Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would want to consult with our ranking member. It is my understanding we would be able to accept it, but let me confirm that after consultation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time to accommodate my remarks. Mr. President, I was told that the previous speaker just has indicated that it is his view that Democrats do not care about senior citizens. If that is what he said, I am very disappointed. He knows better than that. In fact, the issues in this debate are about finding the best approach for senior citizens, and finding a way to ensure that the commitment we made three decades ago will remain for as many decades as this country exists. These are the issues. I think it is all too convenient--all too convenient--that at the very time our Republican colleagues propose a $245 billion tax cut, it just so happens they also propose to cut Medicare $270 billion. I know there are some who say it is sheer coincidence. I know there are some who say we could come up with the tax cut or the tax break revenue in other ways. But I also know that there are not many pools out there that are big enough to accommodate a tax cut, a tax break of that size. This is the biggest rollback in health benefits to senior citizens in American history. This is the biggest financial transfer from low- and middle-income families to the upper-income brackets in American history. So no one should be misled. This will be the most important vote we will cast during the budget debate. So, Mr. President it is with a great deal of concern, grave concern, that we offer this amendment this afternoon. There is no question about what this proposal in the reconciliation package means for senior citizens. I do not think there is any doubt. Any analytical report will show that this proposal will cause senior couples to pay more than $2,800 more in Medicare premiums and deductibles. We know it will double premiums. We know it will double deductibles. We know it will increase the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67. We know that it eliminates protections for seniors by providing doctors and managed care plans with opportunities to charge seniors more than a Medicare-approved rate. We know all of that. There is no doubt about it. No dispute. No one should be misled. This proposal is going to hurt. And if it were in some way designed to really reform Medicare, and to bring the trust fund into solvency in ways beyond what the Democrats have offered, I could understand it. If we were in a position where it was this plan or bankruptcy, I could see that we might have to suck it in and do it. But we know with certainty that is not the case. The actuaries and the trustees have told us that we need $89 billion to keep the trust fund solvent into the year 2006. Not a penny more. In an analysis of the House plan to cut $270 billion, the actuaries also indicated a solvency date in 2006. Where does the extra money go? Again, no one should be misled. This is not a question about solvency. It is a question about where we go for revenue to pay for the tax cut that we have been debating now for several months. Let me just say, Mr. President, the damage done under this plan reaches beyond seniors. The problem with the health care provisions in the reconciliation package is that 9 million people in rural America could find their clinics closed when they need health care in the future. Under these proposals, we know the hurt will be widespread. We know that in South Dakota 10 to 15 rural hospitals would likely close. We know that these proposals will undermine health care provided in rural America. We know that huge cuts to teaching hospitals will decimate medical research and training programs. We know that up to $100 billion is going to be cost-shifted on to those with insurance in the private sector, according to the Lewin-VHI study. We know all of these things, and more. So this is not just an issue for senior citizens. This is an issue affecting rural America, and every single person with private insurance in the country. And so, Mr. President, I just hope before we cast this vote that no one misunderstands our choices. If we choose to protect the trust fund by ensuring its solvency, to recognize the importance of this issue to senior citizens and their families, to say no to tax breaks in areas where they are not necessary, and to say no to tax breaks to the wealthy, then the choice is very clear. Democrats have presented an alternative that makes sense, that ensures solvency, that assures, in the long term, senior citizens are going to continue to get the best care that we could possibly provide and that protects a commitment that is now more than 30 years old. We owe them that. We ought to adopt this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time has been consumed thus far?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. An hour on this side, and whatever amount of time the majority would care to use.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it would be our intention to devote an hour on this particular amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. In addition to that, Mr. President, I share with the distinguished minority whip that it is our intention to try to utilize the time we have and to avoid second-degrees, if it is at all possible, to allow us more opportunities to offer our amendments. I ask the majority leader, we have shared the first and the second tier with the leader. I am wondering if you might have the list of Republican amendments that you are planning to offer so that we might have the evening to take a look at them. If that could be accommodated, that would be helpful.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that clearly articulates, I think, the agreement that we have. We will have a series of amendments tomorrow morning. I urge all Democratic Senators to be on the floor to offer the amendments and participate in the debate. We will continue to negotiate during that time, with an expectation of having some final understanding of whether or not we can reach an agreement by tomorrow noon. And then we will work from there.