Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader and my colleagues in welcoming the newest Member of the Senate, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. Two things bring Zell Miller to the Senate. The first is the sudden death of our friend Paul Coverdell which has left us all very deeply saddened. The other thing that brings Zell Miller to the Senate is his own profound sense of duty to his State and his Nation. Zell Miller did not seek this job. In fact, he did not want it. Two weeks ago, he and his wife Shirley were living in his hometown, a tiny speck on the map, a place called Young Harris in the mountains of north Georgia. They were living in the same house his mother built herself nearly 70 years ago with yellow stones she hauled out of a nearby river. He was teaching history and politics at Young Harris College where he began his working life more than 40 years earlier and where his father had taught before him. He was happier than he could ever recall being. He had no intention of ever holding public office again and certainly no intention of moving to Washington. Then came the awful shock of Senator Coverdell's death. In the days that followed, when he was asked if he would serve out the term, Zell Miller realized there was something that had a stronger claim on his heart than that old yellow stone house and hills surrounding it; that was serving the people of Georgia. Zell Miller has spent more than 40 years doing exactly that. He began his public life in 1958 when he ran for mayor of his hometown. In 1960, he was elected to the Georgia State Senate at the age of 28. In 1974, he won his first statewide race for Lieutenant Governor, an office he held for 16 years. In 1990 and again in 1994, the people of Georgia chose him to be their Governor. During his first term as Governor, Zell Miller guided Georgia through a serious recession without raising taxes or cutting vital services. Throughout his years as Governor, Zell Miller invested heavily in all levels of Georgia's public education system, including statewide prekindergarten, school technology, and new school construction. A cornerstone of his legacy as Georgia's Governor is the HOPE Scholarship Program, which covers college tuition for every Georgia student who graduates high school with a B average or better. Years before others, he saw how technology could bring new hope and opportunities to rural communities. In his first 2 years as Governor, he established a long-distance learning program and a telemedicine network in Georgia. He cut taxes for working families and oversaw the passage of tougher penalties for violent and repeat criminals. Through it all, he remained Georgia's most popular Governor since political polling began. When he left the Governor's office in 1999, polls showed him with an approval rating of about 85 percent. One reason he was such a successful Governor is that, like Paul Coverdell, Zell Miller builds bridges, not walls; like Senator Coverdell, he is committed to bipartisan progress. They are not from the same party, but in some fundamental ways they are cut from the same cloth. Zell Miller's success is that he has always taken the long view. As he once told a reporter: I'm enough of a history professor to know that your real judge is not your contemporaries, but history. In deciding public policy, he has said, the most important question is not, How will this affect my chances in the next election? The proper question is, What will this mean for my grandchildren? Mr. President, I can't think of a better standard by which to judge our decisions in this body, nor can I think of a better person to fill the seat vacated by our friend Paul Coverdell. Senator Miller, welcome to the Senate. We are honored to have you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week my friend and colleague, Senator Bond, came to the floor to explain why he is seeking to stop much needed changes in the operation of the dams on the Missouri River which is so important to the culture and economy not only in my State but so many others. For the past 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has been working to update the decades-old management policies for the Missouri River. That effort, conducted by scientists and professional river managers, is approaching fruition. This year the Fish and Wildlife Service has told the Corps that changes need to take place to restore this magnificent river to biological health and so that we may prevent the extinction of three endangered species. By doing so, we will not only bring environmental benefits to the river but also enhance the recreational use of the river, both upstream and, I might emphasize, downstream. Bringing about these needed management changes will mean the environment, public relations, and health of the river will all be winners. But now my colleague from Missouri has inserted a rider, an anti- environmental measure, in the energy and water bill that would stop the Corps from changing the management of the river. I understand why my colleague from Missouri has done this. He is trying to protect the interests of the State. However, in the process, he would sacrifice a much larger upstream fish, wildlife, and recreation industry. I simply cannot let that go uncontested. Hence, we have been embroiled for now several days in a disagreement that I had hoped could be resolved. Six major dams have been constructed on the Missouri River which have forever changed its flow and character. Since the last earthen dam was built in the early 1960's, we have witnessed the decline of fish and wildlife along the river. This has resulted largely from the management policies that were developed in 1960 for operating the dams, and which favor the tiny $7 million downstream barge industry. These policies are established in what is known as the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, often called the ``Master Manual.'' It has been four decades since the Master Manual was significantly updated. Therein lies the problem. The existing Master Manual, which is grounded in principles relevant to conditions in the 1960's, favors the barge industry, which prefers constant, level flows throughout the spring, summer, and fall. But times and conditions have changed over 40 years. That is why the Master Manual is being revised. Over the years, outdated management policies have caused fish species to decline, as the natural high spring flows that signal fish species to spawn have disappeared. They have led to the endangerment of bird species that rely on exposed sandbars to nest in the summertime. The corps often submerges those critical sandbars in its effort to provide sufficient flows for the barges. That is why both the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agree that the Master Manual must be revised to manage the flow of the river in a much more natural way. High spring flows, known as the ``spring rise'' need to be restored. At the same time, the summer flows must be reduced to allow the endangered terns and plovers to nest. This is known as the ``split season.'' In combination with the spring rise, the split season and the spring rise will help to restore the health of the river and recover these endangered species. In addition to the serious environmental problems and cause by the current Master Manual, current management policies also harm public recreation. In times of drought, Missouri River reservoirs of the Dakotas and Montana drop as low that boat ramps are left high and dry, and a $90 million per year recreation industry is sacrified for a $67 million per year barge industry. The