Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority leader has committed to the consideration of and final action on Executive Calendar Nomination No. 340, Ms. Kathleen A. McGinty to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality before the Senate completes its business this session am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader for that commitment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand the majority leader's difficulty in long-term planning of the Senate schedule, but I ask the majority leader if it would be his intention to schedule consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention in a reasonable time after it has been reported or discharged from the Committee?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader has just spoken for all of us. There is not a person in the Senate today who has not had the good fortune to benefit from the friendship of Dr. Halverson. Someone once said that life has no blessing like that of a good friend. Dr. Halverson was a good friend to all of us. Rather than mourn his death, it is appropriate to celebrate his life, because, indeed, it was a celebration of joy, of blessing. It was a recognition that through his religious belief, emanating every morning as he came to this Chamber, we all felt a little stronger, we all felt a little better, we all felt perhaps a little wiser, we all felt a little more able to work with each other. His contribution to his country and to this body will last for a long, long time. So today we celebrate his life. We send our condolences to his wife, Doris, and his family. We wish them the best. We recognize that in life comes achievement, and with his achievement, we all are the better. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President pro tempore. I want to commend the distinguished majority leader for his leadership in the effort he has made in the last 24 hours to achieve this agreement. I also commend the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, our chairman of the Budget Committee, for his effort. It was the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nebraska, our ranking member, who have done a great deal of work in the last couple of days to get us to this point. I appreciate very much their efforts. I have discussed this with the President. He fully supports it and will sign it. As the majority leader has indicated, this resolution will allow us to continue to fund the Government until the 15th of December at a level of 75 percent. It reopens the Government and gets people back to work. It reaffirms our commitment to balancing the budget, it spells out our commitment to protecting our priorities-- Medicare and Medicaid, education, the environment, defense, agriculture, and veterans. There will be consultation on economic assumptions with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget and private experts. It really presents the framework for negotiations. Now that this is behind us, I think the time for us to negotiate the real balanced budget is at hand. This gives us that opportunity. I am very pleased that we were able to reach the agreement tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for 30 seconds? I also think a number of staff people, including Bill Hoagland and John Hilley, deserve special commendation for the terrific work they have done. They and many other members of the staff have worked for the last couple of weeks to achieve this. I appreciate very much their effort and all the work they have done to make this happen. On our side, Senator Reid and Senator Dorgan and Members of our leadership have also been extremely helpful and demonstrated a significant level of leadership. Let me also thank Leon Panetta and members of the White House for the cooperation and tremendous effort that they also made to make this happen tonight. A number of people are responsible for the fact we are here tonight. I think it is fair to say we have shared in a great deal of effort to make it happen, and we are very pleased. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I think we can send up the second resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. It is my understanding that is what this resolution does as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's request be modified to include passage of the continuing appropriations with an amendment to include the rest of the Government agencies that are not included in this joint resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just want to take a couple of minutes to discuss what many of us feel, that a limited continuing resolution is not an appropriate resolution of the situation before us. This resolution does not cover the Federal Housing Administration, and, yet, the shutdown of the Federal Housing Administration has blocked home ownership for literally thousands each and every day. On an average day, the Federal Housing Administration processes 2,500 home purchases and refinancing applications totaling $200 million with the mortgage loans for moderate- and low-income working families. This resolution would do nothing to ensure the resumption of the financing of small businesses. On an average day, over 260 small businesses receive the SBA guaranteed financing. Thus far, more than $40 million in loans have been delayed or forfeited as a result of the shutdown. Another shutdown this resolution does not address--would not affect-- is the shutdown on exports this country attempts to ship each and every day. On an average day over 30 export licenses valued at over $30 million are approved by the Bureau of Export Administration. The resolution does not address Head Start. Yet, if the shutdown continues much longer, 60,000 Head Start children will lose services each day, and 11,000 Head Start staff will do without funding. This resolution is a holiday for deadbeat dads. Those who are not living up to their responsibilities as fathers do not need to fear collection attempts, for the Federal Parent Locater Services which averaged 20,000 new cases a day is closed. The resolution does not affect that. The resolution does not address the halt in tourism in and around national parks. Yet, on an average day, 726,000 people visit national park service facilities. With parks closed down, the public inconvenienced, business is lost in the surrounding communities. The resolution offered today does not address the critical health care needs served by the National Institutes of Health, which provide advice to doctors and patients and the latest treatments available for serious illnesses. No new patients are being enrolled in research projects at the