Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me concur first with the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. I hope that this can be a very meaningful and productive debate. I have every expectation that that is indeed what will occur. This is a very important issue, and we will all have much more to say about it next week. Mr. President, we begin the debate today, and I must say I am encouraged by the remarks of the majority leader and certainly by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, because I think it is indicative of the hope expressed oftentimes on the floor that we can deal in a meaningful way on an issue as important as welfare reform this year. I believe that in many respects there are similarities between the Republican and the Democratic approaches to welfare reform, but there are some fundamental differences as well. And those differences, of course, have to be worked out over the course of the next several days. I believe that it is very important, as we look to how to achieve meaningful welfare reform, that several principles guide our way, that several principles determine the degree to which we come together and create the scope within which welfare reform can be accomplished. I believe that it is important to end welfare as we know it, as the President has challenged us to do. I believe that most people recognize, that with all of its good intentions, we have not been able to cope with the myriad problems that we continue to witness and experience simply because the infrastructure we have created is unable to accommodate the solutions that are necessary under the current set of circumstances. The Family Support Act, a major piece of legislation offered at that time by the senior Democratic member of the Finance Committee, later to be chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, was really a landmark piece of legislation in 1988. Now, 7 years later, we realize we have to go even beyond what we did in 1988 with the broad agreement that we had in 1988 that it was a very significant step ahead, a step forward in the progress that we knew we had to make in achieving much of what we had set out to do 30 years ago. Mr. President, I believe that the principles of welfare reform that must be incorporated as we begin to address this issue next week, first and foremost, recognize that we change the infrastructure of the welfare system as we have known it for so long. It is important that we abolish the AFDC system and create in its place an ability for us to put the emphasis where it ought to belong, put the emphasis on work, to make the welfare office of today the employment office of tomorrow, to give people an opportunity, a confidence that they do not have today that they will have the jobs skills, they will have the ability, they will have the resources to get jobs and to keep them. Work First--an emphasis on work ought to be the emphasis of welfare reform. We feel so strongly about the need to make work that priority that we call our bill the Work First welfare reform plan, because that is where the emphasis must be put, on work with skills, with education, with placement, with whatever resources may be required to ensure that people work. Second, we think it is very important that if, indeed, we are going to acknowledge the importance of work, we also acknowledge that it is impossible to ask a mother or a father, but in particular a mother, to go out, to take perhaps a minimum-wage job if there is nothing that we can tell them will happen to their children. If we tell them we are going to force you to take that job out on some hamburger line but we know you have kids 2- and 4-years-old and you are just going to have to leave them at home or you are just going to have to figure out a way to deal with them, my guess is there is not going to be much incentive to go do that. So what we say is somehow we have to come up with innovative ways to ensure that parents will know that their kids are going to be cared for, that somehow those children are going to have to have the ability to be cared for, to be protected, to be nourished, to be trained to do all the things that the mother would do if she was at home with those children and not at work. There is an inextricable link between child care and welfare reform, between expecting a young mother to go out and work and recognizing how important it is that those kids get care. It does not take a rocket scientist to find out that one of the big problems we have in society today is that there are too many kids that do not have any guidance, do not have any affection, do not have any relationship with their mother or their father. Whatever relationship they get, they get out on the street. Look what happened in that brutal circumstance just the night before last at the McDonald's 15 blocks from here. I do not know what happened to that kid. I do not know what caused him to go in at 2 o'clock in the morning and blow away three of his fellow employees. But I would be willing to bet he did not have a father. I would be willing to bet he probably had nothing at home. I would be willing to bet he received no guidance in those developmental ages. I would be willing to bet we lost that kid a long time ago. I hope we do not have to experience that over and over and over and over again. Whether or not that happens, it seems to me, is dependent upon whether or not we provide mothers and fathers with an opportunity, a confidence that we are going to deal with that problem. I think if we can deal with child care, there is a long way we can go in meaningful welfare reform. Third, I believe that it is important to end the cliff effect. If we tell that mother or that father, ``You know what, we are going to force you to go take a job, but as soon as you do, you lose your health insurance, it's over.'' I have to tell you, I do not think there is a whole lot of incentive. I