split season and spring rise will ensure that more water remains in the reservoirs in the summer, providing greater recreational opportunities for the public. This Master Manual revision process has been underway since 1990, following a 1989 lawsuit the corps of the State of South Dakota. Again that has been a science-driver process, not a political one. No one who has followed this issue will be surprised by the recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife service, or can argue this is issue has not been studied evaluated thoroughly. Once the consultation between the corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service is completed this year, the Corps will produce a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and provide the public with 6 months to comment on it. At the end of that stage, the corps will provide a final EIS. That document will be reviewed by Corps staff in Washington, DC, a record of decision will be issued, and the Master Manual will be revised. That is the process set out of Federal law. The question before the Senate on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is whether we are going to cut off that Master manual revision process with this rider because some don't like the answers the process is revealing. If we do so, we will allow the river to continue its slow decline that inevitably will lead to the extinction of these and perhaps other species. Some have stated that this rider has been included in past appropriations bills, and therefore we should continue to include it in the FY2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. But members should know that this rider was irrelevant in past years, because the corps was not close to revising the Master Manual and because the corps had not engaged in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what management changes are necessary to protect endangered species. Since no changes to the Master Manual were planned in past years, the effect of the rider was at most symbolic, reflecting the opposition of some along the river to changing the status quo. This year, for the first time, the debate over this rider has meaning. This year, the corps finally has reached the point in the process where it is consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and is learning officially that it must implement a spring rise and split season to avoid driving these endangered species to extinction. This year, the corps finally has a schedule to complete the process of revising the manual in the foreseeable future. Having learned without question that certain management changes need to take place to restore the health of the river, Congress must decide whether to override the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and condemn the fish and wildlife of the river to a slow death, or to face the truth and give the river new life. The answer is clear. The Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be allowed to continue to work together under the very Federal laws and processes that Congress has enacted, so that the corps can revise this outdated Master Manual and improve the management and health of the Missouri River. This is a job for the technical experts of those agencies to complete, in compliance with established procedures, and including an opportunity for substantial public comment and input. Congress should not substitute its political judgment for this process and thereby condemn this once-magnificent river to a slow death. It is my hope that my colleagues will allow the established process to move forward, let the public have its say, and take the steps that we know are necessary to recover this once-impressive and biologically- fertile river. This anti environmental rider must be removed. Mr. President, I have now been given assurances by the White House that the President will veto this bill if this rider is included. Given that assurance and given the importance of protecting the integrity of the established process for improving the management of the Missouri River, I have agreed to allow this legislation to move forward, which is why we had the vote this afternoon. I will continue to work with my friend, the Senator from Missouri, and I will continue to appreciate the assurances I have been given by the White House that they will veto this legislation were it to come to their desk with the President's knowledge that this legislation includes the rider. I will certainly work to assure that we can sustain the veto when it comes back. That is essential. It is important to not only South Dakota and North Dakota, the upper regions of the Missouri River, but it is important to our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 26, 2000, from the Governor of South Dakota, William Janklow, be printed in the Record.

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, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 made some positive changes and contributed to our current $2.2 trillion on-budget surplus. Some of the BBA policies, however, cut providers and services far more consequentially than was ever anticipated, and that has created extraordinary problems for health care providers all over the country. I have been hearing from providers in South Dakota about the burdens that BBA created now for almost 3 years. Just this week, community leaders in Sturgis, SD, have been meeting to decide the fate of an important clinic we have there. The administrators in Sturgis say the cuts we made in 1997 mean that they have been losing money every year. We may actually see the clinic close as a result. That clinic is not alone. There are clinics, there are hospitals, there are providers throughout my State and throughout the country who are facing the same fiscal demise if something is not done. And their demise spells problems for the people who depend on them for care. Last year, we made the first step. Thanks to a united Democratic effort, we put forth a bill largely endorsed by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and passed the first installment of relief from the BBA. It was an effort to try to stave off further closings and financial harm to critical community health care facilities. We didn't go far enough. Communities are still struggling in spite of our best effort last year. Senate Democrats believe that we cannot ignore the crisis this year either. We need to act to ensure that beneficiary access to quality health care remains, regardless of circumstances, regardless of geography, regardless of whether we are talking about a rural area or an inner city. I want to thank Senator Patrick Moynihan, our ranking member, Senator Max Baucus, and so many other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Finance Committee for their leadership in developing the response to this crisis that we will be introducing shortly upon our return. The Senate Democrats, under their leadership, are now proposing a package of payment adjustments and other improvements to beneficiary access that total $80 billion over 10 years. This $80 billion will be used to help stabilize hospitals, home health agencies, hospices, nursing homes, clinics, Medicare+Choice plans, and other providers. Our plan pays special attention to rural providers, which serve a larger proportion of Medicare beneficiaries and are more adversely impacted by reductions in the Medicare payment. It includes targeted relief for teaching hospitals that train our health providers and conduct cutting-edge research. And it includes improvements to Medicaid that could mean significantly improved access to health care for a number of uninsured people. The proposal also includes improvements that directly help beneficiaries. Senate Democrats continue to believe that passage of an affordable, voluntary, meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit is of highest priority. We will continue to press for passage of a prescription drug benefit in September as we fight for the important provisions in this proposal. I ask unanimous consent that our proposal outline be printed in the Record, which goes through in some detail each of the areas that we hope to address, why we hope to address them, and the reasons we are addressing them in the bill that we will be introducing immediately upon our return from the August recess.