Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is right. In fact, he was a very important part of that whole effort.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is exactly what I am saying. I think it is important for us to depoliticize the issue to ensure we find ways to address meaningful reform that will pass and will be signed into law. I am concerned. The Senator from Nevada mentioned ``getting religion.'' I am concerned that, while it is important to have religion, it is important to follow the practices of religion--if this is how we are going to characterize this new-found sensitivity to Social Security and Medicare--the facts do not comport with the current expressions of devotion to Social Security. The facts are, the Republican budget raids the Social Security trust fund by $17 billion, as was indicated, again, yesterday in the letter from the Congressional Budget Office. The facts indicate that there is a trap door in the lockbox proposed by Republicans that would actually allow any proposal to draw on the Social Security surplus, so long as you call it Social Security reform. You could call a tax cut Social Security reform, and it would qualify under the lockbox proposal made by our Republican colleagues. Call it reform and it opens the lockbox. That is the key. We used to have skeleton keys when I was young. The Republican lockbox has a skeleton key that would fit in any door. We need to get rid of these skeleton keys. We need to get on with real lockbox reform. We need to lock up Medicare as well; we need to make sure we are not going to use the $17 billion of trust fund money currently included in this budget. We need to do that and that is what this proposal will do today.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is correct. To my knowledge, it was not supported by Republicans--I don't know if I am in a position to say unanimously, but overwhelmingly.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator makes a very important point for the record, and we ought to make it daily. They are turning facts on their head. The accusation is the Democrats won't allow a vote on the lockbox. What is really true is we are not allowed a vote on our own amendment when it comes to the lockbox. Our view is, it is important if we are going to have a debate on the lockbox that we all have the opportunity to offer amendments. You cannot have a meaningful debate without a meaningful opportunity to offer amendments. That is all we are protesting. Certainly, the Republican majority can understand that.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the President's new proposal entitled the Strengthen Social Security and Medicare Act of 1999. I send it to the desk. It lays out steps we need to take to protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations. It has a number of key provisions that I will enumerate. I look forward to the time in the not too distant future when I will come back with a number of our colleagues to talk at greater length about the importance of this bill and what it includes. It devotes the entire Social Security surplus to debt reduction. That is one of the most important features of the bill. We recognize how critical it is that we ensure the viability of the trust fund for as long as we can. We also recognize it isn't mutually exclusive to want to extend the viability of the trust fund and pay off the public debt at the same time. Therefore, what this legislation will do is first pay off all of the public debt. It will eliminate the publicly held debt by the year 2015, reducing the debt by $3.1 trillion over the next 15 years. It then devotes the entire savings, which otherwise would have been spent on the interest on that debt, to the Social Security trust funds. The real savings generated in the year 2011 alone, according to the Office of Management and Budget, will be $107 billion. This is a remarkable bill and one of which I am very excited to introduce. First, we pay off the debt; second, we dedicate to Social Security the interest that would otherwise have been going to pay interest on the debt. We not only have eliminated the public debt, we have lengthened the viability of the trust fund. The President's plan extends the life of the trust fund in this manner by almost 20 additional years, to the year 2050. This extension of solvency is not conjecture. It is not something we wish will happen under this plan. Independent Social Security actuaries have confirmed this plan extends the solvency of the Social Security trust fund until the year 2050. What a remarkable accomplishment. First, we will have paid off the publicly held debt; second, we will have extended solvency by 16 years. We also do something else with this legislation. Obviously, it is important to extend solvency. But if the program is not reformed, we have not done enough. There are things we can do to strengthen and modernize another aspect of the entire retirement infrastructure we have in place today. That infrastructure has three legs: Social Security, Medicare, and private insurance, or retirement plans. We will address private retirement issues in other legislation. This bill addresses the two main governmental pillars of Social Security retirement: Social Security and Medicare. It creates a real lockbox to further protect the trust funds both for Social Security and Medicare by extending the budget enforcement rules, including pay-as-you-go budget requirements from here on out. There have been a number of debates on the Senate floor, and we talked in recent weeks about whether or not we are ever going to enact a lockbox. Unfortunately, the majority leader has chosen to fill the amendment tree--that is to