NIH Clinical Center. An average of 170 new patients per week were enrolled in these projects up until the time we saw the Government shut down. The resolution does not allow for the pursuit of new medical fraud and abuse cases. On an average day, 100 calls from public sources reporting fraud and abuse are normally referred to the Office of Inspector General for further investigation. That has been completely shut down. There has been a shutdown of projects and activities of the FBI, the Border Patrol, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. This resolution does not address that. Finally, it does not address the shutdown of the Consumer Product Safety Commission work. Yet, in an average week, 20,000 toys are taken off the shelves because they are dangerous for children. The point, Mr. President, is pretty simple. Obviously, we are concerned about the need to address all agencies of Government, all important services. We want to ensure that we are not balkanizing Government. Already, through the House's passage of this resolution and the refusal to pass a clean short-term budget, we are pitting one agency against another. I think we have to come to an understanding that Government is important, and all these important services ought to be funded, not just some of them. We have been asked by the House to abandon that principle and provide funding for Government on a piecemeal basis. There is a regular appropriations process. Today, the President is going to sign the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and the legislative branch appropriations bill. The more appropriations bills we can send on to the President, the less we are going to need this balkanized approach to a continuing resolution. Let us pass a straightforward continuing resolution. Let us take the riders off. Let us get the job done. Let us ensure that at some time in the not too distant future we can get on with dealing with the fundamental issue before this Congress, and that is a reconciliation bill: a comprehensive budget that balances the budget and reflects the true values and priorities of the American people--not the plan to devastate Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for people who do not need them. Now that the reconciliation bill has passed, there is even less reason for a Government shutdown. The reconciliation bill should be sent to the President for its inevitable veto so we can get on with the real negotiations. I am hopeful that we can get to those essential negotiations and enact such a budget in the not too distant future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my friend, whether he is aware that the President has already made an announcement that all of those people will be going back to work on Monday, making the resolution as he has proposed it unnecessary? The second question I would ask is, why, even if he thought it was necessary--perhaps he was not aware of the President's announcement-- why would he feel the need to open the offices in Social Security and other branches and maintain closure of small business offices around the country, the Federal Housing Administration? Why would he see the need to keep the National Institutes of Health and a number of other Federal agencies that I would think he would view as equally important, closed down? What I tried to do in my subsequent unanimous consent agreement, to which the Senator objected, was to open those offices, too. How does the Senator draw the distinction?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just respond, and I know others seek the floor, so I will not belabor this point. This issue is not about a 7-year balanced budget. The Senator from Mississippi knows it. This issue is about whether or not we can make Government function while we debate the critical issues behind the issue of a 7-year balanced budget. I think we could get broad-based support for a 7-year balanced budget if we could also get broad-based support for what that means--what the budgetary values priorities defining that budget are. What does it mean? What so many on the other side seem to be arguing is that we have to come to the bottom line before we know what the components are. If the Senator will tell me exactly what the tax cut figure will be, exactly what the growth assumptions will be, exactly what all the cuts in entitlements will be, exactly what we can anticipate in terms of freezes on discretionary spending, then we can probably get some better appreciation of whether it is going to take 7 years or 8 years or what. Seven years is fine with most of us, 5 years, 4 years might work, depending on the assumptions and priorities entailed. but that is not the issue. We have to consider all the components of the budget as we debate this issue. The real debate will begin almost immediately because the President will be vetoing the reconciliation bill that we passed last night. So we are left now with the realization that if we are serious about doing this the right and responsible way, we need to put the rhetoric aside and get down to making some very tough decisions about whether we can do all that everybody says they want to do in 7 years. We better start negotiating for real on that reconciliation bill. That is the issue. The continuing resolution debate ought to be behind us because that really should not going be the issue any longer. The issue is, can we seriously debate our goals in reconciliation. If we can do that, if we can sit down in a bipartisan way, then I believe we can accomplish our task. But the longer we debate this continuing resolution, the longer we decide we have yet another iteration, another alternative, another way to play political games with a document that ought to fund Government for whatever length of time it is going to take to get the real job done, the less the real job is a real possibility. So I hope that we could both agree to that. I will agree with what the Senator said about the ongoing effort to try to resolve this matter. I must really commend him and Senator Domenici, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chair of the Budget Committee, and others who have been working diligently all day long in an effort to find some resolution. I think we are very close on our side. I wish I could say the same for those on the other side. But I do commend them for their work and their effort. I know it is still ongoing. And I hope, even though the odds seem to be diminishing, I hope at some point, even yet today, we could find some resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand Senator Leahy was going to complete his speech and then that would take place.

