Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I think it might.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I say, I think there are a number of amendments, or perhaps just one substitute amendment that we would like to offer. We have not had the opportunity to come to closure on that. I do think that also could be agreed upon in the not-too-distant future, perhaps as early as the week we get back. That is the timeframe for the number of amendments we would want to offer. I suspect that one, perhaps a couple of amendments, would be all we have a need to offer, but we would certainly want to be able to amend the bill as it is currently presented.

Mr. DASCHLE. I sure will.

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi has given us an opportunity here, I think, to move the minimum wage bill. As he is fully aware, this minimum wage package includes quite an elaborate array of tax provisions for small business. A number of our colleagues, as I understand it, on both sides of the aisle have expressed some interest in taking a closer look at those provisions, with an expectation that they may want to modify them or add to them. It is largely a concern for that aspect of the legislation that would cause me to be somewhat concerned about whether one amendment would allow an adequate opportunity for our colleagues to address the tax provisions. So we will have to consult with our colleagues, and I am sure the majority whip may find the same need, as he just has indicated, to consult not only with regard to the minimum wage provisions, but the tax provisions as well. We are getting closer. Clearly, this is encouraging. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we can come to some resolution. This is another step in the right direction. I appreciate the offer made by the whip, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we leave for the Memorial Day recess, I wanted to make a couple of comments if I could with regard to the current situation on welfare reform. I did not hear all of his remarks, but I know that the Senator from South Dakota just made a reference to welfare in the budget. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have addressed the issue this morning--Senator Breaux, and I believe, the majority leader did so as well. I think it is fairly clear that Democrats and Republicans want welfare reform. I do not know of anyone who supports the status quo. There has been a lot of talk about reform principles over the last several months. The President reiterated the basic principles just last weekend. And on Tuesday, my colleague, the majority leader, announced his principles. The legislation to reform welfare has come a long way in the last 12 months. Senator Breaux and Senator Chafee have worked over the course of the better part of a year now to achieve a bipartisan compromise on welfare reform, and frankly I applaud them for their effort and for the contribution they have made to this debate. On the House side, Representatives Tanner and Castle have done much the same thing, and for them, too, there has been a good deal of attention for the work product they have produced. On Wednesday, Republican House and Senate Members introduced legislation very close to those bills. So in large measure, many of the extreme provisions of the legislation offered in 1995 are no longer evident in the welfare reform proposals that are currently being considered. If you look at the proposals, what is remarkable is the degree to which there is common ground. That common ground is really based on a number of principles that apparently are shared now by the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. First, able-bodied welfare recipients ought to work. I do not think there is much disagreement about that. Second, welfare receipts ought to be limited in time. Now, there is some disagreement with regard to the length of time perhaps, especially on my side of the aisle, but I do believe there is a broad, bipartisan consensus in the middle that there ought to be a time limitation. Adequate funds for child care need to be provided as well. You cannot ask a family to go take that new job, to leave the security of the welfare infrastructure and then to expect them to leave children in the living room unattended. We talk about making sure that families have the ability to be families, to take care of their children. If they are going to work, somebody has to take that responsibility while they are gone. I also recognize, and I think most colleagues do, that there is a broad consensus about how we treat illegal noncitizens. They should not receive welfare, period. I do not think there is much disagreement with regard to welfare receipt for illegal noncitizens. Child support enforcement laws need to be strengthened. There are still too many deadbeat dads out there who ought to be sought out and ought to be made to live up to their responsibilities. We need to provide more flexibility to States. The President has provided now, I am told, over 60 waivers in States across the country. No greater level of flexibility has ever been given by any administration to States to find ways to address the welfare issue from their perspective more effectively than has this administration. Finally--and I think there is some disagreement on this--there is a growing consensus that children, infants, and toddlers especially, those most vulnerable, need to be protected; that welfare reform should not be about punishing kids. It ought to be about giving them as much empowerment, as much opportunity to be cared for, to be educated, to be fed, to be clothed, and housed in a way that will ensure that they are not on welfare someday. We need to break this generational linkage. The only way we are going