Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank Senator Thurmond, the distinguished chairman, who is standing at another desk, for his leadership and the effort he has made in moving this bill. Past Congresses have approved four rounds of base closures --1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. We have already agreed to close 97 out of the 495 military bases and realign an additional 55 bases. I have joined with many others in voting yes every step of the way. Yes on authorizing four rounds of base closures. Yes on closing 97 bases. And yes on aligning 55 others. So, let no one doubt this Senator's willingness to cast a difficult vote in support of our national defense. I have done so in the past and am prepared to do so in the future. However, voting to close more bases at this time makes no sense--for our military, for our budget and, perhaps most importantly, for local communities. This is the position not only of the Senators from the Dakotas and Senators from across the country, it is also the position, as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota noted, of the Congressional Budget Office, of the General Accounting Office, and even the Base Closure Commission. I will get back to that in just a minute. The principal argument advanced by supporters of this particular amendment is a fiscal one. The Pentagon needs to achieve savings to stay within its $1.4 trillion budget. Setting aside the issue for the amount of whether the Pentagon really needs $1.4 trillion--and given the current international circumstances and the sacrifices we are asking of important domestic problems--we need to look at the proponents' claims about future significant savings. According to Pentagon's figures, we did not break even on base closures until 1996, nearly a decade after we began the current phase of base closings. In other words, the Pentagon's figures indicate we did not save one dime during the first eight years of base closures; instead we spent billions and billions of additional dollars. It is only after nearly a decade of economic dislocation and hardship that the Pentagon's own analysis begins to demonstrate any net savings. In fact it takes up to 6 years to close a base once Congress has authorized its closure, and of the 97 bases Congress voted to close since 1988, we have actually closed just over half this number. Since the last round of base closures was passed in 1995, it will take the Pentagon until the year 2001 just to complete action on the bases we have already voted to close. So, Mr. President, the question is, since we have not even closed about one-half the bases that were scheduled for closure, why is it that we are now making the effort to move to close still more before we have completed our work on the last ones? CBO and the General Accounting Office do not trust Pentagon figures. In fact, CBO's analysis shows that the Pentagon has consistently overestimated the savings that will accrue from a given round of base closures. In the first round, the Pentagon estimated that we would achieve $844 million in savings for the period 1990 to 1995. Subsequently, it turned out that instead of saving money, the round actually lost $517 million. For the second round of base closures, the Pentagon initially estimated that we would save $2.916 billion from 1992 to 1997. What happened? We did not save $2.9 billion. We will be fortunate to save about one-third of that amount, roughly $972 million. For the third round, the Pentagon estimated that we would lose $715 million for the period 1994 to 1999. It now estimates we will not lose quite as much, about $553 million. Clearly less than a stellar record for the Pentagon's forecasters. So the estimates according to the Department of Defense itself, which has generated this kind of skepticism from the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office, is that we are not doing as well as we had originally anticipated; we are not making the savings in base closings that we expected. The sharp fall in Pentagon savings estimates are really represented by this graph. The Pentagon's forecast for savings from the first round of base closure was reduced by 161 percent for the period 1990 to 1995. In the second of base closures, the Pentagon savings estimate has been revised downward by 67 percent. And in the third round, the Pentagon has already acknowledged that it miscalculated by about 23 percent. This chart proves as clearly, I think, as anyone can that on the basis of savings there is real reason to question whether or not we have achieved the stated goals of the Base Closure Commission-- 161 percent off the mark in the first one, 67 percent off the mark in the second one and 23 percent off the mark in the third one. GAO and CBO, two independent congressional advisory organizations, have each conducted thorough examinations of the costs and savings inherent in the base closure process. And they concur in their findings: They can reach no conclusions on savings from base closures, given the Pentagon's current accounting system. As expressed by GAO in a recent report, ``[the Defense Department] cannot provide accurate information on actual savings''. As stated by CBO in a December 1996 report, ``CBO was unable to confirm or assess DOD's estimates of cost and savings because the [Defense] Department is unable to report actual spending and savings for [base closure] actions.'' What we do know so far is that there has been a gross overestimation of what will have achieved in savings to date. So, before we decide to go to yet another round, the question presents itself, is this the right time? Not knowing how much we are going to achieve, not knowing whether or not we are going to save or actually spend more money, is this the time to commit to yet another base closing round? As I said, there are a lot of different policy questions involved here. One