00:00:06.740 - 00:00:37.170

to the senator from Florida for use whenever he think it's appropriate. Sarah's recognized for 12 minutes. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. President, When Harry Truman was running for president in 1948 1 of his whistle stops, the people cried out. Give em hell, Harry. He said, friend, I don't have to give them hell.

00:00:37.170 - 00:00:57.960

I just tell the truth and the truth gives them help. Okay, That is what we are talking about tonight. The truth gives them hell. We've heard from Senator Pryor what this does to right. The standards that have made life tolerable for hundreds of thousands of persons are most vulnerable people in nursing homes.

00:00:59.010 - 00:01:25.060

Let me talk about two other features of this bill. Let me talk about how we are going to allocate over $770 billion of your American taxpayers money over the next seven years and the standards by which those allocation decisions were made. There is no rationale to the allocation formula which is in this bill.

00:01:26.230 - 00:01:58.550

I've been asking for better than 36 hours to get the legislative language. Finally, at 6:20 p.m. We got the first version of the legislative language, but not the last version. The last version came at 9 45. Let me direct your attention if you have the 6 25 version to Page 36 and I would like to ask someone on the Republican side to explain the theory and philosophy behind this allocation.

00:01:59.440 - 00:02:25.260

Pay Page 36 Line 11. It says additional amounts described. The additional amounts described in this paragraph are as follows. These are additional amounts that go to states just because they are these states. Arizona gets $63 million. Florida gets $250 million. Thank you. Georgia gets $34 million.

00:02:25.390 - 00:02:49.330

Kentucky $76,500,000 South Carolina $181 million The state of Washington 255 250 million. That was the list as of 6 25 but by 9 45 Vermont had come on for $50 million. Friends, we've talked a lot about balanced budget, about fiscal prudence, about responsible use of taxpayers money.

00:02:49.340 - 00:03:14.360

That is how your money is being used. Let me tell you another little fat in terms of the rationale of distribution of the states in this Senate, which have two Democratic senators. The difference between what those states would have received out of a pool of dollars that was $10 billion less $10 billion less total money to be distributed.

00:03:14.920 - 00:03:44.110

Those states, which have two Democratic senators, lost $3,000,000,605 million. Of the states that have two Republican senators, they gained 11 billion $222 billion. That is the rational way in which we're distributing $770 billion of the taxpayer's money now. How did we arrive at these absurd allocations?

00:03:44.120 - 00:04:26.260

We did it largely because, unlike the Finance Committee, which very thoughtfully made the decision to restrict the amount of money that a state could continue to take into its base for allocation. Those funds, which were derived from what is called disproportionate, share disproportionate share. What is disproportionate chair Disproportionate share was the amount of money that was distributed to states over the period of the seventies and eighties, theoretically, to make up for those hospitals that had a high incident of poor and underserved population that became the fastest growing element of the Medicare program.

00:04:26.260 - 00:05:09.360

In fact, in 1990 total disproportionate share was only $1 billion. 1992. It had gone to 17.4 billion dollars. Why have we seen this enormous increase? We've seen the enormous increase, according to a G A O report General Accounting Office report dated April of this year, because there were states which were scheming this money, the swapping and redirecting of revenues among providers, the state and the federal government result in increased federal spending, increased funds for providers and, in some cases, additional revenue for state Treasuries.

00:05:09.940 - 00:05:35.750

So states were manipulating this district portion that shared their benefit. Under the original Finance Committee bill, we would have restrained and limited the benefit that could have been gained by that previous predatory action. We have now taken the all of the constraints off. We have now said that a steak can go back to 1994 and count every dollar that they had gotten under that disproportionate share.

00:05:35.760 - 00:06:03.200

Let me tell you something, Mr President. That may be surprising. The G A O did a report, a special report on three states, and I'm going to be blunt and say which they were they were Michigan, Tennessee and Texas. Michigan, Tennessee in Texas. Of all of the new money that came into this plan in the last 24 hours, the $10 billion How much do you think Michigan, Texas and Tennessee got 6.5 million?

00:06:03.360 - 00:06:20.810

6.5 billion. They got almost two out of every three new dollars went to those states, which have been identified as the principal pervert ear's of the system. What kind of policy is that? We're going to reward and benefit those states which have been ripping off the federal taxpayer.

