Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, quite often on the floor of the Senate, we give speeches about extraordinary people who do extraordinary things. Today, I'd like to recognize someone whose name you won't see in the headlines, but who is truly extraordinary in every sense of the word. Earlier this year, my good friend Dr. Herb Cheever, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at South Dakota State University (SDSU), announced that he would retire. Dr. Cheever grew up in Brookings, South Dakota and received his undergraduate degree from SDSU. After earning his doctorate from the University of Iowa and teaching in Kansas and Wisconsin, Dr. Cheever returned to his alma mater. He and his wife Sydna raised three boys in Brookings--Jason, Michael and Gene--and Herb and Sydna have long been tireless advocates of the arts in our state. South Dakota State University is a wonderful school. Its reputation for academic excellence and cutting edge research is known across the country. Dr. Cheever is to be commended for the critical role he played in the development of the University, but he should also be recognized for his commitment to the things one can't measure by a standardized test. Dean Cheever is a passionate believer in the importance of public service. Throughout his teaching career, his commitment to serving others was something that was impressed upon all of his students. When I was an undergraduate at SDSU, Dean Cheever taught me more about the importance of public service than I could have imagined possible, and there is no doubt in my mind that he helped steer me down the career path that I eventually chose to follow. The impact Dean Cheever had on me wasn't confined to his work as an educator. He was also instrumental in helping shape my interest in politics. Dr. Cheever and I volunteered together on George McGovern's race for the Senate in 1968. It was a true pleasure for me to work alongside him during that exciting time. Later, Dean Cheever took leave from SDSU to help Dick Kneip remain governor, and to direct the South Dakota Democratic Party. Politically--and luckily for me--Herb Cheever has worked on behalf of the Democratic Party. However, as everyone who knows him can attest, that is the only venue in which he plays favorites. Dean Cheever's commitment to education and his community, and his passion for public service have made a deep and lasting impression on thousands of young people on SDSU's campus over the years, and I am pleased that I was fortunate enough to be among them. I am proud to call Dean Herbert Cheever a friend, and I am pleased to join Sydna, their friends and family in wishing him the best as he begins the next important chapter of his life. While his colleagues and students will undoubtedly miss his daily presence in the classrooms of SDSU, I am confident that he will continue to touch many lives.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to recognize all the Senators who participated in this important and healthy debate. In particular, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Byrd for their tireless defense of the Constitution. In addition, however, I also want to recognize Senator Feinstein for her commitment to victims of violence and for working to ensure that they are treated with fairness and decency and respect. While I strongly disagree with the approach the proponents of this amendment have taken, I completely agree with the sentiments they express. Victims should have a strong voice in our criminal justice system. Senator Feinstein has been committed to this cause for decades and I believe her passion has brought new focus to this important issue. Like many of us, I know what it is like when violence strikes your own family. I would not wish that pain on anyone. And I certainly do not want to see any victim's grief compounded by a needlessly callous or insensitive judicial system. The question we have been debating, however, is not whether victims should have a voice in the criminal justice process. The question before us is whether we must amend our nation's Constitution to achieve that goal. I believe the answer is ``no.'' On September 17, 1789, as our new Constitution was about to be signed--after four long months of debate--Benjamin Franklin announced with typical irony: ``I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure it is not the best.'' Two-hundred and 12 years later, Mr. President, the United States Constitution is still the best constitution this world has ever known. It is, in my opinion, nearly sacred. James Madison, who penned most of our Constitution, urged that it be amended only in--quote--``certain great and extraordinary occasions.'' For 212 years, Americans have heeded his words of caution. As Senator Leahy and Senator Byrd remind us, our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since 1791, when the first 10 amendments--Our Bill of Rights--was added. More than 11,000 amendments have been offered during that time. But only 17 have actually been added to our Constitution. Because of the genius of the Framers, and the wise restraint of those who came after them, we have today a document that we can fit in our pockets . . . that we can understand . . . that we can refer to, and live by. This beautiful document contains fundamental, unifying principles that protect our individual liberties and guarantee our democratic rights. The amendment we have been considering--while clearly well- intentioned--does not belong in this document. With all due respect to its authors, it is not a constitutional amendment. It does not describe universal and eternal truths about human nature, or set forth the broad working of government. It is a statute. Last month, we debated another