is savings. Another is the tremendous ripple effect through the local economies that will be felt well into the next century with yet another base closing round. We are going to be living with severe dislocations and economic loss, we know that. We are also going to be living with short-term degradation in military capability as individual military units pick up their operations and move from one base to the other. And we really have not looked at alternative approaches to achieve savings within the $1.4 trillion defense budget. And there are alternative cost saving approaches. For example, the bill before us contains an additional $5 billion additional commitment for weapons systems that were either not requested by the Pentagon or not requested in the quantities proposed in this bill. Let me say this again. This bill contains over $5 billion for weapons systems that the Pentagon judged unnecessary for national security. By my calculation if we were to attempt to save this same $5 billion through base closures alone, it would take until nearly the end of the first decade of the 21st century. In other words, by paring back weapons systems that even the Pentagon did not request, we could save today what would take roughly a decade to accomplish through base closures--even if we accept the Pentagon's rosy and highly questionable assumptions regarding potential savings. So, instead of focusing exclusively on surplus bases, perhaps we need to be discussing other ways with which to achieve any necessary savings. Looking at surplus weapons systems may be one way to do it. I am prepared to look at any and all options. However, before we commit to an approach that may not generate savings and that may not give us the framework within which a very thoughtful consideration of infrastructure can take place, we should do what this second-degree amendment sets forth. The second-degree amendment is based on two major assumptions. First, Congress should allow already authorized base closures to go forward before we cause still more dislocation and hardship. Second, Congress should be fully informed about the implications of past and future closings before we commit ourselves to still more closings. Therefore, rather than launch another round immediately, the second- degree provides the Pentagon with time to develop accounting techniques so that they and we can fully and accurately understand the costs and savings from previous and future rounds of base closures. This amendment requires the Pentagon to prepare a report on these financial changes and to have that report reviewed by the GAO and CBO. Finally, our amendment requires the Pentagon to do all of this in a timely manner. Just as important is what this amendment does not do. The amendment does not preclude future base closures that may reveal themselves to be justified once we fully understand the ramifications. If there are to be future base closures, we simply want to be able to ensure that we understand where we are today in terms of infrastructure changes we have already approved and to be able to accurately assess the long-term impact of any proposed future changes. That is the concept that I think the CBO itself has articulated. According to the Congressional Budget Office, consideration of additional base closures ``should follow an interval during which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual impact of the measures that have been taken thus far. Such a pause [they add] would allow the Department of Defense to collect data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives and to determine the actual costs incurred and savings achieved. Additional time would also allow more informed assessment of the local impacts of the bases already closed.'' Finally Mr. President, after hearing the views of GAO and CBO, I ask the Senate to consider the perspective of the last Base Closure Commission. Largely as a result of the continued turbulence and the lack of hard information, the Commission itself recommended that Congress not authorize another round of closures until the year 2001. Only our amendment is consistent with the findings of the Base Closure Commission. So based upon the analysis presented to us by CBO, by the GAO, by the Base Closure Commission, I think to move yet another round at this time is just premature. My record on base closures is clear. I have supported then when I thought they were needed and would produce the desired outcome--a leaner, more effective military that minimizes disruptions to our communities. GAO and CBO indicate that the Pentagon cannot tell us today what we have saved from past rounds, let alone yet-to-be determined future rounds. The only statement that can be made with any confidence is that our communities will suffer dislocations and disruptions well into the 21st century from actions that we have already taken. The case for inflicting additional suffering on them is far from compelling, especially when there are many other ways to achieve the necessary efficiencies within our defense budget. What we need to do is to find them. GAO, CBO, and the Base Closure Commission all acknowledge as much. Let's work together to see that happens. Only one base closure amendment protects the interests of our military and our communities, that is the second-degree amendment pending. I urge its support. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is tantamount to providing vouchers for private education. That is in essence what this amendment does. For that reason, we oppose it.