Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will ask my colleague to engage on this point. I am very concerned. I hope that cooler heads will prevail in this campaign season and that suggestions like this will be put in the trash bin where they belong, at a time when we are moving forward and achieving deficit reduction numbers, the economy is growing, the gross domestic product numbers and the unemployment levels are moving in the right direction. This is a time to come together. Nobody expects perfection here. Our Republican friends made a huge mistake in their predictions about the 1993 budget reduction efforts. All of us have made mistakes. So why not admit you made a mistake? It was a bad vote. You should have supported it, and you did not. Collectively, we have come together and the country is moving in the right direction. I hope we won't destroy what has been a very significant effort over the last number of months to move the country in the proper direction by reducing this deficit, resulting, I believe, in the kind of gross domestic product growth numbers that we are seeing here today, the unemployment numbers that are moving us in the right direction. This is not a time to try to pander to the American public with the suggestion of massive tax cuts for the affluent, paid for by rosy economic figures that are unrealistic and cuts in the very programs we have fought to defend. Mr. President, I would love to be proven wrong. I would be delighted if next week came and went and all the talk about these wild schemes-- wild schemes--to try to breathe life into a campaign by jeopardizing the American economy and the direction we are going, was shelved and we got back to a more rational, thoughtful approach on how to continue the kind of economic growth numbers we have seen here this morning and offer some real promise to the American people. With that, Mr. President, I will yield whatever time remains to my colleagues from Nebraska or North Dakota.

