Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 149, which is at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. With respect to the following four bills which are at the desk, H.R. 6, H.R. 10, H.R. 586, and H.R. 622, I ask unanimous consent that they be considered as having been read the first time, and I further ask the requests for their second reading be objected to, en bloc.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 7. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1, the elementary and secondary education bill under the previous order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Thursday, June 7, at 9:30 a.m. and resume consideration of the ESEA bill with a rollcall vote in relation to the Nelson-Carnahan amendment at approximately 11:30. Additional rollcall votes are expected throughout the day on Thursday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, for his service to our country and to this body as President pro tempore. I offer my hearty congratulations to Senator Robert C. Byrd in returning to this high position this morning. Between these two men, the Senate enjoys 90 years of service. The wisdom they have given Members is beyond measure. I thank my partner, my counterpart, Senator Lott. This is the second time this year Senator Lott and I have switched roles. To us, this is just another in a series of challenges he and I have faced already this year. Every time we have been presented with these challenges, we have come through with our working relationship and our friendship not only intact but, in my view, strengthened. It is my hope and my expectation that we will continue to be able to work together in this manner. Finally, there is another person who deserves special recognition. That is Senator Jeffords. Last week, I was deeply touched by Senator Jeffords' courageous decision and his eloquent words. The Senator from Vermont has always commanded bipartisan respect because of the work he does. Regardless of where he sits in this Chamber, his work will continue, and America will be better for it. This, indeed, is a humbling moment for me. I am honored to serve as majority leader, but I also recognize that the majority is slim. This is still one of the most closely divided Senates in history. We have just witnessed something that has never happened in all of Senate history--the change of power during a session of Congress. At the same time Americans are evenly divided about their choice of leaders, they are united in their demand for action. Polarized positions are an indulgence that the Senate cannot afford and our Nation will not tolerate. Republicans and Democrats come to this floor with different philosophies and different agendas, but there are beliefs we share. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in the power of ideas. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in fashioning those ideas into sound public policy. The debate on that policy is what I like to call the noise of democracy. Sometimes it is not a very stereophonic sound. Sometimes there is too much sound from the right or from the left. But it is a sound that, in my view, is beautiful--especially in comparison to the noise of violence we hear in so many places all over the world today. In this divided Government--in spite of the passion with which we hold these ideas, in spite of the fervor with which we come to the floor to represent them--we are required to find common ground and seek meaningful bipartisanship. As I have said before, real bipartisanship is not a mathematical formula; it is a spirit. It is not simply finding a way to reach 50 plus 1. It is a way of working together that tolerates debate. It means seeking principled compromise. It means respecting the right of each Senator to speak his or her mind and to vote his or her conscience. In this Senate, at this time, on this historic occasion, each Member has something to prove. We need to prove to the American people we can overcome the lines that all too often divide us. We need to prove we can do the work the American people have sent us to the Senate to do. I came to the Congress 22 years ago. I have had the good fortune of having many mentors. My friends know that I often speak of one, in particular, whose advice continues to guide me. His name: Claude Pepper. He was a Congressman from Florida and at one time a Senator in this body. He told me once that, as fervent and as passionate a Democrat as he was, it wasn't really whether one was a ``D'' or an ``R'' that mattered; it was whether one was a ``C'' or ``D''--it was whether one was ``constructive'' or ``destructive'' in the political and legislative process. I hope I can prove to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that I can be a constructive leader. I hope we all recognize the difference between constructive and destructive politics and legislative work. I hope that we can live up to the expectations of the American people and people such as Claude Pepper. As we address the agenda this body has before it, I hope we can be constructive Republicans and constructive Democrats. I thank my colleagues for their trust. I thank my colleagues for their friendship. I am prepared to go to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. With this consent, the first rollcall vote in the morning will occur at approximately 11:30. Amendments Nos. 603, as further modified, and 517, as modified

