[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S700-S704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NEW SOLUTIONS FOR A NEW CENTURY: 1998 DEMOCRATIC AGENDA

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 10 days ago, the President delivered to 
Congress the first balanced budget in 30 years.
  Yesterday we learned that the Federal deficit actually will be gone 
by the end of this year, four years ahead of schedule.
  That remarkable accomplishment was set in motion five years ago, when 
congressional Democrats joined the administration to return fiscal 
discipline to Washington.
  Because we did the right thing five years ago, our economy is 
stronger today than it's been in a generation.
  Our foundation is solid.
  Now we need to build on that foundation.
  For the last six months, congressional Democrats have worked with the 
administration to develop a unified agenda for the American people. We 
talked a lot about what the options were, and what our priorities 
should be. After a great deal of deliberation, we agreed on a series of 
proposals that merit--that really demand--our action this year.
  This morning, House and Senate Democrats met with the President and 
the Vice President and senior White House officials to ratify those 
proposals and begin the process of translating them into action, to 
confront real problems facing the American people with real solutions.
  We call our agenda ``New solutions for a New Century.'' These 
proposals address the most urgent concerns facing the American people 
today. We want to reach across the aisle and work with our Republican 
colleagues to adopt them this year.
  We need to increase the take-home pay of America's families. By 
breaking the wage cycle that continues to pay working women 71 cents on 
every $1 that a man earns. By making child care safer and more 
affordable. And by raising the minimum wage by $1 an hour over the next 
2 years.
  We need to make America's public schools the best in the world. By 
hiring 100,000 new teachers so we can reduce the average class size to 
18 students per classroom in the first three grades. By making sure 
that every school in America is connected to the Internet so that 
computer screens are as common in classrooms as blackboards. And, by 
helping communities repair or replace school buildings that are 
overcrowded or obsolete or downright dangerous.
  We also need to protect our children this year from the deadly 
epidemic of smoking. We need to say that the days when tobacco 
companies can spend millions of dollars to get kids hooked on 
cigarettes are over. From now on, they will pay to keep kids away from 
cigarettes.
  America's families need to know their health insurance will be there 
when they need it, that they can go to a hospital emergency room when 
and where they need to. They need to know they can see a medical 
specialist if they need one. And they need to know that the things they 
tell their doctor in confidence will be kept confidential. We can give 
them that peace of mind this year by passing our Patient's Bill of 
Rights.
  America's families need to be able to plan for their retirement. They 
need stronger private pension plans that are portable and protected. 
They deserve assurances that Medicare and Social Security will be there 
when they need

[[Page S701]]

them. And early retirees and older displaced workers who have no way to 
buy private health insurance on their own deserve the opportunity to 
purchase health insurance through Medicare.
  Finally, we need to make our neighborhoods safer this year. And we 
will. By helping communities create after-school safe havens to keep 
kids out of trouble. And by creating special juvenile courts and 
toughening the Federal penalties for gang violence so that the kids we 
can't reach, the hard-core few who are violent repeat offenders, will 
be locked up for a long time.
  A sound economy, stronger schools, a secure retirement, safe 
neighborhoods. That is the Democratic agenda for America's families. 
They are not sound bites; they are sound policies. They are new ideas 
for a new century.
  Today, we pledge to do all that we can to enact these new ideas into 
law and make a real difference in people's lives.
  We have little time left in this Congress, Mr. President, to deal 
with this and all of the leftover elements of the agenda from last 
year. But let us be clear, we need to finish our unfinished business--
the highway bill, IRS reform, strengthening family farms, and reforming 
our campaign finance system. We need to finish that business and pass 
this agenda this year.

