Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) Weekly Press Briefing, Joined by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: SENATE MINORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE (D-SD) WEEKLY PRESS BRIEFING, JOINED BY SENATOR TED KENNEDY (D-MA)

LOCATION: S-224, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. DASCHLE: Good morning. We know you had a wonderful night last night. We didn't. (Laughter.) No, actually, we had a-we thought it went quite well for what we had intended.

And we wanted to insist on three things: First, that people understand that 168 judges confirmed and four rejected is not a bad ratio, and that ratio has come in large measure because Democrats have supported the vast majority of Bush nominees; secondly, that the judges that are not yet confirmed, the four judges, of course, ought to continue to be the subject of debate.

But if we're really going to be concerned about jobs, it ought to be the 3 million jobs that have been lost under this Bush administration's miserable economic record. And that is the focus. That really ought to be where we spend our time and put our priorities.

Third, there is so much that we ought to be doing with regard to the Senate legislative agenda. We have a number of bills that are languishing today in large measure because the Republicans insist on this circus.

You have to go back a long time in history to find a time when the majority party filibustered itself. But that's what it's doing. The Republicans are filibustering themselves. And I don't know how else one can put it. But I can't find a time in history when that has happened before.

They have all this work undone, and yet they're filibustering themselves in an effort to make a statement while forgoing completion of work on appropriations bills, on the mental-health parity bill, on minimum wage, on a number of important pieces of legislation that could make a big difference.

There's one other issue that now demonstrates once again what a remarkable set of circumstances we're experiencing. As I said a couple of days ago, we had asked for a special CIA briefing on the deteriorating circumstances in Iraq. That CIA briefing is now scheduled for 4:30 this afternoon.

We have just asked unanimous consent to go into recess for that period of time so that all senators could listen to this briefing to get the facts. Now the Republicans have even objected to that. They're unwilling to allow their own colleagues to go up to the Intelligence briefing room to get the information because they think this filibuster against themselves is more important.

Well, we're concerned about that misjudgment and the ill-placed priorities that it represents. But that is indeed the state of play today.

We're also concerned, of course, about conference reports that are still unfolding. You've heard many of us talk about the reported tentative agreement on the Medicare prescription drug conference report. We still have not seen any specific paper or the proposals themselves.

But based on what we've been told, we're deeply concerned that 10 million people will be forced into an HMO for the first time. And all senior citizens, the other three-fourths of senior citizens, are going to be forced to pay much higher premiums.

We're concerned about the lack of any real drug cost containment under the legislation as it's currently proposed. And we're certainly concerned about the impact that this bill could have on retirees. Literally millions of retirees could lose their jobs-excuse me, lose their health insurance-if this goes through as we understand it's currently drafted.

So for that purpose, for all of the concerns that we have with this bill, we just urge these conferees to take greater care, to recognize the tremendous consequences they're going to have if they move forward with this poorly thought-out bill.

No one has been more of a student of this issue in the whole Senate, but certainly in our caucus, than Ted Kennedy. We turn to him for his guidance on these matters. And once again, he has provided us with very insightful information about the impact of this draft, and I'm delighted that he could be with us this morning.

SEN. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Senator Daschle. We passed a very good prescription drug program in the United States Senate, and that program would have provided some $400 billion for our seniors over the period of the next 10 years.

We know that it really was only a down payment, because our seniors are going to spend $1,700,000,000,000 over that period of time. But we are strongly committed to try and make sure we were going to have that down payment and then build on that the day that that bill was going to be signed.

We had a good program that was bipartisan in nature. Many of us who are strong supporters of the bipartisan legislation are very distraught by the fact that over the last three months, the conference has been meeting between the House and the Senate and there has been no resolution.

And the proposals that have been recommended by the leadership in the House and the Republican leadership here would effectively undermine the Medicare system which our seniors depend on. And that is unacceptable. That is unacceptable.

We had a bipartisan letter that went to the conferees, signed by Republican and Democrat alike, indicating at the beginning that we know that there has to be a narrowing of the differences. And we were prepared to find common ground on the range of issues. But we were not prepared or willing to accept a proposal that would undermine the Medicare system that's called premium support.

And the latest proposal would, as the leader has mentioned, mean that some 10 million of the 40 million of our seniors would be subject to this proposal, which would mean, I think, the beginning of the end of the Medicare system. And we're not going to be prepared to support it.

I'd just mention very quickly with these charts the differences in terms of the premium support system. In my own state of Massachusetts, this would be the difference. This isn't my calculation. These are the Medicare actuaries.

If premium support was to apply in Massachusetts, seniors in Barnstable County would pay $1,400; in Bristol County, $1,200 and $900 -- $900 difference. The swing there would be $500, which-and this is their best estimate. No one really knows.

