Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the resolution which honors the memory of Ron Brown is still pending, and I want to make a couple of remarks in regard to that resolution and Secretary Brown before we close tonight. Mr. President, it is with sadness--and tremendous gratitude for the work their lives exemplified--that I add my voice to those honoring Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and the extraordinary men and women who died with him on that plane. I am sure each of us will long remember just where we were and what we were doing when we heard that Secretary Brown's plane was missing over Croatia, and then, moments later, when we learned the plane had crashed. In my case, I was at home--packing to leave for Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia myself. So many thoughts raced through my mind. . . . I thought of the meeting I was supposed to have had the following evening in Zagreb with Secretary Brown. I thought of how, just a few weeks earlier, Secretary Brown had helped an electronics company in Rapid City work out the final details of a contract with a group in South Africa, and of all the people in my state who will be able to work because he went the extra mile for us. But mostly I thought, what a loss. What a terrible loss our Nation had just suffered. Ron Brown and the 32 brave Americans who accompanied him on that noble mission to Bosnia represented what is best about our Nation: A ``can do'' sense of optimism and determination. A generosity of spirit. And an unshakable belief in democracy. The men and women on that plane did not go to Bosnia simply to bring contracts to America--as important as that is. They went to bring hope and prosperity to Bosnia so that the fragile peace there might take root and grow, and democracy might replace tyranny. Hours after Secretary Brown's plane crashed into that mountain, I was on another plane with Senators Hatch and Reid. We spent 9 days in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia and four neighboring states, assessing progress in the implementation of the Dayton peace plan. Every world leader with whom I met stressed the importance of both promoting economic growth and building democratic institutions to achieving a sustainable peace in the Balkans. Those were the very goals to which Ron Brown's trip to Bosnia was dedicated. In an article I read, a woman who had worked with Secretary Brown said it wasn't just that he saw a glass half-full when others saw it half-empty. His optimism was bigger than that. Where others saw a half- empty glass, she said, he saw a glass overflowing with possibilities. It would take that kind of vision to see the path to a lasting peace in Bosnia. Ron Brown was able to see that path. And, he was able to make others see it. He was a good salesman. What he sold was America--not just American goods and services, but American ideals. The reason he could sell America with such confidence is that he believed in America, and in the goal of making America--and the world-- better. Ron Brown spent his life transcending boundaries. Boundaries of race. Boundaries of party. Boundaries drawn on maps. And in transcending those boundaries, he made them less formidable for all of us. That is part of the great legacy he has left us. I have been reminded these last few days of a scene in the Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar. It is the scene at Caesar's burial. Caesar has just been falsely maligned by Brutus as a traitor. Then Mark Antony rises to recall the Caesar he knew. He was, Mark Antony said, a man who loved his country so much he gave his life for it. Then he stunned the crowd by reading them Caesar's will. He had left all of his possessions to the people of Rome. Even more precious, he had left his fellow citizens a legacy of greatness and the ability, to quote Shakespeare, ``to walk abroad and recreate yourselves.'' Ron Brown and the men and women on that plane died trying to recreate the American spirit of democracy and opportunity in a land torn apart by war. It is right that we offer these tributes to them. But, in the end, the best tribute we can pay them is to keep alive their determination to recreate what is best about America wherever people long for freedom and justice and opportunity. Let us today rededicate ourselves to that noble cause. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. If, as soon as that is laid down, the Presiding Officer could recognize the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wyoming, I would have no objections, with that understanding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thought we had completed the discussion on immigration. But since it appears that is not the case, let me respond again. We did not pull the bill. We could be on that bill right now. We could be taking up amendments right now. We have already agreed to short timeframes within which to debate the minimum wage amendment and the Social Security amendment. We can resolve them by 5 o'clock this afternoon and come to completion on the bill itself sometime tonight. We are prepared to do that. So do not let anybody be misled. We are not holding this bill hostage. We did not pull it down. We did not ask that there be no opportunity to vote. Welcome to the U.S. Senate. Welcome to the U.S. Senate. If our Republican colleagues are prepared right now, this afternoon, to say that throughout the rest of the 104th Congress they will never offer an irrelevant amendment to any bill because doing so would somehow indicate that they do not want a bill to pass or they are going to hold the bill hostage, we might be prepared to talk about that. But everyone knows that is not what this is all about. There are some here who do not want to deal with the issues that we are attempting to address in these amendments. So I do not think there ought to be any misunderstanding or obfuscation of the question. The question is, Do we support passage of an illegal immigration bill? The answer is not only yes, but emphatically yes. Do we support timeframes within which every amendment could be considered? The answer is yes. So I hope we can reach an agreement. I hope now we can move on to the counterterrorism bill and address that in a timely manner. I am prepared to sit down this afternoon, tonight, or tomorrow to find a way to resolve the procedural issues regarding how we take up the immigration bill itself. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I proposed a modification.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I can respond to the distinguished majority leader, I hope we could use whatever time we have available to us to see if we can find some mutually agreeable schedule here. Our desire is to come to final passage on an illegal immigration bill. We want to see that happen as badly as anybody else here in the Senate. We also recognize, however, that circumstances in the past have precluded us from offering amendments relating to minimum wage. We will not have, if we bring up the constitutional amendment to balance the budget under the reconsideration rules here in the Senate, an opportunity to offer amendments. So we really have no vehicle with which to offer alternatives. But I understand and certainly respect the majority leader's position, and I want to work with him to see if we cannot accommodate his desire and ours to complete work on the illegal immigration bill, as well as to have opportunities to vote on issues that we hold to be very important. I object under the circumstances now presented.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder how many times Senator Dole has been in the opposite position, when Senator Mitchell and my distinguished predecessor, Senator Byrd, made similar requests on the Senate floor. We all know the circumstances on the Senate floor. We all know that there are many occasions when Senators have no other opportunity to raise an issue except in the form of amendments to pending legislation. Our Republican colleagues have done it time and time again, both in this Congress as well as in previous Congresses. Given that, I propose a modification to the unanimous-consent request that I think is reasonable. We would be prepared to offer just two nonrelevant amendments, the minimum wage amendment as well as the Dorgan amendment relating to the balanced budget proposal, and would even be prepared to allow the Republicans a similar number of nonrelevant amendments, with time constraints and no second-degree amendments, in an effort to accommodate the schedule. That is not, it seems to me, too much to ask. We could accommodate that within the next hour or two. We could even agree to a limited number of amendments on the bill itself that are relevant. I make that modification and ask the distinguished majority leader whether he would be inclined to support it. If so, I think we could find a way in which to schedule this legislation and reach final passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate should not be considering the 12th continuing resolution of this fiscal year. Congress should have completed work on the fiscal year 1996 budget last October, when it was supposed to have been completed. It is indeed unprecedented and outrageous that Congress has so utterly failed to address this year's budget in a timely fashion. It is unprecedented in the history of this Nation to find ourselves 6 months into the fiscal year with four appropriations bills unfinished. This Senator finds it all the more outrageous that the Senate is considering another short-term continuing resolution when it could have easily completed its work this week. Leaders were in the process of negotiating a number of difficult issues that would have led to a reasonable omnibus appropriations bill that the President could sign. Negotiations were progressing on this bill, and if they were permitted to continue for only a few more days, Congress might be able to complete all of the unfinished business in this year's appropriations process. Because much more work is needed, Congress should have stayed in this weekend or into next week to finish the fiscal year 1996 budget. But the majority insists on leaving for a 2-week break. The omnibus bill passed the Senate over a week ago. But the majority did not schedule its first meeting of the conferees until this Wednesday, more than a week after the Senate passed the bill. As a result, conferees found themselves working late into the night yesterday, actually until 1 a.m. this morning. Still, today they could not complete the people's business, so Congress is off for a 2-week recess. Instead of working through the difficult issues remaining to be resolved in the fiscal year 1996 budget, the Republican leadership decided to delay with yet another stopgap measure. And the American people will pay the price. Continued government by continuing resolution spells slow death on the installment plan for a number of critical Government programs. The funding levels are simply too low to adequately fund a number of basic functions of Government. In addition, the uncertainty facing Government agencies and the people they serve has undermined the effectiveness of programs designed to improve our children's education, clean up the environment, and put police on the streets. Under the 12 continung resolutions this year, education is suffering drastic funding cutbacks. Schools can't plan. Children, teachers, and families are being shortchanged. Environmental cleanup efforts have been slowed, and superfund sites left unattended. Because of reductions in the COPS Program, fewer police are on our streets. Having said that, it is important to note that this continuing resolution does accomplish several important goals that I fully support. First, the District of Columbia is finally provided in this legislation the balance of its Federal payment for the rest of this fiscal year. Another provision clarifies that Federal Aviation Administration labor representatives retain their statutory role. Perhaps most important is the $200 million in reconstruction aid for Bosnia contained in this bill. This money is critically important if the Dayton Accord's peace plan is to be implemented successfully. Bosnia's infrastructure has sustained great damage in its years of war, and this aid is critically needed to help with the restoration effort. I am pleased it was included. Nevertheless, on balance, this legislation does not deserve the support of this body. I will vote no on this continuing resolution, not because of what it includes, but because of what it does not include-- the essential education, environment, and law enforcement services it fails to provide--and because of the mismanagement it represents. Congress should remain in session and finish the real work that should have been completed 6 months ago.