Constitutional amendment--to make flag- burning a crime. During that debate, some members of this Senate said it was right to take that extraordinary step because Americans had died to defend our flag. Mr. President, this Constitution is why Americans have fought and died for more than 200 years--not to protect a flag, but to protect the principles enshrined in this document. As United States Senators, we take an oath to defend the Constitution. It is our most important obligation, our most sacred duty. There is no ``great and extraordinary occasion'' requiring us to adopt this Victims' Rights Amendment. This amendment is popular. But it is not necessary. Every state--every single state--has some type of statute that identifies and protects victims' rights. Thirty-two states have passed state constitutional amendments protecting victims' rights. Not one of those statutes has been overturned. Not one of these state constitutional amendments has been found to conflict with our federal Constitution. Amending--re-writing--our Constitution--is a remedy that ought to be tried only when we have exhausted every other possible means, and they have been found inadequate. When it comes to protecting victims' rights, there is much we can do, short of amending the Constitution. Indeed, in my home state of South Dakota, every single protection identified in this proposed amendment is guaranteed by state law. In South Dakota, victims are included in every stage of the criminal justice process. They have the right to be notified about every court proceeding involving their case. They are told in advance about bond hearings, plea offers and sentencing hearings, and they have the opportunity to have their opinions heard on these matters. Crime victims in South Dakota are told about all of these rights, and offered help, if they need it, to exercise them. These state laws provide South Dakotans with wide-ranging and effective protections. They may not, however, be a blueprint for Massachusetts, or Mississippi, or California. There is another reason we should reject this amendment, Mr. President. Not only is it unwarranted. But also, ironically, this amendment could actually weaken victims' rights by making it harder for police and prosecutors to do their jobs. That is not simply my opinion. This is a letter from the Chief Justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court. ``Victims' rights will not be furthered by SJR 3--and may indeed be harmed--as past state efforts in this area run headlong into an ethereal national standard that is incapable of responding to the constantly changing circumstances of the justice system.'' Here is another letter--this one from the State's Attorney and the Victim Witness Advocate representing my most heavily populated county. Quote--``While victims' rights are a very important issue, this amendment would make it difficult for us to do our jobs and make appropriate decisions regarding the prosecution of criminal cases.'' Many of my fellow Senators have voiced similar concerns. Senator Thompson has said--quote--``This constitutional amendment will make the procedure by which the District Attorneys around the country are trying to prosecute defendants more complex, more costly, more time-consuming in many respects, and ultimately will harm [the goal] that the victim is the most interested in--seeing justice done and a guilty defendant found guilty by our court system.'' The federal government should encourage states to set minimum standards for victims' rights. But we should not trample the principles that have served us so well for so many years. Under our system of government, police powers are reserved for the states. That is why 95 percent of all crimes are prosecuted at the state and local level. Do we really believe it is time to re-write this fundamental division of responsibility? Do we really believe we need to supercede state and local police powers with a national standard? A standard that can only be enforced by an act of Congress? Wouldn't the wiser, more prudent course of action be to encourage or require states to devise and enforce their own victims' rights standards? In addition to the threat this amendment poses to our constitutional framework, I am also concerned it may erode the rights of the accused. I know full well that accused criminals are not a popular group. But the cornerstone of our justice system is the belief that we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty. If we undermine that basic principle in any way, we are all hurt. Our Bill of Rights reflects our framers deeply held belief that the enormous power of the government to deprive persons of life, liberty and property in criminal prosecutions must be checked. Thus, the document I hold in my pocket protects us all from unreasonable searches . . . guarantees us all impartial juries, and protects us all against cruel and unusual punishments. When these rights are diminished for some, they are diminished for all. For that reason, they should not be compromised lightly--no matter how politically popular it might be to do so. What crime victims need is real hope, not paper promises. For that reason, I strongly support both the Leahy ``Crime Victim Assistance Act'' and the Biden ``Violence Against Women Act'' re-authorization. Let's pass these bills. Let's also look at making certain federal funds contingent on states' implementation of meaningful victims' rights at the state level. In fact, I declare today that I will work tirelessly with any member of this Senate who wishes to enact legislation to bolster the rights of victims. But let us stop treating our Constitution so cavalierly. I am deeply troubled by the increasing tendency of this Congress to turn to constitutional