Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I shall not object.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, one more time, return to a question I have put to the majority leader, and then I say to my colleague from Arizona I will complete my remarks. In the last 3 weeks now, I have asked for the opportunity to introduce legislation--amendments--which would speak directly to what can only be described as an economic convulsion in agriculture, the unbelievable economic pain in the countryside, and the number of farmers who are literally being obliterated and driven off the land. Up to date, I have not been able to get any kind of clear commitment from the majority leader as to when we will have the opportunity for all of us in the Senate to have a substantive debate about this and take action. For those of us in agricultural States, this is very important. I want to signal to colleagues that I will look for an opportunity, and the first opportunity I get, I will try to do everything I can to focus our attention on what can only be described as a depression in agriculture. I will try to focus the attention of people in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, on the transition that is now taking place in agriculture, which I think, if it runs its full course, we will deeply regret as a Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Senator Daschle's bill titled the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act, S.1678. I am proud to cosponsor this important bill because it will provide relief for health care providers suffering under drastic cuts resulting from the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. That legislation has had a very negative impact on the Medicare program and the financial viability of our medical establishments providing care under that program. The Senate Minority Leader's legislation will scale back some of the BBA reductions and therefore provide the necessary reimbursement for providers who give needed medical services to patients. Let me be clear, patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries when this bill is enacted. A basic fact is that any person seeking medical attention will likely visit a medical establishment currently being affected by BBA payment reductions. If medical facilities close due to BBA cuts, it will adversely impact not only Medicare beneficiaries, but all of the citizens in that same community who need access to health care. Back in 1997, I did not support the Balanced Budget Act. In fact, when this came up for consideration back then I said ``Mr. President, this is a huge mistake - a huge mistake.'' Realizing the vital role of Medicare in our country, I thought that we should be going in the opposite direction - providing the opportunity for all Americans to access decent healthcare. Although BBA passed, I did hope that it would not severely impact Medicare beneficiaries or the healthcare establishments that provide their care. Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true. I have had an almost continuous stream of people from Minnesota come into my office and tell me about the dramatic, draconian effects that BBA has had on the ability of medical establishments to provide needed medical services to people in my state. We have heard from large academic teaching hospitals, small rural clinics, home healthcare agencies, skilled nursing facilities, hospices and physicians. It is hard to think of a medical establishment that has not been impacted by these cuts. According to the hospitals in my state, the total impact of BBA cuts for Minnesota over 5 years will be $908 million. The prognosis is really disturbing. We hear many service providers tell us they can not continue their operations because of these cuts. They are going to close their doors and shut down. Some of these establishments are located in rural settings where they are the only hospital or clinic or nursing facility within dozens and dozens of miles. What is going to happen when these facilities close? The answer is that peoples' health will suffer and the communities will suffer economically. The communities will suffer because they don't have a hospital. Businesses will be reluctant to locate in a community that does not have access to healthcare. It doesn't have to be this way. In the United States Senate, we have the opportunity to fix some of the problems created by BBA. Senator Daschle's bill will lessen the impact of the BBA cuts on providers, thus benefitting patients. I think this package will make a substantial difference. This bill will help our teaching hospitals by limiting further decreases in the Indirect Medical Education payments. Teaching hospitals are important not only because they train future physicians, but also because they treat a large number of Medicare beneficiaries. For skilled nursing facilities, this bill will repeal the $1500 therapy caps for three years until a new system can be implemented. For Home Healthcare Agencies, this bill postpones the 15% cut in payments for 2 years. For physicians, this bill would smooth out the fluctuations in physician payment rates. For Medicare Plus Choice, this bill provides enrollees with additional time to switch plans if their plan terminates. For clinics, this bill will create a new payment system that is linked to 1999 costs along with subsequent updates. For hospices, this bill will increase hospice payments by the full market basket updates. This bill will allow many medical facilities in my state to continue operating. I'm sure the same holds true for most states. We need to pass this bill now. Health care is too important an issue. Even though not everybody has access to it, we do have a great health care system and it needs to be preserved. The BBA was a mistake, and now is the time to limit some of the resulting adverse consequences. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to do so; I will let the Senator know.