Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have long been aware of an inequity imposed on small businesses in our Federal Tax Code. Our tax system discriminates against small businesses by denying the self-employed a full deduction for the expenses they incur to obtain health insurance for themselves and their families. Corporations may deduct 100 percent of the costs of providing health insurance for their employees, but the self-employed, whether they operate as sole proprietorships or as partnerships, have been permitted to deduct only 25 percent of the cost of health insurance for themselves and their families. Furthermore, the 25 percent deduction has been extended on a piecemeal basis only and last expired on December 31, 1993. Unless we reinstate the deduction, the self- employed, most of whom are hard-working middle-income taxpayers, will have to shoulder the full cost of their health insurance or forgo health insurance altogether. The importance of the deduction has grown substantially in recent years due to tremendous increases in health care costs generally. The annual double-digit increases in health care costs have far outstripped the rate of inflation and led to similar increases in the cost of health insurance. Corporations, which frequently are in a better position to absorb cost increases, may fully deduct the higher insurance expenses, while the self-employed must pay these costs with after-tax dollars. In some cases, this may mean forfeiting health insurance altogether. Last year, Congress attempted to pass comprehensive health care legislation which could have resolved this inequity on a permanent basis. Many of us deeply regretted the failure of health care reform efforts last year. The self-employed health insurance deduction was one of the many casualties of that failure. I remain committed to passing a health reform bill and hope my colleagues in the majority will join me in this effort. But, regardless of the success of that effort, I think it is time we put the self- employed on an equal footing with corporations. I am reintroducing today legislation I have offered in past Congresses that would establish a full 100 percent deduction for health insurance costs paid by the self-employed. In addition, this legislation, which is identical to the bills I introduced previously, would make the deduction permanent, as it is for corporations. If this bill is enacted, the self-employed no longer will have to worry each year that their deduction for health insurance costs may be completely eliminated. My distinguished colleagues Senators Breaux, Campbell, Glenn, Harkin, Johnston, and Pryor have joined me in introducing this legislation. The cost of this measure is not insignificant, and I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate who favor extension and expansion of the deduction to find an appropriate and adequate offset elsewhere in the budget to cover the cost of this measure over the 10-year period required under the Budget Act. Of course, consideration of this measure should in no way diminish the importance of or divert our attention away from the ultimate goal of reforming our health care system. Only through such reforms can we hope to rein in skyrocketing health care costs and provide health security to families that currently cannot afford insurance or live in fear of losing their coverage. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the legislation I am introducing today. In so doing, they not only will help restore fairness to the Tax Code with respect to small businesses, but they also will be supporting substantial tax relief for a large group of middle-income Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that reaffirms the intent of the U.S. Congress, originally expressed in 1916, to grant tax-exempt status to telephone cooperatives. This exemption is now set forth in section 501(c)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code. I am joined by my distinguished colleagues Senators Grassley, Harkin, Conrad, and Dorgan. This legislation is identical to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress and to a measure that was included in the Revenue Act of 1992, which ultimately was vetoed. Congress has always understood that tax exemption is necessary to ensure that reliable, universal telephone service is available in rural America at a cost that is affordable to the rural consumer. Telephone cooperative are non-profit entities that provide this service where it might otherwise not exist due to the high cost of reaching remote, sparsely populated areas. The facilities of a telephone cooperative are used to provide both local and long distance communications services. Perhaps the most important of these for rural users is long distance. Without these services, both local and long distance, people in rural areas could not communicate with their own neighbors, much less with the world. While telephone cooperative comprise only a small fraction of the U.S. telephone industry--about 1 percent--their services are vitally important to those who must rely upon them. Under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(12), a telephone cooperative qualifies for tax exemption only if at least 85 percent of its gross income consists of amounts collected from members for the sole purpose of meeting losses and expenses. Thus, the bulk of the revenues must be related to providing services needed by members of the cooperative, that is, rural consumers. No more than 15 percent of the cooperative's gross income may come from non-member sources, such as property rentals or interest earned on funds on deposit in a bank. For purposes of the 85 percent test, certain member income and are excluded from the calculation. The reason for the 85 percent test is to ensure that cooperatives do not abuse their tax- exempt status. A Technical Advise Memorandum [TAM] released by the Internal Revenue Service a few years ago threatens to change the way telephone cooperatives characterize certain expenses for purposes of the 85 percent test. If the rationale set forth in the TAM is applied to all telephone cooperatives, the majority could lose their tax-exempt status. Specifically, the IRS now appears to take the position that all fees received by telephone cooperatives from long-distance companies for use of the local lines must be excluded from the 85 percent test and that fees received for billing and collection services performed by cooperatives on behalf of long-distance companies constitute non-member income to the cooperative. The legislation I am introducing today would clarify that access revenues paid by long distance companies to telephone cooperatives are to be counted as member revenues, so long as they are related to long distance calls paid for by members of the cooperative. In addition, the legislation would indicate that billing and collection fees are to be excluded entirely from the 85 percent test calculation. Mr. President, it is not secret that mere distance is the single most important obstacle to rural development. In the telecommunications industry today, we have the ability to bridge distances more effectively than ever before. Technology in this area has advanced at an incredible pace. But, maintaining and upgrading the rural telecommunications infrastructure is an exceedingly expensive proposition, and we must do all we can to encourage this development. Ensuring that telephone cooperatives may retain their legitimate tax- exempt status is one vital step we can take. I believe that providing access to customers for long distance calls and billing and collecting for those calls on behalf of the cooperative's members and the long distance companies are indisputably part of the exempt function of providing telephone service, especially to rural communities. The nature and function of telephone cooperatives have not materially changed since 1916, and neither should the formula upon which they rely to obtain tax-exempt status. In the 103d Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the cost of this legislation to be $59 million over a 5-year period. At the appropriate time, I will recommend appropriate offsets to cover the cost of this measure over the 10-year period required under the Budget Act. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation that would expand the current inventory charitable donation rule to include Indian tribes. This proposal is short and simple. Under current law, companies may obtain a special charitable donation tax deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 170(e)(3) for contributing their excess inventory to ``the ill, the needy, or infants.'' While not limited to any particular type of company or inventory, this deduction commonly is used by food processing companies whose excess food inventories otherwise would spoil. Indian tribes have had difficulty obtaining these donations, however, because of an ambiguity in the law as to whether or not donating companies may deduct donations to organizations on Indian reservations. The current language in Section 170(e)(3) requires charitable donations of excess inventory to be made to organizations that are described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code and exempt from taxation under Section 501(a). While Indian tribes are exempt from taxation, they are not among the organizations described in Section 501(c)(3). Accordingly, it is not clear that a direct donation of excess inventory to an Indian tribe would qualify for the charitable donation deduction under Section 170(e)(3). Ironically, the Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act found in Section 7871 provides that an Indian tribal government shall be treated as a state for purposes of determining tax deductibility of charitable contributions made pursuant to Section 170. Unfortunately, the Act does not expressly extend to donations made under Section 170(e)(3) because that provision technically does not include states as eligible donees, either. Americans, like other citizens, may meet the qualifications for this special charitable donation. No one would argue that it is not within the intent of Section 170(e)(3) to allow contributions to Native American organizations to qualify for the special charitable donation deduction in that section of the code. The bill I am introducing today simply would allow those contributions to qualify for the deduction. By allowing companies to make qualified contributions to Indian tribes under Section 170(e)(3), the bill would clearly further the intended purpose of both Internal Revenue Code Section 170(e)(3) and the Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act. The appropriateness of the measure is exhibited by the fact that it was included in the Revenue Act of 1992 (H.R. 11,), which, unfortunately, was vetoed, Moreover, at the time it was passed, the measure was supported on policy grounds by the Joint Committee on Taxation and Finance Committee staffs. Finally, in 1994, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the proposal would have only a negligible effect on Treasury Receipts. I strongly encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and consider supporting this worthy and reasonable measure. Mr President, I unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was order to be printed in the Record as follows:

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that addresses a small, but important, concern regarding the deduction of mileage expenses by individuals who volunteer their services to help carry out the activities of charitable organizations. Many individuals who volunteer for charitable organizations incur out-of-pocket expenses that are not reimbursed by the charity. One such expense occurs where an individual uses his or her own car to carry out charitable purpose activities. Examples of this are when an individual provides transportation to a hospital for veterans, delivers meals to the homeless or elderly on behalf of a charity, or transports children to scouting and other youth activities. In 1984, Congress set a standard mileage expense deduction rate of 12 cents per mile for individuals who use their vehicles to carry out the tax-exempt goals of charitable organizations. The express purpose of the deduction was to support the efforts of volunteers, who do not receive any charitable deduction for the value of their contributed services, and to take into account the additional out-of-pocket costs of operation of a vehicle in doing so. At the time that Congress codified the standard charitable mileage deduction at 12 cents per mile, the standard deduction for mileage expenses incurred in connection with one's trade or business was 20.5 cents for the first 15,000 miles and 11 cents for each mile thereafter. Since that time, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, through the Internal Revenue Service, has increased the standard mileage rate for business travel expenses to 28 cents per mile for unlimited mileage. Unfortunately, due to an anomaly in the tax code, the Secretary of the Treasury does not have the authority to make corresponding increases in the vehicle. Thus, the standard charitable mileage rate remains today at 12 cents per mile. The legislation I am introducing, which is identical to bills I have introduced in previous Congresses on this matter, would address this inconsistency in two ways. First, it would increase the standard charitable mileage expense deduction rate to 16 cents per mile. This would restore the ratio that existed in 1984 between the charitable mileage rate and the business mileage rate. Second, the legislation would give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to make subsequent increases in the charitable mileage rate without further permission from Congress, just as it currently does with the mileage rate for business use of a vehicle. The intent of this provision of the legislation is to ensure that, as increases are made in the future to the standard business mileage rate, the charitable mileage deduction will be increased, as well, so as to maintain the ratio that existed between these two mileage rates in 1984. In 1993, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the cost of this proposal at $327 million over a five-year period. This amount is not insignificant despite the merits of this measure. Therefore, at an appropriate time, I intend to recommend offsets for the proposal over a ten-year period as required by the Budget Act. Mr. President, many charitable organizations today are being forced to take on a greater burden than ever before, due to cut-backs, especially in the 1980s, in federal programs for veterans, the elderly and other groups in need. As a result, these organizations must increasingly rely on volunteer assistance to provide the services that are central to their tax-exempt purposes. If we can do no more, at the very least we in Congress should ensure that helpful measures remaining in the law are not allowed to erode. On behalf of volunteers of every stripe, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide equitable treatment under the tax law for farmers and ranchers who are forced to sell their livestock prematurely due to extreme weather conditions. I am joined in this effort by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Pressler, Grassley, Baucus, Burns and Harkin. A couple summers ago, Midwestern States suffered severe floods, which devastated lives and property along these states rivers and shorelines. President Clinton responded quickly by providing disaster assistance, $2.5 billion, including $1 billion for agriculture, in emergency aid to flooded areas in the Midwest. In addition to receiving disaster payments, many farmers were able to take advantage of provisions in the Internal Revenue Code designed primarily to spread out the impact of taxes on farmers in these situations. Ironically, however, while farmers who lose their crops due to floods are covered under these provisions, farmers who must involuntarily sell livestock due to flood conditions are not. Normally, a taxpayer who uses the cash method of accounting, as most farmers do, must report income in the year in which he or she actually receives the income. The Tax Code, however, outlines certain exceptions to this rule where disaster conditions generate income to the farmer that otherwise would not have been received at that time. For example, one exception allows farmers who receive insurance proceeds or disaster payments when crops are destroyed or damaged due to drought, flood or any other natural disaster to include those proceeds in income in the year following the disaster, if that is when the income from the crops otherwise would have been received. Two other provisions deal with involuntary conversion of livestock. The first provision enables livestock producers who are forced to sell herds due to drought conditions to defer tax on any gain from these sales by reinvesting the proceeds in similar property within a 2-year period. The second provision allows livestock producers who choose not to reinvest in similar property to elect to include proceeds from the sale of the livestock in taxable income in the year following the sale. For no apparent reason, the two provisions dealing with livestock do not sold due to flooding. Thus, floods and flood conditions do not trigger the benefits of those