Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to commit House Joint Resolution 1 to the Judiciary Committee, to report back forthwith with the following substitute amendment, which I send to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will provide much needed medical care to veterans exposed to agent orange or ionizing radiation, as well as to veterans exposed to toxic substances or environmental hazards during the Persian Gulf war. I am joined in this effort by Senators Rockefeller, Akaka, Kerrey, Dorgan, and Campbell. Most Americans have heard about the mysterious illnesses afflicting thousands of gulf war veterans. Even though it has been almost 4 years since most of our troops returned home, we are still unable to pinpoint the cause or causes of these illnesses. Are these illnesses service-connected? I believe so, though we will not be able to answer that question fully until further scientific research is done. Indeed, it is possible that scientists may never be able to discover the true cause(s) of these illnesses. Does that mean gulf war veterans should wait for medical care until we know for sure that their ailments are service-connected? Certainly not. These men and women put their lives on the line for this Nation, and they deserve quality care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Likewise, we must not forget that other veterans continue to suffer from illnesses potentially caused by toxic exposures during their military service. Specifically, I am referring to veterans exposed to the defoliant agent orange during the Vietnam war and to veterans exposed to ionizing radiation either as a result of participation in the military's nuclear testing program or during the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagaski during World War II. Title 38 of the United States Code currently authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide hospital and nursing home care to veterans suffering from agent orange, radiation or gulf war exposures. For veterans of the gulf war, outpatient services are also available. However, this authority is scheduled to expire this year. Without prompt action by Congress, these veterans will become ineligible to receive care at VA facilities for all conditions potentially related to these exposures. My bill will ensure that these veterans are eligible for VA medical care through December 31, 2003. Although some may argue for a shorter extension, I believe the period must be long enough to ensure that these veterans get the care they deserve. Let me elaborate. In the 97th Congress, we granted VA the authority to provide care to veterans exposed to agent orange or ionizing radiation. Since that time, Congress has approved short extensions of this authority on four different occasions. For veterans, this has meant great uncertainty about whether they will receive much-needed health care. A longer extension will help alleviate this uncertainty. Moreover, scientists cannot provide us with quick answers as to why gulf war veterans are sick. And in the meantime, these men and women will continue to suffer. They need to know that a grateful nation will help them through this difficult time. I should stress that this authority to provide care only applies to medical conditions that are related or may be related to agent orange, ionizing radiation, or gulf war exposures. It does not extend to conditions for which VA doctors have affirmatively identified other causes. My bill does go one step further than a simple extension of current law. It also ensures that veterans exposed to agent orange and ionizing radiation are eligible for the same range of medical services currently available to gulf war veterans. Specifically, the bill authorizes the VA to provide outpatient care for these veterans--care that could very well save money in the long run by avoiding the need for more costly inpatient care. Veterans who are ill because of toxic exposures during military service are as deserving of VA medical care as their comrades injured by bullets or landmines. I hope that my colleagues will join me in preserving their access to such care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the New York Times report this morning about the American job losses that may result from Mexico's currency crisis is sobering. The loss of jobs as the economy of Mexico responds to the peso devaluation is a price that will be paid by American workers and their families. The past 2 years of strong export sales to Mexico have helped create about 770,000 American jobs directly tied to that export market. When that market That is why we should recognize that the proposed loan guarantee to address Mexico's economic situation is in our national interest. The loan guarantee has been called a bailout and worse, but those who like to throw such terms around don't take into account that real working people's jobs are also at stake. The loan guarantee is not a foreign aid package. It is structured to avoid placing Government funds at risk. Mexico would be required to pay loan guarantee fees up front--before the guarantee took effect and before loans would be extended. Those fees would indemnify American taxpayers in exchange for Mexico's right to use our guarantee. In addition, Mexico would provide security in the form of proceeds from the state-owned petroleum company, guaranteeing that America would be repaid if the loan guarantees were ever activated. As a result, the extension of loan guarantees would not implicate any Treasury costs in taxpayer dollars. And the risk of exposing tax dollars to possible future loss would be protected by our access to Mexico's export oil earnings. Even today, the Mexican economy is fundamentally sound. It will rebound and grow. The question for Americans to consider is how long the rebound will take and what potential depths of turmoil the country is likely to encounter in the meantime. Both those questions matter to Americans because turmoil and joblessness in Mexico will inevitably lead to even greater pressures on our southern border, as people search for a way to earn a living and feed their families. How long it will take for a Mexican economic recovery matters very much to workers whose products are sold in the Mexican market. They are the Americans whose jobs are at risk today, particularly in the southern border States. Not only are States like Texas, Arizona, and California the ones to which illegal entrants are first drawn, these are also the States with some of the highest export sales to Mexico. California sells $5 billion worth of products to Mexico each year. Nearly 20 percent of Arizona's export sales are made in Mexico. Texas relies on the Mexican market for more than one-third of all its