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, let me add to the majority leader's comments by saying that I have indicated to him that we will work, if we cannot reach agreement on the Treasury-Postal, to take that up immediately following energy and water and other appropriations bills as well, keeping this order in line, the sequencing in line until we have accommodated the debate and votes on all of these remaining appropriations bills.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for announcing this arrangement. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation on this complicated but very understandable schedule. The majority leader has announced there will not be any cloture motions filed or any rush to judgment on this issue. People will have the opportunity to offer amendments. I will work with our colleagues to assure they have that opportunity throughout the week, for whatever length of time it may take. I do hope perhaps we might be able to reach some agreement on time for these amendments, and my colleagues have assured me they are not averse to considering a time factor as we consider the order of these amendments. As I understand it, that would then accommodate the opportunity for us to vote this afternoon. I would be interested if the majority leader could comment on when that vote might take place.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me respond to the distinguished majority leader. I thank my colleague, as I always must, the assistant Democratic leader, for being on the floor. I was not aware that a unanimous consent request was going to be propounded. I was downstairs. I am disappointed I was not able to be here at the time. Let me very succinctly explain the circumstances. In the past, there has not been any real concern about revising the master manual. The master manual was written by the Corps of Engineers in 1960. It has been the law of the land with regard to the operation of the river since that time, now 40 years. There has been an effort underway in earnest over the course of this last year to look for ways that more accurately reflect how the Missouri River ought to be managed, taking into account, now, the extraordinary relevance of fish and wildlife issues. Economically, the fish, wildlife and recreational benefits of the river now constitute over $80 million. Navigation constitutes $7 million. In economic wherewithal, that is what the reality is today: $7 million for navigation, over $80 million for fish, wildlife and recreation. Yet the master manual is written in a way that only recognizes the navigational issues because that is all there was in 1960 when this was written. The Corps is now looking for a way to provide better balance. I think there is a compromise that more and more States are becoming more comfortable with. But what this provision in this bill says is they can't even consider it. Now that all this work and effort has gone into considering ways in which to accommodate all the States, the provision says we won't even consider it. I have to use my prerogatives as a Senator to say that we must find a compromise on that language. We are not going to be able to do it with one vote on a Friday or a Monday afternoon, so I would like to work with the leader. I told him I would like to find a way to resolve this matter. He said, we are looking at, we will take any option. I suggested one to the leader: Let's go to conference on this provision. I am willing to live with whatever the conference decides. Of course, the administration is going to weigh in. They said it will be vetoed if this provision is in there. So if we are going to get this bill done, let's be realistic. I want to get this bill done. I have as many things in this bill as I have in any appropriations bill. I want to get it done. I would like to get it done this afternoon, and I am willing to let the conference make its decision. But to say that the bill must have that provision or there is no bill, is just not fair to this side, to this Senator. That is my reservation. If the Senator from Nevada has not objected, I will. I think it is important to resolve this matter. I am prepared to offer a compromise. Let's resolve this in conference. I say that in full recognition that I have no idea what would happen in conference. But if they want to finish this bill and move it to the next phase, I am ready to do it. I will do it this morning. I will do it this afternoon. I will do it on Monday. But we have to deal with that provision. Having objected, I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be constrained to object at this time, with the hope and expectation that we can get a much larger and more comprehensive unanimous consent agreement later in the afternoon. So I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can the majority leader give me his latest report with regard to the hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say this to the majority leader before he leaves the floor. He and I have spent more time than we probably care to calculate over the last couple of days trying to work through what is obviously a very complicated and difficult period. I have appreciated his good nature as we have done this, his patience, his tolerance. He is smiling now, which is encouraging to me. I am going to keep smiling, too. I hope we can accommodate this unanimous consent request for the intelligence authorization. As Senator Lott, I recognize that it is important, and I hope we can address it. I also hope we can address the additional appropriations bills. There is no reason we can't. We can find a compromise if there is a will, and I am sure there is. But we also want to see the list of what we expect will probably be the final list of judicial nominees to be considered for hearings in the Judiciary Committee this year. I am anxious to talk with him and work with him on that issue. All of this is interrelated, as he said, and because of that, we take it slowly. So far, we have been able to take it successfully. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on July 10, 2000, one of South Dakota's finest mayors stepped down after two decades of public service. Nancy Ekstrum, former city council member and mayor of the town of Philip for 12 years, provided thoughtful and decisive leadership for her community during a time of considerable change. The first woman to lead Philip, Mayor Ekstrum began her service as mayor facing difficult issues that would be familiar to anyone who lives in a rural community. Poor quality water supplies made treatment expensive and difficult. An aging sewer system needed repair and road projects awaited completion. Meeting these challenges with a shrinking tax base and during a time of hardship for area ranchers required a sense of vision and tenacity. Most of all, it required a mayor who was willing to roll up her sleeves and put her heart and soul into finding creative solutions to difficult problems. Nancy Ekstrum was just that kind of mayor. Under her leadership, the city built long-needed roads and made great strides toward providing its citizens with clean, healthy drinking water. When it became clear that the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System was still several years from reaching the community, Mayor Ekstrum rallied area residents to work with the congressional delegation to find an affordable interim solution to the city's water crisis. It is my hope that this project will be funded this year so that clean water will be Mayor Ekstrum's lasting legacy to the city. On a more personal level, I will miss working with Mayor Ekstrum. Her advice on issues facing western South Dakota is always thoughtful and on target. I suspect that I will continue to turn to her long into the future for her thoughts and input as South Dakota faces the challenges of adapting a rural state to a global economy. I look forward to maintaining our strong friendship. In conclusion, I simply would like to extend my congratulations to Mayor Ekstrum on her 23 years of service to her community. I am delighted that she plans to stay involved in education and will continue to make a difference for the youth of Philip. I wish her the best as she enters this new phase of her life.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am grateful that the Committee has recognized the need for this project in the past and also in the legislation being considered today. However, with the expansion of this project beyond the original states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota to also include Iowa, and Nebraska, and to establish the Internet resource a higher level of funding for this project is necessary. Does the Subcommittee Chairman, the senior Senator form Mississippi, agree that the House level of $500,000 would be a more appropriate funding level for this program?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are all stunned and saddened by the sudden death of our friend and colleague. Our hearts and prayers are with Senator Coverdell's wife Nancy, with his parents, with his family members, his many friends, and, I may say, particularly our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have lost not only a close friend but a gifted leader. The great English poet Alfred Tennyson wrote of a dear friend who died suddenly: ``God's finger touched him, and he slept.'' Yesterday, God's hand touched our friend. Now he sleeps. And now we mourn. Paul Coverdell's life was too short in years, but it was long in accomplishment: A husband, a son, a friend, a loyal ally, an honorable opponent, an Army veteran, a business owner, a State senator, a Peace Corps director, and a U.S. Senator. In his 61 years, Paul Coverdell filled all of those roles--and more-- with dignity. He spent half his life, and nearly all his adult life, in public service. He and I didn't see eye to eye on a lot of matters. To be honest, I can't think of too many times we found ourselves on the same side of the debate. But I can't think of a single time that he was not fair, that he was not decent, and that he was not honest. Paul Coverdell, above and beyond anything else, was a gentleman. He was a reminder to us that we can all disagree without being disagreeable. He is also a reminder, sadly, that none of us knows how long we will be here; how many more opportunities we will have in this life to right a wrong or to advance a peace or to make a difference. Last night, I was reading an interview Senator Coverdell gave a year or so ago. He was asked why he worked so hard on so many tasks, usually with very little public recognition. He replied, characteristically: ``If you have been given a moment here, you shouldn't let the dust grow under you.'' Paul Coverdell felt that in the marrow of his bones. He worked hard every day--to advance the causes he believed in and to serve the Nation he loved--until God's finger touched him. Now he sleeps the sleep of the just. We have lost a good and honorable friend. I will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to make five points in a very short period of time before we vote. The first goes to the issue raised by the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, having to do with the surplus. Over the course of the last 6 months we have seen the surplus increase--projected now to be about $2.1 trillion. In 6 months, we have gone from roughly $800 billion in projected surplus to $2.1 trillion. I will predict that surplus is going to change one way or the other over the next 6 months, the next 6 years--for any length of time. In fact, I think the surplus projections are the fiscal equivalent of the dot-com stock market. They will continue to be volatile. We know how volatile they can be. We projected deficits as far as the eye could see a few years ago. We could see those deficits come back completely in a very short period of time. We don't know. There will continue to be volatility in predictions of surplus just as there has been volatility in the dot-com stock market. Let's keep that in mind. When you add all the Republican tax breaks to date, and add the Bush Social Security privatization proposal and it comes to $3.4 trillion. That exceeds by more than 50 percent the available surplus. Last week, we dealt with the estate tax. Today, we are dealing with marriage penalties. But when you add all of them up, we exceed by more than 50 percent of the projected surplus. They are counting on this surplus continuing to go up, No. 1, or they are going to do something they say they don't want to do, which is to tap the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus in order to pay for the tax cuts in the first place. That is point No. 1. We don't have the surplus in the bank until it is there. They can project all they want to project. But that surplus could be eliminated very quickly. The second issue: If you are going to say you are going to fix the marriage penalty, fix the marriage penalty. There are 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code. The Republicans chose to deal with three of them. The cost in dealing with those three is $248 billion. They filed amendments in the Finance Committee for an additional $6 billion, totaling another $81 billion. I don't know what it would cost if they were actually going to fix all 65. We don't know how many hundreds of billions of dollars there would be in addition to the $248 billion. Keep that in mind. This does not fix the marriage penalty. Anyone who is voting under that impression ought to recognize that they can say what they will but they are only fixing 3 of the 65 problems that are currently incorporated in the tax law. That is the second point. This is the third point related to the second point. Let's take this teacher and this policeman the distinguished Senator from Texas was talking about. She mentioned a teacher and a policeman and having the need to address their concern. For this couple who has been penalized, let's assume each of them were making $35,000, which in the case of a teacher is very difficult to assume. But we will assume that for the moment. The husband and wife jointly would pay $9,532. If they were able to file singly, they would pay $8,407. So their actual marriage penalty is $1,125. The Republican plan only provides 39 percent of the relief for that couple making $70,000--$443. That is all the relief this Republic plan provides. That is another reason the Democrats felt compelled to offer our alternative. It is no accident that the Democratic plan authored by the distinguished Senator