Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I guess I probably expected that there would be objection to my unanimous-consent request. I wish to make the case again that this bill is ready to come to the floor but for a legislative rider that is on this appropriations bill which deals with striker replacement. It has no business being on an appropriations bill. There are other legislative bills that will be before this body before we adjourn on December 15, or whenever that occurs, that would be more appropriate for that to be attached. I would also point out that we have voted twice on this issue in the Senate and cloture could not be obtained. Again, I would just for the record repeat for the record what Senator Dole, our majority leader, said on this bill on September 29, 1995. He said, ``I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania,'' meaning Senator Specter, ``and the Senator from Iowa,'' meaning me, ``that we ought to pass the bill on a voice vote. We cannot get cloture. There were two votes, 54 to 46, party line votes.'' That was on the striker replacement. ``So my view is we ought to do it, pass it and find out what happens after a veto in the next round.'' I might also say for the record that I checked with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] before I propounded this unanimous-consent request, and he also concurs that this is the way we ought to do it-- bring the bill up without legislative riders, pass it on a voice vote, go to conference with the House, and work on the legislation from there. So again I wanted to point out that it is really not this side holding up the Labor, HHS bill. We are willing to get it now in 60 seconds, voice vote it through but for the legislative rider that was attached in committee, which, as I have pointed out, is a legislative rider and is not a matter of appropriations whatsoever. If that side is willing to strike that, we can bring up that bill and pass it, as I said, within 60 seconds. As I said, I hotlined this last week and no Democrats objected to it, and unless the majority leader has changed his mind I think he agrees with that process also, as he stated on September 29. So, Mr. President, I wanted to make that point because I feel strongly it is important we move ahead with that bill. It not only appropriates the money for the Department of Labor and for job training programs but also the Department of Health and Human Services to administer the Medicare program, for the Health Care Finance Administration, HCFA. It also appropriates money for the National Institutes of Health and for all of the programs there, for biomedical research, and also the Department of Education, some very important programs and agencies that need to be funded with the appropriations bill. And as I said, there is really no reason why we should not pass it except for the insistence by some that they have a legislative rider attached to it, which, again, I understand the process here. A lot of times people try to attach legislative riders. Sometimes it is done without too much concern, people support it on both sides; they will support a legislative rider on an appropriations bill. But I think in a case like this, where you have a legislative rider which is so adamantly opposed by at least a majority on this side--and I think maybe even a few on the other side--this is no place for that legislative rider. Lastly, Mr. President, let me say that I am glad that both sides over the weekend worked out an arrangement, an agreement on the continuing resolution, and also on the budget. As I have said before, the continuing resolution should not have taken that long since it is only a sense of the Senate anyway. It has no binding force and effect. But I am glad we did agree on the 7 years. I had voted for 7 years for balancing the budget. What I oppose, however, is the manner in which it was proposed that we do it. I still object to the budget that was passed here. That is why I voted against it. And I trust the President will veto it sometime later this week, and then we will begin in earnest next week in trying to work out some compromise on the budget. That will be the important work of the Senate and of the House in the next 2 weeks or so, because that is the budget, that is the money. That is where we sign on the dotted line, so to speak, as to who is going to pay and who is going to benefit in the next 7 years when we do reach a balanced budget. I must say that I agree with an article in the U.S. News & World Report written last week by David Gergen in which he pointed out that ``the lowest 20 percent of the population [in income] would lose more income under these spending cuts than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than everyone else combined.'' As Mr. Gergen pointed out, he said: Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this revolution. How soon we forget that as President, Reagan insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental Security Income, school lunches and summer jobs for youth-- would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the knife. Reagan believed, as he said in his memorable address accepting his party's nomination in 1980, that ``we have to move forward, but we're not going to leave anyone behind.'' This budget that this Senate passed, which I voted against, which is going to the President, moves a few people ahead. As a matter of fact, it is like [[Page S 17508]] Monopoly. It moves them to the Boardwalk. They did not have to pay any rent either. But for everyone else, especially for the lowest 20 percent, it is ``Go to jail'' and ``Do not pass `go,''' ``Go directly to jail,'' because that is where they are going to be kept. This budget pulls up that ladder of opportunity, that ladder of opportunity that I believe my party, the Democratic Party, has always believed in, in making sure that as you make it to the top, as others make it in this country--and there is nothing wrong with making it; there is nothing wrong with being rich and there is nothing wrong with being a success; that is the American dream--but we have always believed, and I have always believed as a Democrat, as an American, that one of the prime purposes of Government is to make sure, when you make it to the top and others make it to the top, that we leave that ladder down there for others to climb. And I choose my words carefully. I say a ``ladder.'' I did not say an ``escalator.'' I did not say something that someone could get on and ride to the top. I said a ladder, or a ramp of opportunity. The ladder is the structure, but individuals have to exert their own energy to climb it. A ramp is a structure, but those with disabilities have to exert the energy to go up that ramp. And, yet, what this budget does is it takes away the ramp and it takes away the ladder. When you cut Head Start, when you cut education as deeply as the budget does, when you cut summer youth training, job training, when you cut education support, student loans, yes, even when you cut Medicare as much as this does and push it all to the upper income, you take away that ladder of opportunity. So, that is why I will fight as hard as I can over the next couple of weeks to make sure that as we reach a compromise--and I understand it has to be a compromise--that we--perhaps I will continue to invoke the words of Ronald Reagan that we should not leave anyone behind, and, no, those seven key programs ought to be left untouched, because those programs really do leave that ladder of opportunity down there. And that ought to be the sentiment that guides the Senate over the next couple weeks. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for several years I had the privilege of chairing the appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. This year, the chair is Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. We had our bill finished in pretty good time, but now it is being held up and there have been various unanimous-consents propounded about trying to bring it up. Last week, we hotlined it on this side, and I am informed that the Republicans hotlined it on their side to bring the bill up without the legislative riders and simply pass it on voice vote. No Democrat on this side objected to that. The objection came, as I understand it, from the other side. I thought perhaps over the weekend and in the spirit of compromise and in the spirit of moving this legislation forward I might try to propound a unanimous-consent request again. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of H.R. 2127, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; that the language on page 21, lines 3 to 10, relating to striker replacement, be stricken; that all other committee amendments be agreed to en bloc; that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senate for bringing this to my attention. I never heard of this, like the Senator from Arizona. I can say, as someone who spent 4 years in the Navy ROTC, 5 years as a Navy pilot on active duty, 3 more years in the Active Reserve flying for the Navy-- that adds up to a lot of time in the Navy--I have an instinctive pride in the Navy. We all do, those of us who served. And I love the Navy. I love its rich history. But I must say to the Senator from Delaware, that if this is true--I just heard this; I went over and read the AP wire report that the Senator had--I say, if this is true, if this is what Admiral Macke said, I would go the Senator one better. It is not that he should be disciplined. Our Commander in Chief, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, which is the President of the United States, ought to bring him to Washington and publicly strip him of his rank and take away his commission in the U.S. Navy. The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President of the United States, has the power to do that. And I call upon President Clinton, if this is true--and I share the Senator's thought--I want to make sure that he actually said that. If Admiral Macke said that, I call upon President Clinton to bring Admiral Macke to Washington, strip him of his rank, take away his commission, and deny him all the benefits that he has accrued as a naval officer to send a signal to every other naval officer that this kind of action, this kind of attitude, will never be tolerated again in the United States Navy. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. It is a sad day for those of us who so dearly love the United States Navy.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2127, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and that the language on page 21, lines 3 to 10, relating to striker replacement, be stricken; that all other committee amendments be agreed to en bloc; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take much time. I knew that would be objected to. I just want to say we had hot lined this on our side and hot lined it on the Republican side. I just want the Record to show that there are no objections to this unanimous consent request on the Democratic side. I will also state for the Record, I repeat from the Record of September 29, 1995, in a colloquy among this Senator, Senator Specter and Senator Dole, the majority leader, when we tried to bring up the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Senator Dole, the Senate majority leader, said and I quote from the Record of September 29, 1995: I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa that we ought to pass that bill on a voice vote. We cannot get cloture. There are two votes, 54-46 party line votes. And he is referring here to the striker replacement votes. So my view is we ought to do it, pass it and find out what happens after the veto in the next round. Mr. President, I just want to point out that these riders that we have on the Labor-HHS bill can be dropped. For example, this week the Republicans have dropped their effort to attach the Istook antilobbying rider to the Treasury-Postal conference agreement, thereby clearing the bill for congressional approval. They agreed to a compromise to the abortion rider on the defense appropriations conference agreement, also clearing it for approval in both Houses. And they dropped all 17 House-approved EPA riders on the HUD-VA conference agreement. So this unanimous-consent request that I propounded--and I also want to state, Mr. President, that I had checked with the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Specter. I am the ranking member on that. I used to be chairman and he was ranking member. I checked with him earlier. He is in favor of this unanimous-consent request, and I asked if I could have his permission to so state that for the Record, and he said yes. Again, Mr. President, I want to point out, on this side of the aisle, we have no objections to bringing up Labor-HHS and simply passing it on a voice vote if these riders are dropped, just as I pointed out riders were dropped from other bills, clearing them for action. With that I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I might ask, Mr. President----

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would like to ask the proponent of the unanimous consent request, the Senator from Indiana objected to taking up the Boxer bill because, he stated, there was an understanding there would be no more votes today. It would seem to me that we could take up the Boxer bill with an understanding we would vote tomorrow, or take it up and add it to this list. I wonder if the Senator would add the Boxer bill to this list to take up tomorrow and we can put a time certain, we can just put an hour of debate on it and vote on it, a half-hour. That would be fine.

