Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let us be clear. Win or lose on these cloture votes, we are no closer to an agreement if that is what happens today. Sooner or later, we are going to have to compromise. The House Republicans just do not seem to get it. So far, the 104th Congress could be summed up simply in two words: lost opportunity. On welfare, on reg reform, on the budget, and on appropriations, many in the House seem to think compromise is a four-letter word. Let us not allow the farms to fall victim to this, too. We can work this out. We can find compromise. We can find a way to ensure that farmers are going to have the certainty that they are asking for this afternoon, and we can begin all of that by defeating both cloture motions in the next hour. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Valoris Carlson of Aberdeen, SD, and the handful of others like her whose lives have been terribly disrupted. This legislation will right a wrong that was not due to any error or deception on Valoris' part, but due to an administrative error by the Railroad Retirement Board [RRB]. In 1984 Valoris, as the divorced spouse of a deceased railroad employee, applied for a survivor's pension. The RRB failed to check if a lump sum withdrawal had previously been made on the account at the time of her former spouse's death--even though Valoris clearly stated on her application that there was a surviving widow. In fact, a lump sum payment had been made, but not identified. The RRB began paying Valoris $587 per month in 1984 and continued to pay her benefits for 11 years. Only recently did they discover that an error had been made over a decade ago. Not until 1995 was Valoris told she was not eligible for the pension she was awarded in 1984. Had the RRB reviewed their records, they would have seen that a lump-sum payment had been made on that account. Valoris, who was married for 26 years, lost her eligibility to the widow of the railroad worker who had been married to him for only 3 years. Valoris made an honest application for benefits. The RRB failed to do their job properly, resulting in 11 years of ``overpayments'' to Valoris. These payments affected Valoris' planning for the future. Valoris planned her retirement on that modest sum of $587. Had she been told she was not eligible for benefits, she would have worked longer to build up her own Social Security benefits. Her railroad divorced widow's pension has been her only steady income. She has picked up a few dollars here and there by renting out rooms in her home, but without her pension income, Valoris does not know how she will live. The bill I am introducing today will address the errors made by the RRB that have disrupted the life of Valoris Carlson and others like her. The RRB advises that 17 other widows are similarly situated, and their pensions would also be restored by this bill. The bill, which was developed with technical assistance from the RRB, would allow the 18 women impacted by the RRB's administrative error to begin receiving their monthly benefits again. It requires them to repay the lump sum, but they are allowed to do so through a marginal withholding from their monthly benefit. The monthly withholding can be waived if it would cause excessive hardship for a widow. Mr. President, I will work to enact this legislation as quickly as possible to restore the benefits to those women who are now suffering as a result of the Government's mistakes. There is no excuse for further delay in providing these Americans with benefits they were led to expect by the RRB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just briefly want to make a couple of final remarks with regard to the debate on the farm legislation. I do not want to belabor what has already been said. I know that there are many who want to retire. Let me say three things. First, I do not think there is a person in the Senate Chamber who does not want to get farm legislation passed at the earliest possible date. Frankly, many of us hoped we would not have had to see the delays that we have already experienced, for a lot of different reasons. There have been scheduling delays. I do not believe we have put the efforts in at the committee level that we should have. Others have noted this bill has never been reported out of committee. For a piece of legislation of this magnitude not to be reported out of committee, not to come to the floor in the entire first session of the 104th Congress, is some indication, in my view, of the priority the majority has placed on farm legislation. Certainly we could have found time somewhere during the summer months or at some time during the fall or perhaps during the winter during many of these long breaks we have taken to take up this legislation, to recognize how pressing a problem it is, to deal with it, as complex as it is, in a meaningful way--over a long period of time, if necessary, to accommodate the many different decisions that any farm legislation reflects. That is the first point, Mr. President. We really have to recognize that there have been delays, unnecessary ones, in our view, that have brought us to this point. This legislation was never subject to a vote on the Senate floor. It was buried in a budget resolution that the President, for a lot of reasons, was required to veto. So it is not accurate to say that the farm bill was vetoed. The budget resolution was vetoed; buried within that budget resolution we found farm legislation which had not been considered prior to that time. The second issue over which there ought not be any concern or confusion is our mutual desire to provide the maximum degree of flexibility to farmers. Let there be no mistake: Recognizing as late as it is, we simply cannot constrain farmers in any way as they begin to put their management plans together. Farmers have to be given flexibility. Farmers have to be given the assurance that they can make their decisions, unencumbered by farm policy at this late date. It is our desire every bit as much as it is the desire of many Republicans to ensure that farmers are given flexibility, that they have the latitude to go farm as we want them to farm. Flexibility is not the issue. No one ought to be using that argument as a reason for the fact that we have not reached an agreement today. We want flexibility. We want simplicity. We want to give farmers the chance to farm. The third issue, and the one that I think will divide us perhaps in perpetuity--the reason we have not yet come to a resolution--is that in the name of some change, in the name of bringing about this so-called flexibility, what many on the other side are prepared to say is, ``We will be so flexible that we will give you the payment whether you farm or not. We do not care whether you farm. We do not care what you farm. We do not care what the prices are. We are going to give you a huge lump-sum payment upfront, regardless of price, regardless of your management, regardless of your circumstances, regardless of how big you are, regardless of whether or not you are even on the farm. You will have an opportunity to get