Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think it is a fair construction. I give great credit to the chairman of the Finance Committee for making that point. The chairman of the Finance Committee did the responsible thing and was certainly showing, once again, his leadership in this regard in making sure everyone understood this is not a tax bill. This is an appropriations bill. There is a time to address taxes. There is a time to address spending through appropriations. The chairman of the Finance Committee drew that distinction, as did most of us. So, again, we will have another opportunity to discuss this matter, but I simply wanted at this point in the Record to be sure everyone understood what motivations there may have been for those of us who feel we ought to take a more responsible view with regard to the marriage penalty itself. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from Colorado makes a very good point, and our desire is certainly not to complicate his efforts and the efforts of the distinguished ranking member to complete action on this bill. I know there are some Senators who wish to be heard on this particular version of the amendment, but I do believe that we can accommodate those Senators. I would be willing to enter into a time agreement of 30 minutes, if we could assume that there isn't going to be a great deal of debate on the other side. I am not sure we have to equally divide it. I propose we ask unanimous consent the vote on this amendment occur no later than 3 o'clock.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. In response to the majority leader, we have, I think, four amendments that currently would require a rollcall vote. There are two of those four that may actually still get worked out, so I think we are getting relatively close to coming to closure on this bill. I hope all Senators who wish to offer amendments will stay on the floor because this could happen fairly quickly. I think it would be very helpful if you are right on the floor to offer the amendment. It would expedite our ability to complete our work on this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the Abraham amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, as I noted this morning, Democrats have supported and continue to support tax relief for working families. In 1993, we supported tax cuts for millions of working families making less than $30,000 per year through an expansion of the earned income tax credit. Last year, we supported major tax relief proposals, including a $500- per-child tax credit, a $1,500 HOPE education tax credit, a 20-percent lifetime learning credit, the reinstatement of student loan deductions, full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed, a cut in capital gains taxes for investors and small businesses, and an expansion of estate tax relief for family farms and businesses. All of these tax cuts for working families had one thing in common. They were consistent with a balanced budget; they were fully paid for. Democrats continue to have an ambitious agenda of tax relief for working families. But we also continue to insist that tax cuts be consistent with fiscal responsibility. This is because we understand that fiscal responsibility equals economic growth, and economic growth equals more jobs and higher wages. Part of our continuing agenda to provide working families with tax cuts is to provide them with substantial relief from the marriage penalty. In many families, married couples pay more in income taxes than if they had remained single. Democrats would like to remedy this undesirable aspect of our tax system. The amendment that I have just offered would let families deduct 20 percent of the income of the lesser-earning spouse. This deduction would be phased out for families making between $50,000 and $60,000 a year. The 20-percent deduction would be an ``above-the-line'' deduction, ensuring that that everyone could claim it, regardless of whether they chose the ``EZ'' form or itemized their deductions on a more complicated tax form. Also, the deduction would be factored into the earned income tax credit calculation; that is, it would help people making less than $30,000 who may have no income tax liability against which to take the deduction. But, Mr. President, perhaps most important, contrary to the amendment offered this morning, this amendment is fully offset. The offsets include a number of proposals from the President's budget that have attracted broad support. Most of them would terminate unwarranted tax loopholes for corporations and investors. Because the amendment is fully offset, it is in keeping with the tradition and the practice that we have maintained all through the tax debate this year and previous years. To summarize, unlike the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment offered this morning, the Democratic amendment, first, focuses roughly 90 percent of its tax cut on families who are actually penalized., compared with about 40 percent to 45 percent for the Brownback amendment offered this morning. Second, it is fully offset. Its gross cost is $7 billion over 5 years and $21 billion over 10; but its net effect on the budget is zero. By contrast, the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment would have drained the Treasury and the Social Security trust fund by about $125 billion over 5 years and $300 billion over 10 years. Therefore, if Senators are interested in delivering meaningful marriage penalty tax relief rather than simply grandstanding about it, they will want to support our amendment. Here are two examples of just how much tax relief our amendment would provide: First, a couple making $35,000, split $20,000 and $15,000 between two spouses. With our 20-percent, second-earner deduction, this couple would receive an additional deduction of $3,000, or 20 percent of the $15,000 income of the second earner. That translates into an annual family tax cut of about $450. Second, a couple making $50,000, in this case split $25,000 each between the two spouses. Under our 20-percent, second-earner deduction, the couple would receive an extra $5,000 deduction, or about $1,400 in actual cash-in-the-pocket tax relief. Mr. President, my amendment provides Senators with an opportunity to help hard-working married couples without busting the budget or endangering our efforts next year to restore the Social Security system to solvency for future generations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would certainly want to reiterate what the majority leader said at the beginning of his comments, which is that we have been negotiating now for some time in an effort to determine how we might bring to the floor the health care bills offered by the Republican caucus as well as the Democratic caucus. I see Senator Graham standing. There are other bills that may be contemplated in this debate as well. Our view is that it would be very difficult to have a debate of the importance of what we consider this to be, with the limit of amendments that the majority leader has proposed. We had 56 amendments on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We disposed of them. We had 82 amendments on the Commerce-State-Justice bill. We disposed of them. I would not say, in either case, people felt that was too long a debate to have on an important bill like those two appropriations bills. We had 150 amendments on the Defense authorization bill. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader's request be modified to provide for relevant amendments--to limit it to relevant amendments. I think we can have a good debate. We are prepared to limit them to relevant amendments. I have asked my colleagues not to offer the Patients' Bill of Rights amendment to other bills because, in large measure, we have been working in good faith to try to see if we can accommodate a schedule that will allow us to bring it to the floor. Certainly, I think having an agreement that would allow a debate, limited to relevant amendments, would certainly take into account the concerns that many of our colleagues have raised about being too limited on a bill, and a debate that is as consequential as is this one. So I make that request.

