Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me say this. We all know that the most immediate thing we have to do is the continuing resolution. It expires tonight at midnight. We know that. We know that we are not going to resolve our differences on all these appropriations bills and pass them by midnight. The distinguished majority leader made a point, and he is right: The majority of people support a balanced budget. I think a majority of the people--the vast majority--also want us not to shut the Government down, in spite of our differences. Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1410

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear all of the comments of the majority leader. Obviously, there are legitimate points of view that are very different as we consider the circumstances we are in right now. The majority leader said we ought to have the truth about what is happening right now. His version of the truth and mine could not be more different. My version of the truth is--and I think it is shared by virtually every Member on this side of the aisle--it was the Republicans this afternoon who got up and walked out of the room. They were the ones to say, ``It's over. We don't want to deal with you any more. You're not acting in good faith.'' My version of the truth is that there is absolutely no reason why we should connect the continuing resolution with our effort in the reconciliation bill, none at all. There is absolutely no connection. And the reason why we are going through this charade right now with the appropriations bills is because they know that we are way overdue in completing these appropriations bills. We should have done them a long time ago. And I will tell you one of the reasons we are overdue. Because they are putting stuff that does not belong in appropriations business on that bill. What does striker replacement have to do with health and human services? Absolutely nothing. We know that. They know that. And on so many of these pieces of legislation there is absolutely irrelevant, completely unassociated matters legislatively that have nothing to do with appropriations, and that is the hangup, and they know it. If you want to pass that appropriations bill, we can do it by 6 o'clock, and it is now 5 to 6. We could do it by 6 o'clock if we would sit down in a serious way and take the extraneous things out and begin dealing with it. That bill is going to be vetoed. We do not have to talk about it a long time. But we are not willing to do that because of those extraneous issues and everybody knows it. So let us be clear. We do not have to shut the Government down because there is a pick with the President about whether he has been working in good faith or not. There is no reason to tell people one more time that they are out of work for whatever length of time. That is not necessary. We want a clean continuing resolution. We ought to have it tonight. We ought to pass it, and we ought to get serious about negotiations. Now, we know as well that one of the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats all through this reconciliation process has been the tax cut. And for whatever reason, the Republicans continue to say that is a nonnegotiable item; that we want to hold on to that tax cut virtually at all cost. But that is not where we started. Where we started was the Republican insistence that we go to a 7-year balanced budget. The majority leader said it has to be on the President's terms. Well, the President said he had a 10-year balanced budget. And many of us supported the idea of balancing the budget in 10, 7, it does not matter, but the President had 10 years. The President said, ``As an indication of my good faith, I will go from 10 to 7.'' That is what he said. Now, the President also said we have a very big difference in our projection on what the economy is going to do when we balance the budget than what CBO does. There is a profound difference. CBO is saying that once we go through all the pain, there is really no gain. Once we cut all these programs as deeply as the Republican budget proposes and we balance the budget, interest rates are actually going to go up, unemployment is going to go up, corporate profits are going to go down, overall economic growth is going to do down, but we still think it is a great idea to get out there and balance the budget. Mr. President, we do not buy that. You cannot tell me after NAFTA and after GATT and after balancing the budget and after doing all the things that we said we were going to do we cannot look forward to a better economic picture than that. Now, why is it that the Republicans continue to insist on holding to that scenario before we even sit down and talk about our disagreements on policy? I do not know. OMB said it is not that bleak; we ought to be able to look at the next 7 years with a little more optimism than that. So that is a fundamental disagreement that we ought to be able to work through. We should not just take our papers and walk out of the room saying, ``It's over; forget it.'' That is not how we do things around here. That is a legitimate difference of opinion that ought to be discussed. And when it comes to the policy questions themselves, we are not prepared to go beyond where we said we were on Medicare and on Medicaid and on education and on taxing working people. We are not prepared to do that as long as the Republican position is tax cuts are sacrosanct, we cannot touch them. So that is where we are. We thought that after the second proposal any objective person would say we are working in good faith. That has not happened. I am disappointed. The Republicans have taken their papers and walked out of the room and now have threatened to shut down the Government because they did not get their way. It does not have to be this way. We can go back in that room. We can discuss and negotiate and get the job done. There is still time. We are willing to do it tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Monday. It does not matter how long. We are there. We will be there. Call the meeting. Let us get this job done. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would only seek the floor if the majority leader is completed.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there are many people who want to speak, and I do not want to take more time. Let me respond to a couple of points that were raised. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico made a great speech. It was just all wrong. All wrong. We will not resolve it on the floor, and we will leave it to others to decide who is right and who is wrong. This President has now provided not one, not two, but three bona fide offers to sit down and reach a balanced budget. He did it first with his 10-year budget last spring. He did it, second, about 2 weeks ago with yet another effort to bring us to the table in good faith, cutting over $150 billion in real cuts. And today, whether you accept all of the numbers or not, $121 billion in more changes than what he offered just last week. Listen to the language. We were again told tonight that we will convene if we think the Democrats are serious. Madam President, if that does not make my point, I do not know what does. We, frankly, do not think they are serious. We do not think they are willing, really, to bring down this tax cut so we do not have to cut so deeply in Medicare and Medicaid. And let me just say, I do not know how you describe what happened at the meeting, except to say that before Leon Panetta even had the words out of his mouth, the Republicans had stood up and were working their way out of the room.

