Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain the pending amendment. Eliminating food stamp fraud and abuse is of paramount importance, both in my State of South Dakota and across the Nation. Clearly, if there are steps that can be taken to curb the fraudulent use of food stamps, then we, as lawmakers, have a responsibility to take them. This amendment is one such step, and I believe it is fundamentally sound policy. This amendment provides States incentives to police the fraudulent use of food stamps. By granting States the authority to retain 35 percent of a food stamp overissuance in instances of intentional fraud and 20 percent in the event of nonintentional overissuance, they are encouraged to pursue perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. A recent study by the South Dakota Department of Social Services demonstrated unequivocally that a two-tiered system, such as the one proposed by this amendment, is far more effective at encouraging States to pursue food stamp fraud than the flat retention rate system proposed in the underlying reconciliation bill. Moreover, this amendment has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as having no significant cost. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate as well my desire to see if we cannot work this list down in the next 30 minutes. I hope every one of the colleagues on my side of the aisle will come to me and tell me, No. 1, when they intend to offer the amendment and, No. 2, whether they really need a rollcall or whether they would be satisfied with a voice vote. If we cannot get it down to a reasonable list, I think it is fair to say that within a half-hour we would be then in a position to say whether we will be here tonight, tomorrow and Monday. So, if we cannot--I do not have any plans--we will be here tonight. I have no objection to being here tomorrow and Monday, but there are a lot of people who have expressed an interest in trying to accommodate the schedule that the majority leader has discussed, and I hope we can do that, just to take into account some of the people who have already made their plans. But we will have to make that decision within the next 30 minutes. So, I hope everybody will come to me, and we will decide within that 30-minute timeframe whether or not we will be here tomorrow and Monday or not.

Mr. DASCHLE. We will provide it within the next half-hour; even sooner. It is available. We just want to put it in a form that is presentable.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think in some cases we are not going to need 30 minutes. I know at least in one case, the amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senators from Delaware and Pennsylvania, I think they wanted 45 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. That will be provided.

Mr. DASCHLE. Can we do 15 minutes? I do not know if you need more.

Mr. DASCHLE. Six.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to, if we could, at the end of the colloquy, announce the list and the order in which the amendments are going to be taken so Senators will be put on notice as to when their amendment could be expected.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is our intention.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent that the first 15 minutes of this series of amendments to be considered be for the distinguished Senator from Washington, to be joined by the Senator from Illinois, and we will dispose of the first amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, thank you. Amendment No. 4897

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. We will get you a copy.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me begin by commending the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his excellent statement just now. He has indicated, in much the same way that I intend to give, the reasons for supporting the work first bill, and his concerns about the pending bill as it has been reported out of the Senate Finance Committee. There are many Members in our caucus that I would like to single out publicly, and applaud for their remarkable effort and the tremendous work that they have dedicated to this whole issue and to the determination they have shown to pass a meaningful welfare reform bill this year. Let me begin with the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, and the distinguished Senator as well from Louisiana, John Breaux, who were extraordinarily helpful to the leadership all the way through our deliberations and have provided remarkable leadership in their own right. I thank them for that. I appreciate very much their assistance in so many ways. The Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, and the Senator from North Dakota, Byron Dorgan, and so many of our colleagues who are listed today as cosponsors have also been extremely helpful. While we have all put an effort into the issue of welfare reform, I should say that no one in our caucus, I daresay in the Senate, has been more vocal and more of a student of this issue than the senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. He is not on the floor at this moment. But I also want to commend him for the real leadership and the willingness that he has demonstrated throughout to hold this body to a set of principles, and in a sense to be the conscience of the Senate when it comes to welfare. He is indeed the conscience of the Senate when it comes to this issue, and no one has dedicated more years--in fact, I would say more decades--to the issue of welfare and the ways in which to address many of the social ills of our country in an effective way as he has. Madam President, I have two charts here that I just want to address very briefly. I have listened with some interest to the comments made by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. While, obviously, there are issues that divide us, there are many things that unite us. One of the things that unites us I think is an awareness of the degree to which current welfare recipients face barriers of all kinds as they attempt to confront the real changes that they face in their own lives. The effort to understand those barriers at the beginning through a better realization of