Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the committee has said it so well and ably. I applaud him for making the case once more prior to the time we are called upon to cast our vote this afternoon. There is very little one can add to what he has said so well. This is an unprecedented request. Everyone needs to be fully appreciative of the nature of what it is we are called upon to vote on here--an unprecedented request, an open-ended, unlimited request to continue this investigation forever if the majority chooses to do so-- forever. There is no deadline, none whatsoever. So, Mr. President, we have looked back to try to find some other occasion when a committee has sought that kind of authority to say, ``We don't know whether we're going to take a week, a month, 2 months, the rest of the session. We may even need to go into the next Congress. Who knows? What we do know is that we're not going to give you any specific timeframe within which we realistically think we can finish this investigation.'' So what does that tell you, Mr. President? What it tells me is that they want to keep open the option to take this right up until the very last day of this Presidential campaign. We are unwilling to accept that. We have indicated, in as clear a way as we possibly can, that we want to find a way to resolve this once and for all. We want a way to find a resolution in the amount of time and the amount of money to be dedicated to this investigation, even though now we anticipate more than $32 million in total, within the Congress and within the special investigation that is ongoing, has already been dedicated to this. If we need to spend another $100,000, another $130,000, $140,000, we will do that. Our amendment suggests $185,000. Our amendment suggests that the investigation go on at least through April 3, and then gives the opportunity to write a report through May 10. If we had used every day we had available to us, if the committee had taken the opportunity that they had available to them in using Mondays and Fridays and days throughout the week for which they chose not to have any hearings, we would not have to extend it. But for whatever reason, the committee chose not to meet on a lot of Mondays, they chose not to meet on virtually every Friday. There were a lot of days during the week, for whatever reason, they chose not to meet. So it was not that we did not have the time. We simply did not use the time very wisely. And the majority, if they could do it over again, I am sure, would use that time more wisely. But now, to say that is the reason we want to carry this thing out forever is just unacceptable. Mr. President, the second point I emphasize is that we have made a good-faith offer. That offer stands, although I will say that the clock is ticking. We are simply not going to extend this thing out over and over farther and farther just because we are not able to resolve this difference today. The clock is ticking. The calendar pages are turning. The offer that we have been given is unacceptable. The counteroffer, this notion that somehow we now could go 4 or 5 months longer, is also unacceptable. We do not want to make this a convention issue. We do not want to make it a Presidential campaign issue. We want to get the facts. We want to resolve these matters. We want to resolve this issue once and for all. We can do that in a time certain. We can do that in a bipartisan way. We can do that working together to make the best use of the time, whatever additional time is requested. We can do all of that. But we have to resolve this matter. The standoff that we are in today is unacceptable. We do not like it. We know the majority does not like it. So let us sit down and try to find a way to resolve it. But let us recognize an unlimited request or any request that takes us into political conventions and the campaign season for 1996 is unacceptable, too. So, Mr. President, reluctantly, I urge my colleagues once more to vote against this cloture motion. I believe that we will continue to be able to defeat the cloture motion for whatever length of time this unreasonable request is, the one before us. We can resolve it this afternoon. It is time we do so. It is time we get on with the real business of the Senate. I hope we can do it sooner rather than later. I yield the floor and yield the remainder of our time. cloture motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for their work in bringing us to this point on one of the most important aspects of this omnibus appropriations bill, the education amendment. Yesterday we offered an amendment with an expectation that we could restore full funding to the 1995 level. This legislation does that. There was some miscalculation as to the funding level required to bring us to fiscal 1995 levels for title I. As I understand it, the question relating to how much funding would be required to do just that has been resolved. I am satisfied that this does restore the fiscal 1995 level for title I, as well as for the other educational priorities identified in the underlying amendment. So, clearly, this agreement is a very significant development. It ought to enjoy the support of both sides of the aisle. I hope we can get unanimous support for it. It removes what I consider to be one of the most important impediments to bringing us to a point where we can get broad bipartisan support for final passage of this bill. So, again, I thank the leadership of the Senator from Iowa, and certainly the Senator from Pennsylvania. I hope that all of our colleagues can support it. I hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to reach similar agreements on other outstanding differences related to this legislation, including funding levels for the environment, crime, and technology. We also need to remove the contentious riders the House included in their version of the bill. I believe that if we did that this afternoon, we could put this bill on the President's desk before the end of the week and, at long last, resolve the many problems we have had with these appropriations bills. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we resume debate on the five remaining fiscal 1996 appropriations bills. We are halfway through the fiscal year. We have had two Government shutdowns. Our country's priorities have suffered greatly. Education, in particular, has suffered a series of extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Last week, the Appropriations Committee reported the Labor-HHS-Education bill that again cuts education by more than $3 billion. Many Republicans, once again, are attempting to pass a bill that continues these very devastating cuts in education--cuts that include $679 million from math and reading programs, denying services to 700,000 children; cuts in Head Start of $137 million, depriving 20,000 3- and 4-year-olds of early help that can lead to a lifetime of achievement; cuts of $266 million in the safe and drug-free school program, currently serving 23 million children. In the Republican bill, which passed in the Appropriations Committee, all funding for the Summer Youth Jobs Program is eliminated. More than 500,000 young people would otherwise benefit from that program. Spending levels in South Dakota and every other State are affected. In my State, schools face $5.3 million in reductions in the availability of education funding for fiscal 1996 and 1997. All this adds up to the fact that students will not receive the services they need. We simply cannot allow that to happen if there is any prospect of avoiding that kind of a disaster in education in the coming year. This crisis in education is a true emergency. This is not just rhetoric. This is not something we can wish away. All of these, and many other programs directly affecting thousands and thousands of students, will be very directly affected if we cannot address our country's education needs in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way than does the bill now before us. The cuts in education we have experienced over the last several months represent the single largest reduction in education in history-- a 25-percent cut--at a time when, I remind my colleagues, there is record enrollment in the public schools. Not only are we seeing increases in enrollment and a demand for more services, but we are asking our schools to meet that demand at a time when we are asking them to absorb a cut of record proportions. One quarter of every dollar that was available in 1995 has not been available this year. Next year, nearly 52 million children will be seeking educational services across the country. That breaks the 1971 baby boom generation record. Schools and colleges across the country are reporting that they are unable to plan their budgets and provide the services at the elementary, secondary, and higher educational levels because of the extraordinary cuts this bill and the past continuing resolutions require them to make. Schools are already planning to lay off teachers and scale back services as a result of the budget we are contemplating. Not long ago, the mayors of most of our big cities were in Washington to share their concerns about the impact these cuts will have on their school districts. I thought that Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer probably said it as succinctly and eloquently as any I have heard as he discussed the impact this 25-percent cut in education will have on the Detroit school system. ``Which 25 percent,'' he asked, ``of my students should I not educate?'' We ask, which 25 percent of America's children should be denied help with math and reading? Which 25 percent of preschoolers should lose their chance to go to Head Start? Which 25 percent of children who attend schools where drugs and violence are problems should be forced to face those problems alone? Mr. President, we should not even be asking these questions. We would not be if Congress had done its job and passed an educational funding bill over 5 months ago when this fiscal year began. The Republican failure to fulfill this basic function of Government, causing chaos in classrooms around the country, is becoming increasingly clear. But the time has come to end the chaos and to address this problem in a more forthright manner. The time has come for us to stand up and recognize that unless we deal with these issues more directly, we will find ourselves in a situation that continues to increase in seriousness and increase exponentially in terms of the difficulties it presents for school districts, as well as for the students themselves. Throughout the budget process our Republican colleagues have said that their agenda is about protecting our children's future. The question we have is, ``How can you protect their future, or ours, if we deprive children of the education they need to succeed?'' The time to solve this problem is now. We cannot afford simply to pay lipservice to it. The contingency fund that has been incorporated into this bill is, in my view, an attempt on the part of some Republicans to have it both ways--to pretend they are funding education but to do so without releasing any of the money. The so-called addback that we see in this bill is not real. Enacting this bill into law would not produce one dime of this contingent funding. If we believe education is important, we have to ensure that funding is there regardless of contingencies-- regardless of what may or may not occur as a result of additional action this Congress may take at some point in the future. Mr. President, that is why every Democrat believes as strongly as we do that, of all the amendments we are offering, this one holds our greatest priority. This one says as clearly and as unequivocally as we can that we cannot mess around with education. We can have our policy differences throughout the year, and throughout this Congress, but when it comes to the crunch, when it comes to really dealing with the issue that we recognize is as important as anything to our future, we have to ensure that the investment is there. So this amendment will restore the $3.1 billion in educational cuts represented in this bill. And when I say ``restore,'' I use that word very intentionally. We are simply restoring the funding necessary to bring us to the level schools had the last time we appropriated funds for education in 1995. This is real money with a real offset. It restores real funding to the 1995 level without adding one dime to the deficit. We are willing to consider other offsets. We do not feel necessarily wedded to these particular ones. If there are others that are more acceptable, we will certainly take a look at them. But we wanted to find a dollar-for-dollar offset that allows us to fully restore the funding in education that we believe to be so critical. There are two nonnegotiable principles. First, education must be adequately funded; and, second, education must be fully paid for. Siphoning off money from education consigns American children to second-class futures and opportunities that are simply unacceptable. Democrats are united in opposition and offer this amendment to reverse the failed policies that got us to the position we are in today. The chance for all of us to cast a vote for the future of our country's children lies with this amendment. Children