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use my leader time.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his comments and associate myself with his remarks. This has been a bipartisan effort over the last several weeks, particularly the last several days. There is little doubt that we all share the same goals. There has been a good-faith effort to reach an agreement that allowed us the confidence that those goals could be met. I want to commend in particular the participants in those negotiations over the last several days, Senators Feinstein, my good friend, Senator Kyl, Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman, and certainly the majority leader for all of the work that he put into ensuring that we would reach this point today. I think it is fair to say we all agree on three shared goals. The first is the most obvious: moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. We recognize that Jerusalem is the spiritual center and the capital of Israel, as well as a special city for those all over the world. Each country, as so many have already indicated, has the right to designate its capital, and certainly our Embassy should be there. Second, we want to ensure that Jerusalem remains an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. That has been a goal articulated officially by this Senate since we adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 in 1990. Third, and perhaps most important in the context of this debate and the negotiations that have taken place, we want to ensure that the peace process moves forward. Let me commend the administration for emphasizing as strongly as they have their concern for that last goal. It is their concern and their desire to ensure that we have the flexibility, that we have the opportunities, that we have all of the tools necessary to ensure that we can reach all three goals--that we move the Embassy, that we can ensure that it remains an undivided city, and, most importantly, that the peace process be allowed to continue. I personally believe that the language that has now been agreed upon will provide the President the flexibility to ensure that the peace process can move forward. Definitely, the whole concept of a peace process is in our national security interest. That peace process must be contained. That peace process has to be nurtured throughout the next several years, and certainly the administration needs to proceed very carefully as we begin to articulate our goals as it relates to moving the Embassy. The administration has concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation. I understand that. I hope that we can find this agreement has adequately addressed those concerns, as well. Clearly, this has to be an effort on which we continue to work with the administration. I am very hopeful that, as a result of the tremendous work that has been done in the last several days, we can build upon our work with the State Department and with others in the administration to ensure that our goals are realized. Let me again commend all of those who were instrumental in reaching this agreement, to ensure a U.S. commitment to an Embassy in Jerusalem, and equally as important, Madam President, to ensure that the U.S. commitment to the peace process maintains the kind of priority that we all have recognized during these very difficult talks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today several colleagues and I will introduce the Livestock Concentration Report Act of 1995. This legislation addresses the deep concern of cattle, hog and sheep producers from across the nation that the livestock industry does not operate in a free and open market. The bipartisan support from colleagues from Vermont to Washington is indicative of the importance of this issue. Livestock producers, especially cattle producers, are receiving the lowest prices in recent memory. Producers can barely make ends meet, let alone make a profit. The farmer's share of the retail beef dollar has also plunged from 63 percent in 1980 to only 40 percent today. Producers face economic ruin at a time when the four largest meat packers in the country control 87 percent of the cattle slaughtered and enjoy record profits. Our legislation calls for a thorough examination of the livestock markets to ensure they operate in a free and competitive manner. We ask the President to establish a Commission on Concentration in the Livestock Industry. This body will consist of six producers, two antitrust experts, two economists, two corporate financial officers, and two corporate procurement experts. The members will be appointed by the President, and the Commission will be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Commission will review the ongoing USDA Study on Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry to ensure the results are representative of current market conditions. Producers are concerned that the data in the study is out-of-date and will not provide insight into today's market. Additionally, the Commission will review the adequacy of price discovery in the livestock markets to ensure forward contracting and formula pricing practices do not unduly bias livestock markets. The causes of the wide farm-to-retail price spread will also be examined. The Commission will report its findings within 90 days of the release of the USDA study. I am very appreciative of Secretary Glickman's support throughout this process. USDA is currently pursuing a case against IBP, Inc., the largest meat packer for alleged anti-competitive [[Page S 15344]] procurement practices. The Secretary has made this issue a top priority, and I look forward to working with him on the implementation of this Commission. This action is crucial for our Nation's livestock producers. Free and open markets are one of the foundations of our Nation and our economy. We as consumers all suffer if markets, especially food markets, do not operate freely. I hope this commission can