Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is exactly correct. His memory is perfect.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for a statement that I think enjoys broad-based, in fact unanimous, support on this side of the aisle. This has gone on too long. There is absolutely no reason why ambassadors representing the foreign policy of this country ought not be appointed. I think you have to go back decades, if not generations, to find a time when this many ambassadors were held hostage. I think it is unfortunate, it is wrong, it is not the way to do business. It sends exactly the wrong message, not to mention what an incredible inconvenience it is to people in the Foreign Service who are depending upon some resolution of these matters. So, whether it is the ambassadors or whether it is a number of other Federal agencies that have to be dealt with in a reasonable way, this has gone on too long. And until we resolve those matters, I think it is fair to say that it will be very difficult to resolve some of the legislation relating to foreign policy pending in the Senate. I am very hopeful that we can resolve these matters in the not-too- distant future because what is happening today is inexcusable. I think the Senator from Connecticut speaks for all members of the Democratic Caucus in articulating very clearly our strong feelings about this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me also commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts as well as the Senator from Connecticut for their comments on the matter directly pertaining to our schedule tonight and the next couple of days. I think there is some misunderstanding about what is involved with both the continuing resolution and the debt limit. I think it is very important that everybody clearly understand what the circumstances are tonight. Tonight the continuing resolution, which the President will veto, includes the lowest funding level of either the House or the Senate. No programs were zeroed out, but the floor is now set at 60 percent of the 1995 level. Funding would be approved through December 1. The funding levels are an issue of concern to a number of us. But the most important concern, and the one that I think has drawn the greatest degree of anxiety across this country, and certainly the issue for which the President has said there is no compromise, is the increase in the premium that senior citizens will pay as a result of mistakes that we made in prior years in setting that premium. I think everybody needs to understand that. We made a mistake several years ago. Instead of setting the premium at 25 percent and locking that percentage in for part B Medicare recipients, stipulated a dollar amount that we believed to represent a 25 percent payment. In doing so, we overestimated the amount it would take to reach 25 percent. As a result, the real calculation was not 25 percent; it was 31.5 percent. We realized it. We all concluded, I think virtually unanimously, several years ago when this issue came up that it ought not be 31.5 percent; it ought to be 25 percent. We locked it into law. We set a timeframe within which that should happen. And now as a result of a realization that they need additional revenue for a lot of other reasons, including this tax cut, our Republican colleagues are suggesting that we legalize the glitch indefinitely. That is the issue. Should we lock in an amount higher than we anticipated or intended, an amount we accidentally locked in several years ago, just to come up with revenue necessary to do what the Republican agenda has dictated? Should we effectively increase that premium to provide the pool of resources that they need for tax breaks for the wealthy? Mr. President, what the President has said is, that is not negotiable. That Medicare premium increase is not something that belongs in the continuing resolution. That is something that has to be taken out. We can negotiate funding levels, and we can negotiate other matters with regard to how the continuing resolution ought to be drafted, but there ought not be any misunderstanding with regard to the importance of Medicare premiums. That ought to be off the table. That ought not to be in the continuing resolution. And that is where we are.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator indicate what it will revert back to if this legislation is not passed?

Mr. DASCHLE. But the Senator does confirm it reverts back to 25 percent.

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of both our Democratic Senators. The Senator from Florida and the Senator from West Virginia have made a point I was going to make in response to the Senator from Wyoming. The fact remains that seniors pay more for their health care than any other group of people in the country. That is not disputable. They pay more than anyone else. Yet, this amendment requires them to pay even more than they pay today. That is what this issue is about and no one ought to be misled about that. I want to make two final points, reiterating what I said earlier about the importance of this legislation and confirming what the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island said earlier. Current law dictates that 1996 premiums will revert back to the 25 percent level. The continuing resolution seeks to change this and lock- in the premium at 31 percent. We have debated this, we have discussed it, we have analyzed it, we have consulted and we have concluded over a long period of time that 25 percent is the figure that we ought to lock-in for seniors to pay their fair share, given the fact that they already pay more in out-of-pocket costs and in higher deductibles than any other segment of the population. Mr. President, we made a commitment 30 years ago that seniors would get health care, and it would be affordable. That commitment is now jeopardized if this amendment is not adopted. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will recognize that and support it as this legislation comes before us tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Just to clarify one technical point. As I understand it, we have an agreement there would be no intervening action on my amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding life and military career of a veteran of the Second World War: Retired Major General Lloyd Moses who currently resides in Vermillion, SD. General Moses came from humble beginnings. He was born in 1904 on what was then the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation in Fairfax, SD. His mother was half Sioux Indian. His father was a carpenter. Despite not having a formal grade school education, General Moses graduated from High School and the Black Hills Teachers College, and obtained a degree in Chemistry from the University of South Dakota. General Moses enjoyed a long and illustrious military career. In 1933, General Moses applied for Active Duty in the U.S. Army and was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant in 1935. During World War II, he served as a battalion commander of the 75th Infantry Division and volunteered to participate with the 507th Parachute Regiment, 17th Airborne Division in ``Operation Varsity,'' the airborne assault across the Rhine River in 1945. In the Korean War, General Moses commanded the 31st Infantry and in 1955 was promoted to the rank of brigadier general. In 1957, he was promoted to the rank of major general. General Moses reached the pinnacle of his military career in 1960 when, following in the footsteps of other generals such as George McClellan, Andrew Jackson, and Ulysses S. Grant, he became commanding general of the 5th U.S. Army. His military awards include the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star for heroics in Korea, and the Distinguished Service Medal, the Nation's highest peacetime military award. General Moses retired in 1964 as the highest ranking South Dakotan ever to serve in the U.S. Army. General Moses remains committed to the promise of education. After retiring from the military, General Moses returned to the University of South Dakota and became the director of the Institute for American Studies. As an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, he spent the next 10 years successfully expanding the curriculum of Native American courses at the University in an effort to teach cultural awareness and encourage the continued education of Native American youth. When he retired in 1974, the enrollment of Native American students at the University was at an all-time high, and the Institute for American Studies was rapidly becoming one of the foremost centers of oral history and tradition in the United States. From such humble beginnings, General Lloyd Moses developed the leadership and education that helped our forces to victory in Europe 50-years ago and has continued to assist our growth as a Nation. His story is proof that great deeds can still come from hard work and a strong mind. And that great men can still come from small places like Fairfax, SD.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not want to take a long time, but there are a couple of matters I want to address, and I will do that at this time. The first concerns a series of discussions that have been held now over the last several days about reports relating to welfare reform. A recent report discussed in this morning's Washington Post relating to a study undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services compares the welfare bills passed by the House and Senate and proposed by Senate Democrats. It examines the income distributional effects of the Republican budget, and it estimates how many children will be put into poverty by the various welfare plans. The report uses two different definitions of poverty, the official poverty measure and an alternative. It is under the alternative, not the official measure, that over 1 million children are put into poverty. The report represents a range for the Democratic alternatives because the Office of Management and Budget did not have the time to develop a full model of the effects of that plan. Mr. President, I think it is very important to note that the 1.2 million figure is reached using an alternative definition of poverty never before relied upon by the Federal Government. When people say ``poverty,'' they usually mean the official poverty measure, which counts only a family's cash income such as AFDC and SSI and Social Security checks they receive. Using the official measure of poverty, the Senate-passed bill would increase the number of children in poverty from 15.5 million to about 15.8 million, or an increase of 1.9 percent. Under the official poverty measure, the Senate Democratic alternative would not increase poverty at all. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Under the official poverty measure, the measure that we have used for decades, the Senate Democratic alternative would not increase poverty at all. The alternative measure counts cash and in-kind income, such as food stamps and EITC, as well as AFDC, SSI, and Social Security, which exaggerates the poverty effect of the bill. So while the numbers released concern me, I do not think that they ought to argue that somehow we ought to turn our backs on welfare reform. We simply cannot keep the status quo. We need to restructure our welfare system. We need to require people on welfare to work, and be responsible parents. We need to remember that the current system keeps 9 million children in poverty. That is the status quo, Mr. President. Nine million children today live in poverty as a result of the programs, the framework, and the institutions that we have in existence. I want to make a couple of more points with regard to the numbers. First, we should note that the statement that the Senate bill will put 1.2 million more children in poverty is based on an alternative definition, and that definition has never been used before. Second, and perhaps more importantly, more children will be put into poverty only if the welfare system that we are proposing fails. So I believe that we need to recognize four points, Mr. President, as we consider welfare reform. First of all, the apples and oranges comparisons that the data makes is something that everybody ought to completely appreciate prior to the time we come to any conclusion. The fact is, using official poverty definitions, the Senate-passed bill does not increase the level of poverty for children at all. We can say, regardless of whether one uses the official or the new alternative definition of poverty, that the Democratic bill is vastly superior to the Senate-passed bill, and the Senate-passed bill is at least four times superior than the House-passed bill. So, as we have articulated all the way through this process, the Work First proposal that Democrats laid out that we debated, that we voted for unanimously, is by far the best version of all. Second, I think it ought to be emphasized that no one said that this was the [[Page S 16941]] last word on welfare reform. I do not know of a colleague on this side of the aisle who is content to say, all right, we have now done welfare reform, and there is nothing else to do. I think it is critical that everyone understand this is the first installment. This is the first opportunity for us to build a new infrastructure, to take what we have done, to analyze it, to see how well the States work with it, and to come up with ways in which to make it better in subsequent years. There is not one program that we have not done that with. I submit that regardless of what happens on welfare, we are going to revisit this issue again and again. So it is critical, it seems to me, that everyone understand. We