WASHINGTON - 04.04.01
SENATE MINORITY LEADER HOLDS REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING
DASCHLE: Thanks for joining me. We're continuing to have our debate about the budget. We just voted on it. I just voted on a Grassley amendment that would further complicate the Republicans' budgetary challenges this year. It started yesterday with the vote on prescription drugs.
As you know, the Republicans indicated that they wanted to match us in terms of the commitment required to provide meaningful prescription drug coverage to all Americans. So they did that, but they recognized almost immediately that they were going to run into some real difficulty if they did it.
So what they ended up doing--as you probably can tell, if you look at the numbers, and this chart depicts--is that they have this very questionable contingency fund that is very, very precarious at best, but in order to pay now for the drug benefit that we passed yesterday, they had to go beyond the contingency fund, the non-Social Security and Medicare surpluses, actually into Medicare. So we're starting to use the Medicare trust fund for each one of the proposals that the Republicans are putting down in order to accommodate senators who will not vote for the resolution unless they add spending.
So the first addition to the budget was yesterday, with the prescription drug benefit, and that brought them down, for three years, into the Medicare trust fund, dipping in, using this red to pay for the prescription drug benefit.
If this amendment passes, the $66 billion amendment for agriculture, that will extend this red out even more. I don't know if you have the chart that shows each one of these additional anticipated amendments, but you will see Republicans, in order to keep their 50, 49 votes--whatever number they have--in order to do that, they've had to commit to senators that they will commit to more investment in the very issues that we care a lot about.
The difference is, they're using Medicare to pay for it now, and some day, they may even be using Social Security, if they use up the whole $500 billion or $400-plus billion trust fund for Medicare. We will have an amendment after this one, the Harkin amendment, that provides for $250 billion in a commitment to education and $250 billion in debt reduction, all taken from the tax cut. Senator Jeffords has been fighting very hard for IDEA, as you know, for the last couple of days, trying to make some agreement with the Republican leadership to ensure that IDEA is covered.
My expectation is the Republicans will, again, attempt to fund education by taking it out of Medicare. But as much as I admire Senator Jeffords' efforts, the fastest and best way for Senator Jeffords to ensure that IDEA and all of education is covered is to support what we're trying to do: bring down the size of the tax cut, make the commitments and the priorities that we all, on a Republican and Democratic basis--that is, moderate Republicans--care about, whether it's education or a prescription drug benefit, agriculture, infrastructure investment, health care, all of those issues. And we're going to be committed to continue that effort through the week. So that will be a very key question, a test, I think, on everyone's part with regard to our real commitment to education in the future.
I would just say that, every day, we have more and more company with regard to the tax cut. We had an economists' statement that was issued just in the last couple of days that is signed by some of the most prestigious economists in the country whose names are on this letter, and I would just highlight the yellow part: ``The tax cut proposed by President Bush is not the answer. It is too large, too skewed to the wealthy and it arrives too late to head off a recession.
Moreover, it is predicated on a 10-year forecast of the U.S. economy which no one can make with certainty. Passing the tax cut risks the U.S. to chronic budget deficits, reducing the capacity of the government to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits in the future, requiring cuts in necessary services and denying investments in schools, health infrastructure and basic research. Instead of an ill-conceived tax cut, the federal government should use this year's surplus to finance a temporary, one-time tax cut or dividend. We should send a sizable check this summer to every American providing immediate help to the faltering economic needs.''
That is a statement made just in the last couple of days that could have been right out of our proposals. That's exactly what we have suggested.
So it's encouraging to me that we have a growing cacophony of voices, both in public policy as well as in the economy, who share our view that we are on a very, very dangerous track here.
We could derail the economic growth and vitality we have seen now for almost 10 years. We could destroy what real fiscal responsibility we have, and we certainly will rob this country of the priorities and investments that are so important, whether it's in education or the prescription drug benefit as we've already seen this week.
So I'm going to stop with that and take your questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: I think Senator Breaux is doing what we have attempted to do in other ways as well, and that is find common ground. Senator Breaux has been harshly critical of the administration for its unwillingness to find any common ground, for its intransigence.
I mean, I've never seen an administration in all my years which is more intransigent, more unwilling to work with Democrats or across the aisle. It doesn't matter whether it's a Democratic administration working with Republicans or the vice versa. It is amazing to me. It is breathtaking how remarkably unwilling they are to sit down and try to find common ground. This from a candidate who ironically said he was going to be a uniter, not a divider.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: It doesn't help. I don't want to say there is any connection. I don't think there should be.
But it creates an environment that becomes a lot more political and a lot more divisive and far more confrontational than I think it ought to be.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Well, we'll see. What Senator Breaux is simply trying to do is to say, ``Look, if you don't like $1.6 trillion, but if you don't like our number at $900 billion, let's see if we can find a number that you like.'' And you know, I think that there are some Republicans that are looking at it very carefully. We know that.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: I haven't decided whether I'm going to support it, per se, because we have a--I mean, it depends ultimately, I think, on what happens to our other amendments. My initial design or my initial intention right now is to support the Democratic alternative, which is one-third, one-third, one-third, and hold open the possibility of doing something larger later.
