Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the last 48 hours have been a very important moment in our diplomatic efforts to achieve Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. I want to congratulate Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the United Nations for his remarkable mission to Iraq. Obviously, many of us still look forward to being briefed on all of the details of the agreement between U.N. and Iraqi officials. But I think it is fair to say we have made great progress over the course of the last several days in large measure because of his effort. Just before the February congressional recess, Senator Lott and I came to the floor to impress upon the world community and our country the Senate's unity with regard to dealing with Saddam Hussein's lack of cooperation. I believe that unity exists today as well. With this unity we express to Saddam Hussein that his pattern of intransigence is unacceptable; that his willingness now to agree once more to open up his facilities for complete inspection is commendable. The question we now face is, when and under what circumstances will UNSCOM now be allowed to reenter the country to carry on its mission. But I believe that the willingness on the part of Saddam Hussein to negotiate with the U.N. leadership and to reach this agreement is a direct result of this administration's willingness to demonstrate to him that we will use force if necessary to accomplish our goals. I commend President Clinton and his administration for their efforts, while facing criticism in some circles, to make it abundantly clear to Saddam Hussein, that with or without successful negotiations, we will open up those facilities, we will inspect every questionable location to our satisfaction. This message of our determination to see Iraqi compliance and the unity we demonstrated in showing our determination to use force, along with the successful diplomatic efforts of Kofi Annan, have brought us the results today. We are not there yet. U.N. weapons inspectors still have to reenter the country and be permitted to go to each location. We still have to be confident that whatever questions we have regarding Iraq's intentions on the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction will be completely answered. I hope that until and unless we have all of those questions answered, our forces will be kept in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate our willingness to use force, if necessary, to accomplish our mission. So, again, Mr. President, I commend the administration, I commend Mr. Annan, I commend all of those who have had so much to do with our success today. We will watch with interest, we will watch with the expectation of complete success, but we will also watch with the knowledge that if we need to use force, that force will be every bit as available in the future as it has been for the last 2 weeks. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I begin by complimenting the majority leader on his remarks and on the manner in which he has conducted himself and his leadership with regard to this issue. He has noted the strong desire on the part of all four leaders in Congress to demonstrate with absolute clarity the need for bipartisanship when it comes to sending as clear a message as we can. His remarks and his actions have demonstrated that, and I support fully his decision not to bring the resolution to the floor today. Obviously, there are times when matters of this import need to be fully discussed and must by their nature involve every Senator. Two of the most important Senators to provide contributions to this debate are traveling on one of the most important missions related to this whole exercise and cannot be with us today. In addition to that, we continue to consult with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in an effort to come up with the clearest and most accurate statement with regard to the position to be expressed by the Senate. So for all of those reasons and many others, Senator Lott and I will continue to work with our colleagues and schedule a time that will provide for the opportunity for all Senators to be heard and for debate to take place on this very important matter. But, so that there will be no misunderstanding, we come to the floor today jointly--and we will be joined by several others--to speak with one voice to condemn in the strongest possible terms Iraq's refusal to comply with international law. To condemn Iraq's refusal to fulfill its commitments to the international community. To send a clear message to Saddam Hussein that American resolve to force Iraqi compliance with international law and their own commitments is unwavering; to make clear that U.S. national interests are threatened if Saddam Hussein is allowed to thwart the international community's efforts to shut down his development of weapons of mass destruction programs. Although Senator Lott and I come from different political parties and may differ on issues from time to time, there ought to be no mistake about our position today. We stand united in sending the message to Iraq that it has no option other than to comply with the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolutions. We have chosen to speak together today to send this important message as the President and members of his Administration work diligently to demonstrate to Iraq and the world the strength of our commitment to international security. It is a demonstration of our resolve--which is shared by the American people--that Iraq shall not be permitted to develop and deploy an arsenal of frightening chemical and biological weapons under any circumstances. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requires Iraq to disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction capabilities and to commit unconditionally to never reviving those programs. Resolution 687 established the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify Iraqi compliance with these provisions and required that international economic sanctions against Iraq remain in place until those conditions are met. The Iraqi government has repeatedly and deliberately impeded UNSCOM's attempts to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed. The Iraqis have consistently thwarted UNSCOM's efforts to conduct their inspections unhindered--despite clear concerns about Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities. UNSCOM personnel have served admirably under extremely difficult, and often dangerous, conditions. In the face of concerted Iraqi intimidation and deception, UNSCOM has discovered numerous violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring an end to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. In fact, more Iraqi chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed as a result of UNSCOM's inspections than during all of Operation Desert Storm. Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path. Secretaries Albright and Cohen, in their trips to the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, are sending the important message that, while the United States certainly prefers a diplomatic course, we are willing to use force to block Iraq's ability to develop and use an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons if diplomatic efforts do not achieve this result. While there are clear differences among the leaders they have talked with, they have found unanimity on at least 2 issues. First, U.N. weapons inspectors must have unfettered access to suspect Iraqi sites. Second, Saddam Hussein is solely responsible for creating this crisis by not adhering to the Security Council resolutions in the first place. The foreign ministers of the 6-member Gulf Cooperation Council--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar--stated this most clearly just yesterday: The current crisis is a direct result of Baghdad's reluctance to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors and its determination to defy the will of the international community with respect to the elimination of its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction . . . The only solution to spare the people of Iraq additional hardship and dangers is the Iraqi regime's implementation of the U.N. resolutions which it had previously accepted. The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist--it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required And, I must say, it has the will. Secretary Albright sent the message in its purest form: ``Saddam does not have a menu of choices, he has one: Iraq must comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and provide U.N. inspectors with the unfettered access they need to do their job.'' We are here today to affirm that we and the American people stand with the President and the international community in an effort to end Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and preserve our vital national and international security interests. The Senate has been working on a concurrent resolution expressing Congress's concern about Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and urging the President to respond to this threat. In doing so, the Senate has grappled with some of the very difficult issues surrounding Congress's role in the decision to use military force. Perhaps too much had been made of the differences among Members of Congress about exactly how to approach this problem. That is understandable. There are always ways in which to change the wording. But there is no way in which to change the message. The message is fundamentally and unequivocally clear, the most important message of all. Iraq must comply. There is no choice. We stand united in our determination to do whatever is necessary to achieve our goal. Iraq must comply. The United States has the resolve to ensure that compliance and we stand united today in an effort to articulate that very clear message as loudly, as unequivocally, and in as much of a bipartisan way as we can.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 10 days ago, the President delivered to Congress the first balanced budget in 30 years. Yesterday we learned that the Federal deficit actually will be gone by the end of this year, four years ahead of schedule. That remarkable accomplishment was set in motion five years ago, when congressional Democrats joined the administration to return fiscal discipline to Washington. Because we did the right thing five years ago, our economy is stronger today than it's been in a generation. Our foundation is solid. Now we need to build on that foundation. For the last six months, congressional Democrats have worked with the administration to develop a unified agenda for the American people. We talked a lot about what the options were, and what our priorities should be. After a great deal of deliberation, we agreed on a series of proposals that merit--that really demand--our action this year. This morning, House and Senate Democrats met with the President and the Vice President and senior White House officials to ratify those proposals and begin the process of translating them into action, to confront real problems facing the American people with real solutions. We call our agenda ``New solutions for a New Century.'' These proposals address the most urgent concerns facing the American people today. We want to reach across the aisle and work with our Republican colleagues to adopt them this year. We need to increase the take-home pay of America's families. By breaking the wage cycle that continues