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask consent that the time for debate on the Nelson-Carnahan amendment No. 385 be increased from 45 minutes to 60 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and move to table the motion to reconsider.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the beginning of a tragic chapter in human and medical history. Twenty years ago today the first cases of AIDS were diagnosed. Since that initial diagnosis in 1981, the toll wreaked upon humanity by this disease is mind boggling. Twenty-two million people have already died. And an additional thirty- six million people have become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In 1981, no one imagined the impact HIV/AIDS would have in the ensuing two decades. And, unfortunately, no one would have imagined that the United States would be as slow as it has been to respond to what has become a grave international crisis. International public health experts estimate that the global fight against AIDS demands at least $7 billion per year. Meanwhile, in the last 15 years combined, the United States has invested only $1.6 billion or a little over $100 million per year to fight this pandemic. In 1999, a year during which nearly five and a half million people in Africa alone were newly infected, the United States invested just $142 million, less than .001 percent, of our foreign assistance budget that year, to fight AIDS. Too much time has been lost, and too little leadership has been demonstrated by America. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Powell have indicated they now recognize this pandemic for what it is: a national security threat. It is time that we begin dedicating the resources that such a threat demands. In recent months, some progress has been made in combating AIDS. Governments, foundations, and corporations have begun to pledge donations to the Global Trust Fund to fight AIDS. Drug producers have also begun to make AIDS treatment more affordable for the more than 25 million HIV-positive Africans. But much more remains to be done. However, the activities of the Global Trust Fund should not and cannot replace our bilateral efforts to bolster the health infrastructure of the countries struggling against this pandemic. Therefore, Congress can take three important steps to bolster our bilateral efforts and invest in the health care workers and researchers needed in the affected countries. First, Congress must provide the resources needed for increased training of public health workers on the ground. Second, Congress must increase spending on research in Africa--and insist that research dollars spent in these countries also go to the development of indigenous research capabilities. And third, Congress must try to create the incentives necessary to stop the steady outflow of African doctors and nurses from these ravaged countries. It is time to act. We have already lost two decades and tens of millions of lives to this deadly disease. We cannot afford to wait another two decades before we confront this disease with the dedication it demands.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter, which I received from Senator Jeffords this week, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on a characteristically extraordinary statement. He speaks for all of us. He spoke eloquently, sincerely, and truthfully. Senator Mike Mansfield once called America's relationship with Japan our most important bilateral relationship. How right he was. Combined, our two countries account for more than 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product. When our nations work together, we can make and have made Asia more stable, Japan stronger, and America more secure. Today, during this time of transition in Asia, our alliance with Japan is more important than ever. I can think of no individual better equipped than Senator Howard Baker to ensure that our two countries continue to work together and succeed together. As our distinguished Senator from West Virginia noted, Senator Baker served not only as the Republican leader, as the minority leader of the party, but also as the majority leader at a time when America faced challenges at home and the monumental challenge of the cold war. He worked with his colleagues in the Senate without regard to party affiliation to lead us through countless legislative challenges, and he proved to be a statesman without equal. By confirming Senator Baker's nomination, we are sending Japan more than an outstanding Ambassador. We are sending a message that we believe Senator Mansfield's observation is truer today than it has ever been. The alliance between our two great nations is so important that it demands an Ambassador of the caliber of Senator Howard Baker, and I am certain that Japan will recognize, by receiving Senator Baker and Senator Nancy Kassebaum, that America is clearly sending its very best. I join with my colleagues this afternoon in expressing heartfelt congratulations to Howard and Nancy, to express a sentiment I know is shared by every Member of this body in our pride and admiration for them and in our hope that they continue to enjoy public service and our thanks for serving their country so well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a few comments about the tax bill. Let me first begin by congratulating the distinguished chairman and the ranking member. While I differ with the outcome, I certainly do not differ with the manner in which they worked together. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which they worked, and I hope we can see more of that in the future. I do hope we can see a different result in the future as we face these critical questions. I believe with all my heart that we will regret the day this passes and is sent to the President for his signature. I think we will regret it, in part, because it is based on projections that are very faulty. We will not realize a $5.7 trillion surplus. I think we can predict that safely. We also recognize that, with the uncertainty of the budget and all of the economic conditions that we will face, to commit to a tax cut of more than $4 trillion in its entirety over a 10-year period of time is not in keeping with the fiscal responsibility that we have all said we are so proud of--the fiscal responsibility that actually brought about surpluses over the course of the last 3 years. So our first concern has been, and continues to be, that it is based on faulty projections. Our second concern is that it will crowd out all other priorities that we hold, in some cases, in both parties. We say we are for reducing the public debt. I believe that as a result of the passage of this legislation there will be no further reduction of public debt. We all have indicated a willingness to support prescription drug benefits. I predict that as a result of this we will be told we can't afford prescription drug benefits. We all indicated that we advocate strongly protecting Medicare and Social Security. This bill will force us to tap into the Medicare fund, the Social Security fund, and deny the protection and the kind of viability in those trust funds that we have counted on these last several years. This bill will not allow us to provide the kind of resources for investment in education that we have all said is important to both parties and this country. So across the board, this legislation crowds out and, in some cases, eliminates our opportunity to address America's priorities in a balanced and meaningful way. The third concern I have is one of fairness. We can do better than this. We ought to do better than this. When we provide a third of a $4 trillion tax cut to the top 1 percent, a third to the next 19 percent, and a third to the bottom 80 percent, that doesn't say much about the balance and our sensitivity and empathy for working families all across this country. There is only one group of taxpayers who will not receive any marginal rate reduction in this bill, and that is the 72 million taxpayers who will still pay the 15-percent rate. That is wrong. We ought to do better than that. We ought to be sending a clear message that we understand they deserve a tax rate cut like everybody else. But that is not what this bill says. So I am concerned about the fairness. I am concerned about the imbalance that this legislation represents. Mr. President, for all of those reasons, I regret the fact that we passed this legislation today with the vote that we did. I suspect we will be back addressing budgetary and other implications for many years to come. I hope in the future we will remember our promise, our commitment to fiscal responsibility, our commitment to the other issues that we have all said are important not only to us, but to the country. I hope, in a bipartisan way, our judgment in the future will reflect those commitments more accurately than the one we have just made today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it was approximately 42 years ago that our colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, cast his first vote. It was in January of 1959. He has cast votes consistently, virtually without missing a vote, for now more than four decades. Robert C. Byrd just cast his 16,000th vote. I congratulate our senior colleague from West Virginia. (Applause, Senators rising.) Mr. President, I also note it is a week from today that he will be celebrating his 64th wedding anniversary as well, so there is much to celebrate. But we congratulate Senator Byrd, we congratulate Senator and Mrs. Byrd on their anniversary a week from today, and we thank him for his great service to America. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 727

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Delaware for his substitute amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. While in my view both the underlying bill and the substitute cut taxes more deeply than this nation can afford, the Carper substitute is far preferable to the underlying bill. It is simply fairer than the underlying bill. It provides a marginal rate cut for the 72 million middle class taxpayers who were skipped over in the underlying bill. It includes immediate marriage penalty relief and permanent deductibility of college tuition. And so, although I would not support enacting a tax cut of $1.25 trillion, Senator Carper's amendment deserves our support because it illustrates a far better and more balanced approach to tax and budget policy.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa as well as to make a couple of comments about the next amendment. I think the Senator from Iowa is absolutely right. We have no intention of denying him the opportunity to look at the amendments. I ask our assistant Democratic leader if he could take responsibility for ensuring that we would have not only the list of amendments, which we would be happy to share with the Senator, but the text of the amendments as well. I know he has a copy of the amendment about to be offered, and we will do our utmost to ensure copies are made available, as well as the list and the sequence of the amendments to be offered next. Amendment No. 722 I now ask that amendment No. 722 be considered at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of the budget act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.