to do that is to empower children and find ways to ensure that they are not punished as we continue to find a more viable approach to our welfare system. The President said yesterday that he would like to enact welfare quickly. In fact, he said he would like to see it happen before the majority leader leaves the Senate. Mr. President, I think there ought to be bipartisan agreement to that effect. Let us try to do that. I listened carefully to the speech by the majority leader in Wisconsin, and he said, ``When I say real welfare reform, I mean requiring every able-bodied welfare recipient to find work within 2 years.'' The Republican bill introduced yesterday goes beyond that particular requirement for work, and it is something we are going to have to be able to address. There are no exceptions, except for mothers with children under age 1. What about disabled people? Should they be required to find a job in 2 years? What about those caring for a disabled child? What about those who are caring for a disabled spouse? Do we require the same of them that we require for able-bodied people in normal circumstances? That is something I am sure in a bipartisan way we can resolve to everyone's satisfaction, but clearly those are a series of questions that in our view have to be addressed in a way that will allow us to pass meaningful legislation sometime soon. I do hope we can act on it soon, but we also need to read the legislation that has been introduced. It was not available yesterday. We do not know if it will be available today. There may be other areas in the bill where the provisions do not match the principles that appear to be the common ground that binds Republicans and Democrats. But clearly there is a desire, and I think that desire is becoming more pronounced, more articulate in a more specific way than at any time in recent memory. I agree with much of the majority leader's speech in Wisconsin, not just the quote to which I just made reference. He did not speak as an extremist partisan leader. He spoke of, and I quote, ``The American ideals of freedom and human dignity, opportunity and personal responsibility.'' He is right. The President has articulated in much the same way what this ought to be about. Now it is our responsibility to ensure that welfare reform does not aim at the mother but hit the child. Much has been said about reform. Little has been said about protecting children. We all want to make sure that they are protected, that they do not pay for the mistakes or the circumstances of their parents. Somehow there ought to be a way to protect children as we attempt in a positive way to construct a welfare infrastructure that allows us to make fundamental change. If our Republican colleagues are serious about welfare, then we ought to schedule it. We ought to schedule it quickly. We could agree today to take that legislation up before the Senate as early as June 4 when we come back. Let us set aside this so-called Defend America Act. Let us bring welfare reform to the floor and let us begin to address it. We can compare our provisions. We can agree on principles. We can decide how we answer the questions that I have addressed, but let us move it. Let's drop the partisan ploy to combine welfare and Medicaid. There is no consensus on Medicaid. There is a consensus on welfare. Not proceeding on June 4 means that perhaps there are some who are not serious about whether or not we ought to move in an expeditious way, that we may not be able to get this bipartisan consensus in a timeframe that will allow the majority leader to demonstrate his leadership as he has in the last couple of days. So I hope that we could get some agreement to take up welfare reform at the earliest possible date. I would be prepared to work with the majority leader to find a way to ensure that Senators have an opportunity to voice their objectives and their goals as well as their opposition to specific ideas that may be debated. That is what a good welfare debate is all about. But I can guarantee this. There would not be any long, unnecessary, extended debate. We could resolve this matter. We could send it on to the President. We could find the President and the majority leader in agreement, and move on to other issues that may separate us and continue to require the debate that I know they will. Medicaid and Medicare may be two examples. But we can do welfare. We can do it the week we get back. We can do it in a matter of a limited period of time. That is possible. I hope we could find a way, in a bipartisan agreement, to make that happen sooner rather than later. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object. The last time the Senate considered welfare reform, as you know and the majority leader recognizes, it took over 10 days. We had 200 amendments offered. The Senate conducted 42 rollcall votes in relation to that particular bill--all of this on a piece of legislation with close to 700 pages. I do not know if everybody had the opportunity to see the catalog effect that that bill has as you carry it to the desk. But this is the conference report from that bill. It is 693 pages long. There were a lot of amendments. Ultimately, as the leader recalls, there was a pretty broad bipartisan support for the bill, after all that work was done. So I do not know that we might be able to agree to what he has suggested now. But in light of what he has suggested, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader amend his request to provide that the Senate turn to the consideration of the welfare bill as the first order of business on Monday, June 3, and that the motion to proceed to the missile defense bill be delayed until the completion of the welfare bill, so that we might finish it while he is still here.

