Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just suggest that we also ensure that either side has at least a block of five amendments that are going to be offered so we can look at them ahead of time. Nobody knows, on either side, what the amendments are. If we can at least take them five by five, we can analyze them and decide whether we will table them, second degree them, or whatever. I think it is very important to do that. I suggest that as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to represent the people of South Dakota in the United States Senate. They are the best resource in a state with an infinite number of tremendous attributes, and the best part of my job is getting to know and work with them on a daily basis. I have often stood before my colleagues here in the Senate to recognize the accomplishments of South Dakotans. Many times, the names sound unfamiliar to those in this chamber. Today, however, I want to congratulate a young man who made the country stand up and take notice--and who showed the country how we play basketball in South Dakota. His name is Mike Miller, and, as every college basketball fan knows, he recently led the Florida Gators to the NCAA Division I National Championship basketball game. Although the Gators fell in a hard fought battle to the Michigan State Spartans, anyone who saw that game knows that Mike Miller is a very special basketball player. Mike was named Most Outstanding Player in his region for the tournament. That is a tremendous feat for any college player and was made possible only because Mike's last-second shot against Butler advanced Florida and kept his team's hopes of reaching the championship game alive. His clutch play continued in every game of the tournament, making it easy to see why Mike was named the best player in his region. Remarkably, Mike did all of this as just a sophomore. Mike Miller is from Mitchell--a leader in South Dakota high school basketball--and as a Kernel he played under the legendary Gary Munsen. Mike started learning about the game of basketball long before he got to high school, however. His uncle, Dakota Wesleyan great Alan Miller, is the all-time leading college scorer in South Dakota. And Mike's older brother Ryan, who played for Northern State, currently plays professionally in Australia. The Millers are a big part of the reason that growing up in Mitchell means growing up around basketball. In a time when too many athletes seem to be more concerned with individual statistics than playing as a team, when the bottom line seems to matter more to some professionals than the love of the game, it's refreshing to see someone like Mike Miller on the court. Through the course of the tournament and the championship game in Indianapolis, Mike showed his opponents and the country how basketball is played in South Dakota--and how it should be played everywhere else. His unselfish play makes the players around him better; he has an uncanny ability to step up his game during crunch time; and he never stops working to improve. That's what he learned in Mitchell--that's what he learned in South Dakota--and that's what he's showing the college basketball world. Although the Gators fell a few points shy the other night in Indiana, Mike Miller made us proud in South Dakota. He proved to the country what those at the Corn Palace and at Mitchell High already know--that Mike Miller is a champion. We are very proud to call him one of our own. Let me, of course, congratulate the Michigan State Spartans and the University of Connecticut Huskies women's team for their championship seasons. But, on behalf of everyone who cheered for him, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mike, his team and his parents--Tom and Sheryl Miller of Mitchell--for the incredible run the Florida Gators had this season. It was fun to watch, and I know we all look forward to seeing more of Mike Miller in the years to come.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to explain the procedural situation we are in with regard to the motion to proceed on the so- called gas tax repeal. I could not be more strongly in opposition to the repeal of the gas tax because of its potential to devastate our highway and transit programs. Nevertheless, I intend to support the motion to proceed this afternoon and I urge my colleagues on this side to do so for a couple of reasons. First of all, it seems to me this ought to be a debate that we have early next week. I think there are a lot of very important questions that ought to be raised about the advisability of the repeal of the gas tax. I think Governors and those from industries that are involved in the construction of our infrastructure this year ought to have the opportunity to be heard. I will read for my colleagues some of the comments made by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle with regard to the gas tax. I think they ought to be heard, as well. Let me quote from Speaker Dennis Hastert, who on March 26, said: But the problem is that this doesn't solve the problem. . .that's just a little tick in what the cost of gas is. We need to solve the real problems out there. So said the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The House Transportation Committee chairman, Bud Shuster said: Repeal of the fuel tax is the wrong way to go. [It's] counterproductive because reducing a portion of the price without reducing the underlying cost of crude oil makes it easier for OPEC countries to keep prices high. So says the chairman, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Here is what the House majority leader, Dick Armey said: Let's not get bogged down on only one dimension of the problem--a short-term dimension that offers scant relief. Even if we