Mr. DASCHLE. I apologize for the second time for interrupting the distinguished Senator from Vermont. We want to accommodate a number of schedules, and the clock is ticking. I am trying to see if we can accommodate all Senators and arrive at a unanimous consent agreement that will allow us to vote. The distinguished Senator from Florida had some questions. If we could have the unanimous consent request again propounded with the understanding that, in addition to the 30 seconds for the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Florida could have 1 minute to ask some questions, and I would ask unanimous consent that be included, and pose the motion at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished ranking member for the excellent job he has done in representing our caucus and commend all of the Members who have played a role in on our side, as we have debated this bill. I believe that this is the most dangerous document in America. I believe it is one of the most extreme documents that we have had before this Congress in the time that I have served here. When the lowest 20 percent of the people in this country lose more than all the other 80 percent combined, that is extreme. When the upper 20 percent gain more than all the other 80 percent combined, that is extreme. When you see the biggest shift in income from the middle class to the top brackets in history--Mr. President, there is no other word to describe it but extreme. When it represents the biggest cut in health care benefits in history, Mr. President, this document belongs in the Guinness Book of World Records. The American people did not vote to see the kind of change this document represents. No one in this country voted to gut Medicare $270 billion to provide tax breaks for those who do not need them. No one voted to cut Medicaid $163 billion to provide tax breaks for those who do not need them. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico talked about protecting our children. How in Heaven's name do we protect our children when we cut the legs out from under them in education, in student loans, in nutrition programs, in housing, in virtually every single area of opportunity this country has provided them--how do we do that? How in the name of children can we stand up and support this document? Mr. President, we can do better than this. The American people now by more than a 2 to 1 margin believe--demand--we do better than this. The President will veto it, and he has good reason to veto it. We need to sit down together and take the extreme measures out of this document. We need to work to govern better. We need to send a better message to the American people. We will not gut the investments in people that we have committed to for a long, long time. The most dangerous document in America needs to be vetoed and, indeed, it will be.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the majority leader's view that this is a good time to begin the debate on the reconciliation bill. I know a number of our colleagues have expressed an interest in beginning the debate and have statements to make. I think we can proceed with that and try to give them an update from time to time on what, if anything, the negotiations may be producing with regard to an agreement on the CR.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very, very good point. This is just the beginning. The real debate will begin perhaps as early as tomorrow when we get the reconciliation package. As the Senator noted, none of us have had the opportunity to see this package yet. It will be on the floor in the next 48 hours at some point. We know, given what the House did and what the Senate did, there are huge cuts--three times more cuts than we have ever seen before, for Medicare, cuts that go deeply into the program, that go way beyond trust fund solvency, cuts that will be used to create the pool of resources, to create the tax cuts that the Republican majority continues to want to defend. That is what this is all about.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding, as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment starts where the last amendment left off. It simply says that we ought to have a resolution that takes us at least through the month of December, setting as a target date December 22. That is what the earlier amendment did. This amendment would accomplish the same thing. Second, it uses the same level of spending for all of those agencies of Government affected as the previous continuing resolution--the same, again, as the amendment we proposed this morning. So in an effort to accommodate what I hoped would be a very serious negotiation on reconciliation, we would offer this continuing resolution, with the expectation that we could avoid facing another crisis for at least for another 4 weeks. So we start with an appreciation that it is going to take longer than a couple of weeks to resolve all of the outstanding differences that we have with respect to reconciliation. If that is the case, rather than revisiting the issue, let us be serious about a continuing resolution. Let us move this date to a point that is practical, that is prudent, that accepts the fact that we may not be able to finish our work prior to that time. Second, Mr. President, it simply says if we are going to insist in this resolution that there be a 7-year budget, that we use the 7-year budget timeframe within which to resolve all the other differences, priorities, and circumstances that we have, and then let us do a couple of other things. Let us also, since we are setting some parameters here, decide that we are not going to use the Medicare trust fund as a pool from which to draw resources to pay for a tax cut. Let us not do that. And let us not use this process, this particular piece of legislation, to exacerbate income distribution even more