00:06:21.240 - 00:06:44.950

What kind of a plan is this? I will be very interested to get a response from our Republican colleagues on that issue. But friends, the fact that we are about to rape the elderly in nursing homes, the fact that we are raping the federal Treasury and rewarding inappropriate I would say criminal past behavior is not the end of it.

00:06:45.540 - 00:07:16.860

Where are we getting the $10 billion from? We're getting the $10 billion by rating Social Security. The last portion of this legislation states that how we're going to fund this $10 billion where they come from is because we are going to say that we will break our previous practice of using the Congressional Budget Office as the means of calculating of what our deficit position is.

00:07:17.340 - 00:07:37.210

And we will for this year take the lower cost of living number, which has just recently been reported. Leave everything else in our revenue estimates the same butt plug in that new number, which is a six or 2.6 cost of living factor rather than a 3.1.

00:07:37.280 - 00:07:51.450

Now, we're not gonna do this. We're not going to do this as it relates to revenue. You know, there's some rich people that benefit by this cost of living because their taxes are indexed and they get held down by virtue of a higher cost of living.

00:07:51.840 - 00:08:15.960

We're only going to use this against the old folks and primarily Social Security and other federal retirement programs who are going to have their money used as the basis of funding this raid in order to benefit a handful of politically powerful And, I would say, probably politically needed states in order to pass this atrocious, uh, proposition.

00:08:16.540 - 00:08:46.270

Now, what has the Congressional Budget Office had to say about this particular raid on the federal treasury, the Congressional Budget Office has stated. This is Paul Vander Water, who is the assistant director for budget, the Congressional Budget Office. He states that the CBO in the Office of Management Budget do not score savings for legislating a cola.

00:08:46.280 - 00:09:14.450

That would have happened anyway. Under current law, this rule was applied to veterans Compensation 1991 and the food stamps in 1992. In other words, we're changing our previous Congressional Budget Office policy, but friends, it gets worse. Mr Vander Water goes on to say, at the request of the Budget Committee, CBO has, from time to time updated the baseline to reflect current economic and technical development.

00:09:15.440 - 00:10:05.860

In such circumstances, however, we insist on incorporating all relevant new information, not just selected items like a change in cost of living in this instance. Friends, I want you to listen to this sentence in this. If we were to include all of the information in our August baseline, plus the actual 1996 cost of living, our estimate of the year 2000 and two deficit would be higher would be higher, not lower so we are using a fraudulent method in order to calculate what what is presented to be savings in order to fund this atrocious raid on the public treasury.

00:10:06.240 - 00:10:24.820

When the CBO said if they were asked the right question, they not only would not have scored this as creating any additional money, they would have said that we had a greater deficit. Then we started with so friends. That is what we are about with this amendment from the Finance Committee that we've waited 36 hours to get it.

00:10:24.840 - 00:10:43.110

If you want to know why this stealth bomber that was out there all those hours, we kept asking, Can we see what is in this proposal? Can we see the legislative language? Can we see the state by state numbers? And we couldn't get any answers? Sorry, It's too complicated being worked with.

00:10:43.110 - 00:11:07.970

The technicians are poring over it. I'm certain the technicians came up with a formula that gave $11 billion of additional funds to states that just happened to be represented by Republicans and cut the funds from the state that happened to be represented by Democrats. That just was a technical oversight and then to have the gall to raid our Social Security fund as the means of financing this.

00:11:07.980 - 00:11:37.070

Is there no limit to what we can ask our older people to do? We're cutting their Medicare. We're eliminating other important programs for the elderly. And now we're using their Social Security in this backdoor means as a basis to fund an additional $10 billion which doesn't exist, which is going to just add further to the deficit to give money to a few favorite states so they can corral the votes to pass this.

00:11:37.150 - 00:11:56.850

See me? Mess, my friends, I wish this thing had stayed a stealth bomber. It was better when we couldn't see it. Then when it finally appeared on the radar scope and we were able to look and appreciate the details. So, Mr President, fellow colleagues, the answer tonight is a simple answer, and that is to defeat this amendment.