Mr. HARKIN. A conference report.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. HARKIN. This unanimous consent was to take up certain bills tomorrow?

Mr. HARKIN. I apologize. If it was hotlined, I apologize.

Mr. HARKIN. I apologize. If it was, I apologize.

Mr. HARKIN. No one contacted this Senator to ask if it was OK to take up these measures tomorrow.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleagues, the Senator from Maine and the Senator from California, in supporting this legislation to have Senators and Congressmen treated the same as all other Federal employees. I agree with the Senator from Maine on everything she said but for one thing. If the majority leader of the Senate wanted this bill up, he could have brought it up tonight. That is the power of the majority leader. If the majority leader wanted this up tomorrow, he could have included it in the unanimous-consent request to bring it up tomorrow, and we would vote on it tomorrow. So let us have no doubt about it, it is up to the majority leader whether or not we vote on this or not and no one else on this floor. With that one exception, I agree with everything else the Senator from Maine said. She was right, as was Senator Boxer, that earlier this year one of the first bills we passed was a bill to make sure that all the laws that apply to other people apply to Members of Congress. We all applauded that, voted for that, that we all live under the same laws. People cannot understand why we had gone so long without doing that, but we did it. But there was one glaring loophole. When it comes to our pocketbook, we want to be treated differently than all other people and all other Federal workers. As the Senator from California said, there are hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who went home today not knowing that they are not getting paid for the work they do. There are others who are not even going to work and not getting paid. But our pay is automatic. It is like an entitlement. We have an entitlement for our pay. No matter what happens, we continue to get paid. We just finished a day of activity here, the last vote of the day. There are five Senators left on the floor. Everybody has taken off. They have gone home secure in the knowledge that no matter what happens, the paychecks we get next Monday will be full. We will get paid for every day that we are here. That is kind of a nice thought, is it not, Mr. President? It is kind of a nice thought to go home in the evening after a long day's work and know that when your next paycheck comes, you are going to get paid. Think about it, think about all those workers, think about our staff people here, think about all the Federal workers, think about the air traffic controllers if you will, Mr. President, who are out there working a very high-stress job, safely guiding aircraft through crowded corridors. It is a high-tense job. It is a job that requires a lot of skill, intense concentration, good judgment and decisiveness. Air traffic controllers put in a hard day's work. Just think, Mr. President, they are going home tonight knowing that next Monday when they get their pay, they will not be paid for the work they did today or the work they did yesterday or the work they did the day before. How do you think that works on someone's mind? These are people like you and me. They have homes, mortgages, kids in school and illnesses. We are very smug around here, are we not? We are so smug around here because nobody can touch us. We get our pay; we do not care what happens. I tell you, I think it is one of the grossest things that is going on today in Congress and in the Federal Government that we can shut it down, throw all these people out or force people to come to work, so- called essential people have to go to work but they are not getting paid. I thought we did away with slavery in this country. They have to come to work, but they are not going to get paid. It is just not justifiable. So I think at least we ought to take up the bill and pass it. It just says if we are not doing our jobs, we do not get paid like other Federal workers until this bill passes. Apply the same rule that applies to air traffic controllers, drug enforcement agents, Medicare fraud investigators, FBI agents, Defense Department personnel--everyone else. Make the same laws apply to us. You wonder sometimes why people in this country are so cynical about Congress. Well, you do not have to wonder too long when you see what is happening now. So smug around here, we can do all this. We do not care what happens. Send all these workers home. Make them come to work. Tell them they do not get paid. I see our distinguished majority leader is back on the floor. I think we ought to take up the bill tomorrow and just pass it. I cannot imagine any votes against it. Who would be against applying the same laws to us as apply to other Federal workers so we do not get our pay the same way as anybody else in the Federal Government until this situation is resolved? When this goes on, I can understand why people are so cynical about the Federal Government, cynical about Congress. All the good that we did earlier this year in passing that Congressional Accountability Act and applying laws to Congress that other people have to live by probably all got flushed down the toilet right now with this kind of action, because people know that we are getting paid. Other people