Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all know, welfare reform has been one of the most hotly debated issues of this Congress. Two and a half years ago President Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it, and the public has reinforced that message by telling us unequivocally that they want to see this done. The ball lies in Congress' court, and we have a clear task in front of us. The House has set the stage by passing the Personal Responsibility Act almost 3 months ago. In fact, the House felt this issue was so pressing that they included welfare reform as one of their 10 highest priorities in the Contract With America. While many of us may disagree with the substantive course the House chose to take, they were clearly responding to a mandate from the public to address this issue in some way. It is now the Senate's turn. The Finance Committee has completed action on a bill that has been reported to the full Senate, and I think I speak for all Senators on my side of the aisle when I say that we are ready for floor consideration of this legislation. Mr. President, we had been led to believe that welfare reform might be on the floor as early as the 12th of June. And then we were told by the majority leader that welfare reform would be considered immediately upon completion of action on the telecommunications bill. That bill was wrapped up last Thursday. It is now the 22d of June, and we are hearing rumors that welfare reform may not be considered in June at all, and may not be considered this summer at all. It may be considered in July--but, then again, we're told by some in the Republican leadership that we may not get to welfare until September. Mr. President, the notion that the Senate may put off consideration of welfare reform until September is unacceptable. We are ready. We are ready now. President Clinton challenged us to have a bill on his desk by July 4, not because of politics, but because it is important for the Nation that we fix a welfare system that is not working--not working for those on it, and not working for those who are footing the bill. The public has told us that they view the welfare crisis as one of the most pressing problems facing our Nation today. The public is clearly ready for us to address this issue. And Democrats are ready to address it. The question is, Are Republicans ready? More to the point: Are Republicans serious about addressing this issue? Are they serious about reform, or just serious about rhetoric? The Finance Committee reported a welfare bill on June 9. It is now June 22, and I understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are divided on how to proceed. They are divided on a number of provisions, either included in, or excluded from, that bill. Mr. President, I understand division. And I, too, have concerns about the Finance Committee bill. But the proper forum to address these concerns is on the Senate floor. Bring the bill to the floor and let those who want to offer amendments to modify current provisions do so. Let those who want to add provisions through the amendment process do so. That is the legislative process. What concerns me and many on my side of the aisle is that the welfare bill will be delayed until July as Republican Senators meet behind closed doors to try and work out problems. Then, in July, those doors will still be closed as secret discussions continue. Before we know it, it will be September. Yes, there are problems with the Finance Committee bill. But let us air those problems on the floor and address them through the open legislative process. As for the Finance Committee bill, I too, am troubled by many aspects of that legislation. First, the Finance Committee bill does not solve the problems with our welfare system. It merely boxes up that system and ships it to the States. That is not reform. Second, the Republicans have said that they want to put welfare recipients to work. But, although the Finance Committee bill requires increased numbers of people to be participating in programs intended to move them toward work, it provides no resources to meet these participation requirements. The Congressional Budget Office has said that 44 States will be unable to meet the participation requirements in the Finance Committee bill. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has said that this is the mother of all unfunded mandates. What is clear is that Finance Committee bill is not reform. And it is not about work. In fact, if it is about anything, it is about shipping the welfare problem to the States and--ironically enough--passing the largest unfunded mandate in history. In essence, the Finance Committee bill represents the kind of typical two-step about which the public is most cynical: It says one thing and means another. It sounds, but is actually disastrous. The Finance Committee bill is about rhetoric, not reform. It will reap exactly the kind of results the unfunded mandates bill was meant to prevent, and having it come so quickly upon the heels of he unfunded mandates legislation represents hypocrisy at its worst. It is ironic that most Members put their serious face on when they say that they do not want to hurt children. Mr. President, I want to believe them. But again, it is the difference between rhetoric and reality. The reality of the Finance Committee bill is that some 4 million children will be cut off from assistance. Some 4 million children could be put out on the street. Children should not pay for the mistakes or misfortune of their parents. That is not fair. That is draconian. That is mean. And that is plain old un-American. It is one thing to require that able-bodied