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is important that my colleagues recognize two very important aspects of the legislation we are considering today. First, this legislation increases spending on Social Security and offsets that spending, in part, by using savings that had been identified as necessary to bring about a balanced budget. The language was changed at the last minute so that a point of order against using non-Social Security savings to pay for Social Security spending could be avoided. But I do think my colleagues should be aware that this legislation uses savings that had been identified for reducing the deficit. Second, the savings in this legislation exceeds the level that is needed to pay for the spending increase. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation achieves $3.5 billion in on-budget savings, and $1.8 billion in net savings over 7 years. The impact of these provisions on the deficit would actually be higher than the CBO numbers indicate. This is because the bill would allow the discretionary spending caps to be increased in order to conduct more continuing disability reviews. These reviews are conducted to verify that beneficiaries are still entitled to disability benefits. Because of budgetary pressures, and competing priorities, the Social Security Administration has not been able to conduct as many CDRs as they would like. CBO estimates that, if fully utilized, this provision could result in net savings of $800 million dollars by the year 2002. Finally, the savings are understated because CBO does not take into consideration the fact that raising the earnings limit means that beneficiaries who work will receive higher Social Security benefits. Under current law, if their income is high enough, they will be obligated to pay higher taxes. Actuaries at the Social Security administration estimate the impact to be $726 million over the 7-year budget window. In sum, Mr. President, the net impact of the legislation we are adopting today is, in effect, to make a down payment on deficit reduction of more than $3 billion over 7 years. senior citizens' right to work act Mr. Graham. Mr. President, in this Congress, we have talked a lot about reforming welfare, about empowering people to help themselves, about removing disincentives to work for able-bodied citizens. Well, Mr. President, here is our chance. Here are citizens who are not looking for hand-outs, who are not looking for favors, who are not even looking for help. These people are not looking for anything but the right to contribute--as working, tax- paying citizens--to their country. Are we going to continue to say, no, you cannot work. No, you cannot contribute. No, you cannot be considered a valuable part of our Nation's workforce? Mr. President, I submit to you that our senior citizens can be a valuable part of our workforce. They have the experience, the maturity, and the desire to contribute to the workforce. And many of them are able to work and contribute significantly. Mr. President, the Social Security earnings test may be our Nation's biggest disincentive to allowing those who want to work, who have asked to work, to continue to contribute meaningfully. Isn't it ironic that we have been talking about removing disincentives to work for those who are on welfare, yet preventing our Nation's seniors from contributing in any meaningful way? These seniors are not on welfare; rather, they have spent a lifetime contributing to the Social Security Program--they have earned their benefits. We should not use the reduction of these benefits to prevent our seniors from working. For every $3 that seniors aged 65 to 69 earn over $11,520 this year, the Federal Government takes away $1 in Social Security benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, about 930,000 seniors in this age group are affected by the earnings cap. But let me bring this policy issue away from the statistics. Each month, I take a different job to stay in touch with the people I represent. In 1991, I took a job bagging groceries at the Winn-Dixie supermarket in Pace, FL, which is near Pensacola. I worked with a man by the name of Jim Young, who is a father of three and grandfather of two. And Jim needs to work. Like many Americans, Jim is looking ahead to the legal age of retirement with full benefits, but without a big retirement savings account. Listen to Jim Young explain this issue: ``I don't have retirement savings, and there are a lot of other people who don't either.'' Jim Young would like to work past the age of 65. He needs to work past the age of 65. And by current law, if Jim makes $18,000 when he turns 65--just $18,000, he will lose $1200 of his Social Security benefits. To people like Jim Young, to most older Americans, that's a lot of money. Why should the Government put up a barrier to block Jim Young from working, from supporting his family? Some opponents of this legislation may make the argument that reform isn't needed because older Americans are well-off and therefore, don't need to work. To those people, I say: Talk to Jim Young, who