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to join my distinguished colleagues, the majority leader, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, in expressing concern about the reconciliation bill preempting the work of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission. I appointed two of its members, and I would not like to see its important work undermined before it has had an opportunity to achieve a consensus to a very important issue. I believe that after the recommendations of the Commission have been submitted to Congress, we must give them every consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief with my leader time. I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia. No one knows the process and the rules better than he does. And he has worked with all of us in an effort to try to accommodate the concerns that we have raised over the last couple of days. He has done that. This may not be the final product, but it puts us in a position to achieve a final product. I hope that we can take the advice and recommendation of the majority leader, pass it on a voice vote, and allow this process to continue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly endorse the confirmation of Kathryn O'Leary Higgins as Deputy Secretary of Labor. Kitty Higgins is the right person with the right experience at the right time. As chief of staff for former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, she showed that she knows how to pull the levers, she knows how to motivate people, she knows how the Labor Department works and she knows how to make the Department work for people. I've known and admired Kitty Higgins for years. She is the kind of person we need more of in Government. She's intelligent and efficient and tenacious. She's idealistic and pragmatic. And, if that's not enough, she's from South Dakota. In fact, she is the highest-ranking South Dakotan in the administration. Kitty Higgins has spent her entire career in public service. For the last 2 years, she has served as Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary in the White House. Before that, she was Bob Reich's chief of staff at Labor. She is a former administrative assistant to Congressman Sander Levin and a former minority staff director for the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee under Senator Kennedy. In addition, she has served as the former assistant director for domestic policy during the Carter administration and a former Manpower specialist with the Department of Labor. She understands the executive branch of Government, the House and the Senate. More importantly, she understands what each of us needs to be able to work in good faith with the others to get results. There is one other chapter in Kitty Higgins life that I believe makes her the right person at the right time. Kitty Higgins started her working life at the Department of Labor as a clerk-typist. When her two sons were still young, her husband, Bill, died. She raised her sons as a single mother. She knows what it's like to be stretched thin between work and home. She understands the pressures that so many families are under today and she is determined to help alleviate those pressures for other working parents. The national economy is the best its been in years. The deficit is down, interest rates are down. The stock market is up, as well as employment and business investment and home ownership and virtually every other economic indicator that ought to be up. But there are still people left out of this recovery. Making sure that working families benefit from this economic recovery--keeping the American dream alive-- is the most important thing this Congress can do. And it is the most important thing the Labor Department can do. Kitty Higgins has the right qualities and the right background to help both institutions live up to that responsibility. I wish her the best of luck.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate today and tomorrow is not about whether to cut taxes but how to cut them. Democrats support a tax cut, but we want them to be the right kind. We want them to be fair, especially to working families. I congratulate Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan and the Members on both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan effort to improve the House bill. In many ways it is a substantial improvement of the bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee. But in the view of many Democrats, problems still remain in the version that is now before us. Under both the House and the Senate plans, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, people making over $350,000 a year, receive more than the bottom 60 percent put together, people making under $50,000. This chart depicts very well what the circumstances are. In the Archer bill, 67 percent of all the benefits in the tax bill go to the highest 20 percent. In the Roth bill, 65 percent of all the benefits go to the top 20 percent. In the bill that we are presenting as an alternative today, 20 percent of the benefits go to the top 20 percent, but 75 percent of the benefits go to the middle 60 percent. So the distribution, the progressivity of the alternative plan that we are presenting today, is a significant improvement for working families across this country. The people who have yet to share fully in the economic recovery are in the bottom 60 percent, the bottom four quintiles of income distribution, not in the top 1 percent. They ought to be the ones to largely benefit from the plan that this Congress and ultimately that this country enacts into law. But instead of helping identify middle-class families, the House and Senate bills shortchange them--9.2 percent in the middle 20 percent, 2.4 percent in the next to the bottom quintile, 2.3 percent under Roth, and a very small percentage of the benefits actually go to middle-class working families as the Finance Committee bill is written today. We can do better than this. We owe the American people better than this, and our bill attempts to do that. We recognize that we are in the minority, and many Democrats, recognizing that, have worked closely with our Republican colleagues to do the best we can to reflect