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, let me point out to all of my colleagues that I think the approach we want to take here if we want to have more funding for consultation is to just simply advance that by the $9 million. But the last thing in the world I want to do is take resources away from enforcement, which is the backbone of worker safety. That is really a flaw of this amendment introduced by my colleague from Wyoming. As a matter of fact, at our March 4 hearing, a majority of witnesses were asked why more small businesses do not take advantage of free consultation services available in all 50 States. The majority of the witnesses said--this is not a direct quote, but I will paraphrase--that many small businesses don't think they will get inspected, so it is not economical for them to take advantage of these consultations. They feel no need to. The two are interrelated. When businesses really worry about this and know that in fact there are some enforcement laws we can implement, then they are more likely to go to a consultative service. Again, I really do not understand. It is a little bit similar to the amendment we just had where, on the one hand, you say you have more money for the community health centers and you will take it out of NLRB, which has everything to do with workers' rights to organize, and making sure equally that people who are fired are going to be able to have their day in court and make their appeal, and there isn't going to be a long delay. In that case, justice delayed is justice denied. In this case we have an amendment introduced by my colleague from Wyoming that basically takes resources away from enforcement. Standards and regulations are no more than suggestions. They don't mean anything for working people in this country if there is not sufficient enforcement to back them up. Let me repeat that we can have standards and regulations but it is empty, it doesn't mean anything to someone if they can't be backed up through enforcement. Even with the additions to the President's budget request, OSHA's Federal enforcement funding will fall $3 million below the level it was in 1995. By contrast, during the same period, 1995 to 2000, OSHA's State consultation program has grown from $31.5 million to $40.9 million, an increase of 30 percent. So I question the priorities of this amendment. The very area where we have not kept up and have not made adequate investment in inspection is the very area from which my colleague from Wyoming takes funds and puts them into the consultation program where we have been making the investment. Of the 12,500 most dangerous workplaces in the Nation, OSHA is able to inspect only about 3,000 a year. The other 9,500 will go uninspected unless there is a fatality or catastrophic accident. We need more enforcement resources, not less. I will repeat, we need more enforcement resources, not less. If my colleagues think about the number of people who are killed at the workplace because of an unsafe workplace and the number of people who work with carcinogenic substances which take years off their life or the number of workers who go deaf or suffer other disabling injuries because of an unsafe workplace, I find it almost impossible to believe they are going to take funding away from enforcement. I hope I don't get myself in trouble for saying this, but this is in some ways a class issue. This is in many ways a class issue. Actually, we are not talking about us and we are probably not talking about most of our sons and daughters. But we are talking about blue-collar workers. We are talking about working-class people. The whole idea of OSHA and the whole idea of NIOSH was to make sure that we followed through on our commitment for a safe workplace. The way to make sure that happens is to make sure we have the enforcement resources--not to have less. Let me point out that in 1995 and 1996, when OSHA's inspection activity declined dramatically, so did requests for consultation services. Business for private safety consultants also fell and even vendor sales of safety and health equipment declined as well. I go back again to our hearing that we had March 4. My colleague from Wyoming conducted that hearing where the majority of witnesses said one of the reasons small businesses don't take advantage of the free consultation services is because small businesses don't think they will get inspected. As I hear my colleague speak about inspection, I hear him making the argument that it takes too long. In fact, I agree with him. But if my colleagues are worried about the delay in inspection, the last thing they want to do is cut the budget that deals with inspection. That is illogical. If colleagues are worried about the delay, the last thing in the world they want to do is reduce enforcement resources. I point out to my colleagues this is an important vote. Think about the people you represent in your States: 55 percent of all OSHA inspections are in construction, which continues to be extremely dangerous. In 1998, 1,171 construction workers died on the job. Construction workers are about 6 percent of the workforce, but they comprise about 19 percent of workplace deaths. If we think that is too many workers dying on the job, and if the evidence is overwhelming there are still too many unsafe workplaces, and if Members are concerned about workplace safety, then I do not believe Senators can vote to reduce the resources for OSHA inspectors. Again, I say to both of my colleagues, including my colleague from Arkansas, I don't know why we make this a zero sum game. Why don't we say, yes, let's do even better for consultation. The second-degree amendment I will introduce will say we don't cut enforcement. I don't think we should. I think that just means we will have fewer inspectors, less inspections, and more workers will die. I don't think we should do that. What we could do is maintain the funding for the inspection, which is so key to worker safety, and add the additional money, forward fund the additional money or advance fund the additional money, it is only $9 million, for consultation. Why continue to play off one good idea versus another or help some business or some workers over here but end up hurting other workers over here? I don't understand the premise of this amendment. I think it is flawed. I think enforcement is the backbone of worker safety, and this amendment which takes resources away from enforcement also means there will be less safety for workers. That is why I am opposed to this amendment. That is why I hope this amendment will be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think Senator Kennedy may want to speak. I am not sure that we will have anyone else. I don't know that we will need to spend a lot more time. I think the Senator will be back soon. I have not heard from other Senators.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleague, I was so overwhelmed with this past vote, I was so moved by this past vote to give me an opportunity to speak even more on the floor of the Senate, that I am now going to vitiate that part of the unanimous consent agreement to have a vote on this second-degree amendment so colleagues could leave.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask my colleague from Iowa a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I leave the floor, might I ask my colleagues from Iowa and Pennsylvania a question? I want to know the parliamentary situation. Do we have an agreement for no second-degree amendments and this would only be debated for an hour? Could I get some information about this?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could make it clear to the Senator from Iowa, if there is an objection--I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think his unanimous consent request is very much in the spirit of fairness. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if that is not acceptable, kind of sneaking a unanimous consent request in--this is a very important amendment. There ought to be second-degree amendments on every single amendment introduced to this bill forthwith with no time agreement if we are going to play that way. That is just not acceptable. We need much more time and we certainly should have the right to second-degree amendments.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first I will speak to procedure and then to substance. I apologize to my friend from Arkansas, for whom I have a lot of respect even though we do not agree on all issues. I used the words ``sneak through,'' and I should not have said that. He is above board, and I know that. However, I do want to make it clear, my very good friend, Senator Harkin, was talking to someone when that happened and therefore was not fully aware of this agreement. The fact is, on our side we believe this goes against our understanding of the way we operate. There was no intention of going forward with a unanimous consent agreement that would limit this to 1 hour with no second-degree amendments. I say one more time, I certainly hope my colleague from Arkansas will understand that. I hope he will understand this is above and beyond the debate. We can always debate issues. This is generating a lot of anger and indignation. For my own part, I am committed to doing a second-degree amendment on every amendment that comes to the floor forthwith, with no time limit at all, because I believe this should not have gone this way as a unanimous consent agreement. The reason I feel strongly about the procedure is because of the substance of what this is about. To me, it is a matter of justice delayed is justice denied. I tell you, what is real important in our country is that people have the right to organize and bargain collectively, to earn a decent living, to give their children the care they know they need and deserve. Frankly, we ought to be doing much more by way of labor law reform. But when you cut into the NLRB's budget, and you are going to reduce staff by an additional 100 women and men, the only thing you are doing is you are making it impossible for many working people to have justice. I do not even know the figures because I came rushing to the floor when I heard about this, but there are well over 10,000 people who are illegally fired. And quite often----

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Arkansas, I am well aware that it flat-lines, but it is similar to what we talk about with the veterans' health care budget. When you flat-line, and you do not take into account additional inflation, then basically the effect of it is a reduction. My understanding is that you have a reduction of about 5 percent. If that is the effect, and if we cut into the man and woman power requirements of the National Labor Relations Board, I am unalterably opposed to this because working people in this country have a right to be able to make an appeal. It should not be profitable for companies to illegally fire people. It should not be easy for companies to break the law. When we try to go after the NLRB, what we are doing is going after the rights of working people. So I say to my colleagues, an awful lot is at stake here. The National Labor Relations Board is all about a framework of laws we have set up in our country. It is all about making sure working people have certain rights. I think this amendment guts some of those rights by basically stripping away some of our enforcement power. So I say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle that I do not accept this choice he presents to us. I think my colleague from Iowa probably will be talking about what he has heard from the community health care clinics. But to pit one group of low-income citizens against another group of low- and moderate-income people, working- income people, I think is simply outrageous. Knowing the people I have met who work at the community health care clinics, I doubt the people who work at our community health care clinics are interested in some additional funding for them if that means taking away from the rights of working people. We are basically talking about the same group of citizens--hard working, not necessarily making a lot of money, hoping that they will get a fair shake, hoping that they will get decent health care, or hoping that their rights will be respected. I again say to my colleagues that when you flat-line the budget, you effectively cut the budget. You cut into the NLRB's capacity and ability to represent working people. There will be more and more and more delay. As my colleague from Pennsylvania said, justice delayed is justice denied. That is what this amendment is--it is a justice delayed/justice denied amendment as it affects working people in this country. Therefore, I would like to have the opportunity--we would like to have the opportunity to offer a second-degree amendment. I hope my colleague from Arkansas will reconsider, given the fact that there is, at best, confusion about what happened; and we are hoping we can go on together in good faith. If not, I say, one more time, that for my own part, I will just offer second-degree amendments to every single amendment offered on the other side of the aisle, with no time limit whatsoever. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say, in good faith, that I am not going to make it open-ended. I am now waiting word from other offices as to who will be down here, so I can't agree to a time limit, although I don't intend to extend it for hours. I have to wait and see how many people want to speak. For right now, I think we should leave it as it was and hope my colleagues will trust me that I am not trying to drag it on and on. I can't agree to that right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could we have order in the Chamber, please.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to object until I look at the change in the language. The wrong page number. I do not object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. My understanding is that the Senator from Pennsylvania is going to try to propound a unanimous consent request. Let me, in 2 minutes, summarize. I appreciate the amendment by my colleagues in Wyoming and Georgia. I think this is an unfortunate tradeoff. I think it is a profound mistake. I think enforcement is the backbone of worker safety. The second-degree amendment we will offer later on would essentially say: We can do better for consultative services, and we can advance some funds there, but we are certainly not going to take it out of enforcement. My colleague from Massachusetts has spoken about this at great length; I have as well. I will not recite the statistics again as to the number of unsafe workplaces and the need for strong inspection. I simply say that the promise of OSHA--not yet realized--is we are going to make a commitment to working people, and we are going to make a commitment that people have a safe workplace. We are not doing as well as we should. We should do much better. But I think it would be a serious mistake for Democrats or Republicans to vote to reduce enforcement. That is a huge mistake. For all who care about worker safety, do not vote to reduce enforcement, to reduce inspection. The laws and the rules and regulations do not mean a thing unless we have the enforcement. That is why I think this amendment is flawed. That is why I hope it will be voted down. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, we are looking at it right now. If we can have another moment, we will be ready to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to follow the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, on his amendment. I want to respond to my colleague from Pennsylvania. I will start out with Minnesota, and then I will go to the country at large. Actually, in Minnesota, for reasons I will explain, these social service programs and funding are passed directly to counties. The State cannot replace the money with tobacco money or anything else, and certainly not for next year, which is a bonding legislature. But above and beyond that, in any case, the tobacco money has already been spent for other programs. The point is, we do not know what will happen. This is what my colleague concluded. We do not know what will happen with these programs that are so important to poor people, to vulnerable people, elderly people, people with disabilities. To cut the social service programs by 50 percent and then say States have tobacco money so we will count on them to do it is an abandonment of our commitment. It is an abandonment of our commitment. What we have done is cut the social services block grant program by more than half. What my colleague from Florida has done--and I am pleased to join him in this amendment--is to restore the funding to the full formula amount of $2.38 billion. We are talking about programs that are so important to the lives of the most vulnerable citizens in our country: The elderly, the very young, the poor, and the disabled. The question is, What is this SSBG fund? Are we talking about something important? Yes, we are talking about something important, if you think adoption services, congregate meals, counseling services, child abuse and neglect services, day care, education and training services, employment services, family planning services, foster care services, home- delivered meals, housing services, independent and transitional living services, legal services, pregnancy and parenting services, residential treatment services, services for at-risk youth, and special services for families for the disabled and transportation services are important. If we think these services are important, then how in the world can we cut this funding by 50 percent? I respect my colleague from Pennsylvania. He has done the very best, given the budget caps under which he has worked. But I do not believe a good argument against the amendment we have introduced is: Well, there is tobacco money out there and the States can use that money. Some States do not have that money to use. Some States can't use that money. In any case, whatever happened to our commitment at the Federal level to try to fund some services that would help the most vulnerable citizens in our country? That is my question. Let me talk a little about some of these programs and then go further with the argument I want to make. Let me take Meals on Wheels. Why do we not think about this in personal terms? I think, I say to Senator Graham, we are going to get support for this amendment. I believe we can pass this amendment. Are Senators going to vote to cut funding for the Meals on Wheels program? That is a program for people, many of them elderly, many of them disabled. Both my parents, for example, had Parkinson's disease. They might not even be able to get to congregate dining, which is a great program. They might not even be able to get into town; they cannot drive. Quite often there is not the transportation. In Minnesota it is cold; it is wintry weather. Maybe during the winter they cannot get out and freely move around. So you have the Meals on Wheels program where you deliver a hot lunch, a nutritious meal, to elderly citizens. And we are going to cut this program? Let me repeat that. We are going to cut this program? We can do better. We can do much better. Talk about independent and transitional living services; here we have some services--I will talk about this in some detail--that would enable an elderly person or someone with a disability to live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible, with dignity. It is a range of support services. It might be nursing services, community health outreach services, making sure those people are able, with a little help, to stay at home. We are going to cut this program, potentially by half? We are going to cut services that enable people to live at home with dignity as opposed to being put into a nursing home? We cannot do that. We cannot do that. According to the Title XX Coalition, in fiscal year 1997 more than 1.1 million elderly people and over 740,000 people with disabilities benefited from the social services program. State and local prevention and treatment services reached over 2.3 million children and their families. I thought we cared so much about the elderly. I thought we cared so much about the children. I thought we cared so much about making sure at least there is an investment in some resources that will enable people with disabilities to live lives with independence and dignity. That is what the disabilities movement is all about. We cannot say that if we cut these services, if we cut these programs by over 50 percent. In my home State of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used, in some counties, to augment child care for single women and their families. We talk about the importance of moving from welfare to work, but if a mother works and cannot find child care or cannot afford child care, how is she going to do it? Or if you have working poor people and they work 52 weeks a year and they work 40 hours a week and one of them is working or both of them are working, affordable child care is a hugely important issue for them. There are not Senators in this Chamber who would not want to make sure their children were able to get good child care. And we are cutting into services for child care? Many Minnesota counties use SSBG money for home care services for the elderly. We are talking about funds to pay for a care giver to go to a vulnerable elderly person's home and help them with ``home chore services,'' such as taking their medicine on time and in the right doses, keeping their homes clean and safe, helping people take a