preclude Democratic amendments in the debate on the lockbox; that has precluded our ability entirely to offer an amendment which says we ought not only lock up the Social Security trust fund, we ought to lock up the Medicare trust fund, too, because it, too, is a trust fund upon which our seniors depend. This legislation includes a long-supported lockbox, but it also contains no trap door. The Republican version contained a trap door that allowed Social Security surpluses to be used for any purpose, including tax cuts, that could be labeled as Social Security reform. There it is. In addition to ensuring we pay down the debt, in addition to ensuring we provide for 16 additional years of solvency, this bill provides a real lockbox without a trap door for Social Security and for Medicare. I think it is important we set the record straight when it comes to this proposal. This has been the product of an extraordinary amount of work within the White House, within the administration, working with Democrats in Congress. Republicans claim they have found religion when it comes to Social Security. The CBO clarified what is happening right now on Social Security with the letter provided yesterday. They said if the budget and the appropriations bills pass as are now contemplated and as are now drafted, we will be using $17.1 billion of Social Security trust funds. Those aren't our words; those are the words of the Congressional Budget Office. They said if we were going to offset the need to use Social Security trust funds, we would have to cut across the board 4.8 percent to accommodate the increases in investments and spending across the board in the 13 appropriations bills. There shouldn't be any doubt about who it is that is drawing down the Social Security trust fund this year before we even have a lockbox, before we even have real Social Security and Medicare reform. That is why this legislation is necessary. We have a rare opportunity to extend the life and the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, to pay off the publicly held debt in 15 years, and to provide meaningful reform to both Social Security and Medicare in a way that will absolutely guarantee that baby boomers, when they retire, will be able to count on Social Security and on Medicare in a debt-free country. It doesn't get much better than that as a goal, as a set of proposals. I am hopeful in this Congress before the adjournment date next session this legislation will become the focus of a good debate. This legislation will be not only considered but given an opportunity for a good vote, an opportunity for careful consideration. Let it be amended if it be the will of the Senate, but let's debate it. Let's get on with it. Let's commit it to law. Let's send a clear message to the American people, we as Republicans and Democrats, and support eliminating the public debt. We support extending the solvency and the viability of both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We can do that with the bill we are introducing today, and I hope it is done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last 2 years I have been working closely with a number of my colleagues to develop a package of tax incentives to foster domestic energy alternatives and thus help reduce our growing dependence on imported oil. Along with those colleagues, I am pleased today to introduce the Energy Security Tax Act of 1999, and I am hopeful that Congress will enact this legislation in the near future. Despite periodic efforts by Congress to address this problem, since the oil price shocks of the 1970s, we have seen our dependence on foreign oil continue to grow. Today, our Nation's energy supply is more vulnerable than ever to events taking place in countries far from our shores. Solving this problem will require the collective efforts of all our Nation's energy producers. The legislation we have developed is correspondingly ambitious in its scope. It encompasses a broad range of technologies, representing the diverse regions and resources of the country. Farmers will benefit from the provisions modifying the existing tax incentive for small ethanol producers, so that farmer-owned cooperatives can utilize it, and by the establishment of tax credits for efficient irrigation equipment, conservation tillage expenses, and anaerobic digesters that convert manure and crop waste into useful gas. The legislation will encourage the development of biomass-based electric power industries, which will provide a market for wide range of biomass, including switchgrass, crops and crop residues, and wood waste. We are proposing to extend the wind energy tax credit, so that we can more fully develop the wind power potential of States from California to the Dakotas to New England. Coal miners from West Virginia to Montana will benefit as a result of the tax incentives for repowering or replacing older coal-fired power plants with more efficient technology. Steelmakers will become more competitive through the use of tax incentives for more energy-efficient processes and for the production of energy from cogeneration. Hawaiian ethanol producers will be encouraged to utilize bagasse--a sugar cane residue--thereby converting a potential waste into a useful fuel. Oil and gas producers in States like New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma will benefit from incentives for greater domestic production. Business owners will be able to use the new incentives to make investments in energy-efficient property, thereby reducing energy costs and improving competitiveness. Homeowners throughout the country will benefit from new incentives designed to encourage the installation of renewable and more efficient energy