| Previous Day: Monday, April 24 | Next Day: Wednesday, April 26 |
| Senate Journal: Index | House Journal: Index |
| Legislation: Index | Bill History: Index |
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CALENDAR DAY
SIXTY-THIRD SESSION DAY
Senate Chamber
Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday, April 25, 1995
The Senate met in regular session at 9:13 a.m., President Boswell
presiding.
Prayer was offered by the Reverend Dan Herndon, pastor of the
Trinity United Methodist Church, Waverly, Iowa.
The Journal of Monday, April 24, 1995, was approved.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
Leaves of absence were granted as follows:
Senators Priebe and Bartz until they arrive on request of Senator
Sorensen.
QUORUM CALL
Senator Horn requested a non record roll call to determine that a
quorum was present.
The vote revealed 45 present, 5 absent and a quorum present.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
(Regular Calendar)
Senate Concurrent Resolution 10
On motion of Senator Drake, Senate Concurrent Resolution 10, a
concurrent resolution relating to border city trucking agreements, with
report of committee recommending passage, was taken up for
consideration.
Senator Drake moved the adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution
10, which motion prevailed by a voice vote.
CONSIDERATION OF BILL
(Regular Calendar)
House File 489
On motion of Senator Sorensen, House File 489, a bill for an act
authorizing an increase in the amount of taxes dedicated to the reserve
account by township trustees for supplies and equipment related to fire
protection, emergency warning systems, and ambulance services, with
report of committee on Local Government recommending passage on April 6,
1995, and report of committee on Ways and Means recommending passage on
April 20, 1995, was taken up for consideration.
Senator Sorensen moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 489) the vote was:
Ayes, 47:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean McLaren
Murphy Neuhauser Palmer Redfern
Rensink Rife Rittmer Sorensen
Tinsman Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 3:
Bartz Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Leave of absence was granted as follows:
Senator Szymoniak until she arrives on request of Senator Horn.
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS
(Ways and Means Calendar)
House File 559
On motion of Senator Vilsack, House File 559, a bill for an act
defining multiple housing cooperatives and certain other property of
nonprofit organizations as residential property for purposes of
assessing the value of the property for taxation purposes, and providing
for the Acts retroactive applicability, with report of committee
recommending passage, was taken up for consideration.
Senator Vilsack moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 559) the vote was:
Ayes, 41:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Freeman
Gettings Giannetto Gronstal Halvorson
Hansen Hedge Horn Husak
Iverson Jensen Judge Kramer
Lind Lundby Maddox McKean
Murphy Neuhauser Redfern Rensink
Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman Vilsack
Zieman
Nays, 4:
Fraise Hammond Kibbie Palmer
Absent or not voting, 5:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Rife
Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
House File 550
On motion of Senator Iverson, House File 550, a bill for an act
relating to the exemption of the statewide notification center and its
vendors from sales, services, and use taxes and providing for the Acts
effectiveness and retroactive applicability, with report of committee
recommending passage, was taken up for consideration.
Senator Iverson moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 550) the vote was:
Ayes, 46:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman
Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS CALENDAR
House File 507
On motion of Senator Gronstal, House File 507, a bill for an act
relating to state government personnel systems, including affirmative
action reports, disability programs, deferred compensation, experimental
research projects, the state training system, and health insurance
contracts for public employees, with report of committee recommending
passage, and placed on the Unfinished Business Calendar on April 13,
1995, was taken up for consideration.
Senator Gronstal offered amendment S-3398 filed by him on April 12,
1995, to page 1 of the bill and moved its adoption.
Amendment S-3398 was adopted by a voice vote.
Senator Gronstal offered amendment S-3397 filed by him on April 12,
1995, to page 1 of the bill and moved its adoption.
Amendment S-3397 was adopted by a voice vote.
Senator Gronstal moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 507) the vote was:
Ayes, 46:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman
Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
House File 393
On motion of Senator Gettings, House File 393, a bill for an act
relating to certain exemptions from federal motor carrier safety
regulations, with report of committee recommending amendment and
passage, and placed on the Unfinished Business Calendar on April 13,
1995, was taken up for consideration.
Senator Gettings offered amendment S-3369 filed by the committee on
Transportation on April 6, 1995, to page 1 of the bill and moved its
adoption.
Amendment S-3369 was adopted by a voice vote.
Senator Gettings moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 393) the vote was:
Ayes, 45:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Gronstal Halvorson
Hammond Hansen Hedge Horn
Husak Iverson Jensen Judge
Kibbie Kramer Lind Lundby
Maddox McKean Murphy Neuhauser
Palmer Redfern Rensink Rife
Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman Vilsack
Zieman
Nays, 1:
Giannetto
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
House File 340
On motion of Senator Black, House File 340, a bill for an act
providing for the operation of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles by
defining public land, with report of committee recommending passage, and
placed on the Unfinished Business Calendar on April 13, 1995, was taken
up for consideration.
Senator Gettings withdrew amendment S-3387 filed by him on April
11, 1995, to page 1 and the title page of the bill.
Senator Lind asked and received unanimous consent that action on
House File 340 be deferred.
HOUSE AMENDMENT CONSIDERED
Senate File 394
Senator Sorensen called up for consideration Senate File 394, a
bill for an act relating to instruments filed or recorded with the
county recorder, amended by the House, and moved that the Senate concur
in House amendment S-3507 filed April 20, 1995.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Senate concurred in
the House amendment.
Senator Sorensen moved that the bill as amended by the House and
concurred in by the Senate, be read the last time now and placed upon
its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote and the bill was
read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 394) the vote was:
Ayes, 46:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman
Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title as amended was agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Leave of absence was granted as follows:
Senator McLaren until he returns on request of Senator Borlaug.