Mr. DASCHLE. What do you do with a case like that----

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield the floor and allow others to speak. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 240, S. 1410, a clean continuing appropriations bill, that the bill be read the third time and passed, as amended, with a date change until December 22, with the language that will permit the expenditure of funds for low-income energy assistance.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will not ask for the regular order, but----

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. A lot of our colleagues are not willing to commit to a time limit yet. We are working on getting at least an agreement that everybody speak just once and then hopefully limiting their time for speaking. At this point, I am not able to give the leader any specific estimate as to the amount of time we need.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have consulted with a number of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, and many of them feel very strongly about their need to speak prior to the time they will be called upon to vote on either measure. They would prefer to give one speech rather than two. In my urging to limit Members to one speech, and hopefully to keep those speeches to a minimum length, I will have to accommodate them and their interest in speaking and being protected in their opportunity to speak prior to the time that they would be called upon to vote. I am compelled at this point to object to the scheduling of the vote prior to the time that they have had the opportunity to speak. My preference would be that we have both votes back to back to accommodate the speeches, and I think we can get some cooperation in limiting the lengths of time, if that can be done.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just add to what the majority leader said. Obviously, a lot of Senators wish to speak, for good reason, about this issue and on these resolutions. I hope, though, that we could accommodate all Senators who wish to speak by shortening the length of our statements to the extent that it is practical to do so. Obviously, we will have more opportunities once the resolution passes to come to the floor and continue this exchange and to continue to express ourselves. But if we are going to allow every Senator an opportunity to speak, we are going to be constrained somewhat in the time allotted for each Senator. So I hope everyone will bear that in mind and cooperate to the extent it is possible so that we can have a vote at the earliest possible time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every day in Congress, we tackle some of the most pressing problems facing our nation. But sometimes, the best solutions don't come from the Capitol. They come from homes and schools and community organizations that you find in every town and city, all across the country. That's what a new program called ``Ready or Not: Talking with Kids About Alcohol,'' is all about. If you have kids, you know that telling them to ``just say no'' to alcohol doesn't always work. Kids want to know why they should say no. ``Ready or Not'' is a new video educational program that's designed to help parents and other adult supervisors answer that question for kids between the ages of 10 and 14. ``Ready or Not'' is a joint effort of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the Century Council, an organization funded by the alcohol industry. It was introduced just after Thanksgiving, and it's already making an impact. I want to congratulate the Boys and Girls Club and the Century Council for all the time and energy they've invested in this important program. I also want to commend my 36 colleagues in the House and Senate who have joined me in officially endorsing this life-saving project. A recent survey of America's pre-teens--pre-teens--shows that about four in 10 expect to have problems handling situations involving the use of alcohol. Another survey by the University of Michigan found that, in 1994, more than a quarter of America's eighth-graders reported drinking alcohol in the last month. And, more and more kids are becoming ``binge drinkers.'' We know from our experience in combating teen smoking that if you reach kids early and tell them the truth, they're far more likely to make good decisions about their health. ``Ready or Not'' will help us replicate that success, we hope, with teen drinking. There are two reasons that ``Ready or Not'' targets kids between the ages of 10 and 14. First, that's when many ``problem drinkers'' first start experimenting with alcohol. Second, and more important, parents and other adults still have a lot of influence over kids at that age. With the help of ``Ready or Not,'' we can reach kids who are in danger of abusing alcohol, and prevent problems before they start. The last thing a developing mind and body needs is to be stunted with alcohol. ``Ready or Not'' will help parents and teachers and other adults make that case convincingly to America's young people. It fills a critical need, and I'm proud to lend my name to help support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. And we have two additional Senators. I would hope that we can alternate back and forth if we have additional Republicans. But our order would be as Senator Reid has suggested.