think they are going to do this all over again. I do not think there is any real expectation they are going to want to get a job, if they get a minimum wage job away from their kids and lose their health insurance through Medicaid all at the same time. That ``ain't'' going to happen. So I think we have to recognize that while they are on that job, somehow we have to ensure as well, for at least a while, that they are entitled to Medicaid to see that they have all the incentives to go out and get a job that we can. Next, I think we ought to tell those parents, that mother or that father, unequivocally, ``Look, if you do not go out and get a job, there is a timeframe within which all of your benefits are gone. We're not going to give you benefits in perpetuity. It's over. A 2-year time limit and you don't have access, you don't have eligibility, you don't have an opportunity to get additional benefits for the foreseeable future. That is not going to happen anymore. We are going to work with you. We expect you to sign a contract with us that you are going to get a job. We're going to help you find one. You have to live up to your responsibilities, we will live up to ours. But it is over in 2 years. And if it is over, you are going to work in public work jobs, you are going to work in workfare, you are going to work in some way, but you are going to work, and you are not going to get benefits. It is not going to be like it is today where you can just keep going forever. That time is over.'' So there is a time beyond which we can no longer provide this safety net. Next, I think it is very important that States have the flexibility. That is one thing that I think unites Democrats and Republicans, the need to give the maximum degree of flexibility. I want to see every State work, but there is a big difference between Montana, the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer, and a South Dakota on the one hand, and a California and a New York on the other. There are big differences between New York City and Missoula, MT, or Pierre, SD, or Philip, SD. There are big differences and we have to recognize that, and the only way we can recognize it is to give States the flexibility they need to adapt to a Philip or adapt to a New York City. So we recognize that, and we are going to do all that we can to ensure that States have that flexibility. But what we do not want to do is just simply load up all of the responsibilities in a black box, send it out and say, ``You do it. And we're going to somehow figure out whether or not you have done it 10 years from now, and if there are huge disparities 10 years from now, well, we will deal with it then.'' We are not going to let that happen. We have to ensure that somehow there is a minimal maintenance of effort. Also, we do not want unfunded mandates to the extent potentially you could see them if we do not do this right. A locally elected official not too long ago said this could be the mother of all unfunded mandates if this thing is done wrong. If we just say we are going to give them a block grant, they have to do it. We cut the funds, somebody ends up with all the responsibility and no resources. We are not going to let that happen. So it is very important that we not make this an unfunded mandate, that we provide flexibility, that we do all that we can to ensure that there is some continuity here. So the bottom line, Mr. President, is this: We want to end welfare as we know it. We want to ensure that children are protected, that we create a new mechanism by which children will not be punished, but will be encouraged, that parents will not be punished but will come to a new reality about the limits with which we have the ability to help them. But that during those months within which we can help them, we do all that is possible to help them obtain the skills, get the jobs, be responsible and become productive citizens. Work First, Mr. President, will do that. The Work First plan is a plan that has been the product of, perhaps, more of a concerted effort within our caucus than anything else we have done this year. Let me commend a number of my colleagues for the effort they have put forth to bring us to this point. Senator Breaux, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana; Senator Mikulski, the distinguished Senator from Maryland; Senator Moynihan, extremely helpful and has provided us within credible leadership on this whole issue; Senator Dodd, who knows more about child care than all the rest of us put together; a whole range of Senators within our caucus that have come forth to give us a substantial degree of guidance and leadership and support at each and every turn. So we are very proud of the product, very hopeful that my colleagues on the other side will take a close look at the Work First legislation with an expectation that, partisanship aside, we may be able to find a solution here. We may actually be able to produce a bill like Work First that satisfies everybody's expectations, that ultimately brings us meaningful welfare reform. I think it can happen. I am very hopeful that it can happen in the not-too-distant future. We will take this bill up again next Monday. I look forward to productive debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Under the unanimous consent agreement, as I understand it, there would not be any additional, but that is a finite list.

Mr. DASCHLE. For the information of all Senators, I think it would be helpful if the President might give us the sequence, now, as was just agreed to in the unanimous consent. Is it my understanding the McCain amendment will be followed by the Boxer amendment to be followed by the Kohl amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. And the McCain amendment has 20 minutes with a rollcall and then the Kohl amendment is an hour with a rollcall and then the Boxer amendment is 6 minutes with a rollcall after that?