get to the bottom of the problems that exist in the livestock market and provide answers for us in Congress about the steps we can take to ensure a fair shake for hard-working livestock producers and the Nation's consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today several colleagues and I will introduce the Livestock Concentration Report Act of 1995. This legislation addresses the deep concern of cattle, hog and sheep producers from across the nation that the livestock industry does not operate in a free and open market. The bipartisan support from colleagues from Vermont to Washington is indicative of the importance of this issue. Livestock producers, especially cattle producers, are receiving the lowest prices in recent memory. Producers can barely make ends meet, let alone make a profit. The farmer's share of the retail beef dollar has also plunged from 63 percent in 1980 to only 40 percent today. Producers face economic ruin at a time when the four largest meat packers in the country control 87 percent of the cattle slaughtered and enjoy record profits. Our legislation calls for a thorough examination of the livestock markets to ensure they operate in a free and competitive manner. We ask the President to establish a Commission on Concentration in the Livestock Industry. This body will consist of six producers, two antitrust experts, two economists, two corporate financial officers, and two corporate procurement experts. The members will be appointed by the President, and the Commission will be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Commission will review the ongoing USDA Study on Concentration in the Red Meat Packing Industry to ensure the results are representative of current market conditions. Producers are concerned that the data in the study is out-of-date and will not provide insight into today's market. Additionally, the Commission will review the adequacy of price discovery in the livestock markets to ensure forward contracting and formula pricing practices do not unduly bias livestock markets. The causes of the wide farm-to-retail price spread will also be examined. The Commission will report its findings within 90 days of the release of the USDA study. I am very appreciative of Secretary Glickman's support throughout this process. USDA is currently pursuing a case against IBP, Inc., the largest meat packer for alleged anti-competitive [[Page S 15344]] procurement practices. The Secretary has made this issue a top priority, and I look forward to working with him on the implementation of this Commission. This action is crucial for our Nation's livestock producers. Free and open markets are one of the foundations of our Nation and our economy. We as consumers all suffer if markets, especially food markets, do not operate freely. I hope this commission can get to the bottom of the problems that exist in the livestock market and provide answers for us in Congress about the steps we can take to ensure a fair shake for hard-working livestock producers and the Nation's consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his eloquence and his leadership on this issue. He has spoken as passionately as I have seen him speak on an issue he cares deeply about, and I am very grateful to him for the many occasions where he has come to the floor to speak out as strongly as he has again this afternoon. Mr. President, this is an unusual week. I hope that everyone can fully appreciate the magnitude of what will happen this week. As we speak, the Senate Finance Committee is meeting to discuss just how we will divide up the $245 billion in tax cuts that we have been talking about now for several months. They are expected to complete their work tomorrow. Ironically, tomorrow is the very day the House of Representatives will take up a proposal to cut $270 billion from Medicare in an effort to pay for it. So you have the interesting and very ironic juxtaposition of the Senate Finance Committee voting to cut $245 billion today and tomorrow, and the House voting simultaneously to pay for it by cutting $270 billion in Medicare and ultimately $187 billion in Medicaid, to ensure that we have enough left over. We are deeply concerned, Mr. President, on the ramifications that all of this has; concern for a lot of reasons. Let me mention just four. First, we are deeply concerned, and I could bring back all of the rhetoric we heard last year during the health care debate about closed- door decisionmaking, rhetoric we heard about the concerns raised by many that we did not have an opportunity to discuss in open and public debate all of the very significant and far-reaching ramifications of the decisions being made. Lo and behold, over the last several days, that is exactly what has happened with regard to this tax package. Decisions were made, deals were cut, long-term ramifications considered and explained away without one opportunity for Democrats to be consulted or to participate. That is wrong. Closed-door decisionmaking, Mr. President, is wrong under any circumstances, and it is wrong in this case. We just saw evidence in the last couple of weeks about what kind of deals can be cut behind closed doors, as doctors went in to speak to the Speaker and came out smiling because of the new opportunities they have to avoid responsibility in making the cuts on Medicare; avoid having to come under the scrutiny of those who would ferret out waste and abuse in the Medicare Program. The Speaker made an announcement a couple of days later that he will go after murderers first and he will talk later about what problems there may be with fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, because we may not have enough prison cells. Mr. President, that is wrong. If that is what results in closed door deals, it is doubly wrong. We are equally concerned about the budgetary effect. Everybody has come to the floor, time and again, to talk about what it is we are trying to do with this reconciliation package, what we are trying to do, going all the way back to the budget debate last spring and how important it was we did