Mr. DASCHLE. This may not work----

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest another Republican Senator and then Senator Robb on our side. So we would hold open the slot for a Republican Senator, to be announced at a later time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Senator Exon, Senator Reid, Senator Boxer and then Senator Bob Kerrey I am told on our side were here. Senator Moynihan spoke.

Mr. DASCHLE. We can get unanimous consent that those Senators who are here be recognized immediately following the vote, if that will accommodate our Senators. I think it would be better to try to keep the schedule, if we can.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, does this pertain to the pending amendment, or is it to the larger issue of Bosnia?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this evening, President Clinton is traveling to Paris to sign the Bosnia peace agreement. The first of 20,000 American troops are on their way to Bosnia to help implement that agreement. And we in the Senate are being asked to make a choice. A choice with profound--even life-and-death--consequences. Will we give our troops going to Bosnia our full and genuine support? Or will we burden them with the weight of conflicting messages? In the more than 3\1/2\ years since war broke out in the former Yugoslavia, more than a quarter of a million people --including tens of thousands of innocent children--have been killed. The Bosnian people are weary of war. They have negotiated a peace settlement. They are merely asking us to help them implement it. Some may ask: Why us? Why must the United States become involved in this ancient conflict? I believe there are three answers. First, it is in our national interest. Peace and stability in Europe are vital to the United States. Twice in this century, we have seen what horrors can occur when aggression in Europe is allowed to spread unchallenged and unchecked. Twice in this century, Americans have died to keep Europe free of such aggression. To turn our back on Bosnia now, especially after the President has committed American troops, would be to deny what we have learned, and what those earlier generations sacrificed. It would weaken American leadership in NATO. And it would undermine our credibility as a world leader. Second, we have a moral obligation in Bosnia. For nearly 50 years, we believed that we would never again see concentration camps in Europe. We would never again see men and boys made to dig their own mass graves and then be machine-gunned into them. We were wrong. This is happening in Bosnia, and our national conscience demands that we take a strong stand against it. In 1948, 3 years after the end of World War II, the French writer and philosopher Albert Camus appealed to the monks of a French monastery to help the children who had been injured and orphaned in that war. ``Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured,'' Camus said. ``But we can reduce the number of children who are tortured. And if you don't help us, who else in the world can help us do it?'' That brings me to the third reason we must help implement this agreement. The United States must help bring peace to Bosnia because no one else in the world can. The leaders of all three factions--Serbs, Croats, and Moslems--have made it clear that they will not participate in the peace process unless we are involved. I commend President Clinton and all the members of the negotiating team who worked so hard in Dayton to get us to this point. They accomplished what many said was impossible, and their leadership is already saving lives. Without the commitment of this President to peace in the Balkans, there would be no debate tonight, for we could not be on the verge of peace. I also want to commend the distinguished majority leader, Senator McCain, Senator Nunn, and all the senators in our Bosnia working group for the leadership they have shown in negotiating a resolution that says unequivocally to our troops, ``We support you.'' That mission will give the Bosnian people an opportunity to build a democratic society. Bosnia-Herzegovina will be preserved as a single State with a unified capital of Sarajevo. The Bosnian people will be allowed to hold free elections, and those who have been driven from their homes through fighting and other forms of terrorism will be free to return. Our mission is clear, limited, and achievable. We are sending our troops to maintain a ceasefire. They will take their orders from an American general. And they will have full authority to respond to threats to their safety with immediate and overwhelming force. Again, the critical question is, are we going to give our troops our genuine support as they seek to carry out their mission? Or are we going to burden them with conflicting messages? Mr. President, I believe the Hutchison amendment is gravely misguided and even dangerous. It claims to support our troops, but, in fact, it undermines them. How can we support our troops if we condemn the mission for which they are risking their lives? Have we learned nothing from our own history? Sending such a contradictory message would badly undermine the morale of our troops and jeopardize their safety. It would also undermine U.S. credibility--our commitment to peace, and our commitment to our NATO allies. Finally, sending such a conflicting and