provisions. Yet, many livestock producers during the recent floods had no choice but to sell livestock because floods had destroyed crops needed to feed the livestock, fences for containing livestock were washed out, or other similar circumstances had occurred. Our proposal would expand the availability of the existing livestock tax provisions to include involuntary conversions of livestock due to flooding and other weather-related conditions. This would conform the treatment of crops and livestock in this respect. A provision similar to our bill was passed by Congress as part of the Revenue Act of 1992. Unfortunately, that legislation was subsequently vetoed. Let me emphasize that the tax provisions we are dealing with here affect the timing of tax payments, not forgiveness of tax liability. Nonetheless, I intend to request the Joint Committee on Taxation to prepare an estimate of the cost of this measure. At the appropriate time after that estimate is completed, I will recommend offsets over a 10-year period as required by the Budget Act. We should not shut out some farmers--livestock producers--from the disaster-related provisions of the Tax Code simply because the natural disaster involved was a flood, instead of a drought. That just doesn't make sense, and I urge my colleagues to give this bill favorable consideration. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since 1988, I have studied the effects on family farmers of a provision in the estate tax law--section 2032A. While section 2032A may seem a minor provision to some, it is critically important to family-run farms. A problem with respect to the Internal Revenue Service's interpretation of this provision has been festering for a number of years and threatens to force the sale of many family farms. Section 2032A, which bases the estate tax applicable to a family farm on its the intent of Congress to help families keep their farms. A family that has worked hard to maintain a farm should not have to sell it to a third party solely to pay stiff estate taxes resulting from increases in the value of the land. Under section 2032A, inheriting family members are required to continue farming the property for at least 15 years, in order to avoid having the IRS ``recapture'' the tax savings. At the time section 2032A was enacted, it was common practice for one or more family members to cash lease the farm from the other members of the family. This practice made sense where one family member was more involved than the other family members in the day-to-day farming of the land. Typically, however, the other family members would continue to be at risk as to the value of the farm and to participate in decisions affecting the farm's operation. Cash leasing among family members remained a common practice after the enactment of section 2032A. An inheriting child would cash lease from his or her siblings, with no reason to suspect from the statute or otherwise that the cash leasing arrangement might jeopardize the farm's qualification for special use valuation. Based at least in part on some language that I am told was included in a Joint Committee on Taxation publication in early 1982, the Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that cash leasing among family members will disqualify the farm for special use valuation. The matter has since been the subject of numerous audits and some litigation, though potentially hundreds of family farmers may yet be unaware of the change of events. Cases continue to arise under this provision. In 1988, Congress provided partial clarification of this issue for surviving spouses who cash lease to their children. Due to revenue concerns, however, no clarification was made of the situation where surviving children cash lease among themselves. My concern is that many families in which inheriting children or other family members have cash leased to each other may not even be aware of the IRS's position on this issue. At some time in the future, they are going to be audited and find themselves liable for enormous amounts in taxes, interest and penalties. For those who cash leased in the late 1970s, this could be devastating because the taxes they owe are based on the inflated land values that existed at that time. A case that arose in my State of South Dakota illustrates the unfairness and devastating impact of the IRS interpretation of section 2032A. Janet Kretschmar, who lives with her husband, Craig, in Cresbard, SD, inherited her mother's farm along with her two sisters in 1980. Because the property would continue to be farmed by the family members, estate taxes were paid on it pursuant to section 2032A, saving over $50,000 in estate tax. Janet and Craig continued to farm the land and have primary responsibility for its day-to-day operation. They set up a simple and straightforward arrangement with the other two sisters whereby Janet and Craig would lease the sisters' interests from them. Seven years later, the IRS told the Kretschmars that the cash lease arrangement had disqualified the property for special use valuation and that they owed $54,000 to the IRS. According to the IRS, this amount represented estate tax that was being ``recaptured'' as a result of the disqualification. This came as an enormous surprise to the Kretschmars, as they had never been notified of the change in interpretation of the law and had no reason to believe that their arrangement would no longer be held valid by the IRS for purposes of qualifying for special use valuation. The fact is that, if they had known this, they would have organized their affairs in one of several other acceptable, though more complicated, ways. For many years, I have sought inclusion in tax legislation of a provision that would clarify that cash leasing among family members will not disqualify the property for special use valuation. In 1992, such a provision was successfully included in H.R. 11, the Revenue Act of 1992 and passed by Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 11 was subsequently vetoed. Today, I am introducing a bill the language of which is identical to the section 2032A measure that was passed in the Revenue Act of 1992. I am joined in this effort by my two colleagues from North Dakota, Senators Dorgan and Conrad, whose background and expertise on tax issues are well known, as well as by my distinguished colleagues Senators Kassebaum and Baucus. I must emphasize that there may be many other cases in other agricultural states where families are cash leasing the family farm among each other unaware that the IRS could come knocking at their door at any minute. I urge my colleagues in the Senate who may have such cases in their State to work with us and support this important clarification of the law. I intend to request the Joint Committee on Taxation to estimate the revenue impact of this proposal. At an appropriate time thereafter, I will recommend any necessary offsets over a 10-year period as required by the Budget Act. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, and I are introducing today a bill that I believe should be an important item on our agenda for the 104th Congress. For nearly a decade now, one of our primary tasks has been to leash the burgeoning budget deficit and keep it under control. One of our more recent efforts in this regard, the Ominbus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, went a long way toward that goal, setting in motion nearly $500 billion in spending cuts as well as tax increases on those who could afford it most. In crafting last year's budget, we took further steps to cut unnecessary spending. But we are by no means out of the woods yet. Deficits are expected to begin rising again in the near future, spurred mainly by increases in health care costs. The process of reducing the budget deficit is a painstaking one, during which every item of direct spending is scrutinized. Even entitlements have faced the budget ax in recent years, as we have tried to balance the costs and benefits of spending in one area or another. As part of this process, programs are reviewed by the President in submitting his budget, and cuts are suggested in an array of programs across the board. Thereafter, the Budget Committee prepares it annual budget resolution in which every item of direct spending, including entitlements, is divided into budget function groups. Spending targets are set for each budget category, with instructions to the committees of jurisdiction to attempt to reach those targets. The intense scrutiny, however, is reserved for direct spending items. Yet, one of our largest areas of spending in the Federal budget is tax expenditures--exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, preferential rates, and