from New York and the Finance Committee Democrats provide 100-percent relief--$1,125 in the case of this particular couple making $70,000. The fourth point: This bill actually creates a new inequity. We call it a singles penalty. I promise you somebody is going to come to the floor saying we have to deal with the singles penalty. That $70,000 joint income I was talking about creates a joint tax liability of $10,274 under current law. They get some tax relief under the GOP plan, and end up with a liability of $8,743. However, a widow does not get any relief at all. A single widow, a person trying to make ends meet with the same kind of income, doesn't get any kind of reduction in her tax liability at all. In fact, because they now create a singles penalty, that widow will actually pay $1,531 in additional taxes over a couple getting relief under the marriage penalty. We are inadvertently creating a singles penalty in the name of trying to address this marriage penalty relief under the Republican plan. That is something I hope Members will take a close look at. The fifth point I raise, I heard several colleagues discuss the fact this does not benefit the wealthy at the expense of the rest. According to the Joint Tax Committee, it sure does. The Joint Tax Committee said a couple making $50,000 a year, as a joint couple, the Republican tax bill is going to allow $240 in relief when paying a marriage penalty with $50,000 worth of income. Someone earning $200,000, their benefit under the Republican plan is $1,335. The Democratic plan is shown in contrast. Someone earning $30,000 under the Democratic plan receives $4,191 in relief. Under the Republican plan, they receive $807. When representing the vast majority of the American working families in that $30,000 to $50,000, why vote for a plan that actually reduces their opportunity to generate meaningful relief by giving them $240 in the case of a $50,000 income earner, and $807 relief for those in the $30,000 category? Why vote for such a plan? It goes to the very point that many have made all along, and the distinguished Senator from New York has made so eloquently. Mr. President, 60 percent of the benefit in this bill we are about to vote on actually goes to those who get a marriage bonus; only 40 percent of that $248 million actually goes to those who face a marriage penalty. Why give, in the name of marriage penalty relief, 60 percent of the benefit to those who are actually getting a marriage bonus under current law? Why exacerbate the inequities in current law already? That is what we are doing. The Democrats have a far better plan. This chart shows that better plan. The Republicans, as I noted earlier, deal with 3 of the 65 inequities for $248 billion, 60 percent of which goes to those who get a marriage surplus. The Democrats deal with every single inequity currently in the code, all 65, and in one sentence. That is the choice. Do we want to fix it or do we want to talk about it? Do we want to create new inequities and singles penalties, or do we want to deal with the problem? Do we want to fritter away $248 billion, thinking we have fixed the marriage problem, or do we want to deal with the real problem for a lot less money? The Democratic plan allows married couples to file separately or jointly. Very simply, taxpayers get a choice. Why deny them that choice? We provide them, for the first time, an opportunity to do one or the other, in a single sentence. We eliminate all marriage tax penalties for those making less than $100,000. We don't expand the marriage bonus, and we provide fiscally responsible relief. You cannot get much better than that. I am hopeful my colleagues will think very carefully before they vote for a plan that does not solve this problem. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan on marriage penalty relief. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will withhold, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader in regard to the NCAA bill. I think there is broad support for it. But I also recognize that every Senator is within his or her rights to object and to prolong consideration of any bill for whatever length of time the rules might allow. We have colleagues on this side of the aisle who have indicated to me that is their intention. I know we have to take that into account as we schedule legislation for the balance of this work period. I will certainly work with the distinguished chair of the Commerce Committee and the majority leader to find a time, either through an amendment or through a freestanding bill, to bring it up. Senator Lott has articulated very clearly the discussions he and I have had over the last hour or so. He has expressed the desire to me-- not only to me, to the Senate on several occasions--that we finish at least 11 appropriations bills. I have indicated my hope that we could accommodate that kind of schedule, even though we recognize the disruptions in the schedule, even tomorrow, necessary disruptions. I think it is accomplishable. I would like to work with him to attempt to try to resolve these matters. I have indicated to him that a number of colleagues on this side of the aisle have indicated to me that in order for us to do that there would be a need to address a number of other issues. The majority leader has identified each of those issues and responded just as we discussed. It is my understanding that there will be a markup in the Judiciary Committee on future judicial nominations. I hope, as the majority leader has indicated, it will include both circuit and district judges. It is my understanding that is likely to occur. He has also now indicated that we will get another batch of them done next week and that a mix of circuit and district judges is also anticipated. I am very pleased with that information and commend him for his efforts to move this process along. He has operated in extraordinarily good faith in working with me to try to move these nominations along. I know it is not easy. It is very difficult. But he has certainly been a major factor in getting us to this point. We have again indicated the desire, as we have on several occasions, to bring up PNTR, at least through a motion to proceed beginning next Wednesday. I subscribe to his suggestion or his proposal that would allow us to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed on Friday. We would then have 30 hours of debate. Senators who wish to discuss the matter beyond the vote or perhaps preceding the vote would certainly be entitled to do so. We could have the vote either on Friday or immediately after we come back. That would accommodate at least overcoming one major hurdle. I applaud him for approaching the issue in that way. Third, we have discussed on several occasions on the floor our hope and desire that we can use the dual track that worked very successfully in accommodating Senators' needs to address a number of issues but also in finishing legislation, as we did with the Defense authorization bill. There came a point when we had exhausted the amendment process and rightfully brought the issue to closure. I hope, as Senator Lott has noted, that we might be able to do that with ESEA as well. It is important for us to resume this dual track. I am very pleased with the majority leader's commitment to continue a dual-track process over the course of the next couple of weeks. We have the opportunity to get a lot of work done--work on appropriations bills, work on judges, work on PNTR, and work on ESEA--as a dual-track vehicle with which we can work to offer other amendments. I am pleased with our discussions and hope we can proceed with that understanding. I, again, thank the majority leader for his willingness to work with us and accommodate all of these important matters.