Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to come to the floor to talk about the pending matter. I want to devote a little time this morning to the constitutional amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. I am a cosponsor of that legislation, and I proudly come to the floor in my advocacy of the passage of his amendment. I give him great credit. He has come to the floor for years addressing, in myriad ways, the issue of campaign finance, the problems that we have associated with campaign finance, the difficulties, constitutionally and statutorily, in addressing all of the problems that he has so eloquently outlined now for a long period of time. Year after year, in Congress after Congress, fight after fight, Senator Hollings has been extraordinary in his effort to address this issue in a consequential and comprehensive way. I want to talk a little bit about the circumstances that I see facing all of us politically right now and my reasons for supporting the constitutional amendment. There are at least four primary reasons why I believe that the constitutional amendment needs to be addressed. I am of the view that statutorily we are incapable of adequately addressing every one of the nuances, every one of the problems that have arisen as a result of our efforts to address meaningful campaign finance reform in the past. I do not have with me the record that we have compiled, but we have spent hours and days and weeks in testimony and in hearings over the course of many Congresses grappling with this issue. As I recall, there have been 49 hearings on campaign finance reform. There have been thousands and thousands of pages of reports. There have been over a score of filibusters on the floor keeping this issue from a vote. So the record in the Congress over the last 10 years has really been abysmal. The problems continue to mount and the circumstances continue to worsen and the situation involving Members is compounded. In 1976, the total cost of all Federal elections was $310 million. That is total. That is what every House Member, every House candidate, every Senator, every Senate candidate, and every Presidential candidate spent--$310 million. In 1996, that amount had exploded--and I use that word intentionally--exploded to $2.7 billion. That is $2,100 a day for a Senate candidate. Every day, whether we generate the money all at once or whether we generate it day by day, we need to raise $2,100 a day. Just yesterday I was over at my political office. I have a political office. I have a South Dakota office. I have a leadership office. I have three service offices. But now, without a doubt, one of the most important parts of any Senate infrastructure is the political office. I was over in my political office yesterday dialing for dollars. I do not know how much I raised, but I made up yesterday for the fact that I had not raised $2,100 every day in the previous weeks. Now the average cost of a Senate campaign is $4.5 million per Senator. I am in cycle now. I will be running in 1998. My budget, Mr. President, is $5 million. I have already indicated that. That is no secret. I will be raising and spending $5 million to be reelected. I have heard colleagues on the Senate floor say, ``Well, you know, the nation spends less than $2.7 billion on dog and cat food, so why should we be worried? We spend a lot more on dog and cat food than we spend in political races.'' I do not think that is a proper comparison unless we have only 535 dogs and cats in this country. If you had 535 dogs and cats, that comparison would work. I tell you, if we were spending $2.7 billion on 535 designated dogs and cats, my sense is we would be outraged. There would be all kinds of complaints that dog and cat food is way too high. ``I can't afford to keep a cat or a dog.'' How is it we can afford a political process so denigrated today by practices that we all abhor that we are willing to spend $4.5 million per Senator? So, Mr. President, the cost is something that I think is very clearly an issue that we have to address, because it is only going to get worse. We used the increases in campaign costs since 1976 to estimate what the cost of an election will be in the year 2025. Most of us, hopefully, will still be around. I will not be here, but I will be, hopefully, living. Our sons and daughters will be here seeking public office. Our estimate is that a Senate race will cost $145 million in the year 2025. Now that is not any magical distortion of the amount. That is simply taking the inflation rate that we have experienced and costing it out to the year 2025--$145 million. We will be raising over $200,000 a day to meet that kind of cost in the year 2025. So do we have a problem? I could rest my case on that alone. But there are other problems that I want to talk about this morning. I have a friend I have known for 20 years, who ran for Congress. He is idealistic, has a wonderful family; and is extraordinarily helpful. My friend decided he wanted to run for Congress. He was at that point in life when he thought he could offer something. He cared deeply about the issues, and is very, very patriotic, an extraordinary young man in all respects. But in order to meet his budget, my friend found himself holed up in a small cubicle with a desk and a phone calling for money about two- thirds to three-fourths of every day. Was he out there greeting the people sharing his ideas? No. Was he out there shaking hands, learning from the people? No. A campaign, anybody who has been through one will recognize, is really an educational experience. Of course you impart your thoughts. But what I love about campaigns is how much you learn in return--the conversations with people in their homes, the opportunity to answer questions and hear concerns at Rotaries and chambers of commerce, the opportunity to shake hands at a plant gate and get comments about what families are thinking about. That education is lost when any candidate spends two-thirds to three- fourths of his time doing nothing but dialing for dollars. Wendell Ford, our distinguished colleague who sits right at this desk, said fundraising was a major factor in his determination not to run for reelection. We are going to lose an able public servant. When he was first elected to the Senate in 1974, his campaign cost $450,000. But he estimated he would have to raise $4.5 million for the race in 1998. He said, ``I don't want to raise $4.5 million in Kentucky. I don't want to have to go through that. I don't think it is right. I don't want to have to sit in some cubicle called a `political office' and dial for dollars day after day. I don't want to do that.'' So he is hanging it up. How many more Wendell Fords, how many more talented public servants will hang it up or will not even start? So, Mr. President, this is a very serious problem from the point of view of candidates themselves-- Republican or Democrat. I recruit candidates, and one of the hardest things for me is to convince possible candidates to run knowing they have to raise $4.5 to $5.5 million. You go tell some businessman to give up his business, give up his family, give up his dignity, go tell them that ``you ought to do that so you can take a seat here in the U.S. Senate.'' Tell them that. Convince them it is in the public interest. Here in the Senate, we have a wonderful opportunity to serve, but to get here you pay a heavy price, too heavy in the minds of more and more people. Too many good people are saying no to public life, no to public service because they do not want to do it. Frankly, I do not blame them. In the third category are the implications of the money in the system. The implications of all of this money troubles me. Every day the front page has yet another story about White House difficulties. Obviously, it is now the subject of an investigation in the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Justice Department. We are looking at all of that. We on the Democratic side have felt that many of the abuses the Republicans may be guilty of have not received adequate attention. The media seem honed in on everything that happened in the White House. As a colleague has reminded me on several occasions, ``Why hunt rabbits when you can hunt bear?'' Well, there are some elephants that ought to be hunted, I think, given the circumstances. There were reports in the Washington Post on January 23, 1997; the Wall Street Journal on January 9; Business Week on December 30, 1996; Roll Call on January 20, 1997; Inside Congress on December 20, 1996, that Republican leaders--including Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and John Boehner--summoned business leaders to a dinner to chastise them for donating money to Democrats and suggest that if they continue to do so, they would no longer have access to Republican leaders. This is a quote--`` `Companies that want to have it both ways,' said one top GOP strategist, `no longer will be involved in Republican decisionmaking or invited to our cocktail parties.' They also demanded that the company fire all of its Democratic lobbyists and replace them with Republicans. A GOP leadership insider said, `If companies send lobbyists to Republican offices, they will have GOP credentials or they won't be allowed in the room.' NRCC Chairman John Linder said, `We're going to track where the money goes.' '' Mr. President, what does that mean? What are the implications of ``money''? What do they mean when they say business leaders who contribute to Democrats will no longer be involved in Republican decisionmaking? Here's another passage from Roll Call, October 30, 1995. Upon winning control of the 104th Congress, Congressman John Boehner, chair of the House Republican Conference, organized a leadership/lobbyist operation to help pass the Republicans' budget plan. Business lobbyists contributed at least $2,000 toward an advertising campaign to support the Republican budget. ``In exchange, they got a seat in the inner circle that met every Monday in one of the Capitol's . . . meeting rooms.'' So $2,000 for a seat in the inner circle meeting every Monday in the Capitol's meeting rooms. Here's another example from Time magazine, March 27, 1995. Mr. Boehner also organized the Thursday group of ``lobbyists representing some of the richest special interests in the country.'' The Republican leadership let these lobbyists use congressional office space and official resources to conduct their bill drafting and lobbying activities. The Thursday group served as command central for a million dollar campaign to enact items in the Contract With America. On tort reform, the group's efforts included ``daily meetings of dozens of lobbyists on the seventh floor of the Longworth House Office Building, a budget of several million dollars raised under the guidance of a General Motors executive, and a vote-counting operation that was led by former top lobbyists for Ronald Reagan and George Bush.'' Here is yet another example, this time from the Washington Post and Legal Times, dated October 29, 1996, and September 16, 1996, respectively: ``Gingrich ally and foreign agent Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform received a $4.6 million contribution from the RNC in October,'' 1 month before the election, ``in October 1996 * * * the RNC contributed $4.6 million to the tax-exempt Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Gingrich ally Grover Norquist. Because it is not structured as a political committee, ATR is not required to disclose how it spends the money, as the RNC is. This $4.6 million in `soft money' could be used by ATR directly on behalf of federal candidates--which would be scored as `hard money' if spent by the RNC. Grover Norquist is a close ally of Gingrich and is also registered as a foreign agent for the Republic of Seychelles, and Jonas Savimbi, rebel leader of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.'' Mr. President I could go on and on. Perhaps I will end with this one just received yesterday: 1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997. Cochairman--for a $250,000 fundraising requirement, you get ``Breakfast and a Photo Opportunity with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 1997.'' You get a luncheon with ``Republican Senate and House leadership and the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your choice.'' I am still reading from the document. You get a luncheon with the chairmen of your choice if you are willing to donate $250,000. If you only donate $100,000, you still get a luncheon with the chairmen of your choice, and you still get a breakfast and photo opportunity with ``Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.'' You do not get dais seating. For $45,000, amazingly, you are still entitled to lunch with the chairmen of your choice. Mr. President, we do not need that. We do not need that in this institution or in our political system. This has to end. This will not go on without ultimately and directly affecting the quality and the historic standing of this institution. Now let me address the last issue, and that is the constitutional issue. Mr. President, I have to say it is the hardest one. It is the hardest because there are a lot of people whose judgment I respect who are not willing to go as far as I am. But it is hard for me to understand what the Supreme Court said in Buckley versus Valeo. On the one hand, they said it is all right to limit how much you give; on the other hand, it is not all right to limit how much you spend. Why? If we are worried about free speech, why is it appropriate to limit giving but not limit spending? What is the constitutional premise that allows us to say we can limit how much you give, but we cannot limit how much you spend? It seems to me that once they decided to limit how much you give, they set themselves up, as well, for limiting how much you spend. New York University law professor Ronald Dworkin and 40 other scholars wrote in a joint statement, ``We believe that the Buckley decision is wrong and should be overturned. The decision did not declare a valuable principle that we should hesitate to challenge. On the contrary, it misunderstood not only what free speech really is but what it really means for free people to govern themselves.'' The decision in Buckley and Colorado are a threat to the principle of one person, one vote. There are Senators who disagree, and there are many, many ways with which to express that disagreement. But I will say this: No one is guaranteed free money. Mr. President, free speech is not the same as free money. It is no more right for us to stand up in indignation with all of these problems and to say there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, we cannot address it because of the free speech argument on this issue. Mr. President, we have limited speech in other ways. We have limited even the right of advertising in ways that have been demonstrated to be constitutional. When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on television? When was the last time you saw ads for drugs on television? Obviously, there are restrictions on free speech. We all know that you cannot falsely yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Mr. President, I do not buy the argument that we cannot carefully restrict speech, because we restrict speech all the time. I am out of time, and I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is about to speak as is required by the order. We will return to this issue again. Let me close by saying we also know that this legislation, this amendment, is not going to pass. But we also know that there will be another day. There will be another day to offer bipartisan campaign reform legislation from a statutory perspective. I intend to be as aggressively supportive of that as I can be. Let me say that this issue will not go away, not when our sons and daughters will be spending $145 million in the year 2025 just to walk in this door and vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on March 17, 1937, Amelia Earhart took to the skies in her Lockheed 10E to fulfill her dream to be the first pilot ever to circumnavigate the globe at its longest point--the Equator. Today, she stands as one of our greatest American heroes. Through her vision and spirit, she demonstrated to the world that limits are more often perceived than real. This morning, 60 years after Ms. Earhart began her journey, Linda Finch took off from Oakland, CA, to re-create and complete Earhart's heroic expedition. Spanning 5 continents and making more than 30 stops in 20 countries, Linda will closely replicate Earhart's route. The flight is expected to take 2\1/2\ months, and is the first to re-create Earhart's flight using the same make and model aircraft, a Lockheed Electra 10E, with only a pilot and navigator at the controls. Indeed, the aircraft has been meticulously and accurately restored to replicate Earhart's Electra right down to its rivets. Linda hopes that her journey, called World Flight 1997, will inspire millions of American children with Earhart's belief that with faith in yourself, anything is possible. As she notes, ``World Flight was created to share Amelia Earhart's vision with young people. The heart of the World Flight project is its outreach to inner city and at-risk youth with her message about reaching above and beyond perceived limitations.'' To spread this message, she has developed an interactive educational program for students, including an Internet web page that will allow students to track her flight in real time and read messages from Linda and her navigator. Like her, it is my hope that children all over the world will follow her travels, and from them gain the confidence to follow dreams of their own. As Linda begins her flight, I wish her a safe journey. Like her hero Amelia Earhart, she is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Harry Truman once said, ``It is amazing what we can accomplish if we don't care who gets the credit.'' That kind of selfless leadership is not found much in Washington anymore. But it is the essence of my great friend, Wendell Ford. Earlier this week, Senator Ford announced he would not seek a fifth term in this body. For me, the news is bittersweet. I know how much Senator Ford looks forward to spending more time with his wife Jean and their family. I know how much he misses Kentucky, how much he simply just wants to go fishing with his grandchildren. But I also know how much I will miss him and how much the Senate will miss him. It is one of the traditions of this Senate that we carve our names inside our desks. Carved inside Senator Ford's desk is the name of one of this body's towering giants, Senator Henry Clay, ``the Great Compromiser.'' It is fitting that Wendell Ford and Henry Clay should share the same desk--not just because they are both sons of Kentucky, but because they both understand that democracy requires compromise. We can never compromise on principle. But we can--and we must--be willing to negotiate details if we are to accomplish anything of consequence. That is one of many lessons I learned from Wendell Ford. It is ironic that Wendell Ford comes from Kentucky, home of the great racehorses, because he is not a racehorse; he is a workhorse. He has served the people of his State for more than 32 years as State senator, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, and now for the last 22 years as U.S. Senator. But he has always remained a public servant. When he announced his decision not to seek reelection, Senator Ford said he loves this Senate as much as life itself. The reason he loves it, though, is not because of the power or the glamour; those things have never really interested Wendell Ford. He loves this institution because of the history that has been made here and because of the potential that exists here. The potential to help people. To make the promise of America a reality for every American. To include those who have been left out. That is why Wendell Ford loves this Senate. His great pride is not that he has sat with Presidents, but that he can sit and talk with friends at every creek and in every holler in Kentucky, and that Kentucky is better and, frankly, America is better because of his efforts. He is truly a leader among leaders. We need more people like Wendell Ford in the U.S. Senate today. During his years here, Senator Ford has distinguished himself as a leader in areas from energy to aviation to election reform. As chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, he helped reduce Senate committee spending. He has been a long and persistent advocate of a 2-year Federal budget to help this body look beyond the immediate and plan better for our future. He was the chief force behind the creation of an independent Federal Aviation Administration. He was a prime sponsor of the motor voter registration bill which has brought millions of new Americans into the electoral process. He was the chief sponsor, in 1990, of a Democratic campaign finance reform package, and I fully expect him to spend the next year and a half working to make bipartisan finance in campaigns a reality. As Democratic whip since 1990, Wendell Ford found yet another way to serve his caucus and his country. Whenever there has been a need, he has stood ready to fill it. Every Democrat --indeed, every Member of the Senate--has his or her own story to tell about how Wendell Ford has made a powerful and positive contribution to this institution and to the Nation. On a personal note, let me say that Wendell has been a very special friend to my wife Linda and me. He has been a constant source of wisdom, of strength and perspective. I must say, I could not possibly express the gratitude that I feel for the great blessing that that friendship has meant to me now over all these years. Years from now, when we are all gone from here, a new Senator will open the desk now occupied by Senator Ford and see his name carved there. He or she will be reminded not just of what this Senate was, but what it can be. As he looks at the names of Henry Clay and Wendell Ford, and recognizes the greatness that that desk represents now, not caring much about who gets the accomplishment credit but just who gets the work done, they, as we, will thank Wendell Ford for his contribution, for his vision, for his commitment to public service, and for his friendship. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can regain the floor for a moment to say, given the accommodation of the majority leader, I think it is imperative that we use this time. I was pleased yesterday. I don't think there was a quorum call, and I think it was indicative of the kind of interest there is on the issue and the kind of debate that it generated. I hope we don't see quorum calls today. I hope we can maximize the use of the time. I think we all know the outcome of this debate, so it isn't necessarily the outcome that is driving the interest as much as just the philosophical approach we take to a very important issue. But, nonetheless, I appreciate very much the majority leader's interest in accommodating Senators to allow for the debate and we maximize the use of the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished majority leader for his announcements regarding the schedule. I agree completely with his assessment of the need to define a time agreement for Merrick Garland. I hope 3 hours can be sufficient. I can't imagine that we would need more than that amount of time. Obviously, there are issues unrelated to Mr. Garland that need to be addressed. I was interested in the Judicial Conference statement just this week, the 27-judge group, chaired by Chief Rehnquist, actually called upon Congress to create more judges. The group agreed to seek the authorization for 12 new appellate judgeships, 26 trial court judgeships, and 18 bankruptcy court judgeships, over and above the 93 vacancies that exist today. This is going to become an increasingly important matter for the Senate. I intend to work closely with the majority leader to see if we can't resolve the question of nominations and confirmations relating to judges. I appreciate very much his leadership and cooperation that he has demonstrated in working through the Cabinet-level appointments that we have been able to address so far this year. Mr. President, I will also say, in talking with a number of my colleagues who want the opportunity to express themselves on the constitutional amendment, I am not sure that our side will be prepared to agree to a time certain for a vote today, but I will certainly work with the distinguished majority leader to see if we can't find a mutually convenient time with which to begin bringing this debate to a close.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have finally arrived at this point in the process to confirm Federico Pena as the new Secretary of Energy. In my view, it has already taken too long to bring this nomination to the floor of the Senate and I hope and expect that he will be confirmed overwhelmingly today. The delays in bringing this nomination to the floor have had nothing to do with Secretary Pena's qualifications for the job. His reputation and integrity are unblemished. Through his long and distinguished career in public service, Secretary Pena has established an outstanding reputation as a creative and able administrator, including his work as mayor of Denver, CO, and more recently as Secretary of Transportation. The questions that have been raised about his fitness for this job have all been answered through extensive questioning before the Senate Energy and Armed Services Committees. No one can argue credibly that Secretary Pena does not have the experience or leadership to head the Department of Energy. The delay in bringing this nomination to the floor has resulted from efforts to force the administration into accepting an ill-conceived plan to establish an interim nuclear waste depository in Nevada. This effort to link this confirmation to changes in administration policy has been unfair to the administration and to Secretary Pena, who has pledged to work with Congress to try and find a solution to this complex and daunting problem in a manner that is acceptable to all involved. The Energy Department needs a Secretary now to address the range of issues and challenges that lie before it, including nuclear waste disposal, electric utility deregulation, hazardous materials cleanup, and the broad questions about our Nation's future energy supply. Federico Pena will be an excellent Secretary of Energy and I fully expect that he will guide that Department through these many challenges in a decisive and competent manner. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the nomination of Federico Pena to be Secretary of Energy and to work cooperatively with him in the future to address responsibly the challenges that face our great Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could, Mr. President, indicate that we had intended to offer an amendment dealing with a date certain for taking up campaign finance reform, and obviously because we have made so much progress on this issue and because the majority leader has indicated his desire to work with us on the issue of an independent counsel, as well, we will defer that until another time and another circumstance. We are not intending at this point to offer legislation which would direct the Senate in that regard. I appreciate, again, the cooperation and consensus that we have been able to work out on both sides on both these matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just use this opportunity to thank the majority leader and all of his senior leadership on the committees, as well as the leadership on our side, Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, and certainly Senator Ford, and all of those responsible for bringing us to this point. This has not been easy. This has been a matter that has divided us for too long a period of time. For us now to be able to come together on this matter, I think, is a good omen. I am very appreciative of the contribution made by so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I hope that with unanimity we can support this request this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly after I was elected to this body, I made a call on one of my heroes. His office walls were covered with photographs. One of them was an old picture of two men standing next to an airplane. I couldn't make out the faces, but there was no mistaking the signature. It read simply, ``To our good friend Claude Pepper, Wilbur and Orville Wright.'' Next to that was a picture of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon. I couldn't see his face. But again, the signature was clear. It read, ``To my good friend Claude Pepper, Neil Armstrong.'' Here was a man who had seen practically the whole scope of the 20th century. He'd served in both the House and the Senate. I asked him what advice he had for a new Senator from South Dakota. He told me, ``The election's over now. It doesn't matter any more whether you're an `R' or a `D.' What matters now is whether you're a `C' or a `D'--a `constructive' or a `destructive.' I've been here a long time. I've seen a lot of people try to tear this country down, and too few people who have tried to build it up.'' ``America needs more constructives,'' he told me. I've thought of that conversation many times during the past few weeks as we have debated, on and off this floor, how this investigation should proceed. As the Governmental Affairs Committee has proceeded--hiring lawyers and issuing subpoenas--Democrats have raised concerns about how this investigation was being structured. Our purpose was not to stall this inquiry, but to ensure that it serves a constructive purpose, not a destructive one. We have always wanted the investigation to go forward. But we also want it to shed light on illegal and improper activities--wherever they may have occurred. And, most important, we want this investigation to provide a road map for real reform of our campaign finance laws. How can we make sure this process results in reform, not merely revenge? That's what the debate over these last few weeks has been about. To a large extent, that debate has now been resolved. And Democrats are resolved, in turn, to join with Republicans to see that this inquiry addresses the significant concerns we all have about the problems that surfaced during the last campaign cycle. I want to thank Senator Glenn for all he has done to get us to this point. He and his staff have been dogged in their determination to make sure that this inquiry is truly bipartisan, and that it will lead to legislative solutions. I also want to thank Senator Thompson. We agreed with Senator Thompson when he first said that the investigation should examine illegal and improper activities in all Federal elections, Presidential and congressional. We fought when others tried to narrow that scope. We objected to a budget request that was unprecedented and, in our opinion, lacked accountability. At the same time, we proposed a process to allow the committee to request additional funds and ensure that this inquiry does not lapse prematurely. We insisted that Congress set at least a tentative date by which the inquiry would end, just as earlier Congresses did with investigations into the Iran-Contra and Whitewater affairs. Again, we said that process could be extended, if necessary. We said the Governmental Affairs Committee must produce a public report after it completes its work. If the American people are going to invest $5 million taxpayer dollars in this investigation, they deserve to know what we learn. So we fought for accountability. Finally, we believe it's not enough to document the problems in the glare of television lights. When the lights are turned off, we have to be serious about the hard work of solving the problems. So we asked for a commitment from our colleagues that the Senate would debate campaign finance reform this year. These are the issues we raised--that we were obligated to raise. Nearly all of our concerns have been incorporated into the funding resolution we will adopt today. Their inclusion is a victory not for one party or another, but for the integrity of the inquiry itself. It is the strength of our system of government that, when the debate has ended and the real work begins, both parties cooperate where they can to address public concerns. This, I believe and hope, is where we now stand. On the central question, Democrats and Republicans agree: this is an important investigation. Most critical of all is the question of improper foreign influence in U.S. elections, and on U.S. policy. This is an American issue, not a partisan issue. Have foreign governments sought to influence the outcome of American elections? Democrats support and will join in the most vigorous inquiry into this troubling question. American elections must be decided by American voters and funded by Americans, and only Americans. Another question, perhaps looming over all the others, is how could we get to this point? How could the campaign finance laws break down, or appear to break down, so completely that we now must conduct an investigation of unprecedented scope and size? Many of our Republican colleagues insist that the system is working. Yet, in asking for nearly $5 million to conduct this investigation, they admit more tellingly than words alone that there is a cancer at the core our election laws and their enforcement. Congress can't convene hearings of this kind after every election to address questions of illegal fundraising. It will have to rely on appropriate laws--and effective enforcement. Ensuring sound laws and energetic enforcement is the real test of whether the hearings we are about to begin make a lasting contribution. So, for each of the activities the hearings examine, relevant questions need to be asked: How widespread was illegal or improper questionable activity? Will we find various but discrete episodes, or a pattern to circumvent campaign finance laws? Who was responsible for failing to oversee compliance? Were the violations a result of individual misconduct, or a climate of indifference to the law? What was the law at the time? Was it clear or unclear? Where we find misconduct, was it deliberate, reckless, or inadvertent? Where were the lawyers? Where was the FEC? What notice was given to the FEC that these practices were occurring? What actions, if any, did the FEC take? Are there still actions the FEC should take? Did the public records, including reports on file with the FEC, reflect the misconduct? Or are they inadequate to the task of informing the public that something is seriously amiss in the financing of campaigns? These are critical questions. If we will ask these and other questions--without fear or favor--we can achieve historic reforms. Will we seize this opportunity, or squander it? Will we be ``constructives'' or ``destructives?'' The choice is up to us.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I only do so for purposes of clarification. I think what the majority leader is proposing here goes a long way to resolving one of the issues that divided Democrats and Republicans. First, I commend him and commend those responsible for offering this amendment. What this would do is to add the word ``improper'' at the appropriate places within the authorization to allow us to look at both improper and illegal activity. So, as I say, this goes a long way to resolving the conflict that we have discussed now for some time and that was the subject of debate this morning. So this moves this process along. I would certainly urge all of my colleagues to agree to this unanimous consent request. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate this afternoon, and I appreciate and commend the participation of the distinguished Senator from Arizona and our ranking member on the Finance Committee, and certainly the chair of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Delaware, for their leadership on this issue. I think it has been shown this afternoon that, as a representative of the United States in trade negotiations around the world, Ambassador Barshefsky has proven herself to be a tough and effective advocate of American interests. Her solid record of achievement has done much to level the playing field for American producers. She understands the challenges facing the United States in the world trading system. Her negotiating style combines careful preparation, great stamina, determination, and a willingness to exercise the leverage provided by U.S. trade laws when circumstances warrant it. For example, as a key architect of the United States-Japan Framework Agreements, she used the leverage provided by tariffs on Japanese luxury car imports to gain better market access in Japan for American car manufacturers without penalizing consumers back home. Thanks, in part, to her efforts, exports of foreign vehicles to Japan have increased by 30 percent last year, and the number of American franchise dealer outlets reached near 20. American companies are making substantial investments in Japan and forging important new partnerships with Japanese business. Ambassador Barshefsky has also demonstrated she appreciates the crucial role agriculture trade plays in the American economy. Last year, the trade surplus in agricultural products reached $28.5 billion, the largest of any industry. Still, as she has acknowledged to me, we could do far better. Annual surveys compiled by the Office of U.S. Trade Representative indicate that roughly half of the foreign trade barriers facing U.S. products are in the agricultural sector. Persistent market access barriers and other unfair trade practices continue to be a source of concern, and although agricultural exports, as a whole, have risen, problems remain in many areas, including beef and cattle prices. In my view, liberalizing world trade is part of the answer to problems in the agricultural economy. However, our negotiators must be prepared not only to seek new global agreements but also to ensure that individual trading partners comply with their market access commitments from previous ones. Thankfully, in Charlene Barshefsky, we have found someone who understands this challenge. In recent years, she has worked to increase beef exports to Korea, increase the availability of fresh produce in Japan and China, and thwart European trade barriers that could have devastated American soybean and corn exports. There has been a 30 percent increase in the value of agricultural exports since 1994, and I am confident that we will continue to build on this progress under her leadership. Ambassador Barshefsky has been widely praised and supported by industry leader in many sectors of the economy. Alfred J. Stein, chairman of the Semiconductor Industry Association and VLSI Technology Inc., has stated that ``the President could not have found a more talented and dedicated envoy to represent the U.S. trade interest.'' John E. Pepper, Chairman of Procter and Gamble Company, has said that ``Ambassador Barshefshy . . . represents U.S. trade interests in an aggressive yet diplomatic manner. The nation is fortunate to have [her] as our U.S. Trade Representative.'' Gary Hufbauer, a scholar at the Institute for International Economics, has described her as ``easily the most qualified, most knowledgeable person on trade law ever nominated to this post.'' In my opinion, Ambassador Barshefsky's experience, knowledge and tenacity make her the best person for the job. She has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination and the proposed waiver from the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The waiver is necessary because she performed a limited amount of work for Canadian interests while she was an international trade lawyer in private practice. Effective January 1, 1996, the Lobbying Disclosure Act bars anyone who previously represented a foreign government from being nominated for a senior USTR post. The Ambassador was exempted from this requirement during her service as Deputy USTR, and it is appropriate to ``grandfather'' her tenure as U.S. Trade Representative as well. The distinguished ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, is proposing an amendment to the waiver that I must reluctantly oppose. I have sympathy for the issue he raises and might well support his efforts under different circumstances. However, the leadership of the body has expressed its firm opposition to Senator Hollings' legislation, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Archer has indicated that he will seek to have any bill including the language ``blue-slipped'', or sent back to the Senate, on the grounds that it would constitute a revenue measure that must originate in the House. For these reasons, adoption by the Senate of the Hollings amendment would almost certainly delay Ambassador Barshefsky's nomination for an unacceptably long time. The Senate has a responsibility to approve the President's Cabinet nominees as expeditiously as possible. Ambassador Barshefsky is a particularly fine choice, and, in my view, the Senate should not take any action that would delay her confirmation further. Accordingly, I must ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. Again, Mr. President, let me urge all Senators who support the nomination to support the joint resolution waiver to give Ambassador Barshefsky the kind of bipartisan support that her record, that her ability, that her intellect, and that her potential demand. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member, the senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Carrasco, of the Judiciary Committee staff, be permitted privileges of the floor during the duration of the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to begin by complimenting the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, for his extraordinary leadership on this debate over the last several weeks. His effort on the floor is appreciated by all of the Members of our caucus. While I am not surprised at his demonstration of leadership and his work on this legislation, as he has demonstrated on so many occasions, we are deeply indebted to him. I must also express my gratitude to the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senator Dorgan, Senator Reid, and many others who have done so much to represent our concerns time and time again over the course of the last 4 weeks of debate on this particular issue. I had hoped, Madam President, that the next time Congress voted on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I could support it. Instead, we are faced with the same deeply flawed amendment that was rejected last year. This did not have to be. We had scores of opportunities to fix it, to protect Social Security, to provide for the possibility of a capital budget, to build into this amendment the flexibility to protect our Nation in times of war, disaster, or regional or national economic emergency. But every one of those opportunities--every one--was rejected along party lines. I have been astonished during the debate to hear some of my colleagues say they will vote for this amendment even though, in their words, it is not perfect. In fact, one of my colleagues came up to me recently to say, ``We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good when we legislate.'' Well, that is often true in other matters. But when it comes to the Constitution of the United States of America, Madam President, we should demand perfection. This is not a campaign position paper we are talking about changing. It is the most inspired, the most important political document in the history of this country. People have died to defend our Constitution. Every Senator here has taken an oath to protect it. We may rarely achieve perfection. After all, we are human. But when we are dealing with the Constitution of the United States of America, we should never knowingly settle for anything less--not now, not ever. No, this amendment is far from perfect. Under this amendment, we now know that Congress would be required--not just permitted, but required--to raid the Social Security trust funds to run the Government. That isn't my opinion; that is the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the Office of Management and Budget. Social Security is now running huge surpluses because of the 1983 bipartisan agreement that rescued the program. We all look back with a great deal of satisfaction at that particular vote and the actions taken, on a bipartisan basis, by the Congress at that time. The heart of that agreement was a plan to set aside funds for the baby boomers' retirement that we know are going to be needed. This year, that surplus is $78 billion. By the year 2002, it will reach $104 billion. By 2019, when many of the baby boomers start to retire, the Social Security trust funds will have built up a $3 trillion surplus, which will be desperately needed to pay those retirees, including this Senator. But if we pass this version of the balanced budget amendment, none of those funds will be available to pay those Social Security benefits-- not $1. Social Security could be paid only from taxes raised in the same year, not from surpluses built up years before. That means when the baby boomers retire, Congress would have to raise taxes dramatically or slash Social Security benefits deeply, or both, to accommodate the circumstances that we will be facing at that time. Madam President, this isn't conjecture; this is the analysis given to us by virtually every credible budgetary source to whom we have gone for counsel and advice on this important matter. So what was our response? Well, our response was to offer amendments to resolve that problem. Our amendments said if we are going to build up that trust fund to $3 trillion and know full well that we are going to have to draw down that trust fund at some point in the future, let's take every precaution to ensure that it will be there. We offered amendments to protect it. Now, our Republican colleagues defeated every single amendment as it was brought up in committee and on the floor. Again, our Republican colleagues argued that this is not something we should really worry about. Misusing the Social Security trust funds to pay for other Government programs is not just bad accounting, it's bad faith. Combining the Social Security trust funds with the rest of the budget doesn't pay off the deficit; it just masks its size. It allows us to claim that the budget is balanced when we know really it isn't. When they claim we have a balanced budget in the year 2002, we are going to increase our debt by $130 billion. Madam President, this isn't the way we ought to legislate. This isn't simply a question of making perfect the amendment. It becomes clear that this amendment is not perfect in any fundamental way when one analyzes how it would work. In my view, this amendment, as it is presented right now, is duplicitous. Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar short. It is the most successful social program in the history of our country. For millions of older Americans, it is the difference between living in dignity and living in fear and poverty. A balanced budget amendment should not force us to break that historic contract. It should be honest in how it accounts for and uses the Social Security trust funds. While misuse of the Social Security trust funds is my gravest concern, I am also deeply troubled that this amendment would limit, for all perpetuity, how Congress can treat large-scale capital investments. Let there be no misunderstanding here. If this amendment passes, any proposal to create a capital budget would be declared unconstitutional. If a project could not be paid for in one year, it could not be undertaken. Capital investments, such as roads, bridges, and water projects strengthen our economy for the future. It seems to me that it would be profoundly unwise for us to pass an amendment that forbids even consideration of a capital budget. It would threaten the very economic competitiveness that we all say we desire. Again, we offered amendments to correct this flaw, to allow for the possibility of a capital budget, and, again, they were defeated--every single one along party lines--in committee and on the floor. The majority leader suggested a willingness to provide for a capital budget, only after it was clear that he didn't have the votes without it. While I welcome such sudden openness, we have not yet seen any solid proposals from the other side in this regard. Madam President, I just ask the question: If virtually every State recognizes the importance of distinguishing between a capital budget, long-term investments, and operating costs, why is it that we don't see the need to do so as well? If every family and every business were required to pay off every mortgage and investment every year, I question whether any of them could sustain that kind of requirement or that kind of an economic procedure. Yet, that is exactly what we are suggesting must be our course of action, for all perpetuity, for the Federal Government. We can't even consider the possibility of a capital budget under the amendment as it is drafted right now. Another serious flaw with this amendment has to do with our national security. Section 5 of this amendment jeopardizes our ability to prepare for situations that we know will require intervention, such as in the Persian Gulf. For Congress to waive this amendment, the United States ``must be engaged in military conflict.'' Let me restate that. For us to be eligible for the exception under this constitutional amendment, we already have to be fighting a war in order to tap resources that may be required to fight that effort. In Desert Shield, we needed to build up before the conflict. We stipulated that the conflict was imminent. As a result, we were able to be prepared when the conflict came in Desert Storm. To say that there has to be a conflict before we can provide legislative support, in my view, is extraordinarily poorly worded and ill-founded. None of us, today, would want to look the men and the women we sent to the Persian Gulf in the eye and say that we want you to go fight first, and we will support you later. We want you to go put your lives on the line and, at some point after you start fighting, we will get around to providing you with the necessary resources. Madam President, that is exactly what this amendment says. I hope that everybody will think very carefully about whether or not we want to commit to section 5 of this constitutional amendment. No, this amendment isn't perfect, and it is not as good as it could have been, and it is clearly not good enough to include in the Constitution of the United States of America. So I, with many of my colleagues, am left with the inescapable conclusion that we must vote against it. At the same time, I think it is imperative that we redouble our efforts to actually balance the budget, rather than just talk about it. Madam President, in the last couple of days, I have been dismayed at some of the remarks made by some on the other side with regard to the budget process. I thought we had an understanding that we were going to work toward a budget agreement that would allow us to meet our deadlines by April 15. Instead, now we are playing politics on the other side with a budget agreement, telling the President to come forth with a second budget agreement, prior to the time those who are complaining have even come with a first one. I hope we can quit playing political games with the budget process and get in that room and do what we are supposed to do in the Budget Committee to balance the budget. Let's start working through this budget process tomorrow. Let's start meeting the deadlines set into law. The committee hasn't met in 2 weeks. I think it is high time to demonstrate some real leadership here. When it comes to the budget process, that ought to start with a date certain for a markup on the budget itself. We have come a long way. We have a record now that we can look back on with some pride, having reduced the deficit from $290 billion in 1993 to $107 billion this year. We need to go the rest of the way, and we can do so only if we continue to reduce spending as successfully and aggressively in the next 5 years as we have in the recent past. I am troubled, frankly, not only with the fact that we have not seen any proposal on the part of Republican Members with regard to a budget itself, but by the tax proposal being proposed now by the majority leader. It would create a deficit of over $1 trillion in the next 20 years to pay for new tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit those who don't need them at all. If these new tax breaks were to pass, they would cost $500 billion over the first 10 years and $750 billion over the next 10 years, at a time when we ought to be reducing the deficit, reducing the debt, and coming together in a bipartisan way to resolve our differences. It must be difficult for South Dakotans to understand how some of those who argue that we need to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget can turn around and offer tax breaks that add more than $1 trillion to the deficit. I might remind my colleagues that, even if we balance the budget, we have a $5.5 trillion accumulated debt that we have not yet paid down. Eliminating the deficit is only the first step. We still have the debt. If Senators continue to complicate our situation by offering tax measures that contribute massively to the deficit we are facing over the next few years, it is hard to believe that they are really serious about fiscal responsibility. My expectation today is that this amendment will fail. But if I am wrong, if somehow it passes, then I am confident that it will fail when it is sent to the States for ratification. As Americans learn more about the consequences of this ill-considered proposal, I hope that Congress will ultimately resolve to work through the many deficiencies in this amendment, and correct it in ways that we have suggested time and again on the Senate floor. David Ramsey was a member of the Continental Congress that adopted our Declaration of Independence. He said, ``The adoption of the Constitution was a triumph of virtue and good sense over the vices and follies of human nature.'' It was, in fact, that rarest of events, the triumph of the perfect over merely the good. For 208 years, Congress has defended that triumph of the perfect over the good when it comes to the Constitution. It is our solemn responsibility now to uphold that standard. When it comes to the Constitution, we should settle for nothing less than perfection. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer and appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear our majority leader last week discuss matters of concern to him, especially as they related to the balanced budget amendment. But I was disappointed to read press reports, and then read the Record this morning, with regard to some of his comments relating to some of our colleagues. He has noted on the floor that in the past, this has been a positive debate, an instructive debate and a debate that clarifies differences among us. I think that characterization is accurate. Oftentimes on the Senate floor, in heated debate, we say and espouse things we wish we could take back later. But this debate has largely been devoid of that. I think that has been productive and ought to be the way we conduct ourselves. So it was somewhat surprising to me to hear the majority leader so personally attack some of our colleagues and express himself as he did. It was, in my view, uncharacteristic of the majority leader. I hope that we can retain the level of decorum and the level of civility on the Senate floor that will lend itself to a good debate on this and many other very controversial and extraordinarily contentious issues in the future. We, as leaders, need to set the example. We, as leaders, need to demonstrate that there is a threshold of civility and a standard which we should follow that, in my view, ought to be demonstrated first and foremost by the leadership. I know of many cases where colleagues on the Senate floor, Republican and Democratic, have taken positions on any one of a number of issues and concluded, having been presented with more information, that the original position they took was not one they could accept now. That has happened in cases involving constitutional amendments, involving statutory law, and involving other legislation. I hope it would be the way we conduct ourselves in considering many of the issues affecting our country and its future. Obviously, with new information, and under different circumstances, one comes to different conclusions. I, myself, faced a similar set of circumstances early on. I have always wanted to be on the side of those supporting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. On reflection, much of the language that we have resorted to in the past, that we have used in the past, is language that, in retrospect, is not as appropriate for the Constitution as we had originally thought it might be. I am very concerned about the implications of any amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but especially one involving our economy, especially one involving our own fiscal responsibility, especially one involving our ability to cope with a myriad of circumstances that this country is going to confront at some point in the future. So clearly, as my colleagues have indicated, new information has been presented to us this year. We have received new information from the Congressional Research Service, new information from the Office of Management and Budget, and new information from the Treasury Department, all reporting that the circumstances involving the Social Security trust fund are vastly different than what we were originally led to believe during the 1980's. There is a difference in the interpretation of the Social Security trust fund than what I was originally presented as fact in years past. What we are now told, not by some partisan organization but by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, and by the Office of Management and Budget, is that funds used for Social Security purposes are going to have to be offset with other funds, such as tax increases or spending cuts, in order to be paid out at an appropriate time in the future. Now, if we worked for a company and we were told that we had invested a certain amount of dollars--say $100,000--in our own retirement fund and then told that, before we could draw those funds out, the company would have to replenish those funds with other funds in order for that to be available, Mr. President, I think every single prospective retiree would feel very cheated. They would feel robbed. Yet, that is exactly the circumstances now with the Social Security trust fund. Workers are paying into that fund with the expectation that it would be paid out in time to those who paid in. That will not be the case if we enshrine in the Constitution the utilization of the Social Security trust fund for purposes other than Social Security. The same can be said for the capital budget. I know that we could have a good debate for days about whether or not we have a capital budget in this country. We all recognize that most States have them. We recognize that most businesses have them. There is not a family I know of, that pays off its mortgage in any one year. Families, businesses, and States currently have capital budgets or a very similar budgeting concept that allow them to differentiate between long-term investment and operating expenses. My family does that. My father's business used to do that. The question is, Should we as a country do that at some point in the future? I think the answer is resoundingly, yes, we should. We need to differentiate between long-term investment and capital costs. Mr. President, we are not doing that. But whether we subscribe to that concept or not, the question should be, Should we forevermore preclude this country from even considering a capital budget? We are now told by the Congressional Research Service that we will preclude the consideration of a capital budget if this amendment passes in its current form. So, Mr. President, both on the basis of Social Security as well as the analysis of the Congressional Research Service--also confirmed by the Treasury Department--that we would be precluded from even considering a capital budget, I think these are issues that ought to weigh very heavily prior to the time our colleagues vote tomorrow afternoon. I am also very concerned about the implications for recession. When there is an economic downturn, there is no doubt that we need to respond in ways that will allow us adequate time, adequate resources, and adequate flexibility to ensure that the downturn does not get any worse. We must ensure that we have some sort of a reflexive countercyclical approach to the economic consequences that we could be facing were we to do nothing. This legislation undermines our ability to do that. I have heard it said many times that if it is a national emergency, clearly by the very definition of ``national'' you are going to have a sympathetic Senate responding to the circumstances and a sympathetic House responding to these circumstances in ways that would easily allow us to reach that threshold. Well, I ask, what about a regional recession? During the early 1990's and late 1980's, there were seven or eight very deep regional recessions. The fact is that on many occasions were we to have presented some sort of a countercyclical, antirecessionary legislative remedy, I think it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to reach that 60-vote threshold simply because of the circumstances that involve the regional implications of a recession. So, I think it is very disconcerting to be locking into place forevermore the requirement that a supermajority be the threshold by which a countercyclical recession package be considered. In addition, a poorly crafted balanced budget amendment deprives us of the automatic stabilizers that cushion the blows of a weakening economy. As an economic downturn begins, Government spending automatically increases just as tax revenues decline. Such a time would prove the worst moment to increase taxes or cut spending. Yet, a balanced budget amendment could require exactly that result, with potentially devastating consequences. A recession could be turned into a depression under those circumstances. The risk of default and shutdowns are also very disconcerting. The fact is that a supermajority requirement under this constitutional amendment may preclude our ability to reach the threshold necessary to increase the statutory debt limit at times in the future. A minority of our colleagues could hold U.S. creditworthiness hostage were we to pass an amendment that allows the minority in this country to dictate whether or not we are going to increase the debt limit. How many times have we been on the floor and struggled to find a simple majority to do what has been required? I think it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for us with the supermajority requirement to do it at any time in the future. National security is also a very serious matter. Section 5 of the pending amendment jeopardizes our ability to prepare for situations that we know will require intervention, such as the Persian Gulf effort. For Congress to waive the balanced budget amendment, the United States must be engaged in military conflict--must be engaged. In Desert Shield we needed to build up before the conflict. In Desert Shield we stipulated that the conflict was imminent, and, as a result, we needed to prepare to be as aggressively engaged as that resolution provided. To say that there has to be conflict before we can issue or provide for any legislative support, in my view, is extraordinarily poorly worded and ill-founded. Finally, Mr. President, with regard to the budget itself, I think our record over the last 5 years demonstrates that where there is a will there is a way. There has been a will. We have reduced the deficit from $295 billion to $107 billion since 1993. We have reduced the deficit by 60 percent through congressional action. Obviously, we need to go the rest of the way. But clearly, if we are going to achieve our goals in balancing the budget, we can do so if we continue to commit as successfully and as aggressively in the next 5 or 6 years as we have in the past. But I am troubled in that regard as well, Mr. President, because there are proposals, including the one offered by the majority leader, that would create a deficit of more than $500 billion in new tax breaks were we to pass the bill that he has proposed--$500 billion over 10 years and $750 billion, three-quarters of a trillion dollars, in the second decade that that tax bill would go into effect. So, it is very difficult for me to understand how some of my colleagues on one hand can argue that we need to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but then offer legislation which exacerbates the problem by a substantial margin of $500 to $750 billion in additional deficits if that legislation were to pass. I might remind my colleagues, even if we balance the budget, we have a $5.5 trillion accumulated debt that we have not yet paid down. The difference between the deficit and the debt is that the deficit, of course, is what we accumulate in new debt every year; the debt is what we have already accumulated. And we have accumulated a lot. When are we going to start buying that debt down? And how are we going to do that if we continue to exacerbate the problem, continue to complicate our situation by offering tax measures that allow a deficit of that magnitude to be added on to the troubles that we are facing over the next couple of years? Mr. President, for all those reasons, I hope my colleagues will take great care as they make their choices tomorrow afternoon. The leader had suggested that he has a couple of potential surprises in his pocket. Well, I guess I have to announce to my colleagues that I have a couple of surprises that I do not wish to talk about right now to ensure that the vote will be as we expect it will. But I do not think it ought to be a question or a contest of surprises or parliamentary maneuvers or amendments that may or may not be in our best interest. The question can be and will be and should be: Can we have a good debate about any one of a number of divisive issues like we know we have to face in this Senate, on a number of very, very difficult matters that will keep coming back? Can we do it in a civil way? Can we do it in a way that does not in some way question the motives or the positions taken by some of our colleagues? Can we do it with an expectation that will resolve that matter and go on to yet another and another day? I hope we can do that. I hope the leadership will set the example as we do that. I hope that after the vote tomorrow we can move on to other things. We are prepared to debate this longer if we need to do that. I hope that will not be the case. We should move on and get work done in the body and move on with some expectation that bipartisanship is still alive and well and flourishing here in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the junior Senator from South Dakota on his maiden speech in the U.S. Senate. As all of us recall, those are very important moments in the career of any Senator, and I appreciate very much having had the opportunity to listen to him. I applaud him for his comments and wish him well in his many years of service in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter, and I concur with the unanimous- consent request, with the understanding--which we have discussed--that if there is a family emergency or an illness that would preclude a Member from having the opportunity to vote on such an important issue as this, that we would revisit the issue. I don't anticipate that. I expect 100-percent attendance. And, as I say, we have had that understanding in our discussion also. So I do not object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last Thursday our colleague, Senator John Glenn, announced he will be retiring from the Senate at the end of his current term in 1998. While I am saddened by his decision, I certainly understand it, and I want to take a few moments to pay tribute to a man who has given a lifetime of service to his country. Soldier, astronaut, hero, businessman, statesman, nuts-and-bolts reformer. All of these words accurately describe the long, distinguished career of John Glenn. Courage, tenacity, modesty, authenticity, the ``Right Stuff.'' These words describe the character of John Glenn, the ingredients that have made this great career so memorable. When he retires on the cusp of the 21st century, John Glenn will likely be remembered as one of the great American heroes of the 20th century, both for his heroism in battle and for conquering the peaceful but uncharted frontiers of space. But he should also be remembered as a Senator who helped prepare his government to enter the 21st century as a modern, efficient force for good in people's lives. John Glenn first answered his country's call when he joined the Naval Aviation Cadet Program shortly after Pearl Harbor. He was commissioned in the Marines in 1943. First Lieutenant Glenn flew nearly 60 combat missions in the Pacific theater. His great courage and skill earned him 2 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 10 Air Medals. After the war, John Glenn remained in the Marines, was promoted to the rank of major, then distinguished himself once again in the Korean conflict. He flew 90 combat missions in just 8 months, won 2 more Distinguished Flying Crosses, 8 more Air Medals, and numerous accolades from his fellow Marines, including the titles Mig-mad Marine.'' John Glenn could have retired from the military after Korea and entered civilian life a decorated hero. He chose instead to stay in the service and take on more challenges, including new frontiers that, at that time, existed only in the imaginations of most men. As a military test pilot in 1957, John Glenn established a new flight speed record, earning credit for the first-ever transcontinental supersonic flight. This record flight also earned him his fifth Distinguished Flying Cross and caught the eye of NASA's Project Mercury program, dedicated to launch the first human into space. As a Mercury astronaut, John Glenn put in many months of intense training, and in 1961 he was chosen to make America's first attempt to orbit the Earth. Numerous technical and weather problems delayed his attempt for 2 months. One can only imagine the pressure of an on-again, off-again wait for a risky, dangerous feat that no man had ever accomplished. But John Glenn's moment finally came when an Atlas-D rocket launched his tiny capsule, Friendship 7, into Earth's orbit on February 20, 1962. After the first of three planned orbits at up to 162 miles away from Earth, he lost the use of the automatic control mechanism that stabilized his craft. He then had to complete the final two orbits of the 81,000-mile flight under manual control, an incredibly dangerous challenge. In an interview some years later, John Glenn said of this moment: ``I was fully aware of the danger. And certainly there was apprehension. No matter what preparation you make, there comes the moment of truth. You're playing with big stakes--your life. But the important thing to me wasn't fear, but what you can do to control it.'' John Glenn left the Marine Corps in 1965 after 23 years of remarkable service. These two heroic decades are emblazoned on the American conscience. They are the material of which books are written and movies made. But John Glenn's Senate career of more than two decades will be the material serious students of government, cost-conscious taxpayers, and anyone concerned with the spread of dangerous nuclear weapons will remember. It is a career full of quiet, serious dedication to serve the people of Ohio, to make our Government work better, and to make our world safe from the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We will remember John Glenn's Senate career for many things. Among his accomplishments, Senator Glenn used his Governmental Affairs Committee post to root out Government waste, modernize Government, and save taxpayer dollars. Senator Glenn shepherded the Clinton administration's reinventing Government'' initiatives through the Senate. His efforts helped streamline Federal purchasing procedures and trim the federal workforce by 250,000 employees to the lowest level since John Kennedy was President. He fought to create Chief Financial Officers for most major federal agencies, making those agencies more accountable and efficient. He helped to install independent inspectors general in nearly 40 Government agencies and offices to ferret out wasteful spending, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions per year. In the last few years, Senator Glenn extended his hand across the aisle to help pass legislation that brought Congress into compliance with Federal workplace laws. He fought for the bill that made it harder for Congress to pass on unfunded mandates to the States and localities. And he worked to pass legislation aimed at reducing the Government's paperwork volume. Senator Glenn has never disparaged Government service nor bashed Government workers. He knows and recognizes the honor of public service. But he also knows that waste and lack of accountability undermine public confidence in Government, and he has dedicated a Senate career to combatting them. Senator Glenn also made a career of fighting for a strong defense that balances the demands of national security and common sense. He authored the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, the only law on the books to control and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. A tenacious advocate for veterans, he led the effort to elevate the Veterans Administration to cabinet-level status and helped pass a package of benefits for troops serving in the Persian Gulf war. At the same time, Senator Glenn fought against weapons systems he considered wasteful, like the B-2, the MX missile, and the Star Wars program. He brought rare experience as a veteran and military hero to these efforts. He was rarely wrong, and he rarely lost a legislative battle. Mr. President, the Senate community can be a contentious place. But because of people like John Glenn and his wife, Annie, it can also be a friendly, decent, and inspiring place, where someone can serve with a real American hero who is also a true gentleman. Our Senate family, like the people of Ohio, will miss Senator Glenn when he retires in 1999. For your lifetime of service, we are deeply indebted, and we thank you, Senator, gentleman, and American hero, John Glenn. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.