Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leadership time to conclude this debate with a few comments of my own. Let me begin by commending the authors of this resolution, Senator McCain, Senator Biden, and others. I support their intent, and I appreciate the effort of all the authors in making this resolution the focus of our attention this morning. There ought to be three rules this country should always adhere to in an addressing an international conflict. The first rule is that every effort should be made to resolve the matter diplomatically. I believe this is being done in the case of the conflict in Kosovo. In this struggle, there is no end to the lengths the United States and NATO have gone in an effort to resolve this matter diplomatically. As we speak, diplomatic efforts are underway. There will continue to be negotiations, discussions, and communications to resolve this matter diplomatically. Up to now all these efforts have failed. Secondly, should diplomacy fail and U.S. forces be needed, we must not tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. We must provide whatever support is requested. That is what this resolution says: that the President is authorized to use all necessary force. I understand and support that concept. Thirdly, we must support our troops when they come home--something we haven't always done. We didn't in Vietnam when they were suffering from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange; we didn't in the Persian Gulf when they were hit by Persian Gulf Syndrome. We have not always supported our troops when they come home. Veterans and the Veterans' Administration oftentimes are neglected in times of peace. There is a caveat, an obvious caveat, to these three rules. When deploying force, there must be a clear indication of need. Only in the rarest of circumstances when it comes to executing a war, a military effort, should the Congress get ahead of the Commander in Chief and his military advisers. That is especially true when the United States is involved, as it is today in Yugoslavia, with other nations. They are the ones--the military, the Commander in Chief--who must decide what kind of forces are to be used, what kind of war is to be waged, what facts must be considered in waging it successfully. The distinguished Senator from Arizona made some comments about the President's unwillingness to use ground troops. It isn't just the President. It is all of his Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is everybody in the Pentagon who advises the President who has said, This is not the time; we do not want to commit ground troops at this point, Mr. President; don't request them. And he has not. It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I reluctantly join in tabling this resolution today. I do so for three reasons. First, as I have just noted, the President has not asked for this authority, nor have his military advisers. They have indicated they don't support the inclusion of ground troops at this time. Why? Because the air campaign is working. That is not what some of the media want you to hear, but it is the case that the air campaign is working. The resolve on the part of Yugoslavia is being tested. And, I must say, there is increasing evidence that their resolve is weakening. There is increasing evidence that, regardless of what criteria one uses to evaluate the success of the air campaign, it is working. Until we have given every opportunity for the air campaign to work, moving to a new strategy is premature. The time involved, the logistics involved, the questions involved in moving forces into Yugoslavia all have to be considered, but not now. This is not the time. Will there come a time? Perhaps. But it is not now. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously endorse that position--not now. What is the Commander in Chief supposed to do? He listens to his military advisers and they say, ``Not now.'' He listens to his national security people and they say, ``Not now.'' This isn't a matter of courage, this isn't a matter of a lack of resolve on the part of the President. Instead, it is a matter of the President working with all the people in this administration to pick the best course of action. I believe he has done so. Secondly, we must keep one thing in mind about this effort. This is not unilateral. We are involved with 18 other nations, most of whom oppose changing NATO's current air campaign strategy. If all necessary force implies using ground troops, they oppose taking a different course of action. This is a test for NATO. We should all recognize that. If we truly want NATO to succeed, we have no choice, no choice but to make all decisions involving strategy in concert with our NATO allies. For Members today to say we are going to assert that our position calls for a change in strategy, that the air war alone is not working, sends a clear message to all the other NATO countries that we are the ones in charge, we are the only ones making this decision; we don't care what you think, we are not going to resolve this matter in concert with you; it is going to be us; we will call the shots. We are not prepared to do that today, Mr. President. Thirdly, because this authority has not been requested either by the President or his military advisers or by NATO, we have no clear idea what it is we are authorizing with this resolution. Because the President hasn't made a specific proposal, are we voting to use tactical nuclear weapons? Are we committing 500,000 troops for 5 years? Are we committing ourselves to an invasion of neighboring countries, should that be necessary? The answer to these questions, of course, is no. They are extreme options which no one would dare suggest. But what are we authorizing with this resolution? Without a specific proposal from the President, we can only guess. By guessing, we do a disservice to our mission. By guessing, we relegate too much discretion to others. Mr. President, an up-or-down vote on this resolution is premature. There may be a time when it will be required. That time must be determined by the Commander in Chief and our NATO allies. If or when that time comes, it is the responsibility of the Congress to do what we must do and what we have done on many occasions in the past: We must debate it and we must vote on a resolution of approval. Until then, the Senate has spoken on this conflict. On a bipartisan vote, we have given our approval to the air campaign. We have no need to do so again. So I ask my colleagues, let us be patient. Let us support our military as they fight so valiantly and successfully in the air mission. Let us send a clear message to the leaders in Yugoslavia, and to NATO: We will not terminate the air war until we are successful. I might note another bit of evidence of our success occurred just this morning. There are reports that a NATO F-16 fighter jet shot down a Serb Mig29. The air war is working. We will keep the pressure on. We will not look the other way when victims of ethnic cleansing look to us. A vote on this motion to table this resolution is a vote to postpone the decision to alter our military course in Yugoslavia. It is a vote to support our military in their efforts to bring peace to this region. I urge our colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to announce to the Senate today the names of the 7 young men and women who have been selected to receive the 1999 American Automobile Association Lifesaving Medal. This award is the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. There are roughly 500,000 members of the school safety patrol in this country, helping over 50,000 schools. Every day, these young people ensure that their peers arrive safely at school in the morning, and back home in the afternoon. Most of the time, they accomplish their jobs uneventfully. But, on occasion, these volunteers must make split-second decisions, placing themselves in harm's way to save the lives of others. The heroic actions of this year's honorees exemplify this selflessness, and richly deserve recognition. The first AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient comes from Rochester, New York. On September 22, 1998, 11-year-old Theodore Roosevelt Elementary School Safety Patrol Katherine Garcia was at her post in the back parking lot. She was helping create order out of the chaos that occurs when buses, walkers and parents all try to leave the school at the same time. Behind her post, a 9-year-old boy and his 7-year-old friend separated from his grandmother to look for their car. They tried to run past Katherine. As they did, she quickly reached out, grabbed the boys by their t-shirts, and pulled them out of the path of an oncoming car. This year's second AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Brooklyn, New York. On January 5, 1999, an 8-year-old student asked Public School 151 Safety Patrol Anthony Christian, Jr. if he would walk him across the street. Leaving his post in the hands of his patrol partner, Anthony carefully checked the traffic signal and crossed the street. Just as they reached the other corner, two cars collided at high speed in the middle of the intersection. One of the cars spun out of control, heading directly for the two boys. Without regard for his own safety, Anthony pulled the little boy out of the way just before the car jumped the curb where the two boys were. The third AAA Lifesaving Medal winner comes from Unadilla, New York. On October 8, 1997, Unadilla Elementary School Safety Patrol Nichole L. Decker was at her post at the school's back door when she heard a 7- year-old boy's desperate cries for help. When she went outside, she saw the boy trapped on the ground by a huge dog--a husky/wolf mix. The dog was biting at the little boy's face and throat. Without considering what the 50-pound dog could do to her, 13-year-old Nichole began shouting and waving her arms to distract it from the boy. When the dog ran away, Nichole scooped up the badly bleeding boy and took him inside the school for help. The fourth recipient of the AAA Lifesaving Medal comes from Brooklyn, New York. On January 28, 1999, 10-year-old Public School 91 Safety Patrol Stacia Walker saw a car drop off a 5-year-old boy at school, then depart. Instead of entering the schoolyard, the little boy turned around and headed for a park across the street, Stacia ran to the little boy and stopped him just before he crossed the street in front of a car. This year's fifth AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. On September 2, 1998, 12-year-old Ganiard Elementary School Safety Patrol Michael T. Wiltsie was helping the adult crossing guard at the corner of Broadway and Adams streets, the busiest corner for patrols. The adult crossing guard had just walked to the center of the street to stop traffic when a 7-year-old boy walked around Michael's outstretched arms to follow her. A truck made a left-hand turn and passed between the adult crossing guard and Michael's post on the curb, ignoring the stop sign held by the adult crossing guard. Michael reached out, grabbed the 7-year-old boy by the backpack, and pulled him to safety just as the truck sped by. The fifth recipient of the AAA Lifesaving Medal comes from Fairfax, Virginia. On February 22, 1999, Fairhill Elementary School Safety Patrol Roxanne A. Bauland (BALL-lund) was standing at her post near a bus stop when she noticed there was something wrong with a 6-year-old girl approaching the bus stop from across the street. When the little girl began running toward the bus stop, the hard candy she had been eating became lodged in her throat, causing her to cough and choke. Quickly sizing up the situation, 11-year-old Roxanne performed the Heimlich maneuver on the little girl and dislodged the candy from her throat, quite possible saving the little girl's life. The final AAA School Safety Patrol Lifesaving Award recipient comes from Minneapolis, Minnesota. On November 2, 1998, 11-year-old Jenny Lind Community School Safety Patrol Tonya L. M. Boner was completing her shift for the day when she decided to wait a little longer to help some stragglers cross the street safely. Three students, ages 7, 9, and 10, began to cross the road. Across the intersection, a car stopped briefly at the stop sign, then headed straight for the crosswalk and the students. Seeing the immediate danger, Tonya hurried the students to the other side just as the car sped through the crosswalk a mere 2 feet from where she and the students had been walking seconds before. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate, I extend congratulations and thanks to these young women and men who are visiting the Capitol today. They are an asset to their communities, and their families and neighbors should be very proud of their courage and dedication. I would also like to recognize the American Automobile Association for providing the supplies and training necessary to keep the safety patrol on duty nationwide. Since the 1920's, AAA clubs across the country have been sponsoring student safety patrols to guide and protect younger classmates against traffic accidents. Easily recognizable by their fluorescent orange safety belt and shoulder strap, safety patrol members represent the very best of their schools and communities. Experts credit school safety patrol programs with helping to lower the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving young children. We owe AAA our gratitude for their tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation's children arrive to and from school safe and sound. And we owe our thanks to these exceptional young men and women for their selfless actions. The discipline and courage they displayed deserves the praise and recognition of their schools, their communities and the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just want to ask unanimous consent that a list of amendments in the 103rd Congress--the last Congress, of course, that the Democrats were in the majority was the 103rd Congress. I would be remiss if I did not submit for the Record right now a list of amendments that were not relevant that were offered by Republicans to legislation during the 103rd Congress. There were at least 19 nonrelevant amendments offered, and this may not be the complete list. We may update this as time goes on. This issue of relevancy is interesting because it was never an issue in the 103rd Congress. Nonrelevant amendments were added. That list details a number of things. In fact, the manager of the bill today, Senator McCain, had a nonrelevant amendment on the motor voter bill that would have allowed certain rescission authority on the part of the President. The Senator from Arizona also offered a nonrelevant amendment to the unemployment compensation bill in December, 1993. The amendment was to eliminate the Social Security earnings test. The ability to offer nonrelevant amendments has been part of the consideration and deliberation of legislation here in the Senate for every Congress, including the 103rd Congress when we were in the majority. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the announcement just made by the majority leader. I think, as others have already indicated, that we have made extraordinary progress in the last couple of days. That would not have happened without Senator Dodd, Senator Wyden, Senator Kerry, Senator McCain, and a number of other Senators who have been very involved in bringing us to this point. I am disappointed, as well, that there was an objection to returning to the Y2K bill, because we were making real progress toward improving the bill. I believe that negotiations have delivered progress, even though more improvements will be needed. I support proceeding back to the Y2K bill. I support keeping the negotiations going. I want a bill. I think we will get a bill. I think it is important we get a bill. I also think, however, that there were unfortunate decisions made by the majority about how we consider legislation on the floor. We are negotiating all of this off the floor. I would much prefer to have a good debate and offer amendments. The amendment tree is filled. We are not able to offer a Democratic amendment--relevant or not relevant. So we are relegated to negotiating off the floor. And we are making progress even in that context. I only wish we would recognize in this Chamber all the rich tradition of debate in the Senate and we would have the opportunity to offer amendments and debate them, dispose of them, and move on. Senator McCain has suggested that. So I am not necessarily accusing the manager of any effort to keep us from having those amendments. But I will say this. We will not be gagged when it comes to our ability to offer amendments. It is religion. And it ought to be religion on both sides. It is a fundamental question about fairness, about rights, and about any one Senator's opportunity to participate fully in the debate and consideration of any important legislation. So I am frustrated that the tree is full. I am frustrated that we are not able to move this process forward in the normal, open process under which we should consider any bill, especially this one. But I am also hopeful that we will come to some resolution. I am hopeful that we will find compromise. I know we will pass this legislation before long. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just for a question for the leader to clarify, yesterday I think the understanding was that it would be his intent to bring this bill to the Senate floor 2 weeks from yesterday. Is that the current intention?