Mr. DODD. Let me commend my colleague from North Dakota for his comments and observations--I see both my colleagues from North Dakota here--in talking about this news this morning. This is great news. Obviously, when you have the gross domestic product growing at an annual rate of 4.2 percent, the strongest growth rate in 2 years, that is very, very good news for jobs, security, and opportunity for virtually every person in this country. Certainly all of us, regardless of party, I presume, would be celebrating this magnificent news that portends well for this country as we, in the remaining years of this decade, get ready to enter the new century. My colleague from North Dakota points out what the situation was like 3\1/2\ years ago. There are many people here who will count on the American people having a short memory, that they will forget how things were 36 months ago, what we were living under in this country, where we had unemployment rates of 7 percent. Those were the identifiable rates. I argue it was much higher than 7 percent in many parts of the country. The job growth rate, 36 months ago or a little more than that, was at its lowest level since the Great Depression. The Federal deficit was hovering around $300 billion a year, $290 to $300 billion. The dollar was at the highest level in American history. That was the situation a little more than 36 months ago. Where are we today? A gross domestic product growth rate of 4.2 percent, unemployment a little above 5 percent across the country, 10 million new jobs created in a little over 36 months, the deficit at its lowest level in almost a generation. Back in 1992, the President said, ``I will cut it in half in 4 years.'' Even the President was wrong. It has been a 60 percent reduction in the deficit rate in the last little more than 36 months. Private sector job growth has soared, soared in the last number of months. I point out, if I can, the deficit reduction numbers on this chart, which highlight a major issue. We have made a herculean effort over the last several years to reduce this deficit. As my colleague from North Dakota points out, we did not have a single vote on the other side in the deficit reduction plan, not a single vote in either body--the House of Representatives or the Senate--in support of our deficit reduction plan in 1993. Yet we now see what has happened. In 1980, the annual deficit was at $74 billion; between 1981 and 1992, the annual deficit rate climbed to almost $300 billion. In around 36 months we have taken that $290 billion figure and reduced it to $117 billion. In fact, this very number of $117 billion would be zero were it not for just the deficit that we accumulated between 1981 and 1992. And let me say this. We would be in balance today, were it not for the debt run up by the previous two Presidents. Just the interest payments on the debt accumulated in those 12 years has created this $117 billion figure. For the first time in many years, we now find ourselves where receipts of the Federal Government exceed our expenditures but for interest on the debt that was accumulated in those years. It is a tremendous accomplishment, a tremendous accomplishment. It is really the linchpin, I think, in what has occurred in other economic areas, how the markets are reacting, how Main Street is reacting, the fact we have been able to create the kind of growth we have seen. We have had 4 years of deficit reduction. You have to go back to 1840, more than a century ago, a century and a half ago, when we had four consecutive years of deficit reduction. Miraculously, it has happened because a lot of people cast some courageous votes. In fact, the opposition, the Republicans, tried to shut down the Government twice over deficit reduction. I raise all of that because, next week, I am told, we are going to have a proposal made by the other side--presumably by the presumptive candidate for the Republican nomination--that will call for tax cuts of roughly $600 billion. I suspect most of them are going to benefit the more affluent in our country and are going to blow a $600 billion hole in the progress we've made on deficit reduction. What was all the talk about in this previous Congress if not deficit reduction? With 10 weeks to go before election day, all of a sudden we get this suggestion of a $600 billion tax cut coming along, and many people are warning the candidate and others that you would create real havoc in the economy if that were adopted. It is certainly going to make it almost impossible for us to reach the goals that I believed we were all committed to achieving here over the next several years. Of course, where is the savings going to come from in this $600 billion tax cut that will be proposed? It is almost as if we are treating the public like they are fools. Does anybody believe, with 10 or 11 weeks to go before election day, with a $600 billion tax proposal, that it isn't totally motivated by trying to bring some life to a moribund campaign and do so by jeopardizing the economic gains we have made? I think most people are going to see through that. What is tragic about it is that we have Candidate Bob Dole contrasted with Senator and Chairman Bob Dole. If Bob Dole were sitting in the U.S. Senate or were chairman of the Finance Committee, he would ridicule the idea. He would rightly see it as unraveling agreements that we have already achieved to try to balance the budget in 7 years. In fact, all the proposals on constitutional amendments to achieve a balanced budget would appear to be nothing more than a lot of rhetoric. We are being told how these tax breaks may be paid for. One report says that, of the $600 billion in tax cuts, $240 billion would be coming from offsets in increased tax revenues resulting from increased growth--$240 billion is coming from increased revenues from increased growth. Boy, that is a rosy scenario, if I ever heard one. The same people who proposed this insisted a year or so ago that we use conservative economic growth numbers when we start trying to make up for this. Where does the other $360 billion come from if you are going to pay for this tax cut you are talking about? Well, stop me if this sounds familiar to you, but if last year is any indication, it is going to come from Medicaid, education, Medicare, and the environment. That is what they tried last time around. One analysis has a $313 billion cut coming in the Medicare program.