Mr. DASCHLE. So there will be a rollcall in 20 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond to the original comment made by the majority leader. We have polled our Members, and based upon conversations I have had in the last 10, 15 minutes, I would say we have somewhere between 45 and 60 amendments. Most of our members, at this point, are unwilling to agree to time agreements. The next amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is an amendment that deals with tobacco. I do not know how long that will take. We cannot agree to a 30-minute time agreement on our side. A lot of Members will want to be heard on that issue. For that reason, I guess I am not able to provide any understanding at this point beyond what I have already shared with the majority leader about how long it will take to finish.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not know, I guess I would have to go back and look and see how many amendments are offered every year on this bill normally. I would guess it is somewhere between 80 and 100. I have been able to poll most of our colleagues. Two or three are not here and had specifically listed a number of amendments. But we have been able to tabulate the number. It is at least 41. And to my knowledge, except for Senator Bingaman, there are no Senators on our side who are prepared tonight to enter into a time agreement. So, this bill will be debated for some time to come, if each of these Senators can be accommodated. But that is where we are right now.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think we would be prepared to list them. In fact, they are listed.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is as good as we can do. We cannot list the specific issues in some cases because the Senators have not been prepared to list them tonight. No one told them tonight they had to list exactly what the topic is or the time agreement of which they would have to debate the amendment. All they were required to do is list the fact that they were relevant. They have done that. We are prepared to give that list to the majority leader and go from there.

Mr. DASCHLE. We are going to have to work through the longer list that we had. We have been able to get to the point where I think we have a list of 41.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I can say in all sincerity, it is not my wish to make the job, which is extremely difficult for the majority leader, any more difficult than it already is. He has been fair, and I respect his desire to want to finish this bill. Let me be as candid and as frank as I can. We have had debate on some very consequential amendments in the last couple of days. On the basis of the outcome of those amendments, frankly, a lot of Members on this side believe there ought to be more discussion, more debate. We have been in consultation with the White House, and I have just received a letter from the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Anthony Lake. I only read the last sentence: Unless the unacceptable missile defense provisions are deleted or revised and other changes are made to the bill bringing it more in line with the administration policy, the President's advisers will recommend that he veto the bill. I know that for a lot of Members who would like to see a conclusion to this bill, perhaps there are other ways and other opportunities to debate this issue but for many of our Members this is a very, very critical issue. There are other amendments. We are $7 billion over budget, and a lot of our Senators would like the opportunity to see if we can bring that cost down. They are concerned about the fact that this is $7 billion more than the administration requested. And while I am somewhat apologetic for the fact that we are having a debate here at 11:30 at night, just in the last 20 minutes I have asked my staff to share with me what has happened in past years. In 1989, we spent 7 days and 105 amendments on this bill; in 1990, it was 105 amendments; in 1992, we spent 5 days with 87 amendments; in 1993, 5 days and 105 amendments; last year we spent 5 days on this bill with 123 amendments. We have been on this bill for a couple half days, and then yesterday virtually for the whole day, and today. And so, Mr. President, again let me reiterate it is not my desire to complicate the life of the majority leader, but I must say in all honesty that we have some real serious problems with this bill. There are a lot of Senators who believe that we ought to debate it a lot longer--I am not suggesting necessarily a filibuster, but they believe there are some very significant issues that still have not been addressed to our satisfaction. So we are not inclined at this point, frankly, to want to accommodate the majority leader, as much as I would like to personally, because of the concerns that people have for the legislation. And that is as frank an answer as I can give the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. We would not be prepared to go to third reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just clarify, that is as finite a list--I do not think we would be prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement because, frankly, we cannot even reach a couple Senators whose other amendments may or may not be added to that list. But I wanted to accommodate the majority leader as best as I could and to give him the most accurate information. Having had the consultations I have had with virtually all of the Members of our caucus--there were some we could not talk to, could not reach--61 is my best estimate. But I would want to protect Members that I have not had the opportunity to talk with, so I would not be prepared tonight to enter into any agreement that would preclude others from, who were originally protected from being protected after this list had been submitted. Mr. President, I made reference to the letter from Mr. Lake. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, given that, I will use my leader time, and Senator Dole and I will have an opportunity to go off the floor and talk. I will yield to the Senator from Maryland, and following that, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, for remarks regarding the Work First welfare reform plan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that my leader time be extended by an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I seek the floor using my leader time to make a statement unrelated to the bill. If I can do that and then return to the bill just as soon as we complete the statements, I prefer to do that. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Maine. [[Page S 11283]]