technologies, and by the construction of energy- efficient homes. Americans from all parts of the nation will be encouraged to use environmentally friendly electric and hybrid vehicles. There is an old saying: The time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining. While we are fortunate now to have adequate supplies of oil, our dependence on foreign nations continues to grow. It is incumbent on U.S. policymakers today to recognize the risks associated with this trend and to prepare the nation for a more secure future. As part of that effort, we should take the first opportunity that presents itself to enact the tax policies necessary to encourage the development of a more diverse and robust domestic energy portfolio, one that will reduce our vulnerability to future oil price shocks and supply shortages. This effort not only will result in greater energy security, it will reduce our balance-of-trade deficit, create domestic jobs, improve air quality, and help limit the emission of greenhouse gases. I hope that all of my colleagues will consider cosponsoring this important legislation and will support its timely enactment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his eloquence and his statement and for his willingness to take the leadership and to provide his name on this legislation. I can think of no one I would rather have in support of legislation of this kind than the senior Senator from West Virginia. As has been noted, he is ``the'' leader, not just ``a'' leader, on coal and on clean coal technology. No one has committed more time, effort, and leadership to the issue than he has. So it was with that appreciation that I asked the distinguished Senator from West Virginia about his willingness to honor me as he did this afternoon. It troubles me, as I know it does him, that this country continues to depend on foreign sources for energy to a far greater degree than it is in our Nation's best interest. If we are ever going to deal with that real dilemma, it seems to me we have to continue to find ways in which to utilize more effectively our own resources. That has been the argument made so passionately and so ably by the Senator from West Virginia now for so long. This legislation would allow us to move closer to the goal that one day we can be more energy self-sufficient, and that we can do so with the recognition of the importance of the environment. It combines two national goals: a clean environment and energy independent. I am hopeful we can see careful consideration of this legislation, and other ideas that we offer in good faith with the expectation that the Senate recognize the importance of these goals and this contribution to those goals. Again, let me thank the distinguished Senator for his kindness, for his leadership, and for the commitment he has made with this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have also heard from public health officials who are concerned that public health funds may need to be diverted to address the needs of those who should have been covered by Medicaid--as they were in the past. Some states are able to cover the gap month through other Medicaid categories, such as the ``medically needy'' category and a category for those who meet all the SSI criteria but are not receiving benefits. There are several states, however, that still face the gap month problem. It is difficult for many of these states to address this problem, because, while covering only the gap month may be affordable, adding a whole new Medicaid category is seen as too expensive. There is a simpler, and less expensive way to address the problem: restore the pre-1996 Medicaid eligibility. We must restore health care benefits to those with disabilities who need them and should be eligible for them. The gap month is not a difficult problem to fix. A solution only requires our attention and our commitment to protecting the health care safety net. My bill does that by ensuring Medicaid helps cover those facing unexpected disability. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Medicaid Eligibility Restoration Act of 1999, which fixes a major problem recently created in the health care safety net. My bill addresses a Medicaid eligibility problem--lack of access to health insurance during the first, and often costliest, month of disability--that was inadvertently caused by a change to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) policy in the 1996 welfare reform law. Let me explain how this Medicaid ``gap month'' problem was created. In 1996, the effective date of application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was changed to the month following the date when an individual applies for SSI. Before the 1996 change, pro-rated payments began immediately. Since 1996, payments do not begin until the month following original application. This SSI payment change generated a small cost savings for the SSI program and ended the administrative burden of calculating partial month payments, but it also created a problem--a gap month--for Medicaid eligibility that is linked to SSI. For most SSI and Medicaid recipients, this change has resulted in one lost month of Medicaid eligibility, which is a hardship in itself. But those who suddenly become disabled or who are born with a disability face more dire consequences. Because of the 1996 change, they now lose health insurance coverage for what is often their costliest month--their first month of disability. This policy shift has left families with enormous medical bills and hospitals with uncompensated care. The Medicaid Eligibility Restoration Act would end this gap month in Medicaid coverage and would restore the pre-1996 Medicaid eligibility