Media Availability with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle Prior to Democrat Policy Luncheon
Federal News Service
HEADLINE: MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH SENATE MINORITY LEADER TOM DASCHLE (D-SD) PRIOR TO DEMOCRAT POLICY LUNCHEON
LOCATION: OHIO CLOCK CORRIDOR, U.S. CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
SEN. DASCHLE: Thanks for joining me, everybody.
I wanted to talk a little bit about our strategy on the budget. As you know, the president has proposed a budget that we now understand has almost no support, even among Republicans. And it's clear that they have found great discomfort in supporting the budget and have created one of their own.
The budget is another recognition of the fiscal failure of this administration. You know, we've gone from a $5 trillion projected surplus to a $3 trillion debt. We now have $14 trillion in accumulated debt; we're borrowing about a million dollars a minute right now as a result of the fiscal policies of this administration. Obviously, this hasn't done much good with regard to the economy. Usually when you borrow that much money you invigorate the economy. But we've lost 3 million new jobs.
We found it particularly interesting that yesterday Secretary Snow said it's a mystery, about the fact that we haven't been able to create more jobs or that we've lost this many jobs. Well, it's no mystery to many of us. The jobs have been created; they've just all gone overseas. Millions of jobs have been created overseas. We've outsourced those jobs at the very time when American working families need them most. So our whole focus in this budget debate is going to be draw attention to this extraordinary failure on the part of the Bush administration with regard to its fiscal policy and the recognition that they've made some bad choices. Their choice were tax cuts and deficits; our choice has been fiscal responsibility and a commitment and investment to the things that matter most in the economy: creating the jobs and doing the kinds of things that can bring about a healthy economy once again, just as we had with the Clinton administration.
We're also deeply troubled by the most recent announcement that Halliburton may now be actually providing cold sandwiches to many of our troops as a result of its inability to pay some of its subcontractors. This after the acknowledgment that they're making billions of dollars in their contracts with the United States. So we want to know where did the money go? Why is it that we may be forced to provide cold meals-sandwiches-to our troops when the commitment that we've made through Halliburton to our troops for proper nutrition is one that we hold to be of the highest priority here in the Congress. We don't have the answer to that yet, but it's also something that we're going to be trying to resolve in the next day or so.
So there are a lot of budget implications. We're going to be offering our first amendment, which is to protect social security. Our second one is going to be ensuring that the veterans that are coming back are given the kind of treatment and priority they deserve in health care. We'll be talking about education and jobs. Those will be the key amendments that we'll be offering over the course of the next couple days.
Q Mr. Leader, are you concerned at all that the president's space initiative, with the moon and Mars, that's sort of fallen to the wayside? He made a lot of press about this when it came out; we've not heard anything about it since?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, it gives new meaning to lead balloon, I think. I'm not sure what it means for the president to have dropped it as quickly as he has, but I do believe that he recognized that it was really, to use a phrase, pie in the sky-just not really something that has a great deal of support, in part because people ask: From where does the money come?
I think that is-the trillion dollars that people were suggesting may have been the cost on the trip to the moon, given the size of the deficit right now, is not something that most people were very enthused about.
Do we support the space program? Absolutely. But there are a lot of other things, like the Hubble spacecraft, in particular, the Hubble telescope, that warrants, I think, the support not only of NASA but of the country with regard to the bang for the buck we're getting right now.
Q Mr. Leader --
Q Senator, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner are expected to offer an amendment on the other side that would hike Defense spending above the levels in the budget resolution by about, I think, $7 billion and set the cap up from $814 billion to 821 (billion dollars). Will Democrats support that increase for Defense? Do you think it's needed?
SEN. DASCHLE: We're going to take a look at it. We're going to have to see how justified that commitment is and whether or not the Pentagon itself supports it. We haven't had any comment from the Pentagon.
Obviously, we're going to be every bit as supportive of our efforts overseas, especially in Iraq, as we can be. But there are competing priorities. We're going to want to sort it out before we make any decision.