now works in the produce department at Winn-Dixie. Talk to Winn-Dixie and find out whether employers want to hire the talents of older Americans like Jim Young. True, when the Social Security earnings test was designed, it may have made sense to discourage older Americans from working, under the rationale that keeping seniors out of the job market would free up jobs for younger people who needed work. But times have changed. The declining birth rate after the post-World War II baby boomer generation means that fewer teens are in the job market. Many employers are looking for seniors to fill jobs. And people like Jim Young are ready to work. They need to work. And to these people, we should say, ``Go ahead. Support your family. Help yourself to improve your quality of life. We won't stand in your way.'' Social Security was not designed to be the sole support of our senior citizens, but now, many seniors--like Jim Young--have little savings to supplement their benefits. And we have been saying to those seniors who can work, to those senior who want to work, that we want to penalize them for their efforts? This policy is unfair to our seniors. And even worse, it doesn't make sense. Without the earnings cap, more seniors would likely choose to continue working. Additional revenue would be generated through Social Security and income taxes paid on their wages. This would substantially offset the increase in benefit payments. In addition, we have been struggling to find ways to improve the long-term solvency of the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program. The Social Security Administration estimates that the offsets in this legislation would pay for the increase in the earnings limit. But the offsets would also improve the long-term solvency of the OASDI program by about 0.03 percent. That's not a lot, but it's a step in the right direction. So you see, Mr. President, we cannot afford to discourage our older population from working. We need their experience. We need their skills. And we need to allow them to provide for their families. When I go home to Florida and I see Jim Young and all of the other Jim Youngs who are working to support themselves and their loved ones, I want to say, we are proud of your efforts. We salute your efforts. And we thank you for your valuable contributions to this great Nation of ours. So as we continue to talk about welfare reform and look for ways to help able-bodied people get back to work, I say: Let us take this issue out of the welfare arena and apply it to those who are not on welfare, to those who simply want to receive the benefits they have earned while continuing to be a part of the workforce. Let us look to our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents. Let us look to Jim Young. Mr. President, approving this legislation to allow our seniors to work is good policy. It is fiscally sound. And it is the right thing to do.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I have time available, I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have seen a number of Republicans as well as Democrats--in fact, almost unanimously the Democrats and many Republicans have indicated their support in votes taken earlier last year. So clearly we have a majority vote in the Senate in support of an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield, if I have any time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time. Mr. President, I think it would be very unfortunate if someone cast this as anything other than what it is--unless we act soon, we will be at the lowest point in terms of purchasing power that we have been in our Nation's history when it comes to the minimum wage. That is a fact. This is not an effort to encumber an environmental bill, as troubling as one aspect of that bill is. It has nothing to do with Presidential politics, it has nothing to do with labor unions. It has everything to do with the fact that the economic foundation for working families in this country has been, is now, and will continue to be the minimum wage. That is a fact. A fair minimum wage is an economic foundation for working families, period. Seventy-three percent of those who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are adults. Almost three out of every four people; not just those getting started in life, or just out of high school or college. They are people struggling to make ends meet with a family. And 40 percent of those on minimum wage today are the sole breadwinners. Let us put an end to the stereotype of the teenager flipping hamburgers so he can buy a car, or somehow get started right out of school. The face of a typical minimum wage worker is a woman working full time or part time to support her family, a single mother working 40 hours a week, and concluding at the end of every week or month when she tries to pay the bills that she is still living in poverty. A minimum wage increase could help, at long last, after 5 years, pull her at least a little bit out of the depths of concern that she has about the economic and financial problems she is facing. A 90-cent increase, which is what this bill would do, provides $1,800 more in a year's time. And 45 cents does not sound like a whole lot, but when you combine 45 cents this year and next, over a period of time you find that it buys more than 7 months worth of groceries, 1 year of health care, including insurance premiums, prescription drugs, and other out- of-pocket costs. This increase will buy 4 months rent or mortgage payments. This increase pays 9 months of utility bills. So do not let anybody mislead you. This is not just a minuscule amount for a lot of people. This is whether people can eat or have the ability to pay their bills. That is what we are talking about here. The increase in the minimum wage is obviously just a piece of it. The earned-income tax credit is also a very important part. We have faced, throughout this last 14 months, efforts by many of our Republican colleagues