than it is. In other words, let us not build upon what is already happening in this country, where more and more of the wealth is being shifted to the upper-income levels. And to avoid that, let us assume that there will be a tax break; or let us just say if there is a tax break, the resources we will spend for those tax breaks will all go to those making under $100,000 a year--that is, no tax breaks for those making more than $100,000 a year. So, Mr. President, that is really what this amendment does. First, it allows us to do our work through December 22. Second, it sets funding levels where they have been in the past continuing resolution. Third, it says if we are going to have a 7-year budget resolution, let us at least recognize that that is a constraint that might warrant a couple of other constraints--the first being the protection of Medicare from cuts to finance tax breaks. We have had votes on it in the past. I think this Senate has been on record now on a number of occasions that it is not right, that it is not acceptable, that it is not something that even some Republicans have indicated they can support--to block the use of Medicare resources for purposes of a tax cut--under any circumstances. I, frankly, think that is one of the most challenging of all the things that we are going to be facing as we sit down to negotiate a final reconciliation package. How do you pay for the tax cut? I know we are told by CBO that there is going to be roughly a $170 billion dividend. Frankly, I am amazed that we can project a dividend 7 years out without really knowing whether there is going to be a recession or what kind of economic growth there is going to be. We are going to have less economic growth, I remind my colleagues, using CBO growth projections at 2.3 percent than we have had in the last 25 years. In the last 25 years, we are told that the growth, on the average, was 2.5 percent. So what CBO is telling us is that we are going to have a balanced budget at the end of 7 years, but the growth is only going to be 2.3 percent, two-tenths of a percent less than what we have had historically. That seems inconsistent to me, and it is hard to understand how one generates dividends from that. But let us assume there is a dividend of some $170 billion. The tax cut is over $220 billion. It may even be $245 billion, if our House colleagues have their way. So the question is: Where does the additional amount of revenue come from? We all know that this is all pretty flexible here. We all know that, in the meantime, before the dividend is realized, that revenue has to come from somewhere because the tax cuts start immediately. Well, the tax cut revenue is going to come from pools of resources already in the budget. And the only pools of resources available are Medicare and Medicaid, to the degree we need large revenue sources to pay for the tax cut. Mr. President, that has been our concern from the very beginning, a very legitimate concern about paying for tax cuts from revenue that is already [[Page S 17172]] dedicated to virtually the most important function, in my view, virtually in the entire budget. The health care of senior citizens, the health care of those who are unemployed, insured only by Medicaid, the health care of those who are going to nursing homes--that is what we are talking about, providing a safety net, some security, to those people who have counted on it now for 30 years. Mr. President, that is a fundamental question that in our view ought to be addressed. If we are going to set out 7 years as a precondition, it is our view we also ought to set out preconditions about where Medicare and Medicaid resources go. We recognize the need to bring about trust fund solvency. We are not talking about solvency here. We are talking about $270 billion in cuts, $181 billion more than what the trustees tell us we need for solvency. For what reason? Unfortunately, it is our view, it is to provide the tax cuts that, in our view, simply are not necessary in many cases. That is the first stipulation. The second stipulation is that if we are going to have those tax cuts, at least ensure they go to those who have the greatest need. Make sure it is working families whose incomes are already stretched with college and a whole range of difficulties. Make sure they are the ones who are held harmless in all of the cuts and to make sure, to the extent we can, that if we have tax cuts, they go to those working families who need it the most. I really do not know that somebody making $2 million or $3 million or $4 million needs a tax cut, regardless of the circumstances. I do not think somebody with our income level, regardless of what it may be now under this difficulty we are facing, needs a tax cut. We do not need a tax cut. And certainly no one making more than $1,000,000 a year needs a tax cut--not if we are really serious about balancing the budget, not if we are really serious about bringing down not only the deficit but the debt. I have always been curious, and I have never had one of my conservative friends respond to this, are they not as concerned about the aggregate debt as they are about the deficit? The aggregate deficits total $6 trillion. So even if we reach a balanced budget, we still have $6 trillion of indebtedness out there--$6 trillion. I have not heard one of my Republican colleagues give me any indication as to what they think ought to be done with that. How are we going to buy down that debt? Are we going to be content to leave it out there to continue to pay the interest on it? It seems to me before we start talking about tax breaks not only should we dedicate our efforts to reducing the deficit but we should dedicate our efforts to reducing the debt as well. I know my colleague from Massachusetts is here. How much time remains, Mr. President?

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