this huge payment.'' Mr. President, as others have said today, I do not think it will take long for this army of investigative journalists we have in Washington and elsewhere to call attention to the fact that while we are cutting every single aspect of the Federal budget, there will be people out there getting not $100,000, not $200,000, but perhaps $300,000 in lump- sum payments for doing absolutely nothing at all. That is how some would view this so-called concept of ``freedom to farm.'' It is the freedom not to farm. It is the freedom not to do anything. It is the freedom not to be responsible. So that is the fundamental disagreement we have today. We have had it for a long time. We will have it tomorrow. The question is, can we bridge that difference? Can we say we are not adverse to providing the advance deficiency payments or the advance payments that we provided agriculture in the past, but you have to farm to get a farm payment; you have to be responsible if you expect us to be responsive? So, let us hope that over the course of the next couple of days we can bridge that. We know we want simplicity and flexibility. We know we want a decision as quickly as we can get it. What I hope we can also agree upon is that we also must recognize the need for farmers to be responsible--to have the freedom to farm, but to be responsible with taxpayer dollars. If we can do that, then, indeed, I am optimistic that we will reach an agreement. We will be able to send the farm community a clear message that, indeed, we have done what we should have done a long time ago--pass a farm bill that will take us well into the future. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Valoris Carlson of Aberdeen, SD, and the handful of others like her whose lives have been terribly disrupted. This legislation will right a wrong that was not due to any error or deception on Valoris' part, but due to an administrative error by the Railroad Retirement Board [RRB]. In 1984 Valoris, as the divorced spouse of a deceased railroad employee, applied for a survivor's pension. The RRB failed to check if a lump sum withdrawal had previously been made on the account at the time of her former spouse's death--even though Valoris clearly stated on her application that there was a surviving widow. In fact, a lump sum payment had been made, but not identified. The RRB began paying Valoris $587 per month in 1984 and continued to pay her benefits for 11 years. Only recently did they discover that an error had been made over a decade ago. Not until 1995 was Valoris told she was not eligible for the pension she was awarded in 1984. Had the RRB reviewed their records, they would have seen that a lump-sum payment had been made on that account. Valoris, who was married for 26 years, lost her eligibility to the widow of the railroad worker who had been married to him for only 3 years. Valoris made an honest application for benefits. The RRB failed to do their job properly, resulting in 11 years of ``overpayments'' to Valoris. These payments affected Valoris' planning for the future. Valoris planned her retirement on that modest sum of $587. Had she been told she was not eligible for benefits, she would have worked longer to build up her own Social Security benefits. Her railroad divorced widow's pension has been her only steady income. She has picked up a few dollars here and there by renting out rooms in her home, but without her pension income, Valoris does not know how she will live. The bill I am introducing today will address the errors made by the RRB that have disrupted the life of Valoris Carlson and others like her. The RRB advises that 17 other widows are similarly situated, and their pensions would also be restored by this bill. The bill, which was developed with technical assistance from the RRB, would allow the 18 women impacted by the RRB's administrative error to begin receiving their monthly benefits again. It requires them to repay the lump sum, but they are allowed to do so through a marginal withholding from their monthly benefit. The monthly withholding can be waived if it would cause excessive hardship for a widow. Mr. President, I will work to enact this legislation as quickly as possible to restore the benefits to those women who are now suffering as a result of the Government's mistakes. There is no excuse for further delay in providing these Americans with benefits they were led to expect by the RRB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on this issue. This issue obviously is one of great importance to all of us, but it is not the only problem that is created as a result of this continuing resolution. The problem is not just education; the problem is funding for the environment, the problem is in funding for housing, for parks, for reservations, for veterans hospitals. This situation is getting worse and worse because we have not been able to pass the appropriations bills that directly address the many funding issues that this continuing resolution does in a very inefficient and unsatisfactory way. The 75 percent funding level represents the largest cut in education in history, Mr. President. Others stated that, but it bears repeating. We are cutting $3.1 billion out of education this year. There is no other time and no other situation that we have ever cut education that deeply. That is what this continuing resolution represents. It means cuts in reading and math programs for the disadvantaged students in title I. It means deep cuts in technology. It means cuts in our efforts to bring about meaningful school reform and the Goals 2000 and national education goals that are really a bipartisan effort that we called for all the way back in 1989. It means deep cuts in teacher development and training. It means cuts--in some cases elimination--of safe and drug-free schools. That 25 percent cut in title I, just that alone, means over 1 million people will be deprived of help in reading and math. It means 31,500 of their teachers will be given pink slips in the near future. Cities across this country are going to be very hard-hit. In Detroit that 25 percent reduction means a loss of $16.8 million in their budget this year alone. Ten thousand fewer children will be served; 419 teachers will be laid off. The chairman of the Democratic mayors in this country was kind enough to come to the Hill this morning with a very simple question. His question was: Which 25 percent of my students in Detroit should I not educate? Which 25 percent do we tell they can no longer come? Which 25 percent are the ones who are going to be detrimentally affected simply because we have not resolved this problem? In Dallas, Mr. President, public schools must submit a budget by March 21. They expect an increase of 4,000 students next year, but do not yet even know if Federal funding will meet the demand they know they have. In Philadelphia, they could lose $14 million for math and reading programs. Many of our Republican colleagues say that their only agenda is to protect our children's future, but I ask, how do we protect our future, how do we protect their future, if we