[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 3 (Thursday, January 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S128-S129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come this morning to again review the 
lay of the land. As I said a couple of days ago, many of my colleagues, 
most of our caucus, expressed deep concern--alarm, really--at the 
hijacking of the process that went on during the deliberations on the 
Omnibus appropriations bill. I said at the time, and I believe it ought 
to be repeated, that I believe the process in the Senate was fair. I 
have immense respect for the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. He worked with Members on both sides to 
accommodate consensus and to reach agreement and the process worked. 
That process was destroyed at the eleventh hour by some in the 
administration and by leadership on the Republican side in the House. 
Changes were demanded. Ultimatums were set. The House and Senate were 
actually forced to take positions in conference diametrically in 
opposition to the very positions we took on the Senate floor after a 
very deliberative debate; positions that I think have great merit.
  On an overwhelming vote, the Senate supported the notion that we 
ought to have country-of-origin labeling. They did it because they 
believed it is an opportunity for us to enhance our ability to add 
confidence to consumers' choice, knowing if they buy 100 percent U.S. 
beef they are not going to buy meat with downer cattle from foreign 
countries. We are going to be able to say with confidence to countries 
who are purchasing our products that they are 100 percent U.S. product. 
Today, they say they are not prepared to take our products unless we 
can give that assurance. For those and other reasons--patriotism, 
patriotism--the Senate voted in support, not once but twice, of 
country-of-origin labeling.

  With the crisis involving mad cow, it became even more imperative 
that that position be taken. Yet some in the White House insisted that 
there be a 2-year delay. That 2-year delay is tantamount to killing 
country-of-origin labeling. That is what is now in this bill, in direct 
opposition, in direct conflict, diametrically in opposition to the 
position taken by the Senate during the debate on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill and, I might add, diametrically in opposition to 
the views of the vast majority of the American people. Eighty percent 
of the American people support country-of-origin labeling. Over 80 
percent say they would be prepared to pay more if we had country-of-
origin labeling.
  So it is with great chagrin that we find ourselves in this 
circumstance. The same could be said for overtime. I don't believe that 
most of our colleagues can fully appreciate the depth of feeling, the 
magnitude of anger and frustration that is out there on this particular 
issue. I have talked to firemen and policemen and nurses and first 
responders. I must say they cannot believe that their Government is 
devising ways with which to reduce and in some cases actually eliminate 
overtime. They can't believe that they may be among the 8 million 
Americans whose overtime will be lost when this bill passes. They can't 
believe it. They always thought if you work hard and play by the rules, 
especially working overtime, you are going to get paid. Now they have 
their own Government saying, in a memo produced by the Department of 
Labor, if you want to reduce wages, we will give you a way to reduce 
overtime.
  What kind of progress in society is that? For all these years we have 
marched forward, recognizing we are going to reward work. What does 
this memo and what does the provision in this legislation say? We are 
not going to reward work anymore. In fact, we are going to find ways to 
get out from under the reward for work. How can anybody sustain that 
position here in this body? How can anybody with pride or with any 
conviction say that is the right policy now, after all these years? But 
that is what we are doing.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Do I understand that the Senate and the House, on both 
overtime and mad cow, or country of origin, voted by large majorities 
to have there be a continuation of overtime and to have country-of-
origin labeling on all beef that comes into the United States? Did both 
bodies, by an overwhelming vote, sustain country of origin and 
elimination of the President's effort to wipe out overtime?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The assistant Democratic leader is correct. That is a 
succinct summary of what we did. We voted to ensure there be country-
of-origin labeling, like 43 other countries have in the world today, 
knowing we will not be able to export our product to Japan unless it is 
labeled. We did that.
  When we found out the administration actually wanted to eliminate 
overtime, we said we are going to prohibit that.
  As the distinguished assistant Democratic leader's question suggests, 
the administration--over the objections, I would say, of the Presiding 
Officer and others on both sides of the aisle from the Senate--insisted 
that be part of the appropriations process and this omnibus bill.
  There is a third issue, and that is media concentration. Many of us 
are deeply concerned about concentration of media ownership, and for 
good reason. We have seen far too many examples already of what 
pressure is brought to bear at the local and even at the national level 
as a result of the power of ownership in media today. I must say, it 
gets worse and worse with each passing year. What we said is there 
ought to be a threshold on ownership of no more than 35 percent. That 
was a position taken on a rollcall vote here in the Senate. Incredibly, 
it was a position taken on a rollcall vote in the House of 
Representatives. Yet what does this omnibus bill do? This bill 
overrides both the vote taken in the House and the vote taken in the 
Senate. It is not representative whatsoever of the positions of either 
body, but it is in this bill.
  How did it happen? Where was the rollcall vote in the conference to 
overturn this incredible decision? It happened in the dead of night. It 
happened because of an ultimatum. It happened because of pressure from 
the White House and people who did not hold those views in the House 
who lost the first time.
  I worry about this precedent from the point of view of the 
institution. What does it mean in a democracy when 100 Senators vote, 
take a position, and when 435 Members of the House vote and take a 
position, and a cabal in the dark of night with no rollcall vote can 
overrule that position willy-nilly, with absolutely no record, with no 
fingerprints, and nullify the actions taken by the bodies themselves? 
What precedent does that set in our democracy today? Where will this 
take us in the future? How many more of these incredible overturning of 
position events will occur before all of us rise up in indignation and 
say what is a democracy if that is the result, that we can actually go 
to a conference and have a small group of people overturn the majority 
of Republicans and Democrats on important issues like this?
  I must say, regardless of philosophy, regardless of politics, 
regardless of the issue, if you care about this institution, 100 people 
ought to be on this floor to talk about this today. So I am worried 
about that and I am worried about the policy itself.
  But I know why we will probably get cloture today. Nobody here wants 
to be accused of shutting the Government down. Everybody understands 
the commitment that this legislation reflects in its support for 
veterans and for so many other things that we care deeply about. 
Senators are put in a very difficult position. I understand that. Do 
you support veterans or do you support an effort to deal with mad cow? 
Do you support highways and transportation or do you support an effort 
to confront this onerous provision eliminating overtime? Do you support 
housing or do you support an effort to retain the Senate position with 
regard to media concentration? That is a tough position for anybody to 
be in, especially people in politics. So we may lose this cloture vote 
today. I suspect we will. And I understand why.
  But I must say, first we ought to be concerned. I don't care whether 
you are

