[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 101 (Tuesday, September 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7983-S7985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNATTENDED LEGISLATION
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is great concern about unattended
legislation, legislation having to do with health care, education,
meaningful gun safety, and minimum wage. There is no legitimate reason
we could not have accomplished something on each of the issues I have
mentioned and many more.
There is no legitimate reason this Congress couldn't have passed a
real Patients' Bill of Rights long before this.
There is no good reason we couldn't have added a voluntary Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
There is no reason we couldn't have agreed by now to strengthen our
children's schools. We have had many opportunities. There are those who
say that passing bills is hard work.
If you want to see real hard work, go to Murdo, South Dakota some
day. Talk to Cathy Cheney and the five other members of her volunteer
ambulance squad.
They are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a call comes
in--even if it's in the middle of the night--they drop whatever they're
doing, leave their jobs and families, and go. Most times, they are not
back for at least 3 hours.
When they're not answering calls, they're studying for certification
tests. And they don't get paid a dime for any of it. That is hard work,
Mr. President. And it is not just South Dakotans who face challenges
like this.
Go to any community in any state in America, and you'll find people
who are working hard--some of them are working two and three jobs--to
make a decent life for themselves and their families, and to give
something back to their communities.
[[Page S7984]]
You will find older people who worked hard for 40 and 50 years, who
are retired now. They are not asking us to do the impossible.
They are not asking us to make unreasonable concessions. All they are
asking is that we make a good-faith effort to solve the problems these
families are dealing with today and who face the challenging months and
years when they must examine, address, and answer problems in their own
lives.
When the 106th Congress began, many of us had great hopes about what
we could accomplish.
We had had budget surpluses 2 years in a row and were on our way to a
third year--something that hadn't happened in 50 years. The economy was
setting record after record.
After years of having to downsize our dreams because of the deficit,
Americans were finally in a position to start hoping again, and
tackling some of the big challenges facing working families.
Nearly 2 years later, almost none of those hopes has been met.
As we near the end of this Congress, it appears increasingly likely
that they will not be met. One reason for that is, frankly, our less
than ambitious legislative schedule. If we adjourn, as planned, on
October 6, the Senate will have been in session for a total of just 115
days this year. That is 115 out of 365.
By any objective measure, that is not exactly breaking a sweat. In
fact, it is the lightest Senate schedule since 1956. It is only 2 days
more than the infamous do-nothing Congress of 1948. But the calendar is
not the only reason we have achieved so little.
A more significant, and troubling, reason for this Congress' inaction
has been the absolute refusal by Republican leaders in both houses to
pass the people's agenda.
For 2 years, majority leaders in both houses have used their
numerical advantage, and every parliamentary trick they could find, to
prevent us from passing a real Patients' Bill of Rights.
Despite the fact that there is an overwhelming majority in the
Congress and an overwhelming majority of the American people who want
campaign finance reform, Republican leaders in both Houses have
prevented us from passing the McCain-Feingold bill.
Despite pleas from the victims of the Columbine tragedy and more than
a million moms who came to Washington to petition Congress, Republican
leaders have repeatedly refused to pass reasonable gun safety measures.
They oppose our plan for affordable prescription drug coverage. They
oppose our plan to strengthen our children's schools by making classes
smaller and schools safer and setting higher standards.
For 2 years, they even opposed raising the minimum wage by $1 over 2
years. Now some of our Republican colleagues in the other body say they
might be willing to do this but only if we include tens of billions of
dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest in the country. Why can't
we just do the right thing? Why can't we just raise the minimum wage $1
an hour over 2 years without having to spend tens of billions of
dollars on new tax breaks for people who need them the least?
Instead of working to pass a people's agenda, our Republican
colleagues have spent most of the last 2 years pursuing one goal:
Cutting taxes the wrong way, creating huge new tax breaks at the
expense of everything and everyone else.