tinkering to solve problems, rather than taking up the hard job of legislating. This is the second constitutional amendment we have debated in this Senate in a month! In his final speech to the Constitutional Convention, just before the Constitution was signed, Benjamin Franklin said something that pertains here. After calling the Constitution very likely ``the best'' human beings could hope for, he told his fellow signers: ``I hope for our own sakes and for the sake of our posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this constitution and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.'' That is our real responsibility as members of this Senate--not to second-guess the genius of this document not to alter and undermine it but to see that it is well administered. In that regard, we have much work to do. Let us do that work. Again, I say to the sponsors of this amendment, I am as committed as anyone in this body to working with you to strengthen victims' rights. Indeed, I would consider every option--even conditioning federal funds on state implementation of basic protections for victims. I cannot, however, and will not--as much as I respect the Senators from California and Arizona--amend our great Constitution unless absolutely necessary. By withdrawing their amendment, I believe the sponsors have acted responsibly, in Senatorial fashion. The Senate should be proud that one more time we have resisted the urge to tamper with the miracle created in Philadelphia in 1787--our Constitution. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that letters from United State District Judge Lawrence Piersol, Chief Justice Robert Miller, State's Attorney Dave Nelson, Victim Witness Assistant Becky Hess and Marshal Lyle Swenson be inserted into the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is important to be clear what this vote is about--and what it is not about. This vote is not a test of who supports eliminating the marriage penalty. Virtually every member of this Senate agrees: Married couples who work hard just to make ends meet should not have to pay more in taxes simply because they are married. If the plan proposed by our Republican colleagues only eliminated the marriage penalty in a way that was fair and responsible, I would vote for it. And so, I suspect, would every other Democrat in this Senate. But the Republican plan goes far beyond fixing the marriage penalty. Sixty percent of their $248 billion plan has nothing to do with fixing the marriage penalty. That is what this vote is about. This vote is about the tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts hidden in this bill that have nothing to do with eliminating the marriage penalty on working families. In addition to the $99 billion it costs to address the marriage penalty, the Republican plan includes another $149 billion for tax breaks that have nothing to do with the marriage penalty. Most of these new tax breaks would go to those who arguably need it least--including couples at the top of the income ladder who already get a marriage bonus! We believe there is a better use for that additional $149 billion: creating an affordable, voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is what this vote is about: Should we use the extra tens of billions of dollars in this bill to create more tax breaks that disproportionately benefit upper income Americans--people who, in many cases, get a marriage bonus? Or should we eliminate the marriage penalty for couples who need a tax cut, and use the other $149 billion in this bill to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit? What is really going on here? What are Republicans afraid of? Evidently, they are absolutely terrified of voting on our prescription drug amendment. They seem to recoil at even the slightest mention of those two words. Our Republican colleagues filed cloture on this bill before debate had even begun. They hope to rig the procedural situation so as to shield their faulty bill from public scrutiny and avoid voting on prescription drugs. Senator Lott has said our amendments are ``ridiculous.'' He has said it would give him great joy to vote against them. We want to make his day. We want to give him that chance. That is why I once again will vote against cloture on this bill. If Republicans really think our amendments are ``ridiculous,'' they can vote against them. If they think that adding a prescription drug benefit is a ``poison pill,'' they can vote against it. But let us vote and get on with the Senate's business and the business of the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield? I want to make a statement that will take no more than 10 seconds.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on this cloture in order to protect the majority leader's right to offer his amendment as well as to protect our rights to offer our amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If a cloture vote is invoked on this bill, would the pending amendment offered by the majority leader fall because it is not germane?

Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the next vote?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the last week, this budget has gone from bad to worse. That is the only ``progress'' we've seen. After a conference from which Democrats were excluded, our Republicans colleagues are now proposing even bigger tax cuts. Last week, Senate Republicans voted for $150 billion in tax cuts over five years, plus a ``summer surprise'' of more tax cuts. This resolution calls for $175 billion over five years, plus a ``summer surprise.'' To pay for those bigger tax cuts, this resolution calls for even deeper cuts in education, health care, other critical priorities. It still calls for 6 percent across-the-board cut in discretionary spending next year. That hasn't changed--for obvious reasons; our colleagues don't want to make things even worse just before an election. But things do get much worse after the election--and every year for the foreseeable future--under this plan. The additional cuts all ratchet up in the ``out years.'' Instead of 8 percent across-the-board cuts by 2005, this plan calls for cuts of nearly 10 percent across-the- board by 2005. This plan dramatically weakens--in fact, it all but eliminates--any commitment to a prescription drug benefit. Last week, this Senate passed a plan that dedicated $40 billion over five years for prescription drugs. That commitment is not included in this resolution. This resolution includes $20 billion to quote--``improve access to prescription drugs''--whatever that means. There's another $20 billion--but that's available only after we cut Medicare benefits. As if that's not bad enough, this plan says the money for a prescription drug benefit will be available ``whenever'' the Finance Committee reports out a prescription drug bill. ``Whenever''? Why don't they just say the money will be available ``if we feel like it,'' or, the money will be available ``if there's anything left after we pass all our tax breaks''? The Senate-passed Republican budget at least included a date. It said money for prescription drug benefit would be available by Sept. 1, 2000--whether or not the Finance Committee did its job. Now they've scratched out that date and written in ``whenever.'' You can practically see the budget writers winking! What they really mean is ``never.'' Last week, a majority of Senators voted that Congress should put prescription drugs ahead of tax cuts. Fifty-one Senators--Republicans and Democrats--said we should not spend one dollar on tax cuts until we pass a real prescription drug bill. This resolution directly contradicts that statement. It says, ``Forget what we said last week. Spend nearly $200 billion on tax cuts now. Worry about prescription drugs whenever.'' The contradiction would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. Our Republican colleagues claim that, under their plan, total discretionary spending next year would be $14 billion above freeze. The operative word is ``total.'' What they don't like to say about their budget is defense spending is $21 billion above a freeze; non-defense discretionary spending is $7 billion below a freeze. There's another thing our colleagues don't like to talk about: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total non-Social Security surplus over the next five years will be $171 billion. The reason our colleagues don't like to talk about that is their tax cut costs $196 billion over 5 years--$25 billion more than entire non- Social Security surplus. I am tempted to recycle that classic old Yogi Berra line--``It's deja vu all over again.''--because it seems like we've had this same debate every year for the last five years. Instead, let me use a different Yogi Berra quote: ``It ain't over `til it's over.'' This is just the beginning of the budget process. We have many months to go. This budget does not meet the priorities of American people. If we pass this flawed plan, America would miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sustain and expand this economic prosperity; protect Social Security and Medicare; and invest in America's future--in education, medical research, safe communities, clean water--all the things we need to remain strong and competitive. In the five years since they regained control of Congress, Republicans have never passed a budget without a major ``train wreck.'' This budget, unfortunately, sets us up to extend that record. To quote the Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, these numbers are ``unrealistic.'' They do not add up. It's obvious. We know it, and they know it. We hope that this year, our colleagues will admit their plan can't work--before the train wreck. If they do, Democrats are ready, willing and determined to work with them to get the budget process back on track. We want to work with Republicans to write a responsible budget. A budget that extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, so we can avoid a Baby Boomer retirement crisis; a budget that includes a real Medicare prescription drug plan that is voluntary, affordable and universal. We want to work with Republicans to pass a budget that pays down our national debt--so we can stop wasting $220 billion a year--$600 million a day--on interest payments. We want to work with our colleagues to pass a budget that provides tax cuts to help working families with real needs--like child care, day care, and caring for older parents--a budget that invests education, health care and other critical priorities. We want to work with Republicans to pass a budget, in short, that allows us to seize, not squander, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity now before us.