Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments so that I may call up an amendment at this time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every Member of Congress and every permanent Federal worker has access to comprehensive health insurance. This is true from the Senate cleaning crew, to the staff director of a committee, to Members of Congress and their families. We get insurance the way most working Americans do--through our employer, with a shared contribution between employer and employee. Our coverage is secure, comprehensive, and affordable. This is not true, however, for employees of firms contracting with Congress. Many of these individuals, who work side by side with Federal workers, have no such guarantee. In fact, about 1,900 employees of companies that contract with the Congress have no insurance. Current efforts to privatize services previously performed by Federal Government workers exacerbate this situation. Who are these contractors? They include House restaurant and mailroom staff, electronics technicians, day care providers, accountants, data processors, and construction and maintenance workers. They work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules; yet, they don't have the same kind of health security that we take for granted. I know such people here in the Congress. One in particular is a person whom I go to every so often to have my hair cut. She has worked in the House Beauty Shop for 14 years. For 12 of those 14 years, she was a Federal Government employee and had health insurance. When the House privatized the House haircut facilities in 1995, this particular individual lost her insurance. She purchased a private health plan, but had to drop it 3 months ago because she could not afford the $187 per month premium. She asked the company who runs the shop--a large firm in San Francisco that operates hundreds of shops--if they would pay 50 percent of the premium. Her employer, so far, has refused, and she is now without coverage. She recently had a serious case of food poisoning but, because of her lack of coverage, could not afford to go to the doctor for treatment. This kind of situation cannot and should not be tolerated. As we devise new ways to extend health coverage to the uninsured, it just doesn't seem fair to me that we in Congress could allow these contractors, working side-by-side with Federal Government employees who we call upon every day to do the work of the Congress, to go without any coverage at all. How can we enjoy subsidized comprehensive insurance while people who fix our computers, maintain our buildings, or cut our hair have no coverage at all? It seems to me that, in fairness, we just can't do that. That is why I have introduced this amendment, which would require firms that contract with Congress--and only Congress--to offer health insurance to their employees. This requirement would apply to firms that employ 15 or more workers and that have Federal contracts worth at least $75,000. These contractors could buy a private health plan or could select a plan from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program that currently is available to all permanent Federal employees. In either case, they would be required to contribute to their employees' premiums, just as the Federal Government contributes to its workers' coverage. This would ensure that everyone working full time for Congress has access at least to the comprehensive coverage that is now available to congressional employees. This kind of action is certainly not without precedent. Several years ago, concern over high turnover among Senate day care employees led the Senate to give these contract workers the Federal health benefits coverage that we now enjoy. And Congress has a long-established history of taking action to guarantee fair working conditions for its contract workers. For 65 years, Davis-Bacon and other similar measures have guaranteed competitive wages to Federal contract workers. This bill complements these efforts. The introduction of this amendment is not just a humanitarian gesture. It is, frankly, a very practical one. Health costs for uninsured workers who become ill are simply shifted onto others; shifted onto public programs like Medicaid, or shifted onto doctors and hospitals in the form of charity care. In addition, the uninsured forgo preventive care and later need expensive emergency room treatment. We should not tolerate this kind of inefficient cost shifting. We should be setting an example for the rest of the Government, and certainly the private sector. Some may say this measure will reduce cost savings from privatization. I believe Congress should contract out services performed more efficiently by the private sector. But, certainly, Congress should not save money by denying workers a basic benefit that is guaranteed to all other Federal workers. We want services that are leaner, but not meaner. Outsourcing may be the wave of the future and, frankly, I generally support this trend. But we need to make sure that those workers caught in the transition have basic benefits to which other Federal workers are entitled. For many years now, Members of Congress have spoken on the floor about the need to extend coverage to the uninsured. We all recognize there can be no financial security without health security. Let us simply put our money where our mouth is. Let us show our country that what is good for Members of Congress and their employees is also good for the contractors who work with us. My hope is that my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Nebraska will yield, there is no budget cost to this. It is completely paid for. There is a negligible cost that is completely offset. So there is no increase in the deficit that is the result of this amendment. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond, if I could, to the majority leader, and then I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I think that we have to resolve the matter the Senator from Nebraska has presented to us prior to the time we enter into a unanimous-consent agreement. If we can do that, I think that is a good- faith indication that we are able to resolve at least that part of it, and then we can go on to the next step. Let us do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say, for the Record, that in the last Congress all the appropriations bills were finished on time. We would like to see if we can do that 2 years in a row. I have indicated my desire to work with the majority leader to see if we can get that done. We have gone through our list and find about 18 amendments that may require action. So we have our work cut out for us in order to get this bill done. I think this is a good suggestion. I would like to see if we can't work through the next couple of hours to have the amendments filed, so we can look with some serious understanding of what it is we have left to do. And if we require amendments to be filed, we will have a much better understanding of that. So I hope that both sides can agree.