bath, making sure there is food in the refrigerator. I am sorry, I am not going to get worked up, but I do not understand how in the world we can justify cutting those services for elderly people. I do not understand that. That is exactly what we went through with my mother and father in Northfield, MN. That is exactly the struggle we had in trying to help them stay at home. We did all we could among Sheila, myself, and our children. Sometimes one needs some help. At the county level, if there is a public health outreach program, somebody can help elderly people to make sure they take their drugs, to make sure they take the right dosage, to help someone like my dad who had Parkinson's disease and his body shook and my mother was not able to help him take a bath, to help people live at home, help people keep their independence. This is mean- spirited to cut these programs. We cannot say: Well, but there is the tobacco money and States can use tobacco money. We do not know whether all States can. We do not know whether all States will and, in any case, this is a commitment that we have made in the Senate. We are a national community. Can we not as a national community, represented by the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, at least make a commitment to fund these services that are so important for vulnerable people? I was speaking with Marien Brandt, the human services director in Sibley County, MN, a rural county, who told me her county spends SSBG funds primarily to serve vulnerable populations who are not eligible for assistance under other funding programs. She suggested that many of the people her agency serves would be forced into institutionalized care without SSBG funds. She gave me the example of the child who might have to go into an out-of-home placement if her agency becomes unable to provide counseling services that help the child's parent learn to adequately care for and protect that child. The vulnerable adults they help with SSBG money tend to be elderly people, seniors, disabled people who get home health care services, people they help stay at home, the very people about whom I talked. If we are talking also about counseling services for parents and for children at risk, what in the world are we doing cutting those services? Marien told me that in Sibley County, SSBG money is used especially in the rural areas to fund transportation for the elderly and the disabled so they can go to the doctor, so they can buy groceries, so they are simply not isolated. Let me point out what we are doing. All too often we say SSBG and people do not know what we are talking about. And we throw the money around: increase $1.2 billion, subtract $1.3 billion. I will translate it into personal services. Here is an example of one of many counties-- I could take hours on this--where we use this money to provide transportation. Sometimes it is not the big buses. Sometimes it is smaller, a dial-a-bus so an elderly person can go to the doctor, people can go to the grocery store, they can go to congregate dining, they can go places and they are not isolated. What in the world are we doing cutting this funding by 50 percent? This SSBG money, I say to my colleague from Florida, is used to fund services for people who otherwise would fall through the cracks. This money is used to provide services for the most vulnerable citizens in our country. I do not understand exactly--I understand what my colleague from Pennsylvania said. He cares a lot about these budgets as they affect people. But I really do not know how we got to the point where we cut these social service programs by 50 percent. I do not understand that. I am afraid one of the things I think happens is that quite often, when we work under these caps--I do not know if my colleague from Florida will be angry with me for saying this, so therefore maybe I will not, now that I think about it. We put ourselves into fictional politics. These caps do not work, and everybody seems to be locked in with these caps. We are engaged in mutual deception. Nobody wants to talk about breaking the caps. That is not what this amendment does, although advance funding, whatever, we all know we need to spend more. In my opinion, this amendment goes to the heart of what this debate is all about. We ought not, I say to the Presiding Officer--a good Senator--to be cutting these kinds of programs. These programs are for the most vulnerable citizens in our country. We ought not to be cutting programs that enable someone to get Meals on Wheels, that enable someone to go to congregate dining, that provide home health care services so people can stay at home rather than being institutionalized, that provide child care, help for families so they can afford child care. We ought not to be cutting these kinds of services by 50 percent. I fear one of the reasons we end up doing it is that these are the citizens who do not have the clout. It is just too easy to make cuts based upon the path of least political resistance. It is just too easy to cut services for the very poor and the most vulnerable. This is wrong. This amendment goes to the heart and soul, I hope, of the Senate. I will not go over reports from many counties, but I want to talk briefly about how my own State is going to be impacted. Minnesota communities currently receive $41.6 million annually. If these proposed cuts are enacted, Minnesota is going to lose $23.2 million in funding. We will receive only $18.3 million in fiscal year 2000. We are unique, I will concede that point, because by law the SSBG funds bypass the Governor and flow directly to the local level. The State cannot touch the money. We cannot add or subtract funds from the block grant. Minnesota law further requires local level programs to run balanced books, which means they cannot carry any budget surplus from one year to the next. What this means, if these cuts to the SSBG go through, the State will not be able to offset any of the lost funds with funds from other sources. The local level programs will have no budget surpluses to fall back on, and these Federal level program cuts will be reflected immediately in local level cuts; in other words, right there in the counties where the people live. It would mean substantial reductions or perhaps even the elimination of local Minnesota programs. So when I come to the floor and speak about this with some sense of urgency, it is because we could lose senior congregate dining. We could lose Meals on Wheels. We could lose a host of other local community- based programs that are so important to our citizens. It would also mean cuts in health and substance abuse programs. Minnesota is one of only seven States in the country that relies more heavily on title XX grants than its SAMHSA grant to fund mental health services. We are going to see draconian cuts in mental health services as well. Furthermore, next year, in my State it will be a ``bonding legislature,'' one in which they will not be able to consider policy issues. So the Minnesota Legislature is not going to be able--I think my colleague from Florida was alluding to this in other States--to take up any legislation to change the law governing the flow of SSBG funds in 2001. I will tell you, I give the example of Minnesota because this is one hugely important issue in my State. But I also want to say to my colleagues that Senator Graham has done a good job of talking about how this is going to affect all of the States. In a report that was put out yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained that if the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill becomes law, SSBG funding will have been cut 87 percent since 1977 in inflation-adjusted terms--87 percent. An SSBG cut of the magnitude proposed in this bill will substantially reduce our State's ability to provide services to vulnerable children, to elderly, and disabled people. This amendment, that I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Graham, is an effort to say to the Senate that we have to do the right thing and that we must restore full funding for the title XX social services block grant program. I will wait to hear if there is debate on the other side. I have many more examples to present from many counties in my State, both rural and urban. But I will repeat it one more time. As far as I am concerned, the fundamental core question for us to address, the issue for us to debate, is whether or not we in the Senate want to cut the social services programs that are so important to the most vulnerable citizens in our States--important to elderly people so they can have transportation and not be so isolated; important to people like my parents, who are no longer alive, so someone can come to their apartment and help them live at home when they have a disabling disease; important to a family where the single parent is working and she wants to make sure there is affordable child care; important to the person with disabilities so he or she can live at home with dignity; important for people who are not well enough and cannot even physically be able to go to congregate dining, who need Meals on Wheels, so someone can come and deliver them a nutritious meal. By the way, the Meals on Wheels program is inadequately funded right now. We cannot cut these critically important programs and services that make life better for vulnerable citizens in our country. We cannot do this. The States have a tremendous amount of leeway in how they use their SSBG funds, and this is one program in which they are able to try to develop innovative and creative programs to help the poor and needy (people with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty line are eligible for SSBG funds). Title XX only specifies that the money be used to help people achieve and maintain economic self-support and self-sufficiency to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. The law also allows the money to be used for services that prevent or remedy neglect and abuse, and to prevent or reduce unnecessary institutional care by providing community-based or home-based non-institutional care. States use this money to care for people who would otherwise slip through the cracks; these funds are critical for the well-being of the most vulnerable people among us--the elderly and the very young, the poor, and the disabled. These are people who most need our help, and we should not be slashing the very money that is most likely to serve them. Title XX of the Social Security Act specifies that $2.38 billion is to be provided to the States for fiscal year 2000. The Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill, though, slashes funding for this block grant to only $1.05 billion. This cut comes on top of a 15 percent cut to the block grant made as part of the 1996 welfare reform law, a cut that the states reluctantly accepted only with a commitment from Congress that we would provide stable funding for the block grant in the future. I am pretty sure that a 50-percent cut doesn't qualify as stable funding by anyone's definition. And what kind of a message do we send to the States when we talk about cutting block grant funds? Congress sold welfare reform to the states on the promise that they would have the flexibility to administer their own social service programs. But as the National Conference of State Legislatures point out, ``these cuts [to the SSBG] would set the precedent that the federal government is reticent to stand by its decision to grant flexibility to states in administering social programs.'' SSBG funds are used by the states to provide services for needy individuals and families not eligible for TANF, and to reduce federal Medicaid payments by helping vulnerable elderly and disabled live in their homes rather than in institutions. States also use SSBG funds for child care services and other supports for families moving from welfare to work. When Congress proposes slashing these funds, we send a clear, and I believe extremely damaging, message to the States. I think we are telling them not to invest in these kinds of social support programs, because they just can't count on the money being there. But let's just say for a minute that we do go back on our word and break our commitment to the States--so what? What exactly does SSBG fund? Anything important? Only if you think adoption services, congregate meals, counseling services, child abuse and neglect services, day care, education and training services, employment services, family planning services, foster care services, home delivered meals, housing services, independent and transitional living services, legal services, pregnancy and parenting services, residential treatment services, services for at-risk youth and families, special services for the disabled, and transportation services are important. All of these programs are funded, in part at least, through the SSBG. According to the Title XX Coalition, in fiscal year 1997, more than 1.1 million elderly people and over 740,000 people with disabilities benefited from SSBG. State and local prevention and treatment services reached over 2.3 million children and their families. The SSBG also reached 1.5 million individuals and families by supporting their physical and mental well-being, and by helping them overcome barriers to employment and economic self-sufficiency. And child care-related services were provided to over 2.3 million children through SSBG. In my home State of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used in some counties to augment child care for low-income single women and families. Even with these additional funds, there are currently huge waiting lists for subsidized day care in most counties. If we further cut the title XX funds, these county level programs are going to have to reduce or eliminate services