criteria. This issue first came to my attention when I received a letter from Randall Connelly of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. His wife, Susan, had recently given birth to premature twins. Tragically, the twins died a few days later. Despite the fact that Randy had a good job, with good health insurance, he still faced unaffordable out-of-pocket medical expenses. Because of the twins' low birth weight, both children were automatically eligible for SSI and Medicaid--or they would have been, if the twins had been born before enactment of the welfare reform law of 1996. In fact, the Connellys were ineligible for any help with their medical bills because of the small 1996 technical change in SSI payment policy. The unfortunate result was that the Connellys were left to cope not only with the loss of their newborn twins, but also with unaffordable hospital bills. Since my communication with the Connellys, I have heard from hospital administrators who have expressed concern on behalf of patients and families who have suddenly found themselves with nowhere to turn during their first weeks of extreme financial hardship and emotional trauma due to disability. Sioux Valley Hospital in Sioux Falls, SD, has reported that 28 newborns were affected during the past year in that one hospital alone. Hospital administrators report that: Delay in Medicaid coverage results in severe hardship for many families. . . . The normal stresses of dealing with a newborn with a serious disability are compounded by the extensive financial demands attendant to medical services provided for that child. I ask that a copy of Sioux Valley's letter of support for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have also heard from public health officials who are concerned that public health funds may need to be diverted to address the needs of those who should have been covered by Medicaid--as they were in the past. Some states are able to cover the gap month through other Medicaid categories, such as the ``medically needy'' category and a category for those who meet all the SSI criteria but are not receiving benefits. There are several states, however, that still face the gap month problem. It is difficult for many of these states to address this problem, because, while covering only the gap month may be affordable, adding a whole new Medicaid category is seen as too expensive. There is a simpler, and less expensive way to address the problem: restore the pre-1996 Medicaid eligibility. We must restore health care benefits to those with disabilities who need them and should be eligible for them. The gap month is not a difficult problem to fix. A solution only requires our attention and our commitment to protecting the health care safety net. My bill does that by ensuring Medicaid helps cover those facing unexpected disability. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I know there are other colleagues who are waiting to do other business. I think we might talk more privately about this and proceed. But I look forward to working with the majority leader to see if we can find a way to deal with it.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the assistant Democratic leader, for his willingness to allow me the opportunity to talk a little bit more about why we are here. We are stalled for one reason: The majority leader has again, for the seventh time now, filled the tree, precluding 45 Democrats from offering amendments. That is why we are here. And on two other occasions this year, the majority leader preemptively filed cloture on measures immediately after calling them up--and then proceeded to other business in order to prevent amendments or debate. So nine times so far this year, the majority leader has said, well, we are going to decide which amendments are offered, we are going to decide which amendments are passed, we are going to decide what kind of role you as Senators ought to have, and we will tell you that you are not going to be able to offer amendments. We are going to decide, in other words, whether to gag you and to lock you out of the legislative process to which you were elected as a representative of the people. It began on March 8, 1999, on the so-called Education Flexibility Act. The bill was offered, the majority leader was recognized, and the tree was filled, locking out every single Democrat from their right to offer amendments to the Education Flexibility Act. He chose to do it again on April 22 on the Social Security lockbox. He said: We are going to have an up-or-down vote, and it is going to be our lockbox or none at all. We said: What about Medicare? What about locking up the Medicare trust fund? They said: No, you can't offer that amendment; we are going to fill the tree and preclude you from offering amendments on the Social Security lockbox. And, again, the issue was shelved. On April 27, 1999, the Y2K Act, an extremely complex and very difficult issue, the majority leader came to the floor and filled the tree, precluded Democratic amendments, and said it is take it or leave it. April 30, again he apparently tries to make the point that Social Security lockbox is important to Republicans--as long as Democrats don't have the opportunity to offer an amendment. Again, we said: We would like to offer an amendment on Medicare. Again, our Republican colleagues said: It is our bill or no bill. At that point, it went from becoming the Republican lockbox to, as our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, said this morning, the Republican ``squawk box.'' On June 15, 1999, the ``squawk box'' was debated again. Again, the majority leader offered the bill, filled the tree, precluded Democratic amendments, and