HOUSE AMENDMENT CONSIDERED
Senate File 256
Senator Judge called up for consideration Senate File 256, a bill
for an act providing for notification of the application of pesticides,
amended by the House, and moved that the Senate concur in House
amendment S-3522 filed April 20, 1995.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Senate concurred in
the House amendment.
Senator Judge moved that the bill as amended by the House and
concurred in by the Senate, be read the last time now and placed upon
its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote and the bill was
read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 256) the vote was:
Ayes, 46:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman
Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title as amended was agreed to.
BILLS ASSIGNED TO COMMITTEE
President Boswell announced that House Files 566 and 571were
assigned to the committee on Ways and Means.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS CALENDAR
House File 252
On motion of Senator Halvorson, House File 252, a bill for an act
relating to the regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons, with
report of committee recommending passage, and placed on the Unfinished
Business Calendar on April 13, 1995, was taken up for cconsideration.
Senator Halvorson moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (H.F. 252) the vote was:
Ayes, 46:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Tinsman
Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 4:
Bartz McLaren Priebe Szymoniak
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
IMMEDIATELY MESSAGED
Senator Horn asked and received unanimous consent that House Files
489, 559, 550, 507, 393, 252 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 be
immediately messaged to the House.
Senator Horn asked and received unanimous consent to send an
immediate message to the House on Senate Files 256 and 394.
HOUSE AMENDMENT CONSIDERED
Senate File 390
Senator Hammond called up for consideration Senate File 390, a bill
for an act relating to the Iowa arts and cultural enhancement and
endowment program and foundation, amended by the House, and moved that
the Senate concur in House amendment S-3555 filed April 24, 1995.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Senate concurred in
the House amendment.
Senator Hammond moved that the bill as amended by the House and
concurred in by the Senate, be read the last time now and placed upon
its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote and the bill was
read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 390) the vote was:
Ayes, 47:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Douglas Drake Dvorsky
Fink Flynn Fraise Freeman
Gettings Giannetto Gronstal Halvorson
Hammond Hansen Hedge Horn
Husak Iverson Jensen Judge
Kibbie Kramer Lind Lundby
Maddox McKean McLaren Murphy
Neuhauser Palmer Redfern Rensink
Rife Rittmer Sorensen Szymoniak
Tinsman Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 3:
Bartz Deluhery Priebe
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title as amended was agreed to.
The Senate stood at ease at 10:32 a.m. until the fall of the gavel.
The Senate resumed session at 11:20 a.m., President Boswell
presiding.
QUORUM CALL
Senator Horn requested a non record roll call to determine that a
quorum was present.
The vote revealed 45 present, 5 absent and a quorum present.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT RECEIVED
(Senate File 459)
A conference committee report signed by the folloiwng Senate and
House members was filed April 25, 1995, on Senate File 459, a bill for
an act relating to and making appropriations to the department of
justice, office of consumer advocate, board of parole, department of
corrections, judicial district departments of correctional services,
judicial department, state public defender, Iowa law enforcement
academy, department of public defense, and for the department of public
safetys administration, division of criminal investigation and bureau of
identification, division of narcotics enforcement, undercover purchases,
and the state fire marshals office, for the fiscal year beginning July
1, 1995, and providing effective dates and retroactive applicability:
On the Part of the Senate: On the Part of the House:
EUGENE FRAISE, Chair TERESA GARMAN, Chair
TONY BISIGNANO PAUL BELL
MICHAEL E. GRONSTAL RICK LARKIN
STEWART E. IVERSON, JR. LYNN SCHULTE
DONALD B. REDFERN JERRY WELTER
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ADOPTED
Senate File 459
Senator Fraise called up the conference committee report on Senate
File 459, a bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to
the department of justice, office of consumer advocate, board of parole,
department of corrections, judicial district departments of correctional
services, judicial department, state public defender, Iowa law
enforcement academy, department of public defense, and for the
department of public safetys administration, division of criminal
investigation and bureau of identification, division of narcotics
enforcement, undercover purchases, and the state fire marshals office,
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995, and providing effective
dates and retroactive applicability, filed on April 25, 1995, and moved
its adoption.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the conference committee
report and the recommendations and amendments contained therein was
adopted.
Senator Fraise moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 459) the vote was:
Ayes, 48:
1400 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE 107th Day
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean McLaren
Murphy Neuhauser Palmer Redfern
Rensink Rife Rittmer Sorensen
Szymoniak Tinsman Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 2:
Bartz Priebe
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title was agreed to.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADOPTED
Senator Szymoniak called up the motion to reconsider Senate File
150 filed by her on April 24, 1995, found on page 1384 of the Senate
Journal and moved its adoption.
On the question Shall the motion to reconsider be adopted? (S.F.
150) the vote was:
Ayes, 47:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean McLaren
Murphy Neuhauser Palmer Redfern
Rensink Rife Rittmer Sorensen
Szymoniak Tinsman Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 3:
Bartz Priebe Vilsack
The motion prevailed.
Senator Szymoniak moved to reconsider the vote by which Senate File
150 went to its last reading, which motion prevailed by a voice vote.
Senate File 150
On motion of Senator Dvorsky, Senate File 150, a bill for an act
relating to child abuse involving termination of parental rights in
certain abuse or neglect cases and access by other states to child abuse
information, was taken up for reconsideration.
Senator Szymoniak filed the following motion to reconsider from the
floor and moved its adoption:
MR. PRESIDENT: I move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate
concurred in House amendment S-3543 as amended to Senate File 150 on
April 24, 1995.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and House amendment S-3543 as
amended was taken up for reconsideration.
Senator Dvorsky offered amendment S-3571 filed by him from the
floor to House amendment S-3543 and moved its adoption.
Amendment S-3571 was adopted by a voice vote.
Senator Dvorsky moved that the Senate concur in the House amendment
as amended.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the Senate concurred in
the House amendment as amended.