people go to work. That was the original intent of welfare: To provide out-of-luck families with a helping hand to get back on their feet. I believe most Americans support that kind of a safety net today. But the Finance Committee plan cuts kids off welfare while doing nothing to help their parents find work. That is wrong; it is unfair; it is shortsighted. This leads to yet another problem I see with the Finance Committee bill. Anyone who has kids knows that one of the real linchpins between welfare and work is child care. It is impossible to work unless you have some means of caring for your children--it as simple as that. Nevertheless, the Finance Committee bill fails to address the child care issue in any serious way. It mandates child care for welfare recipients who are working only until the child is 6 years old. What happens to a 7-year-old? Or an 8-year-old? Or any child that should not be left alone? Beyond that, the bill does not increase funds for child care, so that as the participation requirements increase--requiring a greater population of welfare mothers to participate in the JOBS Program--there is no corresponding increase in funds for child care. If we are to increase the mandate for adults to work, but not provide for a corresponding increase in child care funds to enable parents to work, then we are not really expecting parents to work. Or we are expecting the States to pick up the tab--a sort of unwritten unfunded mandate. Or we are suggesting that young children can be left alone. None of these alternatives are acceptable. So the Finance Committee needs a lot of work. But Democrats are ready to do the work, and the Finance Committee bill does provide us with a mechanism for bringing welfare to the floor of the Senate for debate. If Republicans have problems with their own bill, they should offer amendments to improve it. That is what Democrats intend to do. In fact, we will offer an alternative plan that is truly about work. And so today I urge the majority leader to bring the welfare bill to the floor. It is time the Senate fulfills its obligation to give the American people what they want and deserve: True welfare reform that will move people off welfare and into work, not by punishing children, but by providing people access to the real means to become self-sufficient.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if you look past the headlines and the hype connected to the conference agreement on the budget resolution, I think the American people can get a pretty good sense of who's looking out for whom in the Republican budget. Republican budget writers talked about putting tax money back into the hands of wage earners. Republican budget writers talked about their big tax cuts to fuel the Nation's economic engine. But the only engine this budget primes is the full-throttle expansion of incomes for the wealthiest Americans. The Republican budget does nothing to address the fact that middle-income families have been stuck in neutral for the past 20 years, while many low-income Americans are sliding into reverse. Republican budget priorities will only serve to drive deeper and wider the wedge between Americans at either end of the earnings scale. This country always had, and always will have, the rich, the poor, and the middle class. Like never before, however, these economic groups are pulling away from each other, and it's tearing at the social fabric of our Nation. Every year, families in the top 5 percent in terms of income now make, on average, the rough equivalent of what 16 low-wage families combined struggle to earn in a year. In the past two decades, America's top earners enjoyed an average 25-percent increase in cash income. Down at the bottom, the lowest wage workers actually felt a 7-percent drop in pay over the same period. According to a survey published last Sunday in the Washington Post, no other industrialized nation on Earth has a greater income gap between top and bottom than the United States. And in between, the middle class grows larger in number, but their paychecks are stuck in a rut. Hourly wages of workers with average skills are sliding. The absolute incomes of low- and middle-income Americans are actually below those of people in other industrialized countries that are poorer than the United States. That, Mr. President, is unacceptable. This country was built on the promise of hope that people can, indeed, come up from nothing. That you can work hard from the bottom and eventually reach the top. That you can build a better future for your family through your own honest efforts. That promise is becoming a lie to an ever-increasing number of Americans. The road to prosperity now crosses a bridge that spans further than many Americans can see. Mr. President, Democrats believe in prosperity. We believe in economic progress. We want to help American workers earn more. We want more Americans to be wealthy. We would like more low-wage workers to join the ranks of the middle-class. We would like more middle class workers to join the ranks of the rich. But it seems to me that the Republican budget aspires to no such progress. It seems to me that the Republican budget will punish those Americans now mired in this stagnant status quo, and provide a kind of winner's bonus to those traveling on the fast track. While we don't know yet exactly who will get their hands on this $245 billion tax cut, we do know that the House bill gave over half the tax cuts to the 2.8 percent of families making more than $100,000. It is safe bet to assume that the wealthiest 1 percent will get at least a $20,000 tax cut. That little bonus alone is more than twice the annual income