that they provide. And when a single mom who has just gotten off welfare and is trying to make ends meet while she starts working at her new job, loses the subsidized day care that she counts on, what do you think is going to happen? Which do you think is more likely--that she'll be able to afford to pay for day care herself, or that she'll be forced to go back onto welfare? Many Minnesota counties use SSBG money for home care services for the elderly. These counties use SSBG funds to pay for a care giver to go into a vulnerable elderly person's home and help them with basic ``home chore'' services like taking their medicine on time and in the right doses, keeping their home clean and safe, taking a bath, or making sure there is food in the refrigerator. These are simple, basic services, but they often mean the difference between allowing someone to stay in their own home or being forced into an institution. If SSBG funds are cut, vulnerable elderly are likely to lose home care services like a visiting nurse or case management person, which might then force them into a nursing home or an assisted living situation that would, in the end, cost much more money. I was speaking with Marien Brandt, the Human Services Director in Sibley County, Minnesota who told me that her county spends SSBG funds primarily to serve vulnerable populations who aren't eligible for assistance under other funding programs, and she suggested that many of the people her agency serves would be forced into institutionalized care without SSBG funds. Marien gave me the example of the child who might have to go into an out-of-home placement if her agency becomes unable to provide counseling services that help the child's parent learn to adequately care for and protect that child. The vulnerable adults they help with SSBG money tend to be elderly people, seniors or disabled people, who get home care services--someone to come in to help them clean their home and maintain a safe environment, bathe, have food to eat, to see that they take the right amount of medicine when they are supposed to. Oftentimes these people are not eligible for medical assistance, so there is not another source of funding available to them when they are living in the community. What will happen if SSBG funds are cut is that they will wind up having to go into a nursing home in order to qualify for funds to pay for their care. Marien told me that in Sibley County, SSBG money is also used, especially in rural areas, to fund transportation for elderly and disabled, so they can access services like doctors, getting groceries, and just simply so they are not so isolated in their home (a ride to the senior center, perhaps). There is no other funding source that will pay for this. For disabled people who are just over eligibility guidelines for medical assistance, SSBG money is used to help meet their needs--managing medication, transportation, and community based services like training and counseling. The way Marien explained it to me, her county basically counts on SSBG money to pay for services for people who otherwise fall through the cracks. They count on this money to provide simple, basic services that keep the most vulnerable among us in their homes and out of much more costly institutions. Sue Beck, the Director of Human Services in Crow Wing County, Minnesota told me a similar story. She explained that her county also counts on SSBG funds to make sure that vulnerable populations, the elderly, the disabled, children, and poor people, have the services they need to live economically secure, self-sufficient lives. Over the past several years, due to SSBG cuts that have already been imposed, her county has had to cut back services in transportation and ``chore services''--for disabled and elderly people who need just a little bit of help--things like help shoveling snow or grocery shopping. They use SSBG money currently to augment their employability budget--to provide supported employment, and community based employment for people who other wise might not be able to compete successfully in the job market. All of this is at risk when we talk about cutting SSBG in half. Dave Haley, from the Ramsey County Department of Human Services also told me about his county spends SSBG money. The first example he gave me was that of a typical family of a single-mother who has three young children. The oldest child, a 7-year-old boy, has missed a significant number of school days. The mother is experiencing problems with chemical dependency and involved in a violent relationship with her boyfriend. The mother cannot make sure that the child gets up every day on time, and is promptly fed and dressed for school. The family does not have a car or other personal means of transportation. Through programs partially funded with SSBG money, the County is able to provide support to the mother to resolve her chemical dependency problems and domestic abuse. Services ensure that the seven-year-old is attending school on a regular basis and the boy is beginning to make academic progress. There are over 2,000 young children in Ramsey County currently in this situation. Ramsey County and local school districts have been able to develop a very active program to address these educational neglect issues and insure that children attend school on a consistent basis. They will be forced to scale back this effort, though, if SSBG funds are cut by more than 50 percent. Another example that Dave gave me is that of a 30 year-old woman that is living in her own apartment in her home community. Thirty years ago, a similar individual with moderate mental health needs would have been placed in a state hospital miles from their family home. Over the last three decades, needed supports have been developed, including programs to monitor and assist individuals in managing their medications, checking on their money management and assisting when necessary with proper budgeting, teaching needed independent living skills, and employment support to maintain their current job. Without periodic weekly checks, the individual would have great difficulty managing their daily life, and might be forced into an institutionalized living situation. The system that has developed over the last three decades has not only improved the lives of hundreds of people in Ramsey County, it has also enabled the state and federal government to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on more expensive institutional care. Currently, Ramsey County receives $5 million in SSBG funding. If this were reduced by half, it would affect far more than what I have briefly mentioned. SSBG money also supports chemical dependency prevention efforts, homemaker and other support services for seniors to prevent nursing home placement, and support efforts for families with a child with developmental disabilities to enable the family to stay together and avoid or delay out of home