to pay working women 71 cents on every $1 that a man earns. By making child care safer and more affordable. And by raising the minimum wage by $1 an hour over the next 2 years. We need to make America's public schools the best in the world. By hiring 100,000 new teachers so we can reduce the average class size to 18 students per classroom in the first three grades. By making sure that every school in America is connected to the Internet so that computer screens are as common in classrooms as blackboards. And, by helping communities repair or replace school buildings that are overcrowded or obsolete or downright dangerous. We also need to protect our children this year from the deadly epidemic of smoking. We need to say that the days when tobacco companies can spend millions of dollars to get kids hooked on cigarettes are over. From now on, they will pay to keep kids away from cigarettes. America's families need to know their health insurance will be there when they need it, that they can go to a hospital emergency room when and where they need to. They need to know they can see a medical specialist if they need one. And they need to know that the things they tell their doctor in confidence will be kept confidential. We can give them that peace of mind this year by passing our Patient's Bill of Rights. America's families need to be able to plan for their retirement. They need stronger private pension plans that are portable and protected. They deserve assurances that Medicare and Social Security will be there when they need them. And early retirees and older displaced workers who have no way to buy private health insurance on their own deserve the opportunity to purchase health insurance through Medicare. Finally, we need to make our neighborhoods safer this year. And we will. By helping communities create after-school safe havens to keep kids out of trouble. And by creating special juvenile courts and toughening the Federal penalties for gang violence so that the kids we can't reach, the hard-core few who are violent repeat offenders, will be locked up for a long time. A sound economy, stronger schools, a secure retirement, safe neighborhoods. That is the Democratic agenda for America's families. They are not sound bites; they are sound policies. They are new ideas for a new century. Today, we pledge to do all that we can to enact these new ideas into law and make a real difference in people's lives. We have little time left in this Congress, Mr. President, to deal with this and all of the leftover elements of the agenda from last year. But let us be clear, we need to finish our unfinished business-- the highway bill, IRS reform, strengthening family farms, and reforming our campaign finance system. We need to finish that business and pass this agenda this year. Our economy is strong. Our foundation is solid. Now, brick by brick, we need to keep building to take this prosperity to the next level and give people the tools and the opportunities to make their lives better in a new century. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my gratitude to the Senator from North Dakota for assuring that we could allocate the time for this very important discussion. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished floor leader of the Democratic caucus, the Senator from North Dakota, for allocating this time to talk about something that is very important. I also want to commend as well the Senator from Arizona for his comments about Iraq. Certainly his experience and his leadership for these many years carries special weight with people on both sides of the aisle. I hope that we can continue to demonstrate the spirit that he has articulated today as we deal with this grave situation in that faraway place.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me commend the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts for his summary comments with regard to the Satcher nomination. I don't think anyone could have said it more persuasively or more succinctly. As he noted, every single organization in this country with any standing, with any credibility in regard to health care, has said this is an extraordinary individual, a leader in health care. The Senate ought to confirm him today. Nothing else really needs to be said. I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership and his advocacy of Dr. Satcher. I, secondly, join with all of my colleagues in supporting very strongly the nomination today. I hope that we can pass his nomination on an overwhelming vote, Republicans and Democrats, given the circumstances that we have now faced over the last 3 years. We ought to be saying to the country, unequivocally: ``We need leadership in health care. We can no longer tolerate a void in that leadership by not having a Surgeon General in the United States of America.'' That is what this is about, acknowledging that void, recognizing the need for leadership, recognizing the need for a strong agenda in health care, spearheading efforts to place greater emphasis on children's health, to intensify the youth antismoking campaign and the array of responsibilities that the Surgeon General takes on as the Nation's top public health advocate. There shouldn't be any doubt about what this is all about. It is at long last acknowledging the need for leadership, acknowledging the tremendous contribution Dr. Satcher has made in an array of different roles, especially in the Centers for Disease Control, and acknowledging the opportunity that we now have to ask him to take on the nation's most important public health role. I believe Dr. Satcher's nomination deserves broad-based Republican and Democratic support. I hope, Mr. President, that the people will listen to the words of Senator Kennedy, Senator Frist and others as