everything possible to ensure that we reach that 2002 target day. What do we find? Republicans have a choice between a tax cut which exacerbates the problem by $93 billion according to CBO and not achieving all of the goals that we want, or having a tax cut and doing all that Republicans have proposed we do with regard to providing this largess to those who do not need it. What do we find? Almost to a person, our Republican colleagues now suggest that it is important to pass this tax cut, regardless of the deficit ramifications. The $93 billion somehow is explained away. The $93 billion will not be explained away, Mr. President, and we have to address that issue before we resolve this reconciliation matter. Third, as we have said time and again, it is the distribution of benefits that disturbs us a great deal. Providing huge tax cuts to millionaires and requiring working families with incomes of less than $30,000 to pay more is just wrong. It is wrong, and that distribution is something that we will be dealing a lot more with in the coming days and weeks. How is it we can possibly ask working families to pay more, and turning around and giving those who have so much yet another handout in the form of tax benefits? Perhaps the most troubling of all the aspects, Mr. President, is the degree to which Medicare is being cut to accomplish this in the first place. A Medicare cut of $270 billion, $187 billion in Medicaid, all in this ruse that somehow it is those resources that will be used only for deficit reduction, when we know full well that $270 billion is going to be used for the tax cut that has nothing to do with taking further out whatever solvency we can in the trust fund. Bruce Vladeck said in an October 11 letter to Congressman Sam Gibbons: The cumulative effect of the Medicare Part A HI reductions included in H.R. 2425 for FY 1996-FY 2002, offset by the cost of repealing the OBRA'93 provision, would reduce Part A expenditures by approximately $93.4 billion. Based on estimates from the Health Care Financing Administration's actuaries, the resulting year-by-year ``net'' Medicare Part A savings would extend the life of the HI Trust Fund through the third quarter of calendar year 2006. This estimate is based on the intermediate set of assumptions in the 1995 Trustees Report. Mr. President, that says it as clearly as anyone can say it. While the Republican proposal would cut $270 billion, the effect that it will have on the trust fund is the same effect as the Democratic plan which cuts at 89. I do not think anyone should be misled about the real motivations and the real desire on the part of Republicans, understandably, to find a way to pay for the tax cut in the first place. The real impact to real people is what we ought to be concerned about. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota said it so well. They are the most vulnerable. They are the people whose faces we must remember as we make these very important decisions--disabled people, elderly people, children, people who will be left out simply because we failed to appreciate the magnitude of the personal impact that these decisions will have on them. I do not think a soul in the country voted last year to cut Medicaid benefits to those who are disabled so we could give a tax cut to those who do not need it. That is wrong. That set of priorities must be turned around, and over the course of the next several days we will do our level best to ensure that people fully appreciate the repercussions and ramifications of what some on the other side are prepared to do. With that, I yield the floor. [[Page S 15276]]

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a cloture vote occur tonight at 8:30 p.m. and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the second cloture vote, if necessary, occur on Tuesday, October 17, 1995, at a time to be determined by the two leaders, and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in a couple of hours, we will be called upon to vote on cloture on the pending measure. Let me say that I know colleagues on this side of the aisle have different views about the substance of the legislation, but I hope that our colleagues could be concerned about process as well as substance in this case. When legislation comes before this body, we usually have ample time to deliberate, ample time to offer amendments, ample time to consider all of the ramifications of the pending legislation. That is certainly not the case here. I suppose if we had a significant list of legislative items to be considered--a backed up legislative schedule--and we needed to get on with a number of bills before the end of the week or the end of next week, I could understand perhaps expediting consideration of this particular bill in an effort to accommodate that agenda. But that is not the case either. So regardless of how one may feel about the importance of this issue, about the substantive provisions incorporated in the bill, I would urge my colleagues to think carefully about whether or not this is the procedure to which we should subscribe. Frankly, I do not think it is. I do not think we ought to be rushed into passing this bill. I do not think we ought to be forced to come to closure on this legislation prior to the time we have had ample opportunity to consider some of the complicated issues involved. I personally think there is a lot of merit to some aspects of what the sponsors of the bill are attempting to do. Still, I have some very grave concerns about some of the provisions, especially title 3 as it is written. Of course, addressing such concerns is the whole purpose behind good debate and the opportunity Senators should have to offer amendments. So I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture at this early stage in the deliberative process. It is important that we be given the opportunity to deliberate in a fair and open way to accommodate the rights of every Senator, whether he or she be Democrat or [[Page S 15105]] Republican, so I urge my colleagues to vote no on tonight's cloture motion.