Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I regret that we have not been able to find a final and successful resolution to our discussions which have extended now over the course of several days. I think it is important to lay out what has happened to date and where we are so everybody knows what the circumstances are. As everyone knows, the legislation came to the floor immediately and a cloture vote was filed on the motion to proceed. I supported that motion to proceed because I felt it was important that we move on to the legislation. There was some concern expressed about other unrelated matters, and so there was a divided vote on the motion to proceed, but it was an overwhelming vote. We then got to the bill itself, and I expressed the desire on the part of many of our colleagues that we have a right to offer amendments. It was at that point that cloture was filed again, prior to the time we had the chance to offer even the first amendment. Cloture was not invoked, as the record shows. That began a series of negotiations about amendments. As I discussed the matter with my colleagues, our list included about 32 amendments originally proposed to the bill. While that sounds like a lot of amendments, as I have noted now on several occasions on the Senate floor, it pales by comparison with regard to a similar circumstance that we had in 1992. A narrowly drafted tax bill having to do with a matter that most of us are very interested in, enterprise zones, was offered, and our Republican colleagues proposed at that time that they be granted the right to offer 52 amendments, including amendments on unrelated matters--on tractors and scholarships and the like. We didn't offer 52 amendments; we originally suggested 32. We were told that that is too many. I went to all of my colleagues and I said, ``Look, we will have to pare this down. I want to be cooperative.'' So we pared it from 32 down to 15. I took that to the leader and I said the one thing we really are determined not to do is to give up our right to have those amendments second degreed, but we will drop it by more than 50 percent. We will go from 32 amendments down to 15 amendments so long as we have the right to have an up-or-down vote. They said, ``Well, we will probably consider having up-or-down votes, but you have to put time limits on all the amendments.'' Then I went to all my colleagues and I said, ``Well, you aren't going to believe this. I'm going to have to ask you not only to pare your amendments from 32 to 15, but now I'm going to have to ask you to accept time limits, and we are hoping that we can limit it to at least a couple of hours each.'' So it was suggested and my colleagues cooperated. I presented that, and I reported to the leader that we had agreed to time limits. The leader then came back and said, ``Well, now we have a new request. The request is that not only do we want time limits, but the amendments have to be on education. We are not going to allow any amendments that are not related to education.'' I went back to my colleagues again and I said, ``You aren't going to believe this, but now we have to agree to limit our amendments to 15, to limit our amendments in terms of time, and now to limit them in terms of issue.'' I went back again to the leader I said, ``Well, I think we can do that.'' He came back again and he said, ``You are going to have to allow second degrees.'' Now they have to be second degreed. I said, ``I don't know if I can do that.'' I went back to my colleagues again and I said, ``You aren't going to believe this, but now we have to allow second degree amendments to all these amendments. Not only do you have to reduce from 32 to 15, not only do you have to allow a limit on the issue, that is education, but now you have to allow second degrees.'' So on four separate occasions, because of demands from our Republican colleagues that be cooperative, I have had to call upon my colleagues to reduce the amendments by more than half, to reduce the amount of time, to allow second degrees, and not to allow any extraneous issues, even though 4 years ago when the roles were reversed they demanded votes on tractors. So I must say, Mr. President, the record ought to be very clear about who has cooperated here, who has put out the very best effort to ensure that somehow we could bring this bill to the floor. But the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher and higher. So if indeed we are the U.S. Senate, it seems to me there comes a time when you say, what else can we do? What else is there left? We have education amendments. We have agreed to second degrees. We have agreed to even less than an hour on these amendments; now it is down to a half hour on each amendment. We have agreed to that. We have agreed now that they be limited to education. We have even cut down further the number of amendments. Yet, our Republican colleagues say that is not enough. That is not enough. Go back and do more, prove to us more that you are going to be cooperative. Make sure that you ask your colleagues for more. I think there is a message here. The message is that nothing is good enough. Ultimately, there is no way we can satisfy our colleagues on the other side because I don't think they want an agreement. I must say that I do not fault the author of the bill. I am not suggesting he is behind this. I certainly do not fault the majority leader. I think he has made a concerted, good-faith effort to try to figure out a way to deal with this. But I must say that I hope he would say the same about me. I hope, after what I have just described, that it is clear that we have done everything I know how to do, under these circumstances, to be able to resolve this matter in a way that will accommodate both sides. But for me now to go back and say we have given our all, but now we have to even give up education amendments--the last criticism related to me by the majority leader was that we had too many education amendments. It wasn't the issue any longer. We have given that up. Now they are saying we have too many education amendments on an education bill. So now they are asking the minority to say, OK, majority, you tell us what the issue ought to be, what the circumstances for debate ought to be, and now even whether or not we should be able to offer an education amendment on an education bill and we should accept that because we are the minority. That is what this cloture vote is about, Mr. President. We are being asked to cave completely, to give it all up. We cannot do that. There comes a time when you have to be able to say, look, we just can't give anymore. So I hope my colleagues will understand that. We were within, I thought, minutes or inches of reaching an agreement, in part because of the effort made by the majority leader. But we are not there now. I hope the message will be clear; there comes a time when you just cannot give anymore. A couple of colleagues have asked to speak. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was preoccupied when the Senator made the unanimous consent request; I apologize. Was the request made for one-half hour of debate prior to the vote to be taken at 5:30, and was it equally divided?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have indicated to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee my frustration with the amendment process. The majority leader has noted the need for cooperation. I think we have been extraordinarily cooperative. I have encouraged my colleagues to withhold on an array of amendments that were proposed. Now we have an array of amendments here, including one now by the Senator from North Carolina having to do with school construction. If we want to get into a lot of these extraneous amendments, I have a whole pot load of amendments over here that we will begin offering. So, Mr. President, I call for the regular order under these circumstances so we can go back to the business at hand. The business at hand is to deal with the IMF amendment and to get on with resolving these matters once and for all so we can finally come to cloture on this legislation. I call for the regular order and hope that at long last we can begin dealing with these issues one by one.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be recognized following the remarks made by the distinguished majority leader and then preceding whatever remarks the Senator from Minnesota would care to make.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving----

Mr. DASCHLE. Further reserving the right to object, just to clarify the proposal made by the majority leader, I would assume there would then be no more votes tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object for purposes of clarification, is it now the understanding of the Chair that I will be recognized following the remarks made by the majority leader?

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Oh.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me respond to a few of the points made by our colleagues in the last few minutes. First, with regard to the motion to proceed, the majority leader wasn't forced to file that motion. We could have gone on a motion to proceed. We could have gotten onto the bill. The problem, as the majority leader, I think, would note, is that there is a great deal of concern on this side about his inaction on judges. We have done 10 judges so far this year. There are approximately 40 judges still pending in the U.S. Senate. Six are on the calendar. He knows very well that that was a vote on judges. It was a vote desired by several of our colleagues on my side of the aisle to express how frustrated they are that we are not getting the cooperation that we were promised about Federal judges, about moving through these judges. We get one, we get another, we get a third maybe now and then--just enough to keep everybody mollified. But the fact is, you have 40 judges that still have to be acted upon, most of which haven't even come out of committee yet. He makes mention of the fact that he was ``forced'' to file cloture. He hasn't been forced to file cloture this year. He has chosen to file cloture, but he hasn't been forced to file cloture. No leader is forced to file cloture. He has filed cloture to prevent Democrats from offering amendments. So I suppose from that perspective, in order to preclude us from offering amendments, he is forced to do so, but he isn't forced, as leader, to prevent the Senate from having a good debate about these issues. I defy my Republican colleagues to find a time when we were in the majority that we filed cloture to prevent an amendment. Now, we had amendments; amendments were offered; but we never filed cloture to prevent an amendment, and I defy my colleagues to find a time. I would like to go to the point raised by the majority leader about how improper it is to offer amendments to a tax bill that are not directly related to education. Again, I go back to this time in 1992 when our Republican colleagues demanded they be able to offer 52 amendments. This particular bill, this Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives Act, was a tax vehicle very similar to the tax vehicle we have here on the education bill. This is an enterprise zone tax act. Our colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, whom I admire immensely, demanded the opportunity to offer an amendment on, what? On tractors. That is right. Our colleague from Florida asked to be able to be recognized so that he could offer an amendment on tractors on an enterprise zone act. And then my colleague, the distinguished majority leader, even though this was an Enterprise Zone Tax Incentive Act, said, ``You know, I know it is just on enterprise zones, but I want to talk about scholarships; I want to have an amendment on scholarships.'' And guess what? That is on the list, too. And then our colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, said, ``You know what, I know it is just a little old tax bill dealing with enterprise zones, but I have an amendment on dental schools, and I want to offer that.'' And guess what happened? The U.S. Senate