Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I know the Senator from Mississippi has been seeking recognition for purposes of a question. I yield to him at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nebraska makes the point in his question, and I think it goes to the very issue raised by the Senator from North Dakota. They have both been too conservative, not accurate; and as a result, they miss the mark by more than $100 billion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for another question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was not aware of it. And I appreciate the Senator from Nebraska's explanation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Which is what I did. I yielded to the Senator from Nebraska for a question. Part of the question involves an explanation of a chart for which I hope to give an answer as soon as the explanation is complete.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, who retains the floor?

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alaska since he sought recognition first.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield when I finish. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alaska as soon as I finish my train of thought. I will stand by whatever we may ultimately agree to here, but let us be real. Let us be honest. The Government does not have a monopoly on good numbers. If the private sector is telling us not once, not twice, but on five different analyses done about economic growth in the future, if they are all telling us, look, you are missing something here, we think it is a lot better because of what you have been doing, it is going to be a lot better than 2.3 percent, why not consider it? Why not think about it? Why not privatize economic growth? If we are privatizing everything else, let us privatize this, too. Because if we privatize it, we are going to be in a lot better position to better understand the implications of all this than we are right now. So, Mr. President, that is what this is about. I am very, very disappointed that we have not been able to resolve our differences on the continuing resolution at least. We will have more to say about the balanced budget, but let me just emphasize we have all voted for a balanced budget. Many of us have voted for a balanced budget in 7 years. But to say under any condition you just have to accept the fact that it is going to be 7 years and we will fill in all the blanks later makes me very, very skeptical, frankly. The Republicans have been very uneasy about the fine print in that 7 years, and now we want to get on to the large print. I think we have to go back to the fine print and look at exactly what we are talking about in 7 years. I hope we can agree to 7 years at some point. But if we do or if we do not, before we are called upon to vote on a 7-year budget, I hope everyone understands it is like buying a house from the curb. We look at it from a distance and it looks like a nice house. It looks like a great house. But what happens when you walk inside? Is it a money pit? Is it a house of horrors? What will that house include? Does it have a roof? Does it have a basement? What will be the definition of this house? What will be the design? That is something we are going to start working on tomorrow. As early as tomorrow the reconciliation package will be before us. If we have some concern about what this house looks like, maybe it is for good reason, because we have already seen the Senate-passed and the House- passed reconciliation bills. We know what they look like. We know that they cut $270 billion out of Medicare for tax cuts totaling over $200 billion. We know that. We know they cut over $185 billion out of Medicaid. We know that. We know they have made deep cuts in education. There is a room we ought to look at. Let us walk into the education room for a minute. There on one side of the room I see a lot of cuts directly affecting school programs. I see a loss of student loans to college students. I see a whole array of losses in the education room that I am not prepared to accept. Then I walk into the working person's room, and I find dramatic cuts in the earned-income tax credit, almost a complete demolition of the EITC. So the more I walk through this house, Mr. President, I have to tell you it is a house of horrors, and that is why we are very skeptical about whether or not signing on to this house from the curb makes a lot of sense to us regardless--regardless--of whether or not we agree on an amendment by a date certain. I know a lot of people have asked to speak, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska sought recognition for purposes of yielding for a question. I will be happy to do that. Let me just again state my motive here. [[Page S 17119]] Our motive is simply to say let us have that debate tomorrow. Let us have it on Friday when reconciliation comes. Let us get into next week if we have to, but let us at least agree that the thousands of people-- the thousands of people--who are not getting the services that they expect from their Government, services they have paid for in their hard earned taxes, that at least that much we can agree on, that we are going to give those services back to the people who expect them. This amendment provides that. And I hope it will enjoy broad bipartisan support.