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first, I thank our distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his graciousness once again in providing me the opportunity to say a couple of words this evening.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we discuss the tax code and the issue of fairness for families, Senator Harkin has offered an important amendment to address an issue of fairness faced by millions of working women and their families. Senator Harkin and I have worked hard to craft legislation that addresses the wage gap between men and women in this country. This amendment is modeled after my bill, S. 74, the Paycheck Fairness Act. In an era characterized by economic opportunity, it is time for the Senate to consider how America's prosperity can be broadly and fairly shared. While much has changed over the past 35 years, one thing has remained the same: the wage gap between men and women. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, a woman earned only 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This landmark bill reduced the pay gap and helped women make great strides to narrow the pay gap. Nonetheless, 35 years later, women, on average, continue to earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This disparity is patently unfair. The time has come to improve and strengthen President Kennedy's landmark law. Some have suggested that the pay gap is insignificant, but working women know better. Even after accounting for differences in education and the amount of time in the workforce, a woman's pay still lags far behind the pay of a man doing the same work. This persistent wage gap doesn't shortchange just women. It shortchanges families. The wage gap causes the average American working family to lose more than $4000 a year. In fact, it is women's salaries that often bring children and families out of poverty. And families suffer more in South Dakota than in most states because we have the highest percentage in the nation of working mothers with children under the age of 6. These mothers deserve equal pay for equal work. To address this serious problem, the Paycheck Fairness Act uses a simple approach: we believe that the pay gap will decrease if women and men have more information about it; we believe the pay gap will decrease if we enable women to pursue meaningful suits against employers that have discriminatory practices; and we believe that the pay gap will decrease if employers are educated and rewarded for doing their part to end wage discrimination. My bill is a modest but needed step in the fight against wage discrimination. The simple fact remains--working families face the problem of wage discrimination every day and lose billions of dollars in wages because of it. Instead of the risky tax scheme the Senate is considering today, we should give women and American families a much needed raise. We should pass the Harkin amendment today and continue to work towards the day when the pay gap is eliminated.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss the rulemaking that has been proposed by the National Park Service to limit the use of snowmobiles in national parks. National parks are the crown jewels of our nation's system of public lands. They harbor diverse wildlife, rare and beautiful species of plants and spectacular geological formations. In my home state of South Dakota, the Badlands National Park is home to a rich trove of ancient fossils and it provides important habitat for the black-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret. I support the efforts of the National Park Service to ensure that these lands remain pristine so that future generations of Americans can enjoy them. I also understand the strong desire of many snowmobilers to continue to have wintertime access to these lands, where the activity has been enjoyed for many years. While snowmobiling does not currently take place in national parks in South Dakota, there is a great deal of interest in this issue in the state and support for appropriately managed access to national parks. By carefully managing the parks, I believe that we can provide this access in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the environment and to those who go to public lands in search of solitude and quiet. Today, Secretary Bruce Babbitt wrote me to describe in greater detail how the National Park Service intends to proceed in coming months. I believe that it is critical for the agency to review a variety of options for managing snowmobiles and to ensure a full opportunity for public comment. According to the Secretary's letter, the agency does not intend to ban snowmobiles, but will proceed with a rulemaking and public comment period that will allow a full analysis of this issue and provide options for the controlled use of snowmobiles in national parks. I look forward to continuing to discuss this issue with my colleagues, the administration, representatives of environmental groups and snowmobiling enthusiasts. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Babbitt be included in the Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Senate will be voting on two competing marriage penalty relief proposals. The choice really could not be more clear. I want to talk a little bit about that choice this afternoon. The Republican bill has very little to do with the marriage penalty. In fact, I was just commenting that if the Republicans were trying to treat an illness, they would be sued for malpractice--given the bill they are proposing this afternoon--malpractice because they are not curing the disease. In fact, in some ways they are causing the disease, this marriage penalty disease, to be even more problematic, more difficult. They are actually creating another disease--a singles penalty. We need to be aware of the repercussions of what the Republicans are attempting to do with their legislation this afternoon. The singles penalty is something I will talk a little bit more about. To begin, I don't think there is any doubt that if you asked all 100 Senators: should we fix the marriage penalty, the answer would be emphatically yes. The question is, How do we fix it, and are we really intent on fixing it? Our Republican colleagues only deal with three of the marriage penalty provisions incorporated in the law today. If you were going to completely eliminate the entire marriage penalty, you would have to deal not with 3 but with 65 of the provisions incorporated in the tax law that have caused the imbalance or the inequity to exist today. The Republicans have only dealt with three. Yet the cost to the Treasury of their plan--the one we will vote on today--is $248 billion overall. I don't know what it would cost if you were going to try to fix all 65 under the Republican plan. Republican amendments were filed addressing six additional provisions, totaling $81 billion, in the Finance Committee. The remaining 56 provisions, untouched in the Republican bill, not addressed at all, have yet to be calculated in terms of what the cost might be with regard to the approach our Republican colleagues use. The second chart spells out what that means. If you only deal with 3 of the 65 provisions, this is what happens. Take a married couple with a joint income of $70,000. Under current law, if the couple were single and they each paid their share of the tax, their tax total would be $8,407, depicted on the chart. Yet because they are kicked into a higher tax bracket when they