earned by families at the bottom of the scale. And what do we offer to those families who are struggling to move up? Education cuts that hit 65 million children. Student loans that cost $3,000 more per student; $100 billion in so-called welfare reforms, and cuts in the earned income tax credit. And I will not even begin to talk about the harm that will be felt by their plan for Medicare and Medicaid. It is painfully clear where the priorities lie in the Republican budget. And its not just Democrats who have figured it out. According to Stanford economist Paul Krugman: ``Quite obviously these programs would make unequal incomes even more unequal, particularly at the extremes--the very rich and the very poor.'' Frank Levy, an economist at MIT says: We're going through a period in which trade and technology are like an economic natural disaster for the half of the working population that does not have a college degree . . . the last thing you would want to do right now is to have Government make a bad situation worse by extending tax breaks to the rich. Democrats and Republicans agree on producing a budget that comes into balance within a decade. But Democrats refuse to forget the working Americans who must struggle to live their lives, pay their mortgages, educate their children, and provide for their families over that same decade. These are the families Democrats will neither abandon nor betray in the face of this $245 billion gold rush within the just- passed Republican budget. Finally, Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues' attention an op- ed printed in last Sunday's Washington Post, ``America's Tide: Lifting the Yachts, Swapping the Rowboats,'' by Gary Burtless and Timothy Smeeding. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me congratulate our new Secretary for the minority, Marty Paone, and thank him for taking on his new responsibilities. As we all have seen in the last hour or so, he fills big shoes. As Abby Saffold leaves and as the obvious love and affection and respect that Abby has goes with her, we have the confidence in knowing that Marty will fill those shoes and do so just as ably in this capacity as he has in so many other roles in serving this Senate and our caucus in the past. We have the good fortune to rely upon Marty each and every day on the Senate floor. As a result of a remarkable career, he has now gained the respect and the confidence of all of our colleagues in taking on this new responsibility. So we wish him well as he begins. We look forward to working with him in this new capacity, and we know that our caucus and this Senate will be served well by all that he will do as he continues to come to work so faithfully and in such a dedicated way in the coming months and years. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Abby's service to the Senate covers a quarter of a century. Her service to the Congress runs from 1967. When she became Secretary to the majority in 1987, she was the first woman to hold that post in the history of the Senate. The Democratic caucus has been extraordinarily fortunate to have Abby's services for so long. It is no exaggeration to say that Abby has prevented more than one disaster from becoming a debacle. We, who rely on her, know [[Page S 9411]] that much of the Senate operation depends on her knowledge and skill in making certain that the procedural hurdles do not become roadblocks. I believe the entire Senate, not just the Democratic caucus, owes Senator Byrd a large debt of gratitude for the fact that it was his excellent judgment that first brought Abby to the floor staff in 1979 and the caucus 8 years later. I am extremely sorry that it falls to my lot to have to announce Abby's retirement. It is well known that the great American author, William Faulkner, served as the postmaster in Oxford, MS. What is not as well known is why he decided to quit the job after many years of service, particularly at a time and in a place where good, stable jobs were hard to come by. Asked why, Faulkner replied: ``I couldn't stand for one minute longer being at the beck and call of anyone just because he has three cents in his pocket.'' I would not want to think Abby Saffold made the decision to retire because, after 16 years, she could not stand for another minute being at the beck and call of anyone just because they had been elected to the U.S. Senate. But it is a fact Abby has served Senators--and been at their beck and call--for a long time. I believe I state the sentiments of Senators on the Republican side as well as Members of the Democratic caucus when I say that Abby has been unfailingly cheerful and helpful to Senators regardless of party. Abby Saffold's departure is a sad day for everyone in the Senate, most particularly for Senators, who have come to rely on Abby's advice, seek her counsel, and listen to her jokes. Somehow, because Abby served the Senate so well and for so long, we had come to think she would always be here for us. Although many of the men and women with whom she worked elected, and unelected alike, may be better known to the American people than Abby, not many will be more well-loved by those who know her. Few will have a record of service and integrity to match hers. I have been an admirer of Abby's since my first days in the Senate. She has been a good and tireless friend to me and other Members of the Senate. It is with great regret that I say goodby to Abby Saffold today. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it's my sad duty today to announce to my colleagues the retirement of Abby Saffold, who has served as Secretary to our caucus since her appointment to that post by then-majority leader, Senator Byrd, in 1987. Together with the majority leader, Senator Dole, Senator Ford, Senator Lott, Senator Byrd, Senator Thurmond, and all other Senators, I send a resolution to the desk to express the gratitude of the Senate to Abby Saffold for her years of service to the Senate of the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the distinguished leader would yield, it is satisfactory. I think Senators ought to be aware that there is a possibility of votes tomorrow. But like the majority leader, I would like to see if we can resolve whatever differences remain and work through this and hopefully even come up with a way by which a vote would be unnecessary. But as the distinguished leader said, the negotiations are still under way on the House side, and it is unclear when or if sufficient progress would be made to bring the issue to a closure on the House side. So, all we can do at this point is to wait and assume that sometime tomorrow we could bring it up. So, I think the distinguished leader's recommendation is a good one. And I hope we can finally come to closure on it sometime tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand most of the time has expired?

Mr. DASCHLE. Given that, I will use the 5 minutes and whatever additional time I may need by calling upon my leader time for that purpose.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the real disappointment in this budget is that it did not result in a debate between Democrats and Republicans in the conference itself but between the right and the far right, and the far right won. Rather than consensus, it represents confrontation. Rather than accomplishment, it represents missed opportunity. Rather than success, it represents avoidable failure. For many of us, for the country, for the future, this budget represents disappointment. Why? Because it is more extreme in every way than what was originally voted on when we passed this resolution in the Senate--more extreme, more unfair, more unacceptable in every one of the criteria we laid out during the debate on this budget several weeks ago. Our Republican colleagues say that they are worried about our children, but what do they do? They gut the very investments that this Nation has made in its children. They say they want to fix Medicare, but what do they do? They gut the program and want us to believe that things will somehow get better. They say they want to get people off welfare, but what do they do? They gut the very thing which keeps people out of welfare and taxes them right back onto the welfare rolls. Why? Not in the name of a balanced budget; not in the name of deficit reduction. The reason they have made these choices is now there for all Americans to see. They want to find a way to pay for a quarter of a trillion dollar tax break, a tax break which in large measure goes to the richest people in America. The problem is that it does so to an even greater degree than the original budget resolution. My colleagues have already stated the facts. Medicare is cut $270 billion, $14 billion more than the Senate bill, the largest cut by far in the history of the program. Medicaid is cut by $182 billion, $6 billion more than the Senate bill. Over 40 percent of the real cuts in this budget come from two programs: Medicare and Medicaid. This extreme budget more than doubled the cuts in student loans. Instead of a $4 billion reduction in the availability of student loans as called for in the original budget resolution, the figure is now $10 billion. It still asks American families to cough up $21 billion in new taxes. And while the Senate version at least--at least--had a sense-of-the-Senate provision urging that 90 percent of tax cuts go to families with incomes of less than $100,000, that disappeared completely in the extreme budget conference report we have before us now. Mr. President, we have had the opportunity to analyze just exactly what this budget conference report will do. We have asked a number of budgetary authorities to examine the figures, and this is the report that we have now been given: The average middle-class family will see $900 in loss to their pocketbooks over the course of this budget resolution. Those making under $75,000 will lose $900. And what about the wealthiest 1 percent of others in this country? They will see an increase of $20,000 as a result of this budget resolution. Mr. President, I think it is very important to look at how this breaks down in terms of the demographics in this country just to see who wins and who loses once this budget resolution goes into effect. Those who make less than $75,000, 77 percent of the American families, as I said, will lose $900. Those in the $75,000 to $100,000 category, 12 percent of the population, will lose $600. Those who fall in the category that most Members of Congress fall in, $100,000 to $200,000, we will see a $200 increase in our income over the course of this budget resolution. That 3 percent of the population whose incomes fall between $200,000 and $350,000 will see a $9,000 increase in their incomes. And, finally, those with incomes over $350,000, 1 percent of the country's population, will see $20,000. Mr. President, the American people are catching on. They are beginning now to understand. The more they see, the less they like. The closer they look, the more concerned they get. And that has been in evidence with virtually every poll that has come out in the last several weeks. The Time/CNN poll, which is probably the most demonstrative of this fact: Which one of the following do you think should be the top priority for Congress in the next 6 months? people were asked, and without