Senator Dvorsky moved that the bill as amended by the House,
further amended and concurred in by the Senate, be read the last time
now and placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote
and the bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 150) the vote was:
Ayes, 48:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean McLaren
Murphy Neuhauser Palmer Redfern
Rensink Rife Rittmer Sorensen
Szymoniak Tinsman Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 2:
Bartz Priebe
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title as amended was agreed to.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT RECEIVED
(Senate File 93)
A conference committee report signed by the following Senate and
House members was filed April 25, 1995, on Senate File 93, a bill for an
act related to criminal offenses against minors and sexually violent
offenses and offenders committing those offenses, by requiring
registration by offenders, providing for the establishment of a sex
offender registry, and providing penalties:
On the Part of the Senate: On the Part of the House:
TONY BISIGNANO, Chair BRIAN COON, Chair
RANDAL J. GIANNETTO DWIGHT DINKLA
O. GENE MADDOX MINNETTE DODERER
ANDY McKEAN JEFFREY LAMBERTI
TOM VILSACK MICHAEL MORELAND
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ADOPTED
Senate File 93
Senator Bisignano called up the conference committee report on
Senate File 93, a bill for an act related to criminal offenses against
minors and sexually violent offenses and offenders committing those
offenses, by requiring registration by offenders, providing for the
establishment of a sex offender registry, and providing penalties, filed
on April 25, 1995, and moved its adoption.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the conference committee
report and the recommendations and amendments contained therein was
adopted.
Senator Bisignano moved that the bill be read the last time now and
placed upon its passage, which motion prevailed by a voice vote, and the
bill was read the last time.
On the question Shall the bill pass? (S.F. 93) the vote was:
Ayes, 48:
Banks Bennett Bisignano Black
Boettger Borlaug Boswell Connolly
Dearden Deluhery Douglas Drake
Dvorsky Fink Flynn Fraise
Freeman Gettings Giannetto Gronstal
Halvorson Hammond Hansen Hedge
Horn Husak Iverson Jensen
Judge Kibbie Kramer Lind
Lundby Maddox McKean McLaren
Murphy Neuhauser Palmer Redfern
Rensink Rife Rittmer Sorensen
Szymoniak Tinsman Vilsack Zieman
Nays, none.
Absent or not voting, 2:
Bartz Priebe
The bill having received a constitutional majority was declared to
have passed the Senate and the title as amended was agreed to.
IMMEDIATELY MESSAGED
Senator Horn asked and received unanimous consent that Senate Files
150, 459 and 93 be immediately messaged to the House and to send an
immediate message to the House on Senate File 390.
HOUSE MESSAGE RECEIVED
The following message was received from the Chief Clerk of the
House:
MR. PRESIDENT: I am directed to inform your honorable body that the
House has on April 25, 1995, amended and passed the following bill in
which the concurrence of the Senate is asked:
Senate File 475, a bill for an act relating to state financial
provisions and providing applicability provisions and effective dates
(S-3572).
The Senate stood at ease at 12:10 p.m. until the fall of the gavel.
The Senate resumed session at 2:05 p.m., President Boswell
presiding.
HOUSE MESSAGE RECEIVED
The following message was received from the Chief Clerk of the
House:
MR. PRESIDENT: I am directed to inform your honorable body that the
House has on April 25, 1995, adopted the following resolution in which
the concurrence of the House was asked:
Senate Concurrent Resolution 28, a concurrent resolution to call a
joint session for the purpose of hearing an address by the President of
the United States.
APPENDIX
REPORT OF COMMITTEE MEETING
RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
Convened: April 24, 1995, 2:30 p.m.
Members Present: Horn, Chair; Boswell, Vice Chair; Rife, Ranking Member;
Gettings, Gronstal, Husak, Kramer and Lind.
Members Absent: Bisignano.
Committee Business: Approved proposed Senate budget resolution.
Adjourned: 2:36 p.m.
REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
MR. PRESIDENT: Pursuant to Senate Rule 21, I report that in
enrolling Senate File 437, the following correction was made:
1. Page 4, line 15, the words section 97B.51, subsection were
changed to the words section 97B.51, subsection.
ALSO: That in engrossing Senate File 482, the following correction
was made:
1. Page 52, line 17, the word and number subsection 6 were changed
to the word and number subsection 7.
ALSO: That in engrossing Senate File 484, the following corrections
were made:
1. Page 47, lines 3 and 4, the words and numbers sections 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 were changed to the words and numbers sections
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50.
2. Page 47, lines 5 and 6, the words and numbers Sections 26, 27,
and 28 were changed to the words and numbers Sections 27, 28, and 29.
JOHN F. DWYER Secretary of the Senate
PRESENTATION OF VISITORS
The Chair welcomed the following visitors who were present in the
Senate gallery:
Students from Waukee Community School, accompanied by Paul Bullock.
Senator Douglas.
Seventy-five fifth grade students from Colfax-Mingo Elementary
School, Colfax, accompanied by Mr. Ed Johnson. Senator Black.
Thirty-five twelfth grade students from Gladbrook-Reinbeck High
School, Reinbeck, accompanied by Marvin Cook. Senators Jensen and Husak.
Fifty fourth grade students from Northeast Elementary School,
Ankeny, accompanied by Leana Benjamin. Senator Palmer.
BILLS ENROLLED, SIGNED AND SENT TO GOVERNOR
The Secretary of the Senate submitted the following report:
MR. PRESIDENT: The Secretary of the Senate respectfully reports
that the following bills have been enrolled, signed by the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and presented to the Governor
for his approval on this 25th day of April, 1995:
Senate Files 436, 142, 176, 197, 225, 228, 292, 351, 406, 407, 428,
438, 226, 409, 437, 439, 202, 205 and 433.
JOHN F. DWYER Secretary of the Senate
EXPLANATION OF VOTES
MR. PRESIDENT: I was necessarily absent from the Senate chamber
when the final votes were taken on the following bills. Had I been
present, I would have voted aye on each bill:
Senate Files 427, 150, 482, 373, 358 and House File 481.