  Our economy is strong. Our foundation is solid. Now, brick by brick, 
we need to keep building to take this prosperity to the next level and 
give people the tools and the opportunities to make their lives better 
in a new century.
  Mr. President, I want to reiterate my gratitude to the Senator from 
North Dakota for assuring that we could allocate the time for this very 
important discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Democratic leader. He has provided 
extraordinary leadership to this caucus and this Congress. The document 
that we developed over time and announced today with the President, the 
Vice President, Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt, and the joint 
Democratic caucuses of the House and Senate is one that I am enormously 
proud of and one that, if enacted, would substantially improve this 
country.
  We come here, almost all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
because we have a passion for public policy and feel very strongly 
about a range of issues and how those issues might affect our country's 
future. While we might have substantial differences in how we go about 
achieving certain goals, I think all of us understand that we sit in 
this Chamber as American citizens in a democracy wanting the best for 
our country. The question is, how do we achieve that? How do we achieve 
the goals that we establish for our country's future?
  Senator Daschle mentioned the things that we have accomplished, the 
things that we have yet to do, the fiscal policy. I can recall, going 
back 5 years to 1993, when we had a very, very significant debate on 
the floor of the Senate about fiscal policy, what kind of policies 
would put this country back on track, heading in the right direction; 
what kind of policies would continue us in the direction that we had 
been moving in with higher debt, higher deficits, higher unemployment, 
higher inflation. So we had a significant debate about it. Those of us 
who felt very strongly that there was a better way and a better 
direction won by one vote--one vote here and one vote in the other 
body. A margin of one vote determined the new fiscal policy for this 
country. It was a tougher fiscal policy. It wasn't words; it was 
action. So it was controversial. For some, it was difficult. Some of my 
colleagues who voted for it are not here any longer; they lost their 
seats in Congress because of it. But it was medicine to cure what was 
wrong in this country's fiscal policy and to put this country on the 
right course. And it worked.
  It substantially reduced the Federal budget deficit. It told all the 
American people that there was a new group of Members of Congress, a 
new President who said there is a better way and a different way, and 
we are going to tackle this fiscal policy and tackle the Federal budget 
deficit and change things. It's very interesting that, because this 
economy rides on a cushion of confidence, when we made that decision, 
the American people were confident about the future once again, and 
when they are confident, they make decisions like buying a home, buying 
a car, taking a vacation, buying a new refrigerator. When they are not 
confident about the future, they don't make those purchases and they 
don't make those decisions. When they feel like that, the economy 
contracts. When they feel confident about the future, the economy 
expands. Because the economy has expanded and because people have had 
more confidence, this budget deficit has shrunk. It is down, down, 
down, way down. We will balance the budget.
  Crime is down, unemployment is down, inflation is down, welfare is 
down. All of the things that are important in our lives about how we 
are doing in this country show signs of substantial improvement and 
show signs that this country is moving in the right direction.
  I want to make one other point about fiscal policy and some of the 
other problems we face. In our agenda, we talk about Social Security--
``save Social Security first,'' the President proposes. And ``save 
Social Security first,'' we propose as a caucus. Some wring their hands 
every day of the week about Social Security. Some never liked it in the 
first place. Some think it doesn't work and they wring their hands and 
say, ``Woe, what are we to do with Social Security?''
  I want them to understand, as many Americans do, that the Social 
Security problem that exists is born of enormous success. We would not 
have a problem financing Social Security for 150 years if we went back 
to the old mortality rates. In the 1930s, you were expected to live to 
age 63 in this country. Now you are expected to live, on average, to 
about 77 years in America. Why? Because we have done a lot of good 
things in this country. We have invested in health care, technology, 
and breathtaking medical research. Now people, when they reach a 
certain age and their knees wear out, they get new knees, or they get 
new hips, or have cataract surgery, or their heart muscle is unplugged 
on an operating table. Some people may be worth a million dollars after 
all that medical help. But the point is that people are living longer 
and better lives, and all of these problems are born of the success of 
greater longevity. Does that cause some pinching in Social Security and 
Medicare in the long term? Yes, but it is not catastrophic. Adjustments 
can be made that are not significant, which will provide solid, assured 
financing for Social Security and Medicare for the long term.
  That is what this President says. As we tame the fiscal policy 
deficits, and as we begin to accumulate surpluses, let us use those 
surpluses to save Social Security first. Those who believe that is not 
a wise course, those who believe that is not appropriate fiscal policy, 
come to the floor of the Senate, because we are going to have a healthy 
and aggressive debate about that. Many of us feel very strongly that it 
is precisely what this country ought to do. We have tamed the Federal 
deficit. Now let's make the right investment. And the first commitment 
ought to be to save Social Security first.
  Now, within the context of other spending we do in the budgets and 
other investments, there are other things we can do. I know we will 
have Members who don't want to do anything. They have never wanted to 
do anything. I mean, there are people who have said there is no role 
for Government. There are people who put seatbelts on when they drive 
through a car wash. They're so conservative they don't want to do 
anything ever. Much of what we have accomplished in this country has 
been because we have made the right kind of investments.
  This proposal that we have developed jointly says that one of those 
investments that is very important is in the area of health care 
research down at the National Institutes of Health, where breathtaking, 
new medical research occurs. We are saying we can invest substantially 
more money and you can, as a result of that, save an enormous amount of 
money and save lives and improve the lives of the American people. I am 
very excited about that. What better investment is there in this 
country than to invest in the kind of medical and health care research 
at the

