[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14-S18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 104TH CONGRESS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin a new session of Congress.
I know all my colleagues are eager to move ahead with the Nation's
business.
In some ways, we face circumstances that earlier generations of
Americans faced as well. At the beginning of our Nation's existence,
after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the former colonies
busied themselves establishing legislatures and drafting constitutions.
It must have been a heady time. Men, for they were all men at that
time, who had been colonial appointees began to see themselves for the
first time as legislators, potential leaders, people who could steer
their States' destinies.
In the State of Pennsylvania, the legislature spent several months
thrashing over the outlines of a new constitution but found itself,
months later, without a finished product.
Meanwhile, the life of the State continued. Citizens woke each
morning, attended to their affairs, transacted their business, and
seemed not to notice that they were without a constitution.
Ben Franklin pointed out the evident danger: ``Gentleman,'' he said,
``You see that we have been living under anarchy, yet the business of
living has gone on as usual. Be careful; if our debates go on much
longer, people may come to see that they can get along very well
without us.''
It is somewhat in this spirit that I approach the beginning of the
104th Congress. We, too, will be judged less by our rhetoric than by
our accomplishments.
Today, I offer the first five bills that my Democratic colleagues and
I will seek to move in this Congress. They are bills that speak to
three critical areas I believe should be the focus of our efforts in
the 104th Congress--economic opportunities for working American
families, the values in our social fabric that bind us together as a
society, and a determination that we end business as usual in all
aspects of Government.
The first bill, S. 6, is designed to be for American workers today
what the GI bill was for American soldiers after the Second World War.
The Working Americans Opportunity Act takes the funds now used for 20
major job training programs and turns them into vouchers so Americans
can buy the training and education they need themselves. In this way,
we can streamline and consolidate nine job training laws to focus more
services and to redirect the funds to the people who need the training
in the first place.
Our limited job-training resources should be directed to those who
will benefit from training, not siphoned off to support the
administrative costs of overlapping, fragmented, and outdated programs.
The GI bill is rightly credited with lifting American productivity,
economic growth, and living standards. It did that by giving all
returning GI's--millions of men and women in the aggregate--the ability
to go back to school and make up for the years they sacrificed to their
Nation's service in war.
It was not only well-deserved reward for veterans. It was one of the
best investments the Government ever made. The GI bill more than repaid
its costs many times over in worker income, in productivity, in
economic growth, in State and Federal taxes, in virtually every other
way.
At the end of the cold war years, we're not facing an army of
returning veterans. We are facing a society that is emerging from a
preoccupation with military spending and the military sciences, and
turning to cope with a new world of technological advance that holds
enormous promise for those who can learn to participate in it.
Our bill, therefore, will consolidate old job training programs and
put money directly into the hands of those who need training, not to
bureaucratic overhead. Americans need the tools to enter fully into the
new technological workplace. That is what our first bill will do. It
will be a workers' GI bill to
[[Page S15]] give those in older industries, in plants that are
relocating abroad, or in regions where people's job skills do not match
employers' needs the chance to learn new skills, make themselves
employable, enter new industries, and move forward with our growing
economy.
S. 7 is the Family Health Insurance Protection Act. It includes the
measures that even the anti-health-care-reform crowd last year said
they wanted. Let us find out if they are being straight or are just
pulling another one over on the American people.
Democrats think it is way past time to act. Not only are health care
costs for ordinary people going through the roof, they are also going
to bust the Federal budget, and we all know who's going to pay for that
when it happens.
It is consistent with the goals outlined in bills introduced by both
Republicans and Democrats and with the vision the President outlined in
a latter to the congressional leadership last week.
Our health reform bill is straightforward and sensible.
It prevents insurance companies from raising rates because you get
sick. Why? Because health insurance is supposed to be a pooled risk.
The insurer, as well as the insured, takes a risk.
Our bill also prohibits refusal of insurance because of preexisting
conditions. The condition of being human makes us all susceptible to
illness, accidents, and bad luck. That is what insurance is supposed to
compensate for, not to profit from.