QUESTION: You said yesterday that some Democrats are looking into doing the tax cut as a free-standing bill rather than, under reconciliation, trying to see if there is agreement for a unanimous consent request on that subject. Has anything progressed on that--or failed to progress?
DASCHLE: I don't think we're any farther along today than we were yesterday. My concern, I guess, has to do with the fact that, in a way, we're giving them two bites at the apple here. I mean, if they still reserve their right to offer another tax break at a later date, under reconciliation, I think we've defeated our purpose. If under the Byrd rules, they are allowed to extend this tax cut beyond the 10 years which would only be authorized in the budget resolution, that, too, would be disconcerting. And of course, we have the conference question. So there are a lot of issues that, in my view, would have to be clarified to our satisfaction.
QUESTION: Senator Gramm (ph), with whom you have been working--or at least, the other senators have been working--has said he made an offer yesterday to Senator Byrd. Do you know if there has been any Democratic counteroffer?
DASCHLE: There has not.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) judgment about whether or not a tax bill can be protected--this tax bill can be protected under reconciliation, and if he believes that it cannot, why are you apparently not going to force...
DASCHLE: Well, because a vote itself is the highest level of precedent setting that goes on in the Senate, and we're very concerned about the even deeper and harder precedent or wall it creates for future purposes. We're also disappointed that he would not rule. As I understand it, he would turn it over to a vote and he would let the Senate decide is what he has told us, and if the Senate decides on a 51-50 basis, which is what it would probably be, my concern is that that's the not the way to commit to a reconciliation package of the magnitude that this entails. I think the stakes are too high. We haven' come to any final conclusion, I would emphasize. I'm not saying yet what we're going to do, but we're concerned about the magnitude of the precedent, were it to be done by a Senate vote, and then the fact that it would be done by a 51-50 margin makes it all the more difficult.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Oh, absolutely. It opens up...
QUESTION: Would that precedent be any less?
DASCHLE: I think it opens up the flood gates. I mean, if you can use it for tax cuts, you can use it for spending increases. I mean, I don't think there's any question anymore. Originally the budget act was designed--it had proposed this concept of reconciliation for one reason and one reason only, that was deficit reduction. Senator Byrd wrote the bill, wrote the law, and he has said that. So in a series of very precarious mis-steps of a much smaller magnitude, we have created an environment where now the parliamentarian, who, in my view, is not as objective as I wish he could be, has made a decision that I think further complicates this matter and creates precedents for the future potentially that could be even more devastating.
QUESTION: Is the precedent any less if you don't have the vote, but then you do the reconciliation--that you've not voted to authorize it, but then you actually do the bill?
DASCHLE: It is, because the question will not have been raised. As precedents are established, it isn't the votes. If there is no challenge--that's the incredible thing. There was no challenge in 1976 until later, and after the challenge was made, of course, it was a $6 billion, six-month tax cut in 1976 that created all this, and it was an assertion at the time on the part of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Long, that this tax cut was a reconciliation measure, and unfortunately, that's where it all started to unravel.
QUESTION: Under your power-sharing agreement, what rights do you have in the Senate if the House sends back (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: I can make a motion to proceed to the issue.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: That's right. (CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... discharge
DASCHLE: The committee, if it goes to the committee.
QUESTION: ... conference committee, can you discharge them?
DASCHLE: No, I don't think I have the ability to discharge a conference committee. The only thing I can do, committee-wise, is to discharge a committee from responsibility. But if the bill comes back to the desk or to the calendar, I have the ability to call for a vote on a motion to proceed.
QUESTION: Senator, Lincoln Chafee (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Lincoln Chafee is a true statesman. (LAUGHTER) He is a man I admire for his courage. In all seriousness, you know, he is under a great deal of pressure, and in spite of that, he has stood his ground, and I admire that. I honestly don't believe that we put pressure on our colleagues like they put pressure on theirs. I truly believe that. I think there's ample evidence to suggest it, but nonetheless, I thought he really deserves credit.
QUESTION: Could you go back to the Breaux situation. Is there going to be a vote on (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: There is.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Yes, there will be several good amendments on taxes. We're going to have our $60 billion stimulus amendment. We'll have the Fritz-Hollings $90 billion stimulus amendment. We will then have the alternative amendment that we provide, one-third, one-third, one-third. And we'll have the Breaux amendment. So there will be a number, as I say...
QUESTION: So when the Breaux amendment comes up, it will come up subsequent (inaudible) So it's in that environment that you might be open to supporting his amendment?
DASCHLE: That's correct. At this point, I'd say I'm inclined not to, at least on this particular vote. I don't want it to be viewed as the new floor on tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake. But I applaud Senator Breaux for his great efforts to try to find common ground. This isn't where I want to be, with regard to common ground, if I'm seeing any movement on the other side. I mean, I don't see why I should move if they're not moving. And they're not moving. They're not coming a dollar off of the $2.5 trillion that they have already advocated. In fact, now, I showed a chart to our caucus. If you take what the administration has proposed and what the Republicans in the House have already added that they say they support, we're not at $2.5 trillion anymore, we're at $3.3 trillion. That's the total amount. That's the aggregate amount that the Republicans have now already publicly supported, either in the House or in the administration, $3.3 trillion.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Which votes?