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to call attention, as other colleagues have done today, to the work just accomplished by the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the legislation these committees produced is every bit as disastrous as we anticipated it would be, and I am concerned not only about the quality of the bill they passed but the process they used to consider this legislation. The plan they passed heaps tremendous additional costs on seniors across this country. And, in particular, it squeezes dry rural America. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will close hospitals and clinics in many parts of this country including South Dakota, and I believe that it decimates medical research and innovation, all in the name of saving the trust fund. Yet, as we have attempted to explain over the course of this debate, what was done in the Ways and Means and Commerce Committees over the last several days has nothing to do with saving the trust fund. The actuaries in Health and Human Services have reconfirmed just as late as last week that we only need $89 billion to save the trust fund. Yet, over half of the savings in the Republican plan comes from part B of the Medicare program, which has nothing to do with the trust fund. Of the $270 billion reduction in Medicare spending, over half of the savings comes from part B. The new costs that are going to be imposed on seniors, cuts in benefits, increases in premiums, increases in deductibles, have absolutely nothing to do with the trust fund. The Republicans decided to cut $270 billion from Medicare before they even saw the trustees' report. In fact, Republicans actually repealed the law, passed in 1993, that dedicated new revenue to help shore up the trust fund. That is why actuaries in the Health Care Financing Administration say that even with $270 billion in cuts that the Republicans call for, the trust fund is solvent only to the year 2006, the same solvency date as one gets from cutting $89 billion from Medicare. That is amazing to me. Despite the fact that the HCFA actuaries confirm that the $89 billion in Medicare cuts that Democrats have advocated in our Medicare alternative accomplishes exactly the same thing in terms of trust fund solvency as the $270 billion, Republicans are still determined to cut huge amounts from Medicare. And so, Mr. President, we have a very clear choice--$89 billion in Medicare cuts, presented by the Democrats as a way to address Medicare solvency with real long-term improvements in the infrastructure of the program, following the recommendations of the Health and Human Services actuaries, versus $270 billion in cuts, which achieves exactly the same level of solvency. This choice certainly raises a question about what the additional $181 billion in Medicare cuts contained in the Republican plan will truly be used for. I think it is as clear as the charts that have been shown on the floor this afternoon. We know what the additional $181 billion is going to be used for. We know that we have to come up with $245 billion in offsets for the Republican tax cut. That is really at the heart of this whole debate. Republicans are meeting this afternoon here in the Senate to come up with a package of tax cuts, largely dedicated to those who do not need tax relief, in an effort to complete this reconciliation package. We know they need $245 billion to offset this tax cut, and there is no secret as to where that money is going to come from. It will come from Medicare. It will come from Medicaid. It will come from increases in the cost to working families who will lose benefits from the cut in the earned-income tax credit. It will come from the education budget, and it will come from agriculture. The American people need to understand where the money for the Republican tax cut is coming from. What is so tragic is that money for the tax cut is coming from people who cannot afford to give it in the first place--impoverished families who have a spouse in a nursing home who will have to sell their farms, sell their homes, sell their businesses in order to ensure that that family member can stay in the nursing home where he or she has been residing. That is just plain wrong. That kind of transfer is not in our best interest and we have got to defeat it when we have the opportunity to do so in the weeks ahead. The process by which Republicans are trying to pass this bill is as problematic as the substance of the legislation. I want to address that issue for just a moment. As we have made clear over the last several weeks, there have been no hearings, there has been no consultation or real effort to reach out to Democrats to try to accommodate our concerns, no analysis provided, no explanation of how seniors, hospitals, or families are affected, and no legislative language until after the committee vote was taken. That fact has not been widely reported. There have been votes taken in committee, but no legislative language. Generally when we go through a markup, we take the bills page by page and attempt, as best we can, to modify the legislation through the amendment process in order to accommodate the concerns raised by Senators. None of that happened because nobody had legislative language or sufficient detail to be able to determine how best to amend the bill. In other words, we have had no hearings, no analysis, no explanation, and no legislative language before a vote was taken on major legislation to radically alter important programs upon which seniors and families depend. But we do know how some of the decisions about this legislation were made. It has been widely reported that the AMA lined up outside the Speaker's office just yesterday and made a decision to cut a deal with the Speaker, and as a result they walked away with the assurance that they would not have to contribute to the Medicare reductions to the extent seniors and other providers would have to. In other words, doctors now, because they were able to cut their own deal with the Speaker, are not going to be required to contribute to this process to the degree that