[[Page S702]]

National Institutes of Health which has provided breakthroughs in 
medicine that have allowed people to live much longer and more 
productive lives?
  Another investment that the President and we call for in our joint 
policy message is an investment in education. Education is our future. 
Our children are our future. Investment in our children represents our 
tomorrow. We talk about investing in schools, investing in good 
teachers, and deciding that we can do this country a significant amount 
of good by understanding that the priority is educating our children. 
Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Anyone who believes a country can be both 
ignorant and free believes in something that never was and never can 
be.'' He was right about that 200 years ago. The reason this country 
has done so well is because we have always established that education 
is a priority. It must remain a priority, and that is what our caucus 
and our policy choices are committed to doing.

  A couple of other items--and I don't want to cover them all because 
some of my colleagues will cover some. Teen smoking is part of our 
agenda. We need to end that, to combat teen smoking. You have all heard 
the message that you don't find people deciding at age 25, as they sit 
around in a recliner thinking about life, or wondering what on Earth 
can I do to further enrich my life, or what is missing from my life, 
and they come up with the answer: Smoking; I would like to start 
smoking. Nobody does that at age 25 or 30. If you are not smoking by 
the time you are a kid, you are not going to be a future user of 
tobacco.
  The tobacco companies have always known that, and that is why they 
have always targeted their future customers, who are the children. Does 
anybody know anybody who is 25 or 30 years of age who says, how can I 
enrich my life further? and then comes up with the answer that I would 
like to start smoking? Nobody does that. We also understand that we can 
save lives by combating teen smoking, and there are plenty of ways to 
do that. A thousand kids a day will die--3,000 kids a day will start 
smoking, and a thousand will die of that cause. We can save lives with 
a national campaign to combat teen smoking.
  Drunk driving. This agenda of ours also deals with the question of 
drunk driving. That is not some mysterious illness or disease. We know 
what causes fatalities on the roads--drunk driving. Everyone in this 
Chamber and every family represented here knows that--friend, neighbor, 
relative, acquaintance. I am not even very logical about this question. 
The night that I got the call that my mother had been killed by a drunk 
driver, I'll never forget the moment, and I'll never forget how I have 
felt from that day forward. People who drink and drive turn automobiles 
into instruments of murder. The fact is, it's not just the .08 we are 
going to debate, the question of when are you drunk. There are six 
States in this country where you can get behind the wheel of a car and 
take a fifth of whiskey in one hand and the steering wheel in the other 
and drive off, and you are perfectly legal. That ought not happen 
anywhere in America. We can change that. There are some 20 States in 
which, if the driver can't drink, everybody else in the car can be 
drinking. Vehicles on roads in this country ought not to have open 
containers of alcohol in them, period. That is something we can address 
in this Congress.
  Finally, campaign finance reform is also part of what our caucus is 
committed to doing. There are a lot of discussions about what pieces 
will work and what pieces will not work with respect to campaign 
finance reform. I want to describe one little piece that I think is 
important. The most significant kind of air pollution in America today 
is the 30-second political ad that does nothing but tear down someone's 
opponent. It is a 30-second slash and burn, cut and run ad that 
contributes nothing to our country. The first amendment gives everybody 
the right to do that. We won't change that. But there is a little thing 
we can change. We can, by Federal law, say that every television 
station is required to offer the lowest rates on the rate card during 
political advertising during a certain period. I propose that we change 