overseas sales--$13 billion per year. So, while the jobs of American workers will be placed at risk because of the collapse of the Mexican market for their goods, those border States will also face the pressures of increased illegal entrants. But the job and income losses will not be limited to the southern border States. States all over the country sell products to Mexico, and residents of practically every State are employed in the process. Even South Dakota, which is one of the Nation's smaller States in terms of population, had sales of $4 million per year to the Mexican market. I know $4 million doesn't sound like much compared to $13 billion from Texas, but, in a small State, we take our millions very seriously. Changes in traditional export relationships are occurring very quickly in today's new global marketplace. Our premier trading partners are Canada and Japan. However, last year our sales to Mexico practically equalled our sales to Japan. More American exports mean more American jobs. Export-related jobs are relatively high-wage jobs, typically paying between 10 and 20 percent more than the average American job. So, export jobs are among the most desirable in the economy. When they're placed at risk, more income is jeopardized, and a replacement job at a similar income is harder to find. The growth of our Mexican exports to a total of $41 billion in 1993 is estimated to have reached more than 10 percent in 1994. In all, since 1987, American sales to Mexico have almost doubled. It's not surprising that private economic forecasters are predicting the potential for significantly large American job losses if this market is allowed to crumble. We cannot change what has already happened. The peso devaluation that caused the temporary economic reaction in Mexico is a fact of history. But we can help determine how severe its fallout will be for Americans by the speed and firmness with which we act now. This should not be an opportunity for partisan posturing. We are not talking about the loss of Republican jobs or Democratic jobs. We are talking about the loss of American jobs. Those workers ought to be able to rely on their Congress to set partisanship aside when their livelihood is at stake. The former President of the United States, President Bush, on January 19, agreed that it is vital for Congress to move promptly on the loan guarantee package. President Bush stated, The plan is not a giveaway. * * * In my view, the guarantees will never have to be called. On January 18, President Clinton said, The guarantees we will provide are not foreign aid. They are not a gift. They are not a bailout. They are not U.S. Government loans. And they will not affect our current budget deficit. * * * no guarantees will be issued unless we are satisfied that Mexico can provide assured means of repayment. Both Presidents are right. The plan is not a giveaway. It is the loan of a hose to a neighbor whose house is on fire. We're not proposing to build a fire station and equip it. We're just passing the hose across the fence. I hope the Congress can agree to set aside partisan bickering and do the right thing now. It's never easy to stand up and vote for something when the polls indicate that people may not understand it, or might draw the wrong conclusions. But it is the task of leaders to lead. This is the right thing to do--not just for our neighbor and trading partner to the south, but for America. I hope my colleagues in the Senate--on both sides of the aisle--will work with the administration to approve the proposed loan guarantee legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Senate begins to debate the resolution to send to the States a proposed constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, I am hopeful it can also be an educational experience for both participants and spectators. Like the gulf war debate, I hope it will lead to an informed judgment for all of us. For it has been a debate that has gone on for centuries. The words of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson have always made sense to me. They did not believe in permanent debt. Jackson said, I am one of those who do not believe a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country. I am sensitive to the significance of amending our Constitution and the care we should exercise when we propose to do so. In more than 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. Two of those occasions reflect the effort to annul with the 21st amendment the problems created by the 18th, prohibition. Passage of the repeal amendment could no more undo the damaged caused by Prohibition than it could turn back the clock. Throughout most of our history, the discipline of balanced budgets was part of our tradition. It was so much a part of the culture of government that no external discipline was necessary to enforce it. That has not been true for the last quarter century. The discipline of strong political parties has eroded. In the last quarter-century, self-styled conservatives got tired of preaching fiscal austerity. The free lunch theory of politics was born. It proved successful, and we are its heirs. History is unforgiving. What has been done changes the world, whether or not, in hindsight, we think it should have been done. We are forced to deal with the changed world. We can no more return to the tradition- inspired fiscal discipline that ruled our Nation's first 150 years than we could undo the damage of Prohibition by repealing it. In this changed world, proponents argue that the only institution in American life that still commands the respect necessary to impose discipline in the face of competing demands is the Constitution. So I have supported the idea of amending the Constitution. I have done so in the hope that it would have a salutary effect on smoke-and- mirrors budgeting that has won all too many of the battles while the Nation is steadily losing the war. From the beginning of the American constitutional system in 1789, the Federal budget was in rough balance in most of its first 150 years. Following the end of the Second World War, that has not been the case. Until the end of the 1960's, deficits were small, relative to the gross national product, and some fiscal years showed small surpluses. The oil price shocks of the 1970's and other factors began to fuel the ominous upward drift of deficits. Even then, despite the efforts by some to rewrite history, the growth of the national debt was not exponential. Deficits reflected economic stress, not an out-of-control budget. That changed dramatically in 1981. Fourteen years ago, with the first Reagan budget, deficits exploded and the national debt began its upward spiral. The combination of supply-side economics in the form