Mr. DASCHLE. In that case, I will have to object to the offer made by the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. We would not know when we would finish. Obviously, we couldn't agree to a time limit on the bill because we really don't know how long the relevant amendments would take at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time did the Senator want on the second amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. I think we ought to add the Graham amendment and then limit it to the ones on this list. I don't want to see this list grow.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the very least, why don't we proceed that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a vote on a tabling motion.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to clarify a comment just made by the majority leader, I know that he has indicated to me we will move to the Executive Calendar before the end of the week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator for yielding. A number of Senators are attempting to determine their schedules for the evening, and I would like to propound a unanimous consent request, if I could. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana have 15 minutes complete, including the comments he has already made, and that the Senator from South Dakota have 5 minutes, and that the Senator from Maine have 5 minutes, and that following the allocation of that time, a vote be taken on this particular amendment and the motion to waive be made at that time.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to the families of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, and to the many friends that they leave, particularly their brothers and sisters in arms, the members of the United States Capitol Police. Our hearts ache for them as they struggle with their staggering loss. Like many Members of Congress, I was headed home Friday afternoon when Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were slain. I was in the airport in Minneapolis, changing planes, when I first learned of what had happened. I was shocked and sickened and saddened. Throughout the airport, wherever there was a TV, people crowded around it to watch the news, and try to understand. At home in South Dakota this past weekend, I spoke with countless people who told me how terribly sad they are about the deaths of these two brave men. In that airport, in South Dakota and across our nation, Americans understand that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson sacrificed their lives to guard and protect something that is sacred to all of us. This Capitol truly is ``the people's house'', a symbol of freedom and democracy, recognized the world over. That is one of the reasons Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson loved it so, and were so proud to work here. It is difficult, unless you have worked here, to understand what a close-knit family the Capitol community is. We come to work every day, pass each other in the halls. We ask about each others' families, joke with each other. And today, we try to comfort each other. Whenever you suffer a death in the family, as we have in the Capitol Hill family, there is at first a sort of unreality about it. That is especially true when the person is taken suddenly, or too young, as Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson were. But then, you come to where they should be and there is a hole in the world and you begin to understand that it's true. Coming back to work today, we have all experienced that void. Inside the Capitol, another officer stands where Officer Chestnut should be. And the door over the House Majority Whip's office, where Detective Gibson was stationed, is draped in black bunting. Everywhere, the voices are quieter than usual. Tears rim the eyes of many people. Outside, the flag over the Capitol flies mournfully at half-staff. Below it, on the white marble steps, lay flowers and cards left by a grateful public to honor two fallen heroes. Then, there is perhaps the saddest sight of all: the black bands stretched like a gash over the badges of the Capitol Police officers. These are the inadequate tributes we pay to these two extraordinary men whose professionalism, courage and selfless dedication last Friday afternoon surely saved many innocent lives. But the real tribute is not what is different about the Capitol today. The real tribute is what is the same. The halls of ``the people's house'' are filled today--as they are every day--with vacationing families, school children, Scout troops and thousands of others who have come to see their government in action. They walk these majestic halls and marvel--as they do every day--at the beauty of this building, at its history and its openness. That is the real tribute to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Because they made us feel so safe, we may not have understood fully the risks they took each day when they put on their badges and came to work. But they understood. They knowingly risked their lives because they loved this building and what it represents, and they wanted others to be able to see their government at work. Among the bouquets on the steps outside is a handmade tribute: a collage of a silvery cross on black paper. Glued across the top of the collage is the headline from S aturday's newspaper. It reads ``2 Slain Officers Remembered, Called Heroes.'' Today, as we struggle to accept that loss, we offer our condolences and thanks to the men and women of the Capitol Police Department especially those who were at work last Friday afternoon and who reacted with such selfless professionalism as well as those who worked through the weekend so that ``the people's house'' could remain open to the people. We can only imagine how awful these days are for you, and how difficult it must be for you to be here. We are proud to work with you, and deeply grateful to you for your courage and dedication. Above all, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. May God comfort them and ease their terrible anguish. Tomorrow, we will put aside our normal schedule in order to pay our final respects to Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Gibson. Their bodies will lie in honor in the Rotunda, surrounded by statues of other American heroes. That is as it should be, for they truly are heroes. They gave their life for their country and, in doing so, saved the lives of countless others. We are in awe of their sacrifice, and we are grateful to them beyond words.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I also note that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, for seizing the moment in his responsibility, first as a physician, and second as a Senator, to come on to the scene as he did. He served us and those victims very, very well on behalf of, I know, the entire Senate. We thank him for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senators on both sides for the cooperation that they have given on transportation, as well as on the District of Columbia. I think we can accommodate Senators' schedules and the need to pass these two bills in an appropriate time by taking the actions the majority leader has outlined. So I think this is a plan that will still require some cooperation and support on both sides of the aisle, but I think we can do it. I think it is the best way with which to accommodate schedules as well as the need to address these issues soon. So I certainly commend the majority leader for the recommendations and the proposal, and I hope we can complete our work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield----

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