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me first explain the amendment. It very simply says let us get down to business here. Let us put aside all of the debate, all of politics, all of the charges, and let us do first things first. Let us pass a continuing resolution to the 22d of December, about a month, giving us time to work through what we know is going to be an extraordinarily difficult 4 weeks. We know we are going to have more of this debate. We know we are going to have many differences. We know that we are not going to resolve many of them. But we also know that we cannot let all of what is happening out there for the last 48 hours continue day after day after day. I do not have today's report, Mr. President. But let me give you yesterday's. So far, in just 2 days, 56,000 people have been unable to apply for Social Security benefits--56,000; 3,226 veterans have been unable to file new claims for compensation and pension benefits; 1\1/2\ million visitors have been turned away in 2 days from our national parks; 46,000 people have been unable to apply for passports. Mr. President, I could go on and on. But that is result of what is happening here. Until we resolve the issue of a continuing resolution, we are not going to see changes except for the fact that these are going to get worse and worse and worse. Those are the changes we can expect. So my amendment simply says this. Let us agree to disagree on all of the other issues for now, and let us at least agree that this cannot go on; that the American people expecting services from the Federal Government ought to get them; that this looks worse and worse, and that we ought to resolve at least this part of it. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. President. So I would hope every Senator could support at least this. That is all we are [[Page S 17118]] doing today--offering an amendment that says the Government must continue to function. What is all the more troubling is what we have just heard in the dialog and in the colloquy on the floor between the distinguished Senators from North Dakota, from Maryland, and others who have laid out what may be the motivation behind this impasse. It sounds to me more like this impasse is directly a function of the result of a hunch and a grudge on part of the Speaker--a hunch and a grudge, a grudge that somehow he was not given adequate consideration on the plane to Israel. Well, I must tell you--and I will tell my colleagues what I have said repeatedly now in the last week or 10 days on the floor and in public forums throughout the last week and a half. I was in that same room, and I do not know whether this is selected memory or sleepwalking on an airplane or what. The President came back on a number of occasions, talked to us a number of times about the extraordinary nature of the trip itself. We were going to one of the most difficult, one of the most emotional, certainly one of the most memorable occasions that I have had in public life, the burial of a head of State. He came back. We talked at some length about that with the Israeli Ambassador, who, by the way, was also in the room. We had those conversations. The Speaker was there. Why he chooses now not to remember that is something I do not understand. He came back on other occasions talking about the need to find agreement, the need to breach our differences, the need to find a way with which to resolve the impasse. And when he was finished coming back, the Chief of Staff came back on several occasions and asked about whether or not we could resolve our differences. I must remind my colleagues, I recall very well when I got the call from the White House that this was a development that had just occurred and could I come back to Washington. I was in South Dakota. Reference was made to spouses, and I was informed that spouses in this situation just were not welcome. And I said I understood. I knew the plane would be crowded. I knew how difficult the trip. I knew all the logistical problems. So I did not challenge whether spouses ought to be there or not. But I am told the Speaker did. The Speaker said: I have got to have my wife there, and she was there. I do not deny her the right. I am glad she was. She is a delightful woman, and I appreciated having the chance to have her on the airplane and for her to experience what we experienced. However, it makes all the more petty, all the more demeaning this whole affair. I do not understand it. And so, Mr. President, I must say that for him to be using this, given the facts, is absolutely incredible. And then to go beyond just the grudge--the hunch. The hunch. Yesterday morning, the Speaker was asked, on what do you base your calculation that this has to be done in 7 years? What is it about 7 years that you think really drives the need to have a balanced budget in that timeframe? The question was, what do you base it on? His answer? Intuition. Intuition. That is my answer. That is how it is that we have concluded a 7-year balanced budget is the right number of years. As my colleagues have said and as the Wall Street Journal says again this morning, maybe it is time to privatize these economic projections. I hear arguments on the other side that we ought to privatize everything. Well, there have been seven economic analyses. The CBO is the most conservative of the seven. In 1993, they were so conservative they were $100 billion off in 2 years--$100 billion. And now we are saying we have to use these conservative estimates as we project for the next 7 years in spite of the fact--and I hope everyone just thinks about this for a minute. It is one of the most inexplicable inconsistencies. Maybe our Republican colleagues can enlighten me here--our economic growth for the last 25 years has been 2.5 percent, 2.5 percent. CBO is projecting economic growth for the next 7 years at 2.3 percent. But we are told--and I think there is a mutual agreement--that if we balance the budget, if we do all the things that we should be doing to spur economic growth, it should be more, not less, than what it has been historically. It ought to be more than 2.3 percent. So what the Republican majority is apparently telling us is that we are going to go through all the pain, all the difficult choices, all these circumstances so that we can enjoy a growth rate less than what we have enjoyed for the last 25 years. Mr. President, somebody smarter than I has to explain why the American people should buy that. Everyone is entitled to buy their own projections but somebody ought to explain that to the American people. And again I go back to whether or not----