TOM FLYNN
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
The secretary of the senate issued the following certificates of
recognition:
Cameron Schmitt, West Central High School - For winning 1st Place
in the 1995 Hawkeye State Science Fair, Biological Division. Senator
Douglas (4-19-95).
AMENDMENTS FILED
S-3570 S.F. 413 Michael E. Gronstal
S-3571 S.F. 150 Robert Dvorsky
S-3572 S.F. 475 House amendment
S-3573 H.F. 247 Stewart Iverson, Jr.
RECESS
On motion of Senator Horn, the Senate recessed at 2:08 p.m., until
7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 25, 1995.
JOINT SESSION
Senate Chamber
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
7:30 p.m.
In accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution 28, duly adopted,
the joint session was convened, President Boswell presiding.
The following guests were escorted into the House Chamber:
State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald and his wife Janet.
Auditor of State, Richard Johnson and his wife Marj.
Secretary of State Paul Pate.
Chief Justice Arthur A. McGiverin and the Justices of the Supreme
Court, and Judges of the Court of Appeals.
The Honorable Neal Smith and his wife Bea.
Secretary of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Dale Cochran and his
wife Jeanine.
Attorney General Tom Miller and his son Matt.
President of the Senate Leonard E. Boswell and House Speaker Ron
Corbett.
Governor Terry E. Branstad.
Senator Horn moved that the roll call be dispensed with and that
the President of the joint session be authorized to declare a quorum
present.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote.
President Boswell announced a quorum present and the joint session
duly organized.
Senator Horn moved that a committee of six, three members from the
Senate and three members from the House be appointed to notify the
President of the United States that the joint session is ready to
receive him.
The motion prevailed by a voice vote and the President appointed as
such committee Senators Horn, Bisignano and Rife, on the part of the
Senate, and Representatives Siegrist, Van Maanen and Schrader, on the
part of the House.
The joint session stood at ease until the fall of the gavel.
The joint session resumed session, President Boswell presiding.
The Sergeant-at-arms announced that the President of the United
States was present in the Senate chamber.
The President of the United States was escorted to the Presidents
station by the committee previously appointed.
President Boswell presented the President of the United States,
Bill Clinton, who delivered the following remarks:
Thank you very much, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Governor Branstad,
Mr. Chief Justice, and members of the Supreme Court, distinguished Iowa
state officials. And former Congressman Neil Smith, my good friend, and
Mrs. Smith thank you for being here. To all of you who are members of
the Iowa legislature, House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, it is a
great honor for me to be here today.
I feel that Im back home again. When I met the legislative
leadership on the way in and we shared a few words and then they left to
come in here, and I was standing around with my crowd, I said, you know,
I really miss state government. Ill say more about why in a moment.
Id like to, if I might, recognize one of your members to thank him
for agreeing to join my team -- Representative Running will now be the
Secretary of Labors representative. Would you stand up, please. Thank
you.
Representative Running is going to be the representative of the
Secretary of Labor for region 7 -- Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas.
And if you will finish your business here pretty soon, he can actually
go to Kansas City and get to work --which I would appreciate.
Im delighted to be back in Iowa. I had a wonderful day here, and
it was good to be here when it was dry -- although a little rain doesnt
do any harm.
We had a wonderful meeting today at Iowa State University with
which Im sure all of you are familiar, this National Rural Conference we
had, designed to lay the groundwork for a strategy for rural America to
include not only the farm bill, but also a rural development strategy
and a strategy generally to deal with the problems of rural America --
with the income disparities with the rest of America, the age
disparifies with the rest of America, and the problems of getting
services and maintaining the quality of life in rural America.
I want to thank Govemor Branstad for his outstanding presentation
and the information he gave us about the efforts being made in Iowa in
developing your fiber optic network and developing the health care
reform initiatives for rural Iowans and many other areas. I want to
thank Senator Harkin for his presentation particularly involving the
development of aitemative agricultural products as a way to boost income
in rural America. And I want to say a specia word of thanks to the
people at Iowa State. They did a magnificent job there, and I know you
are all very proud of that institution, and you would have been very,
very proud of them today, the way they performed.
Im also just glad to be back here in the setting of state
government. You know, Govemor Branstad and I were once the youngest
governors in America, but time took care of it. And now that hes been
reelected, he will actually serve more years than I did. I ran for a
fifth term as govemor. We used to have two-year terms, and then we
switched to four-year terms. And only one person in the history of our
state had ever served more than eight years, and only one person had
ever served more thann -- two people had served more than two terms, but
those were two-year terms -- in the whole history of the state. So I
was -- I had served 10 years. Id served three two-year terms and one
four-year term, and I was the attempting to be reelected. And I had a
high job approval rating, but people were reluctant to vote for me,
because in my state people are very suspicious of too much political
power, you know. And I thought I was still pretty young and healthy,
but half of them wanted to give me a gold watch, you know, and send me
home.
And I never will forget one day when I was running for my fifth
term, I was out at the State Fair doing govemors day at the State Fair,
which I always did, and I would just sit there and anybody that wanted
to talk to me could up and say whatever was on their mind, which was,
for me, a hazardous undertaking from to time -- since they invariably
would do exactly that. And I stayed there all day long, and I talked
about everything under the moon and sun with the people who came up and,
long about the end of the day, this elderly fellow in overalls came up
to me and he said, Bill, you going to run for governor, again? And I
hadnt announced yet. I said, I dont know. If I do, will you vote for
me? He said, yes, I always have. I guess I will again. And I said,
well, arent you sick of me after all these years? He said, no, but
everybody else I know is.