deprive children of the quality education they need to succeed in the future? Siphoning off money for education consigns America's children to a second-class future of reduced opportunities. Speaker Gingrich has often talked about the importance of bringing students and classrooms into the computer age, and I agree with that. But the GOP budget rejects that goal. The President's budget had requested $50 million for technology to do exactly what the Speaker suggests, but the House Appropriations Committee cut it in half, and the Senate proposed to cut that by two-thirds. The problem is not just funding. It is the uncertainty that we are creating in every single school district about the budget that they must endure and the extraordinary decisions that they are going to have to make if we have not resolved this matter in the near future. Schools have to submit budgets. They are doing that right now. But they do not know what their funding levels are going to be. The contractual obligations will force districts right now--as they consider the obligations they have and the ramifications of this funding--to send pink slips to teachers across the country. Trinity College just recently indicated that, because of problems with past continuing resolutions, they have been able to provide only estimates with regard to financial aid eligibility and that the uncertainty about funding and budgeting has complicated the application process tremendously. This situation has the potential to discourage qualified students from applying to college. The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of overall education funding, but those dollars can mean 100 percent of the resources for a young person who needs help. Mr. President, children learn by example. Let us set an example of responsibility, of foresight. Let us keep our commitment to America's education. Let us keep our commitment to America's children. Let us adopt this amendment this afternoon. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use some of my leader time to make a statement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for that information. We have had a good discussion about the schedule next week, and I am pleased that there is a possibility that we could address both the farm legislation and the telecommunications bill. So next week could be a very productive week, and hopefully we can continue to ensure that that can be done on Thursday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Democratic Policy Committee's assistant editor, Lynn Terpstra, will retire from the Senate next week. This marks the end of the long and productive career of a vigilant and dedicated congressional staff member. Hers is a career that spans 25 years, from 1969 to 1996. Lynn Terpstra began her congressional career in July, 1969, on the staff of Senator George Aiken of Vermont. Her next Senate assignment was on the staff of the Commission on the Operation of the Senate. In February 1977, she brought her quick mind and diligent habits to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Her technical skills and her grasp of how to help organize the ever-increasing DPC graphics and publications workload made Lynn an invaluable player on the DPC team. Lynn Terpstra's keen eye, creative talent and dedicated approach to the work of the Senate's Democratic Policy Committee will be missed. The DPC is grateful for her contribution to our work, and I want to thank Lynn and wish her well in her future endeavors. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it was on January 23, 1973, that a young, newly elected, freshman Senator from Georgia cast his first vote in this chamber--a vote to confirm a nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense. Today, 9,999 votes later, that Senator has become the Senate's leading authority on defense policies. Mr. President, it is with great pride and pleasure that I announce that Senator Sam Nunn has just become the 17th Senator in U.S. history to cast 10,000 votes. I am pleased to congratulate him for this remarkable achievement and thank him for his service to this institution and our country. In his leadership role on defense policies, Senator Nunn is following in the footsteps of two other great legislators from the State of Georgia. Representative Carl Vinson, who happened to be Senator Nunn's great uncle, chaired the House Armed Services Committee. Senator Richard Russell, who held for 38 years the Senate seat that Senator Nunn now holds, chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Nunn served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987 to 1994, and is currently the ranking Democrat on the committee. He has introduced or cosponsored the most important legislation concerning military and defense issues of the past two decades, including defense reorganization, measures to reduce the threat of nuclear war, Pentagon procurement reform, base closing, and restructuring of military pay and benefits. He has earned the respect of both Republican and Democratic Senators through his efforts to ensure the integrity and mission of our military establishment in the face of massive budget cutting. Thanks to his efforts, while we now have a leaner military, it is a more cost- effective military, rather than a weaker one. Senator Nunn's expertise in military and defense policy has been recognized and appreciated far beyond Capitol Hill. Every administration since the Carter administration has consulted him on military matters. And each of those administrations has considered him for a top level position in the administration. We in the Senate are extremely fortunate that Senator Nunn has chosen to serve here. Most importantly, his expertise and leadership has been recognized by the people of Georgia. In 1984, they re-elected him with 80 percent of the vote--defeating his opponent by a 4 to 1 margin. That was exceeded in 1990, when Senator Nunn was unopposed in both the State's primary and the general election for U.S. Senator. Still, I would like to point out that Senator Nunn's career has not been confined to or consumed by military and defense issues. In the Senate, he has played monumental roles in laying the groundwork for national service legislation, on deficit reduction, and on efforts to redirect our national economic and tax policies. Put simply, Senator Nunn has been a leading figure in American government. The Senate's foremost historian, Senator Robert C. Byrd, has appropriately remarked that Senator Nunn is one of those rare and extraordinary Senators ``who would have been recognized as [a] great senator in any age * * * in any period during the [past] 200 years'' of the Republic. Indeed, he would, and how pleased and honored I am to have the opportunity to recognize and congratulate our Senator, Senator Sam Nunn.