deferrals of tax liability. While, at the margin, we can debate exactly what constitutes a tax expenditure, these items drain about $400 billion from Federal revenues every year. Make no mistake, I am not advocating that there be massive elimination of tax expenditures, just as I would not suggest cutting discretionary programs and entitlements in half without regard to merit. What I am saying is that this very large and important part of Federal spending--for, clearly, that is what it is--deserves the same scrutiny as direct spending. Currently tax expenditures receive only minimal attention on an annual basis. First, the President must submit a list of these expenditures in his annual budget submission to Congress. Second, levels of tax expenditures are included in an annual report released by the Congressional Budget Office. And third, the report accompanying the annual budget resolution must include estimated levels of tax expenditures by major functional category. The scrutiny stops there. Nowhere is this information incorporated in the budget process in a meaningful way--a way that spurs action to limit this form of spending. There are no targets for tax expenditures called for in the budget resolution, and there is nothing to force Members to view tax expenditures by budget function, comparing aggregate spending in any given area through both direct spending and tax expenditures. Frankly, there is no reason to require the President, CBO, or the budget committees to list or estimate levels of tax expenditures if, thereafter, we may simply ignore them. The bill that Senator Bradley and I am introducing today would incorporate consideration of tax expenditures in the budget process in a responsible and more effective way. Essentially, it would subject tax expenditures to the same annual scrutiny that entitlement spending currently receives. That should be the minimum. The bill would require setting targets for tax expenditures in the annual budget resolution and would require that the total level of tax expenditures be broken down according to functional category in the budget resolution itself. With this information, Congress and the public could compare how much is being spend on a particular budget function both through direct spending and through tax expenditures. These and other changes contained in colleague from New Jersey, will help translate awareness into action. As we tackle other important budget issues in this session of Congress, I urge my colleagues to review our legislation carefully and consider lending their support for its passage.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation in my continuing effort to address what I feel is an unfair ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that severely affects a certain segment of American workers. It is a situation where pure tax policy simply is not practical in its application to everyday life. In my state of South Dakota, the Black Hills National Forest spreads over some 6,000 square miles. Many of my colleagues may be familiar with it. In this forest, there is a thriving logging industry that employs many South Dakotans. The logging companies that have operations there would not be able to do their business without the assistance of those who cut the logs and haul or ``skid'' them to the trucks on which they are carried to the mill. These workers--known as ``cutters'' and ``skidders,'' and the contractors who employ them, are collectively referred to as ``loggers.'' For a logger, traveling to work every day is very different from the experience of the average commuter. Loggers often travel as much as a couple of hours one way to the site where cutting is taking place. This may involve driving along miles of unpaved forest roads. It is impossible for them to live closer to their work site, not only because of its location, but also because that site may change from month to month. In addition, loggers must have vehicles that are capable of traversing rough forest terrain. Despite the number of miles the loggers must travel to work each day and the rough terrain, the IRS has said that their expenses of traveling from home to the work site and back again are non-deductible commuting expenses. This is true regardless of the location of the work site within the forest or its distance form the individual logger's home. For, according to the IRS, the entire 6,000-square-mile forest is the loggers' ``tax home'' or ``regular place of business'' for purposes of deducting mileage expenses. Despite the IRS's reasons for taking this position, the effect of the rule on loggers in the Black Hills is unfair. It imposes a hardship on them and fails to recognize the special circumstances of their jobs. True, other taxpayers are not permitted to deduct commuting mileage expenses. But other taxpayers generally are not forced to travel such long distances to and from work each day or to drive along dirt forest roads. Indeed, several loggers who challenged the IRS on this issue initially won their cases, only to be overturned on appeal. To rectify this situation, I introduced legislation in the 102d and 103d Congresses that would have allowed loggers, in the Black Hills or elsewhere, to deduct their mileage expenses incurred while traveling between their homes and the cutting site, so long as the mileage is legitimately related to their business. Although that measure was not included in tax legislation last year primarily due to revenue concerns, in the 102d Congress a provision requiring the U.S. Department of the Treasury to study the issue was passed in H.R. 11, the Revenue Act of 1992, which ultimately was vetoed. Today I am reintroducing the bill that I introduced previously allowing loggers to deduct their mileage expenses incurred while traveling between their homes and the cutting site. I urge my colleagues, particularly those who have loggers in their state, to take a close look at it. To some, this may seem a small matter in the scheme of what we do here in the Senate, but it would restore a measure of fairness to loggers who currently are subject to the IRS's whims. Finally, I recognize that there will be some cost associated with this measure, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to recommend offsets to cover the cost of the measure over a 10-year period as required by the Budget Act. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with great pleasure I announce the selection of Ms. Abby Saffold as Secretary for the Minority. There could not be a better or more qualified person for this position. It is a position that demands patience, wisdom, and instinct, as well as dedication and an incredibly high degree of competence. It demands the ability to work and to look after the interests of 47 of the most demanding people in the country. And it demands a deep and broad knowledge of the workings of the U.S. Congress. Ms. Saffold meets these requirements and more. As former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell stated, ``to know Abby is a pleasure. To work with her is a delight.'' Ms. Saffold is a congressional veteran. On the House side, she worked for Representatives William Scott and Lloyd Meeds. On the Senate side, she has worked for Senate giants, including Gaylord Nelson, Birch Bayh, Robert C. Byrd, and George Mitchell. She has served on important Senate committees, including the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees. And she was outstanding as manager of the floor staff for the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. In April, 1987, Ms. Saffold became the first woman of either party to serve as Secretary for the Majority. In this position, she demonstrated that she is highly skilled as a legislative strategist, highly adept in running the Cloakroom, and highly talented in helping Senators do their best in a system that sometimes is troubling and too often frustrating. Ms. Saffold is all that a party leader could ask for in this demanding position--and more. I have read of the time when Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker held up a Senate debate while Ms. Saffold completed negotiating the legislative timetable with his staff. The Republican majority leader, for the Record, explained: ``We're just here waiting for Abby.'' Mr. President, I have no doubt that, as the Democratic leader, I will be even more dependent on Ms. Saffold. I am delighted to have her serving as Secretary to the Minority. I thank my colleagues for electing Ms. Saffold to the position, and I thank Ms. Saffold for accepting it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a second resolution to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with the opening of the 104th