Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have had countless hearings and extraordinary debate on the Senate floor. We have had countless amendments offered as alternatives to legislation that passed. This has been an issue that has been hotly debated for not only weeks and months but for years now in prior Congresses.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. There has been no consideration of legislation in conference because the conferees have not been appointed.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. We passed a line-item veto, a legislative veto, and we passed a number of issues relating directly to changing the regulations under which Congress must operate, changing the regulations under which we deal with States, and unfunded mandates. We have had a series of regulatory reform measures already passed, unfortunately many of which have not been passed into law as a result of the Republican opposition.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. In fact, the Senator from Nevada was the author of the legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, he has signed two and five have passed.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. I would add that in all the time [[Page S 17001]] we have been under this budget process--since 1974 --this may be the latest, if not one of the latest dates that Congress has gone prior to the time it has completed its work.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is correct. Thirteen appropriations bills, and only five have been passed so far.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to address, while I have the floor--I know the Senator from Virginia is seeking recognition--but we have not had the opportunity yet tonight to talk briefly about the debt limit, at least I have not. I know some of my colleagues have addressed the matter. The President, as you know, vetoed the debt limit bill this afternoon. He did so for good reason. Let there be no doubt, we need to increase the debt limit. We recognize how critical it is that the Government of the United States not go into default. Let me offer praise for the Secretary of the Treasury for all that he has done to educate, to inform, to bring everyone to a better understanding of the ramifications of default, beginning Wednesday, if nothing is done. As I understand it, there is some hope now that we might be able to have yet another auction to move us back yet perhaps another 3 days. But while the Secretary of the Treasury and the administration appear to be doing virtually everything they can to see that this country does not default, our Republican colleagues, at that moment when they should cooperate and find some way with which to resolve this crisis, have chosen to do just the opposite. On what ought to be a very simple extension of the debt, our Republican colleagues have added a complete elimination of all the opportunities the Treasury Secretary has to manage the debt, to use short-term tools, to do what every single Treasury Secretary has been able to do for decades. They have sought to strip him of all those responsibilities and opportunities for debt management at the very time he needs them the most. Can you think of anything more irresponsible than that? Anything? It is just outrageous that, at the time when we ought to be pulling together with a full appreciation of the magnitude of the problems we may face if we go in default, what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do but say we are going to make it even harder. We are going to make it even more challenging, create even more problems. And then, to add insult to injury, they add a provision that we have debated on the floor many, many times regarding what ought to happen on appeals for death row inmates; whether or not we ought to have this legal term ``habeas corpus'' modified in some way. What in the world does that have to do with dealing with the default this country may find itself in as early as Wednesday? How is it that anyone can rationalize, anyone can explain, anyone can find any reason why habeas corpus belongs on an emergency debt limit bill? And then we have had some healthy debates on the Senate floor now for months about regulatory reform. We have had some cloture votes, and in every single case Democrats have said very simply: You give us regulatory reform that does not endanger the public health and safety of Americans, and we are with you. You are going to get a vote with maybe 70, 80, 90 votes. But you offer regulatory reform that endangers the health and safety of Americans, and we are not with you. That issue has not been resolved. We have reached a stalemate until we resolve it, and there have been good-faith efforts on both sides to try to resolve it, good-faith efforts that are going on right now. So what happens? Our Republican colleagues add the entire regulatory reform language, all of the comprehensive issues relating to the most detailed threats to public health and safety and all the questions we have debated for months now on the debt limit--on the debt limit--with no opportunity for debate and no opportunity for amendments. It is a take-it-or-leave-it deal. It is accept this or accept default. Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand. I cannot contemplate what may have motivated our Republican colleagues to do that on this bill. I will yield to the Senator from Nevada in just a minute, but I want to add the last list. In addition to that, the agencies terminated in this short-term legislation include the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, Land and Conservation Fund, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Administrative Conference of the United States--all of that added on top of everything else. Yet, they would like to have the American people believe that this is an emergency, that somehow the President is not cooperating, that somehow all of this has to be done in the context of a continuing resolution, or the debt limit, or it is just not possible. Mr. President, this is just not the way to legislate. This is not responsible. We know better than this. In our heart of hearts, we know we have to run the country, we have to govern, and we have to do the things necessary to make this country work better. And this is not it. So I hope at some point before midnight tonight we could come to our senses, and at some point in the next 3 hours we could say, look, let us save these debates for later. Let us conclude that we are going to agree to disagree for as long as it takes to work out the larger issues. Let us admit that this strategy is not going to work, and say that rather than shutting down the Government, rather than bringing this country to a default, we are going to strip them all, we are going to send a clean resolution, we are going to send a clean debt limit, we are going to resolve these matters at another time, and we are going to do the right thing.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. I did not think the parliamentary inquiry was in order if I did not yield time for such an inquiry. Is that not correct?