of a massive tax cut and a trillion-dollar defense buildup led to record-setting deficits. In the 12 years of Reagan-Bush economics, a national debt that had taken two centuries to reach $1 trillion was quadrupled. If your family built up a $9,000 debt over 5 years and your feckless brother-in-law ran up $27,000 on your credit card in 45 days, you'd be facing the equivalent of what happened at the Federal level. Your monthly interest charges would go sky high. That happened to Federal interest charges, too. Today the interest payment on our debt is $212 billion. If it were not for the Reagan-Bush portion of the debt, our budget would be virtually in balance today. High deficits that persist in good economic times as well as bad damage our economy. They sap economic growth by diverting resources from productive investments. They add to the debt burden and its servicing cost, the interest we pay on the debt each year. That diverts resources from longer range investment in infrastructure and education. Everyone knows what must be done to balance the budget. Revenues have to equal or exceed outlays. you can reach that result by increasing revenues or reducing outlays or both. But you can't do it with mirrors. Despite three versions of the Gramm-Rudman Act since 1985, each of which was supposed to produce a balanced budget, the budget, as we all know, is far from balanced. The first real action to get the deficits under control occurred in 1990, when Congress and President Bush agreed on $500 billion in deficit reduction. Again in 1993, Congress and President Clinton agreed on another $500 billion in deficit reduction that has given us the first 3 consecutive years of declining deficits in half a century. Yet the 1993 action, which has been enormously beneficial to our economy, was fiercely resisted on a partisan basis. Not one Republican voted for that deficit reduction package. We were warned that passing the President's budget would throw the Americans into the poorhouse through tax hikes, and make the deficit go through the roof. Exactly the opposite happened. The economy grew stronger and expanded; more than 5 million new jobs were created; 20 million working Americans were taken off the tax rolls; and the deficit has come down for 3 years in succession. The dire warnings in 1993 weren't qualified. They were presented as factual conclusions, predictions so sound they were without possibility of error. So supremely confident was the partisan opposition that the President's plan passed by just a single-vote margin in the House and the Senate. Today, the same people whose confident predictions of economic disaster have been proven so totally wrong are making confident assertions about how easy it will be to balance the budget. We are hearing with increased frequency that nothing but a freeze is needed to balance the budget by the year 2002, so States and cities need not worry that programs that target funds for them will be seriously affected. The same people who so confidently predicted in 1993 that the President's budget plan would lead to economic disaster, and who have been proven so totally wrong, are now asking us to have confidence in their claims that balancing the budget won't be difficult because it can be done by freezing spending. The same people who want Americans to believe this are hoping no one will notice that they're using the exact opposite argument about defense spending. The defense budget has been frozen since 1987. It has been about $280 billion a year. According to the logic of those who say balancing the budget will be painless if you just freeze all spending, we should expect defense resources to be what they were in 1987. But that is not what you are hearing. What you are hearing is that defense has suffered deep cuts, that spending reductions have done all sorts of damage, and, to the contrary, that we must increase spending for the military if we are to avert imminent disaster. But in freeze terms, there haven't been any spending reductions. There just hasn't been inflation-adjusted growth. That, we are told, isn't a cut--it's a freeze. Since 1987, the dollar amounts available to the Pentagon have remained steady in nominal dollars--and that's exactly what a freeze is. Since 1987, the number of Army divisions has fallen from 28 to 20, Air Force fighter wings have fallen from 36 to 22, the Navy fleet has been trimmed from 568 ships to 387, and the number of men and women in uniform has fallen from 2.2 million to 1.6 million. The military has discovered that a freeze is not a freeze because resources do not stay frozen. Instead, divisions and fighter wings melt away. That is because $280 billion just does not go as far in 1995 as it did in 1987. It does not take a mathematical genius to figure this out. I do not think anyone in America would have much trouble figuring out that living in 1995 on what they earned in 1987 would mean some cutbacks. I do not think most Americans have trouble figuring out that if they had exactly the same dollar amounts to spend on rent and food and clothing today that they spent in 1987, they would be buying a lot less of everything. This is why our city mayors and our Governors are wondering what will happen to their budgets and the services they are responsible for under this freeze theory. No wonder they are concerned. They should be. The proposed balanced budget amendment sets very strong conditions and standards to be applied to the budget. It would require a three-fifths majority, not a simple majority, to raise the debt ceiling or adopt a budget that is out of balance. This so-called supermajority is the Senate's filibuster rule. All of America had a good taste of how the filibuster rule worked in the 103d Congress. It brought work to a full stop. It put into the hands of a minority the power to bargain for, hold hostage, blackmail, or simply block anything they wanted. The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority to approve legislation. They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock. Even the Senate, with its veneration for the filibuster rule, limits its reach when it comes to the budget. The Senate has specifically protected the reconciliation process against manipulation by a minority. You cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill. When we seek to override a veto or ratify a treaty, two-thirds of those present and voting decide the issue. If 10 Senators are absent, a veto can be overridden by 60 votes instead of the 67 needed when there's full attendance. If 15 Senators are absent, we can ratify a treaty with 57 votes. But when an absolute number of 60 ``yes'' votes is needed, absent Members--Senators who don't even show up to vote--have the same power to affect the