Congress, we again witness a historic transfer of power as the Republican Party takes control of the Senate and Senator Strom Thurmond earlier today replaced Senator Robert C. Byrd as President pro tempore of the Senate. In this transition, we are witnessing one Senate institution replacing another. Together, these two outstanding legislators total three quarters of a century service in the Senate. Each not only has witnessed, but participated in, so much history and in the enactment of so much legislation, that Senators of my generation often are left in awe. As we prepare our legislative agendas and prepare for the upcoming debates and battles, this historic transition should not be lost upon us. Senator Byrd, for the past 6 years, has presided over the deliberations of the Senate. A look at the record reveals that he is indeed an institution within this institution. The senior Senator from West Virginia has served in the Senate for nearly 40 years. He has served as chairman of Senate Appropriations Committee, as the Senate Democratic whip, 6 years as Senate minority leader, 6 years as Senate majority leader, and, since 1987, President pro tempore of the Senate. His unparalleled knowledge of the Senate's intricate rules and procedures, his overwhelming knowledge of the history of this legislative body that he loves so deeply, and, his presence in this Chamber combined to make him a most effective and impressive President pro tempore. What an honor it has been for me personally to watch him preside. We will miss him and his presence in the chair. While there is not a stronger, more ardent fighter for the causes in which he believes and supports, no one could have been more fair or more impartial in presiding over the Senate. Although he leaves the chair of President pro tempore, I can assure you he is not about to fade away. As the new Democratic leader of the Senate, I will need, I will seek, and I will certainly appreciate his wisdom, experience, his insight, and his foresight. I know that Senators from both sides of the aisle will continue to value the benefit of his unique perspective and the importance of this institution as well as his unique ability to resolve problems within it. Mr. President, at the closing of the 99th Congress, the Senate approved a resolution recognizing the outstanding service Senator Strom Thurmond had performed as President pro tempore of the Senate. The resolution expressed the Senate's appreciation for the courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which the senior Senator from South Carolina had presided over the deliberations of the Senate. In the 104th Congress, Senator Thurmond again will occupy this important and prestigious position. Like Senator Byrd, he, too, is an institution within this institution. While a Member of the Senate, he has been a member of both political parties and a candidate for President of another. While serving in the U.S. Senate, Senator Thurmond has had highways, courthouses, Federal buildings, and schools named in his honor--honors usually reserved for those who are no longer with us. In the Senate, he has been an active participant--sometimes controversial--but a participant in the legislative struggles of our times. I have not always agreed with his positions, past or present, in those contests, but I have never seen or encountered a more worthy, a more dignified opponent or one for whom I have greater respect. As everyone who has had the pleasure of serving in this Chamber with him knows, Senator Thurmond has been a consistent champion of the South and of conservative causes, but we also know he has been able to blend and bend when democracy took a different course. He has remained a southern gentleman of the highest order. As the Democratic leader, I want to extend my congratulations to Senator Thurmond for his reelection as President pro tempore and welcome him back to this position. I look forward to working with him as well. I am confident that in the 104th Congress, Senator Thurmond will perform the duties of President pro tempore of the Senate in the same courteous, dignified, and impartial manner in which he presided over the deliberations of the Senate in the 99th Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to state my concurrence with the basic proposition stated today that the administration of the oath to Senator-elect Feinstein will not prejudice in any way the Senate's constitutional power to judge the California election. Neither will the pendency of Mr. Huffington's petition diminish in any way the effect of the oath that will now be administered to Senator Feinstein. I join in the observation by Senator Dole and shared by previous Senate leaders that all Senators sworn in today are Senators in every sense of the word.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added a cosponsor of the resolution just adopted.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the majority leader on his statement and on many of the points that he raised in the last few minutes. Let me also personally thank him for his cooperation and the manner with which he has worked with the Members in our caucus over the last several weeks. Needless to say, this transition has not been easy, but, to the extent possible, the majority leader has made it so. I thank him for his cordiality, for his friendship, and for the manner in which he has conducted his office in the last several weeks. It means a good deal to me. I look forward to working with him in the many months and years ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin a new session of Congress. I know all my colleagues are eager to move ahead with the Nation's business. In some ways, we face circumstances that earlier generations of Americans faced as well. At the beginning of our Nation's existence, after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the former colonies busied themselves establishing legislatures and drafting constitutions. It must have been a heady time. Men, for they were all men at that time, who had been colonial appointees began to see themselves for the first time as legislators, potential leaders, people who could steer their States' destinies. In the State of Pennsylvania, the legislature spent several months thrashing over the outlines of a new constitution but found itself, months later, without a finished product. Meanwhile, the life of the State continued. Citizens woke each morning, attended to their affairs, transacted their business, and seemed not to notice that they were without a constitution. Ben Franklin pointed out the evident danger: ``Gentleman,'' he said, ``You see that we have been living under anarchy, yet the business of living has gone on as usual. Be careful; if our debates go on much longer, people may come to see that they can get along very well without us.'' It is somewhat in this spirit that I approach the beginning of the 104th Congress. We, too, will be judged less by our rhetoric than by our accomplishments. Today, I offer the first five bills that my Democratic colleagues and I will seek to move in this Congress. They are bills that speak to three critical areas I believe should be the focus of our efforts in the 104th Congress--economic opportunities for working American families, the values in our social fabric that bind us together as a society, and a determination that we end business as usual in all aspects of Government. The first bill, S. 6, is designed to be for American workers today what the GI bill was for American soldiers after the Second World War. The Working Americans Opportunity Act takes the funds now used for 20 major job training programs and turns them into vouchers so Americans can buy the training and education they need themselves. In this way, we can streamline and consolidate nine job training laws to focus more services and to redirect the funds to the people who need the training in the first place. Our limited job-training resources should be directed to those who will benefit from training, not siphoned off to support the administrative costs of overlapping, fragmented, and outdated programs. The GI bill is rightly credited with lifting American productivity, economic growth, and living standards. It did that by giving all returning GI's--millions of men and women in the aggregate--the ability to go back to school and make up for the years they sacrificed to their Nation's service in war. It was not only well-deserved reward for veterans. It was one of the best investments the Government ever made. The GI bill more than repaid its costs many times over in worker income, in productivity, in economic growth, in State and Federal taxes, in virtually every other way. At the end of the cold