Q (Off mike) -- take 60 votes because of the 814 (billion dollar) cap --
SEN. DASCHLE: Exactly.
Q Have you had any discussions at all with him --
SEN. DASCHLE: We have not. No.
Q Senator Daschle, what about the job that was supposed to happen at the Commerce Department to look-that the president was going to appoint somebody? Is there any movement from the Democrats and Republicans?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, the president has yet to produce this jobs czar that he was promising last Labor Day. We've lost over 100,000 jobs. Some of our colleagues have said that it was the first job outsourced to India. That's got to be the only explanation. Somehow we've got somebody over there trying to do the job that the president promised would be done right here at home.
But you don't need a jobs czar. What we need is a recognition that passing the highway bill will create millions of additional jobs. Passing legislation to provide economic soundness in this country will also create a far stronger economy than we have today.
We also need to provide benefits to those whose unemployment benefits have expired. Those kinds of things don't require any new orchestration on the part of the White House. They just ought to support what Congress has been trying to do to address some of these concerns one by one.
Q Senator Daschle, will you support a PAYGO amendment that exempts the first three tax cuts that expire-the marriage penalty, the 10 percent bracket and the child credit?
SEN. DASCHLE: I'm inclined to support it. I haven't-I want to see just way it works. I haven't had that explained to me yet. But in concept, I could support a PAYGO with those kinds of exemptions.
Q (Off mike) -- say that amendment might actually be adopted?
SEN. DASCHLE: I think it is possible. People are concerned. You know, keep in mind as well that 80 percent of the new debt that we have acquired is all (owed/owned ?) to foreign governments, to foreign countries. It is really a remarkable demonstration of a new vulnerability that we have in our fiscal position.
So we can't tolerate, first, the complete elimination of the surplus in Social Security and elimination of many of the programs that have been used to make this country stronger, and then a dependence upon foreign sources. So we've got to look at this debt as a real threat to America's fiscal soundness, and paygo amendments may be one way to begin addressing these issues more seriously.
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. DASCHLE: That's a question I wish I could answer. I really don't know yet because we haven't gotten into the discussion to the degree I would have to know just where our caucus stands on it. I'm expressing my own point of view. Obviously, paygo would have to involve all these other tax cuts as well. And I have trouble believing the Republicans, after all of their rhetoric and the many times they've expounded on the importance of these tax cuts, that now, for some reason, they would be willing to require paygo before they're kicked in. But that is the kind of fiscal discipline that's going to be required if we're going to turn this deficit around.
Q What do you think about the nomination of Mark McClellan as head oaf the new Medicare or CMM. Some senators are thinking of or have already put a hold on his nomination over the drug reimportation issue. What's your position?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that Mr. McClellan needs to make more clear his position with regard to the reimportation. We've had reimportation policies. The problem is that we haven't had an administration willing to implement them. So yesterday I think it was still left unclear as to what his position would be. But if he's willing to work with us on that, I think we might be able to find a way to ultimately bring his name for confirmation. But I can understand the concern that any of our colleagues have had with regard to his confirmation until this matter is cleared up.
Q What, specifically, would you like to see from him? What would assure you?
SEN. DASCHLE: I would like to see an explicit recommendation on his part to the administration that we allow the reimportation as a policy for this country. On a bipartisan basis overwhelmingly we find support in the Congress for that position. It's time the administration accepted it as well.
Q Senator Daschle, Senator Santorum this morning said the Democrats have spent the last four or five months trashing the economy and may have hurt economic growth and may have even caused people to lose jobs. What is your reaction?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, if he wants to point to where jobs have been lost, I guess I would say look at the administration's policies.
My goodness, we've lost 3 million jobs under this administration's watch. This is bad economic policy, bad choices. The American people, by an overwhelming margin now-a recent poll had it 57 percent-want a change in the direction this country is taking.
Here you've got in a Republican administration, a Republican Congress, and you've got some Republicans now trying to point the finger at Democrats as the reason why the economy isn't strong. If you've got any-if anybody believes that, I've got some land in Florida I want to sell them. It's just amazing to me that people, with a straight face, could make that argument.