Jean and Greg Puls of Sioux Falls, SD, know this all too well. Their
10-year-old son, Matthew, has diabetes. When Jean's employer switched
health policies, the new insurer refused to cover Matthew. Jean and
Greg faced a frantic search for an insurer who would.
They were turned down by dozens of companies and were finally forced
to purchase an out-of-State policy that still won't cover Matthews's
diabetes for a whole year.
Jean Puls says that for all the money they have paid into the health
care system, they have been unable to get the simple peace of mind they
seek. And she is right. A system which produces this result is not
right
Our bill requires all insurers to offer Americans one plan of
insurance coverage as good as that which covers any Member of
Congress--Democrat or Republican.
If we deserve it, then certainly so do the people whose tax dollars
pay our wages.
Our bill lets people who are self-employed deduct their insurance
premium costs just like big corporations can. That is the minimally
fair thing we can do for American farmers and self-employed store
owners, accountants, mechanics, and lawn-service operators, all the
millions of people who have taken the real risk of earning their own
income by their own hard work and enterprise. Let them deduct their
health insurance costs, too.
Our health reform bill prohibits insurance companies from hiding
important information in the fine print. We need truth in labeling.
People who market beef have to tell consumers how many grams of fat
their product contains. It is about time the insurance companies told
us what their fat content is. Why should not Americans get the same
accountability from health insurers as we expect from food producers
and toy manufacturers?
Our health reform bill calls for standard forms. An inflamed appendix
taken out in Seattle doesn't demand anything different than an inflamed
appendix removed in Boston.
And it will not be done better or worse because of the shape of a
payment form. Meanwhile, we are talking about millions of wasted hours
by doctors, nurses, administrative staff, and, not least, the American
taxpayer just to get reimbursed for the health care our premiums are
supposed to cover.
Our health care reform bill just asks the private insurance market to
do what Government is trying to do. Let it get rid of the bloated
bureaucrats. Let it cut the overhead. Let it streamline and serve its
customers, not itself.
Is there any reason that Americans have to fill out more forms,
provide duplicative information more times, fight for longer on the
phone with self-appointed bureaucrats in the health insurance industry
than the people of any other industrialized nation? Is there any reason
that an American hospital has twice as many clerical workers as a
Canadian one? Does pushing paper make sick people get better? Let
health care professionals practice medicine, not administer
bookkeepers.
This bill represents, frankly, a downpayment on the goal of ensuring
all Americans have access to affordable quality health care coverage.
Before we achieve that goal, however, other more difficult issues
will have to be resolved, especially long-term care and the Federal
barriers to State-level reform efforts. The bill we offer is simply a
first step, but I do hope that Democrats and Republicans can again
reflect the consensus these provisions have reflected in the last
Congress and work together to develop compromises on the more difficult
matters.
I cannot--I will not--support the passage of any reform measure,
however, that increases the deficit.
When the majority leader and my colleagues on the Finance Committee
are ready to move forward on the health reforms we present today, we
will have to agree on appropriate offsetting savings to ensure that
every reform provision is paid for over a 10-year period of time.
Health care reform cannot be undertaken at the cost of more unpaid
bills passed along to our children and to their children.
Our third bill, S. 8, is legislation to deal with teen pregnancy and
parents who abandon their children. Our bill does not finance
orphanages. One of our Democratic colleagues, Senator Campbell of
Colorado, has the distinction of actually having been placed in an
orphanage as a child, so he speaks from experience, not dealing in
Hollywood movies. His story is one which could benefit us all. If you
have not had the opportunity to read his biography, I would encourage
you, Mr. President, and others to do so. It is a telling story of a man
who has come a long way, given the very difficult beginning that he had
experienced as a child.
He learned, as many of us now know, that orphanages are not a home.
All too often, they are not even a decent substitute for a home. Even
the best orphanage should never be used to undermine an intact family
relationship.
The Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Parental Responsibility Act,
instead, requires underaged teen mothers to live with their families or
at least find themselves in a supervised home setting if they want to
qualify for AFDC. Children having children is tragic, and the cycle can
only be ended by making sure that parents of these children grow up and
become adults themselves. There may be no sure-fire way to achieve this
but clearly encouraging 16-year-olds to set up homes by themselves has
not proved to be the answer and can never be the answer. They should
stay with their families or in supervised group homes where their lives
have some discipline, some guidance, some routine, some sense of
grounding that will let them escape the cycle of dependency and become
self-supporting adults.
In addition, teen parents should stay in school or go back to school
and graduate. Our bill lets States use bonuses or benefit reductions to
give teen parents an incentive to finish school. Completing high school
is the first step toward self-sufficiency.
I recognize that this does not sound very flashy, but the parental
shortcomings that can blight a child's life--and do blight too many
children's lives today--require serious attention. The real needs of
children demand sound policies, not sound bites.
Our bill also asks States to intensify their efforts to identify
noncustodial parents and require them to contribute to the upbringing
of their own children. States should ensure that their welfare offices
can access other State records such as professional licensing, vehicle
registration, and personal property records. Paternity establishment
laws should also be streamlined.
I am always surprised to hear so much anger vented against young
women as though they have achieved pregnancy unaided. What about the
young men? Where is the heated political rhetoric aimed at them?
What about middle-class men who divorce and abandon their families?
Where is the political rhetoric telling them to be ashamed of
themselves? People--be they men or women--whose
[[Page S16]] actions result in parenthood must accept responsibility
for their children.
So our bill on teenage pregnancy is short on rhetoric and symbols. I
have long been an ardent admirer of Spencer Tracy, but anyone who
thinks a 1938 movie about Boys Town has any bearing on real life
children, real orphanages, or real families in 1995 is well out of
touch with reality.
The bill that will be designated S. 9, the Fiscal Responsibility Act,
will direct Congress to enact legislation this year that will result in
a balanced budget by the year 2003. If a goal is important enough to
justify amending the Constitution, certainly it ought to be important
enough to inspire the real work of deficit reduction starting this
year.
I have supported and voted for balanced budget amendments in the
past, but a balanced budget amendment that sets forth an airy hope in
the place of real promise to balance the budget is not good enough.
To suggest that a balanced budget amendment in and of itself solves
the problem is a copout. It is all show and no delivery. It is like a
young man who gets his first job and his first credit card. He charges
up to the limit, and then he promises, as soon as he has paid it down,
he will straighten up and pay his balance every month. But in real life
we know that does not happen. He pays down just enough to go on another
spending spree, or get another credit card with a new spending limit.
Balancing the Federal budget has been a Republican campaign promise
for so long it is hard to remember which budget they are talking about.
They said they intended to balance the budget in 1980, when they
elected Ronald Reagan. Then they said they were going to balance it
after 1984, conveniently not in the year he was actually running for
reelection. Then they said George Bush was going to balance the budget.
But what does the record show? Unfortunately, it shows the opposite.
In 1980, when President Ronald Reagan took office, he was poised to
present to the Congress a plan to reduce the deficit as he promised. At
that time, when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate, the
national debt was just over $1 trillion.
It was a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, 200 years of
expanding the Nation to its westernmost limits, with all the roads,
rails, bridges needed, 200 years encompassing a Civil War, two world
wars, Korea, Vietnam, 200 years of creating the American dream. Almost
$1 trillion is a lot of money. And we have a lot of country to show for
it. But it took President Reagan a mere 8 years to more than double
that 200 years' worth of debt.
What do we have to show for it? It then took President Bush just
another 4 years to add yet another trillion. So today, Mr. President,
the heirs of that budgetary tradition say they are going to increase
defense spending; they are going to cut taxes for the wealthy; and--
guess what?--they are going to balance the Federal budget. It sounds
like deja vu all over again, to paraphrase somebody we all know--Yogi
Berra.