that law to say that low rate is only available to candidates who run 
advertisements that are at least 1 minute in length. Let's require 
people to say something significant in one in which the candidate 
himself or herself is in the advertisement 75 percent of that 1 minute.
  Some people may not like that. I do. Can you think of any other 
business, other than American politics, where the competitor says--for 
example, can you conceive of a car company who does all of its 
advertising saying: By the way, if you buy a Chevrolet, you are going 
to kill yourself because they are not safe; or fly American, or United, 
or Northwest and, by the way, their mechanics are a bunch of drunks. Do 
we see that in any other part of our lives? No. That is not the way 
commercial enterprises compete against each other. But it is the way we 
compete in politics. Shame on us. We can change that. It ought to be a 
competition of ideas and about what we want for the future of this 
country. I hope one of these days we can have campaign finance reform 
that gets to that point. But at least a little proposal I am 
suggesting, on top of all of the other things that we are talking about 
in campaign finance reform as a caucus, might finally stop some of this 
air pollution or at least lessen the pollution that permeates every 
campaign in this country.

  Then there is food safety, clean air, and clean water. Our caucus 
stands for things that are positive in the lives of the American 
people. Some say they want to debate politics with the same old 
stereotypes. Unfortunately, it won't work anymore. To those who say, 
``There are the good guys, and there are the tax-and-spend people,'' I 
say that doesn't work. Our caucus, in this Congress, with this 
President, made a decision that we were going to do some awfully 
important things to put this country back on course, and we did it--at 
great cost and expense to our caucus. But the American people, 5 years 
later, see the results for this country of what we have done. We say 
that the job isn't finished. There is much to do to make this a better 
country. That is the purpose of the message and the purpose of the set 
of public policies that tell the American people: Here is why we are 
here and what we want to fight for to improve America's future.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me commend our colleague from 
North Dakota for a very eloquent statement and the Democratic leader, 
Senator Daschle of South Dakota, for laying out one of the primary 
objectives of a Democratic agenda for this session of the 105th 
Congress.
  I think there are issues that ought to enjoy and attract strong 
bipartisan support--sustained growth in our economy, a balanced budget, 
a growing surplus, and investments in the educational and health needs 
of young people. I certainly hope that on managed care issues, in 
particular, we can find consensus--making sure that people across this 
country have the right to choose their own doctors and are not going to 
be forced out of the hospital prematurely. A bill of rights for 
patients is something that is long overdue. I know that the people of 
American are hoping that this Congress will address these issues before 
we adjourn.
  I want to commend those who are responsible for putting this agenda 
together and to address a few aspects of it more fully.
  Shortly we will be hearing from our colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, who has led a task force over the past several months 
to fashion a bill to deal with the difficult issue of tobacco use by 
young people--a bill which I was pleased to cosponsor. As Senator 
Dorgan just discussed, the facts on youth smoking are not in 
controversy--3,000 young people start smoking every day, and 1,000 of 
those will die prematurely.
  This is an issue that ought to unite Americans regardless of 
political persuasion or ideology. We all pay when children become 
addicted to tobacco. It is not just the children who pay with 
abbreviated lives that might have produced far more for themselves, for 
their families, and for their Nation. But all of us in a sense suffer 
when we, by our silence, by our inaction promote or at least don't try 
to retard the