working for the Federal Government are not getting paid. It is not fair, and I think we ought to take up the Snowe bill tomorrow and pass it. I ask unanimous consent, if I am not a cosponsor, to be added as a cosponsor of that bill. I think we ought to bring it up and pass it as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield? It seems funny, since Congress has not applied this law to itself-- that is, Senators and Congressmen continue to get paid but other Government workers will not get paid. They are the ones who have mortgages to meet, car payments, kids in school. Does it not seem fair to the Senator that perhaps we ought to take up the Boxer bill and pass it here, that would say that Senators and Congressmen and the Speaker of the House and everybody else, that we put ourselves in the same boat, that we do not get paid either during this same period of time? Does that not seem reasonable?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is our expert on health care. My question was dealing with the staff right now who are not getting paid in the Senate and the House, the air traffic controllers, and the people who work for the Department of Defense. But we do. I thought we passed a law that says that Congress has to live by the laws that the rest of the people do. You pointed out one in health care. Is it not true also that Congress is not applying to itself the very laws that say that those staff people, air traffic controllers, people working for the Department of Defense, essential Government workers, they do not get paid? But guess what, Senators and Congressmen? We get our pay.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I just heard that even though they are essential workers and they have to come to work, they do not get paid. I then found out that it does not just apply to staffs. All the air traffic controllers out there right now working to guide our aircraft--they are working now, and they are essential, but they are not getting paid. So whether it is our staffs, air traffic controllers, or people working at the Pentagon for the Department of Defense, they are working but not getting paid. I thought we did away with slavery in this country. They have to go to work, but they do not get paid. Now, again, I guess they will get paid later on sometime, but these are people with mortgages, car payments, kids in college, kids in school. They have their bills to pay just like everybody else. But next Monday, when they get their checks, they are going to come up short. However, I think the Senator--I would like to ask the Senator, we do not fall into that category? Senators and Congress are going to get full pay next week when our paychecks come. But staff, air traffic controllers, everybody else, they do not get full pay. What an abomination. I ask the Senator, it seems to me, did we not pass, earlier this year, a law stipulating that all of the laws that we have in this country have to apply to Members of Congress and the Senate? Did we not pass that bill? I thought we passed a bill that said if we have laws out there, they have to apply to us just like everybody else?

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator makes a lot of good points about the people that are being hurt out there and are being affected by this shutdown of the Government. I ask the Senator if he knows something or has heard what I have found out today and that I was not aware of. Right now, because of the shutdown in Government, I understand that essential workers go to work. All of our staffs are here at work; committee staffs are here, Senators' staffs, and Representatives' staffs are here. But I just discovered today that when they get their paychecks next week, they are not going to be paid for any days worked after the 13th of this month. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. HARKIN. I hope that the other side, the Republicans, would agree to bring this up and put ourselves in the same boat as all the other Government workers who are not getting paid and see how long this foolishness will go on if Senators and Congressmen are not getting paid.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. To follow up on my colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota, let me just state that today the Republican leadership has put our country into an artificial crisis--an artificial crisis--which is a very cynical act, and I think a very shameful act. Let us make no mistake about what is going on. The Republican leadership is holding a gun to the head of the President and the whole Government, saying that if they are not able to get their way by cutting Medicare, by putting an additional $130-a-year burden on our seniors, on their part B premiums, they are going to shut the Government down. Let me repeat that. The Republican leadership is saying that unless you let us put an additional tax on seniors of $130 per senior, per year for Medicare part B, we are going to shut the Government down. I do not know what they could possibly be thinking about. The American people have said, very loudly and clearly, that they do not want to cut Medicare. Our elderly are saying, look, we have enough bills to pay, and now you want us to pay more? It is $132 a year--what a ransom; holding the elderly ransom to get their way, and shutting down the Government. Madam President, 50 percent of the elderly in the State of Iowa have an annual income