But he went on to say -- and thats the point I want to make about
state government -- he said, people get tired of it because all you do
is nag us. You nag us to modemize the economy, you nag us to improve
the schools, you just nag, nag, nag. But he said, I think its beginning
to work. And what I have seen in state after state after state over the
last 15 years as we have gone through these wrenching economic and
social changes in America and as we face challenge after challenge after
challenge, is people able consistently to come together to overcome
their differences, to focus on what it will take to build a state and to
move forward. And we need more of that in America.
In Iowa, you do embody our best values. People are independent,
but commited to one another. They work hard and play by the rules, but
they work together. Those of us who come from small towns understand
that everybody counts. We dont have a person to waste. And the fact
that Iowa has done such a good job in developing all of your people is
one of the reasons that you are so strong in every single national
indicator of success that I know of. And you should be very, very proud
of what, together, you have done.
I saw some of that American spirit in a very painful way in
Oklahoma City this week, and all of you saw it as well. I know you
share the grief of the people there. But you must also share the pride
of all Americans in seeing the enormity of the effort which is being
exerted there, by firemen and police officers, and nurses, by rescue
workers, by people who have come from all over America and given up
their lives to try to help Oklahoma City and the people there who have
suffered so much loss rebuild.
I want to say again what I have tried to say for the last three
days to the American people. On this National Day of Service, there is
a service we can do to ensure that we build on, and learn from, this
experience.
We must always fight for the freedom of speech. The First
Amendment, with its freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom
of worship, is the essence of what it means to be an American. And I
dare say every elected official in room would give his or her life to
preserve that right for our children and our grandchildren down to the
end of time.
But we have to remember that that freedom has endured in our nation
for over 200 years because we practiced it with such responsibility;
because we had disciplin; because we understood from the Founding
Fathers forward that you could not have very, very wide latitude in
personal freedom until you also had, or unless you also had, great
discipline in the exercise of that freedom.
So while I would defend to the death anyones right to the broadest
freedom of speech, I think we should all remember that words have
consequences. And freedom should be exercised with responsibility. And
when we think that others are exercising their freedom in an
irresponsible way, it is our job to stand up and say that is wrong. We
disagree. This is not a matter of partisan politics. It is not a
matter of political philosophy. If we see the freedom of expression and
speech abused in this country, whether it comes from the right or the
left, from the media or from people just speaking on their own, we
should stand up and say no, we dont believe in preaching violence; we
dont believe in preachin hatred; we dont believe in preaching discord.
Words have consequences.
If words did not have consequences, we wouldnt be here today. Were
here today because Patrick Henrys words had consequences, because Thomas
Jeffersons words had consequences, because Abraham Lincolns words had
consequences. And these words we hear today have consequences -- the
good ones and the bad ones, the ones that bring us together, and the
ones that drive a wedge through our heart.
We never know in this society today who is out there dealing with
all kind of inner turmoil, vulnerable to being pushed over the edge if
all they hear is a relentless clamor of hatred and division. So let us
preserve free speech, but let those of us who want to fight to preserve
free speech forever in America say, we must be responsible and we will
be.
My fellow Americans, I come here tonight, as I went recently to the
state legislature in Florida, to discuss the condition of our country,
where were going in the future, and your role in that. We know we are
in a new and different world -- the end of the Cold War, a new and less
organized world were living in, but one still not free of threats. We
know we have come to the end of an industrial age and were in an
information age, which is less bureaucratic, more open, more dependent
on technology, more full of opportunity but still full of its own
problems, than the age that most of us were raised in.
We know that we no longer need the same sort of bureaucratic,
top-down, service-delivering, rule-making, centralized government in
Washington that served us so well during the industrial age, because
times have changed. We know that with all the problems we have and all
the opportunities we have, we have to think anew about what the
responsibilities of our government in Washington should be, what your
responsibility should be here at the state level, and through you to the
local level, and what should be done more by private citizens on their
own with no involvement from the governnment.
We know now what the central challenge of this time is, and you can
see it in Iowa. You could see it today with the testimony we heard at
the Rural Conference. We are at a 25-year low in the combined rates of
unemployment and inflation. Our economy has produced over 6 million new
jobs. But paradoxically, even in Iowa where the unemployment rate has
dropped under 3.5 percent, most Americans are working harder today for
the same or lower incomes that they were making 10 years ago. And many
Americans feel less job security even as the recovery continues.
That is largely a function of the global economic competition, the
fact that technology raises productivity at an almost unbelievable rate
so fewer and fewer people can do more and more work, and that depresses
wages. The fact that unless we raise it in Washington next year, the
minimum wage will reach a 40-year low.
There are a lot of these things that are related one to the other.
But it is perfectly clear that the economics are changing the face of
American society. You can see it in the difference in income in rural
America and urban America. You can see it in the difference -- the
aging process in rural America as compared with urban America. And if
we want to preserve the American Dream, we have got to find a way to
solve this riddle.
I was bom in the year after World War II at the dawn of the
greatest explosion of opportunity in American history and in world
history. For 30 years after that, the American people, without regard
to their income or region, grew and grew together. That is, each income
group over the next 30 years roughly doubled their income, except the
poorest 20 percent of us that had an almost 2.5 times increase in their
income. So we were growing and growing together.
For about the last 15 or 20 years, half of us have been stuck so
that our country is growing, but we are growing apart even within the
middle class. When you put that beside the fact that we have more and
more poor people who are not eldly -- which was the case when I was
little, but now are largely young women their little children, often
where there was either no marriage or the marriage is broken up so there
is not a stable home and there is not an adequate level of education to
ensure an income -- you have increasing poverty and increasing splits
within the middle class. That is the fundamental cause, I believe, of a
lot of the problems that we face in America and a lot of the anxiety and
frustration we see in this country.
Every rich country faces this problem. But in the United States,
it is a paticular problem -- both because the inequality is greater and
because it violates he American Dream. I mean, this is a country where
if you work hard and you play by the rules, you obey the law, you raise
your children, you do your best to do everything youre supposed to do,
you ought to have an opportunity for the free enterprise system to work
for you.