the lockbox was shelved. On July 16, Republicans used the ``squawk box'' approach again, claiming to be interested in getting the bill passed, precluding Democratic amendments on Medicare. On June 16, in a similar situation, they did it again. They called up a House bill, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act, filed cloture, and went off the bill to other business. And then, on September 21, the most recent effort by the majority leader and the majority to lock out Democratic amendments, they brought up the bankruptcy reform bill, filed cloture, and moved on to another bill, precluding Democratic amendments. I only recite the litany of occasions when the majority leader filled the tree in order to make clear how objectionable this coercive tactic really is. For those who are not familiar with parliamentary jargon, ``filling the tree'' is a procedure that the leader can use to offer multiple amendments and thereby fill all of the available amendment slots that a bill has under the Senate rules, precluding any Senator from offering an amendment. That is what filling the tree is all about. Together with the practice of preemptively filing cloture, which has the same effect, it has been done now on nine separate occasions. The sad thing about it being done on this bill is that it plays right into the hands of the opponents of the legislation. The opponents are very grateful to Senator Lott and the majority for filling the tree because it certainly makes it easy. It turns the issue away from whether or not one supports CBI to whether or not one supports a Senator's right to be a full participant in this Senate Chamber on this or any other bill. It ceases to become substantive and becomes a matter of individual Senator's rights. Well, because I want this bill passed so badly and because I know it is one of the highest priorities for the administration, because I think this legislation has languished too long, because I think there is a real chance we can get this legislation passed and signed into law, going into conference with our House colleagues, I made an offer yesterday that was unprecedented since I have been leader. I said to the majority leader that if he would agree to allow us to offer on other legislation some of the amendments contemplated on this legislation, I would be prepared to work with him to table amendments on this bill. That is remarkable. It wasn't without a great deal of concern for protecting Senators' rights that I offered this latest proposal. I draw a distinction between protecting a Senator's right to offer an amendment and supporting whatever amendment a Senator chooses to offer. I might not support an amendment on this particular bill, as important as some of these issues might be, but I will fight to protect every Senator's right to offer it. But there is a very important caveat here, and I think it needs to be emphasized. I insisted that we must have the opportunity to at least offer these amendments on another bill. We have to have an opportunity, for example, to offer minimum wage on the bankruptcy bill when it comes up. The majority leader again said no. The problem, as we have said on so many occasions, is that there are those on the majority side who want this Senate to be a second House of Representatives. They want this body to act and to proceed as if it were the House of Representatives. That is the problem. The amazing irony is that our Republican colleagues never dreamed of asking for this kind of procedural constraint, this kind of enslaved approach to legislation, when they were in the minority. They had no trouble offering extraneous amendments that were not necessarily relevant to a particular bill when they were in the minority. Of course not. The amazing thing is Democrats did not insist on a procedural constraint of the magnitude our Republican colleagues are now demanding. Why? Because we had the confidence when a bill came to the floor that we would have a good debate, we would take all comers, we would table amendments that we didn't support, and we would offer second-degree amendments that we thought would be approved. We used all of the tools available to us. And this Senate acted like a Senate. This Senate isn't acting like a Senate today. This is a sham. This is a terrible excuse for this body. This should not happen. We should not have to come pleading for the right to do what we were elected to do. And it happens over and over--almost once a month this year. I am telling you, we are losing some of the institutional tradition here. We are seeing the erosion of an extraordinarily important body and the rights incorporated within that body. Who today could, without smiling, argue that this is the most deliberative body? Who could say with a straight face, yes, this is still the world's most deliberative body? I daresay no one could say that. There is nothing deliberative about the Senate today. They want to make this a legislative assembly line. You take something up, you vote it up or down, and you move it along. I am surprised we don't have a conveyor belt somewhere on the lower part of the floor where we just kind of say yes and no, yes and no, as bills on the conveyor belt come through--no debate, no deliberation; let's move them out. This isn't what our Founding Fathers expected of us. They expected more. They put the rights in the hands of Senators to say: No, let's slow down on the legislation; or, I want to be able to offer an amendment. And I don't care whether it is a farm bill to a peace treaty. We want to have the opportunity to deliberate in the most deliberative body. Rubber stamping doesn't work around here. We have only had a handful of amendable vehicles--just a