learn by example. We have an opportunity to set one by educating them properly and showing them how important they really are, that their future is our highest priority. A lot of my colleagues have had a great deal to do with the fact that we are offering this amendment this afternoon. I applaud them--each and every one--for their effort. No one has put more effort into education and the priority it deserves than my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell. And Senator Harkin, Senator Kerry, Senator Wellstone, Senator Levin, and certainly Senator Kennedy--who has devoted his entire public career to the priorities that we argue today must be included in this bill--they, along with Senator Dodd, Senator Kohl, and Senator Lautenberg have all indicated how strongly they feel about this amendment. I applaud them, and thank them for their leadership in bringing us to this point this afternoon. Other colleagues are on the floor who seek recognition to speak in support of this amendment. I yield the floor to allow them to be recognized. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that someone from the majority will be coming to the floor to offer a unanimous-consent request that has to do with a number of matters pertaining to our schedule for next week. While he is on his way, let me simply explain the dilemma that requires our objection to moving at this time to the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have no objection to the substance of this particular bill, with the understanding that some technical details remain to be resolved. I am quite confident that if all we had to do was to consider the bill, after only a short period of time for debate and adoption of a managers' amendment to clarify some technical questions with the bill, we would then be in a position to vote, I would suspect unanimously, for that particular legislation. The dilemma is that the bill will very likely be used as the vehicle for another very big debate, unlimited debate, over the whole issue of comprehensive regulatory reform. That issue has been before the Senate for weeks already during this Congress. Several attempts to invoke cloture were made and failed. We could thus find ourselves in much the same set of circumstances again next week were comprehensive regulatory reform legislation offered as an amendment to this bill. My concern is that the Senate has many important and timely issues facing it. We have a debt limit extension bill, the continuing resolution, the Whitewater resolution and a number of other issues pending. I would be very concerned if this body found itself mired once more in an impasse over comprehensive regulatory reform, with no real hope of coming to some consensus, some compromise. We are getting closer. I think at some point there may be an opportunity to bring a bill to the floor. But we are not there yet. I think that rejoining this debate at this time on this bill would most likely undermine what possibilities there are for regulatory reform. So bringing regulatory reform to the floor under those circumstances would not be what I view to be a very constructive exercise. But it is not my objection this afternoon that will cause the bill not to be scheduled. There are objections within our caucus, and I respect those objections. They are being made for legitimate reasons. So we will continue to try to resolve these outstanding difficulties and come to some resolution at some point in the future. But until the broader issues relating to this particular bill are resolved, we would not be in a position to go to the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every American deplores the bombings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in the past days. The Tel Aviv bombing was a senseless act of violence cynically targeted to hit as many innocent people as possible at a shopping mall on a school holiday commemorating what is to be a joyous holiday of Purim. Once again, a suicide bomber did this awful deed; people are dead and injured; a nation is stricken; and the peace process is further jeopardized. Ironically, Purim commemorates the time in which Esther, a Jewish heroine, convicted her husband to stop the slaughter of the Jews. There was no modern day Esther Monday in Tel Aviv. Monday's bombing follows Sunday's in Jerusalem, which took place on a street down which I have walked. I can see with terrible clarity the horror of Sunday's bombing. Mr. President, along with my colleagues, the President, and all Americans, I offer my condolences to the families of those killed and injured. I fear for the future of the peace process, which offers hope that, maybe, some day, Israelis and Palestinians can walk down these same streets in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in peace, free of the fear that they may be the terrorists' next victims. I join the President in pledging to do all we can to stop this senseless slaughter; apprehend the terrorists and bring them to justice; and get the peace process back on track.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for the eloquent points which he has made. I read a comment just this morning that I think is so appropriate. It goes to the points raised by the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Arkansas. Somebody said in the paper this morning, ``Welcome to the Federal Government. You need a telephone, a tablet, and a lawyer.'' ``A telephone, a tablet, and a lawyer.'' And there are some lawyers that have already garnered more than a half-million in fees to represent people of modest means before this committee and others. That is wrong. We should not subject people who want to dedicate themselves to public service to that degree of financial burden, to that degree of concern and humiliation in some cases. So I think the Senator from Illinois has made a very important point. I know that there are others who seek the floor. At this time, I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was not aware.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was not aware of them, but it goes to the point that we were making earlier, I say to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, that there have been no hearings on health care, there have been no hearings on the economy and on jobs. There have been only 3 days of hearings on public education--3 days in all of this time. So the point made by the distinguished Senator is an accurate one. The fact is, nothing is being done. There is no effort to address some of the major concerns that people have expressed over and over in poll after poll. So I think the Senator makes a very valid point.

