Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time would either side have in the debate on this amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of problems with this continuing resolution. We have been dealing in the last couple of hours with one of the more egregious problems having to do with the Istook amendment. But something more critical and more important and deeply troubling to us is the fact that there is a premium hike for Medicare beneficiaries incorporated in this continuing resolution. I want to take just a couple of minutes to explain what it is we are referring to and talk briefly about why it is so important that we deal with this problem. In 1974, Congress recognized that seniors should not be subjected to Medicare premiums whose growth outpaced the growth of Social Security income. As a result, back then we voted to limit the percentage increase in part B premiums to no more than the percentage increase in Social Security benefits. Then, in 1982, Congress voted to suspend the COLA limitations and instead limit premium increases to 25 percent of Part B program costs. Congress voted to continue to limit the premiums to 25 percent of Part B costs in 1984 and again in 1987. In 1990, Congress intended to cap the part B premium at 25 percent by setting in law specific dollar amounts for the premium for each year from 1991 through 1995. This was done to protect seniors from potentially higher than anticipated rates of health care cost growth. However, the projections upon which these dollar amounts were based have now been calculated as too high. Thus, the 1995 premium covers slightly more than 31 percent of program costs despite congressional intent to limit the beneficiary burden to 25 percent. Consequently, in the law that we passed in 1993, Congress reset the premium at a percentage equal to 25 percent of program costs for 1996 to 1998. That will change if this legislation passes. Next year, if nothing happens, part B premiums return to covering 25 percent of Part B costs. Clearly, the 31.5 percent premium that beneficiaries had to absorb this year is due to an unintended glitch in the law. There was no design to put it at 31 percent. The design was to stipulate a dollar amount so that we did not have to stipulate a percentage. The Republican majority is now attempting to lock in that glitch, by statute, for all perpetuity. The Congressional Budget Office says the monthly premiums, which are currently $42.50, will go to $53.50 under this continuing resolution. This is an increase of more than 25 percent in the dollar amount of the premium. Mr. President, I think it is very clear that this is going to be extraordinarily difficult for many seniors. Seniors' average income today is under $18,000. Forty percent of seniors have incomes under $10,000. Seniors now spend more than 20 percent of their income on health care. Rural seniors--who are typically older, poorer, and sicker--will be disproportionately hurt by this policy. And, because the money for these premiums is taken directly out of Social Security checks, this premium increase also amounts to a Social Security cut. Mr. President, this is not the place, regardless of whether or not one would view this to be the right thing to do, to consider such a proposal. This is not the time to debate whether or not we are willing to increase premiums by $11 a month for every participating senior across this country and to lock-in an inadvertent percentage increase. Today the questions are: Is this the right vehicle? Is this the right time? Should we be doing it outside the context of Medicare reform? Outside of a debate on deductibles and other issues that relate to what seniors are going to be asked to absorb? There is absolutely no reason why this needs to be in a short-term continuing resolution. It is unrelated to continued Government financing. It has no impact on the hospital insurance trust fund. It does not protect and preserve Medicare, as some of our Republican colleagues claim they want to do. It has nothing to do with attacking fraud and abuse. It does not provide seniors with more choices. It does not cut Medicare costs. It simply shifts costs directly from the Federal budget onto the backs of seniors. That is wrong. There is no reason why seniors should be singled out. It leaves all other parts of Medicare untouched. Why? To create the pool of resources necessary to fund the Republican tax break package for the wealthy, provided the Republican majority has their way. This is going to hurt seniors. We do not need to do that. This ought not be done in this bill. This is the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong approach, and the wrong effort directed entirely at those who can least afford it. So, Mr. President, for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this amendment. I am [[Page S 16887]] pleased that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and Senator from West Virginia have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. They have been in the forefront of this legislative effort from the very beginning. I applaud them for their cooperation, their help, and their dedication to ensuring that seniors are protected from unfair policies. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. DASCHLE. Does the Senator desire some time at this point?

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before the day closes, I wanted to comment on yesterday's election results from around the country. I have had the opportunity now to consult with people around the country in many of the States in which the elections were held. I think it is very clear that the country sent a rejection notice to the extreme agenda of the right wing. The message to many Republicans should be very clear: Back off, you are going too far. It is time to work together. It is time to achieve a bipartisan consensus. It is time to recognize that in many of the extreme proposals now being offered by the Republicans the American people have now concluded they go too far. They cannot agree with the Republican direction. Democrats retained control of the statehouse in Kentucky and the legislature in Virginia. We have retained control of the Maine House of Representatives and even made gains in the New Jersey Assembly despite being outspent by more than 4 to 1. In particular, the elections in Virginia and Kentucky are very instructive. The Republican State party in Virginia made this election a referendum on the extreme politics that Democrats have been fighting against. In Virginia, voters called for a halt in the GOP assault. In Kentucky, the Democratic Governor-elect made it clear in his campaign he was running against the Gingrich Contract, against the cuts in Medicare, against cuts in education. In short, he ran against everything that the Republican budget would accomplish--and was affirmed at the polls. Mr. President, this was a victory of priorities over politics, a realization that the so-called GOP revolution is too extreme for mainstream America, a realization that I believe had much to do with General Powell's decision today. In today's Republican Party, moderation is off message. People now understand that the Republican policies we have been fighting on this floor hurt working families and reward special interests. The American people cannot abide a budget that guts Medicare to pay for huge tax cuts. Americans are coming home to the Democratic message of opportunity and fairness. Voters in the States are speaking directly to Republican leaders in Washington: Your cuts are too extreme. We want to balance the budget but Democrats will not let the ends justify the means. We believe we have a contract with the American people, and its elements are ones we have been talking about for 10 months: We will protect Medicare. We are going to invest in our children. We will enhance our educational system. We are going to preserve the environment. We will provide jobs and opportunity for the future. Speaking for this side of the aisle, the results of this election will serve to redouble our efforts in the crucial budget battle ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, it is the hope of the majority leader to begin consideration of the continuing resolution tomorrow at 12, following morning business. It is also the hope of the leader to consider the debt limit extension during Thursday's session. Rollcall votes are therefore expected to occur during Thursday's session of the Senate and a late night session could be anticipated in order to complete the action of these measures.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, so much has already been said about the pending legislation, but, prior to the vote, I want to very briefly articulate my position and urge my colleagues to express themselves in the vote at 3:30 in opposition to the legislation as currently drafted and in support of the Specter motion to refer the bill to Judiciary and report back in 19 days. I say that for a couple of very important reasons. First of all, there are extraordinarily complex issues surrounding this medical procedure that ought to be explored through the normal hearing process. There are medical issues. There is the need to hear from physicians and others on the ramifications of a strict ban on late-term abortions. This is an emergency medical procedure reserved for cases where the life and health of the mother could be endangered or where severe fetal abnormalities are a major factor in the decision made by a woman and her physician. Whether or not we can delineate very clearly and legislatively when a doctor should and should not perform that very difficult procedure is something that ought to be explored in ways other than those we have employed so far on the Senate floor. So, clearly there are medical issues that this debate simply does not allow us to discuss and consider adequately prior to making a fundamental decision about the legality or justifiability of this procedure in various cases. Second, there are constitutional issues. As the distinguished Senator from California and others have laid out very clearly, this is a challenge to the fundamental decision made in Roe versus Wade. Decisions relating to whether or not States ought to have the ability to restrict late-term abortions in cases where the life and health of the mother is endangered--that, to me, is a question that ought to be pursued much more carefully, much more deliberately, much more clearly than we have done in the debate in the last couple of days. Finally, there are legal issues. This bill would criminalize a medical procedure for the first time. There ought not be any mistake about that. It would be an unprecedented intrusion by Congress into the practice of medicine. If a doctor is convinced it is an emergency procedure needed to save the life of the mother, he can use that affirmative defense only in the context of a criminal prosecution. Should doctors be prosecuted for saving a woman's life? I do not think so. In an emergency situation, do we want doctors hesitating to perform life-saving measures because they fear they will face criminal prosecution for doing so? I do not think we ought to put any doctor, or any woman, in that position. So there clearly are situations here where we owe it to doctors, we owe it to mothers, we owe it to women, we owe it to the American people, to explore far more carefully than we have so far the far- reaching implications of this legislation. So, for those reasons if nothing else, this legislation ought to be referred to the committee for very, very careful consideration. Second, Madam President, if the procedure is being abused, then we should consider restricting it. But it is unclear that it is being abused. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation about this procedure. We need hearings to clarify whether or not abuse has ever been documented and, if so, how best to stop it. There have been no hearings in the Senate and only one hearing in the House. Without having had the opportunity to listen to one expert, every Senator in this Chamber is being asked [[Page S 16805]] to make a decision that I do not think they are prepared to make. I am not prepared to make it. I doubt that anyone, regardless of whether they have read the record or not, is capable of deciding today whether in these extraordinary circumstances a woman is going to be protected from life-threatening circumstances, a doctor is going to be protected from criminal prosecution for saving a life, and the rights of all Americans are going to be considered. So let us let the experts give us their guidance. Let us make a considered decision, not a rush to judgment. The motion to refer to the Judiciary Committee is completely reasonable. But if the facts show that restrictions are necessary, we can base our actions on those facts at that time. Let us take time to get the facts and consider the implications. All we are asking is for the bill to be considered in the next 19 days. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much to ask to give the Senate 19 days to consider this issue more carefully, to bring in the experts, to look at each one of these concerns, and make a decision? There is nothing wrong--in fact, there is everything right--with delaying our decision to make sure we get it right. That is what this vote is all about at 3:30. That is why it is so important that the majority of Members of this body now support the Specter motion. And that is why I strongly support it this afternoon. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for a couple of minutes of leader time to respond to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I am very pleased with this announcement. This comes as somewhat of a surprise. But I think it confirms what we have said--that, obviously, having the opportunity to listen more carefully to the experts, to consider more carefully the ramifications of something that is certainly in everyone's best interests, there is an acknowledgment of that on both sides of the aisle. I expect now a unanimous vote. I want to thank him, thank the majority leader, and thank those, including the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from California, for their work on this effort in the last couple of days. I yield to the distinguished Senator from California. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 9; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, that the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to [[Page S 16840]] have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; Senator Graham, 20 minutes; Senator Hatch, 10 minutes; and Senator Bingaman, 60 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks I am about to make.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to extend warmest 80th birthday wishes to a stalwart of the trade union movement--Moe Biller, president of the American Postal Workers Union. Moe was born November 5, 1915, in New York City, where he graduated with honors from Seward Park High School. After attending City College of New York, he served in the Army's Adjutant General Corps from 1943 to 1945. He began his professional career as a postal clerk in New York City in 1937. After returning from the service, Moe recognized the strength and importance of the union. He became active in the New York area, where he was elected to many union positions of trust and leadership. At various times, he has held virtually all leadership positions within his own union, and has been elected to the executive council of the AFL-CIO, the organization's policy-setting body. He is also executive vice president of the AFL-CIO Public Employee Department. In the military, the highest accolade that can be given to a commanding officer is that he was a soldier's general. For his leadership, Moe Biller has been known as a member's leader. In New York's sometimes tumultuous labor history, Moe never let his members down; and, in turn, they have always given him their confidence and support. He has not failed them at the bargaining table, and he has never been afraid to lead. He has always been a strong, effective, powerful voice for working men and women. It was not always easy. Recognizing the winds of change, Moe was a key player in the committee that brought the merger of five predecessor unions into what is now the APWU. Beyond dealing with employers, Moe Biller has also served the interests of his members in the society at large and worked to extend the reach of the union to those who were sometimes excluded. He has been active in many outreach organizations, especially Cornell University's Trade Union Women Studies Program and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. Moe has also gone beyond the union movement to serve others. Among the numerous charitable organizations to which he has contributed his considerable talents are the Leukemia Society of America, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, United Way International, and the Combined Federal Campaign. As we wish Moe, his sons Michael and Steven and his wife Colee and daughter Aleesa our best on his 80th birthday, we should all remember he always went the extra mile for his members, his union, and his country. Happy birthday, Moe Biller.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know we are in the middle of a debate. I will not take long. I commend the majority leader for his work and the leadership he has shown to bring us to this point. This legislation is critical and overdue, and we needed to pass it. I think it enjoys broad bipartisan support, and separating it from other issues relating to our agenda, I think, is important. In this case, we were able to accommodate all Senators. I appreciate the work done by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in accommodating these needs. Again, I appreciate the effort of the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Dole, the majority leader, and I had the opportunity to talk yesterday. It was my understanding that we were going to go to the conference. I understand his reasons for delaying the consideration of the conference matters until a later time, subject to discussion with the President. I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to talk about this until this very moment. But I would hope that if we would go to the foreign operations and work through it in good faith, there is no reason why--I know there are some difficult issues out there that we are going to have to address, but I know the majority leader is cognizant of our schedule this evening. I hope we can accommodate that schedule. I will work with him to see that we can work through this bill and deal with the issues that we must confront prior to the time we resolve this matter. This is one of the bills that the President has indicated that he ought to be able to support and sign. But, obviously, there are some troubling issues that we have to work through, and we will do that. With that understanding, I have no objection to moving to the foreign operations legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin sent a letter to the congressional leadership warning that a refusal to pass an increase in the debt limit by November 6 would force the Treasury Department to take extraordinary actions in the coming days, actions for which the American taxpayers would foot the bill. The Secretary indicated that these moves might include not fully investing the Federal Employees Retirement System, the Government Securities Investment Fund, the G fund, calling back Treasury cash balances held in our depository banks, and suspending the issuance of savings bonds. These defensive actions, regrettably, may become necessary under the circumstances. Some weeks ago, the Speaker of the House suggested that congressional Republicans might find it acceptable for the U.S. Government to default on its obligations if it proves to be useful leverage in the coming budget battles. Unfortunately, these comments, once dismissed as political posturing, now could be prophetic. Mr. President, Secretary Rubin's warnings ought to be heeded. Political considerations should not dictate congressional action on the debt ceiling. The debt limit is serious economic business. It should not be a part of the budget debate. The reputation of this Nation throughout the world would be irrevocably damaged if the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government becomes shaky and suspect. Because this is such a serious matter, I was disappointed to read in yesterday's papers the characterization by the majority leader that Secretary Rubin's credibility and integrity are somehow in question in this debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secretary Rubin is engaged in a critical effort to discharge his responsibilities to the taxpayers by preventing the U.S. Government from defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in more than 200 years. Moreover, Secretary Rubin has made repeated efforts to meet with the Republican leadership and to make other senior Treasury officials available to answer questions and clarify disputed numbers. No one has credibly disputed what the Treasury has said. It seems to me clear that these attacks on Secretary Rubin represent a classic case of shooting the messenger. Meanwhile, there seems to be an ongoing effort on the other side of the aisle to distract the public from the real issue in the debt limit debate--namely, that a default will cause taxpayers to pay for generations to come in higher interest rates on the trillions of dollars in public debt which this Nation must finance in national and international capital markets. [[Page S 16450]] It is my understanding that a meeting between President Clinton and Republican leaders has been scheduled today to discuss this very matter. I certainly hope that this can be the first step in an effort to resolve the dispute over the debt limit outside the political context in which we will debate our very real differences over the budget. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Secretary Rubin's letter to the Speaker be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish the Presiding Officer a good morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would allocate whatever leader time I may need to respond to the distinguished majority leader.