equivocation 42 percent said protecting Medicare from the deep cuts that are proposed in this budget are by far and away the most important thing that we could do. [[Page S 9408]] Which of the following budgets do you favor, the Republican plan or the President's plan, the plan proposed by President Clinton? Nineteen percent of those who responded said they would support the Republican plan; 37 percent said they would support the President's plan. Asked whether or not the Republican proposals to reduce Government programs will generally help or hurt various people, 71 percent of the American people said wealthy Americans are going to benefit from the Republican budget as it has been proposed; 57 percent of all of those who responded to this poll said that the middle class are going to be hurt and hurt badly. In poll after poll, Mr. President--the Gallup poll on June 5 and 6, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, again, in the latter part of this month--each and every one have come out as unequivocally as the American people can through the data that has been presented to them, each and every American has said without equivocation, do not do this. You are hurting those very people that you claim to be protecting. You are hurting the future of this country. You are devastating the investments in our people, and you are doing so, as we have seen with this chart, to benefit the people who do not need help at all. Mr. President, this budget will probably pass today. And when it does, it will pass with great disappointment. We can do better than this. Democrats have proposed specific alternatives to do just that. The American people expect more of us than what we have before us right now. Extreme budgets like this do not merit our support. And many of us believe that we can do better. Many of us believe that when the vote is cast today, we have no recourse but to vote ``no'' because we know we can do better. But this is the easy part. This is the blueprint. The tough choices come next. When those tough choices are made, it is imperative that we move from the far right to the middle, away from deep cuts in Medicare, away from gutting education, away from tax breaks we cannot afford, and toward a future we all want. It is not too late, Mr. President. It is now past time to do the right thing. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just clarify the majority leader's understanding as I have stated it, is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object, but simply to clarify what I understand to be the circumstances. Senator Dole, the majority leader, and I have been talking about the opportunity for Senators to discuss the issue of regulatory reform and to do it in the context of S. 343 for the next hour. Then it would be our assumption that we could go back to it again sometime tomorrow and discuss it further. But it is also our understanding that there will not be any amendments offered during this time, to accommodate the effort that is now underway on both sides in good faith off the floor to try to continue to work through some of the disagreements that may continue to exist with regard to the draft that Senator Dole and Senator Johnston and others have been working on. It is with that understanding that I think this would be a very good approach and would offer no objection at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. That would be my hope as well. We have a lot of Senators we are trying to accommodate. This is an important effort. It has been under way now for a couple of weeks. We are so close, it would be nice to finish it and be convinced that it is our best product. Indeed, I think it would be.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader and his compliments for both managers of the bill just passed. This is not an easy piece of legislation, both because of its complexity as well as its controversy. But I must say that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have certainly acted in a very responsible manner. We have had a good debate. As the distinguished Senator from Maryland has said on a number of occasions, it is a debate that I think bears even closer watch and closer consideration as we go through the final stages of passage of this very important piece of legislation. I particularly want to single out the distinguished Senator from Maryland, the ranking member, for his extraordinary work in leading our caucus in this effort and in sharing, as he has, his very valuable insights on a number of the ramifications of the bill and the amendments pending. He did an outstanding job and I deeply appreciate his leadership in this regard. Let me also commend my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, for his advocacy of the legislation. While we differed on many of the issues pertaining to the bill, he, too, ought to be commended for the way with which he conducted this debate. This has been a good debate. I appreciate very much the cooperation of the Republican leadership in ensuring that all Senators have the opportunity to present their amendments and to be heard as completely as they were heard, now, over the last several days. I hope, now, as we turn to the budget conference report, that colleagues will use the time available to us, beginning at noon, to present their views. We will have 10 hours of debate. It is very important that we utilize this time as efficiently and as appropriately as we can. So I encourage colleagues on this side of the aisle to come to the floor beginning at noon to make their remarks and to utilize the opportunities that we will have over the course of the next several hours to express ourselves on this budget resolution. So, again Mr. President, I commend our managers on the bill just passed, and hope we can have a good debate on the budget conference report beginning at noon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act of 1995, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement to nurse practitioners. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of cost-effective primary care to our Nation's most needy citizens. Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year do without the health care services they need, because physicians simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south central Los Angeles and Lemmon, SD. Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner city and rural communities where they live. Fortunately, there is an exception to this trend: Nurse practitioners frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work. Studies have shown that nurse practitioners provide care that both patients and cost cutters can praise. Their advanced clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, many times at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction. Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse practitioners. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under the Federal employee health benefit plan. Recent legislation has required direct Medicare reimbursement for nurse practitioners practicing in rural areas and direct Medicaid reimbursement for family nurse practitioners. Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the Medicaid program and its beneficiaries; there is a broader lesson here that applies to our search for ways to make cost-effective, high- quality health care services available and accessible to all of our citizens. One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of primary and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of our Nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites--in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools. In places like my home State of South Dakota, nurses are often the only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties across the State. These nurses and other nonphysican health professionals play an important role in the delivery of care. And, this role will increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness to one that emphasizes primary care and health promotion. But, first we must revaluate outdated attitudes and break down barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being fully utilized to deliver primary care services and recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying them directly for the services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners provide the access to primary care that so many communities currently lack. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the measure I am introducing today, recognizing the important role that nurse practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals can play in our health care delivery system and the increasing contribution they can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when President Truman addressed the opening session of the conference that met in San Francisco in April 1945, he told the gathered delegates, ``You members of the conference are to be the architects of the better world. In your hands rests our future. By your labors at this conference we shall know if suffering humanity is to achieve a just and lasting peace.'' Neither Truman nor any other realistic person then or later believed that an organization of the international community could, by itself, bring about an end to war. And, of course, the United Nations has not been able to achieve that. But in regretting what an organization has not done, we should not overlook its achievements, and those of its associated organizations. Today marks the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations. It is the only world body which has endured for so long. Commemorative ceremonies are taking place in San Francisco today to mark the occasion. The Senate and the Nation can be proud of the fact that, among the delegates to those ceremonies is a man who was present when the original delegates began to meet, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. It is a tribute to the enduring ideals of public service in our Nation that many of those who served 50 years ago in San Francisco continued in long and distinguished careers of public service. We are fortunate that Senator Pell was able to return after 50 years. The history of the world since the creation of the United Nations has been turbulent The United Nations Organization often has been as unpopular as it has been admired in the United States and around the world. Its shortcomings have been criticized, and its errors have been magnified by those who opposed its creation and their political heirs. Like every organization created and manned by human beings, it is far from perfect. But the same observation can be made about every form of human organization, governmental and corporate, public and private. None are perfect; all can bear improvement. What's significant isn't how far an organization falls short of perfection, but how close it has come to achieving its goals. It is a remarkable fact that in a century drenched with the blood of innocents in wars both large and small, the United Nations has provided a forum in which some of the world community's most dangerous disagreements could be controlled, if not reconciled. Those who argue that the organization is a failure because it hasn't stopped war forget that throughout the long history of humankind, nothing