outcome as if they were present to cast a ``no'' vote. In addition, the proposal before us requires that a majority of the entire body, not of those present and voting, is required for the approval of any revenue increase and that such approval shall require a rollcall vote. I do not understand why we would permit 47 of 88 Senators on the floor to vote the country into war--as we would, if that were the issue and 12 Senators were absent--but we should never allow fewer than 51 Senators to vote for the smallest revenue increase. This means accelerated gridlock. The Senate could not act on anything that involved revenues, no matter how trivial, if the outcome were close, if just one Senator were absent--not an uncommon occurrence. If one Senator is absent, and the body is evenly split on an issue, a 50- vote win would not suffice. I need not remind anyone how often we legislate with more than one absentee. The proposal requires that this vote be taken by a rollcall. That means the end of any voice-voted conference reports that include any revenues, no matter how trivial, and no matter how broadly supported. These will strike some as minimal objections to a grand scheme, but it is often over the most trivial things that grand schemes come to an unhappy end. A failure to observe the requirement would open any law to challenge in the courts, as having been enacted unconstitutionally. There are already many Americans, including well-respected economists and nonpartisan political observers, who think the effect of a constitutional commandment to balance the budget will be a series of ever-more-ingenious evasions by the Congress. They believe that as the difficulties and inconveniences of living up to the promise are encountered in the real world, Congress will create loopholes just as it has changed other budgeting laws when they became inconvenient in past years. But it is one thing to change statutory budget law. It is quite another to play fix-up games with the Constitution. I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget because only the Constitution commands universal respect. But I am seriously concerned that the amendment must be crafted carefully. Otherwise, it will invite tampering with a constitutional requirement that will undermine that universal respect which we all now recognize. Perhaps we should consider adopting, as a Senate rule, the requirements on voting that are now embodied in the measure. Let us see on a practical basis whether it makes sense to give a minority the right to block this year's budget resolution. If this is a good idea to impose on a Congress in which many of today's Members will not serve, let us consider imposing it on this Congress, in which we are all serving. And if not, let us at least consider modifying this language to more closely conform to the constitutional standards for voting on other important legislation. I suppose many are ready to pledge their lives and sacred honor on their willingness to be present and vote for each and every cent of revenue that may ever be raised in the unknowable future. But how strongly will new Congresses, not in the grip of hysteria, feel about this provision? I note that the House does not intend to apply this requirement as a House rule when it considers the contract's tax cut bill. I wonder if that is because it is expected that bill will contain some revenue- raising offsets as well as spending cuts? The proposal before us has little in the way of interpretative language. It is unclear what constitutes a revenue increase. If a tax benefit expires, for example, does that constitute a revenue increase within the meaning of this language? Does it mean we cannot simply allow it to expire but must take affirmative action to vote in favor of doing what an earlier Congress already determined should be done? Would a taxpayer have standing to sue if a tax benefit expired without an affirmative vote? I hope this facet of the proposal can be clarified. I think Americans have a right to know what this language means. We are often told that if the average family can balance its budget, we ought to be able to balance the Federal budget. I do not know how many American families pay for their houses with a single cash payment or buy their cars cash down. I know that is not too common in South Dakota. Likewise, we are told the States balance their budgets each year, and so the Federal Government should balance its budget each year. But this is not true, either. States balance their books each year. They do not balance their budgets. State debt has, in fact, been rising. State debt rose by $26 billion from 1991 to 1992--8 percent. State debt has been rising because States are not balancing their budgets. They are balancing their books. That is what families with mortgages, car payments, and credit card debt to. It is what every business in the country does. Today, the only entity for which investment and operating costs are considered interchangeable is the Federal Government. That is something that deserves more attention than it has received so far. Another popular idea floating about is that the Consumer Price Index so greatly overstates the inflation rate that it could be taken at a third of its value, thus saving enormous amounts of money. The only thing wrong with this is that is not true. It is wishful thinking. The measurement of all economic statistics undergoes a continuous process of refinement, regardless of which political party is in power. The Consumer Price Index is in the process of being reviewed in this fashion, and the process ought to be left alone. We do not need hopeful economic statistics. We need accurate ones. The thing supporters of this convenient theory do not want Americans to remember is that if the value of the consumer price index were halved, the indexing of tax deductions would also be halved. Today, because of the 1986 tax reform bill, the amount of income that is excluded from taxes rises along with the cost of living each year. If the Consumer Price Index is devalued, what you get is a backdoor tax hike. It will cause taxes to rise significantly, compared to inflation. No surprise, the people paying the bulk of the increased taxes will be working, middle-class people whose income comes from salaries and wages, not interest earnings and investments. I said at the outset that there is no magic to balancing the budget. You do it by cutting spending or increasing revenues. Those who are relying on spending freezes or understated consumer price indexes plan to use revenues. They just do not want to admit it. The reality is that, if we are going to balance the budget by 2002, we ought to face up to the fact that it will be a difficult process. It will be difficult, because it