Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is a matter that has some urgency associated with it only because I know the House is waiting to receive the language. So in the interest of expediting consideration of this particular piece of legislation, I now ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on H.R. 2884, that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House with a further amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2884 is the Victims Relief Fund, the legislation dealing with victims of terrorism.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Montana for his efforts over the course of the last several months. I have been impressing the Senate to act on disaster relief. Many farmers in South Dakota share this problem, and I have applauded the efforts made by the Senator from Montana. I appreciate his interest and his determination to see that it adequately responds to the Great Plains, the Midwest, and elsewhere. I assure the Senator from Montana that at the first appropriate opportunity we will find a way to address the legislation and find a way in which to respond. As he recalls, we did some of that last summer. We had a good debate about how much was necessary. I think the Senator from Montana is correct in his observations that there is still a great deal more to be done. I will work with him to see that that happens.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3338 occur immediately following the remarks made by the senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank both Senators from New Jersey for their extraordinary work in getting us to this point. This was not easy, and I am grateful to them for their persistence, their leadership, and their efforts. This would not have happened were it not for their direct involvement to this moment. I say the same to the Senators from New York for the tremendous work they have done assisting us in getting to this point as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I concur in the comments made by the Republican leader. We should note that this completes our work on all 13 appropriations bills. I commend both the chair and the ranking member for their work in getting us to this point. This was not easy, especially this year. It would not have happened were it not for the tremendous effort made by each of the subcommittee chairs. I note especially the efforts of the Senator from Hawaii on the Defense appropriations bill, the largest of all bills with which we had to contend. I congratulate them. I thank them. I note, again, the great work they have done in getting us to this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I offer an alternative and make it a proposal that we amend the unanimous consent request made by the distinguished Republican leader as the following: That the amendment include a substitute amendment that I have at the desk which would extend unemployment insurance coverage for 13 weeks, and that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have already indicated, of course, to all of our colleagues that we would not have any additional rollcall votes today. We would have to accommodate this request with simply a voice vote on the substitute. Basically, what we are suggesting is that since we cannot reach agreement on the overall economic stimulus, the one piece for which there is general agreement is the need to extend unemployment insurance. We did it three times in the early 1990s, recognizing that the limited regular benefit period of time was inadequate for a lot of those who are out of work. Again, without getting into extended remarks, I would simply, by explanation, note that would be the intent of this unanimous consent request, which is to substitute economic stimulus with the 13-week extension.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when people become doctors they take the Hippocratic oath which, among other things, instructs them to ``First, do no harm.'' Maybe our Nation's leaders in Washington need to take a similar oath if they intend to operate on the economy. Sadly, our friends in the Republican Party are steadfast in their insistence that we enact legislation that would harm our economy. Their plan takes more than $200 billion out of Social Security and uses it mostly for tax breaks for wealthy individuals and profitable corporations. It will do little to stimulate the economy, and even less for the millions of newly unemployed Americans. Their plan will not make the recession better, but it will make the deficit worse. This impasse is regrettable--and it was completely avoidable. Immediately after September 11, it became clear that the attacks dealt our economy--which already was slowing--a devastating blow. We all agreed--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--that America needed an economic recovery plan. And Congress had a responsibility to pass such a plan. We asked the best financial thinkers in the country, economic leaders, such as Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin: What should such a package contain? Their advice led to the development of a set of bipartisan principles for an economic recovery plan. Those principles were endorsed by the chairmen and ranking members of the Budget Committees in both the House and the Senate. Rather than work together to develop a plan based on those principles, Republicans in the House chose to withdraw from bipartisan negotiations and pass their own highly partisan economic plan. The experts we consulted told us that the problem with the economy right now is that corporations have too much capacity and that consumers have too little cash. That is it in a nutshell: Corporations have too much capacity; consumers have too little cash. So we developed a plan to address those problems. The plan we put together included tax cuts for businesses that invest and create jobs in the near future. It had tax rebates for people who were left out of the first round and unemployment and health benefits for workers who have lost their jobs in this recession and as a result of the September 11 attacks. Our plan did what economists say needs to be done--no more, no less. And it met the bipartisan standards agreed to by the budget leaders in both Houses. Early this morning the House passed a far different plan. Their plan speeds up the tax cuts Congress passed last summer--months before the terrorist attacks. Their tax cuts give most of the benefits to the wealthiest individuals, and they will get those tax cuts not just next year, but the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. That is the first part of their plan. The second part of the House Republican plan is to take the biggest corporations in America and give them billions of dollars in new tax breaks. Some profitable corporations would get permission not to pay taxes at all. Under their plan, companies such as Enron would get hundreds of millions of taxpayer's money. Republicans are not proposing to do that for police officers, for firefighters, for postal workers. They are not proposing it for hard-pressed, hard-working families. Maybe it would help if they did, but they are not. They are proposing it for the biggest corporations in America, with no strings attached. The corporations do not need to create a single job to get this gift. They can lay off workers and still not have to pay a dime in taxes under the Republican plan. That kind of plan does not help the economy, and it does not help workers. Since September 11, nearly a million American workers have lost their jobs. Eight and a half million Americans are now out of work. Often, the biggest worry when Americans lose their jobs is how to pay for their health care. The average cost of keeping health care coverage is half of the average monthly unemployment check, half of a family's total monthly income. That is why only 20 percent of workers who are eligible for COBRA coverage purchase it. Most simply cannot afford it. The plan passed by the House provides an inadequate tax credit for individuals to buy health care, and it leaves many of them at the whim of the private insurance market. Under their plan, health insurance will remain out of reach for millions of laid-off workers. The credit would require a parent to spend, on average, a quarter of their unemployment check for COBRA coverage. For most individuals not eligible for COBRA, the price tag would be even higher. One million displaced workers--part-time workers and recent hires--do not even qualify for assistance under the plan. Survivors of victims of September 11 do not qualify for assistance under their plan. Employees, whose hours have been reduced and who have lost their health care as a result, do not qualify for their plan. Their individual tax credit discriminates against older and sicker workers. An insurer can refuse to cover a sick worker, can charge exorbitant prices based on age and health, and can refuse to provide coverage for such basic needs as pregnancy, prescription drugs, or mental health. All the worst practices of the insurance industry are fair game in their bill. What is worse, it would actually discourage laid-off workers from taking a new job. Under the plan passed by the House, the moment an individual goes back into the workforce, they lose their eligibility for the insurance premium tax credit. Say a recently laid-off worker has a sick spouse; if he wants to go back to work, he can't because his new job may not offer health insurance for his wife. He would have to choose between freeing himself from unemployment and losing health care his wife needs. That is their plan for health care. It gives workers insufficient help, and it discourages responsibility in the process. On jobless benefits, Republicans say their plan extends jobless benefits for all laid-off workers. But it doesn't. More than half of America's laid-off workers held part-time jobs over recent hires. They paid into the unemployment system, but the House plan leaves them out. A week ago, the whole world paused to remember the victims of September 11, but the House-passed plan forgets the economic victims of those attacks, and that is wrong. Three days after September 11, we passed a $15 billion airline bailout package. Democrats tried to include help for laid-off workers in that plan. We were told: Now is not the time. There will be another chance soon. We are going to consider airline security. We can help workers then. Reluctantly, we agreed to wait. We tried to include our package of help for workers on airline security. Again, Republican colleagues filibustered. Again, they said: This is not the time. We still need to pass an economic stimulus package. We will help workers then. We took them at their word. We included jobless and health benefits for laid-off workers in our economic recovery plan. But instead of joining us, Republicans voted to kill our proposal. They said that helping workers is not an emergency. We have waited. We have compromised. At Republican insistence, we dropped the measures to strengthen America's homeland security from our plan, even though we believe such measures are essential to restoring confidence in our safety and our economy. We said: We are willing to support larger tax cuts to let businesses write off more of their investment costs. We also made a significant concession on health care. We believe the best approach is to provide laid-off workers with a direct subsidy to help pay for COBRA premiums. But in the name of compromise, we said we would be willing to move toward the Republican approach again and again. We are willing to adopt an employer tax credit as long as it will work and as long as it will pay 75 percent of health care costs. We even said we will discuss additional tax cuts, such as the Domenici payroll tax holiday, the charitable choice legislation, and others, as long as Republicans agreed to help workers. We made concession after concession after concession to try to get an agreement both sides could support and the President could sign. We have been willing to compromise on every part of this plan. The only issue we couldn't compromise on was our fundamental principle: We could not support a plan that does not adequately protect workers or help our economy. By insisting once again on a bloated package of tax cuts that lack real help for workers, the bill that passed in the House indicates that perhaps Republicans were never serious about achieving a negotiated compromise in the first place. Instead of political theatrics, instead of writing another bill with no chance of passing the Senate, instead of finger pointing and casting blame, we need to come together and pass a real economic recovery plan. We need to pass a bill that helps the economy, helps workers, and meets the standards that we all agreed to at the beginning of this process. At the very least, we need a bill that first does no harm. We may have missed our opportunity to get it done this year. If that is the case, it is regrettable. But we will again try. We will do all that we can to get it done early next year, as we should.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time has come for us to move to the other important pieces of legislation that have to be addressed. Let us complete our work on this bill. We have been on it long enough. We have debated every conceivable amendment. I think the time has come for us now to complete our work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield. I know there is a Senator on the floor who needs to catch an airplane. This will be the last time I yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say, we will have 30 hours, 30 hours of debate, to try every conceivable new avenue to reach some compromise. I am more than willing to sit down with our two managers, with other Senators who have an interest in completing our work. The real question is whether or not we want to finish the farm bill this year. I hope people can say on both sides of the aisle in the affirmative, yes, we will finish our bill this year. We will complete our work as all farm organizations and as our responsibility dictate. I yield the floor and ask for the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I enter the motion to reconsider the cloture vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is our intention to go to the Hutchinson amendment. As I think our colleagues are aware, the Hutchinson amendment is largely the Agriculture farm bill passed by the House. It may not be exactly the same bill, but that is the intent. Certainly Senator Hutchinson can speak for himself, and will. It is my intent after that, then, to go to the cloture motion. So I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments also be laid aside; that Senator Hutchinson be recognized to offer his amendment, No. 2678; that there be 1 hour 15 minutes for debate with Senator Hutchinson in control of 60 minutes, Senator Harkin or his designee in control of 15 minutes prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second- degree amendments in order prior to the vote; further, that the vote in relation to the amendment occur at 12:50. Immediately following disposition of the Hutchinson amendment, the Senate will proceed to the previously ordered cloture vote on the substitute amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would want to consult with the Parliamentarian and Senator Harkin and others. We have attempted, as the Senator knows, to accommodate a number of Senators who have asked to be exempted from cloture limitations following the time when cloture is invoked. I am not enthusiastic about expanding. Again, it would be my understanding that these amendments would be available to us postcloture, with clarification of the Parliamentarian, and we will offer this at another time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intended this as a new unanimous consent request. Therefore, the other ones--because of the old unanimous consent request--have already expired. Technically, it would not carry. I think the best thing to do would be to consult with the Parliamentarian in terms of germaneness and make a decision at a later time. I wonder if we might proceed. The cloture vote, by rules of the Senate, takes place within 1 hour after we come in. We do not need the second portion of the unanimous consent request in order to proceed with cloture. But I would like to accommodate Senator Hutchinson. I would make that request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very sympathetic to the Senator from Oklahoma. We have been on this bill for an awfully long time. I think we are almost at a point where we have broken the record now for the length of time we have been on a farm bill. Senators had many opportunities to offer amendments at night and during the day. I am not really sympathetic to those who suggest that somehow we have not accorded enough time to some of these amendments. I also say we have come to the conclusion that we are going to have to make a decision about the farm bill. If we are unable to invoke cloture, it is my intention to put it back on the calendar, regrettably, and then move to other issues. We have conference reports that have to be done before we leave. There are other pieces of business that are required of us. This will be the third cloture vote. There will be no more cloture votes in this session of Congress on the farm bill. Senators are going to have to make up their minds: Do they want to indefinitely postpone and thereby kill our chances for completing work on the farm bill this year or not? If they want to kill it, they will vote against cloture. If they want to support completing our work, they will vote for cloture this afternoon and we will complete our work. That still requires 30 hours of debate on the bill prior to the time we complete our work. That means that relevant amendments will be entertained, will be accepted, or voted upon and considered as germane amendments. That is the prerogative of every Senator even after cloture. Perhaps amendments can be designed to be germane. I certainly think a payment limit amendment is germane to the bill. We ought to find the language that accommodates the Senator from Oklahoma, if that is his intent. But I will say we have been on this bill for a record amount of time. It will be virtually a record if we complete our 30 hours. We do have other very important matters pending. I want to make sure all Senators are put on notice. Three times, and we are out in terms of cloture. And three times, it seems to me, ought to be adequate time for everybody to have had their amendments considered. As we have noted, a number of other colleagues have asked for special consideration for their amendments. We are attempting to do that. We have to move on.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada noted, our colleague for good reason wanted to be able to offer the so-called Cochran-Roberts alternative. We have done that. We have had very good debates on a number of other questions over the last couple of weeks. In order to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas and others who believe we ought to at least have a chance to vote on the House-passed bill, we are now going to do that. I honestly think we have been as fair and responsible as we can be to the request made by our colleagues. I hope now that we can get this agreement. I renew my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can regain my right to the floor, let me simply say that we moved the cloture vote to 1:30 to accommodate some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That has been locked in at 1:30. We also attempted to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas with this unanimous consent.

Mr. DASCHLE. The UC was 1:15?