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I tell the Senator from Connecticut, I do not know what the logic is. The numbers the Senator from Connecticut referred to are accurate. The fact is that a vast majority of senior citizens today make less than $17,000. In South Dakota, and in many rural States, they make less than $15,000. This $11 increase per month is more than many of them today have available for some of the fundamental needs they face each and every year. Their choice, in some cases, is whether they have prescription drugs, whether they pay a heating bill, whether they are able to go into town, or whether they are able to buy groceries. All that is affected by whether or not this goes into law tonight or tomorrow or the next day. So the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely right. This is not an easy choice for many people out there who may be watching and wondering what is this all about. But that is what this fight is all about, protecting what limited purchasing power they have, recognizing a commitment we made 2 years ago that we would correct the inadvertent mistake we made in the Medicare law in the first place. That is what this is about.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond to the Senator and then I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor. The Senator from Connecticut said it as clearly and succinctly as anyone has tonight. The issue is not, should we address real reform in Medicare? The issue is, is this the vehicle on which to do it? Is this the night to do it? And, when we get to the proper vehicle, we must ask ourselves, is this the right way to do it? Do we hold all Federal employees hostage to a resolution of this fundamental question about whether we ought to change Medicare at all, tonight, under these circumstances? The Senator would conclude, as I concluded, that this is not the time, [[Page S 16999]] this is not the place, this is not the forum, this is not the right way, this is not sending the right message to seniors. This provision ought to be stricken. That is what we are suggesting. I think the Senator is absolutely correct in his assumption as he proposes the question tonight. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. There is no distinction at all, I say to the Senator from California. That, really, is another part of the inequity here. The Senator asked why would we do this on a continuing resolution? I think one of the reasons they are proposing we do it on a continuing resolution is that they hope that by holding a gun to the head of the President, the President is going to cave, the President will give up his resolve and say, ``If that is what it takes to have a continuing resolution, we will do it.'' Mr. President, the President has made it very clear that it does not matter what form a continuing resolution may take. If it comes to him with this extraneous and unfair provision in it, it will be vetoed. There is no question he will veto any version of a continuing resolution that incorporates the Medicare provision in it. It does not matter. This Republican strategy is not working. They can use as many props and news conferences as they want, golf clubs and waffles--which, in my view, are extraordinarily sophormoric and unfortunate. That belittles the congressional process. It demeans this debate. It has nothing to do with the serious, serious, consequences of what it is we are talking about here. And it will not change the outcome. I hope that our House colleagues and the Republican leadership will understand how unfortunate it is that they would demean this debate in the way that they have over the last weekend. There is no place for that kind of sophormoric and childish behavior on national television. That happened. It is unfortunate it happened. I hope we can raise the level of debate and take into account the gravity and the seriousness of situations that we are discussing here tonight. That really is something that I think all Americans--Republican and Democrat--can agree to. We should raise the level of debate and not use these silly props, thinking that is somehow making a point. It is not making a point. The point is we have to get back to the real issue here. The real issue is we can pass a continuing resolution tonight. We have a few hours left. Do it before it is too late. Pass a clean CR. Leave this Medicare debate for another time. Do not ask seniors to do something you are not asking anybody else to. If we can do that, we can go home tonight. Federal workers can come tomorrow and this issue would be resolved.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nevada and then to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California makes two very good points. Obviously, the increases that we are talking about here would have a devastating impact. I was home in South [[Page S 16998]] Dakota this last weekend. I wish I could tell the Senator from California precisely how many people I had the opportunity to talk to about this very matter. But time and time again, people on the street, in meetings, at dinner, in restaurants would come up to me and say, ``It is so important that you win this fight. It is so important that you not let happen what we are told could happen if the President or if the Democrats in Congress lose their resolve.'' This has nothing to do with cutting growth. What this is cutting is seniors' wallets, the opportunity for senior citizens to live in some dignity. This is telling senior citizens that the commitment we made to them is over, that somehow they are going to have to give, even though no one else involved in Medicare gives at all. We have $17 or $18 billion in fraud and abuse out there, according to the General Accounting Office. We are not going after $1 of fraud and abuse, yet we are telling seniors that they have to pay increases in their part B premiums and that they will provide the sole source of revenue increases for whatever reason? It is outrageous to make that kind of a statement. Never mind the commitment. Never mind the impact that it might have on seniors. The very thought that seniors are the only ones being asked to give tonight, to me, is inexcusable and just flat wrong.