has successfully stopped war. Huge, tyrannical empires like the former Soviet Union successfully curtailed wars among their component states--but that's not a model for peace that any free people can admire. Today, when the painful costs of war in human life, human health, and hard-earned treasure is less visible to us in the fortunate nations of the Western World, it is tempting to suggest that the United Nations' shortcomings are so great, its failures so substantial, that it serves no further purpose that is in the American national interest. There are many voices willing to make that claim. But they are mistaken. In the post-cold war world, our Nation is the only remaining superpower. Our global trading partnerships and our security interests alike mean that American must be involved with the world. It is not in the American interest to unilaterally take on the mediation of each and every conflict that may arise between nations. Yet a peaceful and stable world community is very much in our national interest. There is no body other than the United Nations that can serve as a mediating forum for the disputes and conflicts that inevitably arise among the members of the international community. With all its shortcomings, if the organization did not exist, we would be forced to invent it. In April 1945, when the idea of a world body was taking shape, President Truman observed, ``When Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over the water in the Arkansas River, they don't call out the National Guard in each state and go to war over it. They bring a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States and abide by the decision. There isn't a reason in the world why we cannot do that internationally.'' In the wake of a half-century in which states have repeatedly gone to war, not to the negotiating table, Truman's words sound sadly idealistic. We think we know better. But perhaps it is we who are being foolishly cynical. Perhaps it was Truman, that Midwestern man of great common sense, who understood more deeply what was at stake. He understood that if we did not strive to create a great organization, we would not achieve even a good one. He knew that if we approached the task with less than our ideals, we would reap much greater disappointment. At a distance of 50 years, there is much many of us have forgotten about the times in which the United Nations was forged, and about the forces that made men and women work for its creation. On the anniversary of its creation, it is a good time to think back and remember that we are all charged with the responsibility Truman expressed 50 years ago: ``We must build a new world, a far better world--one in which the eternal dignity of man is respected.'' That is a task every bit as important for our generation as it was for Truman's.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, during a recent visit to Cornell University, the President of the Republic of China on Taiwan, Lee Teng- hui, recently outlined his views about democracy. In his speech, President Lee underscores a number of reasons for the close ties between the American people and the people of Taiwan. I commend the full text of President Lee's remarks to my colleagues' attention and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I would ask the majority leader--I am told we have one Member who is returning at 5 o'clock--if we could move that to 5:15 to accommodate his schedule I think it would probably work a little bit better.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has not only spoken for both of us, but I think for all of us, in expressing our sincere gratitude to Scott. To look at him, you would think he was five when he started, not 27. He still looks young and full of energy and vibrance. And that is the way he conducts himself each and every day. Many of us who have had the great fortune to work with Scott for a number of years have grown to admire him and his professionalism each and every day when he comes to work. It is not just the days when he has to call out each of our names, but it is the long days when he has to read a bill, page by page by page, that we have a great sympathy for him and for the positions he finds himself in from time to time. But I know that all of us express today our sincere appreciation and congratulations to Scott. He epitomizes public service. He epitomizes what we hope to be the real model of public life each and every day. As the distinguished leader said, it is his voice and his persona that people have the opportunity to see and hear each and every time they tune into C-SPAN. Let me also say how grateful we are to his family, because these jobs sometimes take people away from their families more than they should. It is only because we have understanding families, and families willing to support what it is we do here, that we can be here at all. So to Scott's family, and to Scott personally, we say congratulations and thank you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is an important moment. The vote we are about to cast will affect more than one man or one position. It will help dictate the way this Senate discharges one of its most important duties. And I ask each of my colleagues to think about that as we cast our vote. Each of us has been afforded the right to make our case to the American public. That is how we got here. We cannot deny this afternoon the same right to a man who is clearly qualified to be the next Surgeon General. The Surgeon General has been rightly called America's family doctor. And in that capacity he or she is called upon to grapple with some of the most [[Page S 8873]] difficult