a better distribution. Many of us will support the final passage if we are not successful in passing this version because we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. But it is important for the American people to know what we could have done and what we would have done were we to be in the majority. So we are offering this comprehensive alternative but with an expectation of having a good debate and contrasting the Finance Committee-passed bill, which is dominated by the Republican majority, with our Democratic alternative. Our Democratic alternative really has four objectives. First and foremost, what I have just described, we want to ensure that there is fairness for working families. Second, we want to target the growth incentives to those companies and those activities where we can do the most good. Third, we want to ensure that we put an emphasis on education. And, fourth, we don't want a tax time bomb. We don't want to explode the deficit at some point in the future given the terrific effort that has been put forth in recent years to bring the deficit down and ultimately to balance the Federal budget. So our goal is to do all of those things and stay within the bounds and the confines of the budget agreement that was agreed to by the administration and leadership in both the House and the Senate. Our plan then delivers on all counts. We provide a fair, targeted approach to middle-class families, and we do that in a number of ways. Most importantly, we recognize that it is an income tax that working families are most concerned about. They don't pay as much Federal income tax as they pay other forms of taxes that affect them directly. Middle-class families are faced with a substantial tax liability that falls outside the realm of income tax today. In fact, 99 percent of all working families who earn less than $21,000 pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes; 97 percent of those who make between $21,000 and $41,000 pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income tax; 90 percent of those who make $41,000 to $62,000 actually pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax. Even in the category that we would call middle-class families, $62,000 to $94,000, 65 percent, well over half, almost two-thirds of them, pay more payroll tax than they do income tax. It is only in the top fifth, those making more than $94,000 that actually pay, the majority of them, more income tax than they do payroll tax. So one of the key features, one of the centerpieces of our bill, is to ensure that we recognize where the tax liability is for working families. So we apply the child tax credit against the payroll tax as well as against the income tax because it is the payroll tax where we can do the most good for most working families. We have a chart that really depicts the circumstances for working families today--families, in this case, making somewhere between $22,000 and $41,000. After they take their deductibles, after they get down to their net income, they pay an average of $252 in income taxes and over $3,828 in payroll taxes. So their liability for payroll tax is substantially higher. Not only do 99 percent of them pay more in payroll tax than income tax, what they pay is so much more--$3,828 versus $252 in income tax. So our bill provides an opportunity for those who are saddled with a far greater degree of liability for payroll tax to be able to address it in the most effective way. That child tax credit would be made applicable to both the payroll tax and the income tax. We also do something else. As the current Finance Committee bill is written, the earned-income tax credit is calculated first. And then, if there is anything left, they are eligible for the child tax credit. Mr. President, we stack them in just the reverse fashion. We provide the child tax credit first so that they have the full use of that credit against either payroll tax or income tax, and then we allow the earned-income tax credit to kick in. So we provide working families an opportunity first to use the child tax credit against the payroll tax, and second to be sure that they have the full opportunity to use it by stacking it ahead of an EITC, the earned-income tax credit, if they are indeed eligible for it. So we make the bill fairer, and from those fairness proposals that we provide that distributional analysis that so clearly slows the contrast--I will just put this chart up briefly again to clarify it again. That is how we get this great distributional breakdown--75 percent of the benefits going to the middle 60 percent of all income brackets. That is why there is such a difference between the 25 percent and 10 percent and 9 percent in this case or 32 percent and 21 and 19 in the case of the fourth 20 percent. So we really provide a far better distributional opportunity for working class families than anything else. But that is what our first goal was, to ensure fairness, to ensure that those who need it the most have the most opportunity to benefit from a bill like this. Our second goal, as we said, was to ensure that we provide the maximum degree of opportunity to businesses that really need the kind of help that these tax tools can provide. In order to do that right, what we want to be able to do is target the capital gains and the other tax features in ways that will ensure that we provide the most bang for the buck. We eliminate the huge capital gains windfall for the top 1 percent. In the currently drafted Senate Finance Committee bill, we change their flat 20 percent capital gains rate, which benefits the top bracket most, to an equal 30-percent capital gains exclusion for all income brackets. Let me explain what we are attempting to do in this case. Right now, because of the flat cap of 28 percent on capital gains taxes, those in the top income tax bracket actually get a benefit of about 30 percent in