Mr. DASCHLE. Both Senators make a very important point. In the face of tremendous evidence of obstruction of justice, that Congress decided that there were more important considerations. There has been no finding of wrongdoing in this case. So the analogy that others have used with regard to this particular investigation is wrong. It is baseless. So I think the Senator from Connecticut makes a very, very important point.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. First, I respond by saying I was not aware that $2 million had been spent on the Pillsbury investigation----

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to Senator Dodd.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. Just to make sure everyone fully appreciates what it is we are suggesting, you have an extraordinary investigation being conducted, as the Senator has indicated, by an independent body, largely directed by a Republican, who is not known for his love or affection for the President or the First Lady, who have concluded, as was just indicated, that there is no merit to continuing any further in this investigation. That is No. 1. Then you have an independent counsel whose activities and extraordinary amount of effort already put forth will go on for who knows how long, requiring millions and millions of dollars more and months and months and months more. So we have on top of that a Senate committee, which has now been in existence for more than 20 months, which is not asking for a week, 2 weeks, or 3 weeks to complete its work. But they want an unlimited amount of time. They cannot tell us whether it is going to be this year, next year, the year after, or how much longer they are going to want. So I say to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, the recommendations made by the Pillsbury report, I think, are shared by the vast majority of the American people. It is time to end this. We have to take those limited tax dollars and put them to better use here, in areas like education, the environment, in hearings on how to find better jobs, in areas that this Senate ought to be directing its effort toward, not in more politicized Whitewater investigations. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That was exactly the basis and that was the whole point made by the Senators in their book.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I can just respond to a point made by the distinguished ranking member, I direct attention, again, to the chart that the distinguished ranking member has displayed, because I think it really--keep the one that is right here; that is the one that I think says a lot.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. Based upon conversations, discussions we had with members of the committee, it became apparent we were not maximizing the opportunities that were already there. We went days, in some cases weeks, without any hearings in the committee, delaying, it seemed to us, in a very concerted and intentional way the opportunities to complete the work on time. So without any doubt, there have been many, many opportunities for the committee to continue to do the work that the chairman articulated in his remarks. We have run out of time not because we have run out of calendar, but because we did not use the time appropriately.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my colleagues from the Banking Committee, especially the ranking member and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, are far more qualified to address many of the points raised by the chairman of the Banking Committee than am I. And let me say at the outset, I thank them for the remarkable job that they have done over the months in addressing this very difficult matter as ably as they have, day after day, week after week. I will leave it to them to raise many of our shared concerns and respond to many of the specific points that have been raised by the chairman. The chairman has spoken now for over 45 minutes. In spite of all of his assurances and in spite of all of the explanation we have just heard, Mr. President, this issue boils down to one which is very simple. This issue has now become a political one. The motivation is very clear. It is politics pure and simple. That is what it is. We ought to recognize it as that. We need to deal with it. We ought to confront it. We ought to try to find ways to contain it. But that is really what this issue is about. It is politics. And the chairman so ably stated before the Senate Rules Committee a year ago that the single biggest reason why it was so imperative that we finish by the 29th of February--the 29th of February--is that, and I quote, ``We want to keep it out of the political arena, and that is why we have decided to come up with a 1-year request.'' That is our chairman. He was right then. And unfortunately, I am disappointed that he has changed his mind now. There has never in the history, to our knowledge, of the Senate been a request of this kind-- never. It is unprecedented. No one has ever said we want a fishing license to allow us to go for whatever length of time it takes. Such proposal has never been made before. And never have we found ourselves in a situation like this in a Presidential year. Is it coincidental that given all the problems we see now in the Republican Party that they conveniently need another 6 or 7 months to take this into the Republican and Democratic Conventions? Is that what it is all about? This is unprecedented, and it is wrong. I daresay there are a lot of Members on the other side of the aisle who know it is wrong. Mr. President, it is not just the length of time and the amount of money that we have already expended that concerns me; it is the nature of this whole investigation. Were it not for the able leadership given on so many occasions by the ranking member and so many of our colleagues on the Banking Committee, I do not know what this committee would have done. But to make an initial request that over an 18-month period any communication of any kind