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Lieberman and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing a resolution emphasizing to all Americans the importance of accurately and completely filling out their census forms. It is my hope that all members of the Senate will cosponsor this important resolution to support the Census Bureau as it carries out the role that the Constitution and Congress have directed it to take. I continue to be concerned with the statements of some elected officials urging Americans not to respond to some of the questions on their census forms. These statements are reckless and irresponsible. First, every question on the census form is required by the Constitution or by law. All of these questions were reviewed by Congress before the census began, and received virtually no comment at that time. Second, an accurate census is absolutely critical to meet the needs of the public. Local, state and federal aid programs all depend upon an accurate census count to properly distribute funding for roads, schools and health care. Disaster response agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency use census data to prepare for and respond to hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. Finally, accurate information about population is absolutely essential to fairly distribute congressional seats to ensure that all Americans have equal representation in Congress. Any effort to encourage Americans not to complete their census questionnaire will only hinder our ability to allow every community to live up to its potential, and provide its citizens with the roads, hospitals and schools they need. As you know, last week the Senate approved an amendment stating that no American should be prosecuted for failing to fill out his or her census form. This resolution was distracting and unnecessary. No American is--or for years has been--prosecuted for failing to complete a census form. The Census Bureau needs to know that it has the full support of the Congress as it carries out its vital task. This resolution makes clear just how important the bureau's task is, and the need for every American to comply with the law and complete the census form. I urge all my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. No. I am simply saying in most of the amendments offered there is a direct relevancy to the issue of marriage tax penalty. I am also suggesting in all cases we would be prepared to limit the debate to 1 hour equally divided. Regardless of its relevancy, the fact is the majority leader would be able to begin this debate, conduct his debate as he has anticipated, with an expectation that we could finish by the end of the day tomorrow. He has noted, of course, that he doesn't necessarily support or endorse many of these amendments. It is the right of the majority leader, especially given the fact that we have now submitted to a 1- hour time limit, that he can oppose them, he can table them.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on several occasions we have had debates with the Parliamentarian and with the majority with regard to the issue of relevancy. I point out to my colleagues, the concept of relevancy is only defined as it relates to an appropriations bill. There is no definition of relevancy. In our view, all of these issues are relevant to the debate on marriage tax penalty. We believe relevancy ought to be taken in that context. I am troubled by the interpretation we have gotten from the Parliamentarian a couple of times on the issue of relevancy. In our view, these matters are certainly relevant to the debate on tax consequences and marriage penalties.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 amendments to be considered during the debate on the marriage tax penalty be the following: An alternative amendment offered by Senator Baucus, or his designee; an alternative amendment offered by Senator Bayh; an alternative amendment offered by Senator Kennedy having to do with Medicaid and family care, or a motion to commit on the part of Senator Kennedy; a Robb motion regarding marriage tax penalty and prescription drugs; a Wellstone amendment on prescription drugs; a Graham amendment on Medicare and Social Security priorities having to do with the marriage tax penalty; a Schumer amendment having to do with college tuition tax credit and the marriage tax penalty; a Dorgan amendment having to do with taxation of CRP income; a Torricelli amendment having to do with tax consequences of national disaster assistance; and a Harkin amendment having to do with capping benefits in the bill and putting the savings into Medicare and Social Security trust funds on the marriage tax penalty relief legislation, as well. I further ask that each amendment be limited to debate for 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, maybe you have to be in the minority to appreciate the position in which the minority has now been put once again. The Republican majority is saying, first and foremost, we want to debate the marriage tax penalty. We say to that, absolutely; we want to debate the marriage tax penalty. We strongly support marriage tax penalty relief. Then they say, we want you to limit your amendments. So we say, OK, we will limit our amendments. Then they say, we not only want you to limit your amendments, we want to be able to tell you which amendments you can offer. After saying first of all we will debate the marriage tax penalty, after secondly saying we will limit amendments, to give the majority now the right to dictate to the minority that they have the ability to determine what the context, what the definition, what the scope of our amendments ought to be, it seems to me to be an abrogation of all that is fair in debating an important issue such as this. If we are going to spend $248 billion, there are other ways in which we can spend that money. Every one of these amendments in that context is relevant. Should we spend $248 billion on a marriage tax relief bill, 60 percent of which does not go to those experiencing a marriage tax penalty? Sixty percent of that $248 billion does not have anything to do with the marriage tax penalty. It goes in most cases to people who get a marriage bonus. We are saying let's fix the marriage tax penalty. But if you are going to spend all that money, we have a whole list of other things we think we ought to be looking at. It is in that context that I think we are being reasonable and fair, especially given the fact that we are simply saying we will agree to