Take a look at what the situation would be in another state, the state of Florida, and the state of New York. Even within the states, the premiums would vary between $2,000 and $900; in the Bronx, $2,000; in Niagara, New York, $900. These are the Medicare actuaries.

This is playing roulette with the security of our senior citizens. We worked long and hard to establish a Medicare system.

This kind of proposal would undermine it.

Finally, this is the estimates by the Medicare actuaries. The national average for the premiums for 2013 was to be $1,205. A year ago they estimated, under premium support, it would be $1,771. This year, the most recent one, is $1,500. There's a $200 shift just in one year by the medical actuaries.

This program is untested. It's untried. It's unworkable. It's playing roulette with the lives of our senior citizens. And what we ought to be about in the conference is working out a prescription drug program, not undermining Medicare. That is what we passed is a bipartisan prescription drug program.

And we cannot and will not tolerate the undermining of the Medicare as a result of this conference.

Q Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, if this is playing roulette with seniors and is going to undermine Medicare, why is it that the AARP is saying good things about it? They say it's a compromise that can bridge the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Do you really think the AARP would be saying good things about a proposal that would undermine Medicare?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, the AARP is one group, but I can give you the names of virtually every other senior organization in the country who this afternoon are going to declare their opposition to this Russian roulette.

SEN. KENNEDY: At 3:15 here in this room.

SEN. DASCHLE: So there is no question. Obviously senior organizations are divided. Why AARP has caved to the pressures-and I think that they have been pressures that they have endured from the Republican leadership-why they've caved in this regard is something I can't understand.

But I'll tell you this. The other senior organizations are standing up strong, defending seniors. And I am-we'll have more to say about that this afternoon.

Q Senator Daschle, are you concerned about Senator Baucus's support for this? (It cleared well ?) in the conference. And also at a time when he's about to endorse Wesley Clark, are you starting to wonder about what his priorities are and whether he's causing problems within the Democratic Party?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Senator Baucus just yesterday indicated that he isn't going to agree to anything until he's seen the final product. This is still a moving target. We still don't know what the ultimate decisions will be. They're still negotiating, as I understand it. So I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that Senator Baucus has already agreed to this proposal. And we'll wait and see what ultimately the conferees agree to.

Q You started out the year trying to work with Republicans and wanting to get a prescription drug benefit. Do you think there's any way at this point that you could go back to work with them to get something done, or is it too late?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I still would like to try and see if it was possible. I think the votes are there in the House and Senate for a bipartisan bill. And I don't think we're going to have $400 billion for any reasonable foreseeable time that could be used for this program.

But I had sort of thought these negotiations were in the seventh inning up through the end of this week, but it's in the bottom of the ninth starting Monday. And I don't see where there's been really much indications of movement.

I'm not going to take the time now, but of the probably 12 major differences that are between the House and the Senate, I can't think of a single one where there is real movement to the Senate position. Those are questions for negotiations. But the premium support makes this-we're now putting at risk the Medicare system.

And the leaders understood that right from the beginning. The Democrats and Republicans listed seven priorities-not 30, not 20, not 10 -- seven. And the only one that we said was completely unacceptable was the premium support, and that is the one that the Republican leadership is leading with and would expose a quarter of all seniors. And I believe and most health experts believe that would mean a serious undermining of the Medicare system for those 10 million. And we've worked too long, too hard, to get the Medicare.

Q Can I ask you a question about Iraq, both of you? Two months ago at the U.N., Chirac and other world leaders asked for a quick transfer of sovereignty. Chirac spoke of six to nine months. It was ruled out as impossible, unrealistic, et cetera.

Since yesterday, it seems more possible and more realistic. Do you think that finally there is something good, something to take out of the French-German-Russian ideas?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that it's been important for us from the beginning to involve our allies around the world, to build the kind of international support through a good coalition that would bring about stability in Iraq. I'm hopeful that recent developments might lend itself to that goal.

Q What is the next step for you as far as trying to deal with Medicare legislation? And what have you heard from your caucus and from members outside your caucus about the reaction to what appears to be -- (inaudible)?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, there's still open discussions between both the spokespersons for the administration-I mean, I imagine Secretary Thompson still-and the leadership. There's not a breakdown in communication. There's still conversations that are going on between the various conferees. And there's a probably increasing awareness of what the bottom line is for the parties on this.

And I just think they're getting very, very close to, you know, the finish line. I mean, this is hanging by a thread, a single thread, I'd say. And I don't want to be the one that just says that we've given up hope on it, but I think it's very near, that time.