repealed, that it would give little relief to consumers. Here is what my colleague, the very respected and distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner said: Repealing the 4.3 cents will have little or no impact on the price of fuel. It will, however, severely limit all of our States' abilities to make needed surface transportation improvements. Here is what our colleague, Senator George Voinovich, said on March 24: Even with this repeal, there is no guarantee it is going to bring down the cost at the pump. It defies common sense. Here is what the GOP conference chair, J.C. Watts, said in the House of Representatives on March 19: I don't know if the tax has any affect on fuel tax. Supply and demand is driving price right now. Finally, here is what Congressman Don Young said. He gets the award for the bluntest assessment of the advisability of this particular legislation. Absolutely the dumbest thing ever thought of. This ought to be debated. We ought to have a good discussion about its advisability. This is one of those rare occasions when I happen to be on the same side as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader on the House of Representatives, the conference chair on the House of Representatives, Congressman Young from the House of Representatives, and some of my distinguished colleagues here in the Senate. We ought to debate it. It ought to be amended. We don't oftentimes have a vehicle that could be offered that will allow an opportunity to debate energy and tax policy such as this. I am hoping we can offer amendments to this bill and we would expect we would have the opportunity to do so. This is one of those rare occasions when many of our colleagues share the view expressed so powerfully and eloquently by our Republican colleagues. I am not giving the credit they deserve to my Democratic colleagues on the House side. I could come up with at least as long a list on that side. We look forward to this debate. We are certainly not going to object at all to having the motion to proceed presented to us this afternoon. We just want to get to the bill and have this debate. That is my reason for supporting the motion to proceed, to have a good debate, to ensure the American people know what the implications of this particular vote will be and the unusual coalition that has already been created in opposition to this repeal. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. First, I compliment my colleague, Senator Johnson, for the extraordinary efforts he has made in reaching this compromise. I compliment, as well, the Republican manager, Senator Gramm, for the work that has gone into the agreement that we now have reached. This is an important piece of legislation. I think we are going to see a very strong vote. It is, in large measure, due to the contributions and leadership of Senator Johnson and Senator Gramm. I hope we can dispose of both of these matters shortly. It has been a long time coming. But it was worth the wait. I want to thank my colleagues--especially Senator Johnson--for making essential improvements. Because of their patience and persistence, we are now--finally--on the verge of passing a bill that will give rural Americans the same access to affordable local TV programming as everyone else in our nation. Senator Johnson's amendment is the heart of this bill. It will allow banks associated with rural cooperatives to lend coops enough money to build their own satellite facilities. The reason this is so critical is because commercial satellite broadcasters have made it absolutely clear: They have no interest in serving rural markets. They don't think it's worth their time or money to build satellite TV facilities for rural markets. The same is true of many commercial banks. If the only choice for rural communities was to borrow from commercial banks to build satellite facilities, the communities--very likely--would end up paying high interest rates. Those high interest rates would drive up the costs of building the satellite facilities. That, in turn, would drive up the price rural Americans would be forced to pay for local TV programming. Senator Johnson's amendment, though, means that banks associated with rural cooperatives can also make loans to build satellite facilities. The coops will charge lower interest rates than commercial banks. This is a huge victory for people in small towns and rural communities in South Dakota, and all across America. The reason we fought so hard to get this bill right is because this is not just about entertainment. This is about public safety. It is potentially about life and death. Local stations provide local news and public affairs programming. They also provide weather updates. A year and a half ago, a tornado destroyed much of the town of Spencer, South Dakota. As devastating as that tornado was, it could have been far worse. It could have claimed many lives. One reason it did not may very well have been because Spencer is within the Sioux Falls local broadcast area. People could turn on their TVs and see that the tornado was coming, and take cover. But most South Dakota communities are outside both the Sioux Falls and the Rapid City broadcast areas. Without Senator Johnson's amendment, it is doubtful that they would be able to receive local weather or news reports. Rural coops have a 60-year history of responsibly promoting economic development throughout rural America. By adding them to the pool of qualified lenders, we have greatly improved this bill. I commend Senator Johnson again for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to vote for his amendment and this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate recently lost a very dear friend. Larry Harrison, who worked in the Capitol