wrong-headed message would undermine the peace agreement itself, and efforts to implement it. The responsible vote is a vote for the bipartisan resolution offered by the majority leader. This resolution supports our troops unequivocally. It commends them for their professionalism and patriotism and bravery. It assures that they will have all the resources and authority they need to protect the peace--and protect themselves. It recognizes the vital interests our Nation has in preventing the spread of the Bosnian conflict and ending the bloodshed. It preserves America's leadership within NATO, and it preserves our credibility with our allies. And it requires the President to certify two important conditions. First, that the NATO implementation force is limited to implementation of the peace agreement and protection of NATO troops. And second, that the United States objectives in Bosnia are to maintain the peace and establish a military balance that will allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves when NATO withdraws. As the Senator from Oklahoma noted earlier tonight, the Hutchison/ Inhofe and Dole/McCain resolutions are contradictory. The Hutchison resolution, although it is non-binding, sends a dangerous and conflicting message that will undermine and endanger American troops. The Dole/McCain resolution is binding legislation that asserts Congressional authority and responsibility and sends a clear message that we support our troops and the cause for which they are risking their lives. It is the right thing to do. To echo the words of Camus, the United States cannot prevent all wars, everywhere. But we can reduce the number of children and adults killed in Bosnia. Our national security, and our national conscience, demand that we try. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just use a couple of minutes of my leader time to reiterate what the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has already informed our colleagues. There was a miscommunication last Friday, as the leader and I were negotiating the circumstances under which we would come to closure on the flag amendment. It was our hope we could avoid votes yesterday, stack votes today, but that was contingent on relevant amendments being offered, with some understanding as to how the time would be divided. I entered into that agreement recognizing the need for relevancy. As a result, even though I support the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, I will also support the point of order. It is not relevant to this amendment. In spite of its merit, it is not an amendment I can support under these circumstances and given the agreement. So, therefore, I hope our colleagues could support the agreement and look for another day, when we can support as well the Hollings amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple of minutes of my leader time. I know that people have schedules to keep, but I have not had the opportunity to talk on this amendment. I will attempt to be very brief. I think everyone understands the repercussions and all the ramifications of the vote we are about to take. This is the first time in history that we would amend the Bill of Rights; the first time in 200 years that we would limit the freedom of speech. And the question really is, why? Last year, three people were arrested or called upon to explain themselves for destroying the flag. In 1993, not one incident of flag desecration occurred. So, Mr. President, this debate is really about protecting principle versus protecting a symbol. Both are important. Both should be protected. But do we really hold the symbol more important than the principle it represents? Is the flag more important than the freedom it stands for? The flag is important, and should be honored. But our basic freedoms, in my view, Mr. President, are clearly more important. For example, if we hold symbols to be more important than the fundamental right of freedom of speech, what about protecting a cross? What about protecting the Star of David? What about protecting a copy of the U.S. Constitution? The irony here is that we diminish the very freedom the flag represents by protecting its symbol. Shimon Peres, the acting Prime Minister, spoke of this this morning, and he reminded us of how critical it was that we understand what a model this U.S. Constitution is for the rest of the world. He said the reason it is such a model is because it represents tolerance. That was his word, ``tolerance.'' And in a democracy, sometimes we must find the strength to tolerate actions we abhor. As I was growing up, whether it was with a teacher, a Cub Scout leader, or my family, we all recognized that perhaps the biggest difference between this country and so many others is that here we teach, elsewhere they compel. It is important that, as we vote on this amendment, we understand the difference between teaching and compelling. Let us leave here with every bit as much resolve to go out and teach the young and teach all in this country the importance of protecting and respecting our flag, but let us not, for the first time in 200 years, undermine the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the freedom of speech by compelling people today and abrogating their freedom in the future. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield from my leader time, a minute.