relating to any subject by the President, the First Lady, any present or former White House employee or any employee of the RTC and dozen and dozens of other named individuals be turned over, is that a fishing license or what? Is that a witch hunt or what? The committee authorized a subpoena asking for all telephone calls from the White House to area code 501, the entire State of Arkansas, for a 7-month period. What is that? Is that a reasonable request? Above and beyond the committee's overbroad authorization, the majority staff unilaterally issued a subpoena for all White House telephone calls from any White House telephone or communications device for a 7-month period to anywhere in the country. So I hear the chairman talk about how difficult it has been to get a response from the White House, how much they have been dragging their feet. My heavens, how could anyone comply with requests of that nature. I am surprised that they have gotten anything if the nature of the requests has been as broad as this. But the fact is that White House cooperation has been extensive. So that is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that this committee has already been operating longer than any other we have experienced in the Senate in recent history. The Whitewater committee has now run for 20 months, almost 2 full years. How does that compare to ABSCAM? Do you remember that one? That lasted 9 months. What about the POW/MIA committee? I was on that one. The effort that we made on both sides of the aisle to come up with information about what happened in Vietnam, what happened to all of the POW's and MIA's who are still missing, do you know how long we spent on that? The Congress spent 17 months investigating that, and came up with a 1,000-plus page report. Watergate only lasted 16 months. The Iran- Contra hearing mentioned by the chairman, that only lasted 10 months. So, Mr. President, I must say 20 months and counting with a request for an indefinite time period from here on out to keep going regardless seems extreme. Our majority leader had it right. Our majority leader in talking about this issue--and you talk about men of zeal; he could write a chapter himself--this is what the majority leader had to say. He said, ``If we get bogged down in finger pointing, in tearing down the President and the administration, we are not just going to be up to the challenges ahead but all of us, all Americans will be the losers.'' That was the majority leader, Bob Dole, as he was talking about the Iran-Contra inquiry. They made a prudent decision to come to some closure here. They took 10 months to do their work. The third point I would say is equally as important. I do not know how much longer we can continue to ask the taxpayers to fund this fishing expedition. We have already spent over $1.3 million. The independent counsel has spent $26 million and counting. We do not know how much the House has spent. But it is our estimation that we have already spent over $30 million investigating this matter--$30 million. I do not know whether anybody cares about what that would buy, but it buys about 26 million school lunches. It would fund 400 cops on the street, and 15,000 computers in America's classrooms. I could go on and on, if you want to get a better picture of what $30 million buys. And when you talk about hearings, it is interesting; the American people want us to start looking into ways we can improve public education, ways we can improve the crime situation, ways that we can deal with good jobs and good health care. Do you how many hearings we have held on crime? We have had 12 days in this entire 104th Congress on crime. Do you know how many days we have spent on jobs in this whole 104th Congress? We have spent zero days. We have not found the time to find 1 day to ask people to come in to see if we can deal with the chronic problems we have in the economy in dealing with underemployed and unemployed people. What about health care? We have not found the time to hold any hearings for health care either. Zero. Zero days on health care, zero days on jobs and the economy, 3 days on public education. So I do not know, Mr. President, it seems to me we ought to be relooking at what our priorities are in this Senate. The fourth point I would make is this. The chairman has said time and again that he has to wait for the end of the trials that are ongoing. The independent counsel begins next week. But we also know that on October 2 the chairman advised Kenneth Starr that the special committee did not intend to call the trial defendants and could not delay the committee's proceedings to accommodate the independent counsel. There has not been any change in the factual circumstances, Mr. President, to explain this--I will not call it a flip-flop--but this change of heart on the part of the chairman. In any event, regardless of why he has changed his mind in that short period between October 2 and now, February 29, the legal proceedings relating to those trials could go on for years. We have seen it happen in Iran-Contra. We have seen it happen in a whole range of other cases. We have no guarantee it is going to be finished this year. I think there is a chance that none of us may be in the Senate when all that work gets done. Who knows how long this is going to last. And whether convicted or acquitted, the defendants retain their fifth amendment protections against self- incrimination. So no one should be misled, the end of the first phase of those court proceedings are by no means--no means--an indication that they will then be prepared to come before the Banking Committee. So, Mr. President, the American people know what this is all about. They know it is a political fishing expedition. Poll after poll has shown what we already know in this Chamber. The D'Amato hearings are politically driven. By a large margin, the poll just completed yesterday, 66 to 22, the D'Amato hearings are seen as politically driven. The public opposes granting----

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.