reach that $70,000 joint income level, their tax is not $8,407; their tax is $9,532. So the marriage penalty is $1,125 under current tax law. Here is what the Republicans do. The Republicans will provide, under their bill, 39-percent relief. That is all you get. Here they are, spending $248 billion, and they can't even do it right. They can't even fix all 65 provisions. They fix three. So you leave the balance, under the Republican bill, for another day, apparently. We don't believe that ought to be the way to fix the marriage penalty. We think you ought to fix the marriage penalty, if you are saying you are going to fix it. We provide 100-percent relief, $1,125 in relief for that couple making $70,000 a year. That is what we do. That is why we believe it is important for people to know there is a clear choice tonight when we vote on those plans: You can vote for the $248 billion Republican plan that fixes 3 or you can vote for the Democratic plan that provides for 100-percent relief and fixes all 65. I think it is very important for us to understand that not only is there a choice in trying to address the marriage penalty, but there is also another problem. We know how doctors try to fix one disease and sometimes create another side effect they had not anticipated because they prescribed the wrong medicine. We have a true illustration of prescription drugs as we know it in this country today, with a $248 billion fix when you could do it for a fraction of the cost. Not only that, their prescription doesn't cure the disease. Not only does it not cure the disease, it actually creates a new one. I guarantee my colleagues, within the next few years, you will have somebody come to the floor and say: Now we have to fix the singles penalty. It is broken. We may need another $248 billion tax plan to fix the singles penalty. This is what happens under the Republican plan. You have a joint income for that couple of $70,000. Current law requires their tax liability of $10,274. The Republican plan would provide $8,743, leaving the $443 relief I mentioned a moment ago. Let's take a widow, a widow who is making that $70,000 income--not a couple but a widow. She has a tax liability under current law of $14,172. Yet her penalty, a singles penalty, would go from $3,898 under current law to $5,429 under the Republican plan. What happens with this tax plan for a single person under certain circumstances--take a widow, a widow who is already probably faced with all kinds of serious financial pressures. Her tax burden goes up by $1,531, a new singles penalty created--I assume inadvertently--because our Republican colleagues are rushing to try to fix a marriage penalty, and they can't do it right. That is why this vote this afternoon is so important. The Democrats will be offering a plan that recognizes another inequity in the Republican plan. I have already talked about two: First, the importance of recognizing that out of the 65 provisions, the Republican plan only deals with 3; and then secondly, how we now have created--I assume inadvertently--this singles penalty. Look at the third problem with the Republican plan that has caused us to want to come to the floor to offer the alternative we will tonight. If you are making $20,000, the amount of tax relief you get under the Republican plan is $567. That is all you get. But if you are making $20,000, under the Democratic plan, your tax reduction, the amount of relief, is $2,164. If you are making $30,000 a year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which has analyzed this, under the Republican plan you get $800. Under the Democratic plan, you get $4,191. Why? Because we fix the marriage penalty. We provide entire relief, all 65 provisions. Look at what happens if you are making $50,000. I don't know what the Republicans have as a problem with those who are making $50,000, but they are sure penalizing them here. You only get $240 under the Republican plan in relief. Why you would want to penalize somebody making $50,000, I don't know. Under the Democratic plan, you get $1,913 in relief. Let us skip all the way over to the other end of the spectrum. This probably tells it best. If you are providing real relief, you are going to go to those people who need the relief the most, those people in the $30,000 to $50,000 category. Under the Republican plan, if you are making more than $200,000, that is when you start kicking in to real money. You get $1,335 in relief there. But if you make $50,000 in income, you get $240. That is the third reason we are so concerned about this Republican plan. Under the Republican plan, you get $1,335 in relief if you are making tons of money. If you are making $50,000, as are most people in the country--couples--you are going to get $240. We are concerned for those three problems. That is why we are offering our alternative tonight. The Democratic marriage penalty relief plan allows married couples to file separately or jointly-- another very important aspect: Give them the flexibility. Let them decide what is most helpful to them. That is how we avoid the so-called singles penalty, not the Republican plan. It eliminates all marriage tax penalties for taxpayers earning $100,000 or less, 100 percent. It reduces all marriage tax penalties for those taxpayers earning up to $150,000 and does not expand the so-called marriage bonus or the singles penalty that we are actually creating inadvertently today. I want to show one last chart that probably makes the case as well as I can. The marriage penalty bill proposed by the Republican plan deals with three. The Democratic alternative deals with the standard deduction and the problem we have with the marriage penalty and the standard deduction; earned income tax credits; child tax credits; Social Security benefits; rate brackets; IRA deductions, student loan interest deductions, and the 56 other marriage penalty provisions that exacerbate the marriage penalty today. We do them all. The Republican's do three. There is one other nonsubstantive but procedural concern I have, which I am compelled to bring up. The regular order in the Senate right now is the marriage penalty. We ought to be taking this bill up under the regular order, but we are not doing that. I think everyone here in the Chamber knows why. We are not doing that because the Republicans don't want to vote on tax amendments. That is why we are not doing it. They are using the brick wall they built around their marriage penalty, this impenetrable wall. So this is an up-or-down vote, a take-it-or- leave-it vote. You either like it or don't; you either take it or leave it. That is the way it is going to be. We are not going to give the Democrats an amendable vehicle. We are going to give them a vehicle they can't amend, a vehicle that will allow the one alternative; and we are not going to debate tax policy, even though this goes to the heart of tax policy. So for the second time in less than a week we are going to be voting on a bill that I think deserves to be defeated. We should have defeated the estate tax bill. I will offer to Senator Lott that I am willing to sit down today and negotiate with him and the Finance Committee Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bill the President will sign. That isn't going to happen with the bill they passed last week. This bill is going to get vetoed, too. This bill will be vetoed, and it will be vetoed for good reason. It doesn't fix the marriage penalty. It costs $248 billion. It helps those at the high end and leaves everyone else in the lurch. It creates a singles penalty. That isn't the way to legislate. That is why we normally have amendments--to try to fix problems that were caused on purpose or inadvertently. I am hopeful the majority will take great care before they pass the bill that they are going to be pressing this evening. I hope they will work with us to come up with an alternative that the President will sign. We can do things the right way and we can enact them into law and provide meaningful accomplishment and meaningful relief and meaningful help to victims of the marriage penalty. Or we can simply make more statements about how some in this Senate prefer simply to help those at the very top of the income scale, once again, whether they need it or not. That is our choice. I hope Senators will take great care in making their choice, and I look forward to the debate and vote later this evening. Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have worked hard over the last 7 years to restore strength to our Nation's economy. We have turned record deficits into record surpluses. Today, we are about to make a decision none of us could have imagined making in 1993. The question facing us is: How should we spend the first significant portion of the surplus? Our Republican colleagues believe we should use the first major portion of the surplus to eliminate a tax that is paid by only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They say the first, best use of the surplus is to give people with estates worth more than $20 million a $10.5 million tax break. The cost of their plan is $105 billion for the first 10 years. In the second 10 years, the cost balloons to $750 billion. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars in the second 10 years alone--to eliminate a tax paid only by the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The full cost of the Republican estate tax cut would hit at the worst possible time: just as the baby boomers are starting to retire. That is our Republican colleagues' highest priority for the surplus: to help those who are already benefitting most from this economy. Democrats disagree. We support cutting the estate tax. We voted in 1997 to do just that. Today we are offering a plan to cut estate taxes even further. But our plan is different--in three very important ways--from the Republican plan. First, our plan helps family farmers and ranchers, and small-business owners, immediately. The Republican plan does not remove one family-owned farm or ranch or small business during the first 10 years. Not one. Just as an aside, I must say I have been surprised, during this debate, to hear so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle expressing concern for family farmers and ranchers. In South Dakota and all across this country, family farmers and ranchers are working practically around the clock to scratch out a living. They are working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week--not even making back their production costs, earning less than their parents and grandparents earned in the Depression. Too many of them are being forced to sell farms and ranches that have been in their families for generations--not because they cannot pay estate taxes; their farms and ranches are not worth enough to owe any estate taxes. They are being forced out by the disastrous Federal agriculture policies put in place by a Republican Congress. I am relieved to hear our colleagues acknowledge, finally, that family farmers and ranchers need help from this Government. I hope they will continue to believe that when we move on to the agriculture appropriations bill next week. That is the first difference between our plan to cut estate taxes and the Republican plan: Our plan cuts estate taxes for family farmers and ranchers immediately. Their plan does nothing for family farmers and ranchers for the first 10 years. The second major difference is, our plan costs less: $65 versus $105 billion over the first 10 years. Our plan does not cost in the second decade, as their plan does. Our plan is simple and effective. For couples with assets of up to $4 million, we eliminate the estate tax entirely. We also eliminate the estate tax on all family farms, ranches, and businesses worth up to $8 million. Under our plan, only the wealthiest seven-tenths of 1 percent of estates and the wealthiest one-half of one percent of family-owned businesses would pay any estate taxes. Let me say that again: Only the wealthiest seven-tenths of one percent of couples and the wealthiest one-half of one percent of businesses would pay any estate taxes under our proposal. The third major difference between our plan and the Republican plan is: Our plan also helps the other 98 percent of Americans who do not pay estate taxes. Because we target our estate tax relief, we are able to provide additional tax breaks to families, to help them with real, pressing needs--like child care, paying for college, and caring for sick and aging relatives. Because we target our estate tax relief, we are able to provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. Under our plan, someone who inherits an estate worth $20 million would receive a tax cut of roughly $1 million. Our Republican colleagues say that is not enough. They want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than is in our plan, on far bigger tax cuts for multimillionaires. That is their priority for the surplus: bigger tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans--at the expense of everyone else. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: before you cast this vote, imagine sitting down at the kitchen table with parents who are wondering how they are going to pay for their children's college education. Imagine sitting around a kitchen table with a middle-aged woman who is wondering what will happen when her parents need long-term care--where the money will come from. Imagine talking with a retired couple who have cut back on necessities in order to pay for their prescriptions each month. How would you explain your vote to them? How would you explain to them that eliminating a tax that affects only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans is more important than helping them care for their children, or their aging parents--or helping them with the cost of their prescriptions? What could you possibly say to convince them to sign onto a $750 billion tax bill that won't help them one nickel, and will come due just as the baby boomers start to retire? For the life of me, I can't imagine. A Nation's budget is full of moral implications. It tells what a society cares about and what it doesn't care about. It tells what our values are. There are better ways to spend the first major portion of the surplus than by repealing a tax that affects only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. America's families have needs that are far more urgent. Those are the needs that should come first.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I suggest to the majority leader, we have been consulting on the order. On our side, Senators Dodd and Wellstone would like to switch the order with Senator Harkin. I make that modification. We have a number of Senators who are hopeful they can catch planes. It is so tight that if we have the 2 minutes of debate, in a couple of cases they may miss their planes. I ask that we delete that for this time only. I know it is a very important matter, and oftentimes it is essential for Members to understand the amendments. We will have tonight and tomorrow morning to look at these amendments. I ask that we delete the reference to the 2 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we can proceed to the vote now.