they have so eloquently argued for his nomination over the last several days. Mr. President, I fully support the nomination of Dr. David Satcher for the dual position of U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. This nation is fortunate that a man of Dr. Satcher's dedication, vision and deep commitment to public service has agreed to take on this important role. Dr. Satcher has served the American people as a family practice physician, an educator and an established leader in the public health arena. During his tenure as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Satcher worked to strengthen the critical prevention link in the nation's public health structure. He tackled the national problem of lagging childhood immunization rates, increasing the number of children immunized by nearly 25 percent. This is an exceptional accomplishment. Under Dr. Satcher's leadership, we reduced by one-fourth the number of children at risk for immunization-preventable diseases, some of them permanently disabling or fatal. Dr. Satcher also spearheaded a highly successful program to provide breast and cervical cancer screening to women throughout the nation, and launched an early warning system to detect and prevent food-borne illnesses such as e-coli. I have received an unprecedented number of letters and calls in support of Dr. Satcher's nomination: physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, public health organizations, individuals from my state and others. Clearly, Dr. Satcher is already recognized as a guiding force in our health care system. I believe the nation can only benefit from asking him to serve as the nation's leading voice for public health, science and medical education. In a recent letter, Dr. Satcher wrote: ``If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will work to ensure that every child has a healthy start in life. I will encourage the American people to adopt healthy lifestyles, including physical activity and diet. And I will try to help the American people make sense of a changing health care system, so they can maximize their access to--and quality of--the health care they receive.'' I believe Dr. Satcher's goals are on target. The nation will be well served by a public health leader who can help us foster healthy lifestyles, a consumer advocate who recognizes that strengthening our health care system means empowering individuals to make informed decisions about the care they receive. I am confident that Dr. Satcher, a man of experience, integrity and insight, will help us make these goals a reality. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in confirming his nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will soon debate the confirmation of Margaret Morrow to be a United States District Judge. Her qualifications are exemplary; her commitment to public service is impressive; and her supporters are many. Despite the high regard of a broad and bipartisan group of attorneys and judges, Ms. Morrow has had to wait over 19 months for a vote of the full Senate. But this long delay is finally coming to an end. I am very pleased Senator Lott has promised that, before the February recess, this fine nominee will get her day on the Senate floor. The Alliance for Justice, which represents a whole host of organizations interested in a strong judiciary, sent a letter to me yesterday outlining their many reasons for supporting the nomination of Margaret Morrow as well as their concern about the time it has taken for the Senate to act. As a supplement to the voluminous information already on the record in support of this nomination, I submit the Alliance for Justice's letter for my colleagues' review. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this month, our colleague Senator Kennedy made his first ever visit to Northern Ireland. On Friday, January 9, in the Guildhall, in the City of Derry, Senator Kennedy delivered the first Tip O'Neill Memorial Lecture, sponsored by the University of Ulster, the City Council of Derry, and the U.S. Consulate in Belfast. Senator Kennedy's leadership on this issue and his longstanding efforts to reach out to both Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland were evident in his remarks and in the warm reception he received from both sides of the community during his visit. For many years, Senator Kennedy has been at the forefront of this country's commitment to do all it can to end the violence in Northern Ireland and achieve a lasting peace for that troubled land. I believe all of us in Congress share that commitment. I commend Senator Kennedy for his contribution to the current peace initiative. I believe that his eloquent address will be of interest to all of us in Congress and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we still do not have order.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, thank you. I had the opportunity to discuss this amendment last night. President Reagan stood for a lot of things, but I think the things for which we identify him more than anything else is local control, the need to ensure that at the local level, government is given the greatest opportunity. In 1987, President Reagan signed a bill into law that provided authority to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for all decisionmaking regarding the operation of the Washington National Airport. That was 11 years ago. My amendment, Mr. President, simply says, let's keep the spirit of Ronald Reagan alive as we pass this piece of legislation; let's ensure that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, in keeping with local control, has an opportunity to voice its approval. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my friend from Kentucky and I thank the Presiding Officer. I simply conclude, Mr. President, by saying if we are for local control, if we are for the spirit of what Ronald Reagan represented, then we all ought to be supporting this amendment. This amendment, again, simply says, let's give the Washington Airports Authority the authority given to them by President Reagan in 1987, the opportunity to be heard, to have a voice, to say yes. So I hope my colleagues will join me in the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Whatever time I have remaining I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I would simply clarify that this has been a work in progress for several days. I appreciate very much the cooperation of the majority leader in accommodating Democratic Senators and Republican Senators who wish to offer amendments. There were two issues here. One was the opportunity to offer amendments. This unanimous consent request does that. People can vote up or down on the amendments and can certainly vote up or down on the bill. There will be plenty of discussion about the reasons for a vote on either side of these amendments as the debate unfolds. The second issue was one relating to the IRS bill. It was our view that the bill reforming the IRS needed to be brought to the attention of the Senate and needed to be scheduled. The majority leader has acknowledged the need to do that as well, and he has given me a commitment that we will take up the IRS bill prior to the end of March. So given his commitment to address the IRS and to allow amendments to be offered, that will, in my view, certainly provide us with an opportunity to move forward. So I appreciate very much his effort to respond to those concerns. We have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the indulgence of the senior Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, as I noted, the amendment relating to the renaming of Dulles International Airport will not be offered, and Senator Robb will be offering the amendment relating to a commission. I would like to use my authority under the unanimous consent agreement relating to the relevant amendment to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. Amendment No. 1642 (Purpose: To require approval by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority of the renaming of Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport)

Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond, if the Senator will yield, by acknowledging the leadership of the Senator from Virginia. It is my understanding that he will be prepared to offer the amendment relating to a commission and that we would want to precede to the other commission amendment offered by Senator Dodd. I will simply inform colleagues that the amendment relating to the renaming of Dulles International Airport will likely not be offered. So, as the Senator from Georgia has suggested, it may be appropriate just to ensure that everyone has a clear understanding, that the amendment relating to a commission offered by Senator Robb, be first; the amendment by Senator Dodd, second; the amendment, should he choose to offer it, by Senator Coverdell, third; the amendment by Senator Reid, fourth; the amendment by Senator Lott, fifth; and the amendment by myself relevant, or my designee, sixth. Perhaps there would be an appropriate time to propound the unanimous consent, and I will do so.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator may be referring to an amendment that I understand the Senator from Virginia may be offering. I will be offering another amendment. But I think the suggestion made by the Senator from Connecticut is a good one and perhaps we could make that arrangement later on in the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I noted, President Reagan made it very clear that were he to waive the magic wand, the more the Federal Government could turn local decisionmaking over to local decisionmakers, the happier he would be. Here we have virtually every single local decisionmaker elected and appointed who oppose the very renaming that is incorporated into this legislation. How ironic that in the name of President Reagan we do the very thing that he opposed the most--forcing Federal will on local officials. I don't think that Congress should pass legislation that removes Washington's name from National Airport and replaces it with the name of another President, or anybody else, over the objection of local officials. I personally oppose it. But that shouldn't be the issue. In the name of the spirit of Ronald Reagan, the issue should be, what do the local authorities think? What would they do? And if we are prepared to say tomorrow that we don't care what they think, it doesn't matter how opposed they are, we are going to do it anyway, Mr. President, how ironic. How ironic, indeed. The airports authority has only had this very unique opportunity to govern themselves for 11 years. We turned over that airport to them for 50 years. Another irony is that Ronald Reagan signed that legislation. So it, indeed, represented the spirit of the Reagan philosophy when we enacted it. All the local entities, in keeping with his spirit, said, ``We'll take this responsibility. This is what is probably as indicative of what you are trying to do as anything. You are turning over the responsibility to us. Give it to us.'' Now they have it. They have had it for 11 years. Now the irony is we are saying, ``Well, we take it back.'' And all the more ironic, we are going to take it back in the name of President Ronald Reagan. So, Mr. President, the amendment I am offering simply says, look, if we are going to honor the spirit of former President Ronald Reagan, let's, at the very least, do what he said was what his Presidency was all about. Let us ensure that local governmental decisionmakers have the opportunity to have a voice in keeping with the spirit of Ronald Reagan. So the amendment I am offering is very simple. It states this act shall not take effect until the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority approves the redesignation of the airport. As everyone knows, the airports authority is a bipartisan panel, Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Let's do what President Reagan said we should do in honoring his name, in honoring the spirit of his Presidency. Let us not say we did not mean it in 1987. Let us not say, over your objections, we are going to do it anyway. Let's honor the spirit of this President by doing the right thing. Let's give them the opportunity to have a voice. This amendment does that. We will have the opportunity to vote tomorrow. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Linwood Holton, McLean, Virginia, January 29, 1998. Hon. James Moran. Dear Jim: I am writing to you in regards to the pending legislation to change the name of the Washington National Airport to ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I had the honor of working closely with the Congress and Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole in advancing the Metropolitan Washington Airport Act of 1986 to transfer Washington National Airport out of the Federal Government to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. This legislation of course was signed into law by President Reagan. The Airports Authority was created by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Federal Government leased Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport to the Authority for fifty years beginning on June 1987. I was privileged to serve as Chairman of the Authority at that time and I signed that lease on behalf of the Authority. The purpose of the transfer, as recited in the lease itself, was to achieve ``local control, management, operation and development'' of the airports. I am very concerned that after ten years of this lease arrangement, the Congress now proposes to take unilateral action to change the name of the airport. This is not at all consistent with either the literal terms or the purpose of that lease agreement. Further, the change to the name as proposed, while honoring a president for whom I have the greatest respect, would be detrimental to the airport and its users and affect the traveling public in ways certainly not intended by the drafters of this legislation. The lease grants the Authority complete control, power, and dominion over the airports. The intent of Congress, Virginia and the District of Columbia in this arrangement is clear. Even though the Federal Government continues to own the underlying land, the airport is to be treated as any other airport, not as a federal facility. In the past, there have been changes made to the lease at the request of Congress and the changes have been brought about by a mutually agreed upon agreement to the lease to secure the consent of the Airports Authority. The proposed name change legislation does not acknowledge the need to obtain the consent of the Authority and this is inconsistent with the intended relationship between the Federal Government and the Authority. As for the consequences, the removal of ``Washington'' from the airport name removed the location and market identifier that is obviously very important to travelers and shippers at points distant from the Washington area. It is worth noting that well over half of those who travel through National are not residents of the Washington region. The word ``Washington'' provides immediate market and location information. Without it, there will be confusion that does not exist today about where the airport is and what market it serves. The cost of such loss of identity and confusion may not be readily qualified, but I believe that it would be substantial. There also are other costs such as the costs to local businesses who have associated their identities with Washington National Airport. In conclusion, the legislation which transferred Washington National Airport to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority granted to the Authority the control and oversight of the airport. Unilateral action by the Congress to take the drastic action of changing the name of the airport is inconsistent with both the spirit and the intent of the transfer. Very truly yours, Linwood Holton.

Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleague for his leadership and his usual eloquence. I want to associate myself with his remarks this morning. I appreciate very much his calling attention to the extraordinary and very historic accomplishment that we mark this week as we begin the debate on the fiscal 1999 budget. I have some charts here that I think probably tell the story as well as any three charts could. This first graph simply lays out our fiscal policy from 1980 through 2003, using the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal to project from 1999 to 2003. The portion in red notes our struggle with the deficit from 1980 all the way up until the present. The deficits during this period total $3.1 trillion. Then in 1993 came the very controversial Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which was enacted only after the Vice President cast the deciding vote. Passage of this act allowed us to make a dramatic reversal in our fiscal policy, generating savings that exceed the entire deficit that we have accumulated from 1980 through 1999. The green, or blue portion as it may appear on the screen, represents a total savings of $4 trillion. It shows that prior to the passage of the 1993 budget bill, CBO was projecting that the deficit would explode from $290 billion in 1992 to $633 billion by the year 2003. Instead, a