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to compliment the President of the United States on his State of the Union Message last night. I think the reaction today is certainly an indication of the degree to which the President succeeded in articulating his message last night. He discussed, as he can so ably, his record for the last 3 years, reminding us that the economy is much stronger than it was when he took office, reminding us that we have reduced the Federal work force by 200,000 personnel, reminding us that the growth in the economy itself is as strong as it has been in the past 30 years, and recognizing that we have made substantial progress in reducing the deficit. So, indeed, from the perspective of the Government, as well as from the point of view of the economy, America is strong and the State of the Union reflects that strength, as he reminded us last night. He also sought to challenge us in seven very specific ways. I think his challenge was appropriate. Indeed, our country expects us to meet the challenges of education, a stronger economy, the need for health care reform, and a whole range of issues that the President addressed so ably and articulately last night. Most importantly perhaps, he reminded us that the effort over the last several weeks to achieve meaningful deficit reduction has indeed, to at least a certain extent, succeeded. The fact is, as the President indicated last night, if you take the lesser of the amounts agreed to on either side in the most recent offers by both the Republicans and the Democrats, we could achieve deficit reduction totaling more than $700 billion. Mr. President, that is a very significant achievement. He challenged us last night, to continue the effort to find common ground, to reach out across the aisle to establish a meaningful dialog, to continue to build on what we have already achieved, and to continue to find ways in which to make the common ground more meaningful. In so doing we can realize a balanced Federal budget in 7 years using the Congressional Budget Office figures. In that regard, Mr. President, I was extremely pleased with the announcement this morning by the Speaker that he, too, felt that common ground efforts ought to be sought, and that we ought to continue to find ways in which to build upon the common agreement that we have reached thus far in achieving a meaningful balanced budget. In my view, that is a breakthrough. When you have the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, the most prominent Democrat and one of the most prominent Republicans, agreeing in public that indeed there is a real possibility of achieving meaningful progress in this effort to reach common agreement on a balanced budget, that is a breakthrough. This is no time to abolish or to abandon our goal of attempting to reach a balanced budget. A piecemeal approach, Mr. President, is unnecessary. We can do it now. We can take that $711 billion in mutually agreed to savings and find the kind of long-term resolution to this balanced budget challenge that we have now faced for many months. So it is our opportunity. Apparently the Speaker now agrees that achieving that in a meaningful way is possible, using the common ground approach. Let us not abandon that goal. Let us not take anything less than a balanced budget over that 7-year period. Let us do it now. I think it is very important that we also recognize that to do it in the context of either a debt limit or a continuing resolution is not practical. We recognize that by encumbering and perhaps endangering either the continuing resolution or the debt limit resolution we may again find ourselves in a complex series of difficulties and crises that neither side wants. We need a clean continuing resolution. We need a clean resolution on the debt limit. And we can work simultaneously in continuing our negotiations to find a clean budget agreement that achieves the meaningful deficit reduction that we want using the common ground proposals that both the Speaker and the President have now accepted. Mr. President, I think the last critical issue to recognize is the importance of the next several weeks. It is very important that we not let this opportunity slip, that we not wait until the last moment to resolve these issues. We cannot afford to wait until the 27th or 28th or 29th of February. We cannot wait until that very crisis moment to resolve all these issues relating to the debt limit. Let us use the 28th and 29th and 30th of January. Let us use the first few weeks of February to resolve these issues. Let us, in other words, stay here and do our work. Let us not take the chance that we will not be able to solve these problems at the end of February when the crisis truly looms. So let us stay here, let us do what we must, let us recognize the opportunity that is before us, let us accept the challenges the President has now laid out so articulately and so clearly last night. Let us do that, recognizing that there are common goals and much common ground upon which to base our progress. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say that I am pleased with the majority leader's remarks about the expectations for votes for the next couple of weeks. In case Senators are not clear, as I understand it, unless some significant unforeseen development arises, we do not anticipate votes for the next couple of weeks. The next week and the week following are weeks within which votes will not be likely.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader talked about someone for whom I feel a great deal of affection. Mike Synar and I came to the Congress together in 1978. He was the very first person I met in the House of Representatives. He was the first Member of Congress I accompanied to his district. He was the first Member of Congress I brought to South Dakota. We got to be very, very close friends. Over the years that friendship grew, and our affection for one another grew with it. As most people remember, Mike Synar was awarded the Profiles In Courage Award just last year for the remarkable display of courage he demonstrated on a whole range of issues. Whether one agreed with him or not, one would have to say that when it came to standing up for his convictions, when it came to his belief that you either come to Congress to do something or be something, he chose to do something. You could not deny that that is exactly what he was here to do, to make what he could out of an opportunity to be a Member of Congress from a conservative district in the State of Oklahoma. Mike Synar stood up for what he believed. The antithesis of the perception of a modern-day politician, he stood up to the special interests. Whether you agreed with him or not, he stood up and fought for everything he could in the time he was here--campaign finance reform, grazing fee reform, tobacco issues that span the spectrum, a whole range of issues that he felt and cared very deeply about. So, Mr. President, America has lost a fine public statesman today. America has lost somebody who came here for all the right reasons. America has lost somebody who I was fortunate to call a very close and special friend. We will miss him. Along with Senator Dole, I send my condolences to his family, and to all of those who have had the good fortune to know him, to love him, and to count him as their friend, too.