I support, as I said a moment ago, a balanced budget. So do a
majority of Democratic Senators. The difference between our position
and that of many of our Republican colleagues is that we have already
taken some very tough votes to do it. The last Congress, the 103d,
passed the President's first budget which cut $500 billion in real
defined and detailed spending over 5 years.
We are reaping the benefit of our work now in reduced deficits, and a
healthy, growing economy. The President deserves credit for offering
that budget in 1993 and for fighting for it.
We knew in 1993 that our deficit-cutting work that year would be only
the beginning. Now it is 1995, and we know another installment of
spending cuts is due. We say that we should do what we did in 1993--lay
out the honest, detailed, and real cuts that will bring the deficit
onto a downward path.
The balanced budget amendment, standing alone, simply provides a
process by which something should be done over the next 7 years. Our
bill says, let us start doing it now.
We have to pay attention to the numbers. When you balance your
household budget, you do not do it on the assumption that you are going
to win the Publishers' Clearinghouse Sweepstakes on January 31 so the
mortgage payments will be taken care of. You balance a household budget
by looking at what you earn, what you spend, and where the numbers do
not add up. So let us do some looking.
If we are going to balance the budget by 2003, as the Republicans
tell us they will, it is going to mean we start right now, this year,
and start for real.
There is a very real and expensive price in delay. If anyone wants to
put off any heavy lifting for a year or maybe 2 years, before putting
us on a path to balance the budget by 2003, they're going to cost us
another $160 billion in debt. That is debt on top of the $3-trillion
debt that the Republicans have already given us. It is debt that could
be avoided by reducing the deficit now instead of delaying.
There is another reason for acting now. It is called interest on the
debt. It is a price every American taxpayer pays, whether he knows it
or not, and whether he likes it or not.
If we do nothing about balancing the budget for 2 years, to get past
the next election before taking the tough actions needed to balance the
budget by 2003, all of us will be chipping in an extra $91 billion in
interest to pay for these election-year promises. It is nice to have
people make promises in election years. But nice feelings cannot
justify $91 billion in additional interest on the debt. The price is
too high.
If we wait until 1997 to start balancing the budget, we will pay
another $303 billion--on top of the $3-trillion debt--that could be
avoided simply by acting now rather than later.
The bill I am introducing draws on our past experience with balanced
budget rhetoric and requires that we actually start now, this year, to
do what we are willing to do to make our effort a meaningful part of
the U.S. Constitution.
Last, but in some ways, most important of all, is the bill we call S.
10. That is the Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act. It is a bill
with three titles. It builds on the compromise legislation that was
developed last year, but blocked at the end of the session.
The first title will finally, and without equivocation, extend to the
Congress the laws that cover all other employers in this country. It
will require the Congress to abide by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
which governs time and salary issues, by the Federal Labor-Management
Relations Act, which provides Federal workers the right to bargain
collectively, the workplace safety law, the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, the Plant Closing and Notification Act, the Employee
Polygraph Testing Act, and the Veterans Preference and Retention Act.
In addition, the Democratic congressional coverage legislation
includes the civil rights laws, under which the Senate has been
operating since 1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which has
applied to Congress since it was signed into law in 1993.
This provision is in all essential aspects the same bipartisan bill
that was worked out by Senators Glenn, Lieberman, and Grassley last
session, but which was prevented from reaching the Senate floor by the
objection of a Republican Senator.
I hope and expect our Republican colleagues will join, rather than
obstruct, the effort to enact these needed reforms as soon as possible
this year.
The second title of S. 10 will address the problem of undue influence
from special interests.
Americans learned last year that something like $50 million was spent
to defeat health care reform legislation--not just to defeat the
President's bill, but to defeat any reform bill.
The special interest money groups spent more on stopping this
legislation than on any other single issue, both in terms of direct
lobbying and in campaign contributions.