And so we face this challenge. I have to tell you that I believe
two things: One, the future is far more hopeful than worrisome. If you
look at the resoources of this country, the assets of this country, and
you compare them with any other country in the world, and you image what
the world will be like 20 or 30 from now, youd have to be strongly
bullish on America. You have to believe in our promise.
Secondly, I am convinced we cannot get there unless we develop a
new way of talking about these issues, a new political discourse.
Unless we move beyond the labeling that so often characterizes, and in
fact mischaracterizes, the debate in Washington, D.C.
Now we are having this debate in ways that affect you, so you have
to be a part of it, because one of the biggest parts of the debate is,
how are we going to keep the American Dream alive? How are we going to
keep America, the worlds strongest force for freedom and democracy, into
the next century, and change the way the government works?
There is broad consensus that the government in Washington should
be less bureaucratic, less oriented toward rule-making, smaller, more
flexible, that more decisions should be devolved to the state and local
government level, and where possible, more decisions should be given to
private citizens themselves. There is a broad agreement on that.
The question is, what are the details? What does that mean? What
should we do? What should you do? Thats what I want to talk to you
about. There are clearly some national responsibilities, clearly some
that would be better served here at your level.
The main reason I ran for President is, it seemed to me that we
were seeing a national government in bipartisan gridlock, where wed had
12 years in which we exploded the deficit, reduced our investment in
people, and undermined our ability to compete and win in the world. And
I wanted very badly to end the kind of gridlock wed had and to see some
real concrete action taken to go forward, because of my experience doing
what youre doing now.
My basic belief is that the government ought to do more to help
people help themselves, to reward responsibility with more opportunity,
and not to give anybody opportunity without demanding responsibility.
Thats basically what I think our job is.
I think we can be less bureaucratic. We have to enhance security
at home and abroad. But the most important thing we have to do is to
empower people to make the most of their own lives.
Now, we have made a good beginning at that. As I said, weve been
able to get the deficit down. You know here in Iowa, because youre a
farming state, that weve had the biggest expansion of trade in the last
two years weve seen in a generation. We now have a $20 billion surplus
in agricultural products for the first time ever -- this means more to
me than you -- but were selling rice to the Japanese, something that my
farmers never thought that wed ever do. Were selling apples in Asia.
We are doing our best in Washington -- some of us are -- to get the
ethanol program up and going. This administration is for it, and I hope
you will help us with that.
And were making modest efforts which ought to be increased to work
with the private sector to develop alternative agricultural products.
Today I saw corn-based windshield wiper fluid, and something that I
think is important, biodegradable, agriculturallyrooted golf tees. And
a lot of other things that I think will be the hallmark of our future.
We have only scratched the surface of what we can do to produce products
from the land, from our food and fiber, and we must do more.
In education we are beginning to see the outlines of what I hope
will be a genuine bipartisan national partnership in education. In the
last two years we increased Head Start, we reduced the rules and
regulations the federal government imposes on local school systems, but
gave them more funds and flexibility to meet national standards of
education. We helped states all ove the country to develop
comprehensive systems of apprenticeships for young people who get out of
high school and dont want to go to college, but dont want to be in
dead-end jobs.
We are doing more to try to make our job training programs
relevant. And we have made literally millions of Americans eligible for
lower cost, better repyment college loans under our direct loan
program, including over 350,000 students and former students in Iowa --
including all those who are at Iowa State University. Now, if you
borrow money under that program, you get it quicker with less paperwork
at lower cost, and you can pay it back in one of four different ways
based on the income youre going to earn when you get out of college.
Believe it or not, it lowers costs to the taxpayers.
And we have demanded responsibility. Weve taken the loan default
costs to the taxpayers from $2.8 billion a year down to $1 billion a
year. That is the direction we ought to be going in.
Weve worked hard to increase our security at home and abroad. The
crime bill, which was passed last year by the Congress after six years
of endless debate, provides for 100,000 more police officers on our
street. We have already -- over the next five years -- weve already
awarded over 17,000 police officers to over half the police departments
in America, including 158 communities here in Iowa. It strengthens
punishment under federal law.
The three strikes and youre out law in the crime bill is now the
law of the land. The first person to be prosecuted under this law was a
convicted murderer accused of an armed robbery in Waterloo last
November. If hes convicted, he will go to jail for the rest of his
life.
The capital punishment provisions of the crime bill will cover the
incident in Oklahoma City -- something that is terribly important, in my
view, not only to bring justice in this case, but to send a clear signal
that the United States does not intend to be dominated and paralyzed by
terrorists from at home or abroad -- not now, not ever. We cannot ever
tolerate that.
We are also more secure from beyond our borders. For the first
time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles
pointed at Americas children. And those nuclear weapons are being
destroyed every day.
We have reduced the size of the federal government by more than
100,000. We are taking it down by more than a quarter of a million. We
have eliminated or reduced 300 programs. And I have asked Congress to
eliminate or consolidate 400 more. We have tried to give more
flexibility to states -- several states have gotten broad freedom from
federal rules to implement health care reform. And we have now 27
states from cumbersome federal rules to try to help them end welfare as
we know it.
In the almost two years since Iowa received only the second welfare
waiver our administration issued, the number of welfare recipients in
Iowa who hold jobs is almost doubled from 18 to 33 percent. You are
doing it without punishing children for the mistakes of their parents --
and I want to say more on that later -- but you are doing it. And that
is clear evidence that we should give the states the right to pursue
welfare reform. They know how to get the job done better than the
federal government has done in the past. We should give you all more
responsibility for moving people from welfare to work.
Now, heres where you come in, because I want to talk in very short
order, one right after the other, about the decisions we still have to
make in Washington. Do we still have to cut the federal deficit more?
Yes, we do. Weve taken it down by $600 billion. The budget, in fact,
would be balanced today if it werent for the interest we have to pay on
the debt run up between 1981 and 1992.