QUESTION: The tax votes.
DASCHLE: Most likely, since Friday is our last day.
QUESTION: Did you get an agreement from Senator Lott to vote on the one-third, one-third, one-third before you report on the Breaux proposal? Is he amenable to one in that order?
DASCHLE: Well, it's up to us. I mean, we design order ourselves, you know. So they will offer amendments and we'll offer amendments, but our sequence of amendments will be somewhere along that line. I haven't talked to Senator Conrad or to the authors of the amendments yet, but I'm guessing that we will put our package of amendments together on taxes. And don't hold me to the sequence, but that's what I'm thinking at this point.
QUESTION: What I was wondering, though, if Senator Lott wanted that vote on Breaux's first, then you'd have to, potentially, support that. Or do you want to have a vote first on your...
DASCHLE: Oh, if Senator Lott wants to offer the amendment, I would welcome it. (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Think he'd go for it?
DASCHLE: That would be terrific. I don't think he will, though.
QUESTION: Back on campaign finance. What is the status of your talks with Senator Lott on conference committee set up? And also, how might that play out...
DASCHLE: Well, we haven't had any more specific conversations about the conference, obviously, because the House hasn't acted yet. But I intend to continue to press for a conference, equal representation. We are still talking about how we might address, not only this conference, but other conferences and have not resolved--the discussions have not led to any resolution yet. But I'm hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we'll have some understanding about how we can proceed. My guess is that both Senator McCain and Senator Feingold will be appointed. It appeared, the other day, that Senator Lott now is prepared to appoint Senator McCain, and I'm pleased with that, obviously. He will be a member of the conference one way or the other, and we'll just go from there. But we'll decide what the ratio is and what the total number of the conference is at a later date.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Senator McCain was saying that he doesn't want to go to conference, it'll be stripped down to nothing and (inaudible) he wants to take the House bill--the next House-passed bill--back here. What are the chances do you think that that's going to happen?
DASCHLE: I guess, I'd want to see what the House-passed bill looks like. I mean, if the House-passed bill is similar to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed last year, I would be supportive of taking a closer look. I think, in some ways, we've made some improvements in this bill that I'd want to take a look at--as it compares to Shays-Meehan--but I thought Shays-Meehan was a pretty good piece of legislation last year.
QUESTION: But politically, what is the likelihood that he skips conference committee and ask Senator Lott for another week of debate over here, however long it would take?
DASCHLE: I wish him luck. I don't know.
QUESTION: Senator, if anyone raises a point of order against the reconciliation bill, do you have any other recourse to just try to defeat the amendment, or is there any other sort of parliamentary move you make?
DASCHLE: Well, the only recourse we really have, because it's protected, as you know, under the budget act, is to try to defeat it. I mean, that's all we've got. And I think that the more this kind of thing happens, where they start raiding Medicare to pay for their tax cut, the more reconciliation is going to be a very, very critical vote. It is really more than just a procedural vote. This is a vote that gives the Republicans the key to raid Medicare, to destroy education and to eliminate whatever prospect there was of a meaningful prescription drug benefit.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) considering giving up on trying to find common ground and just going head to head?
DASCHLE: No, I never want to give up on finding common ground. I think we have to. But we will go head to head where there is no common ground,
and that is especially true with regard to the tax cut. That's especially true with regard to the budget. We have no choice but to fight as hard as you've seen us fight the last couple of days.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
DASCHLE: Actually, you know what, I feel that there are two ways with which Democrats can be victorious. The first is, of course, to achieve a meaningful result, which didn't happen yesterday. But the second is to define the Republicans for what I think they truly are, harsh and right-wing, with absolutely no indication of an appreciation for compassion. That's what happened yesterday. I think that the Republican vote yesterday ought to be the highway sign for the next two years. They are willing to destroy Medicare so they can continue to worship at the alter of tax cuts of a magnitude this country can't afford.
QUESTION: But to follow up on that, I mean, do you think, I guess, a series of amendments that you're offering, which would basically trim the tax cut to pay for other priorities and the Republicans are (inaudible) with amendments that go into the contingency fund or whatever, do you think you'll accomplish that message then, because you're going to probably lose each time either 50-50 or 49-51?
DASCHLE: Well, as I say, I'd much rather win outright and win the substantive fight, but we're certainly winning the message fight. I have warned everybody, whoever's willing to listen to me, especially in this room, you know, for the last couple of months. They can't have it both ways. They can't have their tax cut and all the other priorities that we've been talking about, and now they're proving it. This proves it. You can't possibly ignore the reality here. I mean, they're cutting Medicare to pay for a tax cut, and the vote yesterday was exactly what this was all about. The vote this morning is exactly what that's all about. That's what's going on. So what we said would happen, is happening. And I see I've got less than a couple of minutes left on a vote. I better get going.
Thanks everybody.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story