capital gains exclusion because of the cap. What we do is apply that capital gains exclusion, that 30 percent, across all income brackets, thereby giving working families, those who are making $60,000 or $80,000 or $100,000, the same opportunity to use the 30 percent exclusion that the upper income bracket currently has available to them. So we expand that 30 percent across the entire array of income brackets in order to assure that people who want to invest in this country, who want to benefit from the tremendous economic opportunity and the growth that we would like to continue here will benefit--that is, will benefit those who can use it the most. So we provide more opportunities for that to happen. We also try to do a number of things that will target small businesses and family farms. We cut the capital gains rate nearly twice as deeply for most small businesses. What we provide is a 50-percent exclusion for investment into companies with assets of under $100 million, startup companies--a 50-percent exclusion across all income brackets. Startup companies which need that investment, that cannot compete with General Electric or cannot compete with Westinghouse or IBM, these are companies that really need the additional incentive, and we provide it to them. And then we say if you are really a startup company with assets under $25 million, we are going to allow you to roll over your capital gains taxes entirely if you reinvest within 6 months. So there is no capital gains on an investment in a company with assets under $25 million. When it comes to targeting the benefits to the businesses where we could do the most good by having the 30-percent exclusion for all working families, by including a 50-percent exclusion for businesses under $100 million and a complete rollover of taxes for those companies with assets under $25 million, in addition to the $500,000 exclusion on all households, on the sale of all houses, we provide, in my view, the best package that has yet been proposed to the Senate with regard to how to use the capital gains tools most effectively. We also do something that the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business and many business organizations that said is their No. 1 priority. We make health insurance fully deductible for the self-employed--fully deductible. That is not in the Finance Committee bill, but it is in the Democratic alternative. So, Mr. President, when you look at all the different ways in which we try to help small, Main Street businesses, we provide a substantial degree of additional assistance to those families who need it the most. But we do not limit ourselves just to small business. We also address the problem of inheritance tax with farmers today. Currently, small businesses and farmers who want to keep a business or a family farm in the family are finding it exceedingly difficult to do that. You cannot do that if you have to pay the inheritance taxes, in many cases, on small businesses or family farms that you want to keep in the family. So we increase by $900,000 the exemption for those businesses and family farms which are truly kept in the family. We will provide a $1.5 million inheritance tax exemption for those businesses and family farms that want to be kept in the family as generations move on. So, Mr. President, I think this is a very significant array of tax tools to help those across this country, whether they are workers, businesses, or farmers, in an effort to do as much as possible to help business succeed in this increasingly competitive and yet optimistic economic outlook that we face in the country today. That is the second goal--providing the greatest degree of capital growth to those areas where we can do the most good. The third goal is education. And, again, I will say what I said at the beginning. I think the Finance Committee deserves great credit for a lot of the things they did in that bill to try to advance education through our Tax Code, to do a number of things that will be very helpful and beneficial not only to students but to working families and to schools themselves. We just think you can do a lot better. We think that instead of just 2 years for the HOPE credit, we ought to be providing 4 years of HOPE credit opportunities. Instead of just ensuring that we provide the KIDSAVE option, bonus credit for education IRA savings, we ought to ensure that we provide for a complete Pell grant eligibility. We do not penalize Pell grant recipients. We provide the full KIDSAVE option, but we do not say you can have one or the other. We are not going to penalize those who take out the Pell grant, as well. So we want to do as much as we can to ensure through the HOPE credit, through the KIDSAVE, through Pell grants the full opportunity to use the benefits that the Federal Government provides to ensure that people have a chance to go to school. We do not think that the limited funding for crumbling schools in the bill is going to be adequate enough. We provide additional funding for crumbling schools, as well. So, Mr. President, when it comes to education, these tools are going to go a lot further in ensuring that every single student has the opportunity to go to school and to take full advantage of the opportunities that we provide in this tax bill to help offset the increasing costs of going to college today. Finally, Mr. President, we think it is very important that we be fiscally responsible. That was our fourth goal. We are concerned about the tax time bomb. The Senate bill currently is very heavily backloaded. The billions of dollars in additional cost in the year 2017 cause us great concern; $830 billion is what has been estimated by the Joint Tax Committee as the cost in the year 2017 for the Senate bill today. The cumulative cost in the year 2007 is $250 billion; in the year 2002, 5 years from now, $85 billion. So while we live within the confines