[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16981-16983]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 16982]]

  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 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

[[Page 16983]]

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.

                          ____________________