war years, we're not facing an army of returning veterans. We are facing a society that is emerging from a preoccupation with military spending and the military sciences, and turning to cope with a new world of technological advance that holds enormous promise for those who can learn to participate in it. Our bill, therefore, will consolidate old job training programs and put money directly into the hands of those who need training, not to bureaucratic overhead. Americans need the tools to enter fully into the new technological workplace. That is what our first bill will do. It will be a workers' GI bill to relocating abroad, or in regions where people's job skills do not match employers' needs the chance to learn new skills, make themselves employable, enter new industries, and move forward with our growing economy. S. 7 is the Family Health Insurance Protection Act. It includes the measures that even the anti-health-care-reform crowd last year said they wanted. Let us find out if they are being straight or are just pulling another one over on the American people. Democrats think it is way past time to act. Not only are health care costs for ordinary people going through the roof, they are also going to bust the Federal budget, and we all know who's going to pay for that when it happens. It is consistent with the goals outlined in bills introduced by both Republicans and Democrats and with the vision the President outlined in a latter to the congressional leadership last week. Our health reform bill is straightforward and sensible. It prevents insurance companies from raising rates because you get sick. Why? Because health insurance is supposed to be a pooled risk. The insurer, as well as the insured, takes a risk. Our bill also prohibits refusal of insurance because of preexisting conditions. The condition of being human makes us all susceptible to illness, accidents, and bad luck. That is what insurance is supposed to compensate for, not to profit from. Jean and Greg Puls of Sioux Falls, SD, know this all too well. Their 10-year-old son, Matthew, has diabetes. When Jean's employer switched health policies, the new insurer refused to cover Matthew. Jean and Greg faced a frantic search for an insurer who would. They were turned down by dozens of companies and were finally forced to purchase an out-of-State policy that still won't cover Matthews's diabetes for a whole year. Jean Puls says that for all the money they have paid into the health care system, they have been unable to get the simple peace of mind they seek. And she is right. A system which produces this result is not right Our bill requires all insurers to offer Americans one plan of insurance coverage as good as that which covers any Member of Congress--Democrat or Republican. If we deserve it, then certainly so do the people whose tax dollars pay our wages. Our bill lets people who are self-employed deduct their insurance premium costs just like big corporations can. That is the minimally fair thing we can do for American farmers and self-employed store owners, accountants, mechanics, and lawn-service operators, all the millions of people who have taken the real risk of earning their own income by their own hard work and enterprise. Let them deduct their health insurance costs, too. Our health reform bill prohibits insurance companies from hiding important information in the fine print. We need truth in labeling. People who market beef have to tell consumers how many grams of fat their product contains. It is about time the insurance companies told us what their fat content is. Why should not Americans get the same accountability from health insurers as we expect from food producers and toy manufacturers? Our health reform bill calls for standard forms. An inflamed appendix taken out in Seattle doesn't demand anything different than an inflamed appendix removed in Boston. And it will not be done better or worse because of the shape of a payment form. Meanwhile, we are talking about millions of wasted hours by doctors, nurses, administrative staff, and, not least, the American taxpayer just to get reimbursed for the health care our premiums are supposed to cover. Our health care reform bill just asks the private insurance market to do what Government is trying to do. Let it get rid of the bloated bureaucrats. Let it cut the overhead. Let it streamline and serve its customers, not itself. Is there any reason that Americans have to fill out more forms, provide duplicative information more times, fight for longer on the phone with self-appointed bureaucrats in the health insurance industry than the people of any other industrialized nation? Is there any reason that an American hospital has twice as many clerical workers as a Canadian one? Does pushing paper make sick people get better? Let health care professionals practice medicine, not administer bookkeepers. This bill represents, frankly, a downpayment on the goal of ensuring all Americans have access to affordable quality health care coverage. Before we achieve that goal, however, other more difficult issues will have to be resolved, especially long-term care and the Federal barriers to State-level reform efforts. The bill we offer is simply a first step, but I do hope that Democrats and Republicans can again reflect the consensus these provisions have reflected in the last Congress and work together to develop compromises on the more difficult matters. I cannot--I will not--support the passage of any reform measure, however, that increases the deficit. When the majority leader and my colleagues on the Finance Committee are ready to move forward on the health reforms we present today, we will have to agree on appropriate offsetting savings to ensure that every reform provision is paid for over a 10-year period of time. Health care reform cannot be undertaken at the cost of more unpaid bills passed along to our children and to their children. Our third bill, S. 8, is legislation to deal with teen pregnancy and parents who abandon their children. Our bill does not finance orphanages. One of our Democratic colleagues, Senator Campbell of Colorado, has the distinction of actually having been placed in an orphanage as a child, so he speaks from experience, not dealing in Hollywood movies. His story is one which could benefit us all. If you have not had the opportunity to read his biography, I would encourage you, Mr. President, and others to do so. It is a telling story of a man who has come a long way, given the very difficult beginning that he had experienced as a child. He learned, as many of us now know, that orphanages are not a home. All too often, they are not even a decent substitute for a home. Even the best orphanage should never be used to undermine an intact family relationship. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Parental Responsibility Act, instead, requires underaged teen mothers to live with their families or at least find themselves in a supervised home setting if they want to qualify for AFDC. Children having children is tragic, and the cycle can only be ended by making sure that parents of these children grow up and become adults themselves. There may be no sure-fire way to achieve this but clearly encouraging 16-year-olds to set up homes by themselves has not proved to be the answer and can never be the answer. They should stay with their families or in supervised group homes where their lives have some discipline, some guidance, some routine, some sense of grounding that will let them escape the cycle of dependency and become self-supporting adults. In addition, teen parents should stay in school or go back to school and graduate. Our bill lets States use bonuses or benefit reductions to give teen parents an incentive to finish school. Completing high school is the first step toward self-sufficiency. I recognize that this does not sound very flashy, but the parental shortcomings that can blight a child's life--and do blight too many children's lives today--require serious attention. The real needs of children demand sound policies, not sound bites. Our bill also asks States to intensify their efforts to identify noncustodial parents and require them to contribute to the upbringing of their own children. States should ensure that their welfare offices can access other State records such as professional licensing, vehicle registration, and personal property records. Paternity establishment laws should also be streamlined. I am always surprised to hear so much anger vented against young women as though they have achieved pregnancy unaided. What about the young men? Where is the heated political rhetoric aimed at them? What about middle-class men who divorce and abandon their