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to comment on developments over the last couple of days in particular, and the vote that we just had specifically. There are two issues here. I want to touch on both of them. The first issue has to do with our desire to reach some accommodation, some agreement on Y2K. I have said it publicly and privately, I think this is a serious issue. I believe there is a way with which to resolve this matter. But I don't think it does any of us any good, or the industry any good, or our country any good to pass a bill out of the Senate knowing it will be vetoed. I don't know why we would do that. I have heard the argument, ``Well, we can clean it up in conference.'' Mr. President, I don't know why we don't clean it up here. We have as clear a letter as any I have ever seen from this administration which says the current draft will be vetoed. I don't know how you get any more definitive than this. If we were serious--and I really believe that there are a number of serious and well-intentioned Senators who want to see this resolved--I think this is the test of seriousness, because I believe that the Senators who truly want to see an accomplishment rather than an issue will take this letter seriously. I am very hopeful that in the not too distant future we will see some final agreement that will allow us to vote on an overwhelming basis on this issue. I want to support it. Most of us will support it.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California raises a very good question. Absolutely, our purpose is to present our agenda. That is why we are here. That does not mean to the exclusion of the Republican agenda. Obviously, we ought to have a good debate about both agendas. But you need that debate. You need that opportunity. How do you have that debate? Not just by talking but by offering legislative proposals: the minimum wages, Patients' Bill of Rights, school construction, Social Security, Medicare reform. Those are the things we are here to vote on and work on, and we need the opportunity to do that. We can do it the easy way or the hard way. We can do it by allowing amendments and having a good debate, by having some agreement about what the schedule will be, or we can force these issues by offering amendments and by having to defeat cloture and by doing all the procedural things we have had to do now for so long. By the time we set aside all the procedural time we have spent, we could have had a good debate on the minimum wage or the Patients' Bill of Rights. The majority leader has said we will bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights. He just said we will bring up minimum wage. He has now said we will bring up juvenile justice. So we are making progress. But I think the time has come to drop this procedural stampede that we find every time on the part of the majority when we want to offer amendments. We have to quit trying to steamroll these bills without offering due opportunity to all Members to offer amendments. I know the Senators from Massachusetts and Arizona are waiting to speak, and I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, there are a number of people--Senator Wyden, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Edwards, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Robb--as the Senator has noted, who deserve great credit for moving this process along. There are a number of Senators who are actively engaged in an effort to bring this matter to closure. I am very hopeful we can do that. Let me talk about the second matter, the procedural question. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment, as is his right, through the recommittal motion simply because he has no other recourse. This is illustrative of an array of frustrations the Democratic Caucus has about the procedure used in each and every instance in which a bill has come to the floor this session of Congress. This is the 28th of April and we have yet to have one amendable vehicle on the Senate floor. I have a great deal of affection for the majority leader, but I must say, I think he should have run for Speaker because I really believe he would be more comfortable as Speaker. I have said that to him, and I think he would acknowledge he would much rather have a Rules Committee in the Senate than the current rules. When I become majority leader, maybe I will have that same feeling. However, in the Senate, we have always prided ourselves on open, free debate. We lay a bill down, offer amendments, have tabling motions, have second-degree amendments, and we have a debate. We call ourselves the most deliberative body in the United States, if not in the world, and I believe we have a right to that distinction. How can we be deliberative when every time we bring a bill to the floor, we fill the parliamentary tree, denying anybody a right to offer an amendment? There is a pent-up frustration and a pent-up pressure to have the opportunity to vote, to have the opportunity to offer amendments on key questions. This happened to be the minimum wage. The distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts said he will pull the amendment if we can reach some agreement, if we can get some final solution here in solving the problem of Y2K. If we can solve it and if we can reach agreement, he will pull this amendment. He made that request and that offer. That is more than I get on many occasions. I have to thank the Senator for that. However, we will continue to see as many challenges and as many significant breakdowns in the effort to reach, with some comity, a solution procedurally and a solution substantively of the issues we want to address in the Senate as long as we fill the tree on each and every occasion. We just did the Social Security lockbox. What happened? The majority leader filled the tree and, in filling the tree, once again denied the minority the right to offer even a single amendment. I am very hopeful we can resolve this matter, but the way to resolve it is to do what we are supposed to do, to do what we are paid to do around here. We come to the Senate with ideas. We come to the Senate with a bona fide appreciation of the differences of opinion that exist in the Chamber, even within our own caucuses. I am exasperated, frustrated, mystified that here in the Senate we are not allowed an opportunity to have a free and open debate. If amendments are undesirable, table the amendments; if the amendments can be improved, improve them with a second-degree. But to deny Democratic Senators--and even Republican Senators, for that matter--the chance to amend a bill is not acceptable. I am hopeful we can find a way to resolve this. If we can't, I will put the Senate on notice that we will use other recourses if we have to. I don't want to have to do that. However, there are ways to respond, to reciprocate, if we are going to be gagged. Committees are meeting with our approval; we don't have to do that. There is an array of other tools we can use to demonstrate our frustration, and we will resort to those if we have to. I hope we can come to a point where we don't have to do this. We can take up issues that are offered in good faith, debate them, amend them, dispose of them. We can do that on Y2K as we are doing today. We can do that on a lot of other issues, and we must.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Unless there is a unanimous consent agreement, it has been used on virtually every occasion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not have the statistics the majority leader referred to. The majority leader showed me the list of occasions when filling the tree was something that Democrats resorted to when we were in the majority. We go back to 1977 to find the first time, and we have only used it, according to his own list, on a handful of occasions since 1977. Over the last 20 years, Democrats may have used this procedure 5 times--5 times in 20 years. This procedure has been used five times in 1999. We will have a lot more to say about the extraordinary utilization of this concept of filling the tree and how undemocratic and unfair it is to the process and to the institution itself. We have to find a way to fix it.

