Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many Members have said for some time while we strongly support a tax cut, we have been very concerned about the flaws in this tax cut, concerned because it is based on projections we have grave doubts will ever be realized, budget projections that will be changed as early as July of this year; concerned about the magnitude, the size of the tax cut, and what we know it will do to Social Security and Medicare and how it will take away funds from those extraordinarily important commitments we made to our seniors; concerns we have about our ability to pay down the public debt; concerns we have about our ability to pay for prescription drug benefits or fully fund our education commitments. We have a great number of concerns given the magnitude of this tax cut. We also are concerned about its fairness. This tax cut could be best described as devoting a third, a third, and a third to three very distinct categories of taxpayers. This tax cut gives one-third of the entire benefit to the top 1 percent of all taxpayers. Roughly a third goes to the next 19 percent of all taxpayers. And somewhat less than a third goes to the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers. That is ultimately, in the second ten-year period, $4 trillion divided into a third, a third, and a third--a third for the top 1 percent, a third for the next 19 percent, and a third for the bottom 80 percent. The tax bill before us also provides reductions in the tax rates-- that is, to every rate except the 15 percent rate under which 72 million American taxpayers fall. Those 72 million Americans--including 250,000 South Dakota taxpayers--are denied a marginal tax rate cut in this bill. We think we can do better than that. Our country deserves better than that. So we offer our alternative. Our alternative is fiscally responsible. It dedicates $900 billion to a tax cut, provides adequate resources for us to continue the effort to pay down the debt, and leaves adequate resources for us to meet the other obligations we have in health care, education, and Social Security and Medicare. This amendment also recognizes the need for fairness. It provides a tax cut for everybody, but it also provides marriage penalty relief that starts next year, not in 5 years; a $1,000 child tax credit that extends to working families with incomes over $8,000; estate tax relief, providing up to $4 million for couples and $8 million for farms and small businesses; and it provides a tuition tax deduction for middle class Americans who send their children to college. It provides savings incentives to encourage small businesses to provide pensions for their employees, and a permanent R&D tax credit. It eliminates the alternative minimum tax for incomes up to $80,000 and provides for energy conservation and efficiency tax incentives for more energy efficient homes, appliances, and cars. I will not belabor this. I will simply say this is the Democratic approach to meaningful tax relief this year, tax relief that can be realized this year, not 7 or 8 years from now, tax relief that recognizes we also have other very important priorities, priorities involving paying down the debt, priorities involving ensuring our commitment to education, health, Social Security, and other priorities that recognize the importance of fairness. I urge its adoption and yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 768 at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of the senior Senator from Arizona and myself, Mr. McCain. It simply says that, instead of cutting the top marginal rate to 36 percent, cut the top rate to 38.6 percent. In turn, the savings would be devoted to expanding the 15 percent income tax bracket. The idea is to make this bill more fair by shifting more of its benefits to middle class people. This is an amendment for which there has been some debate. This amendment is similar to the amendment offered by Senator McCain earlier. This amendment ought to be adopted and ought to be made a part of the pending bill. I ask for its adoption.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader could repeat the list.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Let me inquire of the Chair how much time remains under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my dear friend for his willingness to accommodate. I think others have probably made decisions with regard to schedule. I do not want to adversely affect their schedules. I will accommodate the unanimous consent agreement and just take a couple of minutes now. We can come back to the debate following the vote on the Schumer amendment. Mr. President, I do not know if this chart has been used so far in the debate, but this chart really says it all. There are 72 million middle-class taxpayers who have been skipped over in this bill. Of all the problems many of us have with regard to this particular bill other than its overall size, I think it is this. There is no rate cut for those who fall in the income brackets of most Americans. I know in South Dakota this represents about 90 percent of the people in my State. From $12,000 to $45,000 net, $12,000 to $65,000 gross, there is no rate cut. There is a rate cut in the sense we establish a new rate, cut from 15 percent to 10 percent, and that 10 percent goes into effect. But it is for all of these different categories, the different rates that we have in our income tax schedule today. Everybody gets the value of that new 10 percent rate. The only people who do not get anything beyond that are those who