will mean asking people to give up services and benefits they are used to receiving. That is why I so strongly believe that if we're going to do this, people deserve to find out what is involved. The State officers who deal with State budgets have produced estimates of the cost to every State of a balanced Federal budget, based on the funds that States receive today from the Federal Government. Although the degree of dependence on Federal benefits varies, on average, at least one-fifth of State budgets is now comprised of Federal funds. These are the so-called ``discretionary domestic spending'' funds that are the target of the freeze idea. They are the programs directly at risk if we decide to balance the budget by not taking inflation into account and simply keeping all programs level in nominal dollars for the next 7 years. Some say the success of the President's budget plan of 1993 means there is no need to amend the Constitution. I would like to be able to agree. But the razor-thin, one-vote margins by which we succeeded in 1993 are a slender reed on which to rest our prosperity in the next century. At the same time, the deficit of today and the politics of today are not what they were in 1979, when I first proposed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In the intervening years, we have been subjected to free-lunch promises, to tax hikes called ``revenue enhancements'' and ``user fees,'' to budgets with magical asterisks that stand for spending cuts that cannot be outlined, and prophecies of one disaster after another. We reinvented our Tax Code with the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The 1986 reform is not even a decade old, and it's already being denounced by some who voted for it. The Speaker of the House says we must now scrap the income tax and turn instead to a national sales tax. It is not surprising that Americans don't know what to think or whom to trust. I doubt that anyone casting a ballot last November thought he or she had just voted to impose a national sales tax on themselves. Because of the speed with which these ideas flash in and out of the political spotlight, and because each reappearance of an old discredited idea tricked out in brand-new slogans adds to the general confusion, I have concluded that it is no longer enough to establish a simple constitutional command to balance the budget. This time, I believe the American people have a right to know what it is that we are proposing to do. So I have introduced and, with the support of over 40 of my colleagues, will be fighting for, the Right to know Act, a resolution whose adoption should precede passage of the constitutional balanced budget amendment. I had always hoped that if the Senate ever were to undertake a debate on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, our debate would be characterized by seriousness and honesty, not slogans and sound bites. I hoped that because it seems to me that what the elected officials of Government say and do about the taxes that citizens pay to Government is as important as anything we do. People work hard for their wages. Families in my State of South Dakota do not earn the kinds of salaries that the aristocracy of wealth here in Washington considers normal. They deserve to have their taxes taken seriously. That is why I am concerned about the freeze hoax and the other issue--dodging that is going on around here. It sounds too much like the stuff we have been hearing for years. It does not matter whether you quote David Stockman, Reagan's first Budget Director, who concluded, ``After 4 years, I'm convinced a large share of the problem is us. By that I mean Republicans,'' or you quote Ronald Reagan, who said, ``This administration is committed to a balanced budget and we will fight to the last blow to achieve it in 1984.'' The bottom line is that, when they had the power, they did not fight to cut the deficit. When President Clinton proposed to cut the deficit, they fought, all right. They fought him. I have tried to play by the rules. That is why I began with a constitutional amendment to balance the budget when I was first elected to Congress. But it seems that the rules keep changing. misrepresent his program, predict disaster, obstruct, vote no. Then, when you are proven wrong, stick to your guns. When you are asked to be specific, duck the question. Say it will not be too tough. Talk about a national sales tax. Change the subject. That is not my idea of responsible legislating. This year--again, no surprise--we have the new House majority leader announcing that he is not about to present an honest accounting of what you have to cut to balance the budget, because, and I quote him directly, ``The fact of the matter is that once Members of Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain that the Government must live with in order to get a balanced budget, their knees will buckle.'' He knows his membership better than I do. But none of us, including House Republicans, were sent here to do the easy stuff. We were sent here to do the work. We are being paid to do it, and it is about time we buckled down and did it. I have listened to much talk, on and off the Senate floor, for many years now about the balanced budget. The longer I am here, the more obvious it is that those who talk the most act the least. That is why this year I say, no more. I have had enough. We have heard the evasions, the hypocrisies, the half-truths and all the rest. I sincerely believe that people on both sides of the aisle truly want to achieve a meaningful way with which to accomplish a balance Federal budget by the year 2002. This year, I say Americans cannot accept simply our promise to do so. They cannot accept simply our version of Trust us. Americans have the right to know what this means. They have a right to know how we will spell it out, how we will set it out, how we will let the people share in our decisionmaking. That is now up to us. What I propose is that we trigger the reconciliation process, the process that does not let a minority hold us hostage, and start now on how we might go about reducing the deficit for the next 7 years. Let Members set the budget path to a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002. That is the heart of the right-to-know amendment. It is not just hot air or empty talk about people's knees buckling. I want to know and the American people ought to know what all this talk means. If they cannot answer that question for the American people, they cannot answer it for me or anyone else. So today, let the Senate begin this debate with high expectations, with a realization that we cannot fail, with appreciation of what we must do to make this an honest debate. Let Senators make an informed judgment, and let Senators let the American people be a part of it. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding. I did not have the opportunity to listen to his entire statement, but his comments at the end reflect sentiments that I had intended to express. This is the end of business as usual, at least as it affects our relationship with the States, local governments, and tribal governments. I commend the managers of the bill on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. They have done an outstanding job in the course of the last 2 weeks to bring us to this point. Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn have shown the demeanor and the comity between themselves, and certainly the patience in working with all of us, to make passage of this bill possible. Let me also say that because we took the time, because we deliberated thoroughly for the last 2 weeks, because we have had the opportunity to offer amendments and considered them carefully, this is a much better bill than the version that was presented to this body just 2 weeks ago. It has been improved by the process. Those improvements resulted in broad bipartisan support for the legislation in the end. To all of my colleagues, I say it is important that everyone understand the difference between the House and the Senate. Certainly, it is possible to pass legislation through the House more quickly, but I do not believe that all the legislation that goes through the House is exactly as we would like it in the Senate. The responsibility of the Senate is to deliberate more carefully and to deal more deliberately with the legislative issues at hand. There are many very complicated and difficult questions we have had to face with this issue, as there will be with other bills that will come before us. The amendment process is our only means to effectively deal with with those questions in a meaningful way. So it is with great admiration that I come to the floor this afternoon to congratulate the two managers of this legislation. But I must remind my colleagues that the minority feels very strongly that as these amendments and bills come before us, we will take our time, we will do what we must to ensure that all matters related to the legislation get thorough consideration. We will be as supportive as possible when we agree with our Republican colleagues on the merits. But certainly we must object when the process does not allow us or accord us the opportunities the minority deserves as these complicated bills come before us. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night the President spoke to the Congress and to the Nation. He set out an agenda for action. He told us where he wants to take the country and how he will accomplish his goals. While the audience in the House chamber looked somewhat different from last year's audience, the President's message remained the same: We must help working families who are squeezed between rising prices and stagnant incomes. The President spoke for all Democrats when he said we believe in opportunity for every American willing to work hard enough to earn it. We believe in political reform that puts regular people ahead of lobbyists and special interests. We believe in recasting Government to make it leaner and more responsive to society's contemporary needs. And we believe that middle-class families are the backbone of this Nation and that Government actions should reflect their values and beliefs. That agenda responds directly to the Nation's needs, and many of his goals have bipartisan support: Providing tax cuts for middle-class families that are paid for with real spending cuts; implementing health insurance reforms to protect people against the arbitrary denial of health benefits for which they have paid premiums; replacing welfare as we know it with work as most of us know it; securing our border against illegal entrants; reducing the size of Government, and shifting resources and decision making from bureaucrats to citizens. On other goals the chance for bipartisan support is unclear, but I am hopeful we can achieve it: Addressing fundamental national needs like immunization against childhood disease, school lunches, Head Start, medical care and nutrition for pregnant women and infants, and meeting Government's responsibilities to its people by promoting educational opportunity and protecting veterans, Social Security, and Medicare. We know that there will be partisan fights ahead. Some will reflect principled differences of belief. Some will probably reflect maneuvering for short-term political advantage. Americans are used to that. It is inevitable in a competitive political system such as ours. What was more compelling about the President's speech, however, was his reminder to all of us, private citizens and members of Congress alike, that, in many cases, none of us has to wait for the Government or anyone else to tell us how to do the right thing. He is talking about citizenship. And that is a tenet and responsibility to which all of us subscribe, but sometimes forget. Members of Congress must adopt true congressional reforms that address the undue influence of lobbyists and special interests. And, as the President said, that reform must include campaign finance reform. The President asked businesses whose sales are up and whose profits are healthy to share their good fortune with their workers; to keep American plants open in America; to give workers a bonus when the company does well. Every employer in this country knows what the President was talking about. We who have been blessed beyond others in our Nation know that we didn't achieve our successes along. Each and every one of us can remember the helping hand, the encouragement, the push when we needed it--from a parent, a teacher, a colleague, a fellow American. The President spoke to our greatest national tradition as a people, the tradition of giving back. I think he spoke wisely and well, to Americans in private life as well as to government officials. The President's address was important. But what we do over the next 2 years in the critical issue. Democrats and Republicans need to work together, and Democrats are ready to do that. It is my hope that Republicans will join the President and us in the effort to address the real world concerns of the middle class and bring genuine reform to Washington. On behalf of my colleagues, I congratulate the President on his State of the Union Address. We look forward to the challenging agenda he has set out for all of us this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the President's address be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in extending my sincere sympathy to my friend and colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy on the death of his mother. Mrs. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy lived a life that saw more than its share of public tragedy and private sorrow. Her courage and her profound faith in her church and her God gave her the strength to be the support of her children and an inspiration to all Americans. Mrs. Kennedy's passing is a loss to our Nation. No one old enough to remember will ever forget the fortitude with which she bore the assassination of two beloved sons, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy. Her public strength helped the Nation endure, as her private strength has always been, in the words of her son John, ``the glue that held the Kennedy family together.'' The tragedies she suffered did not diminish her sense of service. Into an age where no one would have questioned a desire to retire from public life, she traveled tirelessly, promoting the work of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, to aid the mentally retarded. Her spirit and work earned her the admiration of the entire world and made Americans very proud. So today I know that I express the sentiment of all of our colleagues in saying that our prayers are with her son, our colleague, Ted, and her other children and grandchildren on this occasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use my leader time, if I could.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues that Senator Leahy was not present for votes Thursday evening due to a family medical emergency. On behalf of the Senate, I extend our prayers to his entire family and our hopes that he will be able to resume his official duties very soon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. What is the pending order of business, Mr. President?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with great respect, let me rise to clarify what I think the situation is. We had a Levin-Kempthorne amendment this morning. As I understand, it was germane. If people are now coming to the floor offering their nongermane amendments, in part it may be because they are worried about invoking cloture and again not having the ability to offer amendments, whether they are relevant or germane or not. But I will say again to all of my colleagues that we are prepared to work through the pending amendments, maybe in some cases come to some time agreement, whittle away some of the amendments that may not be necessary. I have already been able to get an agreement from some of our colleagues that they will not offer some of the amendments that were on the list that I presented to the distinguished majority leader yesterday. So let there be no mistake, this may be day five, but this was only the fourth or fifth amendment that we have had the ability to debate. So I hope that we can continue to work away in good faith on these amendments. I hope that before the end of the day, we might again have another list which will give both the majority leader and myself the opportunity to see where we are realistically and certainly move ahead with this legislation. There is no one on this side who does not want a vote on final passage at some point on this bill. We simply want our ability to offer amendments and to raise legitimate concerns protected. I hope we can work together to accomplish that. I know we can. And I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we can find an agreement and ultimately come to some meaningful conclusion of this legislation. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. This unanimous-consent agreement is the product of a great deal of effort on both sides of the aisle by a number of participants. I thank all of those Senators involved on our side, especially the Senator from West Virginia for his guidance and his indulgence in trying to accommodate all Senators as we come to this agreement. I do hope that we can move through the amendments in good faith, that we can offer them tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. Certainly, if this agreement is accepted, Senators are protected. That was our desire all along. So I have no objection to this agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding, after the motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is certainly my intention. I think I speak for all colleagues on this side of the aisle. We want to work through the amendments. There are a number on [[Page S1204]] our side, and we are prepared to offer them. The distinguished majority leader anticipated a second question, and for clarification let me again emphasize that it is my understanding that the motion to go to third reading is debatable under this unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. So it is the intent of the unanimous-consent agreement to allow any Senator who has an amendment to take it to the desk and be protected for consideration of that amendment during this debate?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished majority leader for the good faith in which we have attempted over the last several hours to work through this agreement. There are a couple of questions on our side I would like to reference as they related to the agreement. The first has to do with the reference to all amendments being ``offered.'' Could the majority leader define for us what you mean by the word ``offer?'' What will be required of a Senator to meet the obligations under this unanimous- consent requirement?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only amendments in order to S. 1, that they be offered as the first- or second-degree amendments if the committee amendments are available to offer them to, and they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I will send the list of the amendments to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and commend him for the amendment. I have watched the debate and am very moved by his arguments. I hope our colleagues will support the amendment. It is a crucial amendment, in my view, to improving the quality of this legislation. As the Senator was just indicating, as currently written, this bill could create unfair competition between the public and private sectors by creating a presumption that public sector costs to comply with mandates should in nearly all cases be subsidized by the Federal Government. In some cases, Federal mandates will affect both the public and private sectors in similar and, in many cases, nearly identical manners. The costs of compliance with minimum wage laws or environmental standards are incurred by both the public and private sectors. Subsidization of the public sector in these cases could create a competitive advantage for activities performed by the public sector as it competes with the private