But its still a problem and you need to understand why its a
problem. Its a problem because a lot of people who used to give us
money to finance our government deficit and our trade deficit, need
their money at home now. Thats really whats happening in Japan. They
need their money at home now.
We must continue -- we must say to the world, to the financial
markets -- we not cut taxes except in the context of reducing the
deficit. America is committed. Both parties are committed. Americans
are committed to getting rid of thisterrible burden on our future. We
must continue to do it.
Now, the question is, how are we going to do that? Should we cut
unnecessary spending? Of course, we should. How do you define it?
Should there be more power to state and local governments and to the
private sector? You bet. But what are the details?
In other words, what weve got to do in Washington now is what you
do all the time. Weve got to move beyond our rhetoric to reality. And
I think it would be helpful for you because we need your voice to be
heard. And at least my experience in the Govemors Association was, or
working in my own legislature was, that on these issues we could get
Republicans and Democrats together. So let me go through what weve
done, and whats still to be done.
First of all, I agree with this new Congress on three issues that
were in the Republican Contract -- and two of them are already law.
Number one, Congress should apply to itself all the laws it puts on the
private sector. We should know when we make laws in Washington what
were doing to other people by experiencing it ourself. That was a good
thing.
Number two, I signed the unfunded mandates legislation to make it
harder, but not impossible when it important, but much harder, for
Congress to put on you and your taxpayers unfunded mandates from the
federal government where we make you pay for something that we in
Washington want to do. I strongly support that, and I think all of you
do, as well.
The third thing we are doing that we have not finished yet,
although both Houses have approved a version of it, is the line-item
veto. Almost every governor has it. I dont want to embarrass anybody
here, but I dont know how many times I had a legislature say, now,
Governor, Im going to slip this in this bill because Ive got to do it,
and then you can scratch it out for me. And it was fine. We did it. Now
if they slip it in a bill, I have to decide what to do or not. I have
to decide.
When the farmers in Iowa desperately needed the restoration of the
tax deduction for health insurance, the 25 percent tax deduction that
self-employed farmers and others get for health insurance, there was a
provision of that bill I didnt like very much. I had to decide, am I
going to give this back to 3.3 million employed Americans and their
families, to lower the cost of health care by tax day, or not? But when
we have the line-item veto, it wont be that way. And we need it.
Here are the hard ones. Number one, the farm bill. Should we
reduce farm supports? Yes, we should, as required by GATT. I worked
hard to get the Europeans to the table in agriculture in this trade
agreement. A lot of you understand that. The deal was, they would
reduce their subsidies more than we would reduce ours, so we would at
least move toward some parity, so that our farmers would get a fair
break for a change. Now some say, lets just get rid of all these farm
support programs.
Well, if we do it now, we give our competitors the advantage we
worked for eitht years to take away. We put family farms more at risk.
Now if anybodys got better ideas about what should be in the Farm Bill,
thats fine. If anybodys got a better idea about how to save the family
farmers, lets do it. If anybody has new ideas about what should be put
in for rural development, fine. But let us do no harm. Let us not
labor under the illusion that having fought so hard to have a
competitive agricultural playing field throughout the world, having
achieved a $20 billion surplus in agriculture, we can turn and walk away
from the farmers of the country in the name of cutting spending. That
is not the way to cut the federal deficit.
Ill give you another example. Some believe that we should flat
fund the school lunch program. And then theres a big argument in
Washington, is it a cut or not. Let me tell you something, all these
block grants are designed not only to give you more flexibility, but to
save the federal government money. Now it may be a good deal, or it may
not. You have to decide. But when we wanted to cut the Agriculture
Department budget -- were closing nearly 1,200 offices, were reducing
employment by 13,000, we eliminated 14 divisions in the Department of
Agriculture -- my own view is, that is better than putting an arbitrary
cap on the school lunch program, which will be terribly unfair to the
number -- to the numerous school districts in this country that have
increasing burdens from low income children. There are a lot of kids in
this country -- a lot of kids -- the only decent meal they get every day
is the meal they get at school. This program works. If its not broke,
we shouldnt fix it. So I dont agree with that. But you have to decide.
Welfare reform. Ive already said, we have now given more welfare
reform waivers to states to get out from under the federal government
than were given in the last 12 years put together. In two years, weve
given more than 12 years. I am for you figuring out how you want to run
your welfare system and move people from welfare to work. I am for
that.
But here are the questions. Number one, should we have cumbersome
federal rules that say you have to penalize teenage girls who give birth
to children and cut them off? I dont think so. We should never punish
children for the mistakes of their parents. And these children who
become parents prematurely, we should say, you made a mistake, you
shouldnt do that -- no child should do that. But what were going to do
is to impose reesponsibilities on you for the future, to make you a
responsible parent, a responsible impose responsible student, a
responsible worker. Thats what your program does. Why should the
federal government tell you that you have to punish children, when what
you really want to do is move people from welfare to work so that more
people are good parents and good workers. You should decide that. We
do not ned to be giveing you lectures about how you have to punish the
kids of this country. We need a welfare bill that is tough on work and
compassionate toward children -- not a welfare bill that is weak on work
and tough on children. I feel that that should be a bipartisan
principle that all of us should be able to embrace.
Now, the second issue in welfare reform is whether we should give
you a block grant. Instead of having the welfare being an individual
entitlement to every poor person on welfare, should we just give you
whatever money we gave you last year or over the last three years and
let you spend it however you want? There are two issues here that I ask
you to think about, not only from your perspective, but from the
perspective of every other state.
In Florida, the Republicans in legislature I spoke with were not
for this. And heres why. The whole purpose of the block grant is
twofold. One is, we give you more flexibility. The second is, we say in
return for more flexibility, you ought to be able to do the job for less
money, so we wont increase the money youre getting over the next five
years, which means well get to save money and lower the deficit. If it
works for everybody concemed its a good deal.