Mr. DODD. I understand. Maybe because we used more time on the welfare debate and we did not start this discussion until about 12:20, we might be able to get an extension.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I need about 10 minutes, but we may end up in a discussion, so we may take a couple of Members' time and combine it, and we may not need quite as much.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. If it is a 5-percent decrease, why should an innocent child pay for the irresponsibility of a parent? That does not make sense. We ought to encourage immunizations, promote and do what we can. The 6- year-old or 2-year-old child whose parent is irresponsible should not be denied nutrition and adequate medical benefits. I suggest, as well, the pending amendment is not germane. I rise to make a point of order that it violates section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I rise in opposition to this amendment, because of my respect and affection for the Senator from Tennessee. But, this amendment would allow for waivers across the board in 16 States without any idea of what is in these waivers. I point out to my colleagues, that the administration has approved a record 67 waivers in 40 States. We've reduced welfare by 1.3 million people. The food stamp rolls are down. We are heading in the right direction. Today, however, we are debating a national welfare reform program. That should be our focus. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would approve waivers to 16 States without any idea what is in those waivers, I think is wrong, with all due respect. We don't have any idea what sort of impact these waivers will have on children, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Tennessee. I am uneasy about this amendment because it would express the sense of the Congress that 16 welfare waivers should be approved, without us knowing what those waivers propose to do. The President already has approved a record 67 welfare reform waivers in 40 States. That's quite a record. Welfare caseloads are down by 1.3 million people, food stamp rolls are lower, and child support collections are up. So a lot of progress has been made in recent years, States are experimenting, and we're debating a national welfare reform bill. I think we'd all like to see the passage of a bipartisan welfare reform bill that puts people to work and protects children. But this amendment asks us to give our approval to 16 different welfare plans without the benefit of knowing exactly what they propose to do. In my view, it should make us uneasy to approve 16 plans without knowing what the impact would be on the children in those States. Mr. President, my understanding is that in one of the State waivers, the State asks to set a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits that would begin in 1987. That's a retroactive time limit. If this is true, a mother who had been off assistance for the last 4 years, but lost her job by no fault of her own, would be told she could have no assistance at all. What would happen to her children? We don't know, because the details of the plan do not accompany the amendment before us today. I understand that another waiver would terminate food stamp benefits if a mother does not comply with the work program. Now I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that kids won't be hurt by welfare reform after the time limit, because food stamps are still there. Not under this sort of waiver as far as I can tell. So Mr. President, I urge caution on this amendment. I also raise a point of order against the bill under the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not disagree with the thrust of what my colleague is saying, that parents should be responsible for immunizing their children. But I am afraid that we are aiming at the parents, but hurting the child. If the child is not fully immunized, to cut off that child from necessary food, medicine, or other resources is, I think, misguided. We need to encourage and promote immunizations, but we do not want to simultaneously deny a child--through the fault of the parent who does not get the child fully immunized--the benefit of the necessary nutritional and medical services they would otherwise get. That is the effect of this amendment. I respect my colleague's thrust, but do not penalize the child. The child would be the one to suffer. In cases where a child is behind in immunizations, that child could lose access to food and SSI for as long as a year while they catch up on their immunization schedule. Immunizations cannot be given all at once, I am told.

Mr. DODD. I respect that. My colleague knows, as well, that innocent children should not be penalized because their parents may be irresponsible. That is the net effect of this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a great public servant and one of the most honorable figures ever to serve on the Federal bench in the State of Connecticut, U.S. district judge T.F. Gilroy Daly, who died of cancer on Thursday, July 14. A true giant of jurisprudence, Judge Daly was a former Army Ranger who stood 6 foot, 6 inches and presided over his courtroom with a regal presence. People commonly described Judge Daly as the epitome of what a judge should be. He was known for his impeccable character, his sense of fairness, and his unwavering commitment to the ideals of justice. Judge Daly brought a wealth of life experience to the court, which shaped his career on the bench. After serving our country in the Korean war, Judge Daly worked as an assistant U.S. attorney, prosecuting organized crime cases in the Southern District of New York. After leaving the Justice Department, Judge Daly held a number of full and part time statewide posts in Connecticut, including deputy attorney general, deputy treasurer, and insurance commissioner. Judge Daly gained prominence as a trial lawyer and demonstrated his sense of justice in the early 1970s when he took an unpaid leave from his State position to defend a young man who had been wrongly convicted of murder. After a 6-week hearing, he won a new trial for his client, and charges against the young man were eventually dropped after a grand jury investigation cleared him. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Daly to the Federal bench. he served as chief judge from 1983 to 1988, and he is credited with modernizing the Connecticut court system and significantly reducing the backlog of cases before the court. During his time on the bench, he presided over a number of high-profile trials and earned a reputation among defense attorneys and prosecuters as a stern, but fair-minded jurist. He ruled on numerous complex and potentially volatile issues involving discrimination in municipal hiring, State police interrogation methods, and public corruption. He was particularly known for handing down harsh sentences to corrupt public officials who came before him. Being a man of such high moral standards, Judge Daly held a particular disdain for anyone who betrayed the trust of the general public. Judge Daly believed that without the people's trust, government cannot function effectively, and his career was dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and protecting the rights of the general public. Judge T.F. Gilroy Daly never lost sight of the fact that law is a public service profession, and his legacy will live on for years to come. He will be remembered as one of the most accomplished figures ever to preside in a Federal court, and he will be sorely missed by the people of Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Stuart, and his four children Timothy, Loan, Matthew and Anna.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Delaware.

Mr. DODD. I will not dwell on this. I do not believe our colleague from Florida was on the floor when our colleague from New York, and the chairman, Senator Domenici, had a chart they raised and talked about legal aliens, the parents of citizens, who under the deeming process--

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is awfully late here. Our colleague from Pennsylvania gets saddled with the responsibility of providing analysis for I do not know how many pages in the bill, and it is not easy, but I think our colleague from Florida, despite the late hour and the fact there are only a handful of us here, is a classic example of offering insight that we probably were not aware of. I hope those who understand this bill would look carefully at the suggestions our colleague has made, because, as I understood it, this is the kind of thing which none of us intended to be the case. We are talking about a category of people who come here legally, who fall into circumstances that all of us have agreed should not be denied benefits. There is no debate about that. I think we have resolved that. I urge staff and others who might look at this, so that tomorrow when we are asked to vote on matters as we gather in the well, there will not be the benefit that those of us sitting here today will have had of the very careful analysis of the Senator from Florida. My hope is, and I say this so our friends from Pennsylvania and Delaware who are here, who have staff here to look at this, so tomorrow when our colleagues gather we will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this, and if it is as our colleague from Florida has suggested, we might adopt that amendment maybe by voice vote, go to conference, and try and resolve some of the matters. They may take an opposite point of view, but I urge that thought be given to that. Most of our colleagues, if they have any sense at all, are fast asleep by this hour. I see that our Presiding Officer is a surgeon. He may make recommendations for all of us here. We all know what it is like when it comes time to vote. We come in, there are papers at the desk, we vote aye or we vote no, we do not have a chance to benefit from the exchanges that have occurred here. I urge our staffs take a good look at this, and if the Senator from Florida is correct, I urge, in the spirit of bipartisanship, that we try and set that matter aside for conference so as not to unwittingly adopt some provisions that I think none of us would agree with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there is also an amendment. The Senator from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, had an amendment he was going to propose, and it has to do with child care and the question of whether or not child care workers could be considered in the work sections of this bill. There was some question as to whether or not we would clear that. As I understand it, all the health and safety standards and quality would apply. If my colleague from Delaware would confirm that for me, we would be more than willing to accept that amendment and move another amendment along.

Mr. DODD. I would be more than happy to clear that amendment on our side. I do not know if the Senator has an amendment and he would like to offer it. If he does, we could remove one more amendment. I am sure Senator Domenici, who is sound asleep, would be grateful in the morning when he arrives to find out that we agreed to one more amendment.

Mr. DODD. Do not get carried away.

Mr. DODD. No. [Laughter.]

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate my colleagues' support for the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DODD. I end on the note I began with here. I hope our colleagues will look at some of the other amendments dealing with children, particularly the voucher proposal from Senator Breaux. I believe we can develop a pretty good bill here. I do not think there is much debate about moving 4 million adults in the country from welfare to work, and I hope we could develop some consensus, particularly on the children under the age of 12. I understand people make an argument for 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds, but when you have 80 percent of the 8.8 million kids on AFDC under the age of 12, 50 percent under the age of 6, it seems to me we ought to find the means to provide a safety net for them, whether in a child-care setting or regarding adequate nutrition. I do not think we need any real debate about ideological differences on that point. While I think we will get a strong vote here, I urge my colleagues to look at these other amendments and judge them on their merits and decide whether or not you do not think this will help strengthen and improve a welfare-to-work piece of legislation that draws us all together in this body, makes it a stronger bill, and one that I think will adequately give the kind of protection to children that all of us want to give. Do not blame the innocent child for the circumstances they have arrived in. They ought not to go hungry without adequate health care and the protection of a child-care setting.