handful. The response from the majority leader to my offer suggests that there may never be another amendable vehicle in this session of Congress-- with no amendments on this bill, no amendments on any other bill. That is what the Republicans want. The results of doing business this way is remarkable. We talk about a legislative landfill. I am telling you, I have never seen a legislative landfill of the magnitude we have today. We keep throwing bills into the legislative landfill, and that landfill keeps getting larger. This has been the biggest legislative graveyard I have seen since coming to Congress. Republicans get elected to prove government doesn't work, and they prove it every day. When they are in control, they prove that government doesn't work because they don't want it to work. They don't want minimum wage. They don't want a Patients' Bill of Rights. They don't want good gun legislation. They don't want a Medicare prescription drug bill. They don't want legislation that moves this country forward. They don't want it. They don't want to admit it. They ought to admit it. We are not going to be a part of this. We are going to stick up for our rights. We are going to amend legislation when it comes to the floor. We are going to go back into that legislative landfill and one by one we are going to recycle, because I am telling you that is what this Senate and this country needs. We are going to recycle the Patients' Bill of Rights until it is done right. We are going to recycle minimum wage. We are going to recycle the gun legislation. We are going to recycle farm legislation. We are going to recycle every single bill the Republicans insist on burying, and we are going to keep coming back because that is what we were elected to do. That is what we are going to do. That is what we believe in doing. I have to say I am disappointed. I am about as patient a person as I think I can be, but I lose my patience, and I get angry and frustrated at the level of duplicity and the extraordinary encumbrances that the majority demands of this body each and every day we legislate. This is wrong. I am not proud to be in the Senate when I can't legislate as a Senator. I am not proud when we tear away the pillars of the Senate institution. I am not proud when I can't go to the public and say, yes, I am one of the 100 Members of the greatest deliberative body in the world. I am not proud about that. For however long I am here, I would like to be proud of the fact that, as a Senator, I lived up to the traditions and the practices and the extraordinary honor that comes with being a Senator. But that isn't happening today. I left the House of Representatives 12 years ago for a good reason. I thought I could do more here. I thought I could play a bigger role here. I thought the Senate was where a Senator could really legislate. It was true in 1987. It was true in 1992. It was true all the way up until recently when slowly but most assuredly date by date, bill by bill, in filling the tree and using other devices, this majority leader said no. No. We are going to be a House of Representatives. Forget regular order. Regular order says you can offer amendments. We are not going to have regular order in the Senate. We are going to have narrow order, or no order at all, as the case may be. What order is there when Senators can't offer amendments and we are stymied for 2 days? Do you realize how many bills we could have finished, or how many amendments we could have finished in just the last couple of days? We probably could go to final passage with the number of Senators who support this legislation by the end of the week. But here we are stymied once again. We haven't passed the Social Security lockbox. That is part of the legislative landfill because we have filled the tree. We haven't been able to pass anything where the majority leader has filled the tree until he has torn the tree down. That is the case here as well. We will never let this legislation pass if we can't offer an amendment, not because we don't support it--I strongly support it--but because I also even more strongly support the right of every single Senator to be partners in the legislative process.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois recalls and I recall our wonderful colleague very well. No one was sharper, more energetic, brighter, better liked in our caucus in the House than Mike Synar. He said that and a lot of other truthful things. He was right. It makes me wonder what people are afraid of. What in the world are Senators afraid of, bringing up and debating an amendment? We used to do that all the time. I can recall so many occasions when we had to come down to the floor and table an amendment that might have had immediate popularity but was not good for the country. We did that. We tabled amendments. We second-degreed them. Again, I am getting into ``beltway speak'' here, but the bottom line is, we respected Senators' rights to fight for the things they cared about, to fight for the things for which the people sent them to fight. The Senator from Illinois has done that on an array of issues. Every Senator on this floor has come with a certain agenda and a belief they could make a difference. But how do you make a difference if you do not have a voice? How do you make a difference when you do not have an opportunity to legislate? How do you make a difference when you are really shoved back into the mentality and the constraints of the House of Representatives when you are a Senator? That is not what the people of our States and this country sent us to do.