This week we will lose more time and more opportunities because they
insist on trying to override the President's vetoes on their so-called
marriage penalty and estate tax bills. Never mind that 60 percent of
the cost of their marriage penalty has nothing to do with fixing the
marriage penalty. Never mind their estate tax bill benefits only the
wealthiest 2 percent of estates. Never mind that neither bill will help
middle-class families. In fact, they will hurt ordinary Americans by
eating up the expected surplus, money we need for other things.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle clearly think their tax
cuts are good politics. They just hope the American people accept their
spin and don't check the facts.
Despite the history of this Congress, my colleagues and I have not
given up hope for its future. Five weeks is not a lot of time, but it
is enough time. Even given the time we must spend on appropriations
bills and the China trade legislation, there is still enough time for
this Congress to solve some of the problems real people talk about and
worry about outside of Washington.
In 1948, Republicans held their Presidential nominating convention in
Philadelphia. At that convention they endorsed a platform filled with
all kinds of measures a Republican Congress had spent the previous 2
years blocking. Back then there was no September session of Congress.
It went from the convention to the campaign trail. President Truman was
so amazed by what he heard in Philadelphia, he ordered Congress back
for a special session. He told Members: There is still time before the
election. If you really believe what you say, pass your platform and I
will sign it.
Last month, our Republican friends held another nominating convention
in Philadelphia, the first time they have been back since 1948. Once
again, they claim to support all kinds of things Republicans in this
Congress have spent the last 2 years fighting. We have a request for
our friends across the aisle, right now, tonight. There are still 5
weeks left in this Congress. Let's use this time to do the things you
said in Philadelphia you support. Let's pass a responsible budget that
pays down the debt, protects Social Security and Medicare, and invests
in America's future. Let's cut taxes for working families. Let's
strengthen our children's schools and protect our children from gun
violence. Let's raise the minimum wage $1 an hour over 2 years. Let's
finally pass a prescription drug benefit and a real Patients' Bill of
Rights.
We were pleased by what we heard in Philadelphia about prescription
drugs and a Patients' Bill of Rights. We are more pleased with the
commercial running in Rhode Island. That commercial, paid for by the
Republican Senate Committee, praised Senator Chafee for.
. . . voting against his own party and for a real Patients'
Bill of Rights . . . and a prescription-drug benefit that
gives seniors the drugs they need at a price they can afford.
Both of those plans referred to in that ad are our plans. We intend
to give our colleagues a chance to make that record match the rhetoric
before this Congress ends. We will start by offering the bipartisan
Norwood-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights the first chance we get. There
is no reason the American people should have to wait until next
Congress for a real Patients' Bill of Rights. It is time to stop
stalling. It is time for an up-or-down vote in this Senate on the
Dingell-Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights bill. We also intend to give
our colleagues the chance to support a voluntary affordable
prescription drug benefit. If they really believe in these things, they
will have the opportunity to work with this side to pass them. Let's
schedule the vote. We will support them, and the President will sign
them.
We spend far too much time in this Congress talking about things that
don't matter for working families and avoiding the problems that do
matter. The progress we had hoped to make at the beginning of this
Congress is still within our reach. Let's not waste another day. Let's
work hard in these next 5 weeks on the issues I have mentioned, into
the night and through the weekends if we have to. Let's not give up
until we have honestly said we have done what the American people sent
us here to do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to comment on the
comments of Senator Daschle after a few brief remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, clearly I appreciate the distinguished
minority leader's cooperation in getting this bill up. I appreciate the
tone of his comments in that he desires apparently to get this bill and
other bills passed. I hope that is true. I say to the Senate, I will do
my best to try to finish this bill tomorrow night. I don't know of a
lot of real difficult amendments. There are some important amendments
for regions of the country and otherwise. Clearly, I have seen no
amendments thus far that attack the substance of this bill which I will
explain shortly.
Mr. President, what is not said by the minority leader, in an effort
to analyze the entire Presidential election and
[[Page S7985]]
what is going on here in the Congress as of this moment, first, on tax
reform measures that the Republicans have proposed, call them what you
may. Of course, the distinguished Senator, minority leader, chooses to
call them so-called marriage penalty reform.
Between 35 and 45 million American couples are affected by that bill.
Affected how? Their taxes will go down for no other reason than we will
eliminate a penalty currently imposed just because they are married.
Whether we have some other people covered in it or not, let me suggest
we know what it will cost in 5 years. We know what it will cost in 10
years to the Treasury if we give back a little bit of money to the
married couples in America who are getting taxed extra just because
they are married.
What else did we pass? We passed a 10-year phase-in of the death tax.
Surely those on the other side know that by definition the only people
who pay a death tax--that is, a tax on death--are people who have
accumulated some assets. So they could all be called rich. Essentially,
the current law of America says if, after your mother and father have
worked their whole lives and have acquired four drugstores and own a
house and have invested in a piece of property, if that ends up being
$10 million--I am speaking to Americans who might have worked 40
years--right now the Government can take as much as 65 percent of it
upon their death.
That is the question. Is that right? Does America want that? Or
should we ask our President to sign a bill that phases that out over 10
years?
I happen to have looked at numbers to see how they relate one to
another in this budget process. My estimates are as follows: Both of
those taxes combined cannot be risky to America.
Why can't they be? Because they amount to somewhere between 10
percent and 12 percent of the surplus--10 percent to 12 percent of the
surplus, the non-Social Security surplus which is $3.4 trillion.
The same people who say that is risky have on the table at least five
new programs that will spend more of the surplus than those two tax
cuts. Are those programs therefore risky, because they spend more of
the Federal surplus than these two tax reform measures? No. But neither
are the tax cuts, just because they are tax reform measures. They are
not risky just because they give people back some of their money. To
those on the other side and the Vice President, who is running for
President, they must be risky because they give back to the American
people some real tax reform money.
If we want to go on to debate whether the Vice President even has a
plan to give Americans back any of their tax money, we can do that at
any time. I am not on the tax writing committee, but I will volunteer.
I will be here. And I can tell you right up front, very little of what
the President proposes goes to taxpayers for tax relief. Almost all of
it goes to Americans whom the Vice President chooses to give back
money, by way of just giving them a check that matches or exceeds their
own money, in a huge way. The largest transfer of wealth that we
probably have ever seen is tucked away in what the Vice President calls
tax cuts for the American people.
Read the Washington Post editorial of 4 days ago. While they are
quick to criticize Republicans, they have a very good paragraph in the
middle of their editorial saying: Mr. Vice President, Democrats, why do
you insist on telling the taxpayers, including middle income taxpayers,
how they should spend the tax dollars you want to give them back? The
Washington Post says: If you want to give them a tax cut give them a
tax cut. They don't do that. They create some new targeted programs. If
you want to use them, you have to use it for college tuition. If you
want to use it, you have to use it for this, that, or the other.
Question: Don't some Americans have more concern about how to use it
and where to use it, and would do that right, rather than to have the
Government do that for you while making the Tax Code more complicated
and claiming they are giving you tax relief?
Frankly, I could answer many more of the questions but I will just do
the issues raised by the minority leader, and I will only address one.
The President of the United States has never attempted to seriously
do a bipartisan Medicare prescription bill--never. He has sent us his
own, but never has negotiated with Republicans. The one time we had a
bipartisan committee, since you required a supermajority, he pulled his
support so it would not have a supermajority--yet it had a majority,
bipartisan, for a major reform and prescription drug bill. So one of
the reasons most of the things not getting done are not getting done is
because they have become so partisan that the other side of the aisle
says, ``Our way or no way.'' The President says, ``My way or no way.''
The Vice President says, ``I am running for President and here is what
I propose. It will be that way or no way.''
That is what the American people will find out, I hope, as we debate
these issues in an effort in the next 5 weeks to resolve many of them.
And I hope we do.
____________________