a limit on amendments, we will agree to a limit on time. I think this Republican bill is a marriage tax penalty relief bill in name only. It is a Trojan horse for the other risky tax schemes that have been proposed so far this year. If this bill passes, Republicans will then have enacted $566 billion in tax cuts this year before they have even completed the budget resolution. That is not even counting the audacious $1.3 trillion their Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, has proposed as their standard bearer. Add $1.3 trillion and the $566 billion, and that is $2 trillion in tax cuts they are proposing without a budget resolution. Is this the way we ought to spend the surplus, including the Social Security surplus? We are saying we can do better than that. We are saying we ought to look at providing prescription drugs for our senior citizens. We are saying we ought to look at college tuition tax credits. We are saying we ought to look at the Medicaid and CHIP health programs. I remind my colleague, just this day last week, 51 Senators-- Republican and Democrat--voted for passing a prescription drug benefit before we pass the first dollar in tax cuts. Mr. President, 51 Senators voted for that; a majority of Senators said we are for a prescription drug benefit before we are for a tax cut, any kind of tax cut. We want to deal with the marriage tax penalty. We want to come up with an agreement on the marriage tax penalty. But if some Republicans want to run for Democratic leader so they can dictate to the Democratic caucus what our agenda ought to be and what our amendments ought to be, let them run. I will take them on. We can have that debate. We will have a good election in the Democratic caucus. But until they are elected Democratic leader, I think Democrats ought to make the decision about what Democrats offer as amendments. They can agree with us on time, on a limitation on numbers, but not on context, not on text, not on substance. That is what this is all about. We will have the debate time on cloture if we have to. Like the majority leader, I am an optimist. I am hopeful we can come to some agreement. It certainly is within reach. But not if we are dictated to with regard to the text of the amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. We would not agree to second-degree amendments. To ask for the details on top of all of that seems to me to be a real stretch. I am sure that in good faith we can work through these amendments one by one. That is quite an acknowledgment on our part, a willingness to submit to the debate, 10 amendments, 1 hour equally divided on each of these, most of them directly relevant to marriage tax penalty, but in all cases certainly relevant to the debate about priorities of the money being spent.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one thing we all agree is we want to resolve the problem of the marriage tax penalty. I think that is unanimous. Republicans and Democrats want to find a way to end the marriage tax penalty. I think there is also a possibility we can reach agreement on how to proceed on this bill. We are not going to do it today under the confines that have been laid down. I think the majority leader's suggestion we go out now is appropriate. Let's go back, try to define the list, let's share lists, let's look at what we have, let's see if we cannot resolve this procedurally first thing in the morning, and we will go from there. I share the frustration expressed by my colleague. We are not going to resolve this matter this afternoon. In the interests of expediting this bill, and in consideration of the debate, why don't we just go out and pick it up first thing tomorrow. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say that I talked briefly to the majority leader about an hour or so ago. He made the request at that time for a list of our amendments. I must say I want to accommodate the majority leader. But here we are on a bill of some consequence, a bill that has not yet had any time for debate on the Senate floor. It was the subject of good consideration and discussion in the committee. But now, on the very first day, we are on this bill on the Senate floor and cloture has been filed. We don't object to proceeding to the bill. That was done by unanimous consent. But now the majority leader has chosen already to file cloture on the bill. I remind my colleagues that filing cloture is to end the debate. Once again, for the second time in the same day, we are ending debate before it even begins. We don't want to hold up a good debate and a good discussion with some other ideas with regard to how to proceed on the marriage tax penalty. We can do that. But a good debate entails offering alternatives, other ideas, and other suggestions. All we are simply saying is, why don't we have the opportunity to offer some amendment? Let's lay down the amendments. Let's get on with it. But what the majority seems to be saying is we will not have the debate at all. We will move on to morning business, if we can't have a list of amendments defined and specified prior to the time the debate even begins. I am sure the majority leader can empathize with our frustration at being given yet another situation where we do not have the opportunity to have that debate, and we are closing the debate before it even starts. I will work with the majority leader. We will see if we can't come up with a list. We want to pass marriage penalty reduction, but we think we can do it in ways that aren't as costly and that could be a lot more focused. We will deal with that. But I am disappointed, frankly, that we aren't able to offer amendments. That is why the objection is made to the request made by the majority leader. I thank the leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Basically, the letter says what a number of our colleagues have been saying throughout this debate, that this could have devastating consequences on general revenues as well as on the Social Security trust fund per se. It says, briefly reading a couple of paragraphs: In any case in which the rate reduction results in a deficit, the ultimate effect is that a portion of the Social Security Trust Fund equal to that deficit is diverted to maintain highway spending programs at the current level. In addition, S. 2285 would affect receipts and is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. We are concerned that this proposal cannot be administered. S. 2285 provides that the aggregate revenue effect of rate reductions in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon not exceed the on-budget surplus during the period the taxes are reduced. We are concerned about our ability to administer this limitation if the rate reductions in excess of 4.3 cents per gallon are triggered. Because the rate reduction period does not coincide with normal budgetary accounting periods, the budget surplus for the period may never be known. We ought to have a very good and thorough discussion about the implications of this bill prior to the time we are called upon to vote on it. By voting for cloture now, we cut off debate that never was. We cut off a debate that ought to provide a thorough examination of the implications on the Social Security trust fund, of the budget overall, of highway construction this year, of the implications for infrastructure in the outyears, of the solvency of the trust fund in periods beyond this fiscal year. All of those issues have not been debated. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to the cloture vote to be cast today. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a few minutes of my leader time, if I may, because I understand we have no time on our side either. I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to me by two Cabinet officials, Larry Summers and Bill Richardson, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold the request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, briefly. I appreciate that very much. I compliment the distinguished chairman for his work. This is not easy. While we may have ended up at different places at the end of the resolution, I admire him for the work he has done and applaud him for the way he did it. Let me also thank and congratulate our ranking member, Senator Lautenberg. This is the last time he will manage a budget. He has been an outstanding member of the Senate Budget Committee. I consider Senator Lautenberg a close personal friend. I have admired his work not only on this committee but all of the work he does on appropriations and other issues he cares about. Let me also thank our assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He is the best. We could not have come to this point in the debate and concluded this afternoon were it not for his work as well. A lot of work has gone into the completion of the budget resolution. We are very fortunate to have the leadership and the extraordinary work done by our chair and our ranking member. I wanted to take a moment to thank them both. I want to thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for joining us in saying that the long delay over reasonable gun-safety measures must end. The Juvenile Justice conference committee must send us its report--with the Senate-passed gun safety measures included--no later than the first anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, so we can vote on those measures. I also want to congratulate my Republican colleagues on another accomplishment. The law says Congress must pass a budget resolution by April 15. By passing this resolution today, you are well on your way to meeting that deadline. Considering the difficulty you have had doing that in the past, passing the calendar test is no mean feat. On every other test that matters, however, this budget resolution-- your budget resolution--fails. This budget resolution does not continue the fiscal discipline that is at the heart of today's unprecedented economic prosperity. This budget resolution does not reflect the priorities of ordinary Americans. This budget resolution does not use honest numbers. This budget resolution does not give priority to paying down our national debt; in fact, if it were to become law, it would almost certainly risk a return to the days where we relied on the Social Security surplus to fund the rest of the government. Despite all the assurances to the contrary, this budget resolution does not extend the solvency of Social Security or Medicare. This budget resolution does not guarantee a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. This budget resolution does not allow us to increase our investments in education, the environment, or any other critical national priority; in fact, if it were to pass, this budget resolution would force deep cuts--of up to 12 percent--in many of these priorities. So, this budget resolution passes the first test. It meets the calendar deadline. But it fails all the tests that really matter. It's worth reviewing what we tried to do this week. First, Senator Robb offered an amendment that said simply: Before we pass a huge tax cut, we ought to add an affordable, voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare. An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with that statement. A majority of this Senate also agrees with it. Unfortunately, we were not able to clear the 60-vote hurdle erected by those who oppose it. So this budget resolution now puts tax cuts ahead of prescription drugs. Senator Bingaman offered