fall in this income category, $12,000 to $45,000. That is the largest single group of income taxpayers in the country. I applaud the distinguished Senator from Missouri for her amendment and thank her for offering it because I think she provides the fix for what is one of the most glaring inequities in the entire tax bill that is before us. What she simply says is, let's give those who fall into this rate a tax cut like everybody else. Let's reduce their taxes from 15 percent to 14 percent. And to pay for it we will accommodate all of the other cuts as well. But we will reduce all of those rates by 1 percent. We will reduce the top rate by 1 percent, we will reduce the second rate by 1 percent, the third and fourth rate by 1 percent, but everybody then gets a rate cut of 1 percent. I think it was President Bush who said there ought to be no winners and losers here. You have real losers under this bill as it is currently written. What we are trying to say is, if you really mean what you say about not having winners and losers, why in the world would you leave out the 15-percent rate taxpayers? The Senator from Missouri makes an excellent point. I think, on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly, Republicans and Democrats would want to fix this Achilles' heel in the bill. There is a lot of fixing that needs to be done. But if you are going to start at the top, at least you would want to say we cannot accept this. We cannot tell 72 million Americans they are not going to get a rate cut like everybody else. We are not going to say to 72 million Americans, you get zero rate cut, but when you are up here you get a 3 or maybe even a 4 or 5 percent rate cut, if some of our colleagues have their way. How does that make sense? That is really the essence of the whole approach to this amendment. I know my time has expired. I yield the floor for now. Amendment No. 669

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Senator Landrieu would like to be added to those offering an amendment tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, is it the understanding of the Chair the amendments would be laid aside as they are offered, then, on Monday, and tonight, and that the votes happen in the sequence in which they were offered, tonight and Monday?

Mr. DASCHLE. On behalf of the Senator from Missouri, I will not take the full amount of time because I know the Senator from West Virginia wants to offer his amendment. We didn't have as much of an opportunity as I had hoped earlier to talk about the Carnahan amendment. Let me again compliment the Senator from Missouri for her effort in calling attention to one of the major concerns we have with the pending legislation. The pending legislation, of course, purports to provide tax relief to all Americans. But there is a glaring exception to the equity with which they attempt to provide that tax relief. That exception refers to the fact of all the different tax rates and the reductions within those rates. The one that is entirely left out is that 15-percent rate affecting 72 million taxpayers. The largest percentage of income-tax payers in the country pay at the 15-percent rate--72 million taxpayers pay the remaining 15-percent rate. Yet this bill completely skips over any rate reduction for those who fall in that category. There is a 3-percent rate reduction for those at the very top. There are rate reductions for those at every other level. But the rate reduction for those who fall in the remaining 15-percent class has been omitted. Now, what the bill does do, of course, is to provide a new rate of 10 percent for that income below $12,000. But everybody is entitled, across the board, to the benefits of that new rate of 10 percent, and so those income levels, at $109,000, $166,000, and $297,000 all benefit from the 10-percent rate cut, as does the 15 percent. But over and above that, those income levels beyond the 15-percent rate cut, beyond $65,000 gross, or $45,000 net, they all get substantial additional reductions in their rates. But this bill leaves out the 72 million taxpayers who pay at the 15- percent rate. Senator Carnahan's amendment says we think everybody ought to have a rate cut. So Senator Carnahan would reduce the 15-percent rate to 14 percent. It would provide for a rate cut, then, in every classification of income-tax payer. The way she pays for it is simply to provide for a 1-percent rate cut in all the other classifications. So those making incomes at levels above $297,000 would get a 1-percent rate cut; those making incomes at $166,000 would get a rate cut of 1 percent; those making incomes of $109,000 would get a rate cut of 1 percent; and those making incomes of $45,000 would get a rate cut as well. I can recall hearing vividly the President say there should not be winners and losers as we cut taxes, that everybody ought to get a tax cut. Well, if he holds that philosophy, it would be hard for him to support this bill because this bill does create winners and losers. If you fall in that 15-percent rate cut--if you are one of those 72 million taxpayers who fit into that income level between $12,000 and $45,000 net, you don't get a rate cut. They don't want you to know that, apparently, because there hasn't been much discussion about it. But that rate was omitted. I don't know why it was omitted. I can't understand how anybody could argue that it should be omitted. But it was omitted. So you are left out; you have no opportunity to benefit. So I am really hopeful, Mr. President, that we can solve that problem. The only way I know to solve