how we address those barriers in an effective way through public policy are all listed on this chart. This chart outlines the barriers identified in a study released last year by the Child Care Trends organization. I think it is very constructive to note that of all the barriers that exist today, the biggest barrier of all is child care. The realization that people are not willing to leave their child home alone, that young children demand and, indeed, deserve to be cared for and protected, and that there has to be some confidence that children will find a way with which to be fed and cared for in a meaningful way. But child care without exception is by far the largest barrier that we face in encouraging and finding ways in which to bring about more work for welfare recipients today. The second is personal--personal problems; struggle, most likely related to job skills; problems that they have had going all the way back to perhaps even their failures in education. But the realization that unless they develop better job skills and better personal skills in order to be more competitive is something that over one-fourth of all recipients say is the problem that leads them to welfare dependency. Obviously, there are other issues. I will not go into all of them. Some people simply cannot find work. I know of a lot of South Dakotans who live on Indian reservations where unemployment is 80 percent, and there, frankly, is no job on a reservation in large measure that will bring people to a better opportunity for work than the one they have. Pregnancy is a problem; inability to work because of disabilities; and, obviously, there is a motivation question in some cases. So, if we are going to devise a bill that will deal with the barriers, we have to devise a bill that deals with all of the different circumstances that welfare recipients find themselves in. We have to ensure that there is motivation to give them some sense that they do not have the luxury of being unmotivated; that we have to deal with child care; we have to deal with job skills; we have to find ways with which to ensure that, if work is not there, we will find work for them. So we want to do as many things as possible to ensure that welfare recipients no longer face the barriers that they are facing. That really is what unites Republicans and Democrats, and brings us to the effort that is underway in both the House and the Senate this afternoon. Madam President, there are a number of areas--and a number of our colleagues have already addressed them--that have been improved in the pending legislation. There are significant improvements, and we have counted perhaps as many as two dozen improvements in the current bill over what was originally proposed last year. There certainly has been significant progress. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee address many of the improvements that are made in this legislation. We still believe, however, with all of the improvements, there are some very serious deficiencies we have to address. And in an effort to lay down the marker, to find a way with which to make a comparison between the pending legislation and what ideally Democrats would like to see as a meaningful comprehensive welfare reform approach, we are now offering what we call the work first II plan. We have also made improvements. We have also addressed deficiencies that have been raised over the last 12 months. We have also tried to find ways with which to come to the middle, and, even though we thought we were in the middle from the very beginning, maybe a better phrase would be to compromise with our Republican colleagues in a way that addresses their concerns and brings to a higher level of priority some of the concerns that have been raised by critics of welfare reform in the past. So we today propose the work first plan which provides for conditional assistance of limited duration, which provides work first for all able-bodied recipients, which turns welfare offices into employment offices, and which guarantees child care assistance. If I could say what our goal ought to be, regardless of what approach we might take, I hope we would all agree on three important goals: first and foremost, providing the assurance that people will have the ability to get a good job, first by the acquisition of skills, and, second, by the acquisition of whatever necessary means it may require to ensure that they have access to good jobs. Turning welfare offices into employment offices ought to be what welfare is all about. Secondly, we want to ensure that we are protecting children, that we are not going to punish them, that we will not hold vulnerable individuals in a way that would jeopardize their future, that would condemn them to the same cycle of dependency that their parents and grandparents and great grandparents have experienced. So protecting children ought to be our second goal--fortifying them, strengthening them, empowering them to do things that they may not otherwise be able to do on their own. Third, we believe there are ways in which to save Federal tax dollars. We believe we can provide a welfare system that is more efficient, that saves resources in ways that can be better spent, first, in welfare but also in the vast array of other responsibilities we have at the Federal level. So in a sense, Madam President, that is exactly what the work first bill does. It provides work; it provides job skills to get work; it protects children; and it saves money. In fact, it saves about $51 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO scores our plan as real reform. The CBO says that we have sufficient resources to put welfare recipients to work, one of the goals. In addition, we provide sufficient resources to pay for child care to assist states in meeting the work rates, to pay for the other major responsibilities that we see shared at both the State and the Federal level. Unlike our plan, the CBO does not say the same about the Republican plan. CBO says that States will just take the penalties that are incorporated in the Republican plan; that they will not put people to work; that they will not meet the work rates; that they will not fundamentally change the current system. The Congressional Budget