for over 36 years prior to his retirement in 1997, died early this week. Larry's many years of dedicated and distinguished work made him an institution within this institution. It was tough on all of us when he retired a few years ago, but it is much more difficult to say goodbye to him today. Larry served this country and the Senate in a variety of ways for nearly four decades. He served in the U.S. Army during World War II, participating in the D-Day invasion at Normandy, and following the war worked for the Architect of the Capitol for five years. Larry returned to the Capitol to work for the Sergeant at Arms in 1967. He stayed there until 1997, outlasting all but five of the Senators who were serving in this chamber when he started. Larry had an extraordinary work ethic, and he committed himself to his job with tremendous pride, energy, and humor. During his time in the Capitol, Larry was responsible for maintaining the President's Room, the Cloakroom, and the Senate Chamber. Somehow, he even found time to operate a shoe shine station in the Senator's bathroom, and I know I speak for everyone when I say that this place hasn't been the same without Larry's friendly smile and kind voice. When he retired in 1997, our loss was his family's gain. His wife, Jean, and sons, Michael Henry, Albert Philips and Kevin Harrison got their husband and father back full-time. Sadly, their time with him has now been cut all too short. Our thoughts and prayers are with Larry Harrison's friends and family, especially his wife, Jean, and their three sons. Larry was a good man, a caring husband, and great father. He will be missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will take whatever time may be required and use my leader time. Mr. President, the debate over the last two days has been deeply moving. When we began this debate, I thought to myself how much I would prefer it if we were talking about veterans' health care, prescription drugs, or raising the minimum wage. But, I stand corrected. This debate has proved meaningful and proved that our reputation as the deliberative body is earned. I thank especially the distinguished Senior Senator from Vermont, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy for his fine stewardship of this debate. As always Senator Leahy has offered much wisdom and demonstrated much skill as he managed this amendment. This afternoon, as we close this debate I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the statements of Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Chuck Robb. Both men gave eloquent statements about how they came to their decision to oppose this constitutional amendment. These statements moved me and I dwell on them because they represent my views so well. For neither of these men, was their decision easy. I have come to believe, however, that it is not in easy decisions that you find the measure of a Senator--it is the hard decisions that distinguish the men and women we remember long after they leave this place. Senator Byrd, in his usual way, reminded us why the Bill of Rights has never been amended in our history. Why? Because it was our founders' design. They set the bar for passage of a constitutional amendment high because they strongly believed that the Constitution should be amended in only the rarest of circumstances. And that has been the case. As Senator Byrd points out, setting aside the amendments involving prohibition, the Constitution has been amended only 15 times in 209 years. As Senator Byrd noted, ``In the final analysis, it is the Constitution--not the flag--that is the foundation and guarantor of the people's liberties.'' Thus, Senator Byrd conceded that, as much as he loves the flag, and as much as he salutes the patriotism of those who support this measure, he must oppose the amendment. His sentiments reflect so well the struggle I have felt over the years when we have considered this amendment in the past. I, like other veterans, love the flag that has united us at so many critical times. I cannot understand why anyone would burn the flag simply to call attention to a cause. But as Senator Robb reminded me-- it was to protect the rights of such an unpopular dissenter that I once wore a military uniform. Senator Robb noted that there will always be another flag to hold high, when one is defiled, but there will be no other Constitution--should we defile it. Senator Robb held dying men in his arms in Southeast Asia. He understands the sacrifices men and women will make to save this democracy. This afternoon, as we cast this vote, I am proud to stand with him, to stand with Senator Byrd, to stand with Senators Bob Kerrey and John Kerry, and others, to fight here--today--to preserve the principals and ideals these patriots fought for. As Senator Byrd said today: ``From Tripoli in 1805 to Iwo Jima in 1945 to the moon in 1969, the flag has been raised to commemorate some of America's proudest moments.'' By honoring and preserving the Constitution, we ensure that this symbol--our flag--continues to represent a country devoted to democracy and free speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk briefly about a matter that we have been especially concerned about in recent months, and that has to do with the Corps of Engineers. Prior to that, I rise to express my disappointment that we were not able to get to the electronic signature bill conference report today. I thought we had worked out all of the problems. Now, as I understand it, there are some problems on the Republican side. I hope it won't be held up too much longer. We need to get on with that legislation, and we have been trying to move this bill to conference now for some time. We had worked out our concerns with regard to representation, and