the problem is to address the issue as Senator Carnahan would address it--providing that the rate cut go from 15 percent to 14 percent. One half of all South Dakotans fit into this category. I would guess that between 40-50 percent of just about all of our constituents fall into this category. We know that 72 million taxpayers fall into this category. It is so critical, it seems to me, in the interest of fairness. It is critical in the interest of attempting to provide the help to those middle-class working families who probably need it as much as anybody in the upper income scales to provide them some relief as well. That is what this amendment does. Let's give them that benefit of the new 10-percent bracket like all other rates are provided, but let's do what we are doing for all other rates as well, by providing them with at least some reduction. One percent may not be much to some, but 1 percent is a whole lot better than absolutely nothing, which is what they get in this bill. That is what the amendment does. In the interest of time, I will yield the floor. I just hope people will take this into account, and, at the appropriate time on Monday, support the Carnahan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Senator Graham was kind enough not to demand that he be put into the list on Monday. He would like to have the opportunity to offer two tonight. I assume if he is willing to wait, he can offer both of them back to back. He is the last in order.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. For the information of Democratic Senators the order Monday includes Senators Wellstone, Byrd, Dodd, Dorgan, and Kerry.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that we amend the request to include Senator Byrd and Senator Dodd.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was going to ask consent that Senator Wellstone follow the Gregg amendment on Monday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recently, South Dakota, and the country, lost a friend and dedicated public servant. Mrs. Rae Unzicker of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, died in her home on March 22, 2001. She was 52 years old. Rae Unzicker was a tireless champion for the rights of the disabled, particularly those with psychiatric disabilities. Her contributions to her field were significant. She started the first mental health advocacy project in South Dakota, served on the board of directors of the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, and was the chair of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Council for South Dakota Advocacy Services. She also authored several articles on the subject of mental health and spoke in 43 states, England, and the Netherlands during her career. In 1995, President Clinton appointed Rae Unzicker to the National Council on Disabilities, an agency dedicated to increasing the inclusion, independence, and empowerment of all Americans with disabilities. She was one of the first outspoken advocates for the civil rights of people with mental illness to receive a major Presidential appointment. Her work helped minimize the stigma associated with people with mental illness and ensured they had the same rights and privileges as other Americans. I join the mental health community in mourning the loss of a person so dedicated to the rights of those with mental illness. My condolences go out to Rae Unzicker's brother, her children, and their families. In this difficult time, my thoughts and prayers are with them, and with Rae's many friends.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know Senator Conrad will come to the floor in the not too distant future. But until he arrives, I want to take a moment to comment on the budget resolution and respond, in part, to some of the comments made by the distinguished majority leader. I don't know that there has been a budget resolution during my years in the Senate, or at least as Democratic Leader, that has generated greater anger and frustration among our colleagues than this one. There are three concerns we have with this budget resolution. I want to address each of them briefly and accommodate other Senators, if they wish to speak. The first is process. This process was an abomination. I have great respect for the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I admire him for a lot of reasons. I know that he isn't the one who calls all the shots in all cases. But I think this process is inexplicable. As we profess the desire and a need for bipartisanship, I don't know why we have a process that is so highly partisan on an issue that is so important. I think it is fair to say--and I don't know that any Republicans would ever dispute it--that the Democrats were virtually locked out from the beginning on this issue. No Democrats participated. There wasn't a markup in the Budget Committee, therefore you didn't see Democratic participation in formulating this budget or Democratic opportunities to offer amendments. There was none. You didn't see any participation among Democrats in the conference committee--none, zero. I am sure that when those who created this budget process nearly 30 years ago and enacted it into law, as well intended as they were, they did not envision decisions as paramount as these being made in some closed room, locking out one party, denying the opportunity for Democrats to be involved. I don't think that they even imagined that something like this could happen. Unfortunately, that is precisely what has happened. I believe it is fair to say that there isn't a Member