it was originally proposed. Yet, we also know that the Republicans are holding fast to their determination to cut Medicare by $270 billion. So someone else, seniors or other providers, will have to be hit even harder to make up the additional revenue. I thought it was all the more revealing when the board chair of the AMA on the 27th of September made reference to these deals and indicated--and I quote--``The bright lights of public scrutiny can only hurt, not help, delicate discussions.'' The translation is, ``Bright lights and public scrutiny are counterproductive to good deals.'' We are not going to cut a deal if there is public scrutiny and bright lights. That is not the way this democracy should work. Backroom deals may help doctors, backroom deals may spare them sacrifice; but backroom deals away from the light of day can only hurt seniors and cannot do anything to give us the opportunity that we should have had in the first place through hearings, through a legislative process, through a markup with legislative language, to carefully consider important legislation. Seniors and their families were not invited into the Speaker's backroom. Rural hospitals were not invited into the Speaker's backroom. We really still do not know what kind of a deal was cut. That is all the more reason many of us are very concerned about backroom deals. We still, a couple days after the fact, do not know exactly what kind of a deal was cut with the physicians. We are also very concerned about budget gimmicks like lockboxes that supposedly lock in savings from a certain program so they are dedicated only for certain purposes. This is a budget gimmick. We all know all program cuts and all tax decreases come from the same budget. We know in the end they will be able to transfer cuts in benefits to cuts in taxes. Medicare savings will still go to tax breaks for those who do not need it. We also know that the Republican budget expenditure limit target is a gimmick that will cut more and more in subsequent years from Medicare, and take more and more out of the pockets of seniors. Seniors know that this legislation means double deductibles, increases in [[Page S 15106]] premiums, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare and the elimination of important senior protections that have long been part of this program. Mr. President, this legislation presents seniors with a series of bad choices--and bad choices are no choices at all. And these bad choices are created in the name of benefits and tax breaks to those who do not need them. We can do better than this. We can do better than backroom deals. We need to open up this legislative process, allow the light of day to shine on our decisionmaking, allow the details of this bill to be examined and carefully considered as it must ultimately be, if this legislation is going to become law. We can do better. And I hope we begin sooner rather than later. I yield the floor and I note the absence of--I withhold for just a moment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 7:30 this evening, and that when the Senate reconvenes, the time between 7:30 and 8:30 be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, October 9- to 13 has been recognized as National School Lunch Week. It is therefore appropriate to congratulate those who work to elevate child welfare and nutrition concerns on the national policy agenda, as it is increasingly apparent that investments in child nutrition programs today will pay rich dividends in terms of the future health and productivity of our Nation. The National School Lunch Program was signed into law in 1946, not as an act of charity, but as a matter of national security. Shocking numbers of young men had failed their physicals in World War II as a result of preventable, nutrition-related illnesses. The National School Lunch Act was designed to provide access to necessary nutrition for some of our Nation's most vulnerable children. Next June, we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of this extremely successful program. Over the years I have enjoyed working with the members of the South Dakota School Food Service Association, and we agree on the importance of child nutrition and the value of the school meals program. I look forward to our continued work in this area. Last year Congress passed legislation that reauthorized and improved several important nutrition programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. At my urging, as part of that legislation, Congress directed the Department of Agriculture to bring schools into compliance with specified dietary guidelines by the 1996-97 school year rather than the 1998-99 school year, as originally stipulated by USDA. Among other recommendations, these guidelines establish a 30-percent limit on daily dietary fat, and a 10-percent limit on saturated fat. In June 1995, USDA updated Federal regulations to require schools meals to meet the dietary guidelines and conform to the legislation. The school meals initiative for healthy children is a significant reform of the program's 49 year history. In support of this policy, USDA also launched Team Nutrition, which provides training and technical assistance, as well as nutrition education to schools as they strive to incorporate the new nutrition standards into their school meals. Team Nutrition's goal is to improve the health and education of children through innovative public and private partnerships. I'm particularly pleased to recognize a South Dakota school which is leading the way in implementing healthier school meals. Rosholt Elementary School in Rosholt, SD, near my hometown of Aberdeen, is the first Team Nutrition school in South Dakota. Rosholt Elementary will serve as a model as they begin implementation of the healthy school meals policy. Compliance with the dietary guidelines will have a real impact on the health of children who participate in the school meals program, and I commend the Rosholt school and community on its commitment to the health status of its students. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.