. I have seen my own home flooded. I have seen neighbors who have not had homes to live in, who stayed in our home because of the water. I know what it is like to see a tornado tear up an entire city in Dallas County. But you know something? This is trying to do the responsible thing. If the President decides to veto a bill because we are trying to stop the Government by gimmick that Senator Daschle accused us of doing--and the Senator from California points out that we have only had a shutdown for an extended period of time one time. And I am saying, we have learned from history. The President vetoed the bills back in 1995, but he blamed it on Congress. So Congress is saying, let us do the responsible thing. Let us make sure that we do not have a Government shutdown. If it is our fault, then we are trying to correct it, we are trying to do the right thing. And it is not a budget fight. It is the first bill out of the Appropriations Committee. And we are trying to set a process that would allow us to meet the needs of the victims of North Dakota, the soldiers in Bosnia, pay U.N. dues, raise the salaries of D.C. police, and make sure that everyone is on notice that we are not going to have Government by gimmick, we are going to have Government by responsible people, and we are going to set the parameters right now which it is in our prerogative to do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. You let me ask the question.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would appreciate hearing from the Senator from California on that.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are addressing the concerns raised by Senator Daschle. And those concerns are addressed so that we will not have Government by gimmick, so that we will have responsible Government, so that everyone will know what the rules are, and so that we will be able to negotiate in good faith on appropriations that have not been finished by September 30.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. I commend my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, for his commitment to trying to do what is right. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, and I think everyone believes that it was a mistake that we had a Government shutdown. It is not anything anyone intended, but to say that we would allow ourselves to go forward into a disaster like that again would be saying you cannot learn a lesson of history. We are learning the lesson of history. We know what it was like when veterans were not sure they would get their benefits because this administration refused to say that veterans benefits were essential payments, and they really lived in fear that those benefits that they earned would not be there. Not to mention all of the other Federal employees who wanted to come to work but could not by law do it and were not sure if the money to pay their mortgages would be there. Mr. President, let's talk about the timing. This is the first bill out of the Appropriations Committee. It is a supplemental bill asked for by the President to cover some of the unforeseen expenses. But there are other things in the bill as well, Mr. President. I don't think the Senator from North Dakota can just pick and choose which things are essential. We have to look at good government, and we have to look at our responsibility. Part of our responsibility is seeing that the victims in North Dakota, who have suffered greatly--and we all understand that. I grew up on the gulf coast and have lived through hurricanes and have seen people not have homes. I, of all people, understand disaster. We are going to do the right thing, and part of doing the right thing is we are going to take up raises for the District of Columbia police officers. We are going to take up U.N. dues. That is part of this bill, in addition to disaster relief and taking care of our soldiers and their requirements in Bosnia. So this is the time that we are able to address how we will appropriate this year. What we are saying is, we are not going to shut down Government. This may work to the benefit of the President; it may work to the benefit of Congress. We do not really know. But what we are saying is, we are not going to shut down Government. We are going to allow the negotiations that occur on September 30, that are still occurring to continue to occur based on the merits without any artificial hammers over anyone's head, not the President, not Congress. That is the only responsible way we know how to deal with these disagreements. So we are saying, come September 30, we will fund at present levels minus 2-percent because in fact that 2-percent going into the next fiscal year is appropriating money that we have not yet decided how to appropriate. We did not say 75 percent. We are not looking at Draconian cuts here. We are looking at staying with the budget resolution that we passed out of this Congress and sticking to it. The budget resolution says that we would have $541 billion for the next year in the budget plan that marches toward the year 2002 in a responsible approach to cutting the rate of growth of spending. The President's request for the 1998 budget that we are discussing was actually somewhat under that. So how someone can say we are actually cutting the President's budget is really hard to understand because we are actually over what the President said he wanted for the 1998 year; we are over that by $3 billion. So what has happened here is the President has come in and asked for $25 billion more; and we are being accused of cutting the $25 billion- add that he has put on to his own budget submitted last year. So, Mr. President, this is a lot of rigmarole to say that we are not trying to do the responsible thing. We are doing it in the first bill that comes out of the Appropriations Committee to set the process for this next year. And the process is going to be that if we do not have agreements by September 30, which we hope we do, but if we do not, that we are going to continue at present levels minus 2 percent. If any agency of State or Federal Government cannot operate on a 2 percent cut, ask them to call any small business, ask them to call any family that has had trouble making ends meet to see if they would be able to budget a 2 percent cut. If 2 percent is a Draconian cut, it is time these people came into the real world, the real world of taxpayers trying to make ends meet. So we are saying, everyone will be on notice that if we do not have an agreement for a particular appropriations bill, we will continue funding, there will not be a shutdown, and if you cannot cut 2 percent out of your budget with 6 months' notice then you really do not deserve to be running the Federal Government. Second, Mr. President, I think it is very important when we are addressing the issue of responsible governing that we say we are going to cover disaster victims and we are going to do it in a timely way. If the President says that a 2-percent cut in present spending is something that would make him veto the bill, then the President should answer to the victims of North Dakota, the President should answer to the soldiers in Bosnia. Because 2 percent from what we are spending today, if we do not have an agreement, I think is quite responsible. We are not talking Draconian cuts. We are talking responsible Government. In fact, you know we had hoped to have total bipartisan support for this. We thought from all the things that were said when the Government was shut down that we would have a huge Democrat- Republican alliance to say, let us address it now. Let us give everyone notice so that everyone can plan. In fact, I will quote from Senator Daschle, December 30, 1995, talking about the Government shutdown: The Government remains shut because some Members . . . want it shut. It is Government by gimmick, and it is wrong.