to cut the earned-income tax credit. They tell us that they ought to go out and find a job, they do not need the EITC, they ought to rely on the marketplace to find, somehow, an increase in wages there. If we are going to rely upon the marketplace, we better have a living wage to do that. The minimum wage can only be the beginning for many of these working families. Republicans often tell us they want to move people off welfare and on to work, and we share that view, that desire, that goal. What do you tell people who work 40 hours a week and are still below the legal level of poverty in this country? How is that an encouragement to tell people to get off welfare? Restoring the minimum wage to a working wage is one of the best ways you get people off of welfare. Five years, Mr. President, is a long time. In that 5 years, we have had increases in our wages. Just about every CEO in this country has seen dramatic increases in their wages. I do not deny them that. In many cases, they truly deserve it. On April 1, we will see the fifth anniversary of the last increase in the minimum wage. We have seen a 20-year period of wage stagnation, and the gap between the richest and poorest in this country has never been wider. The stratification in this country has to be something this Senate addresses. A higher minimum wage is the least we can do to begin dealing effectively with that stratification. The real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly 50 cents since 1991, and by 29 percent since 1979. If we do not act right now, the real value will be at a 40-year low by January 1997. This is not just a matter affecting a few people, Mr. President; 12 million working people will benefit directly by what we are going to decide this afternoon. In 32 States, it is over 10 percent of the work force. In study after study, in spite of all the denials you hear from our Republican friends--nearly two dozen in all, not one or two--have shown that a moderate increase in the minimum wage can be achieved without costing jobs. That is not our assertion. That is not something we just postulate about. This is something that actually has been examined in case after case after case, and in every single case it has been reported that you can raise the minimum wage at a moderate level and not cost jobs. In fact, we see a positive effect on both business and workers. A higher minimum wage reduces turnover, raises productivity, and lowers recruitment and training costs. When workers are paid better, when they get a better living wage, then there is more demand for the products they make. There are all kinds of advantages in doing this in a proper way. We know that. Apparently, a lot of Republican colleagues share that view because the last time we voted in 1989, 89 Senators supported the increase in the minimum wage. A Republican President signed it into law indicating that he endorsed the principle of a guaranteed and fair minimum wage. The time has come to show that same bipartisanship and to do it again. A recent Gallup poll said that 77 percent of the American people think that we ought to do it again. Sixty-three percent of Republicans think that we ought to do it again. This is not a ``new mandate.'' This is not something that we have just dreamed up. This is something we have been doing for decades and decades with the realization you have to start somewhere. The U.S. Conference of Mayors just sent us all a letter that makes it very clear that they endorse an increase in the minimum wage. These are government leaders at the most local level telling us that they see what this does; they know that if we get people off welfare, they can reduce the cost of government. The way to do it is with a minimum wage that works. So, Mr. President, there are those who say we are somehow encumbering the process. So be it. If there is no other way to ensure that we get a vote on the minimum wage, we have no other choice but to do it this way. We have all agreed that we will hold off on offering this as an amendment to any other piece of legislation if we can simply get a timeframe within which this can be debated, when we can consider it in a way that gives us a commitment to vote on a minimum wage. The ultimate irony is that the majority is asking people making $4.25 an hour to wait until the majority figures out a way to cut their Medicare benefits before they allow them a 45-cent increase. Republicans--at least some of them--are prepared to wage a war on working families. Two days ago, we saw that they are willing to go to any length to avoid a vote and to face a choice. We saw a 4-hour quorum call, a motion to recommit, a recess in one of the biggest weeks of the year, and talk of an unfunded mandates points of order. Mr. President, never have so few done so much to deny so little to so many. Working Americans are not going to be fooled. Our Republican colleagues cannot have it both ways. They express newfound concern for workers in a campaign but then manufacture reasons to oppose them when it is real. If you oppose the minimum wage, as the House majority leader does, then vote against this. But if you believe that 12 million people--many the sole earners for their families--deserve an increase, then vote for it. The time to face up to that choice is what this is all about. It is what we were elected to do. Let us do it this afternoon. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. The answer is very simple. Obviously, if we could put some sort of cost of living adjustment in the minimum wage we would do so. We would do so today. We would do so any time. Obviously that is not possible. So we have to revisit the issue from time to time. The average length of time between increases of the minimum wage is 6 or 7 years. You cannot do it the first couple of years. We know that. As much as we would like to, we recognize the limitations of increasing the minimum wage. But over a period of time, you finally have to come to the conclusion that, if you cannot do it in 2 years, if you cannot do it in 3 years, at least you have to do it in 5 years. That is really what this is all about--a recognition that we could not do it before but we ought to do it now--now that we have reached a purchasing power level that approaches the lowest in history. So certainly the Senator from Oklahoma recognizes, as all of us do, that this is the time to face up to the facts and adjust this minimum wage as we know we must.