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader talked about his disappointment at the decision of the President to veto the welfare bill. Let me say, Mr. President, that I am very pleased with the action taken by the President yesterday. The majority leader characterized the conference report as virtually similar to the Senate-passed bill. The majority leader did not note that the President said he could support the Senate-passed bill prior to the time it went to conference. He did not mention that there was a significant level of bipartisan support for that bill as it left the Senate, controversial in many ways as it was. We all recognize the need for reform. We all recognize that we have to build upon the reforms that we enacted over the last 10 years. We all recognize that we want to find ways to make work pay. But we also ought to recognize that we should not be punishing children as we attempt to do that. We also ought to recognize that in the name of flexibility we should not simply give carte blanche to States to renege on the responsibilities that every State must have to ensure that there is a welfare system that works. No mention was made in the majority leader's remarks of the fact that there was no requirement in the conference report on welfare for the States to actually use for welfare purposes the Federal dollars that they are being provided for welfare. Under the provisions in the conference report, if they wanted to use them for infrastructure, they would be able to do that. If they wanted to use them for any other purpose they might have in their State budgets, there would be no prohibition on doing that. You can talk about maintenance of effort. We actually reduced the level of maintenance of effort with no other requirement. By maintenance of effort we are simply asking the States, in coming years, to live up to the level of benefits they now provide. Not only are they not required to live up to 100 percent of the benefits that they are now providing, the help that they are providing in whatever ways to children, the people who are attempting to break out of poverty, out of welfare, but the conference report would actually give them a license to drop from 100 percent down to 25 percent with no expectation in the future of how they will meet the requirements that they already have noted and have accumulated in their welfare budgets today. There is no requirement in the conference-passed version of the bill to tell a welfare recipient who is waiting for some form of assistance that they will be receiving assistance at a certain time. In current law that time limit is 45 days. A State or county has to respond within 45 days. There is no such requirement in the current bill. A prospective recipient of some form of assistance would have to wait 6 months, maybe have to wait 9 months, a year, 2 years. There is no limit on the extent to which recipients would have to wait for help. So there are a significant number of very major differences between what we proposed in the work-first legislation, what we even passed in the U.S. Senate, and what came back as a conference report. We want to make work pay. We want to ensure that children are not punished. We want to ensure that there is adequate funding for the kinds of things that we know we must do. Frankly, the higher we go in welfare savings, the more concerned I am that all we are really doing is creating the pool of resources necessary to pay for the huge tax cut that Republicans continue to insist be a part of any budget. I do not know how we can do more in all the areas that we have agreed upon in the budget negotiations, whether it is in child care, whether it is in providing adequate nutrition, whether it is in providing real skilled opportunities for those who are on welfare today, job skills and training skills and the things that would make them more employable, how we can do all of that, and still save $60 billion, which coincidentally just happens to be an amount that would be very helpful in creating the pool necessary to make the tax cut work in current budget deliberations. So, Mr. President, what the President vetoed is a far cry from what Democrats had proposed. It is a significant departure from what the Senate had gone on record in support of. I must say, were we to bring the bill back in its current form, we would have more than enough votes necessary to sustain the veto the President demonstrated yesterday. So we are prepared--because we are not satisfied with the status quo either--to go back to work to find ways to address the significant deficiencies that currently exist in this bill. Let us make sure that we can find a bipartisan way to address welfare reform prior to the end of the year. But let us do it right. Let us ensure that the guarantees for children are there. Let us ensure that we find a way to make work pay. Let us ensure that we are able to provide the child care necessary so that parents can leave their homes for work. Let us ensure that--as much as we want to provide flexibility to the States--that they are not going to renege on their responsibility they have to make sure we have the infrastructure in place to ensure that this is more than just a piece of paper that we all feel good about on the day we vote again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear everything that the majority leader said. I understand he spoke about agriculture. Let me just say that I do not know what the solution is, but I think the majority leader and I both agree that we have to do something. We have a lot of farmers who have already planted everything that they are going to plant for their winter wheat, for their crops. That will be ready for harvest by spring or late spring. We have to do something. If we cannot do it in 1 year, maybe a 2-year extension is something that we ought to look at. But I do not think that doing nothing ought to be an option that either party agrees to. While there is very little support on the other side of the aisle for the so-called marketing loan concept, that marketing loan would allow farmers to be given at least the confidence that they are going to have a plan out there that is market-sensitive; that costs less for the Government; that provides us with the kind of opportunity in the farm program that many farmers feel they need. Virtually every national farm organization has said they support it. So I hope we can work something out. I know that in working with majority leader in good faith, we can find a way to resolve what may now appear to be some very difficult challenges in agreeing on a farm policy. But we have to do it. I hope we can do it as early as next week. We cannot wait much longer. Again, while I did not hear what the majority leader said, I am sure he shares the need to be as expeditious as possible in finding some resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the satisfaction expressed by the majority leader about the opportunity now to send Federal workers back to work with pay, apparently now giving them also the authority and funding to do at least some of the things that they are being paid for. But I share the reservations