placement, to name only a few. If these funds are not restored, all of these programs, and all of the people they serve, will suffer. So you tell me, which of these programs deserves to go, because something is going to have to if this provision passes. Who do you think we should turn away? Maybe low-income families with children? Or perhaps the elderly or disabled? What difference does it make if someone goes to bed hungry, or homeless, or just plain afraid that they won't make it through tomorrow? We have a budget cap to maintain, after all. And that is what this Congress has defined as really important here, right? Not helping our constituents, or keeping our commitments to the States, because I certainly don't see how anyone in Congress could argue differently when I see an effort like this to eliminate one-half of the SSBG funding. In my own State of Minnesota, these cuts will have an immediate and deeply felt effect. Minnesota communities currently receive $41.6 million annually. If the proposed cuts are enacted, Minnesota will lose $23.2 million in funding, receiving only $18.3 million in FY 2000. Minnesota is unique among all the states, though, because, by law, SSBG funds by-pass the governor and flow directly to the local level. The state cannot touch the money--they can neither add nor subtract funds from the block grant. Minnesota law further requires local levels programs to run balanced books. Which means that they cannot carry any budget surplus from one year to the next. So what that means is that if these cuts to the SSBG go through, the state will not be able to help offset any of the lost funds with funds from other sources, the local level programs will have no budget surpluses to fall back on, and these federal level cuts will be reflected immediately at the local level in program cuts. It would mean substantial reductions, or perhaps even the elimination of local Minnesota programs like senior congregate dining, Meals on Wheels, and a host of other local community based programs. It would also mean cuts in health and substance abuse programs, as Minnesota is one of only seven states in the country that relies more heavily on its Title XX grant than its SAMHSA grant to fund mental health services. Furthermore, because next year will be a ``bonding legislature,'' one in which they will not be considering policy issues, the Minnesota legislature will not be able to take up legislation to change the law governing the flow of SSBG funds until 2001. So some of my colleagues may be saying to themselves, well that's unfortunate for Minnesota, but in my home state we'll be able to supplement the cuts with other money--maybe the money we got from the tobacco settlement, or perhaps we will just transfer money from our TANF surplus. First, let's talk about the tobacco settlements: in some states, anti-smoking and other health needs will receive first priority for use of the settlement funds, not unanticipated reductions in SSBG funds. Also, some states have already enacted legislation committing the tobacco funds for other purposes. Okay, well, then if not the tobacco settlement funds, then maybe the TANF surplus funds. But right now, seven states--Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon--currently have no unobligated TANF funds. And if the House gets its way, 3 billion dollars in TANF surpluses will be rescinded from the states. This will leave another 12 states--Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, and Vermont--who if they used every single cent of their remaining TANF surplus still won't have enough money to cover the lost SSBG funds. That's a total of 19 States, more than a third of all states, that won't have the social service funds available to offset the SSBG funding cuts proposed in this bill. I have here a letter from a group called ``Fight Crime, Invest in Kids,'' which is an organization made up of over 500 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, victims of violence, and violence prevention scholars, written in support of this amendment. They write to explain that recent cuts in SSBG have short changed child care, child abuse prevention, removal and placement of abused children, drug treatment, and other critical crime prevention investments. As they point out in this letter, one of the Government's most fundamental responsibilities is to protect the public safety. To meet that responsibility, Congress must close the crime-prevention gap--the gaping shortfall we ought to be making to help our Nation's children get the right start. The Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore funding to the SSBG would provide over $591 million to protect children from abuse and neglect. Since abused and neglected children are almost twice as likely to become chronic offenders, it is clear that these services can have an important crime prevention impact. The amendment would also provide $300 million to support child care in 47 states. A study by the High Scope Foundation showed that quality child care can dramatically reduce the chances of children becoming criminals. It is clear that we must continue to provide the funds for these programs, and we can only do that by restoring the title XX grant to its full formula amount. In a report they put out yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained that if the Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill becomes law, SSBG funding will have been cut by 87 percent since 1977 in inflation-adjusted terms. An SSBG cut of the magnitude proposed in this Senate bill will substantially reduce the States' ability to provide services to vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled people. Please, do the right thing and restore the SSBG money by supporting the Graham-Wellstone amendment to restore full funding for the Title XX Social Services Block Grant. If the Senate does not support this Graham amendment, then, in my view, the Senate does not have a soul. If the Senate does not support this Graham amendment, then, in my honest to God opinion, the Senate does not have a soul. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I shall not--I do not think I will--as I understand this unanimous consent agreement, this will be the FAA bill with relevant amendments. Does the majority leader intend to bring up the nuclear waste bill?

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can do a quick followup, the reason I asked the majority leader was actually less because of the subject matter of that bill but the question whether or not he also plans on restricting it to relevant amendments. What I am asking is, when will I have an opportunity as a Senator from Minnesota to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate which will alleviate the economic pain and suffering of family farmers? That is what I want to know. Are we going to have an opportunity for debate on agriculture policy?