families? Where is the political rhetoric telling them to be ashamed of themselves? People--be they men or women--whose for their children. So our bill on teenage pregnancy is short on rhetoric and symbols. I have long been an ardent admirer of Spencer Tracy, but anyone who thinks a 1938 movie about Boys Town has any bearing on real life children, real orphanages, or real families in 1995 is well out of touch with reality. The bill that will be designated S. 9, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, will direct Congress to enact legislation this year that will result in a balanced budget by the year 2003. If a goal is important enough to justify amending the Constitution, certainly it ought to be important enough to inspire the real work of deficit reduction starting this year. I have supported and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, but a balanced budget amendment that sets forth an airy hope in the place of real promise to balance the budget is not good enough. To suggest that a balanced budget amendment in and of itself solves the problem is a copout. It is all show and no delivery. It is like a young man who gets his first job and his first credit card. He charges up to the limit, and then he promises, as soon as he has paid it down, he will straighten up and pay his balance every month. But in real life we know that does not happen. He pays down just enough to go on another spending spree, or get another credit card with a new spending limit. Balancing the Federal budget has been a Republican campaign promise for so long it is hard to remember which budget they are talking about. They said they intended to balance the budget in 1980, when they elected Ronald Reagan. Then they said they were going to balance it after 1984, conveniently not in the year he was actually running for reelection. Then they said George Bush was going to balance the budget. But what does the record show? Unfortunately, it shows the opposite. In 1980, when President Ronald Reagan took office, he was poised to present to the Congress a plan to reduce the deficit as he promised. At that time, when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate, the national debt was just over $1 trillion. It was a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, 200 years of expanding the Nation to its westernmost limits, with all the roads, rails, bridges needed, 200 years encompassing a Civil War, two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, 200 years of creating the American dream. Almost $1 trillion is a lot of money. And we have a lot of country to show for it. But it took President Reagan a mere 8 years to more than double that 200 years' worth of debt. What do we have to show for it? It then took President Bush just another 4 years to add yet another trillion. So today, Mr. President, the heirs of that budgetary tradition say they are going to increase defense spending; they are going to cut taxes for the wealthy; and-- guess what?--they are going to balance the Federal budget. It sounds like deja vu all over again, to paraphrase somebody we all know--Yogi Berra. I support, as I said a moment ago, a balanced budget. So do a majority of Democratic Senators. The difference between our position and that of many of our Republican colleagues is that we have already taken some very tough votes to do it. The last Congress, the 103d, passed the President's first budget which cut $500 billion in real defined and detailed spending over 5 years. We are reaping the benefit of our work now in reduced deficits, and a healthy, growing economy. The President deserves credit for offering that budget in 1993 and for fighting for it. We knew in 1993 that our deficit-cutting work that year would be only the beginning. Now it is 1995, and we know another installment of spending cuts is due. We say that we should do what we did in 1993--lay out the honest, detailed, and real cuts that will bring the deficit onto a downward path. The balanced budget amendment, standing alone, simply provides a process by which something should be done over the next 7 years. Our bill says, let us start doing it now. We have to pay attention to the numbers. When you balance your household budget, you do not do it on the assumption that you are going to win the Publishers' Clearinghouse Sweepstakes on January 31 so the mortgage payments will be taken care of. You balance a household budget by looking at what you earn, what you spend, and where the numbers do not add up. So let us do some looking. If we are going to balance the budget by 2003, as the Republicans tell us they will, it is going to mean we start right now, this year, and start for real. There is a very real and expensive price in delay. If anyone wants to put off any heavy lifting for a year or maybe 2 years, before putting us on a path to balance the budget by 2003, they're going to cost us another $160 billion in debt. That is debt on top of the $3-trillion debt that the Republicans have already given us. It is debt that could be avoided by reducing the deficit now instead of delaying. There is another reason for acting now. It is called interest on the debt. It is a price every American taxpayer pays, whether he knows it or not, and whether he likes it or not. If we do nothing about balancing the budget for 2 years, to get past the next election before taking the tough actions needed to balance the budget by 2003, all of us will be chipping in an extra $91 billion in interest to pay for these election-year promises. It is nice to have people make promises in election years. But nice feelings cannot justify $91 billion in additional interest on the debt. The price is too high. If we wait until 1997 to start balancing the budget, we will pay another $303 billion--on top of the $3-trillion debt--that could be avoided simply by acting now rather than later. The bill I am introducing draws on our past experience with balanced budget rhetoric and requires that we actually start now, this year, to do what we are willing to do to make our effort a meaningful part of the U.S. Constitution. Last, but in some ways, most important of all, is the bill we call S. 10. That is the Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act. It is a bill with three titles. It builds on the compromise legislation that was developed last year, but blocked at the end of the session. The first title will finally, and without equivocation, extend to the Congress the laws that cover all other employers in this country. It will require the Congress to abide by the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs time and salary issues, by the Federal Labor-Management Relations Act, which provides Federal workers the right to bargain collectively, the workplace safety law, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Plant Closing and Notification Act, the Employee Polygraph Testing Act, and the Veterans Preference and Retention Act. In addition, the Democratic congressional coverage legislation includes the civil rights laws, under which the Senate has been operating since 1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which has applied to Congress since it was signed into law in 1993. This provision is in all essential aspects the same bipartisan bill that was worked out by Senators Glenn, Lieberman, and Grassley last session, but which was prevented from reaching the Senate floor by the objection of a Republican Senator. I hope and expect our Republican colleagues will join, rather than obstruct, the effort to enact these needed reforms as soon as possible this year. The second title of S. 10 will address the problem of undue influence from special interests. Americans learned last year that something like $50 million was spent to defeat health care reform legislation--not just to defeat the President's bill, but to defeat any reform bill. The special interest money groups spent more on stopping this legislation than on any other single issue, both in terms of direct lobbying and in campaign contributions. In the closing days of the 103d Congress, the ramifications of the crusade to defeat health care reform spilled over into another important debate: The debate over whether or not to rein in the ever- present grip of lobbyists on our legislative process. In May 1993, the Senate passed lobby reform by a vote of 95 to 2. Yet, when push came to shove, with Congress facing an adjournment deadline, our Republican colleagues invented pretexts and encouraged their talk-radio friends to help beat the lobby reform bill. As one of our colleagues noted, Republican this Chamber after Republicans killed the lobbying bill last fall. So let us be clear on what happened. There was no grassroots