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Nebraska makes a very good point. It might be in our interest just to check. I would be compelled to object at this point to the request, even though I have already expressed myself with regard to how I feel about the request, just to accommodate our ranking member in this regard. So I will not object if we go into a quorum call to clarify whether or not we can do what the Senator from Nebraska has suggested. That would be my hope so we can resolve at least that matter. Otherwise, I will be compelled to object, and we can just continue to work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say that the decision we have made represents our best effort to try to deal with the circumstances we currently have before us. The amendments that are contemplated during the debate on the chemical weapons treaty have not yet been shown to the administration or to Members of this side of the aisle, and for good reasons. They have been working on them, and I do not fault them necessarily for not showing them to us, but we are concerned that the amendments have the opportunity to be considered carefully, that we work with the authors of the legislation over the next few days to see whether we can't resolve the differences that the amendments represent. The administration is desirous of attempting to find some resolution to those amendments so that we can send a clear message as a country about the importance of this treaty as is possible. I appreciate very much again the cooperation of the majority leader in coming to this conclusion. I think it is the right one. He and I had anticipated bringing the treaty up this afternoon and having a good debate, but I think a 1-hour time limit under these circumstances may not be the definition of a good debate on issues of this import. So we will continue to work to continue to try to find ways in which to resolve these differences and, subject to the agreement of both leaders, perhaps bring it up later. It would be my hope that we will bring it up later, but that will be subject, of course, to our success in these negotiations on the amendments themselves and the schedule. But we will address that and issues relating to the treaty at a later day. So, again, let me thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just came from a caucus meeting and encouraged our colleagues to come to the floor to offer the essential amendments, to wait for another day to offer those that may not be essential, to agree to time limits, recognizing there is a real possibility we could finish this bill tonight. I would like to work with that goal in mind with the majority leader and with an expectation that we can accommodate Senators' schedules on Friday and on Monday. But we will do our best to see if we cannot get additional cooperation and narrow that list more completely this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me just say we have worked on this side on the Treasury-postal bill to narrow the list of amendments. We began this morning with 45, tonight we are down to 6. So we have made good progress. I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle for their cooperation. Hopefully, we can work out the remaining questions relating to the additional short list of amendments. I think the majority leader's recommendation is a good one. I hope we could begin the debate on the Interior bill tomorrow, perhaps taking up the Federal aviation bill on Monday, but we will work with the majority to see that we have a full schedule and protect Senators who have plans for religious purposes tomorrow. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. With that understanding, I will not have any objection. I hope we can work to resolve that relatively minor matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would it be in order to ask unanimous consent to get a time agreement, say, for additional debate of no more than an hour and 20 minutes? I am prepared to offer one of the amendments I was planning to offer in order to accommodate the schedule if we could, perhaps, divide the next 90 minutes equally.

Mr. DASCHLE. It would accommodate a Senator if that vote could occur at 9:45.

Mr. DASCHLE. Would it accommodate both to have two freestanding amendments back to back, voted up or down at 9:30? That would accommodate everyone and resolve the matter, and we could move on to other issues.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Might I just make one other point. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from Nevada. As I look at the list on both sides, the one thing I think the majority leader will agree with me on, about two-thirds, if not three- fourths of those amendments are legislative amendments. I believe we made a very big mistake a year ago in overriding the Chair on the question of legislating on appropriations bills. I think we are paying a heavy price, and will continue to pay a heavy price, so long as we continue to insist that even on appropriations bills we can add anything to everything. And that issue will come back. It stung us and it has caused us more problems in the last 2 years than virtually anything else. I think it was a big mistake. Our Republican colleagues insisted at the time to overrule the Chair and allow the practice of legislating on appropriations bills, so these amendments are fair game. But we are now paying the price, and continue to pay the price so long as that issue becomes almost a joke with regard to these appropriations bills. So I think when we get back for the 105th Congress, and when we have the opportunity again, in the majority, to deal with this issue, I hope we can restore the rule.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, I want to thank the Members of our leadership for working with Members on our side. As I understand it, the list is quite extensive on both sides. There are 51 Republican amendments and almost that many, not quite that many, Democratic amendments. But we are going to do our best to work with the majority leader to see if we can bring that list down substantially by tomorrow. Obviously, Senators would be very helpful to both of us if we could limit the amount of time on many of those amendments and offer additional amendments tonight. There is no reason even if there are no more votes why we cannot have a number of amendments yet tonight. So, hopefully we can do that and be in a much better position to come to some final assessment as to what the list looks like by midmorning tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, assuming that is agreeable to the majority leader, to have the vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming no later than 6:20.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think for the interest of Senators, as I understand it, we are about to have a vote. Does the Senator from Wyoming know approximately what length of additional time he will need to complete his remarks?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. 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 just say, the majority leader and I have had the opportunity in the last couple hours to talk to our Members and to urge their cooperation in coming forth with prospective amendments. I would emphasize that they are prospective. I hope that in many cases Senators would not feel compelled to offer them. Our hope is that we can resolve this bill some time in the not-too-distant future. I hope that all of our colleagues can work with us to limit the list of amendments, to limit the debate on the amendments, once they are called up, and to see if we cannot complete our work. I have asked Members of our leadership to work with our caucus in order to put this list together now in a realistic fashion. And I hope that only in those cases where Senators truly felt that it was essential that the amendment be offered on this bill, that it be done so. So I am urging cooperation, in concert with the majority leader, in the hope that we can come to some completion successfully on this bill some time in the not-too-distant future.