want to build a new system, and we do it one step at a time. What we have attempted to do with the Senate-passed bill, with the Democratic bill in particular, is to provide the foundation. Third, I think it is fair to say that it is vastly superior to the status quo. That was what we said before. I think the study confirms that it is better than the status quo now. What we have attempted to do is to improve upon the status quo, to create a new system, a new infrastructure, an emphasis on work, trying to get people off of welfare and into work, creating welfare opportunities in offices that will become work opportunities once this legislation passes. So we are not satisfied with the status quo. We need to build upon it. We recognize the importance of creating new opportunities to do that. We do not want people on welfare. We want people to find new opportunities in work, in education, and in creating new lives. That is what this is designed to do. Finally, I think it is very important that we know that much of what we did a couple of months ago as we considered welfare reform we did with an expectation that the other pieces of the safety net will still be there, that we will have an earned income tax credit that makes work pay, that we will do all we can to ensure kids are adequately cared for with regard to their nutritional needs, that we ensure everyone has at least a minimal amount of health care as a result of Medicare and Medicaid, that we do not gut the program today, to provide for meaningful housing. That safety net, regardless of what we do in welfare, is critical, if we indeed are concerned about not moving people back into poverty. So I would only reiterate that we are beginning a process that will take some time to complete. We hope that we have created an opportunity for a lot of people at long last to make work pay, to find new ways to ensure that they will not be dependent upon welfare as they have in the past, recognizing that the status quo is unacceptable, and encouraging in as many ways as we can with new mechanisms so people can go out and find the jobs and find the opportunities that we hope will be there as a result of what we are attempting to do now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think it is important that I take just a moment to describe something I guess I never thought I would have to do, but I suppose it is important to set the record straight. Somewhat baffling to me has been a debate over the public airwaves and in the press about what actually happened on the way to Israel. Did the President come back and talk to the leadership? Did he express his desire to work with the Republican leadership in an effort to resolve our outstanding differences? Senator Dole, Speaker Gingrich, Minority Leader Gephardt, myself, and others were on the airplane. The four of us were in a room that allowed us, I think, to safely say we know exactly what happened. There is a contrast here that is very interesting to me. In my view, Senator Dole, our majority leader, has taken the high road in this whole debate and has made it very clear that he is not going to become involved in it. I applaud him for taking that position. At least, as I understand it, that is his position. I have not heard him make any public comment on it. Unfortunately, the Speaker, for whatever reason, has chosen to make this an issue. I can recall at least a half dozen occasions the President, during that very brief trip, both coming and going, came back and talked to us, expressed a desire to work together to find ways in which to resolve our difficulties with the debt limit, with the continuing resolution, with reconciliation. He expressed a desire to get together. He made the effort to suggest that whenever there was an understanding about what the consensus was with regard to the debt limit and the continuing resolution, we would be ready to go to work. I do not know what else he could have done, frankly. No one has ever faulted the President for not being gregarious. He demonstrated that quality in spades on his way over and on the way back. I think he could probably tell you from memory what books each one of us were reading. He checked them all out, asked about them. So, Mr. President, I think it is a silly debate. I hope we get it behind us. We have much more important things to talk about. But I do think it is important to set the record straight for fear that somebody out there might have thought that during this entire trip there was no dialog, no discussion, no discourse on what we ought to do, no opportunities to talk about what we have attempted to do here today. There was a great deal of opportunity. And the hallways work both ways. I do not recall the Speaker making any effort to go to the head of the plane. If he was so concerned, if he wanted to speak with the President, I did not see any guard saying the Speaker is not allowed up into the front section of the airplane. But, again, it is silly. The issue is, can we put aside our differences and begin working in a meaningful way to accomplish what we know we must against very difficult deadlines? So I hope in good faith we can do that. We made an effort at that today, and I know we will again on Monday. I know the President cares deeply about using every opportunity he has available to him to ensure that the dialog is there, the opportunities for discussion are there, and the opportunities to resolve these outstanding differences be created whenever possible. He did that on the airplane going over. He did that on the airplane going back. He will do it again next week. He will do it whenever the situation arises. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I wonder if the majority leader would have any interest in entering into a time agreement to give our colleagues some indication of what the schedule might hold. I know there is very little disagreement on the first amendment. And while there may be disagreement on the second amendment, it is not our intention to debate it for a great deal of time. So we might be able to enter into a time agreement on that one and stack the three votes to accommodate Senators tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest 20 minutes, 10 minutes per side.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. How about 20 minutes on a side for both amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am told that we have a request for an additional 10 minutes on our side on the Commerce Department, so that would require 20 minutes on our side on Commerce. We would be satisfied with 10 minutes on the second amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is right.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, is it then in order that we would have three votes stacked--two amendments and final passage?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.