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that there are a number of amendments to be offered. I think it is important that we get on with them. So, in interest of doing so, I send an amendment to the desk

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week South Dakota Farm Bureau president Richard Ekstrum will step down after 20 years of dedicated service. During those two decades, his service to South Dakota and American agriculture has been immeasurable. I have had the privilege of working with Richard and the Farm Bureau for many years and have appreciated his invaluable advice and thoughtful discussions on farm policies and the future of rural America. Throughout his 10 consecutive terms as president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, Richard has been an effective advocate and promoter of free market policies for agriculture. Under his leadership, the South Dakota Farm Bureau has more than doubled its membership, from 4,700 to 10,000 members. He has donated over 100 days per year in service to Farm Bureau. His commitment to advancing the needs of rural America cannot be underestimated. As a hog producer for 30 years Richard knows full well the rewards and challenges of American agriculture. During his tenure as president, agriculture has undergone tremendous changes. It is the mark of a true leader that he has effectively adapted to those changes and moved his organization forward. He understands the critical needs facing rural communities and the necessary steps we must take to ensure farmers and ranchers remain on the land to produce the food and fiber for our Nation. Not only has Richard been a successful leader and farmer, but he also has traveled the world as an ambassador for South Dakota and American farmers and ranchers. I am sure the people of the many nations he has visited in his 20 years as Farm Bureau president have been benefited from his experience and expertise. The South Dakota Farm Bureau will dearly miss the leadership of Richard Ekstrum, as will I. There is no doubt in my mind that he will continue to be an active advocate for South Dakota agriculture. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors and thank him for all his assistance over the years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I share the view expressed by the majority leader and can assure him that we are prepared to go to the resolution. We will be offering amendments. It is certainly not our intention to delay the consideration and final passage of the resolution, hopefully, sometime early afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have one housekeeping matter. It is on rollcall vote No. 576. Senator Bradley voted ``yea.'' It was his intention to vote ``nay.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that his vote be changed. This will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 800,000 Federal workers were furloughed without pay today as a result of our inability to resolve our differences on the continuing resolution. It could have been avoided. It is as unnecessary as it is unfortunate. Morale among Federal employees is at one of the lowest points ever. They face great uncertainty, while many are being told they are not essential. It is sad but avoidable. It represents not only a cost to families working for the Federal Government but a huge cost to Government itself. It may cost the Federal Government as much as $150 million a day, costing taxpayers as well. While it may have been avoidable, it was also predictable, given statements by the Speaker of the House throughout the year. It was on April 3 when the Speaker pledged to ``create a titanic legislative standoff with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass legislation.'' It was on November 8 that the Investors Business Daily reported that the Speaker would force the Government to miss interest and principal payments for the first time ever to force the administration to agree to his 7-year deficit reduction. While failure to pass a continuing resolution costs a great deal, failure to pass a debt limit is costing even more. Officials at Standard & Poor's recently noted, ``The willingness of American officials to talk about the possibility of default has already done lasting harm to the United States international image as a country willing to pay back what it borrows.'' Standard & Poor's President Leo O'Neill argued, ``Even if the issue is resolved in the 11th hour, the 59th minute, in some respects the damage has already been done.'' Mr. President, we can resolve these matters now. In fact, we must do so. [[Page S 17036]] Let the negotiations continue. Let us resolve our differences. If the Medicare premium increase is taken off the resolution and addressed in the overall context of reform, there is no reason we cannot find agreement on a balanced budget by a date certain. That will take some time. We are not going to do it today; we are not going to do it tomorrow; but we are going to do it. In the meantime, we ought to agree to a clean continuing resolution for several more days to reduce the real harm to Federal employees, to reduce the harm to the U.S. taxpayer, to allow us to do our real work and resolve our differences on reconciliation and the budget.