00:11:57.240 - 00:12:24.130

As bad as the proposal passed by the Finance Committee was, it was it looked so much better than what we are about to vote upon that we have converted a frog into a beauty with this amendment. So I urge my college to vote this amendment down, uh, and let us at least send a conference, something that we as the Senate can have some degree of senators.

00:12:24.130 - 00:12:56.760

Time has expired as it is taken up in cont Who yields time? Yeah, Senator from New Mexico. Do we have? Yeah. Sarah in Florida recognized two minutes, 50 seconds, and I'd like to make a parliamentary inquiry. Stay at the inquiry inquiry. Our outlay reductions to Social Security used to offset the spending in this amendment.

00:13:04.340 - 00:13:28.060

Position to answer that question with the chair. Like to be informed on that matter so that he might be in a position to answer that question. The chair would be happy to listen to Central Florida. Mhm. Uh huh. Senator, 30 seconds. The parliamentary inquiry has not come out of the time.

00:13:28.740 - 00:14:24.120

Mr Up, Mr. President, I would send to the desk for the review of the chair as well as for inclusion in the record, uh, the 1996 cola versus conference resolution. Baselines. Assumptions dated October the 16th, 1995. I would like to ask if these would be compared with the projections which are utilized to produce the revenue for purposes of supporting the funding containing this amendment that objection to be included in the record the senator's time is running, Mr President, I was my understanding that time for points of order and parliamentary inquiry were not charged against the time.

00:14:24.120 - 00:14:53.650

Is that respectfully, the senator has been answered As far as the parliamentary Aquarius concern, the cheer is not capable of making the comparisons to senator wishes. I would wonder if the senator from New Mexico, at the center from Delaware, as chairs of the respective committee, would like to comment on whether they believe their outlay reductions to Social Security used to offset the spending in this amendment.

00:14:54.640 - 00:15:21.040

I'm satisfied with the ruling of the chair. I have no comment on him to make nothing to add Mr Mr President, I raised a point of order. I raised a point of order under Section 3 10 d of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the pending amendment because Senator from Florida, and will not use the time give him back his time until the time is all used.

00:15:21.040 - 00:15:46.410

It is not in order to make a point of order yet, Mr President, I will withhold, but reserving the time to make a point of order at the appropriate time. The senator will have that time. He has 45 seconds left. Ah, yeah. You don't want to die, Mr.

00:15:46.420 - 00:16:32.420

President, Just to prepare for the consideration of the point of order that we made, I would draw the attention of the chair to subtitle C of the Social Security Act, Section 13 301 which states off budget status of Social Security trust funds Exclusion of Social Security from all budgets notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority outlays, receipts or deficit or surplus for the purposes of the budget of the United States government is submitted by the president to the Congressional Budget or three.

00:16:32.420 - 00:17:58.850

The balanced budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 who he owes time. Who wants two minutes two minutes, two minutes. Center, Delaware. First of all, Mr President, are Senator from Florida, the President. I'm directing my attention to section 7482 of the legislation begins on page 45 in states cost of living adjustments during fiscal year 1996 notwithstanding any other provision of law in the case of any program within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, which is adjusted for any increase in the consumer price index for all urban wage earners and clerical workers per in CP I dash w close paren for the United States City average of all items.

00:17:59.340 - 00:18:35.520

Any such adjustment, which takes effect during the fiscal year 1996 shall be equal to 2.6%. It is to that section, Mr President, that I direct the point of order, and I raised the point of order that under section 3. 10 d of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the pending amendment because it counts $12 billion in cuts to Social Security, which is off budget to offset spending in the amendment, there's Senator Mexico wished to be heard on this point of order.

00:18:35.530 - 00:19:00.440

I only I only want to say that the dollar numbers that being referred to our actual that's all I want to say, right, Mr President, could I could I respond to the you wish Further debate on the point of order. Mhm. It is not debatable. I just wish to know if that senator from New Mexico wished to make a statement mhm, uh, to his authority.

00:19:00.440 - 00:19:34.170

That's what I'm talking about. The scoring of this bill under the Budget Act is under the control of the chairman of the Budget Committee and the president of the Senate. Do not go beyond that, sir. The point of water is not well taken, Mr President. Survival.

00:19:35.040 - 00:19:39.350

Mr. President, I raise I raise a point of order.