Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader in response to his characterization of the Senator from Minnesota doing whatever he is doing, what I am doing is being a responsible legislator. This bill came to this Chamber less than 2 hours ago. I would like to have the opportunity to examine this bill. I have already spoken about areas where I am prepared to introduce amendments and to have debate. There are no games here. I do not think it is a game to speak in behalf of low-income people in my State who are really worried that there will not be low-income energy assistance available for them. I do not think it is a game to raise questions about what happened to the counseling program for senior citizens to make sure they are not ripped off on supplemental coverage to Medicare. I just realized, going through this, that now has been cut again. I do not think it is a game--Mr. President, I do not think it is a game to talk about what is going to happen to displaced workers. What is the significance of those cuts?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield in a moment. Mr. President, we have now zeroed out a program for homeless vets. It was not much of an appropriation, but it was important. I do not think it is a game to go through this piece of legislation and to highlight that and raise questions about it. I do not think any of this is a game. But what I find so interesting about this rescissions package is that so many of the cuts seem to be based upon the path of least political resistance. We did not go after any of the wasteful military contracts. In our budget resolution we did not go after any of the subsidies for oil companies. And, in addition, we have $245 billion of tax cuts mainly going to the wealthy people. And I have no assurance, by the way, over the years, as I project this, that most of this money will not be used to finance tax cuts for fat cats in our country, taken away from the people who are the most vulnerable. This is no game. I would say to the majority leader and to my colleagues--and I will be pleased to yield for a question--that I think it is a matter of priorities and it is a matter of what we stand for. It is a matter of what we stand for. Before we just get a little bit too generous with the suffering of other people, do we not have an opportunity to look at what is in this? Do we not have a opportunity to talk about some alternatives? Just speaking for myself, just let me make it crystal clear--crystal clear--I can take a short period of time and I can look through this and I will have amendments and I am ready for debate on amendments. I say to the majority leader, if I had wanted to stop this I would have objected to the motion to proceed. We have had a discussion about what is in here, about where the cuts have been, about other priorities. I am just speaking as a Democratic Senator from Minnesota. I know what low-income home energy assistance means to people in my State and I know these cuts are cruel. I did not vote for this budget resolution. I am going to be an advocate for those people. And I do not care if they do not have any money to contribute to campaigns. I do not care if they do not have any lobbyists here. I do not care if they are not the heavy hitters, or are not the players, or are not well connected. I do not care if they are without a voice. They deserve representation. This Senator thinks the cut we had in the Senate bill before is cruel. I will have an amendment to restore that cut, and we will have a debate on it. There were many Senators who supported it the last time. And I hope to have support from Senators again. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor to the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Actually, I said, the ``path of least political resistance.''

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could respond----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The question is in response to the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, let me be clear one more time. I am drafting amendments and am pleased to have the debate. But I would say to the majority leader, it is not a question----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have two questions. First of all, I assume the Senator realizes how pleased I am that the Senator is out here speaking with me. These are very important issues, as the Senator realizes, and it is very important to be out here speaking on these concerns.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me restate it. Will the Senator from Illinois agree with me that when you get a bill at 9:50 in the morning and you have not had any opportunity to even examine what is in that bill, that the way to represent the people back in your State and the way to be a conscientious legislator is to, first of all, have a chance to look at it and then to be drafting amendments? I have several amendments, I would say to the Senator, already that I am working on. But I want also to look at this bill to see what is in it, and I may have some others. Would the Senator agree with me that that is a conscientious approach; it is a mistake having something come over here and go through without having a chance to look at it and have discussion and have amendments? Would not the Senator also agree with me that during a large part of the discussion this morning we have been responding to questions from other colleagues? It is not as if we have just been speaking by ourselves, only to ourselves. And we have been trying to highlight the priorities in this legislation. Would the Senator agree with me? Or some of the distorted priorities and talking about why not some alternatives? Would the Senator agree that that has been what is going on here?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Last night, is it not the case I said to the Senator that I did not know what was going to be in the bill, but what I wanted to have was at least an opportunity to look at it? Is it not true I said I did not want this to be steamrolled, and I also wanted to have an opportunity to have discussion and offer amendments to restore some of the cuts which I think are cruel to some of the most vulnerable citizens? Is that not the gist of our discussion, which is what I intend to do?

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. It is the Senator's understanding based upon the answer that I am about to give to the Senator that it is about $320 million, or so, of cuts. And does the Senator understand that what happened was that on the Senate side, when we voted for this rescissions package, I voted for it? We had restored the full funding, though the House had eliminated the whole program. I have strong support, letters that I have here when we get to the debate on the amendment from the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee that we would hold firm in our position. But now we have over $300 million of additional cuts that just came to us late last night. Would the Senator agree with me that in terms of priorities, what is the hurry? Would the Senator agree with me in terms of the focus we keep getting this pressure about hurry, hurry, hurry? Why are we in such a hurry to cut low-income energy assistance for elderly people, people with disabilities, people with children? What is the hurry to do that? Would the Senator be able to answer that question for me?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Two questions: First of all----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator was talking about tax cuts. Is the Senator aware that this rescissions package, beyond the first round of about $5 billion in cuts, the real issue is what happens in the years to follow in the outlays? Does the Senator understand that if we extend this to the future, that actually some of this money that is cut could very well be used-- in other words, some of the money that is cut--for nutrition, for fuel assistance programs, for elderly people, or for that meat for children, for the job training program, for education, for counseling assistance to older people to make sure they do not get ripped off by supplemental insurance policies to Medicare? Does the Senator realize that actually some of that money, as we look down the pike, some of these cuts, this money could be used to actually finance the tax cuts which go disproportionally to people on the top? In other words, what could be going on here if this is the first round, where the rubber meets the road, we have priority programs extremely important to the most vulnerable citizens. Does the Senator realize this money could be used to finance tax cuts for fat cats in the country, the most affluent people?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Perhaps the Senator from Illinois could respond to my concerns. I have amendments. I have said that all along. The question is whether there could be an agreement. Maybe we could work this out where we could have some assurance that I do not introduce the amendment, and right away the majority leader tables it. I would want there to be time for debate. Will the Senator from Illinois agree that we are interested in that assurance? Otherwise, what could happen, we could introduce amendments and immediately they could be tabled. I wonder whether the Senator from Illinois would agree to move on to amendments; that it is critically important that there is agreement we have time to debate the amendments. Otherwise, we will introduce the amendments and the majority leader will rise to the floor and move to table, and we will not have any discussion at all. Does the Senator agree that is critical?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object. First of all, let me, one more time, make it crystal clear, Mr. President, that I have an objection to the characterization of discovering on Friday that you can stall. I have been working on the Low-income Housing Energy Assistance Program for a long, long time, as each of my colleagues knows. This is a critically important issue to some of the most vulnerable citizens in my State of Minnesota, a cold weather State. Second of all, Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make it very clear that when it comes to assistance for California and Oklahoma City, in no way, shape, or form do I intend to be held hostage to that, Mr. President. We are all for that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Then I would like to get the floor back.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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