opposition to this bill. It was not ordinary citizens who wanted to kill this bill. Far from it. It was the special interest lobbyists who could not stand it. I am hoping that common decency will prevail in this Congress this year. The language I am offering in S. 10 is the language adopted overwhelmingly last summer by most of the Members still here in this body. It includes the provisions the new Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, demanded be incorporated last summer. They are the same provisions that were negotiated with Catholic charities, Baptist charities, Jewish groups, and every other religious organization of any standing in this country, and which were acceptable to all of them, because they did not threaten any of their legitimate activities. Title II of S. 10 does not affect grassroots lobbying for congressional action to resolve legitimate problems. No real grassroots group wants to kill lobbying reform. The reason for that is simple. It is because the narrow special interest groups who would be affected by the bill can buy access, can buy attention, can buy sympathy, and can buy action with money that real grassroots groups could never hope to match. True grassroots lobby efforts offer only the populist power of their ideas. There is not a genuine grassroots group out there that is not out- spent, out-gifted, out-junketed, and out-maneuvered by the Washington lobbying crowd. It is time to redress that imbalance. Why is so much made of those who feel so passionately about an issue that they want to allocate private resources to influence national policy? I suggest that when a foreign-owned communications cartel can offer the new Speaker of the House $4.5 million for a book, we should be wary of the real agenda behind that offer. I am pleased the new Speaker has now realized what an appearance that presents. Title II of the Democratic congressional reform bill is the legislation that Speaker Gingrich said he wanted, asked for, demanded. Then, when it looked as though it could actually prevail, it is the legislation that Speaker Gingrich asked his supporters in the talk-show field to fight. Title II of this Democratic reform bill also puts in the legislation our commitment to return control of Government to the American people by outlawing the practice of lobbyists providing gifts, no matter how seemingly insignificant, to Senators and staff. The lobby and gift reform provisions are simple. No gifts from registered lobbyists. No meals, no travel, no taxi cab rides, no sports tickets, no nothing. They will not need complicated regulations to be understood. They are that straightforward. Who is a lobbyist? Anyone who gets $2,500 in 6 months to work the Congress or the Government. They are required to disclose publicly who they are, what they earn, who pays them, and who they are talking to. That is not because we in Congress do not know who they are. We know well enough. It is to tell the American public who these people are and what they are doing. Congressional so-called reform that does not cover goodies from lobbyists is not reform. It is a smokescreen. It is telling American voters, it is back to business as usual. You voted for us because we promised reform, but we know you are going to tune out now. It is taking the American public for a ride. If we are to ignore those reforms, the American people are not prepared for a ride of that kind. As for the seriousness of this effort, the proof of the pudding will be self-evident. If anyone is sincere about congressional reform, this is the very least they will need to vote for. If anyone says they are serious about reform and blocks this bill, there will be little doubt that they are not serious at all. I hope that will not happen for many reasons, but most of all, I hope it won't happen, because our democracy depends upon a higher level of trust. I hope Republican Senators will not block the gift and lobbying reform provisions, as they did last year. Title III of the Democratic congressional reform bill is designed to reform the way congressional political campaigns operate. Again, this proposal does not break new ground. It is the bill passed by the Senate in 1993, but which was filibustered to prevent its going to conference last year. The bill is designed to do what everyone knows needs to be done, and that is to cut the money chase out of elected public life. Our bill would ban PAC contributions. It would outlaw for 1 year lobbying of an elected official to whom the lobbyist gave money. It would ban for 1 year contributions from a lobbyist to a Member who that lobbyist had contacted on business. It would expand disclosure of so- called independent expenditures. It would create a flexible spending ceiling, based on a State's voting age population. It would reward candidates who agreed to comply with that spending ceiling with broadcast discounts. Its costs could easily be paid without asking for a penny from middle-class taxpayers, for instance by fees on lobbying. In short, the campaign finance reform proposal would do what everyone is willing to say should be the law, but which too many are unwilling to actually see become law. It is time to put that sham behind us, too. If we are serious about congressional reform, campaign finance reform is imperative. If we are not serious, the American people will know what conclusions to draw. I believe these five pieces of legislation reflect the priorities Americans expect us to set and respond to the real needs people face. The extremes have had their say. They have the luxury of certainty. We who try to work in the center are forced to rely on what we can learn, what we can know, and to move forward with our best efforts, not ironclad guarantees, because there are no guarantees in human life. Each of the bills we introduce today stands for a core principle in which we believe. None is startling, but I believe each is a step in the right direction. Together, they are a foundation on which to build. We live in a tumultuous time fraught with uncertainty for many Americans. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to start restoring a sense of economic and personal security for working Americans. Job training and education as a priority reflects the fact that we are a society made up of working people, and they must come first. If we invest in our own knowledge, our own skills, our own abilities and talents, there is not anything we cannot achieve. Give Americans the tools, and they will do the job. Our bill is the tool. Health care reforms reflect the fact that viruses and cancers and accidents happen to people without reference to their wealth or their personal insurance status or their job status. Every American's economic and personal security is at stake. They deserve action, not excuses. Our effort on teen pregnancy reflects the commonsense fact that work, effort, and personal discipline are part of the lives of most Americans. Indeed, they help shape most of what is worthwhile in our lives. Government programs ought to reflect that common understanding in the way they operate, too. A Federal budget is more than a lifeless symbol of fiscal responsibility. It is the road map of our society and a reflection of our values. What are we willing to spend taxes for? Children? Schools? Jail cells? Special benefits for one or another special interest? Balancing the budget is not about gutting the government. It is about doing what government should do: Those things for all of us as a society that none of us can do individually for ourselves. Safe drinking water and highways, clean air and a safe food supply, things that government can do if done efficiently and effectively. Balancing the budget tells us that we're prepared to pay for the kind of society we want to be. The budget's shape matters as much as its size. It is been too big, too bloated, too long. And we want to start on the road to balancing it now. symbol of self-restraint at the government level. If the people elected to government cannot impose restraints upon themselves and treat themselves like they treat others, what confidence can Americans have that government will act in their best interests? I believe, based on many statements by my Republican colleagues, that there is much common ground on which we can work, provided that we have the will to do so. I want to offer my assurances today that Democratic Senators will work with Republicans. We always have, and we are prepared to do so again this year. We want to go to work. We want to do so in a bipartisan fashion. We believe the American people expect and deserve as much. I look forward, Mr. President, to a productive year. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to.