Mr. DASCHLE. Regrettably, we object at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I do not want to delay the distinguished majority leader, but I would also note that he and I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue of confirmation of judges, and I hope that we could continue to work on that and find some resolution. I know there is a great deal of interest on both sides in trying to figure out a way to break loose the logjam on what I believe are 17 or 18 judges that await some action here. A lot of families and a lot of futures are on the line. I am sure that the sooner we accommodate everyone's interest, the better it is for everybody concerned. I appreciate the majority leader's interest in trying to resolve that matter as well. We will want to work with him to see that we get that done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution abuses reconciliation-- extending use in an entirely inappropriate way. In sanctioning that abuse, the Chair has made a faulty judgment that could have a vast impact on the Senate. The Chair has ruled that reconciliation can be used solely to increase spending, solely to cut taxes, solely to increase the deficit. That is an absolutely unacceptable distortion of the reconciliation process; expanded use threatens all Senators' rights to debate and amend.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me read a statement, first of all, by Robert Bennett, the attorney representing the President: * * * my petition on the President's behalf references the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act as one of five illustrative examples of the types of stays that can temporarily defer lawsuits. The President does not rely on the Act, and has no intention of doing so, as the basis for requesting relief in this case. Our petition does not rely on the Act, but is based instead on important constitutional principles. We have no intention of changing our approach in the future. Mr. President, I submit for the Record the brief submitted on behalf of the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we all ought to recognize this for what it is. This is politics; this is an effort to embarrass the President of the United States. We all understand that. We all fully appreciate what is going on here. The fact is, the President has said over and over that the Constitution is his source on all that he does. And certainly in this case, that principle is again articulated in the statement made by Mr. Bennett. The brief refers to five illustrative examples. That is all. They are illustrative, they are analogous. In no way does the President rely on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Act for any defense or any exemption from legal action. So this resolution is based on a completely false premise and is totally misdirected. We look forward to the opportunity of having many of these debates in the coming months, because if we are going to be devoting our attention to this kind of minutiae and this kind of politicization of our debate in the coming months, as our colleagues apparently plan to do, we will get nothing done in this Senate. But that may be their choice. The fact is, the President clearly has made his case. This amendment is in error, and we will have more opportunities to talk about it in the future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, lack of retirement security is America's quiet crisis. Americans who work hard all their lives--either in the workplace or at home--deserve peace of mind that a secure retirement awaits them. But too many Americans live in fear that they cannot afford to retire because they do not have adequate pension coverage. Right now, 51 million working Americans--more than half of private sector workers--have no private pension plan. Women are especially hard hit by this quiet crisis. Nearly two-thirds of working women do not have pension plans. And if you work in a small business, you only have a 1-in-4 chance of getting pension coverage. Even those workers fortunate enough to have a pension plan cannot be sure their pensions will actually be there when they are ready to retire. Add to that the fact that more Americans are spending every dollar they earn just to pay the bills, leaving less and less for retirement, and it is no wonder people are worried about the future. Working Americans should be able to count on a pyramid of income sources that, along with Medicare, provides them with a secure retirement. Social Security is the base of that pyramid, the foundation of retirement security. At the top of the pyramid are employer-provided pensions and private savings. From day one, Democrats in this Congress have had to fight to protect Social Security and Medicare from attacks by the far right. And we will continue to defend those programs as the critical bedrock of retirement security. But Social Security and Medicare--alone--were never intended to provide full retirement security. If people are going to retire with dignity and security, they need personal savings, and they need adequate pension coverage. But too many obstacles exist in our current system for millions of Americans to get and keep pension coverage. That is why pension reform is one of the top 3 priorities for Democrats between now and November. We are committed to getting some, if not all, of this package back to the President for his signature before this Congress ends. Democrats plan to ease the fears of working Americans by making it easier for businesses to offer pension plans, and easier for workers who do not have access to employer-sponsored pensions plans to set up their own, tax-free pension plans. We will also establish a new kind of 401(k) plan to help people save up to $5,000 a year, tax-free, for retirement. Workers will be able to take their pensions and retirement savings accounts with them when they change jobs. They will not lose what they have already saved every time they take a new job. That is essential in an economy where the average worker will change jobs up to 8 times in his or her