[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11104-S11107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENDING THE 106TH CONGRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. I wanted to talk briefly tonight about where we are. We 
are now 26 days into the new fiscal year. We should have completed our 
work 26 days ago. We are at a stage that should command we work 
together to try to resolve what remaining differences there are, finish 
our work, and do all we can to bring this session to a close.
  Unfortunately, that is not what has happened tonight. What has 
happened tonight is that our Republican colleagues have insisted on a 
conference report for Commerce-State-Justice which they know will be 
vetoed. They have insisted on drafting a piece of legislation 
incorporating $240 billion in tax cuts, approximately $81 billion we 
are told--even though we still haven't had it analyzed and calculated--
in changes to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  They insisted at the last minute, without any consultation, on 
incorporating one of the most controversial pieces of legislation 
pending before the Senate at the end of the year, a bill having to do 
with forcing States to accept a certain position on physician assisted 
suicide. There hasn't been any vote in the full Senate, but it is in 
this tax bill. It is a bill that has nothing to do with taxes, nothing 
to do with hospitals and ways with which to address the real problems 
we are facing all across this country with health providers, hospitals, 
clinics, hospice facilities, nursing homes. You name it, virtually 
every health facility in this country today is either on the verge of 
bankruptcy or in a serious financial position. We all recognize the 
need to do this before we leave, to address the problems our hospitals 
and all of our health facilities are facing.
  What happened is that our Republican colleagues, with absolutely no 
consultation with any Democrats--House, Senate, or White House--have 
cobbled together a bill they know will be vetoed. The President just 
this afternoon sent a letter indicating he will veto the Commerce-
State-Justice bill and he will veto the tax bill.
  I come to the floor chagrined, disappointed, angered, frustrated. 
Speaker Hastert has already reacted to the veto letters. I will quote 
what is reported in Congress Daily:

       Do you have to have everything you want? How much petulance 
     is there on the other side of the aisle?

  When asked if Republicans would be willing to rework a tax bill at 
all, he responded that any new legislation would have to go through 
committee ``because anything else would amount to half-assed 
legislating.''
  Let me repeat that. He said that new legislation would have to go 
through committee ``because anything else would amount to half-assed 
legislating.''
  What is this, if it isn't what the Speaker has already described as 
half-assed legislating? We have got a bill before the Senate that 
nobody has seen. We have a bill before the Senate that hasn't gone 
through committee. No one has had the opportunity to consider it 
carefully. I hope my colleagues will hear me out on this. In fact, we 
have just heard and been told, and now it has been confirmed, that the 
conference report we are about to vote on

[[Page S11105]]

tomorrow literally eliminates the minimum wage for 6 months--eliminates 
it because of a glitch in the writing of the bill. We are eliminating 
the minimum wage for half a year in this legislation, totally. We are 
not rolling it back. We are not freezing it. It is eliminated.
  I know our Republican colleagues had no real desire to eliminate the 
minimum wage, but that is what is in this legislation. Why? I think the 
answer is clear. Because the Speaker described it--I won't repeat it 
again and again but I think he had a very apt description for what we 
are doing right now. We are not going through committee. We are not 
going through the legislation on the floor. We are not going through a 
normal conference.
  Let me start by saying what this is really all about is fairness. 
This is about fairness. It is about whether we are fair to a process 
and whether we are fair to all Senators who ought to have an 
opportunity to more carefully consider a $240 billion tax cut. It is 
about whether or not fairness would dictate that, if we are going to 
address a bill as important as restoring some of the payments through 
Medicare for all the health facilities in this country, we would have a 
chance to look at it; that we would have a chance to be consulted about 
it; that we would have a chance to voice our concerns about it and 
ultimately to have a chance to put the bill together in a way we can 
bring it back to the Senate and House with some expectation that there 
has been this deliberation. That is fairness.