I was certain we would be able to finish that work today. But given the problems there now appear to be on the Republican side, I am hopeful we can resolve those no later than tomorrow. I am reminded, again, as we file cloture, that the motion to invoke cloture is a motion to end debate. I am always amused by that phrase, ``end debate.'' How do you end debate that you haven't even started? That is what we are being asked to do on Thursday, end debate on a tax bill that didn't go to the committee, on a tax bill that hasn't had one hearing. How is it that we would limit Senators' rights to offer amendments when those considerations are paramount as we consider a tax bill--a gas tax bill? So we are very concerned about why it is we need to move rapidly to this legislation if it is this important, if it is this much a part of finding ways in which to provide relief. You would think that, consistent with past practice and consistent with the recognition of the importance of the issue, it at least would have been given a hearing or some consideration in committee. That has not happened. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 2309 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, this bill has never been in committee. It has not had the opportunity afforded most legislation to be considered, have hearings, have people come forth and talk about the implications of eliminating the gas tax. Normally bills go through committee, and then they come to the floor. That is No. 1. No. 2, what kind of a debate would one have when no amendments are made available? I cannot imagine that on an issue of this import we would want to accelerate the debate, accelerate the consideration, and prevent Senators from offering amendments and other ideas. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the last couple of months the Washington Post has published a number of very troubling articles about the operations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These stories expose the existence of independent agendas within the Corps. They suggest cost-benefit analyses rigged to justify billion dollar projects; disregard for environmental laws, and a pattern of catering to special interests. The actions described in the Post articles raise serious questions about the accountability of the Corps. And they present a compelling case for a thorough review of the agency's operations and management. And it is not only the Post articles that cause me to believe this. The Corps' current effort to update the Missouri River Master Control Manual--the policy document that governs the Corps' management of the river from Montana to Missouri--illustrates not only that the Corps can be indifferent to the environment. Too often, it actually erects institutional barriers that make achieving certain critical ecological goals difficult or impossible. This ought to be a concern to all Americans. It is a deep concern to South Dakotans. The Missouri runs down the center of our state and is a major source of income, recreation and pride for us. More than 40 years ago, the Corps built dams up and down the Missouri River in order to harness hydroelectric power. In return, it promised to manage the river wisely and efficiently. That promise has not been kept. Silt has built up, choking the river in several spots. In recent years, studies have been done to determine how to restore the river to health. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical data all point to the same conclusion. The flow of the river should more closely mimic nature. Flows should be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer--just as they are in nature. Yet the Corps proposes to continue doing largely what it has been doing all these years--knowing the consequences, knowing exactly what the practices have produced now for the last 50-plus years. The agency's refusal to change will further jeopardize endangered species. And, it will continue to erode the recreational value of the river, which is 12 times more important to the economy than its navigational value. Why does the Corps insist--despite all the evidence--on this course? It does it to protect the barge industry--a $7 million-a-year industry that American taxpayers already spend $8 million a year to support. $8 million. That's how much American taxpayers pay each year for channel maintenance, to accommodate the barge industry. The Washington Post suggests that the Corps handling of the Missouri River Master Manual is not an isolated case. The Post articles contain allegations by a Corps whistleblower who says that a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansions was rigged to provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar project. In response to these allegations, the Corps' own Office of Special Counsel concluded that the agency--quote-- ``probably broke laws and engaged in a gross waste of funds.'' In my own dealings with the Corps of Engineers, I too have experienced the institutional problems recorded so starkly in the Post series. In South Dakota, where the Corps operates four hydroelectric dams, we have fought for more than 40 years to force the agency to meet its responsibilities under the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the construction of those dams. For 40 years, the Corps has failed to meet those responsibilities. That is why I have worked closely with the Governor of my state, Bill Janklow, and with many other South Dakotans, to come up with a plan to transfer of Corps lands back to the state of South Dakota and two Indian tribes. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to work with us, the Corps is fighting us. The litany of excuses, scare tactics and misinformation the Corps employed to try to defeat our proposal is outrageous. It appears Corps officials are not nearly as concerned with preserving the river as they are with preserving their own bureaucracy. After the legislation was enacted, the Chief of the Engineers, General Joseph Ballard continued to resist its implementation. In fact, my own experiences with the Corps, and the experiences of other members, repeatedly demonstrates General Ballard's unwillingness to follow civilian direction and ensure the faithful implementation of the law. When considered in the context of the litany of problems that have come to light in the Post series, Congress has no choice but to consider seriously moving the responsibilities of the Corps from the Army and placing them within the Department of the Interior. Too much power now is concentrated in the hands of the Chief of the Engineers, and that power too often has been abused. General Ballard's lack of responsiveness to the law, to meeting environmental objectives and to civilian direction, has serious consequences for individual projects. Beyond that, it raises very troubling questions about the lack of meaningful civilian control over this federal agency. In a democracy, institutions of government must be held accountable. That is the job of Congress--to hold them responsible. The existence of separate agendas within the Corps bureaucracy cannot be tolerated if our democracy is to succeed in representing the will of the people. Its elected representatives and the civil servants appointed by them must maintain control of the apparatus of government. Moreover, contempt for environmental laws and self-serving economic analyses simply cannot be tolerated if Congress is to make well- informed decisions regarding the authorization of expensive projects, and if the American taxpayer is to be assured that federal monies are being spent wisely. The Corps of Engineers provides a valuable national service. It constructs and manages needed projects throughout the country. The size and scope of the biannual Water Resources Development Act is clear evidence of the importance of the Corps' civil works mission. Because the Corps' work is so critical, it is essential that steps be taken immediately to determine the extent of the problems within the agency--and to design meaningful and lasting reforms to correct them. Our nation needs a civil works program we can depend on. We need a Corps of Engineers that conducts credible analysis. We need a Corps that balances economic development and environmental protection as required by its mandate--not one that ignores environmental laws as it chooses. History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet these standards under its current management structure. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent Corps of Engineers Investigation and Review Commission. The commission will take a hard and systemic look at the agency and make recommendations to Congress on needed reforms. It will examine a number of issues, including: The effectiveness of civilian control in the Corps, particularly the effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers and the Assistant Secretary for civil works with regard to responsiveness, lines of authority, and coordination; The Corps' compliance with environmental laws--including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act and NEPA--in the design and operation of projects; The quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic analysis; The extent to which the Corps coordinates and cooperates with other state and federal agencies in designing and implementing projects; The appropriateness of the agency's size, budget and personnel; and Whether the civil works program should be transferred from the Corps to a civilian agency, and whether certain responsibilities should be privatized. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review this legislation. It is my hope that all those who care about the integrity of the Army Corps of Engineers and its mission will support this effort to identify and implement whatever reforms are necessary to rebuild public support for its work. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor to thank the distinguished senior Senator from New York, but also my two colleagues, Senators Robb and Kerrey, for their extraordinary statements on the Senate floor. I hope the American people have had the opportunity to hear, and I hope the opportunity to read what they have said is made to schoolkids and others who have given a great deal of thought to our Constitution and the reason our Founding Fathers wrote as they did. Their eloquence and their power and their extraordinary persuasiveness ought to be tonic for us all late in the day on an afternoon which has seen a good debate. I am hopeful people have had the opportunity to hear this contribution, above and beyond all of those made so far in this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader allow me to make one brief comment before he propounds his unanimous-consent request?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not recall the last time we had a vote on Monday or Friday.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator makes a good point. I defended the cost-of- living adjustment. I think there are times when we have to recognize we want people in public service. But if we want to bring about the kind of cost-of-living increases that we understand we need at our salary level, I think everyone would also understand the need for a cost-of- living adjustment for minimum-wage workers to at least stay equal to the poverty line, and to at least give them some encouragement not to go back on welfare. I appreciate very much the Senator from Montana pointing out that matter.