Mr. DASCHLE. We have created a Rules Committee of one. I think it is unfortunate. They have a Rules Committee in the House. Constitutionally, the House was designed differently than we are. We don't need a Rules Committee in the Senate. Somebody made the comment, I think it was the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, the reason our Senate is so family friendly is that we are not doing anything. If we did something, maybe we would not be so family friendly. I think it is time we do something, we try to resolve these matters. Let's move on and allow Senators the opportunity to express themselves in amendments.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are approaching the tenth anniversary of the birth of the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. This initiative, enacted in 1990 as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments, established strict fuel quality standards for the nation's most polluted cities in order to reduce air pollution. It includes a minimum oxygen content requirement, which was intended to provide an opportunity for America to reduce its dependence on foreign oil through the use of domestically produced ethanol and MTBE. Reformulated gasoline was introduced in the American marketplace in 1995. Today it accounts for approximately one-third of all gasoline sold in this country. Congress had several objectives in establishing the RFG program: (1) to substantially reduce harmful air pollutants caused by fuel-related emissions, especially ground level ozone and air toxics; (2) to reduce imports of crude oil and petroleum products, especially those from unstable regions like the Middle East; and (3) to stimulate investment in domestic ethanol and ether plants, thus creating jobs and adding value to grains and other domestic raw materials. The first objective has been not only met, it has been exceeded. In fact, EPA Administrator Carol Browner has called the RFG program ``the most successful air pollution reduction program since the phase-out of lead in gasoline.'' The other two objectives also have been met, though not to the extent that many of us had hoped. A major impediment to full realization of the potential of the RFG program has been the importation of massive volumes of MTBE, much of it subsidized by the Saudi Arabian government, into the United States. Domestic ethanol and MTBE producers have been harmed, and American plants have not been built, largely due to the influx of subsidized product from offshore that makes potential investors unwilling to commit capital to U.S. ethanol and ether plants. The winners in this situation are the Saudi government and a few multi-national corporations. The losers are U.S. corn farmers, butane suppliers and plant workers as well as American consumers who remain potential hostages to foreign energy suppliers. Mr. President, the benefits of the RFG program have been substantial. However, as we prepare to enter Phase II of the program, it is incumbent upon policymakers to reflect upon whether it is achieving its potential in terms of air quality improvements and oil import reductions. It seems clear that the answer to the first question is ``yes.'' RFG is generating substantial air quality benefits and even exceeding the predictions that many had made when the original rules were written. The answer to the second question, however, is a resounding ``no.'' Imports of Saudi Arabian MTBE are growing, and the exclusionary effect of unfairly traded MTBE imports on ethanol usage in key markets such as California has become increasingly problematic. On April 1, 1999, the International Trade Commission (ITC) held a public hearing on its Investigation No. 332-404, concerning MTBE imports and their impact on the domestic oxygenate industry. This inquiry is timely and important. It will cut through the rhetoric, provide policymakers with a clear picture of the nature and effect of MTBE imports on domestic production and U.S. energy security, and set a factual foundation for discussion of what, if anything, should be done about this situation. With those objectives in mind, I commend to my colleagues attention the testimony presented before the ITC by Bob Dinneen, Legislative Director of the Renewable Fuels Association, and Todd Sneller, Executive Director of the Nebraska Ethanol Board, that underscores the damage that has been done by unfairly traded MTBE imports. Mr. Dinneen and Mr. Sneller present cogent analyses of the impact that increasing volumes of heavily subsidized MTBE are having on the domestic oxygenates industry. Their testimony should be a warning to us all. I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Mr. Dinneen and Mr. Sneller be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is an old saying heard quite often in the midwest and perhaps other parts of the country as well. The saying is ``what you see is what you get.'' The adage is as simple as it is straightforward. It's a way of letting another person know there will be no surprises--good or bad--associated with the person or object in question. Things are pretty much as they appear. Unfortunately, the proponents of this legislation, the so-called ``Social Security Surplus Preservation And Debt Reduction Act,'' do not subscribe to this plainspoken logic. In fact, quite the contrary. What you see when you examine their language is quite different from what you get when you listen to their rhetoric. They argue they are preserving Social Security. Their own bill language says otherwise. They argue they are reducing the public debt. Again, their bill language betrays them. And finally, they argue they have created a sound mechanism to lock away Social Security. The Treasury Department tells us differently. Mr. President, if votes on this bill are based on what people see and not on what they would actually get, I am confident this measure will be defeated. I strongly recommend that course of action. Let me state at this time that I and every member of the Democratic caucus totally support the objectives expressed by this bill's authors. We must ensure that every dollar of Social Security taxes is dedicated solely and exclusively to Social Security benefits. I have joined with Democrats to fight for this principle earlier this year on the budget resolution. Furthermore, Democrats advocate taking an additional step. We feel Medicare also faces grave challenges and will need additional resources to ensure that radical reform is not necessary. The Democratic alternative to the bill before us today locks away every dollar of Social Security and helps Medicare. It does so in a secure manner that will not threaten the fiscal stability of this country. Unless there is a change in the current procedural situation, Democrats will be precluded from getting a vote on our proposal at this time. If the proponents of this legislation were truly interested in a serious, substantive debate on how to protect Social Security and Medicare, they would not, as a first step, seek to limit Senators' rights to offer amendments. There is only one reason you would stack the deck in this manner on such an important bill before the Senate could even begin debating the merits of the legislation. That reason is partisan politics. The proponents of this bill have decided they would rather play politics with this issue than work together to produce good policy. Only by voting against cloture will Senators be allowed to work their will and offer improvements or substitutes to the Republican bill. I would like to spend a few moments discussing my concerns about the specifics of the Republican bill. To do that, I must take a brief look back. Earlier this year, we witnessed an event that many members of Congress, indeed many Americans, never thought we would see in our lifetimes. After decades of deficits and trillions of debt, the Congressional Budget Office issued its fiscal report projecting budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. According to CBO, surpluses would total $2.6 trillion, including $787 billion in non-Social Security surpluses. Over 15 years, these totals would reach $4.6 trillion and $1.8 trillion, respectively. Democrats proposed on the budget resolution last month that we lock away every penny of the $2.8 trillion Social Security surplus and set aside close to $700 billion of the remaining surplus to keep our commitments to Medicare. Republicans opposed this approach then, and their actions today indicate they have not changed their minds. A $4.6 trillion surplus and the Republicans continue to say nothing for Medicare. Not a dollar. Not a dime. This attitude might be somewhat easier to explain if the Republican bill truly set aside the $2.8 trillion in surplus Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the title of the bill notwithstanding, the Republican proposal fails to preserve Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits. What is the basis for my assertion? Take a look at page 16 of the Republican bill. This page contains language that all Social Security taxes will be set aside unless Congress enacts ``Social Security Reform Legislation.'' And what is ``Social Security Reform Legislation''? Reading from the Republican bill, ``[it] means a bill or joint resolution that is enacted