of this body who has seen this budget in its entirety other than the chairman. I can guarantee you there are no Democrats who have seen it. Yet, with less than 24 hours to review it, we are being asked to vote on a budget blueprint that will dictate our fiscal policy for the next 10 years. We have been given nearly a $2 trillion budget without a fair opportunity to evaluate it, without an opportunity to participate, and now we are being asked to vote up or down. This is an abomination. This is inexcusable, especially in a 50/50 Senate. But here we are. I am angered and frustrated that we even have to begin this debate with this reality. It is an outrage. The second concern I have is this budget is a fabrication. This isn't a budget. This is a make-believe document with more holes, more gaps, more missing pages, and more questions than there are answers. Don't like the baseline? Create a new one. Don't like the numbers? Come up with other ones you like better. Don't know what the President wants to do on the defense budget? Give him an opportunity to put that number in later. This isn't a budget. This isn't even close to a budget. In fact, because this is such a fabrication, we have virtually destroyed the budget process as it was originally designed by excluding Democrats and by making up things as we have gone along. Let me rephrase that. Democrats haven't made it up because we weren't involved. Republicans made it up. This is a fabrication. This is make-believe budgeting. This is a budget process gone awry. This is absolutely one of the worst documents we will be called upon to vote on in this Congress. We ought to be ashamed that we are bringing this budget to the floor--ashamed. The third problem is, of course, policy. I have to say, I don't know anybody who can say without equivocation the policy implications contained within this budget fabrication. If it is possible to come to any conclusions based on what little we already know, here are the conclusions one has to reach. First of all, don't let anybody fool you. If this budget does go into effect, the tax cut is so large that we could ultimately tap right into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. There is no question about that. The Medicare trust fund is no longer inviolate. All of these votes and all of these speeches about protecting Medicare and having this lockbox are malarkey. This budget threatens the Social Security trust funds. Malarkey. When this resolution passes, we will dramatically hasten the date when the Social Security trust fund becomes insolvent. I guarantee you that we are going to hear actuaries talk about how short the viability for the trust fund will be as a result of this resolution passing. Why? We just heard the majority leader, and he was right about this. Who can vote against a tax cut? Who can vote against all of these wonderful- sounding opportunities to reduce taxes? If you are a politician of any ability, you ought to be able to support a tax cut. However, this President couldn't even get his $1.6 billion. I have to say no one should believe that the final cost of the tax cut is $1.4 trillion because that is what Republicans say it is. I want to see what they do when the alternative minimum tax is proposed. That is $300 billion. I want to see what happens when the extenders are proposed. That is $100 billion. I want to see what people say when they are forced to acknowledge that the cost of the tax cut must include about $400 billion in interest. Where does that go? That is $800 billion on top of the $1.4 trillion. That is $2.2 trillion, and we haven't gotten to capital gains reductions, business tax breaks, pension reform, and all the other tax ideas that someone is going to conjure up. This budget is going critically wound the fiscal well-being of this country, in a manner in which we haven't seen in our lifetime. This is outrageous. We gut education at the very time we are talking about education policy in this country. It is gutted. Don't let anybody mislead you. You are going to hear nice-sounding phrases about sense of the Senate language and ideas about how we are going to be able to manipulate the numbers to put additional education money in the budget. If you believe that, there is a tooth fairy and a bridge I want to talk to you about. This isn't budgeting with priorities the American people care about. There isn't any new money in here for education. There isn't a real plan in this budget to provide a prescription drug benefit--regardless of how many people campaigned in the last election on the importance of this issue. This is a tax cut made into a budget, and it is a budget lacking in virtually everything we said is important. Is Social Security important? Not in this budget. Is Medicare important? Not in this budget. Is education important? Not in this budget. Are prescription drug benefits important? Not in this budget. I daresay everything we stand for on this side of the aisle is lost in this budget. I can't think of a reason why somebody who holds the core values that many of us hold would ever even think about voting for a fabrication as disastrous for this country as this budget will be. If I sound exercised, I am. If I sound as deeply troubled as I hope my rhetoric would convey, I am. This is not good for the country. It is not good because there has been a complete breakdown of whatever modicum of bipartisanship that I hoped a 50/50 Senate would deliver. There isn't any bipartisanship reflected in this budget. I think the die is cast. But I hope somehow over the course of this year we can truly find ways to reverse some of the incredibly disastrous decisions that have been made in this budget. Senator Conrad has done an outstanding job in leading the Democratic caucus and providing us with his guidance and his insight. I publicly want to acknowledge my gratitude to him. No one cares more deeply. No one has studied this issue more thoroughly. As a consequence, no one has the respect of our caucus more than the Senator from North Dakota. I thank him for that. This has to have been a frustrating experience for him. But there will be another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I know Senator Carnahan has an amendment she would like to offer and is prepared to lay aside at the moment, and then Senator Mikulski is recognized, with that vote to occur on the Mikulski amendment tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think it would be helpful to reiterate what we think the sequence would be. Is Senator Voinovich going next?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to announce to the Senate today the names of the young men and women who have been selected to receive special awards from the American Automobile Association. Three safety patrollers will receive the 2000 AAA School Safety Patrol Lifesaving Medal Award. This award is the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. There are roughly 500,000 members of the school safety patrol in this country, helping in over 50,000 schools. Every day, these young people ensure that their peers arrive safely at school in the morning, and back home in the afternoon. Most of the time, they accomplish their jobs uneventfully. But, on occasion, these volunteers must make split-second decisions, placing themselves in harm's way to save the lives of others. The heroic actions of this year's recipients exemplify this selflessness, and richly deserve recognition. The first AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient comes from South San Francisco, CA. On September 28, 2000, just as children were leaving Our Lady of Mercy School for the day, a car hit another car, veered out of control and plowed into the school parking lot. Safety patroller Dustin Ramirez helped maintain control until rescue and police officials arrived. His quick thinking and courage helped prevent any students from being hurt. This year's second AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Brooklyn Center, MN. On January 4, 2001, safety patroller Stefani Egnell was preventing students at Willow Lane Elementary School from crossing the street until she could determine if a speeding car was going to stop. Stefani prevented one 8-year-old girl from stepping in front of the car. She also pulled a boy who hadn't heard her warning back out of harm's way. The third AAA Lifesaving Medal winner comes from Manassas, VA. In March 2000, quick action by safety patroller Jonathan Waldron stopped a third grade student from being hit by a bus that had begun pulling away from the curb. Since the youngster was in the blind spot of the bus, the driver did not see him. Jonathan pulled him out of the path of the bus and prevented what could have been a tragedy. In addition to honoring safety patrollers with the Lifesaving Medal Award, AAA also recognizes the School Safety Patroller of the year. This award is presented to patrollers who have performed their duties above and beyond their normal responsibilities and demonstrate outstanding leadership, dependability, and academic strength. Courtney Graf Bernet has been named School Safety Patroller of the Year by AAA Mid-Atlantic. Courtney is a sixth-grader at Lee's Corner Elementary School in Fairfax, VA. In November, 2000, Courtney was on patrol duty when a fellow student alerted her that he was having a seizure. Courtney instinctively knew what to do to make the student safe and comfortable. She helped him sit down on a soft, grassy area, took off his backpack so he wouldn't hurt himself, and sent his sister for help. After the crisis was over, she also made sure the other students at the stop safely got on their bus. Courtney's friends and teachers describe her as courageous and responsible. She excels at using computers, and when she is faced with a challenge, she perseveres until she succeeds. She and all of the other AAA winners deserve our thanks and applause. On behalf of the Senate, I extend congratulations and thanks to these young women and men who are visiting the Capitol today. They are an asset to their communities, and their families and neighbors should be very proud of their courage and dedication. I would also like to recognize the American Automobile Association for providing the supplies and training necessary to keep the safety patrol on duty nationwide. Since the 1920's, AAA clubs across the country have been sponsoring student safety patrols to guide and protect younger classmates against traffic accidents. Easily recognizable by their fluorescent orange safety belt and shoulder strap, safety patrol members represent the very best of their schools and communities. Experts credit school safety patrol programs with helping to lower the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving young children. We owe AAA our gratitude for their tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation's children arrive to and from school safe and sound. And we owe our thanks to these exceptional young men and women for their selfless actions. The discipline and courage they displayed deserves the praise and recognition of their schools, their communities and the Nation.