[[Page S129]]

in the majority or minority, Democrat or Republican, liberal or 
conservative, we ought to be concerned when some small group of people, 
in the dark of night, overturn legitimate public rollcall decisions 
made by this body. We ought to be concerned about that because I think 
it is an erosion of democracy in our Republic that is deplorable, 
deplorable. How many more times is it going to happen? How does it 
render the Senate, this so-called deliberative body, when we can 
deliberate, make tough decisions here on the Senate floor, only to be 
overturned? What does it say?

  With regard to the issues themselves I will say this: I said a couple 
of days ago this is the beginning. It was not our desire to shut the 
Government down, to block this bill ultimately. We wanted to give our 
Republican colleagues a chance to fix it. They have chosen not to fix 
any of these issues. But we will be back. We must be back. We will 
continue to offer amendments on whatever vehicle is presented to us. We 
are now preparing Congressional Review Act resolutions. The legislative 
veto is available to us on some of these matters and we will use it.
  So we will be back again and again. These issues will not go away. We 
will continue to fight and we will continue to work, first, because we 
care about the institution but, second, because we care about these 
policies.
  So, Mr. President, it is with great concern--chagrin, that we find 
ourselves in a position today that I wish had never presented itself to 
this body.
  We will have a vote on cloture. We may have a vote on final passage. 
But it will not be the last vote on these issues.
  I hope in the interest of this institution we will learn the hard 
lessons that these specific problems have created for each of us.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________