career. In addition to more pensions, this plan will make all pensions more secure by requiring pension funds to be invested in a more timely manner, and by increasing civil and criminal penalties for pension raiding. Finally, Democrats in the Senate will push to dramatically increase women's retirement security by enabling them to earn pensions themselves, and by making sure women are aware of the spousal pension funds to which they may be entitled. My colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, predicted in a recent speech that pension reform would be the big issue for the next Congress. I respectfully disagree with my colleague. Senate Democrats believe that pension reform is a big issue for this Congress. There is no reason the American people should have to wait that long. People who work hard all their lives deserve to be able to retire with dignity and security. We intend to ensure that they can, and we intend to do so this year.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has given its approval to the nomination of Col. Joseph T. (Tim) Murphy to be a brigadier general in the U.S. Army National Guard. He has faithfully served in the South Dakota Army National Guard for more than 25 years and currently serves as the State's assistant adjutant general. I have had the honor and pleasure of working with Tim Murphy on a number of National Guard issues over the years and have been continually impressed by his commitment and dedication. He has been an outstanding advocate for the South Dakota National Guard and has served his State and country with the utmost integrity. Considering the excellent leadership that he has provided, it is easy to understand why the South Dakota National Guard has been so successful. Just recently, for instance, the 854th Engineer Company in Mobridge and Lemmon, SD won the 1995 National Guard's Itschner Award for the most outstanding engineer company in the Active Army, Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. This is the fifth time during the past 20 years that a South Dakota National Guard unit has won the prestigious award. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Tim Murphy and am convinced that his nomination is well deserved and long overdue. I would like to take this opportunity to review some of the highlights of his distinguished career in the South Dakota Army National Guard. Tim Murphy enlisted in the South Dakota Army National Guard upon graduating from Brookings High School in 1960. He subsequently attended the South Dakota Military Academy officer candidate school and was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1965. In the same year, he served as a full-time technician and administrative officer for the 139th Transportation Battalion in Brookings. In 1971, he was selected as the first recruiting and retention manager for South Dakota. During his tenure with the South Dakota Army National Guard, Tim Murphy served in many other capacities. As his extensive biography indicates, he was a maintenance officer, a personnel officer, and an assistant operations training officer. He was also the 129th Public Affairs Detachment commander and the South Dakota State Area Command recruiting and induction officer. In addition, he served as the plans, operations and military support officer; the director of personnel; and the director of logistics. Tim Murphy was promoted to colonel in 1984. Five years later, he entered active duty and became the U.S. Property and Fiscal Officer for South Dakota. In 1991, he became the chief of staff for the South Dakota Army National Guard at Camp Rapid in Rapid City, SD. He maintained that position until he was promoted to assistant adjutant general earlier this year. In addition to the many assignments that he has held in the Army National Guard, Tim Murphy has also earned numerous military awards and decorations. He has received the Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. Tim Murphy also earned the National Defense Service Ribbon, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters, and the Army Service Ribbon. In addition, he received the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with XX device, the Overseas Training Ribbon, the National Guard Bureau Eagle Award, and a Master Aviator Badge. I congratulate Tim on his nomination to be a brigadier general in the Army National Guard. As I mentioned, his nomination is well deserved and long overdue. I wish him and his wife, Carol, the very best and hope their future is filled with good health and happiness.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just note parenthetically, if that is correct, that the majority party is the same party that has criticized the President's budget because the President sunsets his tax cuts. But now the majority comes before us with a reconciliation instruction that requires either that their tax cuts be abruptly sunsetted in the year 2002 or that taxes be increased dramatically after that point to pay for the continuing tax cuts. Is it the opinion of the Chair that it is in order for a budget resolution to call for the creation of 10 different reconciliation bills in one fiscal year?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me ask you this: Would the reconciliation bill be in order if the budget resolution did not address the issue of deficit reduction beyond that 6-year timeframe?