into law and includes a provision stating the following: Social Security Reform Legislation. For the purposes of the Social Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act, this act constitutes Social Security reform legislation.'' In other words, Social Security Reform is anything a majority of Congress says it is. And, once declared, this same majority can spend Social Security taxes on anything they choose. Far from setting aside Social Security taxes for Social Security and paying off the national debt, this language allows its supporters to use these proceeds to bankroll tax cuts or other spending programs--hardly a sound means for preserving Social Security or reducing the federal debt. If you are serious about protecting Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits, this is not the bill for you. If you think we should lock in debt reduction, this bill falls short. In light of this huge loophole, it is Orwellian for Republicans to entitle their bill the Social Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act. My third criticism of this bill centers on the impact its enactment would have on the full faith and credit of the United States government and our economy. This bill creates new statutory limits on debt held by the public. By linking enforcement of its provisions to the publicly held debt ceiling, the Secretary of the Treasury has concluded, ``this provision could preclude the United States from meeting its financial obligations to repay maturing debt and to make benefit payments-- including Social Security checks--and could also worsen a future economic downturn.'' In spite of the alterations made to the original version of this bill, the Treasury Secretary has wisely concluded the bill still puts at risk the creditworthiness of the federal government, the U.S. economy, and indeed, Social Security itself. Not surprisingly, Secretary Rubin recommends that the President veto this bill. Now the proponents of this bill have challenged the statement that enactment of their bill could threaten Social Security payments. They point to section 203 of their bill. This section purports to protect Social Security benefits by asking the Secretary of the Treasury to give priority to the payment of Social Security benefits if Treasury funds are running low. Secretary Rubin has looked at this provision very carefully. His conclusion? ``The act does not guarantee that Social Security benefits will be paid as scheduled in the event that the debt ceiling were reached. . ..We do not believe that prioritizing payments by program is a sound way to approach the government's affairs. In addition, this act does not indicate how this complex prioritization process should be implemented, no system currently exists to do so, and any such system would be impractical.'' Mr. President, clearly the bill before us is fatally flawed. In spite of the desires and remarks of its supporters, the Social Surplus Preservation And Debt Reduction Act actually accomplishes neither. Social Security is not truly preserved, and debt reduction is by no means guaranteed. Ideally, Senators would be able to offer amendments to improve this bill and accomplish the stated objectives of its supporters. Unfortunately, that choice is not currently before the Senate. Instead, we are being asked to cut off debate before it has even begun. This is an option we can afford to pass up. I ask that my colleagues oppose cloture. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. This legislation eliminates a counterproductive Medicaid payment policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs may exclude certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by primary care physicians. This policy is both discriminatory and shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of cost-effective primary care to our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year go without the health care services they need, because physicians simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south central Los Angeles and Lemmon, South Dakota. Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and rural communities where many beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is an exception to the trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work. Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists provide quality, cost-effective care. Their advanced clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, often at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction. Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. The Medicare program, which already covered nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist services in rural areas, was modified under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy under Medicaid. Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the Medicaid program and its beneficiaries. There is a broader lesson here that applies to our effort to make cost-effective, high-quality health care services available and accessible to all Americans. One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of primary and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of our nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites-- in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties across the state. These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an important role in the delivery of care. And this role will only increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness to one that emphasizes primary preventive care and health promotion. But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access to the primary care that so many communities currently lack. As I have worked on access and reimbursement issues related to nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, I have encountered two related issues I would also like to highlight. Later this month, I plan to introduce legislation to increase the reimbursement rate for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists who practice in rural and underserved areas. Currently, physicians who serve in a health professional shortage area receive a 10 percent boost in their Medicare payment as an incentive to provide services in the regions that need them the most. As we know, nurses are already providing critical primary and preventive care in these areas and deserve the bonus payments that physicians are already receiving. I would also encourage my colleagues to closely monitor the impact of Medicaid managed care on access to care provided by nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. In some areas of the country, implementation of managed care has prevented patients from continuing to receive health care services from nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists because they are not listed as primary care providers or preferred providers. Advanced practice nurses provide cost- effective, local, quality care, and I am concerned about early reports that access to these professionals is being limited by new health delivery arrangements. We should certainly keep an eye on this issue as Medicaid managed care systems develop. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the issues I have raised and support the measure I am introducing today, recognizing the critical role nurse practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery system, as well as the increasingly significant contribution they can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. This legislation eliminates a counterproductive Medicaid payment policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs may exclude certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by primary care physicians. This policy is both discriminatory and shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of cost-effective primary care to our nation's most vulnerable citizens. Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year go without the health care services they need, because physicians simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south central Los Angeles and Lemmon, South Dakota. Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and rural communities where many beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is an exception to the trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work. Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists provide quality, cost-effective care. Their advanced clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, often at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction. Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. The Medicare program, which already covered nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist services in rural areas, was modified under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy under Medicaid. Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the Medicaid program and its beneficiaries. There is a broader lesson here that applies to our effort to make cost-effective, high-quality health care services available and accessible to all Americans. One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of primary and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of our nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites-- in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties across the state. These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an important role in the delivery of care. And this role will only increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness to one that emphasizes primary preventive care and health promotion. But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access to the primary care that so many communities currently lack. As I have worked on access and reimbursement issues related to nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, I have encountered two related issues I would also like to highlight. Later this month, I plan to introduce legislation to increase the reimbursement rate for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists who practice in rural and underserved areas. Currently, physicians who serve in a health professional shortage area receive a 10 percent boost in their Medicare payment as an incentive to provide services in the regions that need them the most. As we know, nurses are already providing critical primary and preventive care in these areas and deserve the bonus payments that physicians are already receiving. I would also encourage my colleagues to closely monitor the impact of Medicaid managed care on access to care provided by nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. In some areas of the country, implementation of managed care has prevented patients from continuing to receive health care services from nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists because they are not listed as primary care providers or preferred providers. Advanced practice nurses provide cost- effective, local, quality care, and I am concerned about early reports that access to these professionals is being limited by new health delivery arrangements. We should certainly keep an eye on this issue as Medicaid managed care systems develop. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will carefully consider the issues I have raised and support the measure I am introducing today, recognizing the critical role nurse practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery system, as well as the increasingly significant contribution they can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning we all have to return to business, but it is an especially difficult day to do so. It is difficult to think of anything other than the terrible tragedy in Littleton, CO yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Columbine High School--the students and staff injured; the families of those who were killed; and everyone who suffered the terrifying ordeal there. Our nation is suffering, too--at the thought that such horrifying events are taking place all too often in our country. It was heartening to see so many parents reunited with their children yesterday. Still, those joyful hugs were bittersweet reminders of the families waiting for students and staff who didn't come home. These families and the community of Littleton have lost their loved ones, and their lives will never be the same again. Their losses cannot be replaced. They, and everyone affected by yesterday's events, have lost their innocence, too. We all want to believe that our schools will be places where children can learn in a safe, supportive environment, where they will learn not only what they need to go on to college or vocational school or work, but also what they need to become well-balanced, emotionally secure people. Certainly schools cannot be expected to do the job by themselves. It does take a village to raise a child. It takes, first and foremost, parents who love and respect and talk to and spend time with their children. Parents must be prepared to meet the daunting challenge of rearing children in a society that seems to move too fast. As important as schools are, parents are their children's first and most compelling teachers. Parents must realize that, even when they aren't conscious of it, they are teaching their children constantly. Their example is the most powerful teaching tool available, and it can be used to constructive or destructive ends. Our children's values originate from their parents' values--those taught, and those exemplified, those that are negative and those that are positive. It also takes a child care system that pays its workers more than the minimum wage. It takes schools that truly educate and do their best to give every student the attention he or she needs. It takes qualified teachers who value their students and, in turn, are valued by us. It takes friends and neighbors who get involved in supporting parents, schools, and children. It takes a juvenile justice system that protects society from violent criminals and strives to intervene in youthful offenders' lives before they are beyond our help. It takes a society that shows children the way without alienating them. It takes all of us. Our schools are populated by a talented, committed generation of young people. I am optimistic about our future, their future. It is a sad reality that just a few people can cause such great devastation--in our schools and on our streets. The problem is not our children--it is our failure to deal adequately with their needs. Too many of today's children face intense fear, anger, and confusion. They need our time and attention. They need us to teach them how to deal with those emotions in constructive ways. Even children who have good values--and are good kids--face incredible emotional and societal challenges and pressures that most children of my generation never had to worry about. And they need our help. I never had to worry about assault weapons or pipe bombs when I went to school. I wasn't confronted with drug pushers. And I had two loving parents who were involved in my education and my life. We can't go back in time, and we shouldn't undercut our basic freedoms. But we do have to work together--every one of us--to address the problems that threaten the fabric of our society. We can--and should--have a thoughtful discussion about how to shape a comprehensive national response to the problem of violence in our schools and our communities. We should have that discussion soon. But today is about grieving the loss of those killed, sending positive thoughts to those who were injured, and praying for everyone involved in this terrible tragedy.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate fact around here that budget resolutions are frequently seen as little more than meaningless manipulations of numbers. They are perceived by some to have no real impact on Congress and even less on the American people. Whether you agree or disagree with this perception of previous budget resolutions, I think we can all agree that the budget resolution before us is different. What we have been debating and are about to vote on, is our nation's first budget of the 21st century. The FY 2000 budget resolution represents a blueprint for our future. The decisions made on this resolution could determine how we live--not just next year--but for a generation--maybe longer. Before getting into the specifics of the budget proposals before us, let me say a few words about what a budget resolution should do. In my view, a budget resolution should be visionary. It should look at today's circumstances, assess where improvements are needed and apply the appropriate amount of resources. A budget resolution must be fiscally responsible. Prior to 1993, previous Presidents and Congresses have frequently failed to live within their means. The result was large annual deficits and a $4 trillion national debt. Since 1993, we have reduced the deficits 7 years in a row. Future budget resolutions must continue this pattern. A budget resolution must save money to keep promises we've already made. The federal government has legally binding commitments on Medicare, Social Security, child nutrition and student loans to name a few. A budget resolution must live up to the federal government's legal obligations in these areas. Finally, Mr. President, a budget resolution must invest in the future--in things like education, transportation, technology, and health care--so we can pass the promise of America onto our children. Unfortunately, the