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I know the assistant Democratic leader has been very patient, waiting to speak. For that reason, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California puts her finger right on the issues I omitted, and rightfully so. One year ago, we all had a bipartisan agreement and celebrated the fact we were going to reduce class size. How ironic it is now, after all the celebration, that in just 12 months Republicans have had a change of heart. Now, apparently, class size is no longer an issue. Now, apparently, it is OK to have kids in classrooms with 35, 40, 50 children. It doesn't matter. The Senator is right about that. The Senator is also right about judges. I don't know how anyone can look Judge Paez in the eye and say he got a fair deal. I don't know how Members tell anybody who has had to wait for more than 3 years that this system is fair. I don't know how Members tell the Hispanic community we are being equally as fair with them as we are with all non-Hispanic judges when that simply is not true. If one is in a minority, that person has a bigger contest in getting confirmed. That is a fact. I won't deal with all the perceptions that creates, but it is wrong. Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor. What are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? What is wrong with a vote? There is something wrong in our system when somebody has the right to tell somebody who is willing to commit him or herself to public service that we are going to make that person wait 3\1/2\ years just to get a vote. We are not going to tell them what is wrong. We are not going to say if there is something wrong in their background. We are not going to debate whether they have qualifications or not. We are going to make them wait, and hopefully they will go away. Hopefully, they will go away. What does that say? What does that say about the intentions of people on the other side? Go away. Don't make any noise. That is wrong. That is worse than a legislative landfill.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. He gave a perfect illustration of how they are being hurt on health care. I think he is also right that it is important to try to put this in terms the American people understand. This has to do with more than just procedure. We are talking procedure, and sometimes I may get too engrossed in my own procedural frustration to try to ensure that we talk about this in ways the American people fully understand. If anyone out there today has been ripped off by an insurance company or has been denied care by a hospital or doctor because they are being told by the insurance company they cannot do it, those people are affected by what is happening this afternoon on the floor, one of the thousands of people who have been adversely affected by our inability to have a good debate. Anyone out there who has a child in a classroom with 35 or 40 kids is affected by what is going on right now. If anyone out there has been affected by some crime in the neighborhood because we haven't fully funded the COPS Program, then, by golly, those Americans are affected dramatically by what has happened right now. If anyone is out there working at lousy minimum wage and can't make ends meet, they are affected by what is happening right now because the other side doesn't want a minimum wage increase--not this year, not ever. If they did, they would have supported it a long time ago. If anyone out there wonders why this is all going on, turn the pages of the calendar back 2 weeks and find out it was their side that defeated campaign finance reform and we are affected by what is happening right now. Don't let anybody out there, I don't care what issue, think this is not relevant. The assistant Democratic leader probably made the best illustration. I think our people are in greater danger today than they have ever been before to the exposure of greater nuclear proliferation because of what the Senate did 3 weeks ago. You are affected by it. You are affected by it. This is more than procedure. This is what is going on here and how affected we are by it. This has everything to do with why we got elected in the first place, because we wanted to come down and fight for these issues. It is more than whether we can offer an amendment, it is whether we pass the amendment. It is whether we do something good for this country, for whatever limited time we are here. That is what this is about. We came to fight. We came to fight for the things in which we believe: A better minimum wage, more teachers, a good health care system, an end to nuclear proliferation, a safer neighborhood, a better minimum wage--things about which people today can only dream. That is what we came to fight for. There are opportunities for debates about things; there ought to be. We have to decide what kind of body this is going to be. Those who wish for the rules of the House ought to go to the House. To understand the 200-year tradition of the Senate, pull open this drawer. I see some wonderful names, names in some cases that have been there for generations. These people, the people in my drawer, fought for the same things I am fighting for right now. These people fought for health care, these people fought for better working conditions for families, these people fought for a safer neighborhood, these people fought for the arms control agreements of their day. They fought. They were not handcuffed. They were not gagged. They were not confined to a legislative straitjacket. They fought valiantly, and today we sing their praises as the legislative leaders and giants of old. We want to fight. We want to be part of this process. We want to be able to pass this institution onto the next generation of Senators and say: Welcome to the greatest deliberative body in the world.