expressed by the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Oregon. This is not the way to run a Government. The majority leader had it right on January 2. On January 2 this body passed a clean continuing resolution that did all that we should do. Now we are picking and choosing. Now we are picking winners and losers. Now we are still leaving unfunded a lot of very important programs including Head Start, JOBS, cops on the beat, virtually all the programs at the Commerce Department, NASA operations, the social services block grants, Violence Against Women grants, entire divisions of the Department of Justice--including the criminal, civil rights, and environmental divisions, among others--all Environmental Protection Agency contractor operations, low-income housing vouchers, and vocational rehabilitation. Many more agencies and activities, very important functions of Government, are still left without any funding, still left without any standing as we enter this new session of Congress in this new calendar year. American taxpayers have paid for these services, yet they will not be receiving them. So no one should be misled. We have not solved everything here. We have solved only part of the problem. As I have said all day, we have come to the agreement that something is better than nothing. And nothing is what we would have had if nothing passed tonight. And so I am somewhat encouraged that we made some progress in all of this, although I wish we had done again tonight what we did on January 2-- pass a clean continuing resolution to reopen the entire government and restore some normalcy to our governmental processes. As for the 7-year budget issue, the reason we added the fourth measure to this en bloc unanimous consent request agreement is that the commitment to a 7-year balanced budget, Mr. President, was only half of the agreement Democrats and Republicans both made last November. The other half of the agreement was that we were going to protect priorities. We all agreed we would negotiate toward a balanced budget if we could agree to one within a 7-year period of time, scored by CBO once finalized--after there was consultation with the Office of Management and Budget. But what we also agreed to was that we would protect those priorities that Democrats and some Republicans have indicated are very important if we are going to achieve a balanced budget: all the priorities I read earlier. Those priorities include Medicare and making sure that people have every confidence that in the Medicare Program they are going to be protected. They include Medicaid and education and the environment. They include agriculture and veterans affairs--priorities that we feel every bit as strongly about as we feel the need to balance the budget in 7 years. We are unwilling to use those pools of resources to pay for tax cuts for those who do not need them. So we felt the need to recommit ourselves and our colleagues to those priorities that we all agreed to last November. Mr. President, I know others want to speak. Let me just close by reading a letter that I got from Amanda Munroe a couple of days ago. Amanda Munroe is a sixth grader from Sturgis, SD. She wrote a letter that is as poignant and as straight to the point as anything I have read. It is probably appropriate tonight that it be read and shared with my colleagues: I am 12 years old and in the 6th grade at Sturgis Williams Middle School. My mom and dad both work at Fort Meade Veterans Medical Center. Many kids at Sturgis Williams Middle School have parents that work at Fort Meade. In school I learned that the Government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. I thought the Government was supposed to make choices that help the Nation. The furlough does not only hurt Federal workers, it hurts the children also. I thought the children were the future. I think that the Democrats and the Republicans should each give a little and pass the budget. It would make the future of Federal workers and their children much brighter. Thanks for being the grinch that stole our Christmas. There are a lot of children and others out there who did not have a very rosy Christmas as a result of an extraordinary experience they have had to endure. Let us hope it is now over. Let us hope at long last Federal workers can go back to work, pay their bills, run the Government and do the things that we have asked them to do. We will all be better for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I have a fourth resolution I ask to be considered as part of this series, en bloc. I will simply read the resolution. The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 2nd session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and stimulate future economic growth. The balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the Congressional Budget Office based on its most recent current economic and technical assumptions, following a thorough consultation and review with the Office of Management and Budget, and other government and private experts. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President pro tempore.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I applaud the action taken this morning. I believe that providing the District of Columbia with the confidence of knowing that they will have the appropriate operating funds to continue at least through the 25th of January is very important. I talked to the Mayor this morning, and he urged that this be done. I am pleased that, again on a bipartisan basis, the Senate has agreed to take at least one of the many outstanding problems out of the mix and deal with it directly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, while I agree that it is right to deal with the problems facing the District of Columbia, there should be no misunderstanding about the current situation. There are hundreds and hundreds of problems that are being created almost on a daily basis that have not been dealt with. Veterans are again in the same position they were prior to Christmas. If something is not done prior to the end of this month, veterans will not receive their disability checks. If something is not done before the end of this month, AFDC recipients will not have their checks. If something is not done before the end of this month, 260,000 Federal workers will have been out of work for an entire month. And the taxpayers are paying $40 million a day for this to occur. How ironic can it be? The irony certainly must be apparent to every one of the people involved. How ironic that at the very time we are dealing with the budget, trying to find some resolution to the deficit, we are creating through this irresponsible Government shutdown a $40 million deficit unnecessarily each and every day. It is just outrageous. The Senate has, through leadership of the majority leader and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, come to terms with this. We passed the continuing resolution. That issue is over and done with. What remains is for the House to act responsibly to do what they should have done weeks ago--to pass a continuing