of the budget agreement in 5 and in 10 years, we are not so sure that we do that in the outyears, in the years beyond 10 years. What happens in the year 2017 when we have to face the prospect of a loss of revenue of some $830 billion? Mr. President, we can do better than that as well. I think it is very important that we try to maintain the fiscal discipline that we have acquired in recent years, that has brought so many great economic dimensions to our country and to our future as a result of the discipline and the wise decisions that we made as far back as 1993. So, Mr. President, in summary, our Democratic alternative is truly a families first tax plan, providing the greatest degree of relief to middle-class families across this country regardless of whether they are laborers or business people or farmers. We have shown it is possible to be progrowth, profairness and profiscal responsibility at the same time. Our bill provides help for working class families, provides good help for those businesses and industries that want to continue to grow in this rapidly growing economy in a competitive way. We provide the greatest degree of assistance to education of any tax bill available in the Congress today. And we do it all in the context of fiscal responsibility, our fourth goal. Mr. President, I HOPE our colleagues will take a good look at this plan. I am excited about it. I believe in it. I think a lot of people would like to see this legislation passed over and above what has been proposed by the Finance Committee in spite of the good work they have done in many areas. I might add that the Secretary of the Treasury has just sent a letter that is very laudatory of the effort made by our Democratic caucus, and I ask unanimous consent at this time that a letter dated June 26 sent to me by the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time, whatever time I may consume, to close the debate on the amendment. I think it has been a good debate. We have had the opportunity to exchange views. I think perhaps there has been some misinformation about what the amendment does and does not do. I have heard that it is antisenior. I have heard that it raises taxes. There are a lot of concerns that perhaps at times like this we ought to spend time rebutting, but let me just get down to the basics. The basics are that we want to provide as much help to middle-class families as we can. We want to provide as much growth and opportunity for expansion to startup companies, to companies that really need the help as we can. Our view is that those companies that are in the multi-multibillion- dollar category, multinational companies that have extraordinary assets ought to be viewed differently than those companies that are just beginning, those startup companies that need all the help they can get to be able to survive and compete. We want to help those. We realize that our resources are not unlimited. So if they are not unlimited, we have to target the best we can those companies that indeed need the greatest degree of assistance. We provide that in capital gains. We provide that in a number of investment incentives that allow those companies the opportunity to do all the things that they can to be competitive, be the next Microsoft or the next IBM. Third, we feel it is as important as anything we do in this bill to target as many of our resources to education as possible. And fourth, we want to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We are very concerned about the tax time bomb that could occur in 10 or 15 years, as we watch this explosion with great dismay, having worked so hard now to balance the budget and to bring this budget into balance within the next couple of years. So, Mr. President, that is what we do, those four things. We provide more targeted assistance to those families who need it the most. I respect immensely the work done in the Senate Finance Committee. I respect the effort made in particular by the chairman and the ranking member in working in a bipartisan way. I respect Members who have made decisions on either side of this amendment for whatever agreements may have been consummated and the interpretation of the agreement as it relates to this amendment. I respect that. I intend to vote, if we are not successful with this amendment, for the final package. But I do believe we can do better. I believe that when we provide 65 percent of the benefits to the highest 20 percent of incomes in this country, we can do better in distributing benefits across the board more effectively. I believe that our bill, which provides 75 percent of the benefits to the 60 percent in the middle, does a better job of using limited resources where they can do the most good. Mr. President, that is what this amendment does. That is why I feel so enthusiastic about supporting it. That is why I am hopeful we can get a good vote this afternoon. I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, prior to the vote, it was my understanding that the Democratic amendment would now be in order. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. For purposes of clarification, let me first say I subscribe to what the majority leader is attempting to do here. We hope that we can accommodate the largest number of Senators with this process. I think there are some questions, however, about what happens tomorrow morning beginning with what time we vote. I think the majority leader has now indicated 9 o'clock.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object?

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask consent that be considered. I don't think that would matter, but I think we need to protect Senators in that regard.

Mr. DASCHLE. The question would be--I'm sorry, if I can just interject? If there was an amendment on one of the amendments offered, would the sequencing preclude an amendment to one of the amendments?