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Maine for his courtesy.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Michigan for the time. Mr. President, I want to also thank him for offering this amendment, and I commend Senators Exon, Bingaman and Glenn for cosponsoring it. I believe that the vote on this amendment may be one of the most critical votes that we cast this year. There are many provisions in this bill that I, along with many of the people on this side of the aisle--and I suspect beyond the beltway--strongly oppose. However, perhaps the most objectionable provisions in this bill--and potentially the most damaging to the long-term security interests of the United States--are those calling for the United States to deploy multiple-site national missile defenses by the year 2003. As Senator Levin and others have already pointed out, committing this country to deploying a multisite national missile defense system at this time would have very damaging consequences for our national security. The Levin amendment would retain the strategic policies that have kept this country safe now for a half century. I strongly support the Levin amendment for several reasons. First, I am concerned that any effort by the United States to deploy theater missile defenses could jeopardize several important treaties negotiated under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. For instance, the provisions could hold up implementation of [[Page S 11279]] the START Treaty; imperil Russian ratification of the START II Treaty, which requires Russia and the United States, as everyone here knows, to reduce their long-range nuclear weapons from 8,500 to 3,500; and possibly impact the conventional forces in Europe Treaty, which calls for the reduction of heavy weapons, such as tanks and combat aircraft throughout NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. Second, I am concerned that deployment of national missile defenses in the United States could undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts. For instance, China could withhold support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty if the United States violates or renegotiates the ABM Treaty. Needless to say, Chinese resistance to the CTB could induce other regional powers to follow suit, thus eroding support for the Nonproliferation Treaty. Moreover, deployment of theater missile defenses would make other nuclear countries, like China, Britain, and France, less willing to enter into future nuclear reduction treaties. Third, as has been pointed out several times during this debate, nothing in the treaty precludes the Department of Defense and the Ballistic Missile Defense Office from conducting the program as currently planned for at least the next year or two. Let me repeat that. The ABM Treaty will not constrain our ballistic missile defense efforts for at least the next year or two. Therefore, we have ample time to weigh the threats this Nation faces and debate the appropriate response. We need not march off precipitously on a path that leads us to unilateral abrogation of one treaty, and the probable breaking of several others. Mr. President, let me make it clear, I am not saying that we should never consider making changes to the ABM Treaty or any other treaty. Circumstances change and security requirements must be modified accordingly. Even the Constitution, the greatest document drafted by this country, has been modified 26 times. What I am saying is that this is neither the time nor the manner to modify the treaty. For all these reasons, I strongly support the Levin amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield such time as I have remaining to the author of the amendment, the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am prepared to speak, but if the Senator has been on the floor, I am happy to defer to her.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the manager of the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. ``On or in relation to'' would include a motion to table on each amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to consult with a number of our colleagues, and we find that this unanimous- consent agreement is agreeable, and we would like to proceed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the Senator from California. The amendment tracks many years of precedent in the Senate Ethics Committee by clarifying that all cases advancing to the substantial-credible-evidence stage should be the subject of public hearings. At the same time, it allows the Ethics Committee to waive those hearings by a simple majority vote. I regret that some have chosen to suggest this is a partisan matter, for it is not. Furthermore, such statements distract us from the real issue of how the Ethics Committee and the Senate should pursue ethics complaints. I believe the Boxer amendment charts a course that is both warranted and appropriate. The vice chairman of the Ethics Committee and several others have already outlined some of the facts that lead me to that conclusion: First, under the precedent of the Senate and the Ethics Committee, in every major ethics case this century, public hearings have been held. In 1977, a three-tiered ethics process was adopted. Public hearings have been held in all four cases that reached the final investigative phase under this process. Second, the amendment before us today would apply to all pending and future cases that reach the final investigative phase. We must, as the vice chairman of the committee has suggested, consider whether or not there is sufficient reason to stray from that clear precedent in any particular case, including the case currently before the committee. Three members of the Ethics Committee have argued that we should not make such an exception, though, again, I note that the Boxer amendment would allow a simple majority of the committee to do so. The issue before us goes far beyond the specifics of any case. If the evidence in a case before the Ethics Committee has reached the final investigative phase, and if there is not sufficient reason to make an exception for that case, then it is appropriate for the committee to move forward with public hearings. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Finally, I want to commend the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for offering this amendment. I also want to commend my other colleagues on the Ethics Committee. We all know theirs is a thankless job, yet they deserve all Senators' thanks.