wonderful thing happened as a result of courageous decisions made by Democratic Senators and Members of Congress--some who are not here today because they voted on that deficit. I will never forget that moment as long as I live. After much consultation with Senators on both sides of the aisle, but especially our side of the aisle, a majority came to the realization that this could be a historic vote. Indeed it was. That vote brought about a precipitous decline in the deficit, to the point where we now see a surplus for the first time in 30 years. That surplus is projected to be $218 billion over the next 5 years. In 1969 I was a senior in college. I didn't really know, then, whether we had a surplus or a deficit. I really wasn't following it that closely. But I look back now and note that it was a surplus, albeit a small one. By the rarest of circumstances we had a set of economic conditions that allowed us to reach surplus that year. However, it was a fragile one and would not be repeated for 30 years. Now we are being told that the budget before us could achieve at least $1 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. So this is not just a fleeting 1-year moment in time. Current economic analysis projects that it is very likely we could see budgetary surpluses for the next 10 years. If in the years ahead we practice the same fiscal responsibility we have demonstrated the last 5 years, we could see a surplus of $1 trillion. In other words, we would not only achieve a $4 trillion savings in projected deficits, we would add to that an additional $1 trillion in surplus because of decisions we made in 1993 and again in 1997. So no one should be surprised at the ceremony at the White House yesterday or with the extraordinary optimism and excitement that many of us shared as a result of these tough decisions. We have all been in those rooms. We have all noted a change in discipline. We have all noted how difficult it is to say no. We have all noted that, were it not for tough decisions and the new discipline that we have been able to establish over the last 5 years, we would not be celebrating today. But, indeed we are, and this chart points out as well as any the reasons for that celebration. This next chart is also quite educational and informative. The dotted line shows the average federal outlays as a share of gross domestic product over the course of the last 17 years, from 1980, when Ronald Reagan became President, through 1997, under President Clinton. The average outlay during this span has been 21.9 percent of gross domestic product. In the early 1980s we exceeded this average pretty substantially. The red line indicates what actually happened. In 1988 and 1989 we went below the average outlays and then during the Bush years we exceeded the average outlays. In 1993, upon passage of President Clinton's budget bill, those outlays dropped precipitously and have continued falling right to the present. We see a dramatic reduction. Never in 17 years have we seen anything close to the drop in outlays that have occurred in the last 5 years. So, as a percent of gross domestic product, the federal government is spending far less than we have ever spent in the last two decades. Receipts have also gone up during this same period. We see that expenditures and receipts meet about in the middle. Receipts as a share of gross domestic product have averaged 18.5 percent over the period 1980 to 1997. This percent has gone up substantially in the last five years so that revenues and outlays meet in the middle to bring us that surplus. What is amazing is that even though average receipts are up, the amount of tax paid by the average American working family is down, the lowest it has been in 20 years. So, one might ask, why are receipts up? Receipts are up because people on Wall Street are making megamillions, the economy is stronger than it has been at any time in our history, and the explosion of economic vitality and growth has produced an economic engine that not only provides more after-tax income for working families and businesses and farms, but also for the governments. More governments today at the State and local level are declaring surpluses than at any other time. Why? Because the engine of this economy is as strong as it has ever been. So, by showing fiscal discipline, by creating fiscal and monetary policy that meld so well, we have created an economic engine that has allowed this economy to grow, to bring in the receipts, even though the vast majority of middle-income families have actually seen a reduction in their taxes over the last 20 years. These outlays have been reduced in large measure because we have been able to do something with government bureaucracy that we have not seen since John Kennedy was President: a lowering of the federal government's civilian employment. As depicted in this chart, we can see what has happened to Federal employment over the period of the last 30 years. When President Kennedy was in office, we had about 1.8 million employees working for the Federal Government. During the Johnson years that number shot up to over 2.3 million. It dropped in Nixon's time, went up a little bit in Carter's time, dropped somewhat in Reagan's time. But look what happened in President Clinton's time. The red portion of the chart shows the dramatic decline in civilian employment in the executive branch just in the last 5 years. It is once again at a level about where it was when President Kennedy was in office, when I was in 6th and 7th grade. So these outlays have gone down for many reasons, but they have gone down in large measure because we have the smallest Federal Government that we have had in more than 30 years. We have had an effective Federal Government. In education, health care, health