of less than $12,000 a year. Eighty percent of the elderly have an income of less than $25,000 a year. Now they are being told they have to pay an additional $130 a year for Medicare part B premiums. That is the rider that is on the continuing resolution. The President of the United States has said, ``You take that off and we will negotiate.'' He is right. That is nonnegotiable, especially on a continuing resolution. If the Republicans want to put it on legislation and pass it, as they try to do through the reconciliation process, that is fine. But to use a short-term resolution to keep the Government operating is really a cynical and a shameful act. It also really amazes me that Republicans are willing to go after the seniors to raise the money for Medicare before they go after waste, fraud and abuse. This Senator offered an amendment on the reconciliation bill that would have saved billions of dollars by cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It would have provided, for the first time, competitive bidding for durable medical equipment and medical supplies in Medicare. Madam President, I had one of my staff people go to several drugstores in Iowa to get the price of a bandage. The average price, retail, was 17 cents. The same bandage cost the Veterans' Administration 4 cents. That same bandage costs Medicare 86 cents. Why Medicare 86 cents, and the Veterans' Administration 4 cents for the same bandage? Because the Veterans' Administration uses competitive bidding; Medicare does not. My amendment was simply to do what I thought most of my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle speak so loudly about--``free enterprise, capitalism, competitive bidding, that is the way to go.'' Yet, every single Republican voted against my amendment to provide for competitive bidding. I do not know why because we have it in the Veterans Administration, and it works well. But, for some reason, we cannot apply it to Medicare. My amendment would have provided for better computers and software to catch more fraud. But, no, we could not do that. But we can tell the seniors to [[Page S 17030]] pay $130 more a month. But, no, we cannot have competitive bidding, you see. Why is this so important, Madam President? Last year, I asked the GAO to do an investigation on medical supplies, and here is what they found. They took a sample of high dollar claims that Medicare had paid, and they went behind the bills to get an itemized statement. This is going to shock you. I have stated it many times on the floor, so maybe you know the figures already. GAO found that 89 percent of the claims should have been totally or partially denied; 61 percent of the dollars spent by Medicare should never have been spent; 61 percent paid out wasted. What does that amount to? Well, last year, Medicare was billed $6.8 billion for medical supplies--$6.8 billion. If you take 61 percent and say it should have been paid out, you are talking about $4 billion a year. Just take 50 percent and you are talking about $3 billion a year. But, no, no, we cannot go after that, you see. There are a lot of big, powerful medical supply companies in this country making a lot of money on that. We cannot go after that. But we can go after the seniors in my State who make $10,000 a year. So what the Republicans are doing, I think, is a very shameful act in trying to force onto the continuing resolution the $130 more. Last, Madam President, here is another quote. The Senator from North Dakota read some quotes. Here is a quote by Representative Kasich: I do not see the Government shutdown as a negative; I see it as a positive, if things get righted. Congressman Christensen said: If we have to temporarily shut down the Government to get people's attention to show that we are going to balance the budget, then so be it. What are we talking about? Madam President, 800,000--I am told-- Government workers went home today because the Government shut down. Who are these people? Madam President, they are people like you and me. These are mothers and fathers. These are people with children. These are people that have illnesses at home. These are people that have mortgages to pay and car payments to pay, maybe have one or two kids in college that are trying to get through college. These are not some kind of people that are not part of our American family of workers. Yet somehow we are being told they are worthless-- send them home, we do not care. What a hard-hearted, cruel approach to take, that somehow these Government workers who are outstanding upright taxpaying God-fearing Americans who do their job for the American people, that somehow they are not worth anything and they can go home. It is cruel and it is heartless. I think the American people understand that. That is why I hope that we can reason together, get the Medicare off the table, have a short-term CR. We can get together. I add one thing. I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee. I picked up the paper this morning and I found out the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has announced that the conferees have reached an agreement on an agriculture bill, and this Senator has never even been invited to one meeting. What does that say for trying to work together?

Mr. HARKIN. So this is not a recent thing Speaker Gingrich said.

Mr. HARKIN. The early one you quoted was April?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?