had a debate, we agreed to debate all the amendments to be offered, we had a debate on them, we offered our amendments, we had our day, we finished the bill, and it went on. But our Republican colleagues were not coming to the floor then saying, this is just an enterprise zone, so we don't think we ought to be able to offer nonenterprise zone amendments; we want to offer amendments on tractors; we want to offer amendments on dental schools; we even have a great scholarship amendment we think the Democrats ought to vote for. What a difference some time makes. It is now 1998. We have a tax bill on the floor. Our Republican colleagues are saying, ``No, we don't want you to offer 52 amendments.'' Last week it was a half a dozen, then it was 9, now the leader is saying 15--but not 52 and not on anything but education; you have to stick to education, by golly. This is an entitlement program. Let nobody misunderstand, this is an entitlement program we are talking about. If we pass this, we pass a new entitlement program. We pass a tax bill. So when you manage the Senate floor, you have to come to the realization that when you pass something with the consequences of a new entitlement and a new tax program, there may be a few amendments and they may not be just on the topic to which the bill is supposed to be directed. So, Madam President, we can talk about cattle and welfare and education and all of these issues. The bottom line is, are we ever going to get to a point where we can move off this impasse? I again make the offer to make my best effort to do so. We will continue to try to do so. But I hope nobody here is swayed by these arguments that we can't come on to the Senate floor with a tax bill and not talk about taxes and not talk about entitlements, and if we are going to talk about farms, maybe we ought to remember that once, not long ago, we talked about tractors and that was OK. I hope we can resolve this, but it is going to take some give on both sides, and we both have to realize that to move forward, it is going to require some cooperation here; we are not going to get it just the way we want it. We may not be able to offer 52 amendments, but we have some darn good amendments that ought to be considered here, and we are going to do all that we can to ensure that our rights are protected. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to hear the majority leader's answer. My guess is, if I understand the Senator's question correctly, that they don't have an interest in school construction. They don't really have an interest in some of the amendments we are trying to offer here. They would prefer not to have to vote on them, because oftentimes these amendments are critical to school districts back home. So I don't blame the majority leader for trying to avoid having some of these tough votes. Maybe if I were in that position, I would, too. But the fact is that they are critical issues directly confronting education. We have an education bill pending. We have a tax bill pending, and the last time a circumstance similar to this occurred when we were in the majority, we let the Republicans offer 52 amendments. So that is really the essence of the question before us. Do we have a good debate about issues that are directly relevant to this bill or not? So far, the Republicans have refused us that debate. According to that chart, we are now in day 10. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. This would be the perfect opportunity for us, as we debate how are we going to spend $1.6 billion, whether it ought to be spent perhaps on school construction. Should we spend it on child care? Should we spend more than $1.6 billion on matters concerning after-school programs and the applications of our new technology to education? Should we have an opportunity to say what is the proper Federal role, given our circumstances right now, given the constraints we are working under in the budget? For whatever reason, our Republican colleagues are saying, ``I'm sorry we don't want you to offer those amendments. We don't want to have to vote on them. We don't want to spend the time on them.'' Apparently they don't think it is important enough to spend the time on them. ``We just want you to decide for us, and with us, whether giving $37 to people making $100,000 or more a year a tax break of $37 makes sense. That is what we want you to decide with us.'' We don't think that ought to be the rule of the Senate. We think the debate of the Senate on education ought to be broader than that. We think there ought to be a real opportunity to talk in detail about these issues. We are prepared to perhaps work through some suggestions on how we might limit amendments and try to find a way with which to deal with those issues that are directly confronting us. We are not there yet. Maybe we can't. But simply to tell Democrats, ``No, you are going to debate this bill on our terms or on no terms at all,'' is just not something we can accept. So the Senator from Massachusetts is entirely correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Connecticut is correct. Under the proposal raised by the distinguished majority leader, you would be denied an opportunity on the bill of offering relevant legislation that might give us an opportunity to debate whether the $1.6 billion ought to be spent on a $37 tax bailout for those making $100,000, $200,000 a year--$37 is all this legislation provides them in tax relief--or an opportunity to sincerely and very deeply help some people who otherwise are having serious trouble finding ways in which to pay for child care in this country today. So you would be denied that right. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Under my leader time, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will begin by asking the distinguished majority leader whether he has unanimous consent on his side. If we were to agree to this, would he get unanimous consent on his side for that particular proposal?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I assume I still retain the floor?