security, especially for Medicare recipients--in a lot of ways, even though our Government is smaller, our country and the Government is stronger. Now we are at the crux of some very serious policy questions. Perhaps the most important policy question is what do we do with the surplus. I think the President last week laid out the blueprint as clearly and convincingly as anything I have heard him discuss in the 5 years he has been President. This President has said, before we do anything else, let's recognize one thing. If we don't deal with Social Security soon in a meaningful way, by the time he and I and many of us so-called baby boomers retire, security, the fund may well be exhausted. Let's fix the Social Security problem, but until we do, let's ensure that we don't do anything with the surplus. In essence, we should pay down the debt as long as the Social Security problem remains unrepaired; so long as we don't have the confidence that Social Security will be available beyond the year 2030. So I think the President is absolutely right. Let's solve Social Security, let's pay off some of the debt and whatever other things that we want to do. However, let's use the same fiscal discipline that we have used for the last 5 years to ensure that we provide good child care, good education, good health care, and a vital economy. We should pay for new investments and that's what the President's budget is doing. Every single thing in the President's budget is paid for, every penny of it. So it's an exciting day. We celebrate success. We celebrate vitality in the economy the likes of which many of us have never seen in our lifetimes. We celebrate and perhaps look back with some satisfaction to tough decisionmaking. And we look ahead, having learned those lessons, with some expectation that it can continue. We will continue to make tough decisions. We will continue to keep this economy robust. We will continue to show fiscal discipline. We will continue to be sure that regardless of what else we do, when we invest in our future, when we invest in our children, when we invest in the things that our people care so much about, that we make those investments good by paying for them. First, by protecting Social Security; second, by paying off some of the debt; third, by investing in things that are totally paid for with offsets that are real and calculable. Mr. President, if that isn't a recipe for success, I don't know what is. I hope all of us, Republicans and Democrats, can acknowledge the importance of maintaining that success as we go forward. I noted that yesterday marked the first day of the debate of the 1999 budget. While we can debate a lot of things, I hope several things are off the table. I hope we don't go back to the old mistakes we made in the 1980s. I hope that we recognize that rosy scenario has no place in budget calculations any longer; that we have to ensure that the fiscal discipline and the leadership that we have demonstrated persists and can consistently be demonstrated through the decisionmaking process we make on the budget this year. (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the observation made by the Senator from North Dakota. That is true. There are some people who, given the kind of cards we have been dealt, you think would find some cause for optimism with all the good that is happening today: housing starts the highest they have been in history; the number of new jobs the highest they have ever been; the strength of the economy; the low interest rates; the fact that we are going to see a surplus; a growth in the economy that exceeds that of Europe and Japan together. That remarkable economic success ought to be cause for optimism for even the most ardent political pessimists sometimes found among our colleagues on the other side. So I acknowledge, as you do, that it is a remarkable day when, even with all of this good news, there are still some people who are trying to find the dark lining in the cloud. There isn't much dark lining there. If we stick to the text that we have been using for the last 5 years, there is a lot of silver lining upon which we ought to be building our future. Again, I appreciate very much the Senator's leadership in bringing this to the attention of the American people and helping us as we make these tough decisions each and every day. Mr. President, I know others are seeking time for the floor. So, again, I thank the Senator for allocating this time for discussion of the budget and our current circumstances. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I only want to acknowledge, again, the extraordinary leadership in our caucus that this Senate has benefited from, thanks to Senator Kerrey, on the issue of IRS reform. He and Congressman Portman were the two chairs of the IRS commission that delved into all of these issues. They formulated the policy, convinced the administration, and worked to resolve many outstanding differences. So I appreciate very much their tenacious leadership in this area and, again, thank them for their efforts in bringing us to this point. We will, at long last, resolve this matter. I am told that 1\1/2\ million taxpayers have been adversely affected by IRS activity since the House passed its reform legislation last year. We need to put an end to that, and we need to find ways in which to ensure that the American people and the IRS have a clear message: The old days are gone. The time for reform of the IRS is here. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, thanks to the leadership of Senator Kerrey is committed to that. We will send the bill to the President well before the April 15 filing time for taxes for the last calendar year. I thank the majority leader, and I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.