an amendment to reduce the Republican tax cut by $28 billion and use that money to improve America's public schools. We would have reduced the $150 billion Republican tax cut by less than 20 percent. And we would have used that money to do things like reduce class size, improve teacher training, and help students pay for college. That amendment, too, was defeated--largely along party lines. Senator Conrad offered an amendment to reduce the Republican tax cut by $75 billion, and use that money to pay down the federal debt. This Republican budget allows for $150 billion--or more--in tax cuts, but only $19 billion in deficit reduction. We could have done better. Instead of a paltry down payment on the debt, we could have made a significant down payment. That amendment also was defeated. Senator Robb offered a second school-related amendment--a plan to reduce the Republican tax cut by nearly $6 billion, and use that money instead to modernize our children's public schools. To repair schools that are in disrepair, replace schools that are too crowded, and make sure every school is connected to the Internet. Despite all of the talk we hear about the importance of education, that amendment, too, was defeated. Senators Schumer and Durbin offered an amendment to reduce the Republican tax cut by $284 million and use that money to hire 1,000 new local, state and federal law enforcement officers--to ensure better enforcement of existing gun laws. Given all the talk we've heard recently on the need to enforce gun laws, you would have thought that amendment would pass 100-0. Instead, it was rejected. Finally, Senator Durbin offered as an amendment the Bush tax cut, the same tax cut so many of our Republican colleagues have implicitly--and in some cases explicitly--endorsed. Four times previously--once in the House Ways and Means Committee, once in the House Rules Committee, and twice in the Senate Budget Committee, our Republican colleagues were asked to vote up or down on the Bush tax cut. Every time, they used some parliamentary procedure to duck the vote. To borrow a phrase used by our old friend Dale Bumpers and resurrected by our colleague Dick Durbin, they ran from the Bush tax cut like the devil runs from holy water. They tried to duck the vote again on the Senate floor during this debate. But they were unable to do so. So what did our Republican colleagues do when they were finally forced to take a stand on the Bush tax cut? Every single Republican Senator rejected the Bush tax cut. This Senate voted 99-0 vote to table the plan. The vote against the Bush tax cut was probably the most significant of all the votes we cast on this budget resolution--because tax policy isn't just the centerpiece of the Bush candidacy. Tax policy is the centerpiece of any economic and fiscal program. By repeatedly refusing to support the Bush tax plan, our Republican colleagues have sent a very clear message. That message is: They know the Bush tax cut will not work. They know we cannot afford the Bush tax cut. They know that, in order to pay for the Bush tax cut, we will have to raid Social Security, and cut critical programs deeply, and hurt working families. So, we are now about to vote on a budget that would end this economic expansion by abdicating the fiscal discipline that has produced and nurtured it. A budget that blows the entire non-Social Security surplus on risky, exploding tax cuts--leaving virtually nothing for Medicare, or prescription drugs. Nothing for debt reduction. And nothing for increased investment in education, law enforcement, the environment and other urgent, national priorities. If this budget were to become law, there are only three ways we could pay for those tax cuts and still make essential investments in education and other priorities: We could make massive cuts in the rest of the budget. We could raid Social Security. Or, we could drive up the deficit, and the debt. At a time when we could have so many good choices before us, it is astounding that this budget presents us only with bad choices. The next step is for our colleagues to reconcile their budget with the plan passed by House Republicans--a plan that contains even bigger tax cuts, and even deeper budget cuts in key priorities. I have no doubt they will reconcile their plans. And this budget will go from bad to worse. The real test, though, is not in reconciling the House plan and the Senate plan. The real test is in trying to reconcile either plan with reality. Frankly, there is no way they can meet that test. The numbers simply do not add up. Our colleagues did everything they could this week to limit debate on their plan. Right out of the box, they yielded back over 20 hours of debate time on their budget. That's how determined they were to limit debate on their plan. That's how desperate they were to avoid any discussion of their priorities, versus our priorities, and the priorities of the American people. I would remind our friends across the aisle, though, that this debate has only begun. We have months to go before this budget is finished. We will raise these issues again and again and again so that every American knows the choices facing our nation, and the consequences of those choices. We will make the improvements in this budget that we sought to make this week, or the proposals contained in this budget will not become law. So I say again to our colleagues across the aisle, congratulations on meeting this first test of your budget. We look forward to working with you in coming months to produce a budget that passes the tests that truly matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might entertain having a 10-minute vote on the first vote now. We have all come to vote. It seems we can accelerate that process.