Mr. DASCHLE. My time has expired. I appreciate the indulgence of the President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his excellent statement. I do not know that anyone could say it any better. He has capsulized very well what many of us feel about this legislation. He has been in the trenches and has fought the fight and has led the effort in many cases. I applaud him for his statement and for the contribution he has made to this debate again this morning. As I consider the contributions made by many of our colleagues, let me also call attention to the fact that this is the last farm bill that the Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin, and the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, will probably be involved in. Over the years they have been remarkable advocates of sound farm policy and leaders in their own right in so many ways. The people of Alabama and the people of Arkansas could do no better than to have the representation that they have had in Senators Heflin and Pryor. They will certainly be missed as we consider farm legislation in the future. Let me commend as well our distinguished ranking member and the chairman for their work in bringing us to this point. We may not agree entirely on many of the issues involved in farm policy or ultimately on what we should do with this legislation, but no two people have worked harder and in a more bipartisan manner to bring us what we have been able to achieve today. So I again publicly thank them for their leadership. As I said last night, Mr. President, this bill is long overdue. I do not have an explanation as to why, as late as it is, we are dealing with the 1995 farm bill in 1996, but we do know this, we know that farmers need certainty. We do know that it is too late to start over. We know that the winter crop will soon be harvested. We know that southern crops are already in the ground. We know that midwestern farmers are ready to begin planting. In fact, just recently a farmer from Volga, SD, called me from a supply store trying to decide what kind of seed to buy for spring planting because the seed was going to be determined in part by what the ground rules are for the farm bill. How much planting time he had available to him, what the planting year was going to be like was going to be determined by what we decided. He simply said, ``We can't wait any longer. Get it done. Get it done.'' So we are here with that realization. We know we need to get it done. We received hundreds of calls to do something, to provide certainty, to take what we can now and to fix the rest later. That is exactly what we are doing. I do not know what the farm programs eventually will be, but I do know this, that the time for action is long overdue. I know and farmers know that we cannot wait any longer. As a result, the President is going to be forced to sign this legislation, forced to sign a bad bill because of a late date. He shares our concern about the safety net and the decoupling in this legislation. But with our ranking member and with others, we intend to fight another day, to come back, to do even more to ensure that farmers will have the kind of certainty, the kind of assurances that they have had in past farm legislation. There are some good provisions in this bill. No one should be misled in that regard. The continuation of the Conservation Reserve Program is a good thing. The incorporation of many of the conservation programs and the adequate funding for those programs is a good thing and would not have happened without the effort made by the ranking member. The Fund for Rural America is a good thing. That it guarantees spending on rural development and research, that it addresses the needs of rural America, especially in creating new value-added markets all over the country, is a good thing. We provide assistance for value- added processing facilities through the Fund for Rural America. I must tell you, it is one of the best features of this farm legislation. The increased flexibility for some producers also is a good thing. Simplification is a good thing. Perhaps most importantly of all, the guarantee that we will have permanent law, with the expiration of this legislation, is perhaps the most important thing of all. Ensuring that permanent law will be there, regardless of circumstances, regardless of our inability to find some consensus about what to do after this legislation expires, in my view, is perhaps the best thing. In spite of all of that, and that does represent a significant amount of bipartisan consensus, there are at least six serious flaws, Mr. President, that in my view, bring me to the same conclusion that the Senator from Iowa has just expressed. I cannot support this bill in large measure because, simply, it fails to provide the safety net that we believe is so essential in any piece of farm legislation. Loan rates are capped in this bill. They can go down. They can never go up. The farmer owned reserve is eliminated. There is no possibility for farmers to truly have the freedom to farm if they do not have the freedom of access to the tools necessary to farm. The farmer owned reserve is one of the best tools farmers ever had. It is no longer there. It is not freedom to farm when you take the tools, financially and otherwise, away from the same farmers that ostensibly have such freedom today. The Emergency Livestock Feed Program is gone, another tool that undermines a real opportunity to provide the freedom that we all say we want for farmers today. Not