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me first associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished ranking member. We are down, now, to the final couple of hours. I really hope we will not lose the opportunity to have a good debate on whatever issues are left outstanding. I think there has been a real, good-faith effort over the last 2\1/2\ days to reach this point. We have had a good debate. I hope we can finish it off now. There are virtually no Members on the floor prepared to offer amendments. We ought to correct that. We will give people an opportunity in the next 10 minutes to come to the floor and offer additional amendments. In the meantime, I want to call attention to a concern I have raised a number of times already relating to the circumstances in which we find ourselves on this particular resolution. I have viewed the procedures employed by the majority all through the 104th Congress with increasing concern. Our side, the Democratic caucus, has been systematically deprived of the opportunity to offer legitimate amendments. It has been an recurring practice on the Senate floor over the last several months for the majority to offer a bill, to fill the so-called parliamentary tree, preclude Democrats from offering amendments, and then file cloture so we are left with no other recourse but to vote against cloture and to continue to bottle up the legislation. It's either that or accept entire bills as forced upon us by the majority without seeking to exercise our fundamental rights as Senators to debate and amend. Given those terms, we've had no choice but to vote against cloture. We have voiced our concern over and over, and will continue to do so, about this fundamental abuse of Senate rules. Democrats never employed such extreme tactics when we were in the majority. I hope we will not get in the habit of doing so in the future. I think it is wrong. I think it undermines the good-faith effort Republicans and Democrats need to demonstrate in moving legislation through this body. Certainly, it's legitimate to oppose legislation. We can have extended debate. But to preclude the minority from offering even a single amendment is unprecedented, and, again, simply wrong. We are moving now from that practice to another one that, in my view, is even more threatening to the Senate as an institution. This resolution will do something that we have not done now in more than 20 years. In fact, I would say in all of the modern day period of the budget process, we have never done this. Only once, right as we were beginning to employ the reconciliation process and before that process was well understood, did we ever do what the Republicans are attempting to do in this budget resolution. In fact, I think it's arguable that the one precedent adduced for the practice I'm about to describe is not a precedent at all--but rather a rudimentary misuse of the term ``reconciliation'' that should be dismissed as an example of anything. This is the first budget resolution that will instruct a committee to produce a reconciliation measure that actually increases the deficit. The 1974 precedent we will hear about was based on no reconciliation instruction. And this year's unprecedented abuse therefore calls into question what reconciliation is about in the first place. We all know what reconciliation was designed to be and what it has been. We all know that we pass budget resolutions with reconciliation instructions in order to ensure that the authorizing committees hit deficit reduction targets. Some way of enforcing deficit reduction on committees is the sole reason for being of the highly privileged vehicle we call reconciliation. We deprive Senators of their normal rights to debate and amend only because we seek to ensure that the committees follow through in the crucial business of exercising fiscal responsibility. That is the reconciliation process. Its objective is to continue to reduce the deficit, and it does so by compelling committees to live up to the expectations of the budget resolution. But what are we doing this year? As I say, except for the rare and understandable circumstances in 1974, this body is doing something we have never done before. We will be passing a reconciliation bill in three parts, one part of which will actually increase the deficit dramatically-- dramatically. I must tell you, what goes around comes around. I cannot see any reason why Democrats--once back in the majority--cannot conveniently begin to use reconciliation packages for all kinds of legislative agendas. I do not see why we may not ultimately authorize through a budget resolution a reconciliation package for each month. Let us just put all the legislation we want to do in each reconciliation package. We will then preclude the possibility of any more extended debates, preclude the possibility of an open and free discussion, preclude the possibility of amendments in some cases. We will change the very character of this institution in a very permanent way. I am not sure that is what the majority wants. In fact, I'm confident most on the other side of the aisle do not want that. I know if they were in the minority--they would certainly not want it. And I know that most of my friends on the other side do not expect to be in the majority forever. I would say that all of us, regardless of whether we are in the majority or minority, want to protect the institution of the Senate and its rules. That ought to be one of our foremost goals. If we are going to bend and change the rules so dramatically to serve the political needs of the moment, we are not living up to our responsibilities to the institution of the Senate. We are not living up to what our predecessors understood to be the practice of this body. And we are not living up to the obligation we have to our constituents to preserve the legislative freedoms and protections embodied in the Senate's rules and traditions. So, it is with great concern that I call attention to what I consider to be a very, very dangerous set of legislative circumstances mandated by this budget resolution. I think it is a fundamental abuse of the budget process. It is such an abuse that it calls into question whether the document before us actually constitutes a budget resolution. I would argue it does not. I argue that, because it creates a budget reconciliation bill devoted solely to worsening the deficit, it should no longer deserve the limitations on debate of a budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order that, for these reasons, the pending resolution is not a budget resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand the parliamentary situation, the Chair could rule and then the debate is anticipated to be at least 1 hour on the appeal of the ruling of the Chair; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. I prefer to have the ruling of the Chair. I anticipate the ruling, and then I will appeal the ruling.