Mr. DASCHLE. It was a cost-of-living increase.

Mr. DASCHLE. We are talking about minimum-wage workers working 40 hours and sometimes 80 hours a week. If we are not in session long enough to address the concerns they have, it seems to me, we will have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of those people who are wondering: If they are working that long, why can't we work a 5-day week?

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish I could. All I know is that if you take what it costs to get elected to the Senate and divide it over the number of legislative days, it comes out to millions of dollars per day. It is a remarkable change in the circumstances we face since I have come to the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Montana raises a very good point. It used to be that we considered a workweek working 5 days. The workweek is becoming more and more 3 days. Not only that; our work periods are only 3 weeks. Then there is no workweek at all. It is a remarkable juxtaposition. First of all, we have a limited time each week. Then we have these periods for which there is no legislative work. Then we are told we don't have time to bring up the minimum wage. We don't have time to bring up issues that are of importance to families all across this country. The Senator is absolutely right.

Mr. DASCHLE. There are not any votes on Monday. We will not have any votes now until Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senate is not in session tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is so right. This is a $2,000 increase. That $2,000 increase is probably made, in the case of many American entrepreneurs, in a matter of moments, minutes, or hours. We are talking about a $2,000 increase over the course of a couple of years. That is what we are talking about. These people are already struggling to retain some form of dignity in the workplace. They are determined not to go back on welfare. They are determined to try to find ways to ensure that their children have the quality of life we all dream about as Americans. As the Senator said, how ironic it is that at a time when we have more billionaires in this country than we have ever had in our Nation's history, at a time when income has gone up exponentially for the top 20 percent of those in this country, at that very time we see potentially the lowest level of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever brought about in our Nation's history. What an incredible irony that is. The Senator is absolutely right. I appreciate his calling attention to that.

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. We have declared now an end of official business. We are in morning business this afternoon. We are not going to be in session tomorrow. We will be taking up the flag amendment on Monday and voting on it on Tuesday. But we are told there is not time to bring this matter to the floor. Yet tomorrow is a perfectly opportune time for us to be debating and talking about this. We would love nothing more than to have a good debate. Let's talk about whether or not this affects jobs. Let's talk about whether or not this is for teenagers or for working mothers and working families. Let's entertain amendments. The fact is, we wouldn't have debated this last year were it not for the extraordinary efforts made by the Senator from Massachusetts who offered this amendment to a bankruptcy bill. That is what triggered the action in the Senate. I believe that is what triggered the action in the House. Now we are in a situation where we are prepared to split the bankruptcy conference from the minimum wage conference. But unless we have a vehicle with which to go to conference, it is very hard for us to conference a minimum wage that has never been considered in the Senate. How can we go to conference without a vehicle? That is unheard of. I think Daniel Webster would be rolling over in his grave trying to understand what the modern Senate has done to the process. The process, as I used to understand it is you pass a bill in the Senate, you pass it in the House, it goes to conference, you work out the differences, and you bring it back. We haven't passed a minimum wage bill in the House. The distinguished Senator is right. We are introducing this bill. We could bring it up today. We could have a vote on it tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the distinguished and esteemed Senator from Massachusetts and I are reintroducing the Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage. For those familiar with the legislation, they know that our legislation--the bill being reintroduced this afternoon--raises the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years, to $6.15 an hour. It is a modest but badly needed bill. It is overdue. It has already passed in the House, as most of our colleagues know, by an overwhelming margin, with strong bipartisan support. It deserves equally strong and bipartisan support in this Chamber. Among the many people who support our proposal are America's religious leaders--the U.S. Catholic Conference, the United Church of Christ, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the American Friends Service Committee, the Unitarian Association of Congregations, the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and many more religious organizations. There