[[Page S703]]

growth of a problem that so negatively affects young people. So, I am 
hopeful in these few legislative days we have remaining, we will do 
something meaningful to reduce the harmful impact of tobacco on the 
children in this country.
  We all know that a tax increase, which makes tobacco less affordable, 
is one of the ways to do that. I'd like to cite some facts from a 
recent survey done in my State--in Fairfield County, CT. This county is 
a one of great affluence--it contains the towns of Greenwich and 
Westport some of the more affluent communities in the Nation. It is 
also a county that is the home of Bridgeport, CT, one of the poorest 
cities in the Nation. In a relatively small area of geography, you have 
great diversity in income.
  This survey looked at young people's smoking habits. Interestingly, 
about 30 to 35 percent of the young people in the more affluent suburbs 
in the communities of Fairfield have already begun to smoke or abuse 
alcohol. In Bridgeport, however, the percentage of teenagers was much 
lower--10 to 13 percent. Why? There are many factors, but, clearly 
economics play a major role. The people who conducted this survey 
concluded that money does make a difference--that the ability of a 
teenager to buy a pack of cigarettes actually does affect the 
likelihood that he or she will smoke.
  Senator Conrad has included in his bill a tobacco tax of $1.50--the 
amount that public health experts tell us is necessary to effect a 
decrease in youth smoking. Senator Conrad has also laid out a plan for 
making use of the revenue raised by this increased tax on tobacco. I 
suspect that I was somewhat of a pest over the last 72 hours as he was 
getting ready to introduce this bill--in making repeated suggestions 
about how he could best make use of those funds. I am very pleased that 
Senator Conrad will be directing $14 billion of the revenues--of the 
$80 billion that will be generated in the next 5 years or so--toward 
improving the affordability, availability and quality of child care.
  My colleagues know, going back during the years of my tenure in the 
Senate, that I have spent a lot of time advocating for children's 
issues, particularly child care. So, I am deeply, deeply grateful to my 
colleague from North Dakota for agreeing to allocate such a substantial 
part of these dollars to the needs of children. I know my colleague 
from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who was one of the first cosponsors on 
our comprehensive child care bill introduced last week and an active 
member of the Democratic Strike Force--Right Start 2000 that we formed 
in the Senate here to focus on children's issues, joins me in 
expressing our appreciation.

