Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to commend, first of all, Senator Nickles and Senator Reid for their leadership over the last couple of days. The legislation that the Senate will be voting on a little later on is legislation that I believe enjoys broad bipartisan support. It does so because it is moderate, because it addresses a serious problem, and because it gives us a tool with which to work more effectively through the regulatory morass that has existed now for a long period of time. I think it is equally clear that the moratorium is dead. We have driven a wooden stake through the heart of the moratorium. It is dead and I say good riddance. This legislation, were it to come up again out of conference, would suffer the same consequences. I want everyone to understand the great disappointment that would be felt on our side were the moratorium to come back at some later date or in some other form. We have negotiated and worked in good faith, and I think we, as a result of that good- faith work over the last couple of days, have come up with an alternative to the moratorium, something that we expect to be an effective tool, something that we strongly support on this side of the aisle. We have laid out the adverse consequences of a moratorium. I believe that both Republicans and Democrats want to ensure that we do not jeopardize meat safety, that we do not jeopardize children with dangerous toys, that we do not jeopardize women with the loss of good mammography, that we do not jeopardize people with the problems that a moratorium would clean water. So we recognize that a moratorium is an extreme measure that, frankly, does not work. It is an extreme measure that may have been part of a 100-day plan in the House. Nevertheless, I do not care whether we take 1,000 days in the State, it is not something that we can support here. Let me also commend Senators Glenn and Levin for their work over the last couple of days. They have improved the original version of the regulatory veto in a very significant way. I think their efforts have given even greater life and support to the concept that Senators Reid and Nickles have presented to the Senate in the regulatory veto. Let me just say in closing, Mr. President, that this is an example of the moderating influence of the Senate. We have seen extreme measures acted upon in the House over the last couple of months. Those extreme measures are not ones that we feel very comfortable with on this side of Capitol Hill. Indeed, we had similar reactions to the House proposals on unfunded mandates, congressional coverage, and line-item veto, and a number of very important pieces of legislation. Because of the moderating influence of the Senate, because of the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together more effectively, we have been able to take the extreme proposals and put them away, hopefully for good, and pass legislation that many of us are very pleased to support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I did not realize we were under a time agreement. I ask for a couple minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do so because I believe what the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has just said is absolutely correct. If, indeed, we are serious about doing what we have said over and over again over the course of the last several months with regard to deficit reduction, we need this amendment. We need this amendment because, indeed, we say by adopting this amendment that we are serious, that we recognize that the first and really only purpose of a rescission is to ensure that we can cut spending and dedicate the savings to deficit reduction. We know that over the course of the next 7 years, we may have $1.8 trillion of deficit reduction work ahead of us. We must begin with this bill. We must continue in a budget process that will allow us a blueprint to ensure that between now and the year 2002 or the year 2003 that we have accomplished again what we have indicated we want to do. So this is the first step. It is a step with regard to process, but it is a step with regard to demonstrating our true intention that, indeed, we are determined to reduce the deficit; indeed we are going to take the tough decisions we made with regard to this rescission and turn them into budget savings; indeed we are determined to do all that we can, collectively, to ensure that what we say we are going to do we are going to do in the long term. That is what this amendment does. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has offered it before on other pieces of legislation and, I must say, I hope that on this occasion, we can have broad bipartisan consensus in support of it because, indeed, it puts the rest of our efforts over the course of the next couple of days as we debate the real rescission package, its scope, its size, its practical application to the budget process in much more realistic terms. This ought to have been the first amendment, because if it had been the first amendment, I think we could have all said unequivocally, regardless of what else we do, as we debate size and as we debate offsets and as we debate all the other issues pertaining directly to this bill, the one thing we will not debate is what we do with the savings once they have been promulgated. will be used for deficit reduction, and I hope, again, with unanimity, this body can support it this afternoon. Again, I commend the leadership offered to us by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and I hope we can support him in this effort when we have our vote later on. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise as well to express my disappointment but as well my very best wishes to our dear colleague, Howell Heflin, with his announcement this afternoon. I have known him as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for a long period of time, and all of us have had the good opportunity to work with him in so many different capacities over the last 18 years. We come to this Chamber as Republicans and Democrats, R's and D's, but I think once we are here we become known not as R's and D's necessarily but C's or D's, constructives or destructives. There are some who for whatever short-term political gain may be inclined to be destructive to the political or legislative process. Unfortunately, there are all too many cases that come to mind as we think about destructive efforts that have gone on sometimes with no good reason. But then there are those constructive leaders who come to this Chamber with a true belief that they can do good for others, with an understanding of the importance of Government, and with the belief that we can really look forward to making the next generation and the generation after that one better than the one that is currently occupying this great land. I think that was what Howell Heflin came to do 18 years ago. As I look over all of our colleagues in the Senate, I must say I cannot think of anyone who has been more constructive in his approach. The tributes that have already been made here on the Senate floor to the character of Senator Heflin, I believe, are illustrative of that fact. Democrats and Republicans understand the contribution that Howell Heflin has made. They understand his constructive approach. They understand why it is he came here in the first place. They understand the tremendous reputation that he has established as a result of that approach. And they are fond of calling him their friend. We look forward to at least 18 more months of that kind of constructive participation, that kind of leadership, the kind of dedication to his job that he brings to work each and every day. And we have that realization that we have the good fortune to work with him for at least 18 more months in this capacity and perhaps in other capacities in public life, as well. But I want to share my best wishes and hope that he and his family, as wonderful as they are, have many, many years to enjoy the wonderful life that Howell has dedicated not only to this Senate but to them as they go forth with their new future. Someone once said that life has no blessing like that of a good friend. Howell Heflin has been a good friend to the people of Alabama, to the people of this Chamber, to the people who have had the good fortune to know him now for some time. I wish him well. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as part of its management of the national grasslands, the U.S. Forest Service issues permits to ranchers so that they might graze livestock on those lands. Through these permits, the Forest Service ensures that ranchers who utilize these public lands obey basic stewardship requirements and other important standards. Typically, permits are issued for 10 years and therefore must be reviewed and reissued at the end of that period. In many cases, the ability of ranchers to graze on national grasslands means the difference between success and failure of their operations. Understandably, they are concerned, therefore, about reports that the Forest Service is facing shortfalls in funding needed to perform the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] analysis required to reissue grazing permits. Through no fault of their own, these ranchers may face the loss of their grazing privileges simply because the Federal bureaucracy is unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities in a timely fashion. As the Forest Service looks for funds to perform the required analysis, the resulting uncertainty leaves South Dakota ranchers, and indeed ranchers throughout the Nation, in an untenable economic situation. Moreover, this unfortunate predicament is compounded by the possibility that the Forest Service may divert funding allocated to other important activities, such as the timber program, research or recreation, for the permit renewal process. This prospect is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. At a time when there are insufficient resources to carry out basic management activities; diverting funds to perform the NEPA work on grazing allotments in a rushed manner could seriously jeopardize other priority programs. In light of these concerns, I have drafted legislation to require the Forest Service to issue new permits for grazing on National Forest System lands where existing grazing permits have expired or will expire. This bill would assure ranchers that they could continue to graze livestock, even if the Forest Service is unable to complete the necessary NEPA analysis this year. Moreover, it would relieve pressure on the Forest Service to take funds away from other important activities such as timber sale preparation in the rush to complete this NEPA work. My legislation would require the Forest Service to reissue permits to ranchers who are in compliance with the terms of their permits even if the NEPA work has not been completed. The terms of the new permits would be 3 years or until the necessary NEPA work is completed, whichever is sooner. It would not cover ranchers whose permits have been revoked for violations of the rules or new applications. These, I believe, are fair and reasonable conditions. It is not my intention to overturn the requirements of NEPA. I believe that NEPA assessments provide valuable insight into the effects of range management, insights that in turn can be used to strengthen the entire grazing program. But it has become clear that in this time of funding constraints, some permits may not be reissued on time for procedural rather than substantive reasons. That is not acceptable. Penalizing ranchers for a failure of the Federal Government to perform the necessary NEPA analysis is neither fair nor defensible. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to ensure the unbroken use of the range by ranchers who have complied with the terms of their permits and thus deserve to have them renewed. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope we can avoid the politicization of the debate about reorganizing government. Democrats and Republicans both recognize the need to reinvent government, to find ways to run our Federal Government in a much more efficient manner. The President and the Vice President should be congratulated--not criticized--for leading the effort to find new ways, going all the way back to the very beginning of this administration, to both reduce the cost and the size of government in a meaningful way. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a little while ago the majority leader spoke on the floor regarding the administration's Reinventing Government proposal. The majority leader suggested that the President has jumped on the budget-cutting bandwagon and that he has done so in response to the November 1994 election. Mr. President, the President and the Vice President, since before the November 1992 election, have stated and proven their commitment to the process of streamlining government. The proposal announced yesterday has been labeled ``REGO II,'' because it is the second phase in a Reinventing Government process that began over 2 years ago. Through that process headed by Vice President Gore, we have already taken steps to cut back the Federal Government. The Federal work force is today the smallest it has been since John Kennedy was in the White House. The proposal announced yesterday would cut $13.1 billion and eliminate 4,805 Government positions over the next 5 years. Reinventing Government has been an ongoing, thoughtful process based on careful analysis of the ways with which to cut the bureaucracy while ensuring the Government's ability to meet our policy goals. To suggest that the President or the Vice President have jumped on the bandwagon is off base. The majority leader also suggested that the rescissions bill the Senate is about to consider will provide immediate savings and is, therefore, superior to the President's Reinventing Government proposal. First, Mr. President, the administration's Reinventing Government proposal and the rescissions package are not in competition. It is not an either/or. We can and should cut waste and streamline Government whenever and wherever it makes sense and fits within our national priorities. But if the comparison is going to be made, it should be accurate. I would hate for anyone to be left with the impression that the Republican rescissions package provides over $13 billion in cash savings in fiscal year 1995, because it does not. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposal would cut $13.2 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 1995, but the outlay savings would be $11.48 billion spread over the next 5 years. The analysis from CBO shows that, while $13.2 billion in budget authority would be cut in fiscal year 1995, in outlays in fiscal year 1995. I ask unanimous consent that a CBO analysis issued today on the rescissions package be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his comments on both issues. I will talk more about trade on another day, but certainly what the Senator said about the wisdom of the moratorium could not be better said. I appreciate his leadership and that of the distinguished ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, who is on the floor now and who has already discussed this matter at some length. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say, it is accurate to say that the moratorium is dead. There is no moratorium. It is over. There will not be a moratorium in spite of whatever decisions or promises the House may have made. The clear recognition in the Senate is that the moratorium is worse medicine than the disease itself, that the cure in this case is too broad, too problematic, and far too imprudent for us to support. So the moratorium is over. It is dead. I am very pleased that legislation is now pending to replace this moratorium that will be debated tomorrow. Let me say, if it reappears, then I am confident that Members, at least on this side of the aisle in this Chamber, will again kill it. Everyone recognizes we must deal with problematic regulations. Everyone recognizes that this is not a partisan issue, that indeed we have to confront the proliferation of regulation and recognize that there are some which simply do not make sense. Bringing balance and common sense to the regulatory process is something Democrats have argued for a long time. With bipartisan support, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved just last week a better and more meaningful way to address regulatory problems. As I understand it, the Judiciary Committee and the Energy Committee are meeting this week to do the same thing. So by the end of the week, three committees of the Senate will have done what we should do: Develop a framework to analyze and address many of the problems that have proliferated as a result of irresponsible regulation. In my view, that is what we should do. That is the subject of the President's review that will be made available to us before the end of June, and I am very pleased that the White House as well as the Congress is working on this in a very comprehensive way. Comprehensive reform is what is necessary, not the shortsighted, simplistic approach recommended by some of our Republican colleagues, especially on the House side. So the moratorium is dead. And I think that this week we can come up with a meaningful way to achieve regulatory reform. Hopefully, this will be the first in a two-step process, one that provides us with an opportunity to deal with regulations in a meaningful way. Frankly, we could have accomplished comprehensive reform in one step. We could have done it at a later date, once we have had a more thorough debate. That would have been my preference. But certainly, this can work. I think there is broad base of support for examining alternatives to the moratorium and we will begin that process tomorrow. I think the Reid-Nickles legislation can give us an opportunity to review regulation in a selective and meaningful way. It can at least begin to address some of the problems that many of us have articulated with regard to reform for some time. Again, the way to accomplish regulation reform is not through a sweeping moratorium that halts the progress of the good along with the bad. We should always be wary of temporary ``one-size-fits-all'' solutions that do not address the underlying source of the problem. It is an approach that will have unintended negative consequences. It is our responsibility here in the Congress to distinguish between the rules that are good and necessary and those that must be fixed or scrapped altogether. Clearly, the authors of the moratorium do not seem to feel such a need and would stop even those rules that would have broad-based support. That is what I would like to address this afternoon. I would like to cite a few examples of the kinds of rules that a moratorium would have stopped, had it passed. Fortunately, because the moratorium, as I said is dead, we do not have to worry about it. But had a moratorium been passed, these types of rules would have been detrimentally affected. I want to address those briefly this afternoon. as everyone understands, is outdated and unable to satisfactorily detect bacterial contamination. The results, as we have seen, can be lethal. In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee and Research, Conservation, Forestry, and General Legislation. We conducted four hearings to explore the issue of meat and poultry inspection in this country. At every one of these hearings, there was a clear consensus that we must modernize our meat and poultry inspection system. During the hearing we uncovered a number of troubling facts. For example, it has been estimated that major bacterial pathogens are responsible for up to 5 million illnesses and 4,000 deaths annually. Foodborne illness attack persons at a greater risk such as children and the elderly. In the Pacific Northwest four children died after eating contaminated meat, while hundreds became ill. That tragic event prompted everyone involved in this issue to seek a more sensitive and responsible alternatives to the current meat and poultry inspection system--one that would prevent such a tragedy from every happening again. In fact, the American meat industry even petitioned USDA to propose a new rule. The current meat and poultry inspection system is based upon sight and smell and cannot detect the presence of some deadly human pathogens. To correct this problem, the Department of Agriculture on February 3 proposed a regulation to improve the inspection of meat and poultry. This rule is the product of several years' worth of debate with the scientific community and food industries. As we all know, the moratorium would substantially delay this rule. In the meantime, how many more outbreaks will occur? How many more children will become ill and perhaps die? Americans enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. But it can and should be improved. Adopting a science-based meat and poultry inspection process is an important step. The ill-conceived and politically motivated moratorium must not be used to delay implementation of this long-overdue regulation. The same can be true of seafood inspection. Mr. President, on January 28, the Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule to improve the inspection of seafood. This is a sensible thing to do, given the desire on the part of most of us to have the safest food supply possible, but the moratorium would block it. Apparently, either those who push this regulatory moratorium are unwilling to support the changes necessary to have a safer food supply, or the moratorium will have the unintended consequence of stopping yet another reasonable and necessary rule. I find neither case acceptable. The rule, which is based on the same principles used to overhaul the meat and poultry inspections, is designed to better ensure the safe processing and importing of fish and fish products. The rule will benefit both the seafood industry and consumers. The industry will benefit, as consumers will have greater confidence in seafood products, leading them to purchase greater quantities of seafood, while consumers will benefit by having access to safer fish. Unless this rule is covered by the safety and health exception--and it is far from clear that it is--then the moratorium will stop this rule in its tracks. Are we willing to play politics with our food supply, needlessly endangering the public in order to score a few cheap political points? Or are we going to take responsibility for the health of Americans and acknowledge that many of these rules like the seafood safety rule, make sense and should move forward? The same can be said about head injuries. Mr. President, the Department of Transportation has issued a rule requiring protection against head impacts in the upper interior of cars, light trucks, and light multipurpose passenger vehicles. Each year we delay implementing this rule, 1,000 Americans will lose their lives and several hundred crippling head trauma injuries will occur. The costs associated with these injuries will continue to drive up health care costs, insurance rates, and time away from work for injured victims. The greatest tragedy is that these deaths and injuries will have been prevented if the regulations had been kept in place. The moratorium would, at a minimum, delay this rule from taking effect for many months, costing what otherwise would have been preventable deaths and injuries. Is that the result intended by the authors of this moratorium? I cannot believe that it is. Third, with respect to radioactive waste, although we have identified safer alternatives for nuclear waste disposal, that continues to represent a very serious problem. In spite of the fact that we are making progress, serious problems continue to exist with regard to how we dispose of nuclear wastes in the future. Efforts have been underway for years to identify better places and practices that would assure the safe disposal of nuclear waste for the many thousands of years that the waste remains dangerous. This year, after considerable deliberation and analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed long-awaited rules for the disposal of nuclear waste. While I do not expect that we are at the end of our quest for safe nuclear waste disposal, these rules represent a giant step in the right direction. This rule would apply in particular to the first national nuclear waste repository, the waste isolation pilot project in New Mexico. The nuclear power industry and the Defense Department, as well as the Department of Energy, are looking forward to these rules to help create additional certainty and safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. The moratorium would halt the implementation of these rules. Given the high stakes in this debate, including the public health issues, risks and economic factors, does it make sense to place a moratorium on rules that would move us closer to a means of more safely disposing of nuclear waste? I do not think so. Finally, during the Governmental Affairs Committee markup, Senator Glenn offered an amendment to exempt from the moratorium Environmental Protection Agency regulations to control contamination and disinfection byproducts in drinking water. As many of us remember, the city of Milwaukee not long ago experienced a serious outbreak of disease due to contamination of the city's water supply. In 1993, a microscopic parasite known as cryptosporidium got into Milwaukee's drinking water supply. Ultimately, the outbreak resulted in over 100 deaths and 400,000 illnesses. There are numerous other cities that have experienced the ravages of bacterial contamination in their water supply. Just ask the people of Carrollton, GA; Cabool, MO; or Jackson County, OR. In the wake of these episodes, the committee nevertheless rejected the Glenn amendment. Given the recent experience of residents in Milwaukee and other areas, I cannot imagine how anyone could defend the moratorium on regulations designed to protect the public water supply from contamination. So, Mr. President, let us be clear. The regulatory moratorium is not a tool of genuine reform. It is a blunt tool of expediency and, if enacted, it would have serious negative consequences. Fortunately, the moratorium, as I have said, is dead. Real reform requires hard work. Real reform allows a serious consideration of proposals that will allow us to make a difference in the regulatory process by defining good from bad. And that is exactly what we want to do here. We want to provide meaningful alternatives to the moratorium, and I believe that the so-called Nickles-Reid approach is a beginning in that effort. It allows us to assess in a more constructive way which regulations ought to be issued and gives us the opportunity to stop those that are not well-intended or certainly are not prudent. But we will get into that debate tomorrow. My purpose in coming to the floor today is simply to say that the moratorium is recognized here as something that cannot work, a blunt instrument that in our view is far more serious in remedy than the actual problem that it is trying to cure. So I am hopeful that as we go through this deliberative process, first with regard to the very limited nature more comprehensive way later on, we can deal with the regulatory proliferation as we know it should be dealt with, in a way that provides us an opportunity to use discretion, and in a way that gives us an opportunity to make better decisions about regulations as they affect the American people. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased we will pass legislation today that, if enacted, will finally make permanent the health insurance deduction for the self-employed. This certainly will be a victory for small business in America. During my entire tenure in the Senate, I have supported and cosponsored legislation to make the deduction permanent. It is very gratifying, therefore, to see that an overwhelming number of my colleagues share this goal. Extension of the deduction is a bipartisan issue--one on which there is a very broad consensus. A letter signed by 75 Members of this body, earlier this year, bears testimony to that fact. For too long, small businesses, including farmers, have been treated unfairly compared to corporations. Corporations may deduct 100 percent of the cost of qualified health insurance they purchase. But the self- employed do not receive equal treatment. In the past they have been able to deduct only 25 percent of the cost of purchasing health insurance for themselves and their families. What is more, small businesses have not been able to rely on the availability of this deduction from year to year, preventing them from budgeting for their health insurance costs. For many, the existence of the deduction means the difference between having health insurance or not having it at all. Frankly, it is not clear why this deduction was subject to sunset in the first place, often forcing an annual extensions of the measure. This is not a case of a controversial provision needing further review. Virtually all Members agree that, as a matter of fairness, the self- employed should be able to deduct at least some portion of these costs, if not the full amount. I am also pleased that the deduction will be increased to 30 percent. It is my hope that at some point in the future we can increase the amount of the deduction; though it is of paramount importance that any further extension be offset appropriately. I regret that we were unable to pass this measure earlier this year. Most farmers who are self-employed faced a March 1 filing deadline for their 1994 tax returns. Assuming the measure we are considering today is passed, they will have to go to the expense of filing amended returns for 1994. This situation could have been avoided if not for unnecessary delay in the House of Representatives unrelated to the self-employed deduction. I am concerned that funding for this measure relies on the repeal of section 1071 benefits used to promote minority ownership of broadcast facilities. I would prefer that section 1071 benefits be reviewed in the context of a comprehensive analysis of affirmative action programs, as the administration has suggested. I ask unanimous consent that the administration's ``Statement of Administration Policy'' on H.R. 831 be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased that the Senate was able to move this bill so quickly. In light of this, I am optimistic that the extension of the deduction will be enacted in time for the remaining self-employed to take advantage of it before they file their returns on April 15. With the passage of the permanent extension of the self-employed health insurance deduction today, we can all claim victory for bringing greater fairness in the Tax Code to small businesses and for helping ensure that more Americans are covered by health insurance. Exhibit 1 Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 831--Permanently Extend the Tax Deductibility for Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed Individuals (Archer (R) TX and 3 cosponsors) The Administration supports the primary purpose of H.R. 831, as reported by the Senate Finance Committee--to reinstate for 1994 the 25 percent tax deduction for health insurance premiums for self-employed individuals and increase the deduction to 30 percent on a permanent basis thereafter. The Administration, however, opposes one of the bill's offsets--i.e., the outright repeal of the current tax treatment for the sale of radio and television broadcast facilities and cable television systems to minority-owned businesses (so-called ``section 1071 benefits''). The Administration is undertaking a comprehensive review of affirmative action programs, including certain aspects of section 1071 benefits. As part of the section 1071 review, the Administration will consider possible modifications to the ownership and holding period requirements as well as caps on the amount of gain eligible for deferral. While the Administration, in the FY 1996 Budget, proposed limiting earned income tax credit (EITC) eligibility based on certain kinds of investment income, the Administration strongly believes that the cap on such income--as set forth in this bill--should be indexed for inflation. The Administration supports the provision in H.R. 831 that would tax expatriating citizens on untaxed gains--a provision which is very similar to one included in the President's FY 1996 Budget. Scoring for Purposes of Pay-As-You-Go H.R. 831 would affect receipts; therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. The Administration's preliminary scoring estimates of this bill are presented in the table below. Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from these estimates. If H.R. 831 were enacted, final OMB scoring estimates would be published within five days of enactment, as required by OBRA.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to state my concern about the direction and tenor of the debate on the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General. I spoke on the floor a month ago about this nomination. At that time, I expressed hope that this debate could be restored to its proper perspective--an honest assessment of whether Dr. Henry Foster's skills fit the Nation's needs for the position of Surgeon General. So far, Mr. President, that has not occurred. First of all, there has not been much substantive discussion about this nomination. At a time when many of the public health problems historically addressed by the Surgeon General are reaching crisis proportions, it seems that there should be more discussion about the contributions Dr. Foster can make in this capacity and the urgency of approving his nomination. Unfortunately, what little debate there has been has not centered on Dr. Foster's qualifications, skills, and contributions to society. Instead, it has revolved around Dr. Foster's performance of a legal medical procedure, and how many times he has performed it. Little attention has been paid to the thousands of lives Dr. Foster has brought into the world over his 35-year career, or the hundreds of lives he has saved. Little attention has been paid to the evidence that supports President Clinton's evaluation that Dr. Henry Foster has much to contribute as Surgeon General of the United States. Do not be fooled into believing the evidence is lacking. Nothing can be further from the truth. Before being nominated to the post of Surgeon General, Dr. Foster was perhaps best known for his efforts in establishing the I Have A Future Program. This teen pregnancy prevention program, which stresses abstinence and attempts to help teens understand the positive reasons for delaying pregnancy, was selected by President Bush as one of his Thousand Points of Light. Listen to the words of Dr. Louis Sullivan, President Bush's Health and Human Services Secretary. [The] I Have a Future [program] turns young people's lives around . . . [it is] the kind of program that the country needs. Dr. Foster has pledged to focus on teen pregnancy prevention as Surgeon General. That cause certainly should be a national priority, and Dr. Foster would bring great experience and credibility to it. Little attention has been paid to the stories of Dr. Foster's commitment and heroism. Like the time he saved the life of the mayor's son when his wife developed complications with her pregnancy. Or the time a pregnant patient of Dr. Foster's called him up in the middle of the night because she was bleeding, and Dr. Foster met her at the hospital in his bedroom slippers. Or the time Dr. Foster talked a young, pregnant and unmarried woman out of having an abortion. Her child later went on to become high school valedictorian. These are the elements that are missing in the debate over the Surgeon General nomination. These are the reasons Dr. Foster deserves every consideration for this post. It is my sincere hope that Dr. Foster will receive a fair hearing. It is unfair to judge a candidate before having heard all the facts. I hope that those who have reservations about the nomination will keep an open mind until committee hearings are held. I also hope that these hearings will be held sooner rather than later. The Nation needs a Surgeon General. Every day approximately 2,781 teenagers become pregnant. Mr. President, this many teenagers become pregnant while we wait to confirm a Surgeon General who plans to make teen pregnancy prevention the centerpiece of his tenure in that post. We should not delay action on this nomination. I urge the Chair of the Labor Committee to schedule hearings on this issue as soon as possible and do everything within her power to ensure that Dr. Foster is given a full and fair hearing. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some of my leadership time to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to commemorate the long and distinguished life of my dear friend, Richard H. Reiners, an Dick Reiners was born September 24, 1907, on a small farm east of Lennox, SD, and passed away on January 15, 1995, at his rural home north of Worthing, SD. Throughout his life he was dedicated to his family, his community, and the land in which he lived. As a father and husband, Dick epitomized the term ``family values.'' He was faithful, honest, and loyal and he passed those values on to his children and grandchildren. As a member of the community, Dick was constantly active in improving the quality of people's lives. He served on numerous boards, including his church, his children's school district, the Farmers Home Administration, and the South Dakota Farmers Union. He was also actively involved in politics and labored tirelessly for the people he believed in. As a farmer, Dick held a reverence for the land and its capacity for production. He was a hard worker and an eternal optimist. Dick spoke his mind. He never gave up. He was always a kind and thoughtful man. During my travels as a U.S. Senator, I am constantly humbled by the people of my State--people like Dick Reiners--and the basic principles by which they live their lives: a love of family, an obligation to community service, and a strong commitment to an honest day's work. Those who knew Dick Reiners learned much from him, and I am honored to say that he was my friend. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not want to take the remaining moments prior to the time people had the opportunity to vote on the line-item veto, but I did want to speak before the end of the day for a couple of reasons. First of all, to commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, on our side, for their admirable leadership in the effort over the last many days. Their leadership, their expertise, the remarkable contribution that they made to this debate I think lent service to the entire body. I am very grateful to them. Let me also commend the distinguished Senators from Arizona and Indiana for their work. Certainly as a result of their leadership and commitment they made to this issue for many years, we have now reached the point where this legislation passed tonight on a vote of 69-29. Mr. President, I voted in favor of this legislation, very, very reluctantly. It is no secret that I have had some very significant concerns about this particular version of line-item veto. A week ago tomorrow I went to the floor to express my grave concern about the practicality of separate enrollment, about its constitutionality, and about the shift in the balance of power away from Congress and to the White House. I addressed some of those concerns again on several occasions, the latest of which was last evening. I have said all along it was my view that a legislative line- item veto, if done properly, was a very important tool, budgetarily and legislatively. I have consistently supported the line-item veto on a number of occasions over the past 16 years. So my vote tonight was consistent with that record. But I cast it, as I said, with some reservation. I did so with the satisfaction that we also achieved some compromise over the course of the last several days. We achieved a better understanding of what would be included in the bill's tax expenditure provisions. In our view, the Republicans have come some distance in accommodating our concern with regard to ensuring that tax expenditures be included in this bill, that special-interest tax breaks be exposed to the same critical review by the President as other spending. We were also able to ensure that the savings generated here would be locked in, locked in to deficit reduction and nothing else. I was disappointed with the vote tonight on the Byrd amendment, because I thought that would go even further toward ensuring that our purpose in this regard would be clearly understood from the very beginning. I thought the leadership provided by the Senator from West Virginia was very important in articulating clearly our desire to have all savings designated for purposes of deficit reduction and nothing else. I was pleased, as well, that we were able to accommodate the concern that many had about separate enrollment. While this was not a perfect solution, at least we may have a little more practical understanding of how this bill, with its many pieces, would be packaged and sent to the President in a form that may allow us constitutionally to deal with the issue of separate enrollment, if not practically. practicality of requiring separate enrollment and separate signatures, about the practicality of, line by line, taking a simple bill and making it as complex as the separate enrollment process will make it. Clearly, it is a start. It is an effort at compromise. Indeed, I believe that we have accommodated that concern to the extent that it was possible at the end of this debate. In terms of the constitutionality of this proposal, I think it is important that we approved an amendment ensuring judicial review of the proposal. The courts will now have the ability to assess the constitutionality of this legislation. The constitutionality of this particular version of line-item veto may be in doubt. But we have a provision in place now that will allow Members to review and to come to some conclusion about the constitutional viability of this legislation at an early date. That, too, in my view, was an improvement in this piece of legislation. Third, let me say that I think it is very important that everyone understand this bill has a life--a life and a death, frankly. When the year 2000 approaches, we will have a much better understanding of whether or not this worked, whether or not it was practical, certainly whether or not it was constitutional, whether or not we have succeeded in preserving the balance of legislative responsibility between the President and the Congress. So, in the year 2000, knowing all of that, we will be in a much better position to determine whether or not this ought to be extended, whether or not it ought to be given a new life. So that sunset provision, in my view, was critical to coming to the conclusion I did about this particular piece of legislation. This is not permanent. It is an experiment. It is an opportunity for us to see whether it will work. Senator Byrd and others have raised some very legitimate concerns, both constitutionally and in many other ways. We will learn, over the course of the next 5 years, whether they need to be addressed, to what degree they should be addressed, and ultimately what if any changes may be necessary prior to the time this legislation is extended for any length of time after the year 2000. Finally, let me say I am very concerned about the budgetary implications of what we do here. We have had a very vigorous debate on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, on proposals to lay out a plan by which we achieve a balanced Federal budget by a date certain. We all recognize we have to make some tough decisions about what will be spent, how it will be spent, what if any tax changes we make--ultimately, what conclusions we can make with regard to the difficult, vexing problem we face with regard to the deficit in the oncoming years. If we do not have the tools available to us to make those decisions in a meaningful way, then I fear we will never achieve what we all say we want. This is a tool. It may be a blunt instrument. It may be a precision tool. We do not know yet. But we do know it ought to give us yet one more opportunity to say with some confidence that, indeed, we are going to get our hands on the budget, our grip on the deficit, in a way that will allow us a greater degree of confidence that indeed we can succeed in these coming years. It may not be the tool I would have chosen first. It may not be the tool I believe ought to ultimately be preserved in law in perpetuity. But it is a tool that will allow us for the next 5 years to make some effort to do what we desperately need to do, and that is find a way to reduce the deficit, find a meaningful way to assess our expenditures, find a way to ensure that we pass the best possible piece of legislation each and every time it involves spending. That is what this allows us to do, and I am very hopeful that we have made the right decision tonight. This has been another in an ongoing series of debates about how best to accomplish deficit reduction and a meaningful plan for balancing the budget. I hope that our colleagues can now come together on other issues, as well, especially on that which we have felt all along is needed, if indeed this or anything else is going to work, and that is a budget plan that will accomplish the deficit reduction we need. There are now 8 days left before the legal deadline, before the Budget Committee must report a budget resolution. There are 23 days prior to the time this body must act on a budget resolution. We tell the American people they need to pay their taxes by April 15. The law also requires that we pass a budget resolution by April 15. That, too, is a tool. That, too, ought to be something that has the priority that the line-item veto had this week. I am hopeful we still can meet that goal. I am not optimistic. But whether it is April 15 or some time shortly thereafter, let us use that tool as well to achieve what we know we must. We know we must make the tough decisions and it is time we get on with it. We have made a tough decision tonight. I think, all things considered, it was the right decision. Again, let me commend those who had a role to play in the debate. It was a good debate, a debate that educated the American people and certainly our colleagues with regard to the implications of this legislation. I think the Congress has served its role very well. I commend those involved and I now yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his comments. I feel very strongly about this issue as well. And I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for offering the amendment. It is appropriate that this is the last amendment. It is appropriate in part because the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has made it clear all along that there are some very fundamental concerns here, and one of the biggest concerns we have is the vagary of the legislation to begin with. There is a vagary on what the scope of tax legislation is. There is a vagary on its constitutionality. There is a vagary, frankly, on the balance of power, as the Senator from New Mexico just indicated. We are not sure what this is going to do. We are not sure just how much of a shift down to the White House this may represent. There is certainly a vagary with regard to the degree of practicality or of the prudence in taking a simple bill and making it 1,500 or 2,000 pages. There is a lot of vagary here. But how ironic it would be if in the interest of deficit reduction, with all the other vagaries, we did not even know this was going to reduce the deficit, we had no idea whether or not ultimately we were going to accomplish what I thought brought us here in the first place, which is to reduce the deficit. That would be the ultimate irony. All the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is saying is let us be true to our goal. If we are going to do this, let us be absolutely certain there is no mistake about why we are doing it. Before we vote on final passage, regardless of what assurances we may be given by CBO, regardless of what budgetary guidelines normally we must follow--as the Senator from Nebraska has so appropriately said, we do not know what is coming over from the other side. We do not know how many times things may come over from the other side that will dictate a situation that could otherwise undermine the intent of this legislation. So let us be clear. This is our last opportunity to say with an exclamation point, ``Here is why we are doing it. This is why it is important.'' If we are going to line-item veto specific provisions in the bill, then it better be designated for one purpose and one purpose only. Regardless of the agenda in the Contract With America, regardless of what intentions the House may have, we now know that it is going to go to deficit reduction because of the Byrd amendment. So I think it is very appropriate that this is the last amendment because it ought to clarify with no equivocation why we have spent the last week debating line-item veto. We are not supporting a line-item veto because we want to offer an agenda for tax reform or tax cuts, for tax cuts that we may not want. That is not why we are doing this. We do not want to provide more opportunities to cut taxes and create even greater imbalance between the wealthy and the middle class in this country. That ought to be a fight for another day. What we are here for is to reduce the deficit. What we are here for is to be absolutely certain that if we have designated the President with new powers, we understand what those powers are for. It is to reduce the deficit and nothing else. So I hope that colleagues on both side of the aisle, regardless of whether they think we have said it loudly enough or clearly enough, can appreciate the concern for vagary once more in this legislation. The courts are going to determine whether or not this is constitutional. Ultimately, we will probably be able to determine what kind of a shift in the balance of power results. The courts will also determine, I suppose, what will happen with regard to the scope of tax legislation, but we ought to be the ones to determine for what the line-item veto is going to be used. And if we determine it, we have our opportunity with this amendment to say it is going to be used for deficit reduction and that is it. So, Mr. President, there is nothing more to say than that. The purpose of this amendment is very clear. Again, as so many amendments that we have offered have attempted to do, we are trying to improve this legislation in a way that allows us the confidence that, indeed, we are doing what we say we want to do. So I commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for the amendment. I am very hopeful that in an overwhelming bipartisan consensus we can adopt it before this bill is enacted into law. And with that I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make comments on the Democratic substitute and reserve the balance of the time allotted to the substitute to the distinguished ranking member, the manager of our bill on our side, the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia raised a number of very helpful points. He makes a powerful case for the substitute that Democrats have proposed. The Senator from Indiana has understandably responded as best he could to many of these questions. The fact remains that there are serious concerns about the proposal, as well-intended as it might be, that the Republicans have offered. The Senator from Georgia did a real service, I think, in pointing out so well what the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee have said about these proposals. Republicans in the Senate have expressed in writing fundamental concerns about what the proposal now put forth by Senator McCain and Senator Coats. Senator Nunn has clearly recognized what others have recognized--that this proposal is flawed. As everyone probably now appreciates, it has a sunset of the year 2000. I predict this morning that this bill will not last until the year 2000, if it were to pass into law. I make that prediction. I will predict we will be back here at some point before the year 2000 to vote on a bill very similar, if not identical, to the one that we are now proposing, the so-called Domenici-Exon bill. I say so in large measure because I think many people recognize that in spite of the fact that the other side has come a long way on a number of concerns that we have expressed over the course of this debate, very serious difficulty problems remain. First, there are loopholes in the amendment,--there is no requirement that a conference report contain a line-item level of detail. We can get around the line item almost entirely by putting the details in floor statements or letters to agency heads. We do not have to put it in detail. That is one loophole. The alternative to that problem is to create so many separate bills, representing so many thousands of line items, that it will make the operation of every agency excessively rigid. If each item becomes separate law, the rigidity of that process becomes so cumbersome people will say it just is not going to work and the whole system will break down. A third problem is that the President can actually increase spending under the Dole substitute by vetoing line items that actually represent rescissions or general reductions. I know that the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, is hoping to address that concern later on. Perhaps we can work something out. hope that, as we have with many of the other concerns raised throughout the course of the last several days, we can address those prior to the time we vote on final passage, assuming the substitute is not passed. I am hopeful it will be passed. I will address my reasons for that hope in just a moment. Let me also address some of the concerns that have, in our view, been addressed at least in part. Our conclusion was that the original tax legislation in the McCain bill that was originally proposed did not go far enough. The other side has come a long way in meeting some of our concerns in adopting a broad provision allowing the President to veto special-interest tax breaks. I read a colloquy into the floor last night between the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] about the intention of the Senator from Indiana to broaden the scope to include the issues that were raised on many occasions on this floor by the Senator from New Jersey. Our amendment is clear and more forceful in that regard. We will talk about that. The fact is that at least the Republicans have begun to accept the realization that we do not have a true, broad scope in our line-item authority unless we have tax breaks on the table as well. In addition, an amendment by the ranking member of the Budget Committee has been adopted that directs all savings from the line-item veto to deficit reduction. A similar provision was in the Domenici-Exon bill but left out of the Dole substitute. Now, it is back in. We are pleased with that. Without this amendment, savings from the line-item veto could be used to pay for other Government spending. One pork- barrel project could be cut to pay for another. That will not happen now as a result of the legislation offered by the Senator from Nebraska. This was a truth-in-advertising amendment. If we promise deficit reduction, we have to deliver it. It ensures that savings from vetoes of entitlements and tax breaks go to reducing the deficit as well. So that, too, was an improvement. Then, of course, I am pleased that the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin was adopted to create a budget point of order against any nonemergency spending included in an emergency supplemental propositions bill. This will ensure that supplementals are truly used for emergencies and are not vehicles for extraneous projects, as we have seen in our recent defense supplemental. There are improvements in the legislation since Monday. We can be grateful for that. The real improvement, the real opportunity to make substantive progress is to go back to where we started, to go back to what the real experts on this issue have proposed for many, many years. Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator Exon, the ranking member, have worked on this issue, as has Senator Coats, for a long time. Senator Domenici and Senator Exon have looked at all the alternatives and concluded some time ago that the most practical approach, the most logical way with which to address this issue is to suggest a line-item rescission. Forty-three States, including South Dakota, already have a line-item veto. It is time for the Federal Government to adopt one as well. That bill not only had practicality, and it was most likely to be upheld constitutionally, but it also included the broadest base of a Democratic and Republican consensus--broad bipartisan consensus that this was the approach that could actually work. I have supported a line-item veto. I supported this concept. I cosponsored it, as did the majority leader. Many others who have cosponsored this legislation this morning or this afternoon will now have an opportunity to vote on a bill that they cosponsored. They clearly saw the wisdom in using this approach or they would not have cosponsored it. The President has been very helpful in advocating a line-item veto, and has been helpful in moving this process forward. When the chairman and the ranking member proposed S. 14, obviously they felt, and they had good reason to feel, that based upon broad bipartisan consensus, based upon constitutionality, based upon practicality, that we really had a bill that we have the confidence could be passed. In fact, every single Republican who voted supported this legislation in a bill that was offered last year--by a vote of 342 to 69. That was the vote. Mr. President, 169 Republican Members of the House supported a bill nearly identical to the substitute that we are offering right now. So we have every expectation that this bill has enjoyed support on a broad, bipartisan basis in the past and there ought to be no reason why we could not ensure that the same level of bipartisan support could be found again as we vote later on this afternoon. That is really what we have all said we want. We want a line-item veto. We want one that is practical. We would like one to see broad bipartisan support when it passes. This substitute offers all of that and more. Basically, there is no secret, no mystery to how this works. I talked about this a little bit last night, but let me make sure everybody understands how simple the process is. That is really one of the advantages to our approach, it is so simple. It gives the President the authority to force Congress to vote on spending and tax provisions that he considers wasteful. That is all it does. And it sets a timeframe within which that must happen. We all know the situation now. We all recognize that we can ignore line items as they are rescinded now. There is no requirement that Congress needs to respond. But our amendment takes care of that. Our amendment says, within a designated period of time, 20 days, the President notify Congress after passage of a spending or a tax bill of the things he wants to see cut. That is all he has--20 days. Then 2 days later a bill with the President's proposal has to be introduced and within 10 days after that, the Congress has to vote. That is it. In 1 month's time it is all over; 20 days the President has to notify Congress. Two days later a bill is introduced. And 10 days later it is over. During that 10-day period during which Congress takes it up, we have 10 hours to deal with this issue and be done with it. Mr. President, it is very clear. Our legislation is as simple as simple can be. It is constitutional. It is a process that would work exceedingly well. We know it will work here. I believe our amendment has at least four advantages over the pending Republican substitute. Clearly it is more workable; clearly it is more constitutional; clearly it protects majority rule; and, finally, it leaves no question that tax breaks are on the table. It ensures that tax breaks will be subject to review just like any other form of spending. There is no question about the simplicity argument. The Appropriations Committee has estimated that 13 appropriations bills enacted in fiscal year 1995, sent down now for 13 signatures, will require 10,000 separate minibills under the Dole amendment. So we are going to go from 13 bills to 10,000 bills in just the appropriations process alone. That is what we are talking about. Coming on the heels of the Paperwork Reduction Act, this legislation goes in exactly the opposite direction. That is, the Republican substitute belies all of our public outcry about paperwork and the concerns we have raised time and again about how we want to reduce paperwork, reduce the level of redtape, whether it is in passing bills or the effect the bills have on people afterward. A good example, of course, is the one I have raised before. This is a 17-page appropriations bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of last year. It is a bill that has 17 pages. That is all it has, 17 pages of line by line appropriations. This is a simple little document that for 200 years we have sent down to the President for signature and that is it. He signs it, he vetoes it, it is over. Mr. President, this is 1,746 pages. This is what we are going to change it to if the Dole substitute passes. We are going to go from that 17-page bill to this. And the whole story is that when the President gets it, page by page, one after another, he has to get his pen out. He will probably have to get hundreds of pens out. But he is going to have to sign every one of these. Of course the distinguished President pro tempore, our dear friend, Senator Strom Thurmond, will have to sign well. It takes three signatures, and this is what we are going to be signing: one page after another--1,746 pages. Do we really want that? Is that really paperwork reduction? Is that simplicity? Is that the kind of practical kind of legislating we all espouse? I do not think so. I really do not think we want to go to 1,746 separate signatures every time we pass a simple appropriations bill. We have a choice of passing a small bill or a large stack of paper. That is our choice. And that is just one bill. We have also, of course, indicated our concern about the constitutionality of the Dole substitute. The last time this issue came up in committee, the Rules Committee in 1985 voted out a similar proposal unfavorably by a unanimous vote. The separate enrollment proposal was considered then, and voted out unfavorably, with the recommendation that it should not pass, by a unanimous vote, under a Republican Rules Committee chaired by a Republican. The constitutionality was raised again and again. The view then was what we were proposing here was not only impractical but unconstitutional. As I said, we are going to address that issue of constitutionality with the expedited judicial review and I am hopeful that at some point in the not too distant future the courts will determine for us the constitutional viability of this approach. As others, especially the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, have indicated, it is going to take more than legislative clarification for us to resolve the constitutionality questions. I am hopeful the concerns raised by the junior Senator from Michigan in his proposed amendment will address some of these concerns as well. But the fact is that, in spite of as much legislative clarification as we can make, we are still rolling the dice when it comes to constitutionality. No one can say unequivocally that what we are now proposing will pass constitutional muster; that we have overcome all of the constitutional hurdles that have been raised over and over again in spite of the changes we have made. As I predicted, this bill will not survive until it sunsets. We will not have to wait until the year 2000 to review this again because whether it is the courts or whether it is the Congress, somebody is going to come back and say: We made a mistake. It may take that. But ultimately we are going to come back here and address it and I am sure at some point that will happen. And certainly the constitutionality question is one of the biggest reasons why I think it could happen, sooner or later. Mr. President, the third issue has to do with majority rule. Our substitute protects majority rule. Our substitute ensures a central tenent of democracy will be here even after this legislation passes. Our amendment requires a majority of Congress to approve cuts that are proposed by the President, and that majority rule has been something we have supported for 200 years. Under the Dole alternative, the President wins, if he gets the support of just one more than a third of either House of Congress. Either House of Congress can uphold a Presidential decision. If that does not create policymaking potential, if that does not shift the balance of power towards the White House, I do not know what does. In my 16 years in Congress, I have never seen a greater opportunity for the President to become a legislator than this will provide him in the future. So I am very hopeful that, as we consider the question of Presidential power, the balance between the legislative and the executive branches, that we recognize the magnitude of the opportunity the President will have to set policy for the first time as a result of his ability to line item any one of thousands of specific provisions that may ultimately not only affect spending but affect policy as well. The fourth issue, as I said, affects tax break language. I indicated that the constitutionality question is unclear. The tax language is even more unclear. The tax language, in spite of the best efforts through colloquies and through changes in the legislation itself to make the tax language clear, is still ambiguous. We still are not sure what ``similarly situated'' is. I hope that we are not creating a provision that would allow us to pass special tax breaks for very small groups of people because they are ``similarly situated.'' I know no one here would support a tax break that only went to Members of Congress or to members of our staff. But under the language, that is a possibility. Under the language, ``similarly situated'' could actually mean that we are allowing tax breaks that would affect a group as small as the Members of this body or our staffs to not be subject to Presidential review. Through the colloquy and assurances given to us by others, that is becoming less of a threat, I hope. I think we can now be somewhat confident that indeed it is the view of our colleagues on the Republican side that they want broad language here, that they anticipate having the ability or giving the opportunity to the President to review items that are broad in their scope. But it is a roll of the dice. We are not sure what they mean. The language is vague. The language in my view is convoluted. We can do better than that. The way we do it better than that is to pass the Democratic substitute. Our language is very clear and very direct. It puts special interest tax breaks on the table, period. It is over. We can be very clear, if the Democratic substitute passes, that every special interest tax provision is going to be subject to a line-item veto. Every appropriations bill will be subject to line-item veto. There is no question there. So we will not have to roll the dice when it comes to the interpretation of tax language or constitutionality on any of those. So, Mr. President, I do not think there is any question, I do not think there is any doubt, that the Democratic substitute is the superior alternative. I do not think Senator Domenici and Senator Dole would have sponsored this legislation had they not had confidence that this is a very workable, simple, practical, constitutional solution. They would not have put their names on a bill if they did not feel that good about it. It is workable. It is constitutional. It projects majority rule. It clearly puts tax breaks on the table. It has solved the problem that we have raised now for days on this side of the aisle. It clarifies our situation while protecting our rights. So it is that simple. We have an opportunity to vote on something that has history, to vote on something that has been carefully considered by two of our committees, the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee. It has a history on both sides of the aisle, with our most esteemed leadership on both sides of the aisle. So without any doubt, with real expertise, our leaders on this issue have come forth and produced a document that I feel enthusiastic about, that I know will work, that I know will found to be constitutional. So I hope that as we consider our vote, and our colleagues will come back to their original positions on this issue, come back to their original interpretation that indeed this does work well, and support the Democratic substitute. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there has been uncertainty expressed regarding some of the language contained in the Dole line-item veto substitute. It is important to clarify the language in order to give guidance to those who will be responsible for implementing it. The major area of uncertainty has surrounded the definition of targeted tax benefit under the Dole substitute and, in particular, the meaning of ``similarly situated taxpayers.'' I would like to enter into the Record a few comments to further clarify this issue. It has been suggested that ``similarly situated taxpayers'' may refer to taxpayers who are engaged in a particular activity. Democrats would not disagree with this as one interpretation of the language. As I did last night, I would like to take an example because I believe this helps focus the discussion. Speaking in generalities can only get us so far, and, as I said, it is important that we provide some specific guidance for those who will be implementing this language. Suppose that a proposal is raised to provide a tax credit for research expenses incurred by companies promoting conservative causes. I don't believe anyone would argue that this proposal should not be a subject to scrutiny under the line-item veto legislation. Everyone would agree that a tax benefit solely for companies that do research in an effort to promote a specific cause is a special interest tax break. And, as a special interest tax break, it ought to be subject to possible line-item veto. But, what if someone were to say, ``Compared to those taxpayers who promote conservative causes, there is no special treatment here.'' In other words, what if we define ``engaged in a particular activity'' as the identical activity for which the special tax break is given. Clearly, this leads to a ludicrous result, and clearly that is not what is intended. Again, common sense dictates that the particular activity to which the measure should be compared is business research or some broader activity. When this is the comparison group, then we obtain the right result--that is, that the provision is subject to potential line-item veto. Let me turn another point of clarification, relating to the application of the Dole substitute to direct spending measures. Again, it is important that we make these clarifications for those who will be charged with implementing this legislation. Nowhere in the language of the Dole substitute does it say that application of the line-item veto will be restricted to increases in direct spending. Both decreases in spending and increases in spending, therefore, potentially will be subject to the veto pen. The result is that the Dole language would treat direct spending differently from targeted tax benefits. A reduction in entitlement spending would be subject to potential line-item veto, whereas a tax increase clearly would not be subject to line-item veto. There are the points of clarification I wished to make at this time for the Record. It is my hope and intention that these will provide adequate guidance to those in both Chambers who will face the important task of interpreting and implementing the line-item veto legislation we enact.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to speak on this amendment and allow Senator Bradley to use the remaining minutes of his time for his own purposes. Mr. President, the amendment that is now pending is one that virtually every Member of the Senate ought to be able to support. Senator Bradley's amendment on tax breaks is identical--it is identical--to that contained in the Domenici-Exon bill. It is the very same language that has been cosponsored by many people on both sides of the aisle, including both leaders at this point. Its intent is to make clear what we all say we want: To give the President a strong bill. We want to allow the President to weed out special interest breaks, whether they are buried in an appropriations bill or buried in a tax bill. We have said that our view of a strong bill is a bill that broadens the scope, that gives the President the greatest opportunity for review of legislative issues, of questions that may arise as he considers the viability of any piece of legislation, giving the President the opportunity, whether it is in taxes or appropriations, is our definition of strength. Senator Bradley's amendment puts tax breaks on an equal footing with wasteful spending. It allows the President to select out and veto provisions that might favor one group over another at the expense of the American taxpayer. So, Mr. President, it is a bill that certainly Senator Domenici, and many of us who cosponsored his legislation, feel is important, and I am very pleased that we have, again, an opportunity to support what we all have indicated we want, and that is a bill that is, indeed, as strong as it can be. I am gratified that our Republican colleagues agree with Democrats that tax breaks should be on the table and open to review. The current language in the Dole substitute is very broad. Under any reasonable commonsense interpretation of this language, tax breaks are on the table, and that is as it should be. I am supporting Senator Bradley's effort in order to remove any ambiguity in interpretation. I think Senators Domenici and Exon had it exactly right the first time, and I hope they will return to their roots and support this amendment when we have the vote later on today. Senator Bradley's amendment is also important because it has another crucial component. It eliminates the incentive that exists under the Dole substitute to shift tax breaks out of the budget window and escape Presidential scrutiny. For example, the House has a provision in the Contract With America called neutral cost recovery. Although this tax provision loses billions of dollars and is a huge drain on the Treasury, it would not come under the President's scrutiny. That is because it does not lose money until after the 5-year budget window. Instead of inviting budget games, we should allow any tax break that loses money to be subject to Presidential review, and Senator Bradley's amendment does that. That is a gimmick. We want to avoid gimmicks. We truly want truth in budgeting. We want the President to have an opportunity to review all budgetary implications, provisions that may be in the law, and that is really what this amendment does. This amendment would ensure that the President looks beyond 5 years and not be constrained simply to examine a piece of legislation only because it has a 5-year budget estimation. There is widespread agreement in the Senate about the need of Presidential review of wasteful spending. This amendment puts wasteful tax breaks on the table, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield the floor. each respective side?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week on the floor of the Senate I spoke about the struggles of the 1,200 retirees who, along with over 2,000 other company retirees around the country, found out in January that their health benefits--benefits they believed they would have for life--were being abruptly terminated. These retirees, many of whom had accepted lower pensions in return for the promise of lifetime health benefits, were suddenly faced with the prospect of paying up to $500 a month per couple for health insurance or losing the benefits that they had assumed would be available during their retirement years. Today I am introducing legislation to help these retirees and their families; legislation that would restore their health benefits as they seek redress in court and establish protections against such arbitrary behavior by employers in the future. My bill would protect retirees' health benefits in two ways: First, it would require employers to continue to provide retiree health benefits while a cancellation of benefits is being challenged in court. Anyone who has dealt with our legal system and its long waiting periods and delays knows the importance of this measure. Why should anyone who has worked for 20 or 30 years be forced to spend his or her life savings on health insurance--or go without health insurance entirely--while their pleas for simple justice wind through the courts? Second, my bill would eliminate the surprise nature of employee health benefit cancellations by requiring employers to prove they had warned workers in advance, before they retire, that their future benefits could be canceled at some time in the future. That seems only fair. This legislation recognizes that health benefits are not charity. Many workers give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange for them. It never occurs to these workers that their benefits could be taken away, with no increase in their pensions or other benefits to compensate for the loss. Many workers stay with the same company for dozens of years, perhaps all of their adult lives. They believe that a company they help build will reward their loyalty, honesty, and hard work. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as the 3,300 retirees of John Morrell & Co. found out only a week before their benefits were terminated. In this particular case, Morrell retirees received a simple, yet unexpected, letter stating their health insurance plan was being terminated, effective midnight, January 31, 1995--only a week later. The benefits being terminated, the letter said, included all hospital, major medical, and prescription drug coverage, Medicare supplemental insurance, vision care, and life insurance coverage. For those retirees under 65, this action poses a particular problem. While Morrell gave them the option of paying for their own coverage for up to 1 year, few can afford the $500 monthly premium for a couple. And many cannot purchase coverage at any price, because of preexisting conditions like diabetes or heart disease. Medicare beneficiaries would have to buy expensive supplemental insurance on their own. Morrell's decision was all the more painful to the retirees because it was so unexpected. These retirees believed they worked for a fair company; that a fair day's work resulted in a fair day's pay. Part of a fair day's pay is the retirement income and benefits employees earn through their service. These retirees found out the hard way that the company they had helped to build had turned its back on them. They also found out that the court system was not sympathetic to their cause. An Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowed the company to take this action. The union representing the retirees plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Sadly, some of the retirees won't live long enough to benefit from a possible reversal. These proud and hard-working people now worry that high medical costs will impoverish them or force them to rely on their children or the government for financial help. Each day they live in fear of illness and injury because they have no health insurance. Because this legislation is not just for the Morrell retirees, because what happened to these workers is not an isolated situation--it could happen to any of the 14 million retired workers who believe they and their families have life-long health insurance coverage through their employers. Two-thirds of American companies surveyed recently had plans to reduce retiree health benefits or to shift more costs to retirees. The Morrell dispute is one of 35 cases nationwide in which retirees are suing their former companies for slashing those benefits, or cutting them altogether. As I have said repeatedly, the long-run solution is comprehensive health reform that guarantees every American--and employer--access to affordable health care. I have fought over the years for this kind of comprehensive reform and was deeply disappointed when the 103d Congress was unable to pass legislation addressing some of our health care system's most serious problems. If we had passed health reform, the Morrell retirees would not be facing this loss of their health benefits today. Clearly, the problems we talked about in last year's health reform debate did not solve themselves when the session ended. And some of these problems, like the one the Morrell retirees face, cannot wait for the long-run. These retirees cannot wait for the resolution of the health reform debate. The new majority in Congress seems to believe the solution to all our problems--economic, social, moral, you name it--is passing their so- called Contract With America. I believe the solution is restoring the old contract between workers and employers. The contract that said if you work hard, you can get ahead. The contract that said if you give a company 20 or 30 years of loyal service, you can retire with dignity. The contract that said if you give someone your word, you will keep it. Restoring that contract must be our ultimate aim. In the meantime, I am determined to work with my colleagues in Congress to make sure retirees can keep their health insurance while they wait for their day in court, and to be sure that no other retirees get an unexpected letter in the mail, similar to the one the Morrell retirees received. That is the goal of the legislation that I am introducing today. I hope we can pass this measure expeditiously, to end the injustice of the Morrell situation, and so that others never have to face the problem Morrell retirees are grappling with today. 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 calling it what it ought to be called. This is the Domenici-Exon amendment. It is on the basis of the expertise of the two most able budgetary leaders in this body at this time that we bring forth this amendment with some confidence. The distinguished Senator from Nebraska, our ranking member, has very capably and eloquently characterized the remarks made earlier by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. In both cases, the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and certainly those made by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, lay out precisely why this amendment is necessary and why we bring it forth with the best intentions this evening. I will have more to say about this tomorrow, but I would like to begin this evening by talking about our motivation and about why we view this to be a superior alternative to the substitute which was laid down by the majority leader on Monday night. As I have said, and as the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has reiterated on many occasions, the debate all week long has not been about a line-item veto. There is no debate among most Senators in that regard. Most Senators would agree that a line-item veto in concept is something we ought to have. Forty-three States have it. Democrats and Republicans have recognized for years it would be a good thing for us to have as well. The question really is, What is our most effective approach? What in concept would work the most effectively? It is really on the basis of that desire--to bring forth the most practical and the most prudent approach--that I am sure Senator Domenici and Senator Exon originally proposed S. 14. The chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who have looked at all the options, and have studied this issue, as the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has said, for years and years. On the basis of their considered judgment, and on the basis of their expertise, concluded some time ago that S. 14, the proposal that they introduced earlier this year, is by far and away the single most appropriate approach to something we all say we want. And they were so compelling in their reasons earlier this year that the majority leader cosponsored S. 14. There must have been a time at some point this year that the majority leader looked at the options as well and came to the conclusion that they were right; that, indeed, having looked at all the different alternatives, S. 14 made the most sense. There has been a good deal of discussion in recent weeks about Democrats who voted one way for a balanced budget amendment and then voted a different way this year. Obviously, going from one Congress to the next on an issue of some importance, changing one's position is understandable. It happens here all the time. But to go from a cosponsored measure, one which enjoyed broad-based bipartisan support, and in the same Congress decide even though it was cosponsored, even though publicly one is associated with it as the author, and then to vote against it would require a good deal of explanation, it would seem to me. Regardless of what may ultimately come as a result of our debate over the course of the next day, what S. 14 is appropriately described as is expedited rescission, because it forces Congress to vote on spending cuts proposed by the President. An almost identical proposal was passed in the House last year on a totally bipartisan basis. That vote was 342 to 69. Every one of the 169 Republican Members of the House at that time supported it. So the history of S. 14 is very clear. Republicans by wide margins in the past--in the past Congress as well as in the past months--have demonstrated their conviction that this is a very appropriate way with which to achieve what we all say we want--line-item veto. The proposal gives the President authority to force Congress to vote on both spending and tax provisions that he considers wasteful. I will go into that in a little while. Under current law, Congress can ignore the President. We do not have to deal with rescissions the President sends to us. The current process is obviously very inadequate. It has not worked. Current law is clearly too weak. Overwhelmingly, I think, colleagues on both sides of the aisle would come to that conclusion. So our amendment requires that Congress not ignore the President. It creates a fast-track procedure which forces Congress to deal with the President's proposed cuts in a very limited period of time. It is not enough for the President to send something back. We could continue to ignore it and, in the waning days of a Congress, come to some conclusion about dealing with the President's rescission and technically, avoid having to make the tough decisions. But what this measure says is that within 20 days the President must notify the Congress, after passage of a spending or a tax bill, what he wants to see cut. Twenty days is all he has. Then, 2 days later, a bill with the President's proposals has to be introduced and 10 days later the Congress votes. So, Mr. President, within little over one month's time the entire process must be complete. The President has 20 days to notify the Congress of whatever changes he wants to make. Two days later, a proposal has to be made within the body to ensure that the President's recommendations are considered, and then Congress must act within 10 days after that to make it happen. That is it. It is over. Within a month, it all has to happen. There are no filibusters because we limit debate, once it comes to the floor, to 10 hours. Mr. President, there is a locked-in procedure here requiring from the very beginning of the process all the way to the end the certainty that Members of Congress must take action once the President makes his decision. Both Houses are forced to act. Both Houses would ensure an open public debate to place huge pressures on Congress itself to cut wasteful spending. Mr. President, that is the process. I do not know how it can get much simpler than that. I do not know how it can be any less complicated, any more certain, and any more streamlined a process as we consider legislative proposals in this body. So our amendment, in my view, has four main advantages over the pending Dole substitute. I want to address those with a little more elaboration. But let me just articulate them first. It is more practical. We will not see the legislative process tied up in knots, as I foresee the Dole substitute doing. It is clearly constitutional. It would not be challenged in court. We know that. Senator Nunn made quite a point of talking about the concerns he has in that regard. Third, it protects majority rule, a central principle of democracy. It does not permit a minority in Congress, as the Dole substitute would, to hold the majority hostage. It protects the balance of power between the President and the Congress. We all want review. We all want the opportunity to ensure that in an expedited process we can be forced to deal with the proposals made by the President with regard to rescissions. But we also recognize how important it is that majority rule be maintained and protected during the legislative process. Finally, it clearly and unambiguously puts tax breaks on the table subject to Presidential review. There is no question here. I am going to get into that in a little more detail tomorrow. But there is no question with regard to the Exon proposal. Tax breaks cases. Let me go back to the issue of practicality. Our amendment, as I said, would be so much easier to administer. I have described it in as simple a way as I can. I do not know that anyone would have any difficulty understanding what happened; 20 days, 2 days, 10 days. That is it. It is over. The Appropriations Committee last year estimated that the 13 appropriations bills would ultimately be split into nearly 10,000 separated minibills under the Dole amendment. Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee estimates that last year's 13 appropriations bills, which would be subject under the Exon approach to a simple process of reconsideration when the President sends them back, if he would choose to do so, would be changed from 13 bills to nearly 10,000 separate minibills under the Dole amendment. I do not have the paper to adequately represent the stacks, the truckloads of paper we are going to need to do what the Dole substitute would require. But coming on the heels of the Paperwork Reduction Act, for the life of me, I do not understand how anybody can advocate going from 13 bills to 10,000. Here we are just talking about the appropriations process. We are still trying to determine the degree to which we will have scope on taxes. But on appropriations bills alone, that is the question, do we want to go from 13 to 10,000? As I indicated in an earlier speech on the Senate floor, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act is a pretty good example. That act was about 30 pages. The 30 pages, if we use that bill as an example this year, would be split into 1,746 separate bills--1,746 separate bills. So on the basis of prudence or practicality, does it make sense for any of us who voted for and have advocated paper reduction to take a simple measure, and provide the complicated extraordinary burdensome process of going from 13 to 10,000 or in this case 1 page to 1,700? I do not think so, Mr. President. Second, let me address the issue I raised with regard to constitutionality. We have not had the chance to properly evaluate the constitutionality of this approach because it has not been considered by any committee, as the distinguished Senator from Nebraska has indicated. But the last time a separate enrollment proposal was considered was 1985. It was voted out unfavorably by unanimous vote in the Rules Committee, then chaired by a Republican. Several witnesses at the hearings held by the Rules Committee in 1985 raised serious questions as to the constitutionality of separate enrollment. The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia has spent a good deal of time on the floor over the course of the last several days talking about this issue, so I will not elaborate. But let me just say how pleased I am that the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, was adopted in order to expedite the judicial review of this bill. That is important. Certainly with judicial review, we will cut to the heart and go right to the question of constitutionality at some point in the not too distant future. While we will not know until the courts finally determine the constitutionality of this legislation, it would certainly be better to enact our amendment which raises no questions at all. On the one hand, we have a question of taking a chance, rolling the dice with regard to constitutionality. On the other hand, with this amendment, there is no roll of the dice. There is no question of constitutionality. We know it is constitutional. We have that confidence. So beyond the practicality of going from 13 to 10,000, then we question the constitutionality and say, look. On that side there is a doubt. On this side, there is none. If this legislation is struck down by the courts, what do we have? We go back to ground zero. We probably enact the Exon bill. But why should we go through that process? Why should we go back to step one? Mr. President, based upon that, I would say that Senators ought to give pause before they come to any final conclusions on the Dole substitute, which while it has merits, is not as good of a solution as the amendment we have offered. I would certainly hope that they will take a close look at what the chairman of the Budget Committee himself proposed earlier this year along with the ranking member. Third, I indicated that majority rule and the balance of power is a concern of many of us. Our amendment would require that a majority of Congress approve cuts that are proposed by the President using the principle of majority rule which has been in existence for 200 years. For 200 years we have said majority rule ought to be our modus operandi, our approach to passing laws in this country. We would not allow a supermajority to hold hostage legislation that otherwise deserves fair consideration. Under the alternative, the President wins, if he gets the support of just one more than a third of either House of Congress. It is all over with. A President wins if he can convince one more than one-third of either body of the propriety of his action. That is all it takes and it is over. Do we really want to move that much power to the White House? Do we want to see that kind of an imbalance between the executive and legislative branches? Mr. President, I do not think so. That is not a partisan issue. Obviously, we have a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. The roles could be reversed some day. But regardless of who dominates either branch, I really question whether we want to push that kind of power, that kind of an imbalance, created now after over 200 years. I would hope that Members, too, would give a great deal of careful thought to allowing the President to use that kind of influence. I can recall so many occasions over the course of the last 16 years where Presidents have called me to urge my vote on a specific issue. They have called me saying, ``It is in the national interest for you to do something, Senator Daschle,'' or ``Congressman Daschle, that I know you do not want to do.'' There have been times when I have had a fundamental philosophical disagreement with my own President, sometimes, with a Democratic President, not to mention a Republican President, and I have had to tell the President, ``No, I am not going to support you.'' But I wonder whether anybody could ever imagine-- hopefully, it will never happen, but I wonder if a President might some day say, ``Senator Daschle, you have some water projects in South Dakota that I am going to line-item veto unless * * *''--God forbid that it happens. I hope it will not. But putting the power of the President in the position it will be in, under that substitute, gives me pause. If I know that I can convince the majority of my colleagues of the appropriateness of a given line item, I am going to be safe and say, ``Mr. President, you can do anything you want to. I can convince my colleagues of the merit of this particular position, so go ahead and veto it.'' I will convince the majority. But if all he needs is a third, if that is all he needs, I am not sure I will ever get anywhere with issues of great importance to this Senator or to anybody else. Mr. President, the final issue has to do with tax breaks and the language that the Exon proposal provides, as opposed to the language provided in the Dole substitute. I must say I am very pleased that the Republican majority has come a long way in meeting many of our concerns with regard to adopting a provision which allows the President to veto special interest tax breaks. While I am pleased with this progress, the language in our amendment is much clearer and freer of ambiguity. That is what we really want. It says clearly and forcefully: Tax breaks are on the table, period; no questions asked, no doubt at all about where we stand with regard to putting tax breaks on the table, in the same way that appropriations bills are offered. That is a given. But I must say, I am hopeful that Republicans and Democrats can come to some closure on this issue of tax expenditures. It is gratifying that the tax expenditure language that Republicans now propose is similar to language that Senator Bradley has introduced and has made very clear is his No. 1 priority with regard to the line-item veto. I am very pleased that the distinguished Senator from Indiana has made that read into the Record what he had to say about this issue, because I think it confirms what we have been hoping we can accomplish. Quoting now, Senator Coats on March 21, in a colloquy with Senator Bradley. He says: I say to the Senator from New Jersey, our goal, I believe, is the same--to address the same items that he attempts to address. I hope that as we debate through this and work through this, we can clarify so that Members know exactly what we are after. It is hard to get the exact words in place so that we understand just exactly how this applies to tax items. But I believe that the targeted tax expenditures which are targeted in the Dole amendment very closely parallel what the Senator from New Jersey has tried for so long to accomplish. Mr. President, that clarification is very helpful. I commend the Senator from Indiana for making it. Republicans would subject a tax break to potential veto, and it provides more favorable tax treatment to a particular taxpayer or limited group of taxpayers ``when compared with other similarly situated taxpayers.'' The only way a tax expenditure would not be subject to potential veto under this language is if we define ``similarly situated'' as meaning identical. Our Republicans colleagues have assured us that that is not their intent. Suppose we proposed a $500 tax credit for all employees of Senate offices. Everyone would agree that this proposal should be subject to a Presidential veto. But if we define ``similarly situated'' as all employees of Senate offices, then we would have the ridiculous result that the proposal would not be subject to any line-item veto. What if we provided a tax deduction to all businesses in Fairfax County, VA. We would agree that the President should have the authority to review the provision for possible line-item veto. If we only compare the taxpayers who benefit from this deduction to businesses in Fairfax County, then we end up with a nonsensical result that the deduction would not be subject to the line-item veto. So, Mr. President, as these examples show, defining ``similarly situated taxpayers'' to mean the identical group of taxpayers leads to a ridiculous result. But applying common sense to the term ``similarly situated'' leads inevitably to a broad interpretation of that term, which is what I am sure our Republican colleagues have intended. They have confirmed and assured us that it is not their intent to have the line-item veto operate in the manner I just described with these examples. Thus, similarly situated taxpayer should be interpreted broadly, thereby subjecting a wide range of tax breaks to a Presidential veto. Again, Mr. President, that is the question. Why should we have to go through an interpretation of broad or narrow scope with regard to tax breaks? Why not put all tax breaks on the table? Why not recognize that a tax break is an expenditure, an expenditure that has to be offset, an expenditure that ought to be treated just like an appropriation? That is what the Democratic substitute does, very clearly. So, in closing, Mr. President, let me just say that we will have more of an opportunity tomorrow to talk about these issues. But we need to go back to the original Domenici-Exon language, cosponsored by the majority leader. We appreciate very much that Republicans have come toward our view on tax breaks. Now they should come back to their own language that is part of our substitute. We support giving the President new authority to compel consideration of cuts in spending and tax breaks, and the best way to do it is to adopt this amendment. It is workable, it is constitutional, it protects majority rule, and it clearly puts special interest tax breaks on the table. I hope that in the spirit of bipartisanship, recognizing that the origin of this legislation came from Republicans and Democrats, and not only just any Republican or Democrat, but it came from the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, people who know this issue better than the rest of us, I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle can recognize the wisdom of that approach and support it tomorrow when we have the rollcall vote. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 588 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.