In the closing days of the 103d Congress, the ramifications of the
crusade to defeat health care reform spilled over into another
important debate: The debate over whether or not to rein in the ever-
present grip of lobbyists on our legislative process.
In May 1993, the Senate passed lobby reform by a vote of 95 to 2.
Yet, when push came to shove, with Congress facing an adjournment
deadline, our Republican colleagues invented pretexts and encouraged
their talk-radio friends to help beat the lobby reform bill. As one of
our colleagues noted, Republican
[[Page S17]] Senators were cheered by lobbyists lining the hallway off
this Chamber after Republicans killed the lobbying bill last fall.
So let us be clear on what happened. There was no grassroots
opposition to this bill. It was not ordinary citizens who wanted to
kill this bill. Far from it.
It was the special interest lobbyists who could not stand it.
I am hoping that common decency will prevail in this Congress this
year. The language I am offering in S. 10 is the language adopted
overwhelmingly last summer by most of the Members still here in this
body.
It includes the provisions the new Speaker of the House, Newt
Gingrich, demanded be incorporated last summer. They are the same
provisions that were negotiated with Catholic charities, Baptist
charities, Jewish groups, and every other religious organization of any
standing in this country, and which were acceptable to all of them,
because they did not threaten any of their legitimate activities.
Title II of S. 10 does not affect grassroots lobbying for
congressional action to resolve legitimate problems. No real grassroots
group wants to kill lobbying reform. The reason for that is simple.
It is because the narrow special interest groups who would be
affected by the bill can buy access, can buy attention, can buy
sympathy, and can buy action with money that real grassroots groups
could never hope to match. True grassroots lobby efforts offer only the
populist power of their ideas.
There is not a genuine grassroots group out there that is not out-
spent, out-gifted, out-junketed, and out-maneuvered by the Washington
lobbying crowd. It is time to redress that imbalance.
Why is so much made of those who feel so passionately about an issue
that they want to allocate private resources to influence national
policy? I suggest that when a foreign-owned communications cartel can
offer the new Speaker of the House $4.5 million for a book, we should
be wary of the real agenda behind that offer. I am pleased the new
Speaker has now realized what an appearance that presents.
Title II of the Democratic congressional reform bill is the
legislation that Speaker Gingrich said he wanted, asked for, demanded.
Then, when it looked as though it could actually prevail, it is the
legislation that Speaker Gingrich asked his supporters in the talk-show
field to fight.
Title II of this Democratic reform bill also puts in the legislation
our commitment to return control of Government to the American people
by outlawing the practice of lobbyists providing gifts, no matter how
seemingly insignificant, to Senators and staff.
The lobby and gift reform provisions are simple. No gifts from
registered lobbyists. No meals, no travel, no taxi cab rides, no sports
tickets, no nothing. They will not need complicated regulations to be
understood. They are that straightforward.
Who is a lobbyist? Anyone who gets $2,500 in 6 months to work the
Congress or the Government. They are required to disclose publicly who
they are, what they earn, who pays them, and who they are talking to.
That is not because we in Congress do not know who they are. We know
well enough. It is to tell the American public who these people are and
what they are doing.
Congressional so-called reform that does not cover goodies from
lobbyists is not reform. It is a smokescreen. It is telling American
voters, it is back to business as usual. You voted for us because we
promised reform, but we know you are going to tune out now. It is
taking the American public for a ride. If we are to ignore those
reforms, the American people are not prepared for a ride of that kind.
As for the seriousness of this effort, the proof of the pudding will
be self-evident. If anyone is sincere about congressional reform, this
is the very least they will need to vote for.
If anyone says they are serious about reform and blocks this bill,
there will be little doubt that they are not serious at all.
I hope that will not happen for many reasons, but most of all, I hope
it won't happen, because our democracy depends upon a higher level of
trust. I hope Republican Senators will not block the gift and lobbying
reform provisions, as they did last year.
Title III of the Democratic congressional reform bill is designed to
reform the way congressional political campaigns operate.