long ago, three South Dakota farmers met with the President. If they expressed anything in the short time they had with the President of the United States, it was this: ``Mr. President, we need that safety net. Mr. President, we know we will face national disasters. We will face natural calamities in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest, and for that matter in all parts of the country that will require we have a safety net, an insurance program. Do not be a part of taking that away.'' The second and perhaps equally as significant a problem I see with this bill is it pays producers, regardless of price. It requires guaranteed payments, as the Senator from Iowa has indicated today, probably in an unprecedented fashion. It requires the Government to pay producers, regardless of their circumstances. As the Senator so ably said, where else in law today are people required to get a payment, regardless of need, regardless of circumstance? I must say, Mr. President, of all the things in this bill, that is the one that troubles me the most. Third, while we do have some degree of flexibility, some degree of new-found simplicity in this legislation, no one should be misled about the fact that there are some who have less flexibility. Vegetable producers are treated differently than grain producers. A potato producer in South Dakota is not given the freedom to farm, is not given the flexibility he may need to be able to compete effectively in the marketplace. Why? Because we are protecting other potato producers in other areas of the country. That kind of freedom to farm is not articulated very well by proponents of this bill. Instead of getting signals from the market, some producers are receiving stronger signals from the Government for certain products, such as potatoes. Fourth, the research program, in my view, Mr. President, is one of the greatest concerns as I look to the long-term future of farm legislation. What happens in 2 years to research? How do we assure those who are involved in research today in our colleges and universities across this country, in agricultural clinics and laboratories all over the country, what we are going to do with regard to basic and applied research 2 years from now? We do not have the luxury of turning the spigot on and off. We do not have the luxury of telling a researcher out there, ``Go ahead and do it, but we cannot give you any guarantees 2 years from now you will have any assurance that money will continue.'' What kind of a vote of confidence is this? Researchers want to know that when it comes to new production or new markets, we are going to stand, ready in partnership, with research to make sure that agriculture continues to be what it is today. Mr. President, I am also concerned about the deficit consequences of this legislation. No one denies this bill increases the deficit in the first 2 years by more than $4 billion. In rooms just down the hall we are trying to figure out how to cut billions of dollars from education, the environment, national service, programs that directly affect people in virtually every walk of life. We are cutting billions there and adding billions on the floor as we speak--$4 billion in the next 2 years, largely in payments given to farmers who will tell you privately this is not the year they need them. You do not need farm payments when prices are as high as they are in grain today, but we are going to provide them. We are going to mandate them. We are going to tell farmers you go out and do whatever you want, get as much money as you can from the marketplace, God bless you, we will still give you $50,000, $100,000, $200,000 in some cases. Mr. President, the nutrition program, as well, troubles me a good deal. How we can reauthorize farm program benefits and these payments to farmers for 7 years, but payments to nutrition for children for only 2 years, is troubling in many ways. Having said all of that, we recognize the good things. We wish we could improve those that are not good. We recognize that we will fight another day. We recognize that there are a lot of people out there struggling who want certainty. Bob Ode, a farmer near Brandon, SD, who was just in my office the day before yesterday. He is concerned about the lack of a safety net. He has told me that grain farmers and livestock producers in our State 2 years ago lost 13 percent of their income. Last year, they lost 18 percent of their income. In the last 2 years, many farmers have lost over 30 percent of their income, and our response today is to say we are going to take away your safety net. It is no longer there. You are on your own. Are we really prepared to do that? Do we want to tell Bob Ode and farmers across this country that is the best we can do? Mr. President, we can do better. We must do better. We must come back, whether it is next year or at some time in the not-too-distant future. We must address these deficiencies. We cannot conscientiously allow this to happen. I am very pleased that the President has promised to join forces with us, next year, to make that happen. We can do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. On behalf of myself, Senator Dole, Senator Cohen, and Senator Snowe, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is fine.

Mr. DASCHLE. We can do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be more than happy to keep my remarks to fewer than 5 minutes. So perhaps if it would work, we can still try to keep the time. I know a lot of people are scheduling their time for the vote. I will be happy to limit my remarks to no more than 5 minutes, and perhaps even less.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the masterful presentation made by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. No one knows this issue better than he does. No one has studied constitutional balance of power more carefully than has he. He has raised issues today of constitutionality and the balance of power with a clarity of vision and a depth of knowledge that every Senator ought to carefully consider. His motion certainly would lead to a more thoughtful approach, in my view. The Byrd motion is one that should be supported by all Members of the Senate. It instructs the conferees to report a bill similar to S. 14, a bipartisan bill that was debated very carefully on the Senate floor a little over one year ago. It was sponsored by Senators Domenici and Exon and cosponsored by the majority leader, and reported out of the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee. It does what the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee has indicated it would do--maintain the proper relationship between the role of Congress as well as the responsibilities of the President. I believe it has three major advantages, and I want to touch very briefly on each of these advantages. First, this plan provides an equal opportunity for the President to examine tax expenditures as well as appropriations measures. The Republican plan, constituted in the conference report, does not allow the President to review all of the special-interest tax breaks that are all too often considered on the Senate floor. It applies only to those that benefit fewer than 100 taxpayers. Frankly, there are not many provisions that apply to 100 or fewer taxpayers. The Joint Tax Committee determines which breaks can be canceled, and I believe that in many cases that alone ought to give us pause. Under S. 14, the President has the opportunity to more broadly apply the powers to examine all expenditures in a more careful way, not only on appropriations bills but also with regard to tax expenditures. Second, we protect majority rule, which is a central principle of democracy. S. 14 requires a congressional majority to approve the cuts proposed by the President. Under the conference report, the President can prevail with the support of only one-third of either House of Congress. So, clearly, we abrogate the concept of majority rule. We certainly would not permit a minority to hold a majority hostage in cases like this. Clearly, S. 14 is constitutional, as the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Appropriations Committee has so eloquently described in many ways this afternoon. He has enlightened us as to the problems with the conference report. The alternative that he presents avoids these problems by requiring Congress to vote to approve Presidential rescissions. Congress should not approve a bill subject to court challenge, and, clearly, the conference report will be challenged in court. So, I believe, Mr. President, the motion of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia offers the best of both worlds. It gives the opportunity for the President to apply additional scrutiny to items in legislation which may be called into question. It gives him the opportunity to apply that scrutiny both to tax expenditures as well as appropriated spending. It allows us to retain majority rule and preserves the balance of power. It avoids constitutional questions that will certainly be raised as soon as this legislation would be enacted, and it is effective immediately. We do not have to wait for the end of this year. We do not have to assume that we have to wait until the next term of the President to allow the power to be utilized. It allows him to do it now. We can look between now and the end of the year at the ways in which this might be utilized. This will allow us more opportunity to examine whether or not this approach is an appropriate way with which to assure additional scrutiny of spending and tax breaks in the future. So I applaud the work of the Senator from West Virginia and others who have brought us this opportunity. I think it is important. It is critical that we carefully consider the constitutional questions that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has raised. I hope our colleagues will support this motion to recommit. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, the vote just cast had nothing to do with minimum wage. It had everything to do with simply one provision dealing with Utah wilderness. There was no understanding with regard to this package, as the distinguished Senator from Alaska has called it. Obviously, each one of these bills merits consideration in and of its own right. There is no objection to the package were we to remove the Utah wilderness bill. That is the issue. That is what this vote was all about. But there is no disagreement whatsoever with regard to the Presidio bill on either side of the aisle, as I understand it, and to hold the Presidio hostage to all the other issues seems to me to be unfair. I yield to the Senator from California for a brief comment and a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I answer to my friend from California in the affirmative. It is our desire to work with the delegation of California and others who are interested in maintaining the historic nature of this remarkable facility, that we pass the legislation this year. In has been a long, long effort, a tireless effort on the part of my two colleagues from California. I hope we can successfully complete our work this year. It ought not be held hostage to very controversial legislation that has nothing to do with the Presidio itself. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I will only again point out to my colleague from Alaska that we would enter into a unanimous-consent agreement today for all of the package the Senator from Alaska referred to except the Utah wilderness. We will do it this morning. We can pass that bill by 11:15. It is now 11:14. So if the Senator from Alaska is prepared to drop the one controversial bill we will enter into an agreement today, unanimous-consent agreement, passing all the rest. If he is prepared to do that, I am prepared to do that right now. But I have no objection to the request propounded by the majority leader having to do with the farm bill conference report.