  I hear the Republican candidate for President, Governor Bush, talk, 
as he should, about the need for bipartisanship. If he says it once, he 
says it 10 times a day: I want to restore bipartisanship.
  I must say, why wait until next year? Why not do it now? What is 
wrong with a little bipartisanship in putting a tax bill together? What 
is wrong with a little bipartisanship in ensuring that as we write a 
Balanced Budget Restoration Act that we have Republican and Democratic 
input? That is bipartisanship.
  We have had a lot of bipartisan votes this year. We have the votes, 
now, to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is bipartisanship. We 
have had Patients' Bill of Rights votes throughout the year. We have a 
bipartisan bill. We have had a bipartisan bill on a number of pieces of 
legislation relating to education, a bipartisan bill on minimum wage, a 
bipartisan bill on gun safety. Every time we have a bipartisan bill, 
the Republican leadership is not willing to allow the process to be 
complete. So there is no bipartisanship, whether it is on all the 
issues upon which we have already voted or whether it is on this bill 
tonight. None. Zero. No consultation.
  This is about fairness. It is also about fairness when it comes to 
the issues we are talking about in the bill itself. I am very troubled 
by the amazing and extraordinarily complex ways our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have attempted to address many of the issues 
before us in this bill. We have not seen, until just this afternoon, 
what the tax bill entails. But we are told the tax bill has provisions 
incorporated that allow the bottom 60 percent of all taxpayers to 
receive only 5 percent of the tax benefits--60 percent of all taxpayers 
get 5 percent of the benefit. That is an unfairness as well.
  We hear so much debate at the national level, at the Presidential 
level, about making sure everybody benefits. How is it the top 40 
percent should get 95 percent of the benefit, once again? And why is it 
we have to insist that, in situation after situation involving tax 
fairness, it has to be a fight about whether or not we can equitably 
distribute the benefit? Once again, each and every time the minimum of 
what you would expect for working families is left off the table. I do 
not understand why we cannot be more fair when it comes to tax policy 
and distribution. But for 60 percent of the people to get 5 percent of 
the benefit is not fair.
  It is not fair as well to be sending millions of children to schools 
that are in a total state of disrepair. I do not have the number in 
front of me, but I will tell you this: 76 percent of all the school 
districts in this country have at least one school building that is in 
a state of disrepair. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in 
backlog all over this country with regard to school construction. We 
have had problems with infrastructure all over our State. My State is 
not unique. There is not a State in this country that has been able to 
adequately and satisfactorily address the problems with regard to 
school construction--not one.
  What we have said is let's take at least a modicum of the 
responsibility. My goodness, if we can pass highway construction bills 
and courthouse construction bills and airport construction bills and 
all the array of other housing construction bills at the Federal level, 
certainly we can help school districts help build better schools. What 
is wrong with providing them with some tools, financially, to get that 
job done? If this fight is about anything tonight, it is about that. It 
is about our inability to address in a meaningful way real school 
construction this year.

  We had asked for a $25 billion commitment on the part of the Federal 
Government and this bill falls far short of the mark. And the President 
said on that basis alone he would be prepared to veto this bill. If we 
do not fix the school construction bill adequately in this legislation, 
it will never be signed. That, too, is a question of fairness--fairness 
for those school kids who must face the fact each and every day that 
their safety and the quality of their education is dictated by the 
crumbling school they must enter each and every day they come. That is 
wrong. That is unfair. That ought to be addressed in this Congress 
before we leave. And whether it is in this tax bill or in the education 
funding that has to be appropriated prior to the time we leave, we have 
to fix it. We have to address it.
  There is also, as I noted earlier, a serious question relating to the 
fairness of the BBRA, the Balanced Budget Reform Act. We know what 
limited dollars we have. We recognize this may be our last shot. This 
may be our last real opportunity to send as much help out to the States 
as we can possibly provide if we are going to solve the problem of 
nursing homes, solve the problem of hospitals and clinics, solve the 
problems of hospice. Whether or not we are able to get that job done 
depends on whether or not we can adequately address it in this bill.
  But what did our Republican colleagues do? They spent $28 billion 
over five years, more than a third of which goes to HMOs who have 
already indicated, with or without the money, they are pulling out of 
Medicare in many States. They will not be influenced by this 
legislation or by the incredible price tag this legislation holds for 
them.
  I must say, I don't get it. We all claim to be concerned about the 
threat to the surplus that we have so carefully been able to amass over 
the last couple of years. We have all indicated that is our highest 
priority, to assure that we can retain the fiscal responsibility this 
year, next year, and from here on out. Yet we pass a bill that includes 
a gift of more than $11 billion to HMOs in the name of trying to keep 
them in Medicare in States when they have said they will not stay in 
those States regardless of how much we pay them, ransom or not. There 
is an $11 billion ransom payment in here and it is not going to help 
one State.
  The problem we have is that it is taking money away from nursing 
homes. It is taking money away from hospitals. It is taking money away 
from hospice. It is taking money away from clinics. I do not 
understand, in the name of fairness, why we can't appreciate how 
extraordinarily important this is.
  This is a question of fairness. It is a question of being fair to the 
nursing homes and hospitals which are hanging on by their fingernails 
tonight, hoping we can do the right thing in providing them with the 
assistance they need in fixing the mistake we made in 1997. It is a 
question of fairness about whether or not we are going to provide tax 
benefits to all the people, not just to those at the top.
  It is a question of fairness with regard to whether or not schools 
are going to have the kinds of funds they need to ensure they have the 
ability to build the schools our children need today; not tomorrow, 
today. It is a question of fairness whether or not we can do what 
Governor Bush, Vice President Gore, and so many of those out there seem 
to be talking about each and every day: restoring some semblance of 
bipartisanship in this

[[Page S11106]]

body, in the Congress, and in the Federal Government.
  We have fallen so far off that mark. There is not anything bipartisan 
about this package. There is absolutely nothing in here that even 
begins to appreciate the need for a bipartisan consensus, and here we 
are tonight, 26 days after the fiscal year began, with a veto of a bill 
that should have been resolved months ago.
  It is not only unfair, it is incredibly bad management. We can do 
better than this, Mr. President. We have to do better than this. We 
have to do better than this in restoring some sort of comity, some sort 
of cooperation, and some sort of dialog when we take on bills of this 
import. We have to restore fairness if we are really going to address 
tax legislation this year.
  Fairness dictates that we have a school construction program of which 
we can all be proud. Fairness demands that we find a better way to 
solve the BBA problem than we have in this bill. We need fairness. We 
need attention to those issues. We need to resolve it before we leave. 
We need to do it tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, however long it 
takes. We have to do this before we leave.
  We will have more to say about this.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the distinguished minority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I think Senator 
Daschle has given an excellent statement tonight and has come back to 
what I think is the central concern of our time, and that is that the 
people of this country want to see bipartisan cooperation on all the 
central matters that are before the country.
  I want to ask the Senator a question about the process. I will be 
very brief because I know the Senator from Missouri has been anxious to 
talk and has been very patient.
  The tax legislation before us directs Federal law enforcement 
officials to criminalize the pain management decisions of our health 
care providers in an effort to throw Oregon's assisted-suicide law into 
the trash can. More than 50 major health organizations have said that 
they oppose this effort in this legislation because they believe the 
bill before us is going to have a chilling effect on pain management.
  I am going to have a whole lot more to say about this subject 
tomorrow. Tonight I will be very brief. It seems to me what Senator 
Daschle is saying tonight--and I am interested in his thoughts--is that 
on an issue such as this, one of the most important bioethical 
decisions of our time, what the Senate ought to do is have a real 
debate, a real discussion, a chance to work in a bipartisan way rather 
than proceeding as we are now to establish new rules on one of the most 
sensitive, ethical, and social issues of our time without any 
opportunity to review it or modify it.
  Is the Senator from South Dakota just saying he wants Government to 
operate in a fashion along the lines of what the American people expect 
on these central and very difficult issues?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has stated it so 
succinctly and so correctly. That is exactly what I am saying. He has 
noted the extraordinary nature of the provision he has cited. There is 
a great deal of controversy involving the issue, and I give credit to 
those in Oregon who have tried to grapple with the very personal issue 
of suicide and physician-assisted efforts involving suicide.
  As he has noted, a large number of organizations have publicly stated 
their support for the Oregon law, but the real question is not whether 
one agrees with the Oregon law or one does not agree. The question is, 
On a question of this controversy, of this import, of this breadth, 
should we be forced at 8:15 tonight to be talking about it without 
having had the benefit of discussion in the full Senate up until now?

  Not only that, should we take it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? This 
has been buried in a bill having nothing to do with physician-assisted 
suicide. This has a lot to do with taxes. It has a lot to do with 
school construction. It has a lot to do with health care. It has 
nothing to do with physician-assisted suicide, and at the last minute, 
our Republican colleagues put it in there, buried it in the bill and 
now want us to vote on it, up or down, no debate.
  That is incredibly bad management. That is so unfair, not only to 
us--we ought to have the opportunity--but to Oregon, to the country, to 
the issue. That is what troubles me perhaps most of all: Once again, 
they have denigrated the institutional process in ways I do not think 
anybody can fully appreciate. Something as important as this should 
have its day in court. There should be a debate about it. I am sure in 
Oregon they spent a lot of time debating, considering, and consulting 
prior to the time they came to any conclusion. We should do no less.
  The Senator from Oregon is absolutely right. That is in part what 
this is about.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield again 
briefly, as someone who opposes assisted suicide--and I have talked to 
almost all of our colleagues--I know there is very strong feeling in 
the Chamber, just as the minority leader has said in his thoughtful 
statement. There ought to be a way to oppose assisted suicide without 
setting in place a Federal law enforcement regime that will harm pain 
management.
  I ask the minority leader, as we go forward in this debate, because I 
intend to talk for a long time about this tomorrow, is it the Senator's 
desire that at least we could try tomorrow to have a discussion on this 
extraordinarily important social and ethical question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the Senator from Oregon, since it is part 
of this legislation, I think it dictates that we have a lengthy 
discussion about it. Certainly we have to make sure that everybody 
understands the ramifications of all the provisions.
  Again, in the name of fairness, we ought to be providing those 
Senators who have a great deal of interest in this issue and who 
certainly know more about it than many of us who have not been exposed 
to much of the debate to date, that we have some discussion about it. 
Again, it goes back to the Speaker's comments in the first place. You 
can do it the right way or you can do it the way they have done it 
tonight. We have done it wrong tonight. People like the Senator from 
Oregon, like the Senator from Nevada--all of us--deserve better. The 
people deserve better. We are going to insist that they get better than 
what they have been given so far.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am going to make some comments about the 
conference report that is before us, but perhaps it would be advisable 
to set the record straight. I agreed to allow the minority leader to go 
first as a courtesy to him. There are many things he said that I 
believe reflect a viewpoint many of us on this side of the aisle do not 
share.
  I would only note that when we talk about bipartisanship, it was our 
understanding that the leadership on both sides, for example, agreed we 
would get 10 appropriations bills passed out of the Senate before the 
July recess. Due to the extensive debate and extended dilatory 
activities engaged in on this floor prior to our August recess, to get 
something like the fifth, sixth, and seventh bill before us, we had to 
invoke cloture.
  Now, to me, that is not a mark of good bipartisan cooperation. We 
have been stalled for many months. There have been examples where we 
have worked on a bipartisan basis.
  In another role, I express my appreciation to my colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle for getting our Veterans Affairs, Housing 
and Urban Development bill passed. I think we have worked on a 
bipartisan basis there.
  But with the problems we are having with the appropriations bills, 
the problems we are having throughout, I do not think the other side 
can say we have been the ones who have refused to operate in a 
bipartisan manner.
  I heard reports from the majority leader, for example, of the 
contacts made to him by the President of the United States, a 
Democratic President, about this bill and about the measures in it.
  If you look at this bill, a lot on my side of the aisle do not like 
it because it has so many of the priorities that our Democratic friends 
wanted. If this were strictly a Republican or a partisan bill, I do not 
think you would see

[[Page S11107]]

the minimum wage in its current form; you would not see the community 
renewal, a massive new Federal Government program.
  Frankly, with all the spending the President has requested in the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill--and the President is now requesting more 
spending in that bill than his initial budget request--to add, as this 
bill does, some $16 billion for school construction, which is two-
thirds of the President's request, I think is a major step towards 
helping in this new area, which traditionally has been the 
responsibility of the local school districts.
  We have heard there is a desire for more and more spending. That is 
not surprising. That is the habit of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle. They have never seen a tax surplus they did not want to 
spend. Tax cuts are very unpalatable to them. But we want to leave some 
of the taxes in the pockets of the people who earn them.
  I have not seen the figures--I do not know the study the minority 
leader came up with to say that 60 percent only get 5 percent of the 
tax cuts--but I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the lowest 
income 40 percent of the population do not pay any income taxes. I 
imagine the lowest 60 percent probably pay not more than a couple of 
percent of the total tax burden.
  Now that is not to say there has not been some fuzzy math with 
respect to the figures we presented, but only to say that if you are 
going to have tax cuts, the people who get the tax cuts are going to be 
the people who pay the taxes. It sounds logical, sounds simple, but 
that is the fact of the matter.
  I might add, also, that small rural school districts will be 
benefited in school construction because their exemption has been 
raised from $10 million to $15 million.
  When we hear talk that the Democrats have not had anything to say 
about this, the tax bill includes bills that have already been voted on 
and passed, been voted out of the House, been voted out of the Finance 
Committee. Certainly the small business portion of the bill, which I am 
going to talk about, has been passed, as usual, out of the Small 
Business Committee on a unanimous vote, a bipartisan vote.
  If I remember correctly, when the bills that are included in the 
small business section came before this body, there was only one 
dissenting vote, and that was on my side of the aisle.
  But if there is ever a bipartisan measure, it is the measures we have 
reported out of the Small Business Committee.
  On the Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000, when the House 
passed the pension bill earlier this year, it was a vote of 401-25. It 
was reported out of the Finance Committee last month by a unanimous 
vote. I was not there for the vote, but I assume there were some 
Democrats there--there usually are--who voted for it unanimously.
  So it stretches credulity beyond any acceptable measure to say that 
this does not incorporate measures adopted and supported by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--certainly measures demanded 
by the President.
  We had a caucus on our side, and many people thought it would be 
difficult to vote for a bill because there were so many priorities from 
the Democratic side. But under the measure that has come before us, 
there are clearly many important Democratic priorities.

  Excuse me, I misspoke a few moments ago when I indicated what the 
percentage of total taxes was paid by the lowest income taxpayers. The 
lowest income taxpayers, the bottom 56 percent pay 6 percent of the 
taxes. So that is roughly the figure.

                          ____________________