sector in the same markets. In the past few weeks, there have been a number of efforts made by both majority and minority staff to develop a compromise on this issue. I appreciate the work by Senator Kempthorne to deal with this problem. He and others on the Republican side of the aisle recognize the potential problem here and have worked in good faith to address it. I felt that we were close to a solution with an agreement that language would be included in the committee report that would have clearly stated the policy of the Congress that where mandates would affect the public and private sectors equally, and where Federal subsidization of the public sector would competitively disadvantage private businesses, a Federal subsidy should not be provided. At least this would have established a basis for a Senator to go to the floor and argue for a waiver of the point of order in such cases. Unfortunately, when the final committee reports were filed, the language that we had proposed to address this situation was substantially weakened. No strong statement of such policy was included to clarify that Congress should not be expected to subsidize the public sector to the detriment of the private sector. Such a statement of policy is clearly needed in this bill. The pending amendment will provide that statement by establishing a well- considered and reasonable exclusion. The exclusion is not intended to create a massive loophole, as some Members have suggested. It merely ensures that the competitive balance between the public and private sectors be maintained. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this wise and fair amendment. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut and others who have put a great deal of effort into structuring this amendment have thought through many of the very difficult obstacles that we face as we address this bill. We want to support this bill. We want to find ways in which to address what we consider some of the shortcomings. Certainly as we consider some of the most significant problems with the implementation of this legislation, this is one of the most serious issues of all. So, again, I hope our colleagues will see fit on both sides of the aisle to find a way to support this and to recognize its importance. It is important. We ought to pass it. I hope we can pass it this afternoon. I thank the Senator for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will not delay the vote very long, but I want to make a couple of points, if I may. The vote that we are about to cast is not a vote on the bill, nor is it a vote on a filibuster. There is no filibuster occuring at this time. In fact, many of us on this side of the aisle support the intent of this legislation and very much want to work with our colleagues on the other side in an effort to achieve a resolution to this bill at some point in the not too distant future. There essentially are two issues that relate directly to upcoming vote. The first issue relates to the process of considering this bill. There appears to be a rush on the part of the Republicans to pass this legislation. It was rushed through committee. Amendments offered by Democrats were defeated on a party-line vote. We were told in committee, both in the Budget Committee as well as in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, that we would have the opportunity, ample opportunity, to consider amendments here on the floor. And thus the bill was rushed through two committees in the course of a few days. The bill was then rushed to the floor. Despite objections by our Democratic colleagues, the decision was made by the Republicans not to file committee reports. Ultimately, reports were filed after the fact, once the bill had been brought to the floor. Now, we are about to vote on cloture, having only disposed of three Democratic amendments. And, I might say, those amendments were agreed to overwhelmingly. I do not know that there was a negative vote on any of the amendments that were offered on our side. There was one nongermane Republican amendment on which we spent more time than all of the three Democratic amendments put together. Yesterday, I offered to the distinguished majority leader a list of specific amendments, a finite list of amendments, that we would like to have considered. We discussed the possibility of considering his list and our list. Despite our efforts to reach an agreement, and, as is his right, he chose to go forward with the cloture petition we are voting on today. The problem is simple. If cloture is invoked today, there are many Democratic amendments, relevant amendments, amendments that ought to be considered, amendments that in good faith we have offered in committee and again now on the floor, that we will not be allowed to offer. I am very concerned about that. Under this bill, as it exists, future legislation designed to protect people from age discrimination could be held up by the procedures established by this bill. We have had assurances from the other side that they would like to correct this. Yet the distinguished Senator from Michigan has tried now on several occasions to correct it, to no avail. The distinguished Senator from Ohio, the ranking member, would like to offer a substitute. If cloture is invoked today, he will not even be allowed to offer a substitute--a bill that is very similar, if not identical, to the bill that was passed on the floor last year. If cloture is invoked, we will not have the right to offer relevant amendments that, in some cases, may not be germane to the bill. We do not know. As every Senator knows, there is a difference between relevancy and germaneness. There are a number of relevant amendments that will be precluded from consideration by the Senate if cloture is invoked. That is the first issue. The second issue is a much larger one. The second issue relates to something our Republican colleagues certainly appreciate, and that is the rights of the minority--the right to be heard, the right to offer amendments, the right for them to be considered as we raise these issues one by one on the Senate floor. That issue is at stake here today. All we want is an opportunity to be heard and for our amendments to be considered in a meaningful way. That is all we are asking. Again, let me reiterate, this is not a filibuster. Ultimately, I hope that on a bipartisan basis, we will have a vote on this bill. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will take into account our sincere intention to proceed ultimately to a vote on this bill, vote ``no'' on the cloture motion, and allow us to offer our amendments. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use a couple of minutes of my time, if I could, to talk about the pending vote.