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I now appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no desire to use that kind of time. I know there are a number of Senators who wish to offer amendments. But in the interest of parliamentary procedure, let me take a little bit of time, and then we will present a series of parliamentary inquiries that may help set the record in this instance.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to let the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think we can do it in the series of votes just to expedite things.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, notes that we have seen an occasion such as this arise. I alluded to that circumstance in 1974. That was 20 years ago. In the world of the Budget Act, that 20-year period is a lifetime. Congress, and in particular the Senate, have dramatically changed the budget process since then. In the 1980's, the Senate adopted, as the Senator from New Mexico noted, the Byrd rule to restrain and limit reconciliation. Since the early 1980's, a long history of using the reconciliation process to reduce the deficit has evolved. The chairman of the Budget Committee noted that the Byrd rule requires that there be a sufficient offset or deficit-reduction--and no worsening of the deficit in the outyears--to a reconciliation package for it to be in order. But his reconciliation instructions in this resolution trigger a tax provision that does absolutely no deficit reduction, and certainly worsens the deficit beyond the window of the resolution itself. Mr. President, that being the case, only two outcomes are possible. First, there would be no tax reduction after the 6th year; that is, that tax reduction anticipated in this reconciliation package would no longer apply in year 7 because, if it did, there would be a deficit created, and then obviously the Byrd rule would apply. Or, second, there is some sort of offset which is not delineated here. If that is the case, I'd like to hear what that undisclosed offset is. This difficulty is the inevitable result of using reconciliation improperly for deficit creation rather than deficit reduction. The fact that the Byrd rule creates clear problems for this approach only confirms that this resolution's reconciliation instruction is totally inappropriate. The 1970's precedent did not involve a budget process resolution instructing the committee to produce a reconciliation bill that worsens the deficit. Senator Long, who was chairman of the Finance Committee at the time, simply came down to the floor and claimed that the tax cut bill then under consideration was a reconciliation bill. Again, there had been no instruction to the Finance Committee. There was no previous understanding that the Senate was operating under reconciliation procedures. It is true that at that point everybody stood and saluted. But that does not change the fact that the chairman's tax cut bill should not have been considered a reconciliation bill in 1974, as the budget resolution had not directed the creation of a reconciliation bill itself. So, in sum, the 1974 precedent was wrongly decided. I hope that we will not build upon that error now in 1996. The Byrd rule and other subsequent amendments to the Budget Act clearly imply the deficit reducing nature of the reconciliation process. I will quote the language of 313-B, section 1, subsection (b): Any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect of provisions reported by the committee reporting the title containing the provision is that the committee fails to achieve its reconciliation instruction. This is a portion of the Byrd rule, and in expressly singling out increased spending and tax cuts as potentially inappropriate in a committee's work product, the language clearly implies that the true reconciliation effort should be to reduce spending or increase taxes. In other words, the proper reconciliation function is deficit reduction. Mr. President, the bottom line here is that if a reconciliation bill produces only an increase in outlays or a decrease in revenues it is subject to the Byrd rule and therefore extraneous. Given those conditions, the third portion of this resolution's reconciliation grouping certainly violates the Byrd rule on the face of it. Mr. President, I know the Senator from New Mexico indicated it was for managerial facilitation that he has presented this bifurcated approach to the reconciliation package. I must say, I think ``managerial'' can explain just about anything. Obviously, managers want all kinds of devices to move their agenda along. In any case, managerial comfort is no justification for a practice that clearly violates many decades of Senate procedure. And as I've said, this practice is unprecedented. It is dangerous. It is extraordinarily harmful to the institution itself. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DASCHLE. This resolution directs the creation of three reconciliation bills, as I noted. It provides that the third reconciliation bill shall occur only if the first two have been enacted. Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of that third reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit--even under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the prior two reconciliation bills? I would be happy to repeat the inquiry if that needs to be done.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me rephrase it, because I think it is a very important question and I do not think it is hypothetical at all. In fact, it deals directly with the circumstances at hand. Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would continue to be a budget resolution if it directed the creation of only that third reconciliation bill--the one that solely worsens the deficit--even under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the prior two reconciliation bills?