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me say that I am disappointed that we could not get agreement on this resolution. I think the colloquy we have just had, Mr. President, demonstrates, regardless of what may have happened in the past, why it is so important to have a clean continuing resolution so that we can negotiate a balanced budget, so that we can negotiate whatever it is we may do with regard to Medicare. We recognize that Medicare is going to have to be reformed. But to single [[Page S 17037]] out Medicare and tell seniors that they are the ones who are going to have to be the first to sacrifice before we come to any other conclusion does not make a lot of sense to most Democrats, and that is why we object to having it in the continuing resolution. To say that somehow we cannot resolve these matters one by one in an overall negotiation is to admit failure before we have begun. We are not prepared to do that. That is why having a continuing resolution that is clean, as we call it, is so important, so that we can get the business of negotiation underway and do it in a much more comprehensive and meaningful way. Sooner or later we are going to have to come to that conclusion. As we deliberate, 800,000 Federal employees continue to wonder what will happen to them next. Taxpayers pay $150 million a day, according to estimates, that is unnecessary. The creditworthiness of the United States is being debated. So we are acquiring additional costs. We are facing additional uncertainty, simply because we have no continuing resolution today. That can be avoided, Mr. President. We want a balanced budget. We want a date certain by which the budget is balanced. We can negotiate that. We can come to some conclusion on all of that. But we have to deal with first things first. And the continuing resolution is the issue that we have to face if we are going to resolve the short-term crisis for so many Federal employees and the taxpayers. I have no reservations at all about the continued negotiations that are going on right now. I hope that the majority leader might be willing to allow us to stay in morning business so that we might discuss these and other matters. I know that there are people on our side of the aisle who would like very much to have the opportunity to debate and discuss some of these issues, and, for that reason, Mr. President, I would have to object to going into recess at this time. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk providing for an extension until December 6 of the continuing resolution which expired last night, and I ask that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk providing for an extension until November 17 of the continuing resolution, and I ask that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, I will respond to the distinguished Senator, I do not know what the answer is. I have to assume that they believe increasing premiums is more important than running the Government, is more important than getting a continuing resolution, is more important than any other priority out there. It is the most important issue for them today. Raising those premiums has the priority that no other issue has as we consider all of the other complexities involved in this debate. What is even more important to me is what this action says to the American people in general and American seniors in particular. It says that we are going to ask seniors to pay more [[Page S 16997]] before we ask doctors to take less. We are going to ask seniors to pay more before we ask anybody else involved in Medicare, who may be beneficiaries in other ways, to give some, to sacrifice as well. That, to me, is the fundamental inequality here that is the most disheartening thing. We are asking seniors--many of whom can ill-afford it--to sacrifice before we have asked anybody else to contribute, before we have even come to any conclusions about what may be involved in the overall Medicare reform effort that many of us would like to see at some point this year. We realize we have to change Medicare. We realize that the trust fund has to be made solvent. We also realize this Medicare increase in a short-term, stop-gap funding bill has absolutely nothing to do with the trust fund. Now, not one dollar of this premium increase goes to the trust fund--nothing. It all goes to deficit reduction or to the tax cut, one or the other, most likely to the tax breaks. So that is really the issue here. We are holding hostage senior citizens asking them to do something no one else is required to do. And so it is understandable, it seems to me, that the President is resolute in his determination to veto the continuing resolution as long as that is in the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from Virginia. I know he wishes to speak. I will regain the floor at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator makes a very good point. The answer can be provided in one word. The word is ``coercion.'' This is the Republican effort to coerce the President to sign legislation that otherwise he would veto; to sign legislation that he philosophically finds at fault; to sign legislation that many of us on this side of the aisle are very uncomfortable with; to sign legislation that has not been resolved in the case of regulatory reform. It is to finish unfinished business that ought not be finished for good reason--because we have not been able to resolve our differences. So they are putting it in this language in the hope--and it is only a hope, because the President made it very clear today when he vetoed the bill, it is a false hope that somehow we can resolve these issues by loading up a bill as critical as it is, as the debt limit and the continuing resolution are.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would have to go back and check the record, but I will take the Senator's word for it.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. The Senator from Nevada is correct in stating that there are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the issue.