  While we are on the topic of child care, Mr. President, I'd like to 
share with my colleagues some new findings in the child care debate 
that relate to the issues of the cost and quality of child care.
  Mr. President, after we passed the welfare reform package in 1996 I 
asked the General Accounting Office if they would do a survey of States 
and give us some idea of how this law would affect the child care needs 
of families in this country. The GAO, just in the last few days, 
completed its survey and issued a report to the Subcommittee on 
Children and Families, of which I serve as ranking member.
  Let me just briefly share some of the conclusions of this GAO study 
about how welfare reform is affecting not only welfare recipients, but 
also working families. I think these findings highlight why the 
allocation that the Senator from North Dakota has directed to 
children's needs in his tobacco bill is so critically important.
  This report's findings are based on a survey of several States--
California, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Connecticut. 
First, let me offer the good news. According to the GAO States have 
done a very good job in meeting the needs of welfare recipients. Most 
families who need child care assistance in order to begin to enter the 
workplace are receiving it. Now, for some of the bad news. In order to 
help all of the welfare recipients, States had to severely limit the 
access of working families to child care subsidies. People who are 
right on that margin--not on welfare, but just over the line--are not 
getting the assistance they need.
  The survey indicates that access of working families to subsidies has 
been severely curtailed. Even if States draw down all of the Federal 
funds available, more than half--52 percent of working families in this 
country who need affordable child care--will be denied it.
  In Texas, one of the seven States surveyed, this means that over 
37,000 working families remain on waiting lists for child care 
assistance. In California, even more dramatically, 200,000 working 
families are on waiting lists for child care assistance--some for over 
2 years. Tragically, in my State of Connecticut, we just stopped 
pretending. We don't even keep waiting lists for new families.
  In this survey, the States also told the GAO about severe problems 
with the availability of child care. As we have known for years, 
certain types of care are not available at any cost--infant care, care 
for children with disabilities and care during nonstandard work hours.
  The GAO found that States are particularly concerned that the work 
participation requirements of welfare could exacerbate the shortage of 
infant care. Under welfare reform, mothers with children over the age 
of 1 are told they must work. Some States have chosen even tougher 
standards. In Wisconsin and Oregon, mothers with children older than 3 
months must work. I find it somehow ironic that we now have Republican 
legislation pending that would offer incentives for parents to stay 
home with children under the age of 3 years--a wonderful idea--but yet 
we have in place a work requirement for welfare recipients with 
children over 3 months in some States.
  In many communities, child care for very young children is so limited 
that parents must sign up while they are still pregnant to have any 
chance of finding that care at all.
  Welfare reform is also exacerbating, according to GAO, the lack of 
child care during nonstandard work hours. Many welfare parents are 
finding jobs in service industries where shift work is required. Yet in 
most communities child care on weekends or after 6 p.m. is nonexistent.

  When it comes to improving the quality, it is clear that States are 
making an effort. States are trying to improve provider training, to 
incresae provider compensation and to help facilities meet licensing 
standards, but they are still concerned that they are falling short. 
They are concerned, and rightly so, that as work participation 
requirements rise, quality may be compromised.
  This report is not about blaming the States. They are doing the best 
they can with a very big job. This is not about pitting welfare 
recipients against working families in the battle for limited child 
care dollars. It should be about making sure that the Federal 
Government provides sufficient resources so that parents who need safe 
and affordable child care in order to work can find it in this country.
  Senator Conrad's bill and the $14 billion in funding that it will 
provide will go a long way towards meeting those needs. I am pleased 
that the Senator from North Dakota has included in his tobacco 
legislation language directing these funds to the programs outlined in 
the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. bill which I introduced last week. I think 
it will go a long way toward ensuring that working families are going 
to get the kind of child care assistance and support they need.
  Again, I want to say to my colleague from North Dakota that I commend 
him immensely for the tremendous job he did, and I apologize to him 
publicly for being the source of some annoyance to him as I tried to 
get more money out of him for child care over the last several days. He 
very generously doubled the investment in child care from $7 billion to 
$14 billion. I thank him for that. Hope springs eternal. There may even 
be some additional resources made available for child care as we go 
through this debate. I am grateful to him and members of the tobacco 
task force for their attention to the needs of children and child care 
in their legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for his gracious assistance, as we move to introduce the 
tobacco legislation. I also want to thank him for his

[[Page S704]]

forceful advocacy. That is what this place is all about. And there is 
no more forceful advocate for children in this Chamber than the Senator 
from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. He cares deeply about this subject. He 
fights for what he thinks is an appropriate allocation of resources to 
make the changes that are desirable.
  So it is not a matter of irritation. It was a matter of tough 
negotiation, and he is a darned good negotiator. Anybody who is able to 
increase an allocation they care about by 100 percent--there is only 
one person in that category: The Senator from Connecticut. But it was 
for a good cause, and we very much appreciate his support for the 
legislation.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Baucus 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1638 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to my very, very good friend, the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia who is the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee and has held more titles around 
here than I can think of. It is an honor to yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, how much time do I have 
remaining under my reservation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 35 minutes 
remaining of his reservation.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I may or may not use all of that today. 
Whatever I use at this point, I ask that it be taken off my time that 
has been reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, and I will be about 5 minutes.

                          ____________________