Q What about the reaction from other members in your caucus? Have you been approached by members on the other side of the aisle who are equally unhappy with what they (see?)?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I'd say there's-I think probably Senator Daschle is best-we've had the series of caucuses over the period of the last three or four weeks. There's been probably a weekly caucus. One week we had two caucuses. And there's also been a series of meetings that the negotiators have had in the morning, 7:30 in the morning and 8:00, where members have been able to raise their kinds of concerns.

So there's, I think, a very good understanding where I believe the members are on this issue-these issues. And I think they're much better informed about it than they were certainly four weeks ago. And I'd say that they're much more deeply troubled than they were four weeks ago. And I think the chances of getting really a positive outcome are more remote, much more remote than they were four weeks ago.

Q Senator Daschle and/or Kennedy, should we infer from everything you're saying here that if a bill that reflects these outlines is brought to the floor, that you will filibuster it and the filibuster will be sustained?

SEN. DASCHLE: Nick, I think it's too early for us to come to any conclusions about strategy. I have said from the beginning that we are going to withhold judgment on the bill as well as on the strategy until we see the document.

All we're doing today is to send up additional warning flags that this bill, if indeed it is agreed to as we understand it to be currently written, poses very, very serious problems for most members of our caucus. We will decide ultimately on how we're going to vote and what strategy we'll employ once we see the final package.

Q Senator, AARP has obviously tremendous reach with their newsletter. They're beaming out by closed-circuit TV the president's speech in Florida today.

Do these other groups that you're talking about have anything like that kind of reach?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I'm anxious to see how AARP explains what Senator Kennedy has just described on these charts. How are they going to explain to their members the dramatic variation in premiums that their members are now going to have to endure if this bill goes into effect? I think you're going to have a revolt within the organization.

But whether or not they have the reach, there are a lot of groups who have deeply-held feelings, who represent seniors, who share our concerns with emphasis and are prepared to talk about it and will be here this afternoon.

Q (Inaudible) -- senator talked about the possibility of having to filibuster, being able to proceed it on a straight vote, with Baucus and Breaux saying they are very strongly inclined, although they're not signing off yet. Isn't your option really only going to be the filibuster?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, you know, it's interesting. Somebody was asking earlier about how many Republicans support this bill, and there may be Republicans who oppose it for various reasons. So it is entirely possible that opposition from both sides can bring this bill down. We don't know. That's why I say it's almost fruitless to project or to predict any kind of outcome until we know exactly what the bill does.

Q Senator Daschle, on (my ?) previous question from the floor, are you concerned about Senator Baucus's decision to endorse Wesley Clark at a time when possibly he should be focused on some other things, and also at a time that you're trying to hold the Democratic caucus together with two of your senators already in the presidential race?

SEN. DASCHLE: I don't think there's any conflict. Senator Baucus has every right to endorse anybody that he wants to. And if that's his choice, I respect it. He isn't the first member of Congress to endorse General Clark. Endorsements don't take a lot of time, and so I don't really worry that the endorsements are going to deflect from his focus on other important matters for the caucus. But certainly it's his right to endorse whoever he wants.

Q What about --

Q On judicial nominations --

SEN. DASCHLE: I'm sorry?

Q What about creating dissension when you have Senator Kerry --

SEN. DASCHLE: Oh, that's the beauty of our caucus, is there's plenty of options and plenty of endorsements, and that will continue.

Q On judicial nominees, President Bush stood today in the Oval Office, apparently with Kuhl, Brown and Owen, and had some harsh language for dilatory tactics blocking their confirmation. And I wonder does the fact that the president is raising pressure here-and apparently they're making a point of raising the pressure for three female nominees simultaneously-does that have any impact whatsoever in the politics of their confirmation? Does it make it tougher for you at all in any way?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, it's just unfortunate that the president has chosen to politicize the nominations and to raise the level of confrontation within the debate itself. I think that we need to reflect on what has happened so far. The president has proposed 168 nominations that have already been confirmed, and that is a success rate that exceeds President Reagan's entire first term in four years. I would love to say that what I proposed as a legislator has achieved a 98 percent success rate. Name me a legislator who can say he has a 98 percent success rate with his proposals. That's the president's record with regard to judges. Two percent have not been confirmed.

Q Actually, it's more -- (inaudible).

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, we'll see what happens tomorrow, but there is ample-we ought to look at the glass not only half full-it's 98 percent full. And, you know, no president is going to get everything he asks for. But a 98 percent full glass is one he ought to look on with great satisfaction.

Q (Off mike) -- with the judges?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, my shift was 2:00 to 3:00. You mean you didn't see me? (Laughter.)

Q How much (flak ?) are you getting from constituents and others.

SEN. DASCHLE: I think people are amused and wondering why the Senate isn't working on more important things.

Q Can you verify instances that Democrats used cots last night?

SEN. DASCHLE: We didn't need cots. We're tougher than that. We sleep on the floor. (Laughter.) Thanks, everybody.