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. I have never seen this so-called debating institution so fearful of debate as I have on this particular bill. It is the most tepid approach to a good, healthy debate about education that I think anyone can imagine: ``File cloture because we don't want any amendments. File cloture because we don't want to have to vote on these amendments. File cloture because we have to move onto other things.'' You can come up with 100 reasons why we should file cloture, but the bottom line is, if it is 10 days, we have wasted a lot of time talking about talking, and we have not been able to deal with one issue. So, the Senator is right.

Mr. DASCHLE. The reason I asked, Madam President, is because I am quite sure he cannot get unanimous consent on his side, at least for the moment. And I am not surprised he has not hot-lined it, because he realizes he cannot get unanimous consent. I know of at least one Republican Senator who has indicated he would object. There may be others. So, having just made that part of the record, let me address the issue that the distinguished majority leader has propounded once more. I see the chart, and it notes that we have been on this bill for 10 days. What I hope most people will recognize is that while we have been on it 10 days, our Republican colleagues have refused to entertain one Democratic amendment in those 10 days. What they are saying is, we want you to debate this bill on our terms or we are not going to debate it at all. So they bring the bill to the floor, they make a couple of speeches, they lament the fact that we cannot have this cave-in on Democratic amendments, and then they pull the bill and move on to something else. We have been playing this charade, this game, now for 10 days: Put the bill down, give a couple of speeches, pull the bill off, blame it on the Democrats. I do not know about anybody else, but I think that gets a little tiresome. We have seen this charade now in the name of education for 10 days, and we may see it for a lot more. In 1992, we had a similar situation. Democrats were in the majority; the Republicans insisted, in a similar situation, that they be allowed to offer 52 amendments; 52. I have checked with all of my colleagues. I am told there may be somewhere between 10 and 15 amendments, give or take; I am not sure. We are still working on it in good faith, in response to the distinguished majority leader, who said, by the way, late last Friday, we would have some announcement, we would see if we could find a resolution for this, by Tuesday. Here it is 4 o'clock on Monday and I am presented with this once more on the floor. No consultation. No personal discussion. This is: Here is a proposal. Why aren't you Democrats responding as you should? Why are you holding this bill hostage for 10 days? It makes me wonder if they want agreement or whether they want to play games. So, in 1992 our Republican colleagues said they had to have 52 amendments. What we are simply suggesting is that we have some very good ideas that are beyond the scope of this very limited--``Is that all there is?''--Republican answer to the problems we have in education. And for some reason they are afraid to vote on them. They do not want to vote on school construction. They do not want to vote on after-school programs. They do not want to vote on child care. They do not want to vote on all of the things that we have proposed in our agenda. Why? Because they will have to vote against them, and they don't want to do that. So that is what this is all about. Don't tell us we are holding this bill hostage. The hostage takers are on that side of the aisle. How they can come to the floor with a straight face and blame us is beyond me. But I have to tell you, we are going to continue to try to find a way to resolve this. I, in good faith, would like to find a way to allow our Senators the chance to offer good amendments on good education public policy. I want them to do it this week. The majority leader says we will have more opportunities. Why do I somehow fear that every time we will have an education vehicle on the floor, or a tax vehicle, we will be in this same situation? ``It is our bill or nothing at all. It is our amendments or nothing at all. You take this or nothing at all.'' Madam President, that just does not wash. This is the U.S. Senate, for Heaven's sake. Go over to the House and work under those kinds of rules if you want to constrain the debate that consequentially. So we will try to work it out. We will try to find a way to play by those rules. But I must say, it is very disconcerting. Sooner or later we will have a vote on school construction. There are too many schools out there that need some help. Sooner or later we will have an opportunity to vote on after-school programs, and on child care, and on the things that we have to do to deal realistically with public policy affecting education. No $7 bailout for those making $80,000 a year and say we have solved the education problem. That is not going to work. I see my colleague--I will be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Is the Senator then suggesting that he has not hot-lined it on his side?