Q Senator, on the energy bill, there are-by some counts there have been the Democrats have more than 300 amendments ready to go. Have you-has there been any furtherance of discussions between you and Senator Frist on time management of the energy bill when it comes up at the end of the month?
SEN. DASCHLE: We have not had any discussions in the last couple of days. Our expectation is that when we come back from the next state work period that we will schedule the energy bill. I have indicated to him that I will work with him to try to expedite consideration. A lot of these amendments have been offered. They deserve to be offered again, but we don't need a lot of time. And I think we can resolve many of these issues in a way that will allow for a good consideration, a healthy consideration of the energy bill with alternatives. But ultimately passage and sending this bill over to the House I think is important, and I hope we can do it soon.
Q On the budget, will you try to strip out the budget reconciliation language with regard to the those three tax cuts, the protections in there for them?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think the reconciliation language ought to be stripped out, but I'll consult again with the caucus and with our leadership before we make any final decision on that.
Q Senator Daschle, there are reports that there is a lot of infighting among Republicans, especially on the House side, regarding defense cuts. And I'm not sure if you can even speculate about this, but what do you think-how this bodes well for the budget in its entirety? Do you think it's going to get passed this year, and what are your feelings about defense cuts, too?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, my concern is that there are really deep differences of opinion, even among the Republicans with regard to the direction we ought to take on tax cuts, on the commitments we're making in education and housing and jobs and veterans. I don't know that there is any consensus among Republicans today, so I think it would be very hard to reach a consensus in a budget conference.
But nonetheless, we have a responsibility here in the Senate. We've got to take it to the next step and see how it plays out. I think these deep differences will continue to be problematic as we try to resolve them in a time frame that is consistent with the law, which is April 15th.
Q Senator --
Q Senator --
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, again, I want to talk to the Pentagon and others with regard to whether or not these cuts are ones that can be absorbed. We have not committed all of the resources that we already authorized for Iraq, for example. There will be resources that will not be used in the supplemental that we passed. The question then becomes whether or not those funds could be used for other purposes. So I think we have some outstanding questions that have to be resolved before we can come to any conclusion about Defense spending.
Q You don't think it's unpatriotic to want to -- (off mike)?
SEN. DASCHLE: Absolutely not. No, I think people have to make these judgments based on what is the fiscal position of our country. Keep in mind, we have record deficits, incredible deficits, unlike anything we've ever seen in history. And so I think we've got to take very careful and prudent consideration to all aspects of the budget, make some decisions about what is in the best interests of our country.
Q Senator, are you concerned about --
Q (Off mike) -- Judiciary Committee files story -- (off mike) -- and what do you think would happen -- (off mike)?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I don't-we're going to discuss that in caucus today. I think that clearly this is a matter that has to be further investigated. Further questions have arisen with regard to whether or not this information was shared with outside groups, with the White House. I think that it is in keeping with our expectations for resolving these outstanding questions to consider a special investigator, a special counsel of some kind. I think that it is important for us to make some decision about whether there was criminality here, and if there is, we have to make the best judgment with regard to the course of action that Congress should take.
Q Tomorrow the House could pass a bill banning lawsuits against the food industry for the country's obesity crisis. What would Senate Democrats think about that bill when it comes to the Senate?
SEN. DASCHLE: I'd have to take a closer look at it before I could make any judgment on it. We want to discourage obesity. I'm not sure we want to criminalize it.
Q Senator, I was told that Senator Conrad had been developing a Democratic alternative that he said would get the budget to balance without using Social Security trust fund monies, within nine years, but when he brought it before Democratic colleagues, that they basically hold him they didn't want him to present that, that the choices made were too stark in an election year. Are the Democrats going to be offering a full alternative?
SEN. DASCHLE: We don't need a full alternative. Our full alternative is to offer the amendments that we will be offering. That is our alternative. I've said that now for several weeks, and the caucus overwhelmingly agrees that it's the-always the responsibility of the majority to produce a budget and the responsibility of the minority to offer alternatives. We will continue to do that. And as I say, the composite of amendments that we be offering is our alternative.
Q Senator, are you concerned about recess appointments next week?
SEN. DASCHLE: We are very concerned about recess appointments. We'll be talking about that in caucus as well.
I am, as I've said on several occasions, looking at various options. It may be that we will not allow, at least for the foreseeable future, any additional circuit court nominees to be considered without some commitment on the part of the administration that recess appointees will no longer be a practice that they employ. But again, I want to talk to the caucus before we come to any final conclusion.
Q Senator Daschle, you said last week that you believe that there are the 60 votes necessary for the energy bill to move forward and to avoid another filibuster. Do you believe that still exists, and are they contingent on other amendments being accepted?
SEN. DASCHLE: No, I think that we have the-we made a major step forward in taking out all the MTBE immunity-liability immunity. I think that was by far the biggest stumbling block. Now that doesn't mean that our colleagues are still enthusiastic about many of the provisions in the bill. There are some very specific provisions and important provisions that we would rewrite were we in the majority, but on balance I think it is a piece of legislation that a good number of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans can support. And so that would be my expectation, that given the elimination of the liability immunity, that we now have a sufficient number of votes to bring the debate to a close if that were required.
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that the American people are speaking with as loud a voice as they can. What they're saying in poll after poll is they want a new direction. It's why John Kerry is leading President Bush in head-to-head contests. It's why the poll this morning in one of the papers noted that 57 percent believe that the time has come for us to change course. I think that's what they're saying and I think in part it's because of the agenda reflected both in the Republican Congress as well as the Republican administration.
Q Senator, Senator Conrad and Senator Nickles have both complained about this vote-a-rama, back-to-back voting that tends to end the budget debate. Have you had any discussions with the leader about a different way to end this procedure, rather than this multi- hour, sometimes multi-day procedure?
SEN. DASCHLE: We've had many discussions, but we've not come to any conclusions. It's just very hard.
Q So you expect the vote-a-rama will end it as it has in past years?
SEN. DASCHLE: I do, yeah.
Q Senator Daschle, last week Senator Hatch said that he'd like to have senators meet for a two- or three-day marathon, as he put it, on asbestos before bringing the bill to the floor, and I believe he named you as one of the senators who might be interested. I wondered, if you are interested in that sort of thing, would you be willing to do that?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I've said on several occasions that it's really important for us to try to resolve as many of these outstanding issues as we can, prior to the time we bring the bill to the floor. I fear that if we bring the bill to the floor without resolutions we're going to have a significant debate and may not resolve them. And so I would be happy to participate, as we have in the past, in discussions on how we might resolve these matters in a successful way. I think we're getting closer. We're making some progress; we still have a long way to go. But I'm encouraged by the willingness on the part of people on both sides of the aisle to continue to work together to bring this matter to resolution.
Q Senator Daschle --
Q (Off mike) -- Mr. McClellan, what we were talking about before. You said what you wanted is an explicit recommendation from him. Absent an explicit recommendation, what will happen to his nomination?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, my guess is that he doesn't have the votes necessary to win confirmation if he isn't able to move more clearly in the direction that the Congress on a bipartisan basis supports. I think that people on both sides of the aisle feel very strongly about the free enterprise system and the ability on the part of many to purchase drugs where they can reduce the cost. And the cost reduction is very, very significant. States are taking this action into their own hands. And I think it's important that we realize that this issue won't go away, and I think it's incumbent upon Mr. McClellan to deal with it.
Thank --
Q Senator, the three tax cuts that you talked about, if they're not offset, would you support them?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I would want to find a way that-we have supported them in the past. Democrats will offer amendments where they will be offset. I feel that they are important, but I do believe that it's also important for us to address this issue in a way that allows us greater confidence that we're going to reduce the size and the magnitude of the deficit this year. So I haven't come to any final conclusion about that, but I'd be inclined to say that it's important that we find the offsets, as Democrats will propose, as we consider these amendments.
Thank you all.