resolution, put people back to work, and make absolutely certain that this horrendous situation we face today is solved once and for all. If we do not, there will continue to be dire consequences. Everyone should know that Meals on Wheels runs out of money this week. Senior citizens who may only receive one meal a day will cease receiving those meals as a result of the inaction in the House. Senior citizens will go hungry. No one ought to be confused about it. Everyone ought to understand the implications of what we are doing here. Seniors who may not get any other nutritional opportunities for the entire day will be denied this one meal as a result of House Republican intransigence. Medicare contractors are no longer being paid. Medicare contractors are now being asked to go out and provide medical services without any compensation at all. So are we affecting the lives and health of millions of Americans beyond Federal workers? Absolutely. We are doing it today. I already mentioned veterans not receiving their disability benefits. They are not receiving educational benefits either. Unemployment offices--we have people out of work, walking in for unemployment compensation, not knowing how they are going to pay their bills. Their situation is totally unrelated to any budget negotiations. They are walking into unemployment offices and finding that no one can provide them with service because 10 States have already been forced to shut down their unemployment offices. Ten States have shut down every single unemployment office So people seeking help--not Federal employees, not people who may be part of the Federal Government but people who are out of work--are now being told there is nothing that we can do for them either. Superfund has been halted now for cleanups in 32 toxic wastesites. There are 32 sites around the country completely shut down as a result of what has happened here in the Congress, and what is happening--or not happening--on the House side. There are 20,000 student loans per day that are not being processed. I had a call a couple of days ago from a friend in South Dakota whose daughter is depressed and in tears wondering just what is going to happen because she was told she cannot even go back to college because her student loan did not come through for the second semester. What happens to the next 6 months of her life? Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about furloughing Federal workers without pay. But it appears that the House may furlough themselves with pay. How outrageous can that be? What a contrast. What an incredible juxtaposition of fairness. The House is going out on a 2- week vacation with pay. Every Federal worker is left at home without pay and the Federal taxpayer is left holding the bag each and every day for services not rendered. This country has been in very difficult positions in the past. But I daresay, Mr. President, that this is the most inexplicable, outrageous situation that I have seen since coming to the Senate. It has to end. The House has to come to grips with taking the responsibility and doing the right thing. It has to happen, and it better happen today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished majority leader for his leadership in the 1st session of the 104th Congress. Let me also repeat what I said a year ago, when this Congress began: Democrats are willing to work with our Republican colleagues where we can--but we will oppose them where we have to. That is the principle that guided Senate Democrats last year, and the principle we will use again this year. We all wish we were beginning this new session under better circumstances. Instead, the Federal Government remains closed for the 19th consecutive day. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees are being forced to go without pay, and millions of taxpayers are being denied services for which they have already paid. The American people deserve better than this, Mr. President, and this Congress is capable of better. We proved that on a number of occasions last year. We proved that we could work together--Democrats and Republicans, Senate and House--to accomplish something worthwhile. Today, as we begin the second session of this Congress, I think it is worth reviewing those occasions on which we were able to achieve broad consensus last year. Second, let's look at the successes we achieved in this Senate when we were able to replace extremism with reason. Third, let's remember the opportunities we lost last session when we could not work together to do what the American people sent us here to do. In each case, I believe we can learn something that may help us in this session. One area in which this Congress was able to achieve broad consensus is congressional reform. Democrats fought in the 103d Congress for a Congressional Accountability Act to hold Congress to the same standards we demand of other employers. We fought for lobbying disclosure and a real gift ban. And we fought to put an end to the irresponsible practice of unfunded Federal mandates. We were grateful that our Republican colleagues finally joined us last year in supporting these proposals and passing them into law. Another important area in which Democrats and Republicans worked together successfully was in helping to secure the chances for peace in Bosnia the right way--by strengthening the NATO alliance rather than shattering it. While the results of our decision cannot be determined immediately, I am hopeful that as a result of our continued cooperation, we can work with the administration to see that our efforts in Bosnia remain a success. In other areas, we achieved success with smaller--but still bipartisan--margins. These were issues on which Democratic Senators, joined by a few of our moderate Republican colleagues, were able to temper the extremism of certain proposals sent over from the House. Through that effort, we avoided deep cuts in school lunch programs, and we preserved the rights of ordinary citizens to know what kinds of toxic chemicals are being emitted in their neighborhoods. There are still other areas in which we were unable to reach agreement. These are, in many cases, the lost opportunities of the first session of this Congress. It is my hope that we will be able to put aside our differences and recapture those opportunities this year. Perhaps the greatest of these lost opportunities is welfare reform. We had the ability to change welfare, as we say, from a way of life to a way out. We had more than an opportunity; we had a bill. We passed a good, workable bill in this Senate that would have given people on welfare a real chance to support themselves and their families. But we lost that opportunity when extremism once again reared its ugly head in conference. I hope we will have the chance this year to correct that mistake. Another lost opportunity is the anti-terrorism legislation we passed in the Senate; 9 months after Oklahoma City, that legislation languishes in the House for reasons unknown. As the majority leader indicated, Democrats opposed the balanced budget amendment put forth last year by Republicans because it would have used Social Security funds to pay off Washington's debts and hide the real size of our deficit. We regard that amendment as yet another opportunity lost. The American people are ready--in fact they are demanding--that we deal with the deficit honestly. The 1st session of the 104th Congress, represented a number of disappointments. We are disappointed, frankly, that we did not pass welfare reform that promotes work and protects children. We are disappointed that we did not pass a minimum wage law, long overdue. We are disappointed that we did not pass even a minimum health reform package. We are disappointed we did not pass the campaign finance reform bill that should have been passed a long time ago. We are disappointed we did not pass meaningful farm legislation. The farm bill has been pending and we are well into the new crop year and farmers still wonder what the farm policy will be even as they begin to plant for the 1996 season. We are hopeful in the coming months we can deal with these disappointments in the same bipartisan fashion we dealt with issues from unfunded mandates to Bosnia. I remain willing to work with my colleagues, the majority leader, and all of my colleagues on the Republican side to ensure that we achieve the kinds of successes we are capable of in the second session of this Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as 1996 begins, and the 2d session of the 104th Congress convenes, we need to take a close look at the record of this Congress' first year. In reviewing that record, one stunning failure stands out above all others. The majority in 1995 presided over perhaps the most bungled budget and appropriations process ever seen in Congress. The majority failed to meet every budget deadline set by law, and every deadline they set for themselves. Rather than react responsibly to bring order to this process, Republicans instead chose to shut down the government twice. The most recent shutdown, now in its 19th day, is by far the longest in history. Both of these shutdowns have been unnecessary, wasteful of taxpayer funds, and have inconvenienced thousands of Americans who paid their taxes only to have basic services denied them. Let there be no mistake: Despite some of the rhetoric we have heard, the responsibility for the shutdown falls squarely on the shoulders of Republicans in the House of Representatives. Nothing makes that clearer than the action by the Senate on January 2 to approve a continuing resolution that would fund the Government until January 12. The other body could take up and enact that legislation in a matter of minutes. Yet because of objections by self-proclaimed revolutionaries in the other body, the shutdown continues. These extremists plan to hold the Government and its workers hostage to force the administration to accept a budget that has already been rejected by the President and the American people. A brief review of the botched budget process this year explains how Congress got into this mess. The Budget Act requires the Senate Budget Committee to report a resolution by April 1. The majority missed that deadline. The Budget Act requires Congress to complete a budget resolution by April 15. Again, the majority missed that legal deadline. By June 15, the Budget Act requires Congress to complete action on a final budget reconciliation bill. Today, over 6 months later, we are still discussing that legislation at the White House. In fact, they did not even complete work on the budget resolution until June 29. The majority has missed every legal deadline for the appropriations process, as well. By June 10, the Budget Act requires the House Appropriations Committee to report all 13 appropriations bills. The majority failed to report even one of them by that date. By June 30, the Budget Act requires the House to complete action on all 13 appropriations bills. They had completed only two. By October 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, all 13 appropriations bills are supposed to be enacted. On October 1, 1995, Congress had sent only two of them to the President. Not only has Congress failed to meet its legal responsibilities. It is now failing to meet its constitutional responsibilities to properly fund the Government. Last year was not the first time the President differed with Congress on appropriations bills. When Democrats controlled Congress and Republicans controlled the White House, Democrats handled Presidential vetoes very differently than the majority does today. In 1990, President Bush vetoed the District of Columbia bill twice, and he also vetoed the foreign operations and Labor/Health and Human Services bills. He again vetoed the District of Columbia bills in 1992 and 1993, and the Labor/HHS bill in 1992. In each of these cases, Congress approved a continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown while Congress and the President worked out differences over these bills. There is no reason that Congress cannot again this year approve stopgap funding while Congress and the President negotiate differences over outstanding appropriations bills that should have been completed long ago. In fact, the President has indicated that, with relatively minor changes, he would quickly sign the bills he has vetoed, and the Government could be put back to work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement, the veto messages of the President regarding the VA/HUD, Commerce/State/Justice, and the Interior appropriations bills be printed in the Record. As these messages make clear, agreement is within reach if extremist riders are removed and limited funding for high-priority programs is restored. The only reason that this has not been done already is that certain leaders in the other body seek to impose their radical agenda on America by holding these bills hostage. The Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, expected more responsible behavior from leaders in Congress, and did not anticipate that Congress would renege on its basic obligation to maintain the functioning of Government because one faction expected to gain partisan advantage. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to review these veto messages, and begin working to bridge the differences by negotiating in good faith, and stop using coercive tactics to extract advantage. I hope very much that the House will act today on the clean continuing resolution approved by the Senate yesterday. Ending the irresponsible shutdown would be a good demonstration of leadership, and would clearly add a positive note to the bipartisan negotiations over balancing the budget that are now taking place.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the message from the House on S. 1508 and concur in the House amendment with a substitute continuing resolution, giving them full authority to do all that they need to do once they go back to work, which reopens the Government and provides for the payment of all Federal employees who have been without pay since December 15, that the motion to concur be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.