Mr. DASCHLE. I retain the floor, and I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut to respond, and then I will yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me retain the floor and say the answer to that comment is very simple: The increase in premium that the majority has included in the continuing resolution does not solve the solvency problem by one nickel. It has absolutely nothing to do with solvency. It has nothing to do with the trust fund. It has nothing to do with the long-term projections of the future of the trust fund. It has nothing to do with the trustees' report. The trustees said we have to resolve the trust fund solvency issue and, toward that end, we have to find ways to save $89 billion. Nothing in part B changes or premium increases has anything to do with the trust fund, which is in part A. That is why both of us have expressed our grave concern about what we are doing here. Perhaps if the premium increase had something to do with the trust fund, we could better understand--though I would still argue that this should be decided in the broader context of Medicare reform--the emergency need to include it in a continuing resolution. But it does not. There is absolutely no connection. That makes it all the more critical, it seems to us, to take some time to consider whether or not it is fair to ask seniors to do something that we are not asking anybody else to do, to determine whether or not even in the overall context of Medicare reform this has a place. Certainly, I hope the Senator from Virginia would agree. Just to finish, certainly the Senator from Virginia would agree that without hearings, without any full appreciation of what it is we are doing here, to add it to the continuing resolution is not a prudent thing to do. I yield again to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me add another point that I think is important. It has been discussed over the weekend again, and for the life of me I cannot understand how this got started, but there has been some discussion, led particularly by the Speaker of the House, that on the trip to Israel last week the President did not come back to discuss any of these matters with leadership. I must tell you, I was there. The minority leader of the House, Dick Gephardt, was there. The majority leader was there, and the Speaker was there. The Israeli Ambassador was there. So there are a number of people who were there who can vouch for what I am about to tell you. The fact is that, not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions throughout that trip, both going and coming back, the President came back and expressed himself, talked with us, hoped we could work something out. We did not talk specifics, but we talked very specifically about the desire to resolve these differences. Not only did the President come back to talk to us, but on a number of occasions his Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, came back. As I say, I do not know how this got started. But there ought to be no question, and we ought to put to rest once and for all this rumor, this innuendo, this statement on the part of Republican leadership, especially the Speaker, that the President did not express any interest in open discussion of this issue. He was there with some frequency. He came back on a number of occasions. And, of course, it was the Speaker's prerogative to seek the President if he felt so strongly about the need to talk. He could have come up. If he did not think it was enough, as many times as the President came back and as many times as his Chief of Staff came back-- if that was not enough--he could have sought out the President. There was no ``do not enter'' sign in the quarters. There was no statement, ``you are not welcome up here.'' There was every opportunity for people to come, every opportunity to talk with [[Page S 17000]] the President, every opportunity to express themselves to the Chief of Staff or to the President. So I must say, again, it does a real disservice to this dialog and, really, to a factual and honest accounting of what happened on that trip. The President came back on a number of occasions, and I have yet to see anyone else dispute that fact. I hope that the Speaker would admit that on a number of occasions he had conversations directly relevant to the budget with the President of the United States on the trip and coming back from Israel just last week, in fact, a week ago tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, that is satisfactory. I think we need to come back and share with our colleagues whatever it is that may have occurred at the meeting, and so I think at least the two leaders will be coming back. But at that time we can make a decision about further action.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we just completed our discussions down at the White House. And I think it was a very frank exchange. I must say that I had hoped we might be able to make more progress and come to some resolution to allow the Government to function in order tomorrow, but that is not going to be possible. We agreed to meet again tomorrow to continue our discussions and negotiations. I think it was a very candid exchange. We now have a better understanding where both sides are on many of these issues. But we are a long way from any resolution. I think the President made it very clear that Medicare was not something that we can agree to, under any circumstances, with regard to the continuing resolution. And I think the discussions had a good deal to do with the way with which we might achieve a balanced budget, the timeframe within which that budget could be achieved, hopefully some understanding about how we might begin serious negotiations in achieving a balanced budget by a date certain. So, I look forward to the negotiations tomorrow. I look forward to working with the majority leader to try to resolve the schedule for the balance of the week as we continue our work downtown. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.