Office says that about the Republican plan, about the Finance Committee passed plan, not about our plan. Under our plan, the work first plan of 1996, we do some of the same things that the Republican plan does. We provide conditional assistance of limited duration. We require that there be work for all able-bodied welfare recipients. We turn welfare offices, in other words, into employment offices. And we guarantee child care assistance. Those are the fundamental principles of the work first plan. Our plan answers three key questions: Does it require welfare recipients to look for a job? The answer is yes, unequivocally. Second, does it require welfare recipients to work? The answer is yes, unequivocally. Finally, does it help welfare recipients retain a job? Again, the answer is yes, unequivocally. Under our plan, there is no more unconditional assistance. From the very first day parents are going to be required to sign a contract. It is a blueprint for employment. They must sign it to receive any assistance whatsoever. Under the Republican plan, there is no contract at all. For the first 2 months, our plan calls for extensive job search. We get the most job-ready into the work force that we can, that is, the more people that come into the welfare offices looking for help, the whole design is to find them help not with a welfare check but with a job, with assistance to get that job. If within 3 months a parent is not working or is not in job training or education, that parent must perform community service. They do not have the option. They are required to perform community service within a 3-month period of time. Within 3 months, our plan, in other words, has a work requirement. It may surprise some that there is no work requirement of that kind in the Republican plan. There is no similar provision. We see a lot of tough talk but no actual work requirement for 2 years under the Republican plan. So there you have one of the very significant differences between the work first plan, which is work in 3 months, and the Republican plan which is only work after 24 months or 2 years. That is 2 years of unconditional assistance under the Republican plan as it is currently written. Our plan is tough on parents, Madam President, but not on children. And that in our view is the second big difference between ours and theirs. Our plan protects children. Child care for parents who are required to work and parents transitioning from welfare to work is something we want to do in every possible instance. We want to provide vouchers for children whose families have reached the time limit. We recognize that in some cases you are going to bump up to the time limit and then it begs the question, what happens to the kids? Are the kids also going to be penalized through no fault of their own? And if they are penalized, are they then relegated once more to this neverending cycle of dependency and poverty with no hope of bringing themselves out? Health care coverage for children whose families have reached the time limit is something that we think is vital if we are going to provide meaningful, comprehensive assistance that deals with the challenges we talked about earlier. It seems to us that Republicans may not want to do this. They end up aiming at the mother but in some cases hitting the child. They do not allow their block grant funds to be used to help children whose families have reached the 5-year time limit. They do not guarantee child care. They do not guarantee health care. Their idea of a safety net is a sieve. There are so many holes in that safety net there is no possibility that people who are trying to work their way through the system can protect their kids and ensure that they have the competence to go out and get a good job. The work first plan targets the specific barriers, in other words, Madam President, that we feel must be addressed if we are going to be successful in passing a meaningful comprehensive, successful welfare reform plan this year. In child care, we provide $8 billion in new resources. That is $16 billion total because that is what we are told will be required if, indeed, we want to provide the services to those directly affected. Unlike the Republican plan, the Congressional Budget Office says we sufficiently fund child care to make the work rates and assist those transitioning from welfare to work. The Republican plan cannot make that claim. They recognize, if CBO is to be the guide, that they fall short in providing the necessary resources to ensure that the child care services are going to be provided. Our plan also targets aid to the working poor so they will not have to turn to welfare or return to welfare at some later date. The second barrier that I addressed just a moment ago is personal reasons. Many welfare recipients cite personal reasons for not working, like the lack of transportation or no job skills. The money to tear down these barriers is something that has to be provided in a welfare reform plan--money for transportation, resources for job training, resources it takes to create their own plans to put people to work. In other words, to be honest and to recognize that unless we have the ability to deal directly with those reasons that welfare recipients give for their inability to get a job--their inability to get to a job, their inability to qualify for a job, their inability to demonstrate that they have the personal skills to hold a job--we are not going to change this welfare dependency regardless of all of our good intentions. So, we address those. We address those personal reasons that welfare recipients have given time and time again. For those who are unmotivated, our answer is very simple. We say the time limit is going to be there and you are going to have to accept it. You have a timeframe within which you must get a job. You have a timeframe within which you must realize the benefits are going to stop. Unless you are unwilling to work with us, you can expect we will work with you to address your motivation and problems of the past. We can help you get job skills. We can help you get child care. But you have to reciprocate. You have to find ways in which you can prove to us you are motivated and you want to get that job as badly as