Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. What is the pending order of business?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today, several of my distinguished colleagues and I announced our intention to introduce another important element of our Democratic plan to help middle-class Americans who are squeezed between prices that are rising and incomes that are not. Today Senators Breaux, Kennedy, Reid, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Ford, Dodd, Kerry, and I are introducing the Higher Education Tax Relief Act of 1995. This legislation will provide tax relief for middle-income families who are trying to send their children to college or vocational or professional school, as well as to individuals who seek such educational opportunities. As I have noted on many occasions, our highest priority in the 104th Congress is to strengthen the financial security of working middle- income families. One of our greatest concerns is the increasing inability of many families to afford to send their children to college or vocational school. Pressures on State budgets are forcing public colleges and universities to increase the tuition and fees they charge to new students. Many private institutions are trying to fill the student aid gap by taking on the task themselves, but they are finding it more and more costly to do so. Our legislation will provide a tax deduction of up to $10,000 for tuition and fees associated with attending public and non-profit colleges and universities or vocational and professional schools. This aspect of the proposal is identical to the tuition deduction advanced by President Clinton in his middle-class bill of rights package. We think the President was right to focus on education in that package because it is one of the highest priorities--and biggest expenses--of middle-income families. In addition, our tax deduction would be available up to the same amount for interest incurred on student loans. Ever since the deduction for student loan interest was eliminated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, we have heard an ever-louder cry from middle-income Americans that they want it back. And for good reason. As more and more forms of direct student aid are eliminated, these families are having to incur debt in order to finance the costs of higher education, especially since their incomes simply are not rising commensurate with the cost of living. The deduction we are proposing, whether taken for tuition and fees or for student loan interest, is available to families with incomes of up to $100,000 per year or individuals with incomes of up to $70,000 per year. Moreover, the deduction may be taken whether or not the taxpayer is in a position to itemize on his or her return, providing greater assurance that those at the lower end of the middle-income range will benefit. Our proposal provides a choice to middle-income Americans and complements the various forms of student aid currently available to those with the lowest incomes. Middle-income taxpayers, most of whom no longer qualify for other forms of student aid, may deduct amounts they are able to pay for tuition and fees at the time they or their children are attending an institution of higher education. If, however, they must finance their own or their children's education, they may deduct the interest on student loans later when they begin paying back the loans. Mr. President, the Higher Education Tax Relief Act of 1995, along with the President's tuition deduction proposal, identifies a major difference between the Republican and Democratic views of middle-income tax relief. The Republican Contract With America does not contain tax relief directed at helping middle-income families pay for education. In fact, it contains numerous measures that will further harm the ability of middle-income Americans to obtain the education they seek. For example, one of the spending cuts contemplated by Republicans is the repeal of the in-school interest subsidy for student loans. Right now, the interest clock on many student loans does not start ticking until a student has finished college. The Republicans want to start charging interest immediately. We believe that's an attack on middle- income families who cannot afford to send their children to college without borrowing the money. College already is too expensive for many families, and we shouldn't limit the number who can afford it by raising the costs even more. Democrats believe opportunities should be open to everyone willing to earn them with hard work. We believe education is necessary and should be affordable to anyone who wants it--that we should not tax the income necessary for middle-income families to send their children to college or vocational and professional schools. These are Democratic values. Let me point out that none of us introducing this legislation today have any intention of increasing the deficit as a result of this proposal. We have asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to estimate the cost of this proposal and, at the appropriate time, we intend to offer ways to pay for it. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say I am disappointed that the cloture motion will be filed. I respect the decision of the distinguished majority leader, but I remind our colleagues that only three Democratic amendments have been considered. One amendment offered by the majority was debated by the body for over 3 hours this afternoon. And I might add it was a nonrelevant nongermane amendment. So we have really not had much of an opportunity to debate many of the very relevant, germane amendments that reflect the legitimate concerns expressed by our colleagues over the course of the last several days. Let me just go back, if I may for just a moment, to remind my colleagues that this bill was introduced on Wednesday, January 4, with very significant and important differences from S. 993, the unfunded mandates bill that was reported last year. The Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing the next day, on January 5. There was a markup in Governmental Affairs scheduled for Friday, January 6. Senator Glenn, the ranking member, on behalf of several Democrats, asked for time to prepare amendments and consider issues raised at the hearing. The chairman, Senator Roth, subsequently agreed to put the markup over to Monday, the following week, with the requirement that all amendments be filed by Friday, January 6, at 10 o'clock. Our committee members complied with that request in good faith. The Governmental Affairs Committee then had a markup on Monday, January 9, at 10 o'clock. Members were originally told the chairman would oppose all amendments because the majority leader wanted to take them up on the floor. So our committee members again, in good faith, cooperated and delayed offering many of the amendments in committee, because they had the expectation that these amendments would be properly debated and considered on the floor. Democrats objected to eliminating the committee from the legislative process. A markup was held, and amendments were offered. All Democratic amendments were defeated as a result of this dictate on a partisan vote, except for three that were accepted by the chairman. At the markup, members were told that there would be no committee report. There were strong objections at the time, and, of course, the whole controversy relating to the committee report has been very much a part of the debate on the floor over the last several days. The Budget Committee held its markup at 2:30 that same Monday. At the request of the chairman, several Democratic members of the Budget Committee agreed to withhold offering their amendments until the bill was to be considered on the floor. Committee members were then told there would be ample opportunity to offer these amendments on the floor, and Democratic members asked that a Budget Committee report on S. 1 be filed. It was our understanding that there would be a report filed. Of course, that did not happen as it was promised. So, Mr. President, in summary, let me just emphasize, we have dealt in good faith all the way through this process. We had hoped that we could have ample consideration of the bill in both the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee--and that did not happen. We were hoping that we could have a report before the bill came to the floor--that did not happen. We were told we would have an opportunity to consider amendments on the floor--germane amendments in many cases-- and that has not happened. In good faith, I think, Senator Dole and I have attempted over the last day to find an agreement--and that has not happened, either. There is no filibuster going on here. In my view, and I think in the view of many of our colleagues, there are very legitimate concerns about many of these issues. The concerns have to be addressed prior to the time many of us feel comfortable voting on final passage. It is my hope and expectation that, if we had ample consideration of some of these legislative issues, there could be a favorable vote. But certainly, that is going to take a reasonable amount of time. I would hope that we could oppose the cloture motion tomorrow morning.

Mr. DASCHLE. We object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I might just take 1 more minute to comment about the importance of the vote tomorrow, I think it is very important that Senators understand the difference between germaneness and relevance. We have a lot of amendments pending that are very relevant and that, under the strict rules of parliamentary definition, may not be germane. The distinguished Senator from Michigan has raised his point on a number of occasions during the debate over the course of the last several days. Senators need to be aware that in many cases, while an amendment in question may directly affect this legislation, may be directly relevant, it may be ruled not germane. So this is a very important vote tomorrow morning, and I hope Senators will take care as we consider the importance of our opportunity to raise these issues in a constructive way as we have been doing the last several days. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, one of our colleagues made a speech at the National Press Club that deserves the attention of all Senators. Senator Kennedy spoke of the timeless values and enduring ideals that Democrats share with the American people. He eloquently described the Social Security and Medicare; the fight for civil rights; the fight for an equal opportunity for all America's children, rich and poor alike; the great opening of opportunity through higher education; all the efforts to preserve what's finest about our national community. And he set forth the challenges Americans face today, and the Democratic response to those challenges, for the working middle-class families of this country. I addressed the same concerns last week, on the first day of the 104th Congress, when I introduced five bills that are directed at the goals of increasing the economic and personal security of working families, strengthening of economic foundations on which American prosperity rests, and reforming the Congress to reduce the influence of money in politics. Senator Kennedy spoke with the special passion that only he brings to politics, a passion that throws into sharp relief Democratic goals and the principles by which Democrats have sought those goals throughout this century. I believe his words deserve a wider audience, so I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the full text of Senator Kennedy's statement be reproduced in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the honor of introducing today on behalf of Senator Exon, the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, and other Democratic Senators, the Right to Know Act. The proposal is straightforward. It demands that American taxpayers know what the impact of a constitutional balanced budget amendment will be before State legislatures vote on ratification of the constitutional amendment. It also ensures that we take immediate steps to balance the budget by the year 2002--the express goal of the constitutional amendment. Our proposal says that, upon passage of a balanced budget amendment by Congress but before States must ratify, we would give States and the American people the information they need to make this important decision. Second, under our approach, the actual deficit reduction required to balance the budget would begin immediately. No State would be required to vote on the amendment until Congress passes a concurrent budget resolution committing to actual deficit reduction and outlining, through reconciliation instructions to committees, how the budget would be balanced by the year 2002. It is critically important that Americans understand that passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget does not reduce the national debt by one penny. Nor does passage of a balanced budget amendment provide the slightest detail of how the budget could or should be balanced. Only if Congress acts on legislation that accomplishes a balanced budget will the precise ramifications be known. We simply cannot afford to wait until 2001 to start complying with the balanced budget amendment. By doing so, we will be adding a far greater burden to our national debt, which already has reached nearly $4.7 trillion. Even if we pledge our commitment to continued deficit reduction today, we will still need about $1.2 trillion of cuts over the next 7 years to balance the budget by the year 2002. Failure to make these cuts will simply add to the $4.7 trillion debt. If we delay even 1 year, the national debt will increase by over $150 billion as a result of that delay, and the interest on the debt will be approximately $50 billion greater. Each year we delay adds another enormous sum of our already-astronomical national debt, and increases the percentage of our budget that must be dedicated to servicing that debt. In the last congress, we passed a deficit reduction package that will reduce the budget deficit by nearly $500 billion. Given the magnitude of our existing debt, it would be irresponsible and profoundly illogical not to continue striving toward a balanced budget this year, not next year or the year after. Mr. President, senators on both sides of the aisle are divided on the issue of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. We all want to bring budget deficits under control, but reasonable people disagree on the way to accomplish that goal, both in terms of budget priorities and in terms of the proposal to amend the Constitution. The Right to Know Act offers an approach that senators on both sides of the constitutional amendment issue and on both sides of the aisle could--indeed should--support. Senators who support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget--and I am one--should know that this proposal is wholly consistent with that position. In fact, if we are serious about balancing the budget, we must be prepared to work with our colleagues to ensure that the deficit reduction resumes immediately. We also must be prepared to explain to the American people and the States exactly how we are going to achieve our goal. Senators who may oppose a constitutional amendment, but who believe we need to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and an actual balanced budget, should also find this proposal wholly consistent with that position. The Right to Know Act simply ensures that the balanced budget amendment, if it passes, will not become a gimmick or a hollow promise. I strongly urge all of my colleagues, regardless of their position on the underlying balanced budget amendment issue, to study this proposal carefully. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 42, relating to minority party appointments to a Senate committee; that the resolution be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understood the unanimous-consent agreement last night, there would be no amendments laid down prior to 2 o'clock, and I would just want to confirm that with the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks made by so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in tribute to our friend and colleague, Bennett Johnston. A couple of days ago, I read some words written by George Bernard Shaw that I think probably as closely epitomized how I view Bennett Johnston as any I have read in my time in the Senate. I would like to begin what I hope to be very brief remarks, keeping to the approach used by our distinguished colleague from Wyoming in being brief this afternoon. George Bernard Shaw wrote: This is the true joy in life: Being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I finish, for the harder I work, the more I love. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got ahold of for the moment. I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations. Mr. President, that describes our friend, Bennett Johnston. For 22 years, the people of Louisiana and the people of the United States have been blessed with the leadership of this outstanding U.S. Senator. Bennett Johnston epitomizes the best in public service through his thoughtfulness, his fairness, his determination, his sense of humor, and his belief in love for his family. In this period of cynicism and ugliness in politics, Bennett Johnston has stood as a pillar of integrity, of hard work, of dedication, of devotion to public service. I have had the good fortune to know him now for over 8 years. I am proud to call him my friend. I am proud that I will have the ability to work closely with him for at least 2 more years. I respect his decision and know how deeply he feels about his family and his time spent on those occasions walking with his wife, Mary. There will be other days, as others have said, to talk about the many accomplishments of Senator Bennett Johnston, but today let me join with others in wishing him a future of good health and much happiness, recognizing that we do enjoy his company, his work, his partnership, and the future that we hold with him together. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as a longtime supporter of a balanced budget amendment, I am pleased to join my very distinguished colleague from Nebraska in offering this amendment. This amendment says we should translate words into action that we have to take immediate steps to balance the Federal budget. Passing a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget 7 years from now, From all appearances, a balanced budget amendment will pass Congress this year. There appears to be widespread support on both sides of the aisle on that point. But we simply cannot afford to wait until 2001 to start complying with the balanced budget amendment. By doing so, we will be adding a far greater burden to our national debt, which already is above $4 trillion. If we pledge our commitment to continued deficit reduction today, we will still need more than $1 trillion of cuts over the next 7 years to balance the budget by the year 2002. If we delay even 1 year, the national debt will increase by over $150 billion as a result of that delay, and the interest on the debt will be approximately $50 billion greater. Each year that we delay adds another enormous sum to our already-astronomical national debt, and increase the percentage of our budget that must be dedicated to servicing that debt. In the last Congress, we passed a deficit reduction package that will reduce the budget deficit by nearly $500 billion. Given the magnitude of our existing debt, it would be irresponsible and profoundly illogical not to continue striving toward a balanced budget this year, not next year or the year after. To illustrate the point that Senator Exon and I are trying to make, consider the simple situation of a person who has run up huge amounts of debt at the bank. Does the bank say to that person, ``You have 7 years to pay off your debt and, by the way, feel free to incur more debt in the meantime?'' Certainly not. The bank would insist that, at a minimum, the debtor not incur further debt. That is precisely what we are talking about here, and that is why every Member of this body who supports the balanced budget amendment should support this amendment today. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 32, relating to minority party appointments to Senate committees, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That will be agreeable to this Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I first want to applaud Senators Levin and Wellstone for offering this excellent amendment. It is very similar to the provisions in S. 10, the Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act which I introduced yesterday, and which a number of our colleagues have cosponsored. I believe it is essential that the amendment be included in the final legislation. This debate really picks up where we left off last year when Republicans blocked consideration of the legislation which was developed through the tireless efforts of the, at that time, chairman and others. I hope my Republican colleagues will now work with us to enact this amendment. Those of us who want real reform will not stop at congressional coverage. We have to restore public confidence in Government, and our reform efforts must go further. The Levin-Wellstone amendment does just that. Lobby reform is central to true congressional reform. Without it we will never end the undue influences of special interests. But without a ban on special interest gifts to Members of Congress and their staffs, congressional reform is reform in name only. Senators Levin and Wellstone and many others have worked hard on lobbying and gift reform and, in so doing, have demonstrated their commitment to true reform, to the end of business as usual. So again, Mr. President, passing the bill that should have been passed last fall, and would have been passed if it had not been for the Republican move to block it, is a very good start today. But it will be a hollow, cynical start if it turns out that those who blocked that legislation did so only to reintroduce it this year, take the credit, and block other essential reforms. Lobby reform and a ban on gifts are essential to a genuine reform effort. Let us begin the year by finishing our old business and moving forward from here. Doing so will provide an even stronger foundation upon which to rebuild trust in this institution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I know Senator Baucus has indicated to me that he needed somewhere around 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I only need a couple minutes, so I think that would work out very well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act and the Medicaid Substance Abuse Treatment Act, legislation that will enhance our national effort to eliminate the tragic problem of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome [FAS] and the related condition known as Fetal Alcohol Effect [FAE]. FAS-FAE constitute the leading cause of mental retardation in the United States today. Although both conditions are completely preventable simply by abstaining from the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy, many people unfortunately do not realize the dangers of drinking while pregnant. The Office for Substance Abuse Prevention estimates that as many as 66 percent of all women drink while they are pregnant, endangering their infants' health and putting them at risk of being born with FAS or FAE. during pregnancy are not limited to the general public, however. Even some health care providers are unaware of the danger of drinking during pregnancy, and for many years it was widely held that moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy was beneficial. There are approximately 5,000 children born each year in the United States with FAS. It is estimated that the incidence of FAS is as high as 1 per 100 in some Native American communities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the lifetime cost of treating an individual with FAS is almost $1.4 million. The total cost in terms of health care and social services to treat all Americans with FAS is close to $1.6 billion each year. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary expense, given the fact that FAS is 100 percent preventable. The first step toward eliminating this devastating disease is raising the public's consciousness about FAS-FAE. Although great strides have been made in this regard, much more work remains to be done. The Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act attempts to fill in the gaps in our current FAS-FAE prevention system. It contains four major components, representing the provisions of the original legislation that have not yet been enacted. These provisions include the initiaion of a coordinated education and public awareness campaign; increased support for basic and applied epidemiologic research into the causes, treatment and prevention of FAS-FAE; widespread dissemination of FAS-FAE diagnostic criteria; and the establishment of an interagency task force to coordinate the wide range of Federal efforts in combating FAS--FAE. I ask that a summary of the bill be inserted into the Record following the completion of my remarks. A prevention strategy cannot succeed in the absence of increased access to comprehensive treatment programs for pregnant addicted women so that women and their children can access care. Many pregnant substance abusers are denied treatment because facilities refuse to accept them, or the women cannot accept treatment because they lack adequate child care for their children while they receive treatment. In fact, many treatment programs specifically exclude pregnant women or women with children. To make matters worse, while Medicaid covers some services associated with substance abuse, like outpatient treatment and detoxification, it fails to cover residential treatment, which is considered by most health care professionals to be the most effective method of overcoming addiction. The Medicaid Substance Abuse Treatment Act would permit coverage of residential alcohol and drug treatment for pregnant women and certain family members under the Medicaid Program, thereby assuring a stable source of funding for States that wish to establish these programs. The bill has three primary objectives. First, it would facilitate the participation of pregnant women who are substance abusers in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Second, by increasing the availability of comprehensive and effective treatment programs for pregnant women and, thus, improving a woman's chances of bearing healthy children, it would help combat the serious and evergrowing problem of drug-impaired infants and children, many of whom are born with FAS and FAE. And, third, it would address the unique situation of pregnant addicted native American and Alaska Native women in Indian Health Service areas. Mr. President, the cost of prevention is substantially less than the downstream costs in money and human capital of caring for children and adults who have been impaired due to prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs. These prevention and treatment services are an investment that yields substantial long-term dividends--both on a societal level, as welfare dependence by substance abusers and their children is reduced, and on an individual level, as mothers plagued by alcohol and drug addiction are given the means to heal, for themselves and their unborn children. FAS and FAE represent a national tragedy that reaches across economic and social boundaries. The demand for a comprehensive and determined response to this devastating problem is clear. I urge my colleagues to support these measures, and am hopeful that, with widespread support, we can enact this important legislation without delay. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both bills and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a successful national energy policy requires that we shift our reliance away from finite fossil fuels toward the infinite supply of renewable alternative technologies. To that end, in the 102d Congress I introduced legislation that would have extended for 5 years the business energy tax credits set forth in section 46 of the Internal Revenue Code for investments in solar and geothermal energy facilities. At the time, those credits were scheduled to expire at the end of 1992. In addition, I introduced a bill that would have allowed the credits to be taken against the alternative minimum tax or ``AMT'' for those businesses subject to its provisions. After much hard work, a provision making the solar and geothermal energy tax credits permanent was incorporated into the Energy Policy Act enacted into law last year. The proposal to allow the credits against the AMT, however, was not included in that legislation. Therefore, today I am re-introducing the bill that would permit businesses subject to the AMT to take advantage of the credits for investment in solar and geothermal energy facilities. I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. These energy credits represent a small but important contribution to developing a broader, more sensible, and more reliable national energy strategy. To be sure, we must be careful of enacting provisions that threaten to erode the alternative minimum tax, but there are situations in which other policies should override this concern. In my view, the promotion of renewable energy sources is just such a situation. The promotion of renewable energy sources is more important now than ever before. This was demonstrated in the recent past by the events in the Persian Gulf. We should have learned from those events that we cannot continue to ignore our increasing dependence on imported oil. The world's oil supply will run out. Nothing can change that. To the extent that we foster and encourage the development of solar, geothermal and other new technologies, we can reduce our reliance on imported oil. The need to slow the detrimental effects on our environment of traditional sources of energy is as important as energy supply and security. Renewable energy sources are the answer to this need. I have often spoken on the merits of alcohol fuels in this regard. Solar and geothermal energy have similar potential for the environment. For example, in the solar mode of operation, solar technology has no combustion-related emissions at all. Even when using back-up fossil fuel to assure reliability, present generation solar technology produces far less carbon dioxide than natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel alternative. Geothermal plants also emit substantially less carbon dioxide than gas, oil, or coal-fired plants for the same electrical output. Recent investment in solar and geothermal technologies is just beginning to yield potential return in the form of energy security and an improved environment. These technologies are not yet at the point, however, where they are commercially viable. The tax credits provide the margin needed to keep renewable projects in operation. It would be counterproductive not to extend the credits to those businesses falling under the AMT, in view of our national investment to date and our desire to lessen our dependence on imported oil. Finally, in the 103d Congress, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the cost of this measure at $212 million over 5 years. At the appropriate time, I intend to recommend offsets for the cost of the proposal over a 10-year period as required by the Budget Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to address unnecessary inflexibility in a Tax Code provision that affects farmers who receive crop disaster assistance. I am joined by my distinguished colleagues Senators Grassley, Harkin, Breaux, Baucus, Pressler, Conrad, Burns, and Dorgan. Last year, a number of my colleagues in the Senate and I, as well as many members of the House of Representatives, introduced similar legislation to address a concern arising out of disaster payments received after the 1993 floods in the Midwest. While it may be too late to rectify this problem for some of the farmers who received those payments, this legislation would provide them the option to go back and amend their 1993 returns. Moreover, the measure is prospective, as it is nonetheless important to ensure fairness to farmers who suffer crop damage as result of future disasters. The legislation would make a permanent change to the Tax Code and impact farmers who receive disaster payments as a result of losses sustained from natural disasters. Due to any number of factors, farmers may not receive disaster assistance payments until the year following the disaster. This may have serious tax consequences for them if they normally would have recognized the income from the crops that were destroyed in the year of the disaster. Receipt of the disaster payment in the following year may prevent them from reporting it as income on the previous year's return. This, in turn, will result in a ``bunching'' of income in the later year, possibly pushing them into a higher tax bracket than would otherwise be the case. It may also cause them to lose the benefit of personnel exemptions and certain nonbusiness itemized deductions. Ironically, Internal Revenue Code section 451(d) permits a farmer who happened to receive his disaster payment in, for example, 1993 to defer recognition of that income for tax purposes until 1994, if that is the year in which he otherwise would have recognized the income from the crops that were destroyed. But it does not allow a farmer who did not actually receive the payment until 1994 to recognize the payment as income on his 1993 return if that is when he normally would have received the income. The legislation we are introducing today would simply permit section 451(d) to operate in either direction, so long as the farmer recognizes the disaster payment in the year in which he would otherwise have recognized the income from the crops that were destroyed. Let me emphasize again that the change made by this legislation would apply to future disasters and disaster payments, not just those arising out of the 1993 flooding. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the cost of this proposal at $9 million over a 6-year period. At the appropriate time, I intend to recommend offsets covering the cost over a 10-year period as required by the Budget Act. Mr. President, there really is no reason why the Tax Code should allow flexibility for farmers who want to recognize disaster payments in the year following the disaster, but not for those who receive their payments in the latter year and want to recognize them as income in the year of the disaster. In either case, the farmer would be required to show that he would have received the income from the destroyed crops in the year he is choosing to report the disaster assistance income. Without this two way rule, we will be imposing significant financial burdens on the very people we seek to help in passing disaster assistance legislation. I would also like to make clear that no one is pointing fingers here. The fact is that this situation can arise circumstantially, without fault on anyone's part. The timing of the disaster, the volume of applicants for disaster assistance, and many other factors could result in farmers receiving disaster assistance payments the year after the disaster. This situation was bound to arise sooner or later, and it makes sense to correct it as soon as possible for those who are affected. It is my intention to pursue passage of this measure at the earliest opportunity this year. I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting it. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.