problems of our day; problems like AIDS, problems like teen pregnancy, problems like substance abuse and breast cancer, problems that are devastating to the American people and to families all over this country. This Senate has talked too little about these problems during the course of the last 5 hours. Instead of focusing on America's future, many Members of this Senate have chosen to focus on the past and, frankly, distorting it. That is regrettable. The distinguished majority leader said yesterday that this is not such an unusual occurrence. Twenty-six times in the last 27 years, he said, nominees have been denied confirmation by filibuster. Well, just moments ago I heard the distinguished Senator from Iowa set the record straight on that issue. Senator Harkin--as others have indicated on several occasions already during this debate--has attempted to correct the record on this and so many other matters that have been misreported or on which only half the facts were presented. The fact is that on every occasion during the 27 years Senator Dole cited, when it was a Republican nominee, that nominee ultimately was approved with bipartisan support. Two nominees were prevented from being confirmed by a filibuster, and both were Democrats--Abe Fortas, who was nominated by President Johnson to sit on the Supreme Court, and Sam Brown, who was nominated by President Clinton for the rank of Ambassador. So the only filibusters that have prevented nominees from receiving a fair vote were Republican filibusters. Let us be clear about that. So the question before us today is not whether Henry Foster is qualified to be Surgeon General. That is the question we will face should we take the next step forward. Mr. President, the question we face this afternoon with this vote before us now is one of fairness. And the American people have made themselves abundantly clear on the question of fairness. The majority of people have said in poll after poll, Henry Foster deserves a vote. And the majority of this body agrees with that sentiment. Are we going to confront the health problems that are devastating America's families and give Dr. Foster the opportunity to combat those problems as Surgeon General? Will we do that? Or are we going to allow partisan Presidential politics to stifle that debate? The question we face right here, right now, is simply that. It is a question of fairness. What message are we sending to Dr. Foster, to the American people who believed in his right to a fair vote? What message are we sending to the people who look up to Dr. Foster as a role model and to all the Americans who need the services of a qualified Surgeon General today if we refuse to extend to Dr. Foster the opportunity given every one of his predecessors? Mr. President, the issue this afternoon is simply one of fairness. What is really being judged here, unfortunately, is not Dr. Henry Foster. For 6 months, Dr. Foster has been subjected to intense scrutiny from the Labor Committee, from the media, and from the American people. And he has passed every test. The only test he did not pass was the litmus test of the far right. What is being judged here is the Senate itself and the way the Senate deals with those who come before us to offer their public service. Henry Foster is an extraordinary physician and leader. If this were not an election cycle, I have no doubt that he would be Surgeon General already, that this Senate would have confirmed him overwhelmingly long ago. Henry Foster is a selfless man who wants to serve his country and is being wasted for the selfish political ambitions of a few. If we prevent him from receiving a fair vote, we will make it even more difficult to attract good, qualified people to public service. And this body, the U.S. Senate, will be judged harshly. Mr. President, I close with this thought: It is the position of this Senator that the process we have just seen is clearly wrong. It is wrong for the United States and it must be stopped. The business of interest groups fanning out through the country, digging up dirt on a nominee, the business of leaks, of confidential documents put out to members of the press, the idea that absolutely anything goes that is necessary to stop a nominee, this whole process must end. We in the Senate have the power to encourage that process or the power to stop it. We have that power by the vote we are about to cast. Mr. President, those are not my words. They belong to a former colleague, Senator John Danforth. Senator Danforth issued that eloquent plea nearly 4 years ago in the defense of Clarence Thomas' right to a vote on his nomination to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas received that vote. He received that vote with the backing of some of the very same people who now would deny that vote to Dr. Foster. And I urge Members, in particular today on this nomination, to put politics aside just for the moment and allow Dr. Foster's nomination to move forward. It is a question of fairness, Mr. President. And the answer-- well, the answer is in our hands. I yield the floor. The majority controls 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand the time allocated to this side has been expired. So, I will use my leader time to accommodate that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection, and I would like to continue to work. I know a number of Senators are prepared to offer their amendments. They are here on the floor. I think we ought to proceed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Dole has laid out his plans having to do with the next piece of legislation, and I know a couple of our colleagues were hoping to comment on that.