we want to get you one. So dealing with the unmotivated is something we feel has to be addressed. We also address the barriers the Republican plan does not. The Congressional Budget Office says the Republican plan will not meet the work rates that we all are stipulating or stating as our objective in dealing with welfare reform. The Congressional Budget Office says the Republican plan falls far short on child care. Clearly the Republican plan needs to be improved in a number of areas, and that is our whole purpose: To lay down in a comprehensive way, in one bill, all of the areas that we believe would allow us, as Democrats and Republicans, adequately to address the deficiencies and work together to solve them. There is a lot of common ground, as I said just a moment ago, on welfare reform. We all want to reform welfare. We all want to end welfare the way we knew it. We all want able-bodied welfare recipients to work. There ought to be no unconditional assistance. We largely agree with that. But not welfare reform on the backs of children. That may be an area where there is some disagreement. There are over 8 million children today who receive welfare. It is the children that we feel the need to protect, infants and toddlers who do not know what welfare is ought not to be penalized. They ought to be held harmless in this effort to try to help their families and their parents. So, Madam President, this is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to come to the middle. It is an opportunity to address what we consider to be a bill that yet, in spite of its improvements, still has some serious deficiencies that need to be addressed if, indeed, we are going to pass this legislation and have it signed into law. The President has made it very clear he will not be hesitant to veto a bad bill. On the other hand, he has also made it clear that he would like very much to work with Republicans and Democrats to sign a good bill. We have an opportunity this afternoon, tonight, and tomorrow, to make this bill a good one. Passage of this amendment would do just that. So we hope Republicans will join Democrats in supporting the work first amendment: To save the $51 billion we know we can save if we do it right and still protect the children, to fundamentally change the welfare system as we know it and to recognize we simply cannot do it on the backs of children. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into this whole project. I am, indeed, very grateful to my colleagues for their help and all the leadership they have demonstrated in bringing us to this point. I urge its adoption. I urge bipartisan support. I will be delighted to yield to one of the coauthors of the legislation, the Senator from Maryland.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the plaintiff in Lockhart versus United States brought a civil action in May 1996 in Federal District Court in the Western District of Washington. The suit is against the United States and a number of legislative, executive, and judicial branch officials, including Senator Lott and then-Senator Dole, as well as various members of President Clinton's Cabinet. The plaintiff seeks damages for a variety of injuries that he alleges the defendants inflicted upon him. The complaint's only connection with the majority leader and former Senator Dole consists of vague references to statutes that Congress has passed or repealed. The complaint fails to establish any legitimate grievance with Senator Lott or Senator Dole. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent these Members in this action.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we debate the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, I hope my colleagues will take a moment to reflect on the enormous assistance we receive from the legislative liaison offices for the various branches of the Armed Forces. The men and women who serve in the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps legislative liaison offices are a valuable link between Members of Congress and the Pentagon. These offices give us with the Pentagon's views on defense bills and specific amendments being considered on the Senate and House floors. They also provide timely answers to our questions and help educate us on a variety of defense issues. Moreover, they are instrumental in notifying us about actions affecting military installations or activities in our States or districts. South Dakota is the proud home to Ellsworth Air Force Base and the B- 1B bomber. As I have worked to promote Ellsworth and the B-1 over the years, I have had the opportunity to get to know many of the fine men and women who serve in the Air Force's Legislative Liaison offices. I must say that Maj. Gen. Normand E. Lezy, the Director of the Air Force's Legislative Liaison Office and Brig. Gen. Lansford E. Trapp, Jr., the Deputy Director, and their staff at the Pentagon, have been understanding, responsive and fair. The Air Force Legislative Liaison staff located in the Russell Building has also been very helpful to me on a number of matters that my staff and I have brought to their attention. They, too, perform a tremendous service for the Air Force and the U.S. Senate. Although we may at times take their assistance for granted, I know all my colleagues truly appreciate their hard work and dedication. I have been particularly impressed by Col. Robert L. Smolen, the Chief of the Air Force's Senate Liaison Office. Colonel Smolen is an extraordinarily gifted and dedicated officer whose military experiences in the United States and the Republic of Korea have made him an enormous asset to the Air Force's Legislative Liaison Office. During the past year, I have had the opportunity to work with and get to know Colonel Smolen. He has been very helpful to me and to many of my colleagues in the Senate. Earlier this year, for instance, he devoted a great deal of time to arranging a congressional delegation trip for me, Senator Hatch and Senator Reid. General Trapp and Colonel Smolen graciously accompanied us on our trip to the former Yugoslavia. Despite difficult circumstances, it was a very successful and informative trip due in large part to their excellent preparation and assistance. Unfortunately for all of us in the Senate, Colonel Smolen is departing Washington for Oklahoma where he will be the new Air Base Wing Commander at Tinker Air Force Base. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Colonel Smolen. I know he is scheduled to leave this week, and before he does, I would like to review some of the highlights of his distinguished career in the U.S. Air Force. Bob Smolen began his career in the Air Force in 1974 as a graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Program at Allegheny College in Meadville, PA. In what I would argue may have been his best assignment, he served at Ellsworth Air Force Base as an Airborne Missile Operations Officer in the 4th Airborne Command Control Squadron's 28th Bomber Wing from January 1977 to March 1979. Since then, Bob Smolen has served in a number of capacities for the Air Force in the United States and around the world. He served as an aide to the Commander in Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado Springs, CO. He also served in Washington before as a Congressional Liaison Officer and Special Assistant to the Director of the Legislative Liaison Division in the Office of the Secretary in the early 1980's. Bob Smolen has also been a squadron and deputy air base commander. He served as the Deputy Commander for the 12th Air Base Group in Randolph Air Force Base in Texas from October 1989 to August 1991. He also served as the Commander of the 750th Support Squadron at Onizuka Air Force Base in California. In addition, he was the commander of the 51st Support Group at Osan Air Base in the Republic of Korea from May 1993 to June 1995. After returning to the United States, Colonel Smolen served as the Chief of the Inquiry Division of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison from July 1995 to September 1995. Since then, he has been the Chief of the Air Force's Senate Liaison Office. Knowing of Colonel Smolen's previous assignments here and abroad, I am confident the Air Force made the right decision in selecting him to be the new 72nd Air Base Wing Commander at Tinker Air Force Base. I congratulate him on his new assignment and wish him, his wife Adriane, and their three children the very best.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. I will not be long. I commend him for his comments this morning. I think, as we come to a close in this debate, both Senators from Nevada have served not only their State well, but this body well as they have contributed to this debate in a very positive way. Mr. President, a couple of things have occurred over the weekend that I feel deserve the attention of the Senate with regard to the issue of nuclear waste. I would like to address both of them, if I could, briefly. This morning, in the Washington Post, the main editorial made quite a point of saying that the bill we are considering today is wasteful because, in a sense, we are rushing to a decision that the Post argues ought to be considered with greater care. The editorial makes a couple of very important points. I will quote one in particular: . . . the nuclear lobby is pushing a bill to designate an ``interim'' storage site in Nevada that would not have to meet all the standards of a permanent facility. Mr. President, that is an issue that I think does not get the attention it deserves from our colleagues as they are considering this matter. Clearly, if we are considering a site of any magnitude, for any length of time, that site ought to be required to meet the same high standards of public health protection as the permanent site. The editorial is right on point. Under this bill, the interim site would not have all the standards required of it that a permanent site would. That is one of many issues that we ought to be considering very carefully. Finally, the editorial ends by saying it is, . . . too important a decision to be jammed through the latter part of a Congress on the strength of the industry's fabricated claim that it faces an emergency. On this one, members should imagine the worst-- that bunching and storing the waste will produce the eventual environmental disaster that some of the critics predict. Then ask themselves, which among them want to sign their names to that? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the entire editorial be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE. The letter says, ``The Administration cannot support this bill, and the President would veto it if the bill were presented to him in its present form.'' He goes on to say, ``According to a recent report from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent board established by Congress, there is no technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to an interim central storage facility for the next several years.'' The President also notes, ``The bill weakens existing environmental standards by preempting all the Federal, state, and local laws and applying only the environmental requirements of this bill and the Atomic Energy Act.'' He summarizes the letter by saying, ``I hope you will not support S. 1936. It is an unfair, unneeded and unworkable bill.'' I do not know how you can say it any better than that. I think we can do better than this. We ought not be rushing to judgment. We ought to be applying the same standards. We ought to realize there are very serious consequences associated with the decisions some would have us make. So I hope that cooler heads will prevail, that we recognize the importance of this decision and that we let the process work its will. That is not too much to ask to make the right decision. The President believes that, the Washington Post believes that, and I hope that most of the Senate believes it too. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply ask, who among us would want to sign our names to that? Who among us feels the need to rush to judgment, to make a decision on an interim site based upon what I consider to be faulty logic, recognizing that we are not subjecting the interim site to the same standards as a permanent site? This issue is of such great concern to the President that he has sent a letter on it to all of us. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the administration be printed in the Record.