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I commend the Senator from Delaware for making a very important point. This is the U.S. Senate. I daresay there is not a Senator in this body who hasn't chosen to use a legislative vehicle for purposes of offering amendments that may not be germane. We all understand the germaneness rule. We all understand, many of us, why we left the House of Representatives to come to the U.S. Senate. We came to the U.S. Senate because we recognize the glory of the wisdom associated with the right of every Senator, and that is understood each and every time we come to the floor. The distinguished majority leader has made quite a point of citing the Coverdell bill as a bill related to education. It is also related to taxes. This is a tax bill, as well. This is a piece of legislation changing the Tax Code. Just so everybody understands what the majority leader is suggesting here, he is saying we don't want you to consider this a tax bill. The majority refuses to allow the minority to consider this a tax bill on the Senate floor. We want you to insist and promise that you will never offer a tax amendment on a tax bill that comes to the Senate floor. It is an education bill, so go ahead and offer an education amendment, but don't you dare offer a tax amendment to a tax bill. We are not going to allow that. Mr. President, I think that points out the fallacy of this whole matter and the reason why my distinguished colleague from Delaware made the point he did about the rights of the minority. How many tax bills will come to the Senate floor? How many opportunities will the minority have to offer legitimate, relevant, tax amendments? I am very concerned again about precluding the right of the minority. I was elected to represent 44 Democrats and their rights every time we come to the floor, regardless of the circumstance. I think all of our colleagues recognize the importance of protecting those rights. Whether it is tax, whether it is education, whether it is a matter related to something of great import to our colleagues, we have to protect that right. It doesn't matter the issue. What matters is the right. The right must be protected. That is really what these questions are all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President for his recognition. And I thank the majority leader for his innovative new offer. This comes as news. We have not had the opportunity to consider his new offer because this is the first time I have heard it. But, clearly, he is beginning to address the concern that Democrats have raised about the way in which this bill is going to be debated. None of us has proposed that somehow we want to keep from getting to final passage on this legislation. That isn't our objective. We have already noted the President is going to veto this bill, so we do not have to stop it from passing through the Senate. So that isn't our intent. Our intent all along has been simply to have a good debate, to offer our version of what we ought to be doing in education, to offer our version to suggest how we might spend one and a half billion dollars as we look at the array of challenges that we face. Now, the majority leader has proposed a plan that I have not yet had a chance to consider, but two questions arise immediately, and one is whether or not this proposal would allow us to deal with pre- educational years; that is, the childhood development questions that we are facing as some of our amendments deal directly with early childhood development. We have not indicated to any of our colleagues that they had to file their amendments. Would we be then precluding some of our Democratic Senators who had no idea that somehow, if you had not filed, you would not be protected? And then of course there is the question of just an hour. Some amendments are going to take a little longer than an hour; some will not. So there are a lot of questions here that obviously we can work through, but to throw the gauntlet down, to say we are going to file a cloture motion to deny anybody the opportunity to offer amendments even though they are certainly related to education, has been our objection all along. So I certainly would like to work with the majority leader. The best way to do it is to vitiate the cloture vote so we can talk through this, rather than to insist on cloture and then negotiate, claiming to have some real interest in finding some resolution here. But I certainly applaud the majority leader for his approach, his constructive way in which he wants to find a way to deal with the schedule. I yield to my colleague from Delaware, who also has taken a great interest in this issue, for any comment that he might have.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know a lot of people are hoping to catch airplanes. We would like to keep as close to the 5:15 vote as we can. Again, I appreciate the majority leader's offer. Unfortunately, the offer does not include the Democratic substitute; it doesn't include the Dodd tax credit amendment for child care expenses; it doesn't include the Boxer after-school programs amendment. That makes my point. I think we can work out a way in which to deal with these amendments, but given the time, there certainly isn't the opportunity to do that right now. So things have not changed, unfortunately, to date, even though I think a good-faith effort has been made to try to accommodate some of this. We will have to continue to talk about it, and we are prepared to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains?