Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Exon. This will be the last budget he works on in his capacity as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. I must say no one has put more effort, more work, and more real leadership into this whole process than has he over the last many years. He is an extraordinary member of the caucus. It has been my good fortune to work with him very closely and, fortunately, with great effectiveness as a result of his participation. I thank him, not only for his work in this Congress, but for all the years that he has worked so diligently as a very key member of the Budget Committee. Let me also commend his excellent staff, led by Staff Director Bill Dauster, for the outstanding work they have done in presenting our case on this budget and throughout the many difficult budget battles in this Congress. They do exemplary staff work, and they have served this Senator, and indeed our entire caucus and the American people, with distinction and intelligence. Let me also thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. He works diligently and with passion and conviction. I oftentimes remark about the real contribution he makes. I may find myself in disagreement with him on many occasions, but not with him personally. He carries out his duties admirably. I commend him for his work. In this case, Mr. President, in spite of his leadership, the fact is that he proposes to move this process in the wrong direction. He and his colleagues have produced a budget that is designed to appear more moderate, but it contains the same failed policies that the President was forced to veto last winter. In fact, this budget, in spite of all of the good work and rhetoric of the distinguished chairman, contains the same extreme proposals relating to Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, and the other issues we debated so vociferously last winter. It is just as extreme if you follow it out to take into account the 7-year budget timeframe that we had to work with last year. The numbers are hardly different. So no one should be misled. This is almost identical to what we were presented last year. Because of the extreme and harmful policies it contains, the President had to veto it last year. The President has offered a plan that balances the budget without resorting to such extremism. The deficit as a result of his efforts and our efforts over the last 4 years has been cut by more than half. The deficit was $290 billion in 1992. The deficit this year is $130 billion. For 4 years in a row, the first time since the 1940's, we have cut the deficit dramatically. This resulted from real leadership, and because we did what we said we were going to do. This deficit will actually go back up under the Republican budget plan for the next 2 years. So instead of this hyperbole and instead of all of the partisan rhetoric, we ought to be negotiating downtown with the White House, sitting down with the President and the bipartisan congressional leadership, and finding an agreement that will balance the budget by 2002. Instead, as is often the case in this Congress, Democrats have been locked out: locked out of the budget negotiations, locked out of the budget process almost entirely, and locked out of any real effort to try to resolve these matters in a bipartisan way. There are many problems with this budget. But I want to cite very briefly just six. First of all, this budget reveals again what is really at the heart of the Republican priority list: more tax breaks for those who do not need them. The conference agreement drops any pretense of balancing the budget before it provides for the opportunity to propose tax cuts. At least in the Senate bill the tax cuts were contingent on the passage of two other bills which actually cut the deficit and achieved balance. The reconciliation prescription in this budget conference report does not even do that. The conference agreement drops all contingencies. It proposes that major tax reduction proposals for those at the very highest income levels be dealt with in the very first reconciliation package that comes before the Senate. The first bill could be a $122 billion net tax cut in addition to the deep cuts in Medicaid and welfare. The actual tax breaks, Mr. President, will actually add up to $180 billion in that bill, according to the Chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body. This arrangement will force a veto. It is designed to include devastating Medicaid cuts that will act as a poison pill. There is no doubt in my view that the tax cuts that we are going to be confronted with are the same kind that created the deficit. Just after we have been able to deal so effectively with the deficit over the last 4 years is no time to turn back the clock and propose budget-busting tax breaks before any serious effort to cut the deficit. So that is problem No. 1: approving tax cuts before we actually make room for them; tax cuts in many cases that are not necessary; tax cuts that are going to drive up the deficit all over again in the not-too- distant future. The second problem is the excessive Medicare cuts that we all know are incorporated in this plan. The tax cuts, in large measure, to the extent they are paid for at all, are paid for out of Medicare cuts, $168 billion in Medicare cuts. We know these deep cuts will lower quality of health care provided to millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities. We know they threaten the solvency of many rural hospitals, who may be forced close their doors. We know they will undercut the ability of many beneficiaries to gain access to care, and we know they will create real problems for many who obtain their health only through the Medicare system today. Mr. President, these issues will go away. They must be addressed in a comprehensive way. We know we have to deal with solvency. The President's budget proposal maintains the solvency of Medicare for the next 10 years. Yet, the pending budget resolution contains $50 billion more in Medicare reductions than the President's plan. The only purpose of such unnecessary reductions in Medicare is to finance the excessive tax breaks proposed in this resolution. We simply cannot accept a willingness on the part of some to use deep Medicare cuts to pay for the tax cuts in this budget plan. The third problem is that this bill virtually destroys Medicaid--it proposes $72 billion in Medicaid cuts. We are also concerned about the way in which these cuts are provided. It proposes to turn the Medicaid Program into block grants. This approach does not reflect the bipartisan plan proposed by the National Governors Association. It has been opposed by Democratic Governors. Block grants would create a tremendous inconsistency in the availability of benefits under Medicaid, regardless of what other assurances were being given by the Republican majority. These cuts are not just $72 billion as they relate directly to the budget. Because of the ability for States to dramatically reduce the availability of funding, the cuts could actually reach $250 billion if the States maximize their ability to reduce the commitment to health care. This will undercut the availability, and in some cases completely eliminate the availability for millions of children, and for persons with disabilities. It threatens seniors in nursing homes and the financial well-being of their spouses. All this devastation and sacrifice is being asked for in order to provide for tax breaks in many cases for those who do not need them at all. The fourth problem is this budget proposal dramatically shortchanges education. It reduces education and training by a full 20 percent in real dollars, or $25 billion by the year 2002. When we vote on this resolution, keep in mind that it incorporates the largest education cuts in history. Over the same time period, in spite of the fact this represents the most dramatic reduction in the availability of funding for education in our history, school enrollments are going to rise to historic highs. Every school is going to be faced with the prospect of increasing enrollment, and greater demands for real budgets, at the same time the Federal Government is reducing its commitment to the very schools it claims to support. The President's budget, on the other hand, invests $57 billion more than what this budget resolution provides. The fifth problem, Mr. President, is this resolution dramatically harms the environment. It cuts $3.8 billion from environmental protection and natural resources. That is 17 percent below the President's commitment to the environment into the year 2002. We cannot all talk about how much of an advocate we are to the environment if we are not willing to commit the resources to ensure that environmental protection can become a reality. Mr. President, we have to address environmental funding in a way that ensures the ability to implement comprehensive environmental protection. Finally, the sixth problem, is that it raises taxes on working families. It proposes an $18.5 billion in increase in taxes on working families through the cutting back on the earned-income tax credit. It raises taxes on 7 million working families in the next 7 years. As the President's budget makes clear, we can balance the budget without raising taxes on working people. Mr. President, we can do a lot better than this. This is an extreme budget. This budget takes money from health, education, the environment, and working families. Those priorities, we have said from the beginning, are our priorities. This budget attacks those priorities in ways that we do not believe are wise for this country or for the people affected. Obviously, this budget continues the great debate about where we ought to be taking this country. Do we really want to make the dramatic and draconian cuts in health and in education, in Medicare and in Medicaid, in the EITC, to provide for the tax breaks for many people who simply do not need them today? I do not think the American people want that. I know members of our caucus do not want it, either. This budget resolution represents an abandonment of any pretense of balancing the budget before cutting taxes. As a result of this fiscal irresponsibility and the cruelty of its priorities, this budget is dead. The reconciliation process that will be carried out as a result of this budget resolution is going nowhere. The only way that we can resolve this matter is to do what we talked about doing yesterday, to work together, to resolve our differences, and in a bipartisan way to come up with an agreement on a plan that details ways with which to balance the budget. We should build on the record of the last 4 years, and guarantee the kind of economic growth and the protection of priorities that we all know are so critical to the long-term best interests of this Nation. I urge all of our colleagues to look at this resolution very carefully and to join us in opposition when we have that opportunity a few moments from now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to share a story of how one South Dakota family turned their vision and entrepreneurial drive into a thriving business. ``We had one press, one employee, and zero customers.'' That statement tells the story of the beginning of Labelcrafters of South Dakota, Inc., the Sioux Falls-based company honored by the Small Business Administration. Del and Janice Buttolph started Labelcrafters in 1987 and 9 years later are being named the South Dakota Small Business Persons of the Year. They manufacture pressure-sensitive labels for a variety of manufacturers in the four- State region. The Buttolphs met with me here in Washington, DC, during Small Business Week. That statement about their beginning is indicative of the risk-taking, entrepreneurial spirit, and dedication small business owners like Del and Janice Buttolph bring to a business startup. I know from my discussions with them that they brought great talent and experience to this venture. The Labelcrafter motto is ``Quality and Service--Our Priority.'' Acting on this motto has resulted in growth to 27 employees and three state-of-the-art presses with a fourth on the way. In fact, they plan on expanding into a larger building next year. We all strive to learn the ingredients of a successful business startup. Besides their commitment to quality and service, I was most impressed by their commitment to treating their employees well. They provide employees with health, life, and disability insurance, a 401(k) plan matched by the company, and well-paying jobs. I hope their experience is an inspiration not only to budding entrepreneurs, but to established companies as well. The Buttolphs were helped in this venture by the Small Business Administration, which provided timely and technical advice and cost- sensitive capital through the local bank. This public-private collaboration worked exactly as it was designed by Congress. As a result of their initiative and dedication, the Buttolphs produce a quality product, provide excellent service, and run a profitable business that benefits their 27 employees and the Sioux Falls community.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under the circumstances think that is an appropriate answer and I appreciate the majority leader's willingness to work with us in finding a mutually acceptable time. With that, I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, let me just point out that when we considered the scheduling of the State Department authorization bill some time ago--in fact, as I understand it, it was December 7, 1995--I had an opportunity to conduct a colloquy with the majority leader at the time, Senator Dole. I asked him if it was his intention to bring up the chemical weapons convention at some point during the second session of Congress. His answer was that it was his intention to consider the convention in a reasonable time period, once the convention is on the Executive Calendar. It has been on the calendar now since April 30. I fully appreciate that the distinguished majority leader is just beginning to put his plans for the legislative schedule together and I would not expect that he would have a date certain, but I ask the majority leader whether the chemical weapons convention could be considered, and if it is his intention to consider the treaty at some point in the future as we take up this particular bill that is very important to many of our Members, and I think some clarification with regard to his intent would be very helpful.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me express my hope that we can do just as the majority leader has suggested. There is great interest in the Senate in putting this body on record in a way that will allow us to express ourselves on these hideous fires. We can do that, and I hope we can work together to find a way, a resolution, that will allow us to do that as early as tomorrow. I intend to talk to Senator Moseley-Braun and Members on my side. We will work with the majority leader to see if we can make that happen.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me compliment the distinguished majority leader on his remarks, and congratulate him on his election. His leadership team sits among those on the floor today who demonstrate, in my view, a new generation of leadership, a generation that has had a good deal of experience, a generation that represents geographical diversity, a generation that I believe recognizes the importance of governance. We look forward to the opportunity of serving together. As I consider the past, as I consider the record and the resume of the distinguished majority leader, I find many things in common. He is from a small State, as am I. He was a staff member, as was I. He was a Member of the House, and now a Member of the Senate for not that long a period of time. And so given those similar experiences and given what I know to be his desire to lead and to govern and to work together, I begin this day and this new period in this session of Congress with great expectations, with optimism, with the belief that we can, as he just indicated, come together, as Senator Dole suggested we do yesterday. I thought it was revealing yesterday in the remarkable speech made by the former majority leader that the most significant accomplishments that he chose to recognize as he looked back over his past were those accomplishments that were forged through bipartisan efforts. That included, of course, the legislation for the disabled, it included nutrition legislation, it included an array of issues dealing with civil rights. The majority leader looked back fondly at those accomplishments and called upon all of us to remember the great Senators who have come before, Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have no doubt that if, indeed, we are to rise again to that standard, that there can be no other alternative but for us to work together. So it is with that intent and with a sincere desire to do so that I congratulate the new team. And I look forward to working, beginning today, to forge that compromise, to strike the opportunities that we have while they are there, and to work to make this a better country. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I recently visited the farm of Doug Henderson in Beresford, SD, and discussed with Doug and his neighbors issues facing southeastern South Dakota farmers. There was much give and take on the new farm bill, the state of cattle prices and, of course, the weather. The discussion put in bold relief the frustrations and challenges South Dakota farmers and ranchers face every day, and raised legitimate questions about current agricultural policy. I also had the opportunity to meet privately with the Henderson family in their home prior to the broader public discussion. It was an experience I will remember forever. Keeping the family farm together for the past 4 decades has not been easy for the Hendersons. Their secret to survival has been an enduring appreciation of the land and hard work on the part of each and every member of the family, including the children. The rewards for the Hendersons' dedication to farming have been numerous. They speak eloquently about raising their children in a tight-knit community steeped in strong values. They clearly love their chosen profession, which allows them to see the tangible results of a good day's work. Despite their love of farming, the Hendersons' story also has a sad side--the continuous struggle to make a decent financial return on their investment of time, money and plain old hard work. The Hendersons' story is described in a letter presented to me at our meeting. I would like to share that letter with my colleagues. It lays out in clear, honest terms the difficult dilemma facing hard-working, dedicated farm families all across rural America: how to survive financially on a modest-sized family farm in today's agricultural environment. The Hendersons' letter presents a picture that merits more attention and reflection in Washington policymaking circles. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that today financial survival on family farms is much tougher than it should be in a nation that enjoys the most abundant and least expensive source of food on the globe. If we are to preserve this durable source of farm commodities, our rural communities and their rock solid values, then farmers must enjoy a reasonable return on their investment. This problem must be addressed if family farms are to survive in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Henderson's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since 1993 the James River has flooded nearly 3 million acres of valuable farmland in my State resulting in billions of dollars of lost revenue for South Dakota producers and greatly diminishing the value of their land by washing away valuable top soil. Clearly, the extreme wet conditions of the last 4 years have contributed to these floods. However, Mother Nature does not bear sole responsibility for the flooding. The problem has been affected by the James River management policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For producers to be asked to continue to bear these losses is unfair and unacceptable. Downstream landowners in South Dakota should not be required to accept financial losses directly influenced by the corps' river management policy. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will provide landowners along the James River with a measure of security against future high water flows and help ensure that the Federal Government assumes greater responsibility for the damaging effects of its river management policies. This bill gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority to purchase from willing sellers easements over land that is located within the 10-year flood plain of the James River. Local producers who wish to grant these easements not only will be reimbursed for the loss of productivity on their flooded land, but also will retain their haying and grazing rights. Thus, the land will continue to provide value to farmers in relatively dry years. Those who do not wish to grant the corps these easements will be under no obligation to do so. This legislation will provide some relief to landowners affected by the frequent flooding of the James River in South Dakota and represents part of the long-term solution to this troublesome problem. However, the overall management of the Jamestown Dam also needs to be examined, and I will continue to urge the corps to take seriously the concerns of South Dakotans as the operations manual for that dam is written. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his eloquence. Following his words is a very difficult task. Senator Dole has said that he wants to be judged now as just a man. But I think history will judge him as something more--a good leader, a good Senator, a good American. When you are from a small State in the Midwest, there seems to be a sense of pride in someone who makes it to the top the hard way, with hard work, with fairness, with adherence to principle. Regardless of politics, religion or education, when someone starts at the lower rung and makes it all the way up, there is a pervasive feeling of ownership, of affinity that he is one of our own, a Midwestern sense of self-respect that he is like us, and now just look at where he is, what he has done and how he has done it. That is especially true when adversity hits. When someone rises above adversity to make it against the odds, the admiration grows greater. The greater the adversity, the greater the adherence to principle and decency, the greater the admiration. Maybe that is why someone from South Dakota, someone of different politics, different religion, different education can reflect on the admiration that I hold for Bob Dole with the sincerity that I do now. I have had the good fortune to work closely with the majority leader now for 18 months. The conditions for a good working relationship could not have been much worse. We had just lost the majority. He was the likely nominee to run against a Democratic President, and the House Republican leadership, now also in the majority, had proposed a Contract With America. Of course, the events over the past year and a half could easily have led to bitterness and personal animosity of major consequence. I have no doubt that in virtually any other set of circumstances, there would have been no other result. The fact that it did not occur, and in spite of it all we remained friendly, is due to Bob Dole and who he is. His civility, his pragmatism, his quick wit, his self-effacing humor have not only served him well these past 45 years of public life, but have served his colleagues and his country well, too. His sense of fairness and decency is a standard by which all people in public life should be held. He believes in the institutions of democracy and has helped guide his party and this body in a way that has enhanced them, too. While our philosophical differences are great, his willingness to do what is difficult has been a source of admiration and respect for us all. His courage in standing for principle has been evident from the start. It was there when he broke ranks with his party to support the landmark civil rights measures of the 1960's, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and 1982. It was there when he championed landmark nutrition programs with a visionary leader and a giant from South Dakota whose name was George McGovern. It was there in 1991 when he and our colleague, Tom Harkin, arguably did more for the disabled than anyone in our Nation's history. And it was there in this Congress when, against all political advice, he fashioned a resolution on Bosnia that led to broad support for our troops being stationed there. I am grateful to Senator Dole for that leadership, for the decency and fairness he has demonstrated to me over these past 18 months. I have learned from him. It has been an invaluable education. It has always impressed me that Bob Dole would come to my office for a meeting--the seasoned leader coming to the newcomer, the majority leader, coming to the minority leader's office. I thought it was yet another demonstration of Bob Dole's grace and demeanor. I know now that it was. I also learned that in doing so, this man, with the experience of thousands of such meetings, could always be the one to determine when the meeting was over. I regret that we did not accomplish more together in these last 2 years. Obviously, bad timing was a factor. Our accomplishments have been eclipsed by our partisanship in the eyes of the American people. Still, nothing should cloud America's view of just a man from Kansas who began with little, who in fighting for this country lost almost all that he had, who came back to help lead his party and his country with courage and civility, who leaves this place with the gratitude of us all. While I cannot wish him ultimate success at his next political venture, Linda and I wish Elizabeth and Bob Dole well in their new life ahead. May it be filled with good health and much happiness. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since 1993 the James River has flooded nearly 3 million acres of valuable farmland in my State resulting in billions of dollars of lost revenue for South Dakota producers and greatly diminishing the value of their land by washing away valuable top soil. Clearly, the extreme wet conditions of the last 4 years have contributed to these floods. However, Mother Nature does not bear sole responsibility for the flooding. The problem has been affected by the James River management policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For producers to be asked to continue to bear these losses is unfair and unacceptable. Downstream landowners in South Dakota should not be required to accept financial losses directly influenced by the corps' river management policy. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will provide landowners along the James River with a measure of security against future high water flows and help ensure that the Federal Government assumes greater responsibility for the damaging effects of its river management policies. This bill gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority to purchase from willing sellers easements over land that is located within the 10-year flood plain of the James River. Local producers who wish to grant these easements not only will be reimbursed for the loss of productivity on their flooded land, but also will retain their haying and grazing rights. Thus, the land will continue to provide value to farmers in relatively dry years. Those who do not wish to grant the corps these easements will be under no obligation to do so. This legislation will provide some relief to landowners affected by the frequent flooding of the James River in South Dakota and represents part of the long-term solution to this troublesome problem. However, the overall management of the Jamestown Dam also needs to be examined, and I will continue to urge the corps to take seriously the concerns of South Dakotans as the operations manual for that dam is written. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I yielded for purposes of response on the part of the distinguished majority whip. But let me simply say that, unfortunately, it used to be the case that Republicans and Democrats got together formally and resolved their differences in conference agreements. I would only cite as the most recent illustration of how that is no longer the case the budget agreement. To my knowledge, not one meeting was held where Democrats were included in that conference, not one. So I hope we can get back to the time when Democrats and Republicans can formally sit down and work through all of these differences. That, in part, is what this is all about. We want to get an agreement. We will continue to offer the original language to whatever legislation may be offered in our determination to get resolution of this issue. But we certainly cannot agree under these circumstances to the request propounded by the majority at this time, so I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I indicated I did object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I share the view expressed by the distinguished majority whip. There is no reason why we cannot resolve this matter. It was passed 100 to 0 on a bipartisan basis. Unanimously, this Senate said this legislation should be passed. Mr. President, that was over a month ago now. There is no reason why in a month's time we could not have negotiated successfully the differences with the House. That is all this has been about, finding a way with which to resolve our differences. Now, I might tell the distinguished majority whip that it has been of increasing concern to us that as these negotiations are going on, Democrats have been excluded from the real conferencing and the negotiations as they have gone on, and we do not understand why that would have to be, why we cannot have bipartisan cooperation and consideration of the problems that we are facing in both versions of the bill. To be locked out, in our view, is unacceptable. We also recognize-- and I know that the distinguished majority whip recognizes as well-- that as you negotiate a conference with representatives for that conference, there has to be some accommodation on both sides of the aisle with regard to the numerical representation as well as the committee representation. He knows very well that in this case that has not been done. So we have not been able to come to some resolution with regard to this representation in the conference and so have been relegated to these negotiations that have been ongoing. We were told as late as yesterday that progress was being made, and it was for that reason I withheld offering a unanimous-consent agreement that I, frankly, believe we ought to put on record. There is no reason why we cannot restate the unanimity which we feel about this legislation. So having reserved the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1028, the Kassebaum-Kennedy health care portability bill, the language of which was passed by the Senate on April 23 by a unanimous vote, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again----

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have a chart here that shows, as graphically as anything can, the number of times that our Republican colleagues have proposed in this Congress to change the U.S. Constitution. Not since the Bill of Rights have so many amendments been proposed all at once. No wonder the rumors of rumblings from gravesites from Monticello to Mount Vernon have been heard during this Congress. There are those who appear to believe that they know better than our Founding Fathers how our Constitution should be structured. They now advocate altering the U.S. Constitution not once or twice, but, as this chart shows, in 83 different ways. There were 83 amendments proposed by our Republican colleagues in this Congress to the U.S. Constitution. One has to wonder, Mr. President, whether or not there are those in this body, and in the other body, who believe they know better, and that somehow they are in a better position than our Founding Fathers to determine the advisability of changes in the Constitution to this degree. I am not averse to constitutional amendments. I have supported some in the past. But before we do so, the first question we must ask is, is it necessary? We have had debates on the Senate floor in this Congress on whether or not to amend the Constitution to provide for protection of a flag. There are those who propose amendments that would somehow require the ability for public prayer in schools. In those cases, and in many others, I, as well as many of my colleagues, have concluded that indeed it is not in our best interest, that the Founding Fathers were correct that the first amendment rights need to be protected. We have shown the wisdom on those occasions to defeat proposals to amend the Constitution, as our forefathers would have. We did not need a constitutional amendment 4 years ago, Mr. President, when this administration came to Washington, and the President decided--rather than talking about it, rather than constitutional amendments, rather than more proposals to modify the budget and bring this Government into balance--``I am going to do something about it.'' Indeed, he saw the need to do something about it. Everyone recalls that, in 1992, the deficit was $290 billion. In the first year in office in 1993, this administration, working with the Democratic Congress, Mr. President, reduced that deficit to $255 billion. In 1993, how well I remember the vote taken on this floor with virtually everybody in their chair, one-by-one, standing up, in one of the most courageous acts of deficit reduction since I have been here, and voting for a plan cut the deficit. That plan covered not just 1 year or 2 years, but 5 years of massive deficit reduction. And it passed by one vote. As a result, the deficit in 1994 then fell to $203 billion. Last year, in 1995, we did some more, and the deficits fell, not surprisingly, as a result of that action, to $164 billion. Now, this year, we mark 4 years in a row of meaningful deficit reduction. With some courageous votes and real determination, the deficit is expected to fall to $130 billion. That is the record over the last 4 years--from $292 billion to $130 billion. For the first time since Harry Truman sat in the White House, the deficit has declined for 4 years in a row. The deficit has been cut in less than half since President Clinton took office. That is the difference, Mr. President, between rhetoric and results. The only way that these results can continue, the only real way in the short-term that we can build on that record is with an negotiated agreement that balanced the budget by 2002. A constitutional amendment, under the best of circumstances, is going to take several years to ratify. Who in this body would argue today that we ought to wait that long before we continue further efforts at deficit reduction? We all know we cannot afford to wait. The President realizes that and, for that reason, has held out an open invitation for Republican leadership to join with Democratic leadership and this White House to build on the record of the last 4 years, to take that $130 billion down to zero, and to do it now. We can do it. We need to do it. But if that is going to happen, we must, in a bipartisan way, come together, resolve our differences, and put this country on the track to ultimate success. Not only are we not negotiating, Mr. President, not only may we miss that opportunity to balance the budget, but the very same threats that we faced in the early eighties are back with us again. I can hear them now. The political rhetoric is there. The same threats to the budget are as evident now as they were back then, 15 years ago. In the 1980's, proposals for dramatic increases in star wars spending and dramatic cuts in taxes became more than just political rhetoric. They became reality. We were told we could do all of that without exploding the deficit. I remember how clearly, how persuasively the President at the time indicated that it indeed was possible. Well, now the reality is here. We are faced with the consequences. And $5 trillion in debt later, some of us have learned, as we should have known back then, that if we follow that path, it will not be $5 trillion in debt. Heavens knows, it could go $10, $15, or $20 trillion. How ironic that similar proposals to those that created massive deficits in the 1980's are now again dominating the Republican rhetoric--the $60 billion Defend America Act, and tax cuts ranging from $600 billion to $700 billion. The supply-side experiments of 1981 that created massive deficits are once again the centerpiece of the Republican agenda. To contend with such budget-busting proposals while debating the balanced budget amendment makes one wonder if we are facing historical blindness or gross hypocrisy. So let us recognize, if their fiscally irresponsible proposals come to fruition, we will be right back here all over again with yet more need for courageous action, to take this into our hands and to resolve it once and for all. We cannot afford that kind of rhetoric. We cannot afford those starry- eyed proposals if we are serious about accomplishing what we are debating today, balancing the budget. Mr. President, having the realization that indeed building upon our 4-year record of deficit reduction is so important, it still begs the question, is an amendment necessary? Do we see it in our long-term best interests to amend the Constitution, to recognize that somewhere on this list may be an amendment that warrants our support? My answer to that question is yes. Beyond building upon the record that we have achieved, beyond the courageous work we have already done, my view is if the amendment is written properly, I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In fact, I voted for such a properly crafted amendment last year during the previous debate on the balanced budget amendment, and I hope to vote for it again today. But we must also realize that once it is part of the Constitution, there is no going back. We are not likely to change a clause or a phrase next year or the year after. That is not going to happen. Many Senate Democrats have offered a proposal which, in our view, does it right. Our alternative recognizes very important principles of constitutional law, but also recognizes the commitments on Social Security that we have made in statute and to the American people for generations. Doing it right in this case recognizes the importance of protecting Social Security. Our amendment, which has been introduced this year by the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, proposes a firewall between Social Security and the rest of the budget. It is identical to an amendment crafted last year by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid. Were it to be considered today, more than enough Senators would support it in order for it to pass. In 1990, Mr. President, we made ourselves very clear on this issue by a vote of 98 to 2. This body voted for an amendment by Senator Hollings to take Social Security off budget. Why did we do that? We did it because we realized that Social Security has become a sacred trust; that that trust fund is going to be drawn down in the not too distant future, and we are going to need every dollar of it. We recognize that. So we said we are going to build a firewall. We are going to make absolutely certain that when we need that money, it is going to there. The program is financed by dedicated payroll taxes that were not to be raided to pay for general Government expenditures. Mr. President, the pending version of the constitutional amendment breaks that promise. It breaks it. According to CBO's December baseline, the pending amendment anticipates using $603 billion in Social Security trust fund dollars over the next 7 years to reach balance. This year alone, it anticipates $71 billion borrowed from the trust fund. In the year 2002, as we proclaim a balanced budget, the fact remains that there will be $103 billion anticipated in Social Security trust fund surpluses that will be counted toward that balance, so we will actually be $103 billion in debt to future retirees. So, Mr. President, we are violating public trust, and, in my view, we are actually overturning the law laid out on a 98 to 2 vote on the amendment passed in the Senate offered by Senator Hollings. This means continued reliance on payroll taxes to fund the Government, as well. Social Security, as everyone knows, is funded by a 12.4-percent payroll tax. It only applies to the first $62,700 of income. As a result, this tax can be seen as regressive since it falls heavily on lower- and middle-income taxpayers. In fact, 58 percent of our taxpayers pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax. We cannot allow funding of our Government by these working people, and we cannot allow the continued abuse of the Social Security payroll taxes. We should not fund the Government in large measure by a payroll tax which is regressive, the revenues from which are intended to be set aside in the Social Security trust funds for the needs of all beneficiaries. Mr. President, we have a choice this morning. We have a real choice. We have the opportunity to build on the record of the last 4 years, to resolve to deal directly with our differences on budget priorities, and to build a balanced budget agreement in a way that will achieve a balanced budget by 2002. We can do that. We also have an opportunity to build the next step, to pass an amendment that allows us to do it right, to pass an amendment that maintains a firewall between Social Security and the rest of the budget. The Constitution must recognize the critical, absolute dependence that we will have on Social Security trust funds in the future, and must recognize the meaning of a real balanced budget without the use of Social Security trust funds. It must recognize, too, our appreciation of the trust of the American people. That is our choice. We can do it right or, once again, we can violate that trust. We can do it in a way that I believe undermines the credibility of this Constitution and what it was meant to do when our Founding Fathers wrote it 200 years ago. We are not going to pass 83 constitutional amendments. We should not pass even one if it is not written correctly. We have the opportunity this morning, Mr. President, to approve an amendment that is properly crafted. The Senator from Oregon will seek unanimous consent that the Senate today vote upon his thoughtful alternative that accomplishes all of the goals of the amendment before us, without enshrining abuse of the Social Security trust funds in the Constitution. I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say first I very much appreciate the manner in which the majority leader has attempted to resolve this issue. No one has been more fair than has he, with regard to finding a way to resolve the matter and, as he indicated some time ago, he indicated his desire to take these matters up one by one. Under the circumstances, I think, were we to not have any understanding as to how to resolve it, we would not be in a position to agree tonight to any one particular element of the Executive Calendar relating to judges. But I share the majority leader's view that our best opportunity would be, perhaps, to take these matters up one by one. I would want to work with him to see if we can resolve it in the next few days.

Mr. DASCHLE. Very good.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the junior Senator from Kansas for calling attention to the devastating impact of adverse weather on our Nation's producers. I fully support Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, which urges the Secretary of Agriculture to make available commodities in the disaster reserve for livestock feed. I also commend Senator Kassebaum for agreeing to broaden the resolution to include producers suffering from flooding and other weather related disasters. In my home State of South Dakota and throughout the eastern cornbelt, excessive rainfall this spring has prevented producers from planting their crop. This resolution acknowledges the importance of addressing the effect of both drought and flooding on producers. Senate Concurrent Resolution 63 reinforces an initiative to utilize the disaster reserve already undertaken by the Secretary of Agriculture. Secretary Glickman has informed me that he has formally asked the President of the United States to issue an emergency declaration to allow the use of the commodities within the reserve, and he expects a positive response shortly. In light of the actions the administration has already taken in this area, some have argued this resolution is superfluous, but it is fitting for Congress to send a clear signal that we support the efforts of Secretary Glickman and the President, and I have, therefore, joined as a cosponsor of the resolution. Before passing this resolution, it is also worth noting that Presidential approval of the use of the disaster reserve is necessary only because the recently enacted farm bill suspended the Secretary's discretionary authority to access these stocks through the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. Recently, my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, introduced legislation to reauthorize this valuable program. I hope the majority will also give prompt attention to this legislation to assist producers suffering from weather-related disasters. This bill, introduced with bipartisan support, would give immediate relief to farmers and ranchers victimized by the devastating drought in the Southwest and other areas. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to commend Secretary Glickman and the President for their quick, decisive and thorough response to the drought plaguing the Southwest and Central Plains States. Secretary Glickman has already opened the Conservation Reserve Program for haying and grazing, provided additional funds for the Emergency Loan Program, and expanded crop insurance for forage crops. Utilization of the disaster reserve to provide emergency livestock feed is yet another example of the President's commitment to rural America.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office issued a $60 billion cost estimate for the Defend America Act--an ill-advised Republican effort to resurrect the discredited star wars missile defense system. Several days later, House Republicans responded to this bloated price tag by doing the right thing. They pulled the bill from floor consideration, and a bad idea might have fallen by the wayside had not the majority leader picked up what his House colleagues rejected as imprudent and scheduled a Senate vote on it for today. One can only speculate about the motivation behind this vote. But whether it is election-year politics or simply misplaced priorities, the Senate's course should be clear. The Defend America Act threatens our national security and undermines essential efforts to balance the federal budget. The Senate should vote it down. The grossly misnamed Defend America Act would be more appropriately entitled the Jeopardize America Act. The bill would direct the Department of Defense to deploy by 2003 a national missile defense system that allegedly would defend the United States against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. That system, according to its promoters, could be ``augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated threats as they emerge.'' Sound familiar? The bill has a certain tinny ring about it. Look closely and you will see that the Defend America Act is really the fifth variant of Ronald Reagan's failed star wars experiment. To implement this proposal, the act calls for changing or withdrawing from the ABM Treaty in order to permit the deployment of a combination of ground-, sea-, and space- based components--a clear revival of the star wars program that disappeared with the end of the cold war. All of this is particularly disturbing when you consider that enactment of this legislation is both harmful to United States-Russian relations and, according to our own military and intelligence experts, unnecessary to combat the threats we are likely to face in the next decade or more. The Russians have been very clear in their views on unilateral tampering with the ABM Treaty to facilitate the deployment of a national missile defense system. In a May 1 letter to Congress, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: Efforts which suggest changes to or withdrawal from the ABM Treaty may jeopardize Russian ratification of START II and . . . could prompt Russia to withdraw from START I. I am concerned that failure of either START initiative will result in Russian retention of hundreds or even thousands more nuclear weapons thereby increasing both costs and risks we may face. Compounding the arms control concerns is the timing. The Senate vote on Defend America is scheduled just 2 weeks before the Russian elections so crucial to that country's continued peaceful transition to democracy. We have to be concerned that the Defend America Act hands the Communists a pre-election gift with its distinctly unpropitious echo of cold war antagonisms. What is worse, our military and intelligence experts say such risktaking is not warranted. According to public accounts of the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified consensus report by all of our intelligence agencies, ``no country other than the major declared nuclear powers will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years that could threaten the contiguous 48 states and Canada.'' The irony of a defense system that actually threatens our security is only part of the story. Immediately after the first vote on the Defend America Act, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That strikes many Senators on both sides of the aisle as an odd sequence of events. One moment we are voting on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget; the next we are raising the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. Since the mid-1980's, Congress has spent nearly $40 billion on ballistic missile defense, and all we have to show for it are canceled checks from defense contractors. The Congressional Budget Office estimate of an additional $60 billion for this latest version of a highly complex, interwoven system is charitable. It covers only the costs to acquire the system. It fails to include either the costs to operate this system or cost overruns. And, if history is any guide, cost overruns alone for a system of this complexity could easily double the estimate. Who will pay this tab? Of course, in the long run it will be the American taxpayers. In the short run, however, either the deficit will be increased, spending will be slashed on important domestic priorities such as education and the environment, or the Defense Department will have to juggle its own accounts. To accommodate such a huge expense, more conventional defense priorities such as readiness, procurement and force structure may suffer. There is a better, less expensive and more effective way to do the same job. The President's national missile defense policy also meets any threat by 2003 but in a much wiser and far more fiscally responsible manner. It beats the Republican plan hands down on three counts. First, it's superior common sense. The President believes that, as Senator Sam Nunn notes, we should ``fly before we buy.'' At a minimum, we should look before we buy. Under the President's plan, we would continue to develop the technologies for a national missile defense system, then assess the situation, and deploy it only if it is needed. Second, it's superior technologically. The President's policy would allow us to develop more capable and cost-effective defense systems that can meet the exact nature of the threat as it emerges. Third, it's superior diplomatically. The President's approach would give us time and latitude to negotiate amendments to the ABM Treaty with the Russians that allow us to continue on the path of reducing Moscow's nuclear arsenal. It would not rush us headlong into an international arms control crisis. Even the Republican revolutionaries in the House had the wisdom to see that this bill would commit our Nation to an unwise, unaffordable, and dangerous policy. They scrapped it because the Defend America Act is indefensible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of one of the smartest investments this Nation has ever made, the National School Lunch Program. In 1943, Winston Churchill said that ``there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies.'' That sort of inspired investment is what the School Lunch Program is about. The only nutritious meal some children eat in a day, a school lunch can help to lengthen attention span, increase learning capacity and dramatically improve overall health. The School Lunch Program currently operates in 95 percent of our Nation's schools and serves 26 million children each school day. It is a remarkable success, and I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the people who make that success possible, from the people at the USDA who run the program, to the State and local nutritionists who plan the meals and the school food service workers who serve them to our children. Each of them is helping to make our country stronger and healthier, and we thank them for it. The School Lunch Act was passed not as an act of charity, not even as a matter of educational efficacy, but as a matter of national security after shocking numbers of young men failed their physicals in World War II because of preventable, nutrition-related illnesses. Last year, Department of Agriculture updated Federal regulations to require school meals to meet the Federal dietary guidelines for Americans. The resulting Schools Meals Initiative for Healthy Children will make a good program even better. Recognizing that simply adopting policies does not always guarantee change, the Clinton administration launched Team Nutrition in June 1995 to unite public and private organizations in promoting healthful dietary habits through schools, community organizations and the media. This groundbreaking measure also provides the training, technical assistance, and nutrition education that are critical to the School Meals Initiative's successful implementation. Last fall marked the introduction of the Team Nutrition Schools Program, which brings together teachers and principals, schools and families, community leaders and school food service professionals to work for healthier school meals. This fall, the USDA will build on the success of Team Nutrition by providing every school district with the help they may need to make sure the meals they serve their students meet the Federal dietary guidelines. I'm proud to have sponsored the amendment that will enable the USDA to get that information and assistance out to schools ahead of their original target date. Our Nation has done much to alleviate childhood hunger and malnutrition in the 50 years since President Truman signed the National School Lunch Act. Rickets and other nutrition-related illnesses that once were common among poor children in this Nation are now mercifully rare because we channelled the will and resources of this great Nation against them. But the challenge is not ended. Every month, 5 million children go hungry in this country. One out of every eight children under the age of 12. So today, as we celebrate 50 years of success with the School Lunch Program, let us remember these children and recommit ourselves to seeing that they, too, are able to share in the abundant blessings of our land.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me express enthusiastically my desire to work with the whip to make that happen. I only lend one small piece of advice if he is desirous of making that happen sooner rather than later. We could simply take the defend America bill off of the calendar for now--put it back on the calendar, I should say--or, obviously, we are back into a cloture vote at 2:15 on Tuesday. We can avoid that cloture vote and go right to these bills and debate them. I do not think there is any desire on our part to unnecessarily extend the debate. We do have some amendments, as I have indicated. I think we can resolve these matters one by one and have a very productive week when we get back. That might be time much better spent than to have additional cloture votes on the so-called Defend America Act. That is, obviously, a matter that my colleagues on the other side, the leadership, are going to have to decide. That would be a way with which to break the logjam and keep the process moving along. I look forward to working with the distinguished whip and the majority leader to see if we can resolve the matters in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority whip and I have had the opportunity to discuss these matters now on several occasions and I appreciate his candor and the opportunity we have had to discuss ways with which to bring these bills to the floor. I have indicated to him that on several of these bills my Democratic colleagues hope to offer amendments. It is not our desire to extend debate, to my knowledge, on any of these bills. Our hope, however, is that on the gas tax bill we have the opportunity to offer an amendment which would ensure that consumers benefit from this reduction in the gas tax. This unanimous-consent agreement would not allow for that. We have other amendments that we would like to be able to offer. Because of our desire to offer amendments and our difficulty in having that right under this unanimous-consent agreement, I have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to consult with a couple of my colleagues prior to the time we enter into that agreement at this time. The majority whip has provided us, I think, with an opportunity here to reach an agreement, at least on that particular bill. If it were in concert with the minimum wage bill to be taken to the floor at approximately the same time--that is, within the same day or the day following--I think we might have an agreement that those two bills could be put on the calendar and brought up as soon as we come back. I would be interested in working with my distinguished colleague to see if that might be accomplished.

Mr. DASCHLE. We have a couple of different approaches that our colleagues have considered with regard to ensuring that the benefit actually be provided to the consumer. One involved an accounting mechanism, that I would allow that to happen. Another involved a straight tax credit. I would have to make some determination that my colleagues have an interest in offering both amendments. If that were the case, I would have to come back with an alternative which would allow the consideration of at least those two amendments. This unanimous-consent agreement only allows for one amendment. That is something we would have to work through. Certainly, the offer is--I take it in good faith. I think I would be in a position to respond in the not-too-distant future to that particular unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE

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