Again, this proposal does not break new ground. It is the bill passed
by the Senate in 1993, but which was filibustered to prevent its going
to conference last year. The bill is designed to do what everyone knows
needs to be done, and that is to cut the money chase out of elected
public life.
Our bill would ban PAC contributions. It would outlaw for 1 year
lobbying of an elected official to whom the lobbyist gave money. It
would ban for 1 year contributions from a lobbyist to a Member who that
lobbyist had contacted on business. It would expand disclosure of so-
called independent expenditures.
It would create a flexible spending ceiling, based on a State's
voting age population. It would reward candidates who agreed to comply
with that spending ceiling with broadcast discounts. Its costs could
easily be paid without asking for a penny from middle-class taxpayers,
for instance by fees on lobbying.
In short, the campaign finance reform proposal would do what everyone
is willing to say should be the law, but which too many are unwilling
to actually see become law. It is time to put that sham behind us, too.
If we are serious about congressional reform, campaign finance reform
is imperative. If we are not serious, the American people will know
what conclusions to draw.
I believe these five pieces of legislation reflect the priorities
Americans expect us to set and respond to the real needs people face.
The extremes have had their say. They have the luxury of certainty.
We who try to work in the center are forced to rely on what we can
learn, what we can know, and to move forward with our best efforts, not
ironclad guarantees, because there are no guarantees in human life.
Each of the bills we introduce today stands for a core principle in
which we believe. None is startling, but I believe each is a step in
the right direction. Together, they are a foundation on which to build.
We live in a tumultuous time fraught with uncertainty for many
Americans. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to start restoring a
sense of economic and personal security for working Americans.
Job training and education as a priority reflects the fact that we
are a society made up of working people, and they must come first. If
we invest in our own knowledge, our own skills, our own abilities and
talents, there is not anything we cannot achieve. Give Americans the
tools, and they will do the job. Our bill is the tool.
Health care reforms reflect the fact that viruses and cancers and
accidents happen to people without reference to their wealth or their
personal insurance status or their job status. Every American's
economic and personal security is at stake. They deserve action, not
excuses.
Our effort on teen pregnancy reflects the commonsense fact that work,
effort, and personal discipline are part of the lives of most
Americans. Indeed, they help shape most of what is worthwhile in our
lives. Government programs ought to reflect that common understanding
in the way they operate, too.
A Federal budget is more than a lifeless symbol of fiscal
responsibility. It is the road map of our society and a reflection of
our values. What are we willing to spend taxes for? Children? Schools?
Jail cells? Special benefits for one or another special interest?
Balancing the budget is not about gutting the government.
It is about doing what government should do: Those things for all of
us as a society that none of us can do individually for ourselves. Safe
drinking water and highways, clean air and a safe food supply, things
that government can do if done efficiently and effectively.
Balancing the budget tells us that we're prepared to pay for the kind
of society we want to be. The budget's shape matters as much as its
size. It is been too big, too bloated, too long. And we want to start
on the road to balancing it now.
[[Page S18]] And, of course, congressional reform is an important
symbol of self-restraint at the government level. If the people elected
to government cannot impose restraints upon themselves and treat
themselves like they treat others, what confidence can Americans have
that government will act in their best interests?
I believe, based on many statements by my Republican colleagues, that
there is much common ground on which we can work, provided that we have
the will to do so.
I want to offer my assurances today that Democratic Senators will
work with Republicans. We always have, and we are prepared to do so
again this year. We want to go to work. We want to do so in a
bipartisan fashion. We believe the American people expect and deserve
as much. I look forward, Mr. President, to a productive year.
I thank my colleagues for their patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to make a parliamentary
inquiry. What is the parliamentary situation as relates to time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour and 40 minutes under the
control of the majority leader. Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes
within that.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure, 1 hour
and 20 minutes used by the majority leader?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 hour and 20 minutes under the
control of the majority leader, and 10 minutes. The Senator from West
Virginia may speak for up to 20 minutes within that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatfield pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 17
and S. 18 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
____________________