are Republicans and Democrats in this coalition of religious leaders, and all have joined together in supporting the effort to raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour over 2 years. A job isn't only a source of income. A job, frankly, is a source of pride--or it should be. The Catholic Conference tells us that the minimum wage ought to reflect the principles of human dignity and economic justice. That is what it ought to reflect. There ought to be more to a minimum wage than simply what pay you get. There ought to be a sense of dignity and a sense of pride and a sense of accomplishment. There ought to be a feeling of goodwill in a workplace. But today's minimum wage precludes much of that. The U.S. Catholic Conference is right, the minimum wage today denies dignity, it denies economic justice. When you adjust the increased cost of living, the real value of the minimum wage today is almost $2.50 below what it was in 1968. This chart reflects, very graphically, what we are talking about. This shows the value of the minimum wage over the years. We started in 1968, with a value of the minimum wage, in today's dollars, at $7.66. But look what has happened. We come down now to the year 2000, and we have a minimum wage value of slightly over $5. But look what has been happening to the trendline representing the value of the minimum wage, in the last couple years. While there have been peaks the trend is actually going down. Next year, the value of the increase, in constant dollars, will be $4.90--almost $3 below what it was 30 years ago. Is it any wonder people are working two and three jobs? Is it any wonder we have lost some of the value, some of the dignity, some of the economic justice that was concomitant with the minimum wage of 30 years ago? What is remarkable is that all we are asking with this increase is to bring it to $5.85 next year. This proposal, as you can see, is still below the value of the minimum wage in 1968. That is what is disconcerting. If we do not raise the minimum wage by the end of the year, every single penny of the value of the 1996 increase will be erased by increases in the cost of living. As the chart shows, at one time we were able to increase the value of the minimum wage. Now, we would like to bring the wage back to its value in 1996. But look what happens. If we do not raise the wage, we will have eliminated entirely the previous increases of the minimum wage. I think people ought to remember, all we are trying to do is to maintain virtually the status quo. We are not even able to bring it up to where it should be. So forget economic justice, dignity--working families are living in poverty. The Senate passed the welfare reform legislation several years ago. We said we want to dignify work. We want to reward work. We want to ensure that people who work get the rewards that otherwise they would get on welfare. Look what has happened. As the minimum wage continues to decline, the poverty line continues to go up. So even with the minimum wage increase, minimum wage workers are going to be below the poverty line. How does that reward work? How does that keep people off welfare? If this gap continues to spread, where is the economic justice? Under our proposal, a full-time minimum-wage worker would earn $12,792 a year. That is an increase of $2,000. That doesn't sound like a lot of money. As I noted, right now minimum wage workers are below the poverty line. But the fact is, $2,000 would buy 7 months of groceries for a family of four. I was in a grocery store not long ago. Somebody came up to me, a total stranger, and said: I know you are Senator Daschle. I hate to interrupt. I know you are out there buying your groceries. I am just one person, but I want to thank you. I want to thank you for trying to fight for the minimum wage increase because I am a minimum wage worker. I have two jobs. I have no health insurance. I have a daughter who is very sick. You don't know me, and you may never see me again. I'm telling you, Senator Daschle, I need that money, without it I don't know what I am going to do. You remember conversations like that. That brings life to charts like this. It is very troubling to me that, as we fight over the minimum wage this year, we are fighting about that worker, working two jobs, trying to stay above the poverty line with a sick daughter. We are trying to decide in the Senate today whether we are going to make this worker wait another year and lose $1,200 over that period of time in this era of economic growth and vitality. What do we say to that man in that grocery store: Look, I am glad you are working two jobs. I am sorry your daughter is sick? We want you to stay off welfare? And while we have more and more people becoming billionaires in this country, we are going to make you wait 1 more year to get that full $1 increase in minimum wage, even though it is $3 below what it was in 1968? I can't do that. I don't know how anybody can do that. But that is what we are asking. That is why we care so much about this fight now. We didn't have the chance to bring it up last year. We forced it on the bankruptcy bill. Now the House, because I believe we forced that action last year, has acted, as they should, on minimum wage. I have some real problems with the House-passed tax package, but they acted appropriately on the minimum wage. Why, in Heaven's name, given the economic strength we have in this economy, given the extraordinary increase we have seen in income at just about all levels but the lowest, why would we make that man, or anybody like him, wait 3 years rather than 2 to get a $1 increase so that he might be able to stay above the poverty line? Recently, my State created 17,000 new jobs. Unemployment is lower now than it has been in 30 years. Yet we hear our colleagues say this somehow is going to hurt small business. This age-old argument has been so totally ripped apart by virtually every credible source. The Wall Street Journal, Business Week--hardly the mouthpiece of a liberal agenda--now say the 1996 predictions about job loss, the last time we increased the minimum wage, could not have been further from the truth. They were wrong. We have created more jobs in my State and in every State. Unemployment is lower, not higher. There is no question whatsoever, we can create more jobs and still provide dignity in the workplace. Of what value is a job if you need four of them to survive? Of what value can a job be if you can't even buy health insurance for your children? The other argument we hear so often is that minimum-wage workers are teenagers, or that they are part-time people, who pay for cars and CD players, who will be working in a high paying job someday. Again, the facts could not be more the opposite: Seventy percent of all minimum- wage workers are in their twenties or older; 60 percent of minimum-wage workers today are women in that age category; 40 percent of minimum- wage workers today are the sole breadwinners in their families. You hear these arguments over and over again: The minimum wage costs jobs. These jobs are for teenagers. That is just bunk. There is absolutely no truth to these assertions that we hear over and over again. We are talking about people who walk up to me in grocery stores telling me about their kids, telling me they have more than two jobs, telling me that unless they get this increase in the minimum wage, they don't know how they are going to survive. What an irony--talk of survival in a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity. I am hopeful that somehow over the course of the next couple of weeks we can reach an agreement. The House has acted on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. The Senate ought to go to conference. We ought to resolve this minimum wage issue. But we ought to accept the fact that we have no real argument to ask that person or anybody else to wait 3 years for a $1 increase in the minimum wage when they need it so badly right now. I am very hopeful that we can work out a procedural arrangement whereby every single person this year can count on a minimum wage increase within 2 years. The average family now works an additional 265 hours a year just to maintain the same standard of living they had at the beginning of this decade. That is an additional 6 weeks a year that parents could be spending with their children that they are not. How much more in that direction should we be going? Three hundred hours more a year to maintain the status quo; 7 or 8 weeks a year that parents ought to be spending with their kids that they are now spending on a second or third job? The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I, and so many of our colleagues, have said if we do anything this year, if we really mean what we say about economic justice and about dignity in the workplace and keeping people off welfare and addressing the real needs of working families, there is nothing more important than ensuring an increase in the minimum wage, this year, over 2 years. It ought to be over 1 year, but if we can't do it in 1 year, the compromise was, well, then let us at least try it in 2. If we can't do it in 2 years, I don't know how we turn to those working those extra hours, those extra weeks, with any sense of compassion or understanding for their circumstances. I ask whether or not it could be a bipartisan goal that we sign and pass a measure before Mother's Day this year. What better opportunity to tell those women who make up 40 percent of the minimum wage workforce and who head households that we are going to give you some help. We are going to do all we can to keep you off welfare. We are going to try to put a little more dignity into the workplace, and we are going to provide the kind of economic justice we all say is important to us. I have admired Bob Dole for a lot of reasons, but one thing he once said, while he was the Republican leader, is something we ought to remember again and again. He said: I never thought the Republican Party would stand for squeezing every nickel out of the minimum wage. That wasn't something Senator Kennedy or I said or anybody else on our side said. That was the Republican leader who said it wasn't the role of the Republican Party to squeeze every nickel out of the minimum wage. I hope the majority will not squeeze every last nickel from this minimum wage either. I hope they will join us. I hope they will remember the families below the poverty line. I hope they will remember where we are and from where we have come, when it comes to dignity, economic justice, and the minimum wage today. I hope they will join us in passing this 2-year bill before Mother's Day. Let's sign it into law. Let's send the right message.