budget resolution before the Senate today does none of these things. This resolution is deceptive and fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. It claims to protect Social Security and Medicare. It claims to live within our means. In reality, this budget fails on both scores. It does not adequately lock away Social Security trust funds and fails to add any resources to Medicare. It also includes hundreds of billions of exploding tax cuts that are paid for with projected surpluses. There is a huge problem with this approach. The tax cuts come and keep on coming whether or not the surpluses ever appear. This approach adopted by my Republican colleagues represents a radical departure from the policies that lifted America out of recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s and created the strongest economy in a generation. After a decade of massive deficits caused primarily by ballooning tax breaks, President Clinton and a then Democratic Congress embarked on a new path, a path that coupled spending cuts with targeted investments and tax cuts for working families. This budget abandons that successful approach and will return this country to the large deficits of the 1980s. Even more distressing to me, if we follow this plan, we will squander the best opportunity--perhaps in our lifetimes--to keep our commitments on Medicare and Social Security and effectively deal with some of the most serious social and economic needs facing our country--now, before they become crises. It is my impression that debate on this year's resolution has been short, indeed, perhaps the shortest in my memory. The reason may well be that there are not a lot of small details to debate. Instead, we face a single major question: What should we do with the $4.6 trillion in surpluses projected over next 15 years? Without a doubt, this is the most important fiscal decision confronted by Congress in generations. With this budget resolution we face real choices with real consequences. Every family, every business, in America will be profoundly affected by how we answer this one question. Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution conference agreement makes too many wrong choices. It is wrong on Social Security and Medicare. It is wrong on debt reduction. It is wrong on tax relief with its emphasis on tax breaks that favor the wealthiest over working families. It is wrong on education, health care, and other critical investments. Therefore, I've concluded this resolution is wrong for America. And I will vote against it. I would like to say a few words about the choices we face in the future. However, first, I think it's important to take a brief look back. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the budget deficit was a whopping $290 billion--the highest level in this nation's history. And, it was projected to grow to more than $500 billion by this year. In that year, 1993, President and Democratic Congress-- without a single Republican vote--took action; together we passed the largest deficit reduction package in our nation's history. Our political opponents condemned our plan; they predicted economic ruin. They said it would destroy our economy and trigger a second Great Depression. Many who made those predictions are still here today. Many who bravely voted for our plan are not. They knew they were risking their careers when they voted for our plan. But they did it anyway, because they believed we could not continue the ruinous economic policies of past. Today, the results of Democrats' 1993 economic plan should be clear to all. The deficit has declined 7 years in a row--the first time that's happened in our nation's history. Last year, this nation enjoyed the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. This year, we expect a $111 billion unified surplus. In addition, we are experiencing the strongest economy in a generation. Eighteen million new jobs have been created since 1993. We have the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 30 years--4.5 percent. We have the lowest core inflation rate in more than 2 decades--2.5 percent. We have witnessed a 2.5 percent rise in wages-- the fastest growth in wages in more than 20 years. We are living during the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. Largely as a result of this string of economic good news, the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting budget surpluses for as long as the eye can see--a total of $4.6 trillion over the next 15 years. So Mr. President, we faced the tough questions in 1993. The question facing Congress this year ought to be easy. Then the question was: how do we reduce the deficits? How do we get America working again. Now, the question is: what should we do with the surplus? How do we keep America working? We've already proved tough decisions don't have to be cruel decisions. We can continue to make economic progress today, without sacrificing our economic future. With the plan we offered this year, Democrats balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families-- without gutting our investments in our children's education. We balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families--without raiding Social Security and Medicare. We balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families--without sacrificing our ability to protect our environment. We balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families--without adding more Americans to the rolls of the uninsured. In fact, we found a way to help parents who work full-time, but don't have insurance, to provide health insurance for their children. Our budget plan builds on our past success. We make tough decisions. But we also make smart decisions. We honor the commitments our nation made in the past, and we invest in the future. The Democratic vision for our fiscal future is based on 4 principles. First, we protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare. The Democratic plan locks away every penny of the $2.9 trillion Social Security surplus, plus an additional $700 billion for Medicare. We are first to admit: our plan doesn't solve all the issues facing these two important programs. We know we also need to make structural reforms. But, by locking away every penny of Social Security and saving 15 percent of the unified surplus for Medicare, we can avoid a crisis--which dramatically reduces chance of having to make radical changes. Second, our plan pays down the national debt. In 10 years, we can reduce our public debt from $3.5 trillion, to $1.6 billion. In 18 years, under our plan, we can eliminate the debt entirely. By 2018, America could be debt-free. Debt reduction keeps interest rates down. This means lower mortgage rates, lower rates on car loans, lower monthly credit card bills, and lower student loan bills. It also means more investments for businesses, more economic growth, more jobs, and more opportunity for the future. Third, our plan cuts taxes for America's working families. Our plan provides $400 billion in targeted tax relief to help families save for retirement and pay for child care. Our plan also includes a $1,000-a- year tax credit for elderly and disabled Americans who need long-term care--or the family members who provide that care. It cuts the marriage penalty tax. And, it provides tax credits for research and experimentation. Fourth, our plan invests in America's future--over $400 billion in key priorities. These resources can be used to provide for more teachers for our kids, more pay and better housing for our troops, and more law enforcement agents. It provides more for job training, more for safe drinking water and clean air quality. It will result in better roads and safer airports and rail lines. The Republicans are offering a very different plan. It makes very different choices. Their plan sets aside nothing for Medicare. As I said earlier, we save 15 percent of the surplus--$700 billion--for Medicare. We put it in a real lockbox; these funds can't be used for anything but Medicare. Their plan does not save one penny specifically for Medicare. Moreover, when Senate Republicans introduced their budget resolution, they said they were setting aside $133 billion for Medicare. Later, they revised that figure down to $100 billion. In the conference agreement before us today, there's nothing to preserve the existing Medicare program. The truth is Republicans are not setting aside any money specifically for Medicare. Their budget resolution recommends we extend the solvency of Medicare through benefit cuts alone. If we act as this resolution proposes and fail to set aside real money for Medicare now, and fail to enact real reforms soon, the Medicare trust fund will go broke. That would be an emergency of staggering proportions. And the Republican budget does nothing-- nothing--to prevent it. Their plan does not guarantee one additional day of solvency for Social Security. Under the Democratic plan, Social Security's solvency is extended until at least 2055--23 years longer than what's now projected. Now, Republicans say they will set aside 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security--the same as our plan. But nowhere in their plan do they say what they intend to do with that money. While they say they will put every dime of Social Security taxes in the Social Security trust fund, nowhere in their plan do they promise to keep the funds there. Nowhere do they guarantee that Social Security will continue to provide a monthly benefit. Nowhere do they commit to preserve unemployment benefits workers now get, or death benefits for their survivors. In fact, the conference report before us specifically allows Republicans to divert Social Security resources out of Social Security and use them to pay for private retirement accounts or additional tax cuts. If the Republican majority believes the federal government should keep the commitments it has made, they should say so, clearly, in writing. Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits is not a difficult concept to grasp, and an even easier one to say. Despite all their rhetoric during the budget debate, the Republican budget resolution chooses not to say it. And even worse, it does not do it. Instead, the Republican resolution treats Social Security as just another piggy bank to pay for their tax breaks or private retirement accounts. That is its second major failing. The third major problem with Republican budget resolution is the choice it makes about who gets tax relief. Our budget targets tax cuts to the needs of working families. Republicans say their plan is better because it contains tax cuts for everyone. That's not true! Under the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut endorsed by many in their party, nearly two-thirds of benefits would go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. If you earn $800,000 a year, you save $20,000 a year in taxes. But if you earn $38,000 a year or less --like 60 percent of American families--you'll save $99 a year--27 cents a day. That's if you're lucky. According to the Joint Tax Committee, Congress's official tax-estimating body, 48 million middle-class families would get nothing under a 10 percent tax cut. Not a nickel! What would that 27 cents cost America's families? It means there will be nothing left over to protect and preserve Medicare. It also means crippling cuts in education, health care, environment, agriculture, food safety and countless other critical areas. According to an analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, the Republican budget will cut domestic investments by 11 percent across-the-board this year. By 2004, these cuts will grow to 27 percent. The Republican budget resolution would eventually force the federal government to cut more than one out of every four dollars it now spends on critical domestic priorities. Frankly, it's amazing to me that some of the same people who only weeks ago said Congress would be forced to break budget caps this year can now claim, with a straight face, that they can cut federal spending by 27 percent over next five years. Their tax cut plan is unfair and unworkable, and we all know it. The last time we tried their tax plan--the last time we tried to grow the economy by cutting trillions of dollars in taxes and giving most of the money to wealthiest Americans--we quadrupled the national debt and ran the economy into the ground. In conclusion, Mr. President, there are terrible problems with the Republican budget resolution. Democrats tried to correct these problems in the Budget Committee. We tried to make adjustments on the Senate floor. In both places, we were defeated on party-line votes. So, we will pass this conference agreement in a few minutes. And while we may disagree on its merits, we all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, this plan will never become law. So, we have a lot of work ahead of us in the next several months. Democrats will listen to any reasonable, responsible plan anyone wants to propose. We're willing to negotiate across the aisle, and make compromises, to come up with budget proposals that can be signed by the President. However, we will not compromise on our commitments. We will not repeat mistakes of the past. We cannot squander this opportunity. the discretionary caps

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Today marks the final day of work in the Senate for Kim Koivisto, the associate director to the Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee. I didn't want the day to pass without taking a moment to thank Kim for a job well done. The Democratic Steering and Coordination Committee is the liaison office between Senate Democrats and a good portion of the rest of the country, including representatives of state, county and local governments and people from every imaginable interest group. The committee is an important part of our caucus's efforts to talk with and listen to Americans from varying perspectives. Kim has worked as associate director of the committee for the past two years. During that time, she has consistently demonstrated the highest level of commitment, professionalism and creativity. She has worked most intensively on women's, Hispanic and labor issues. One highlight of Kim's tenure is the creation of a new outreach program to strengthen relations between our caucus and national Hispanic organizations, Latino elected officials and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. She also used her fluency in Spanish to translated materials into Spanish, and to organize Spanish-language press conferences for Senate and House Democrats. Kim has also worked closely with labor organizations and women's groups to advance causes that are important to American families--and to Kim personally. Issues she worked especially hard on include closing the pay gap between men and women, raising the minimum wage, and strengthening the federal commitment to breast cancer research. Kim was also active in the fight to retain the Federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program last year as part of TEA-21, the new Federal highway bill. Kim's immediate plans include traveling through Indonesia. She will attend the Graduate School for Counseling at the University of Maryland in the fall. On behalf of all Senate Democrats, I'd like to thank Kim for her hard work, and wish her the best of luck in her travel and studies. She will be missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, while the Senate was in recess for the Easter/Spring break, a member of the Senate family ended his Senate career. Ron Kavulick, the Chief Reporter of Debates, retired. As a matter of fact, Ron was to have ended his Senate career at the close of the 105th Congress, but remained in his position as the Senate conducted the impeachment trial of the President. Ron's expertise and dedication to detail were needed throughout the tedious proceedings of the trial. Ron became an Official Reporter of Senate Debates in 1979 and served ably in that capacity until he was elevated to the position of Chief Reporter in 1995. Ron has a very impressive reporting background. He was an official court reporter in the Air Force's JAG office. While employed with Alderson Reporting Company, Ron had the opportunity to work at the White House. Ron traveled extensively both with President Johnson and President Nixon. Ron spent many hours and many nights working in the West Wing of the White House providing official White House transcripts of state dinners, press conferences and news briefings. Certainly Ron's experiences at the White House were helpful as he endured many a late night in the Senate. My staff and I personally cannot thank Ron enough for his service. Since my arrival at the Senate in 1987, I have relied on Ron's institutional memory and unfailing kindness. He has always been available, day or night, for any help that my staff or I needed. It would be impossible for me to count the times that Ron and his very able staff have assisted us. Having said that, no one deserves a rest from the long, sometimes grueling hours of the Senate more than Ron Kavulick. I can attest to the fact that he will be greatly missed here in the Senate. As Ron goes on to enjoy time with his wife, Pat, his children and granddaughter, Allison, I thank him for his diligence and perseverance in his service to his country and for his friendship to us here in the Senate. My staff joins me in wishing him all the best in the years to come. Ron, good luck and Godspeed.