But what are the states -- there are two problems with a block
grant in this area, and I want you to help me work through it, because I
am for more flexible for the states. I would give every state every
waiver that I have given to any state. I want you to decide what to do
with this. I want you to be out there creating innovative ways to break
the cycle of welfare dependency.
But there are two problems with this. Number one, if you have a
state with a very large number of children eligible for public
assistance and theyre growing rapidly, its very hard to devise any
formula that keeps you from getting hurt in the block grants over a
five-year period. And some states have rapidly growing populations --
Florida, Texas, probably Califomia.
Number two, a total block grant relieves the state of any
responsibility to put up the match that is now required for you to
participate in the program. Now you may say, well, we would do that
anyway. We have a tradition in Iowa of taking care of our own. But
what if you lived in a state with a booming population growth, with
wildly competing demands for dollars? And what about when the next
recession comes? Keep in mind, were making all these decisions today in
the second year in which every state economy is growing. That has not
hapened in a very long time.
Will that really be fair? How do you know that there wont be
insurmountable pressure in some states just to say, well, we cant take
care of these childen anymore; weve got to give the money to our school
teachers; weve got to give the money to our road program; weve got to
give the money to economic development; weve got environmental problems.
So I ask you to think about those things. We can find a way to let you
control the welfare system and move people from welfare to work, but
there are two substantive problems with the block grant program that I
want to see overcome before I sign off on it, because there is a
national responsibility to care for the children of the country, to make
sure a minimal standard of care is given. Thank you.
In the crime bill, there is a proposal to take what we did last
time, which was to divide the money between police, prisons and
prevention, and basically give you a block grant in prevention, and
instead create two separate block grants, one for prisons and one for
police and prevention, in which you would reduce the amount of money for
police and prevention and increase the amount of money for prisons, but
you could only get it if you decided -- a mandate, but a fund one -- if
you decided to make all people who committed serious crimes serve 85
percent of their sentences.
So Washington is telling you how you have to sentence people but
offering you money to build prisons. The practical impact means that a
lot of that money wont be taken care of, and we will reduce the amount
of money were spending for police and for prevention programs. I think
thats a mistake.
Im more than happy for you to have block grants for prevention
programs. You know more about what keeps kids out of jail and off the
streets and from committing crime in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids or Ames
or anyplace else than I would ever know. But we do know that the
violent crime rate has tripled in the last 30 years, and the number of
police on our street has only gone up by 10 percent. And we know there
is city, after city, after city in America where the crime rate has gone
down a lot, a lot when police have been put on the street in community
policing roles.
So I say, lets keep the 100,000 police program. It is totally
nonbureaucratic. Small towns in Iowa can get it by filling out a
one-page, eight-question form. There is no hassle. And we should do
this because we know it works. There is a national interest in safer
streets, and its all paid for by reducing the federal bureaucracy. So
my view is, keep the 100,000 police, the states flexibility on
prevention. And I hope that you will agree with that.
Lastly, let me say on education, I simply dont believe that we
should be cutting education to reduce the deficit or pay for tax cuts. I
dont believe that. I just dont believe that.
So my view -- my view on this is that the way to save money is to
give every university in the country and every college in the country
the right to do what Iowa State has done -- go to the direct loan
program, cut out the middle man, lower the cost of loans, save the
taxpayer money.
I am strongly opposed to charging the students interest on their
student loans while theyre in college. That will add 18 to 20 percent
to the cost of education for a lot of our young people. Well have fewer
people going to school. We want more people going to school. I think
that is a mistake.
I believe if were going to have a tax cut, it should be targeted to
middle class people and to educational needs. I believe strongly we
should do two things more than anything else. Number one, give more
people the advantage of an IRA, which they can put money into and save
and then withdraw to pay for education or health care costs, purchase
of a first-time home, or care of an elderly parent tax-free. Number
two, allow the deduction of the cost of education after high school to
all American middle-class families. Now, that, I think, will make a
difference.
This is very important for you because, remember, we have a smaller
total tax cut, if we target it to the middle class, we can have deficit
reduction without cutting education. We can have deficit reduction
without having severe cuts in Medicare. Govemor Branstad said today,
one of our biggest problems is the unfairess of the distribution of
Medicare funds. You are right. Its not fair to rural America. But
theres a lot more coming, and more than you need to have if we have an
excessive tax cut that is not targeted to education and to the middle
class.
So that, in brief, is the laundry list of the new federalism -- the
things you need to decide on. I do not believe these issues I have
spoken with you about have a partisan tinge in Des Moines. They need
not have one in Washington.
But I invite you, go back home -- this is being televised tonight
-- go back home and talk to the people you represent, and ask them what
they want you to say to your members of Congress about what we do in
Washington; what you do in Des Moines; what we do in our private lives;
what should be spent to reduce the deficit; what should be spent on a
tax cut; what should be in a block grant; and where should we stand up
and say weve got to protect the children of the country. These are great
and exciting issues.
Believe me, if we make the right decisions -- if we make the right
decisions, the 21st century will still be the American century.
Thank you all, and God bless you.
Senator Horn presented President Clinton with a gift of the Iowa
Capitol etched in crystal in a walnut stand on behalf of the Iowa
General Assembly.
On motion of Senator Husak, the joint session was adjourned at 8:20
p.m., and the Senate adjourned until 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 26,
1995.
| Previous Day: Monday, April 24 | Next Day: Wednesday, April 26 |
| Senate Journal: Index | House Journal: Index |
| Legislation: Index | Bill History: Index |
Iowa General Assembly
Index: Senate Journal (76th General Assembly: Session 1)
© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa
Comments? sjourn@legis.iowa.gov.
Last update: Sun Jan 14 23:40:00 CST 1996
URL: /DOCS/GA/76GA/Session.1/SJournal/Day/0425.html
jhf