Mr. DASCHLE. It doesn't preclude any other Senator from offering amendments?

Mr. DASCHLE. The second question has to do with the request made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. As I understand it, what he is attempting to do is sequence a series of amendments. I guess the question would be, at what point tomorrow does that sequencing begin?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act, I make a point of order that the following sections of the pending bill are extraneous to the reconciliation instructions of the respective committee of jurisdiction: section 5713, section 5833, and section 5987.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time to address the amendment. I rise to associate myself with the remarks so eloquently made by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He speaks for many of us and has done so on several occasions. This issue really does define us. It is an issue that, in many respects, reflects our party's approach to the larger issue of access to health care in this country. Year after year and time after time in Congress after Congress many of us have come to the floor expressing a desire to expand ways to protect people from the serious problems they face when they have inadequate health coverage. Many of us have had personal family experiences in recent times that personalize this issue for us. Those of us who have parents who have suffered as a result of illnesses can thank our predecessors for the foresight they demonstrated in bringing Medicare to people that otherwise would not have had any health coverage. Indeed, other provisions of this legislation recognize the importance of expanding health coverage by encouraging States to find new ways to insure children. So how ironic, at the very time we are expanding health care for one segment of our population we are taking it away from another. How ironic. Mr. President, this is too important an issue to be left to a brief debate on an amendment in a reconciliation bill. This ought to be the subject of a weeklong debate. We ought to be debating this in depth, debating all of the ramifications of this amendment, because this issue is as important as they get. This legislation essentially tells millions of Americans that their coverage is no longer available to them, at the very time when they need it the most. As many of my colleagues have noted, we have hundreds if not thousands of companies that have mandatory retirement at age 65, and along with that retirement comes a termination of health benefits. What is going to happen to these people? What is our message to them? Now, if we had done the right thing a few years ago and ensured that everybody, regardless of age, had access to health care, I probably would not be standing here at this moment. But we did not do that. Instead, we said we will address this problem step by step, that we will find ways to expand coverage incrementally. Never once did I hear anybody come to the floor and say we should be taking insurance away from people. Mr. President, I cannot support an effort that will increase the number of uninsured Americans. I cannot be a part of it. I hope that my colleagues on this Senate floor, before they vote, will think about what it means for millions of people who are watching right now, hoping that we have the good sense not to take away the only option they will have for good health care in the future. This is a critical vote. I hope all of my colleagues will weigh very carefully all of the consequences of this legislation prior to the time they cast their vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the arrangement just described by the majority leader is one that he and I have discussed, and I have subscribed to, as well. This would allow us to complete our work on this bill and provide the opportunity to those Senators who wish to have a debate on their amendments--the time to do so is tonight. We would then begin voting as early as 9:30 in the morning and have votes on all remaining amendments sometime tomorrow morning. I think it is the appropriate way with which to resolve the remaining issues on this particular bill, and I encourage Senators to offer their amendments and complete our work on it by the end of the evening.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is giving final approval to the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill will help protect our children from the deadly danger of drugs. By approving this bill, we are putting more resources in the hands of those who are making a difference in the fight against drugs: parents, teachers, coaches, and civic and religious leaders. At the same time, though, the bill is fiscally responsible. In this time of tight fiscal constraints, we have created a bill that does not increase the Federal deficit by a single penny. The legislation simply redirects existing Federal funds from less productive areas of the drug control budget to community-based anti-drug coalitions with proven track records in the fight against drugs. What's more, the bill requires a financial commitment from communities that seek funds. The requirement of matching grants will force the communities to demonstrate an even greater commitment to fighting drug abuse before receiving Federal funds. The Drug-Free Communities Act has attracted the support of more than 150 State and local law enforcement groups, churches, and other organizations. On the national level, it has been endorsed by groups as diverse as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and William Bennett's Empower America. In my own State, the South Dakota Department of Human Services and Siouxland Cares have also committed their support. As these endorsements suggest, this bill represents a wonderful opportunity to provide meaningful help to community anti-drug coalitions in South Dakota and throughout the country. I am extremely pleased that my colleagues are supporting this legislation to keep our children away from drugs, and drugs away from our children.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield.