Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Kyl, addresses a serious problem in our society, and I support most of its provisions. I agree that we should protect children from having the opportunity to gamble on the Internet. I agree that we should regulate gambling in a responsible manner. I agree that we should take steps to protect the integrity of our amateur and professional sports. The amendment offered by Senator Kyl will address these problems, which have accompanied the rise of Internet gambling. The problem with the amendment is that it does not address these problems in a manner that treats Native Americans fairly. To address this situation, I am cosponsoring the amendment offered by Senator Craig. This measure will exempt from the Kyl amendment those Indian gaming activities regulated and sanctioned by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, thereby retaining the current jurisdictional structure established under IGRA for Indian gaming, a structure that involves the federal courts and the National Indian Gaming Commission. Mr. President, it would not be fair to Indian tribes to enact the restrictions of the internet gambling prohibition amendment offered by Senator Kyl without retaining the regulatory structure of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as Senator Craig suggests. If Congress wants to modify the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it should do so only after serious review that includes the input of those parties affected directly by that change--in this case, the tribes and tribal gaming enterprises. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Craig amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the concern expressed by consumers about rising cable rates, and share the desire of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] to better understanding the reasons for this trend. While further attention to this matter is warranted, I am not persuaded that the amendment before us will substantially further that worthy goal. The amendment is intended to compel the FCC to tell us how it plans to address cable rates. But the FCC is already required to report on competition in the cable industry at the end of this year. The 1992 Cable Act requires the FCC to conduct an annual study on the status of competition in the cable industry, and our focus should be on ensuring that that study sheds new light on this issue. The FCC has done little about cable rates, and the agency's track record raises doubt that yet another study by that agency, the very one that the Senator from Wisconsin faults for inaction, will add to public understanding of this matter. In addition, the amendment requires a report within 30 days, which is woefully inadequate to achieve any real information about an issue of this scope. There are initiatives under way which should add to the policy debate. The senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I have asked the independent General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the causes of increasing cable rates. It is my expectation that this review will provide new evidence about steps we need to take to help control cable rate increases. In addition, as the distinguished Ranking Member of both the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State [Mr. Hollings] has said, the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on cable rates next week. As noted by the Senator from South Carolina, the Senate need not prejudge that hearing and the findings of the committee of jurisdiction with a premature amendment. Indeed, the Commerce Committee is fully capable of ensuring that the existing statutory requirement to study this issue is fulfilled in a manner that answers the concerns raised by the Senator from Wisconsin and other members of the Senate. I encourage my colleagues on that committee to vigorously exercise their oversight responsibility in this area. Mr. President, this amendment, while well-intentioned, is not the answer to our constituents' frustration about their cable rates. Hopefully, the FCC study currently underway and required by year's end, and the GAO review, will shed new light on this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from California had made a request that she be on that list, as had the Senator from New Jersey. The Senator from California had asked for a half-hour on her amendment. She is continuing to negotiate with the managers. The Senator from New Jersey had asked for an amendment, 10 minutes as well. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as I understand it, there are a few minutes left. I wanted to come to the floor to commend the distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. I believe this is really one of the most critical economic and fiscal decisions we will make this year. It will probably affect, more dramatically than anything else we do, the budget, the deficit, and, most certainly, Social Security. There are four numbers that I think everybody needs to understand. I know a lot of this has been discussed before. The first number is $520 billion; $520 billion is the projected surplus including Social Security trust funds that we anticipate between now and the year 2003. If you take out the Social Security trust funds, you get to the second number---$137 billion. If we remove the Social Security trust funds, we actually have a deficit over the next 5 years of $137 billion. Let us not kid anybody here. When we talk about a surplus--and I wish we could talk more forcefully and more convincingly that, indeed, we have a surplus--the reality is that we have a surplus only if we include the Social Security trust funds. Let's move to the second set of numbers. The first is $1.548 trillion. All of these figures, by the way, Mr. President, are CBO numbers. That figure is the budget surplus including the Social Security trust funds that CBO anticipates for the next 10 years. The fourth and final number is $31 billion; $31 billion is all that CBO anticipates that we will have over the next 10 years in surplus if we do not include the Social Security trust funds. There should not be any question about our circumstances. Do we have a surplus? Yes. But it is yes with an asterisk, and that is what the distinguished Senator from South Carolina says so forcefully and so convincingly. We have a surplus only if we are prepared to drawn down those Social Security trust funds that we know we are going to need in the outyears. When we talk about how do we use the surplus, it is pretty simple. The question we should be asking is, How do we use the Social Security trust funds? Of the roughly $650 billion over five years and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years in Social Security trust funds, how do we use them? Most of us believe very strongly that we ought to use those funds for one purpose and one purpose only: to pay out the commitment that we have made to Social Security recipients in this generation and the next and the next. That is the question. That is why this resolution is so important, and that is why I hope everybody will support the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would ask unanimous consent that Senators Hatch, Daschle, Levin and Murkowski be recognized as if in morning business in that order.

Mr. DASCHLE. My apologies to the Senator from Kansas. I had meant to include that we also go back to Senator Brownback at the completion of our presentations.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as every Senator is aware, a number of Committees are investigating the national security impacts of two parts of the U.S. relationship with China: the launching of American commercial satellites on Chinese rockets, and the so-called ``China Plan'' to influence the American political process through campaign donations. Earlier this week the Majority Leader came to the floor to announce what he called ``major interim judgments'' of his task force coordinating this investigation. His remarks sparked a round of debate and speculation that may have clouded the real issues at hand, and I would like to take a moment to respond. These are unquestionably significant issues that merit serious, objective review. For me and for the Democratic Senators on our investigation task force, the objective is simple: national security. We want the national security to be enhanced; we want American lives and American interests protected. If the Senate's work on the satellite export issue reveals flaws in our export controls that endanger national security, we want those flaws corrected--now. If the facts warrant, we will gladly join with our Republican colleagues to that end. But there should be no place for politics, for partisan political maneuvering, when it comes to national security. We also want U.S. law to be enforced without fear or favor. If the law was violated in campaign financing for the 1996 election, Democratic Senators want the guilty held accountable. The best way to ensure this occurs is not to discuss classified information associated with these cases, and thereby avoid impeding or damaging the FBI's and the Justice Department's ability to investigate and build cases. In short, we care about this investigation because we care about national security. One of the most important guardians of national security is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is a unique committee, Mr. President. It is not set up like others. It has a vice-chairman, not a ranking member. Its makeup gives the majority party just a one- vote advantage regardless of the composition of the Senate. We try to keep partisanship out of most things we do, but in the case of this Committee, Mr. President, we insist on it, because Americans are more safe when Congress can conduct oversight of intelligence functions in a manner that is not just bipartisan, but nonpartisan. It is for this reason that I agreed with the Majority Leader's decision to assign primary responsibility to the vital China investigation to the Intelligence Committee. And it is also for this reason that I am so gravely disappointed when its nonpartisan tradition is violated. That tradition makes the assertion earlier this week that ``interim judgments'' had been reached in the China matter particularly disturbing. The Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the senator from Nebraska, said they most assuredly had not, a fact subsequently confirmed by the Chairman. The Democratic priority is national security. National security is a complex and demanding topic in today's world. While several Senate committees consider the effect on Chinese ballistic missiles of launching American commercial satellites in China, this nation faces many other equally grave and immediate threats to our national security. For example, Russia, which is now in an economic and military tailspin, has thousands of nuclear warheads and many tons of fissile material from which warheads could be made at stake and perhaps in jeopardy. The temptation in Russia today to look the other way while such materials quietly migrate to rogue states must be acute. That's one way in which Russia's problems threaten the United States. Other threats appear in the headlines for a few days and then recede from public view, but they are still out there: the very unstable nuclear confrontation in South Asia, the development of weapons of mass destruction by Iran and other rogue states, the growing conflict in Kosovo, the growing tension between the Koreas, the still-tense Bosnia situation. We are also threatened today by non-nation state actors, the terrorist organizations who plot to kill or kidnap Americans overseas, and the crime cartels who use today's increasingly open international borders to bring narcotics and other criminal activity to our shores. Information warfare and the relationship between computers and our national infrastructure is another arena in which hostile nations, movements, or even individuals can threaten us. All these threats present greater challenges to the defense, intelligence, and law enforcement establishments than they encountered during the cold war. At the same time, the haystack is growing, the needles are as small as ever. We need to support and strengthen our capabilities in these areas. We need to be able to react quickly to changing threats and develop the brainpower to master environments ranging from now-obscure foreign cultures at one extreme, to global cyberspace at the other. The one thing we should not do is stand pat, as if winning the cold war gives us the right to relax. Congress authorizes and appropriates funds for the elements of government that defend against, deter, or counter the threats: the world's most capable military forces, informed by the world's leading intelligence services, as well as law enforcement entities which are second to none. It is our responsibility in Congress to fund these activities, to guide their continued improvement, and to oversee what they do. If these departments and agencies are essential to our national security--and they are--then our Congressional authorization, appropriation and oversight processes for these activities are also essential to national security. The need to address these issues underscores the importance of the Intelligence Committee's mandate. To approach these matters in a spirit of partisanship arguably puts the national security at risk. As for the China inquiry, to my knowledge, none of the four committees that have conducted hearings on the matter has reached any conclusions, interim or otherwise. Many documents already in the possession of Congress have not even been reviewed. Other documents have not yet been received from the administration, which is working hard to comply with the sweeping document requests they have gotten from Congress. So it is premature to reach even interim conclusions. To do so subverts the Congressional oversight process. I would prefer not to be here discussing ongoing investigations. But I think it is important to correct the record so that from this point on we can let the committees do their work. It has been suggested this week on the Senate floor that the Clinton administration's export controls for satellites are wholly inadequate. That statement should be considered in its historical context. The policy of exporting satellites for launch on Chinese rockets was initiated in 1988 under President Reagan and has continued under Presidents Bush and Clinton. President Bush authorized the export of 9 satellites to China in three years. Each of these satellites could only be exported after President Bush determined that the transaction was in the U.S. national interest and that the Tianamen sanctions should be waived. President Clinton did make some changes in the licensing process for the export of commercial communications satellites. President Bush transferred licensing authority for over one-half of all commercial satellites from State to Commerce and recommended that serious consideration be given to moving the rest over to Commerce. President Clinton completed this transfer and issued an executive order that greatly increased the role of the Defense Department in these decisions. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, a witness, otherwise critical of the Clinton administration, acknowledged that the United States has the strongest and best export controls in the world! Does this mean the system is perfect? Certainly not. No multi-agency process involving thousands of decisionmakers and difficult technical and political issues can be. In fact, as a result of some of the information disclosed in the early stages of the hearings, I believe some modification is probably in order. For example, the Departments of Defense and State should see the final text of all licenses. However, these are minor fixes in a system that, according to State, Commerce, Defense, and the intelligence community, is working well. Second, it has been asserted that sensitive technology related to satellite exports has been transferred to China. Under the Clinton administration, all requests to launch U.S. satellites aboard Chinese rockets go through an exhaustive and careful scrutiny. The Departments of Defense and State must approve all licenses and always place U.S. national security in the forefront of their decision process. Their primary role in this process is to specifically design procedures to ensure that China's access to U.S. technology is limited solely to what is needed to mate the U.S. satellite to the Chinese launcher. If these procedures are properly followed, the Chinese learn little, if anything, about our satellites or the technology they contain. Indeed, the Chinese gain no direct access to our satellites and only take ownership of the U.S. satellites they purchase from us after they are successfully placed in orbit. Third, it has been charged that China has received military benefit from U.S. satellite exports, and reference has been made to Chinese missiles pointed at U.S. nuclear cities. These very same missiles were developed years before President Reagan decided to allow U.S. satellites to be placed atop Chinese launchers. Furthermore, Intelligence Committee hearings have been held on this very issue. And I might say all of them were closed hearings, and public accounts of those hearings fail to substantiate this sensational charge. There is no public account, to my understanding, that substantiates the sensational charges made earlier by people on this floor. The final specific charge I will address today is the assertion that new evidence has come to light about a Chinese plan to influence our political process, and that this new evidence should lead the Attorney General to appoint an independent counsel. Unfortunately, the ``new'' evidence cited is highly classified and cannot and should not be discussed publicly. Mr. President, publicly characterizing classified information under any circumstance is dangerous. Using it to make charges against which the accused are unable to defend themselves is even more so. Classification is a misunderstood, sometimes frustrating, thing. It is difficult to explain and understand why we keep some things secret. Well, the reason is simple. Americans, and our friends around the world, quite literally risk their lives to gather this information because we promise to protect them. When classified information is characterized, the sources who collect intelligence and the methods by which they do so are in danger. Furthermore, because the information involved was classified, those citing it are fully aware that the individuals involved cannot, under law, use that information to reply. I will resist the temptation to place on the Record my own characterization of this new classified information. Instead, I will simply make the point that we have heard Republican Members make equally ominous proclamations about the China-plot in the past only to see that these facts fail to substantiate their own allegations. Moreover, Attorney General Janet Reno has access to all relevant information, classified and unclassified. She has not been reluctant to call for a special prosecutor in the past, and I am confident that should the facts warrant, she will not hesitate to do so in this case. These observations cover my concerns about what has been voiced by critics of this administration's export policies. However, my greatest reservation is the result of what has not been stated. These critics repeatedly fail to mention that the last six Presidents--Democratic and Republican alike--have each concluded it is in our national interest to engage China, not isolate it. Specifically, every President since Ronald Reagan has agreed that our national security is enhanced as a result of allowing the Chinese to place U.S. satellites in orbit. Based on current information, I agree with this assessment. I believe it is in our national interest to dominate the world's commercial satellite market. This is a strategic industry vital to our defense. We simply cannot be the dominant power in today's high-tech world without this industry and others like it. This industry also produces tens of thousands of challenging, high- paying jobs for Americans. So when the Chinese choose an American satellite instead of a foreign satellite, that is good for our security as well as our economy. But the underlying point is that congressional committees are taking a fresh look at all these issues. Therefore, I will reserve final judgment pending their findings. The China investigations now underway could have significant, positive benefit for national security. That is my goal and the goal of the Democratic task force. We look forward to working with Senator Lott and Republican members of his task force to get an outcome that makes America safer. I applaud many members of our task force and the work done by members of the committee. The next speaker, Mr. President, deserves special commendation. He is not only a member of the Intelligence Committee, but he is our ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. I do not know of anyone who has put more time and effort into sifting through these facts and attempting as best as he can, in as objective a manner as he can, what the facts are. He has done so in a fashion that is commensurate with his reputation. I commend him again for his studious and thoughtful analysis and the work that he has provided not only to our task force but to the committee. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield for a moment?

Mr. DASCHLE. I join with the majority leader in complimenting the manager, the very distinguished Senator from Mississippi, as well as our ranking member. This will be the last bill our ranking member will manage, at least on the appropriations side. He may have other responsibilities in other committees, but on this bill it will be his last bill. We will miss his managerial skills, his remarkable sense of humor, and the ability that he demonstrates each and every day to work with all of us. So I compliment both of them and thank them for their fine work tonight. I thank the majority leader for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. We have had a good debate. We have had some very important issues debated. We were on the Lugar amendment most of the day yesterday, for good reason. It was a very controversial issue that I think was important. We had a good opportunity to discuss it. We have had some good amendments on this side. But there comes a time when we have to bring this matter to a close. I hope my Democratic colleagues can work with the leadership here in an effort to come to a finite list that is narrower than the one that currently exists, in an effort to accommodate our schedule. I am hopeful we can do that in the next couple of hours so we have a very definitive list of what needs to be done and we can finish this bill sometime tonight or this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. There is no reason why we can't bring this to closure. I think there is going to be a strong vote for it. We ought to just get on with it. I will be prepared to go to a vote immediately. I know Senator Harkin had a couple of minutes he wanted to speak. Then we can hold it open, if we have to accommodate a Senator. So we can get on with the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Late yesterday several of my colleagues took to the floor to discuss their views on the need for congressional action on encryption legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly provide my thoughts on this important issue. As everyone who follows encryption policy knows, despite years of discussion and debate, we still have not found a solution that is acceptable to industry, consumers, law enforcement and national security agencies. In this Congress alone, we have seen 7 competing bills introduced--3 in the House and 4 in the Senate. The country is paying a price for this inability to produce a consensus solution. That price is evident not only in loss of market share and constraint on internet commerce, but also in the steady erosion of the ability of law enforcement's and national security agencies' to monitor criminal activity or activities that threaten our national interest. We simply must find a comprehensive national policy that protects both U.S. national security and U.S. international market share--sooner rather than later. And I believe we can. After many months of participating in discussions on encryption policy and hearing from all sides of this complex issue, I have reached two conclusions. First, the Administration has and is continuing to make good-faith efforts to reach agreement on the numerous complex issues that underlie our encryption policy. And second, there is already considerable agreement on a series of key issues. The challenge is to pull together to forge a consensus encryption policy for the 21st Century. Earlier this year, I sent a letter to Vice President Gore asking for the Administration's goals and plans for encryption policy. In his response to me, the Vice President indicated that he supports ``energizing an intensive discussion that will apply the unparalleled expertise of U.S. industry leaders in developing innovative solutions that support our national goals.'' Subsequent actions demonstrate that the Vice President and this Administration have been true to their word. In the last several months, the Administration has engaged in intensive discussions with the Americans for Computer Privacy, an important business-oriented interest group. These discussions have focused on technical, policy, legal, and business issues associated with encryption, and the impact of strong encryption on law enforcement and national security. The Administration is also reviewing ACP's proposals for export relaxation. I have been assured by senior Administration officials that, in making decisions on our encryption policy, the Administration recognizes it must carefully consider commercial needs as well as law enforcement and national security interests. As a result of the Administration's statements and actions, I am more convinced than ever that there is already agreement on a significant number of issues and that a consensus on encryption policy is possible in the not-to-distant future. First, all parties accept the need for and reality of strong encryption products. Second, all parties agree that strong encryption products are essential to the growth of electronic commerce and the internet. Third, all parties agree that 40- bit keys are inadequate to ensure privacy and security. Fourth, all parties agree that doing nothing has a real and significant downside. According to a recent study, maintaining existing encryption policies will cost the U.S. economy as much as $96 billion over the next 5 years in lost sales and slower growth in encryption-dependent industries. Finally, all parties agree that doing nothing is unsustainable because the relaxed restrictions the Administration placed on 56-bit encryption products expire at the end of the year and must be addressed within the next month or two. So where does this leave us? Unfortunately, while recent discussions between industry and the Administration have been fruitful, they have not gone far enough or proceeded fast enough to produce the kind of agreement I believe the majority of the Congress would all like to see. The time has come for the Administration to announce exactly where it stands on several key issues--including how it intends to proceed when the current relaxed restrictions on 56-bit encryption expire. Having urged the Administration to greater efforts, I must also ask if it would not be constructive for those who are most frustrated with the pace of change in this area to take a step back and closely examine their own positions. For example, several of the bills introduced in the Congress this session call for the Secretary of Commerce to have exclusive jurisdiction over the export of encryption products. Despite the widespread agreement that the sale of encryption products has important ramifications for our national security and law enforcement, these bills would give no role to officials from the Justice Department, the FBI, or the intelligence community in the decision process regarding which encryption products can be legally sold. This fact would be noteworthy even in isolation. It is even more remarkable when one combines it with the observation that many of the adherents to this laissez-faire approach to export controls for encryption products are the most vocal critics of the Administration's export policies for commercial satellites. The incongruity of these two positions is stunning. Trying to reconcile them is impossible. There are only two conclusions to be drawn from this inconsistency. Either the right hand does not know what the left is doing, or at least part of the criticism directed at the Administration is politically motivated. I will be working with the Administration and my colleagues in the days ahead in the hope of reaching some consensus on national encryption policy. I am hopeful that over the next few weeks we can begin to resolve the numerous difficult issues that remain. Neither industry nor government is likely to get 100 percent of what it wants. However, if both sides are flexible and cognizant of the stakes involved, I am hopeful we can reach an agreement that's good for consumers, good for business, and good for law enforcement and national security.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have been talking throughout the day. And I believe we are making progress in setting up a procedure by which at some point in the not too distant future--I think the prospects are greater tonight than they have been in some time--we might have a good debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Because I believe that these negotiations are proceeding successfully, I withdraw the pending amendment on HUD-VA with an expectation that we will come to some successful conclusion at a later date.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was going to suggest Senator Dodd, Senator Torricelli, Senator Johnson, Senator Graham and Senator Kerrey.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Montana for this amendment. We have a very serious situation with regard to price transparency. Can you imagine going into a store and not knowing the price? Can you imagine a retailer going into the market and not knowing what the prevailing price is? What these two Senators are doing is simply asking that we have a pilot project to be able to decide if there is a way by which to better describe prices and a way to bring about price transparencies so producers and retailers or anybody has a better understanding of what the market is. If you really believe in a free market, you will support this pilot project because it simply allows the free market to do its work. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed by the number of small to medium-sized producers going out of business in our states, and by mounting evidence that anti-competitive forces within the livestock market are contributing to this trend of shrinking income. This amendment offered by Senator Kerrey will help end the secret livestock deals that are driving small to medium-sized producers out of business in our states, by requiring that they report the prices they pay for live cattle. This in turn will assure that the market price accurately reflects the real value of livestock, in other words increases market transparency. In South Dakota, smaller livestock producers are leaving the industry literally by the hundreds. According to South Dakota State University, in the past five years South Dakota has lost over 1,000 of our smaller cow/calf operators, and over 800 small feedlots. Not only do these losses cripple rural communities, they threaten the vitality of the agriculture industry itself. Small business plays an essential role in any market; it is small business that can respond most rapidly to changing consumer demand, and small business that is most likely to innovate and meet the preferences of niche markets. As packers and feedlots continue to merge, as smaller operations go out of business, and as producers face progressively fewer markets for their production, we lose an important segment of the industry. The result will be a less diverse, less responsive marketplace. Increasing market transparency is essential to ensuring our producers at least have a chance to compete. I appreciate that USDA publishes voluntarily reported price information, but we need to do more. The contract prices that currently are not reported may have market distorting effects because reported cash prices do not reflect true market conditions. Formula pricing, captive supplies, and vertical integration all contribute to transactions off of the cash market, and severely impede many producers' ability to compete. This amendment would ensure, on a test basis, that all livestock prices are reported. This means producers and feedlots will know that the market price accurately reflects the prices being paid in private transactions. This is the way the free market is supposed to work. The majority of producers who talk to me about conditions in the industry today simply say they want a fair shake. They want a chance to work hard to produce a high quality product and to sell it for a fair price. We expect our foreign markets to be open and fair so that we can compete abroad. Producers absolutely should be able to expect the same of our domestic markets. Producers and farm organizations have been saying for some time that as prices and terms of trade become increasingly limited, there isn't enough information available to determine the fair market price for livestock. I continue to hear that not only is complete price information vital to an efficient market, but also that it may reduce the potential for exploitative relationships in the industry. This is an important, reasonable step to take on behalf of our small livestock producers. If we care about small business, if we care about the rural communities they serve, if we care about having a fair and open marketplace in agriculture, we will pass Senator Kerrey's amendment. I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can support this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if, since everybody is here, whether we could limit the vote on the Torricelli amendment to 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will quote from the article: ``We are seeing a major impact. It's all because of $2 corn and under $5 beans and going lower. And you have $30 hogs and $50 cattle. I don't know if you could call it a depression, but it is awfully close to it,'' said Tom Reecy, owner of Reecy Farm Supply Co. in Dell Rapids. Contributing to farmers' problems are weakened demand for agricultural imports and some prolonged periods of weather disasters and crop diseases. Some agricultural economists are predicting financial fallout as harsh as during the farm crisis of the mid-1980s. This isn't a Democratic Senator saying this. This isn't even a farmer saying this. What they are saying is that, because of these falling crop prices, you have got the owner of a very important business in Dell Rapids, SD, saying, ``It's over.'' Its over unless we change what is happening out here today. The article by Kevin Woster makes it very clear that the problem goes beyond--it is not on this chart--but it goes beyond Dell Rapids, SD. He talks about Redfield, a very important community in the northeastern part of our State. The 1996 census update showed a 3.3 percent drop in population in just that year. Rod Siegling owns the family grocery store, Siegling Super Value, which has been operating in Redfield for 40 years. Mr. Siegling talks about the extraordinary reduction in the business in his store, in the article that I have already inserted in the Record. Why? Because prices are so low people can't afford to buy their groceries. Mr. President, I have one other matter I would like to insert in the Record, and that is a letter sent to the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee by the Tripp County Board of Commissioners: Louis Polasky, Ray Petersek, Harold Whiting, Neil Farnsworth, and Marion G. Best. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her excellent statement and appreciate very much her reflecting on the seriousness of the situation in Louisiana as well. As I noted, Mr. President, I will use my leader time to finish the discussion of this amendment. I think this poster probably says it as well as anything. The only thing I would call to everyone's attention is that when it says ``rural S.D.,'' it could say ``rural Louisiana,'' it could say ``rural Illinois,'' or it could say ``rural'' any State in the country. ``Ag slump threatens rural''--blank. For me, it is ``rural S.D.''. The problems that we are having here that are outlined in these articles say it very well. Prices have dropped dramatically. Prices have dropped in corn, in wheat, sorghum, barley, soybeans--you name the commodity. Prices have plummeted. It is not just the grain, it is the livestock as well. There is a statement here in the first part of the article by David Kranz, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles, one by David Kranz of the Argus Leader, and the other by Kevin Woster of the Argus Leader, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also ask if the majority leader will object to dividing the time for the four amendments equally between now and 8:45?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just so there is no mistake in here, the administration, the Department of Agriculture, strongly supports this amendment. Again, let me remind my colleagues that this is a pilot project. It is an opportunity to see whether it works. We want to see the opportunity for price transparency. Let us know what the market price produces. Let's see what the prices are going to be to give and take between processors and producers. That is what this study is all about. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will simply read one paragraph: During the last decade, the devastating effect of low commodity and cattle prices has affected every household in the county. Commodity prices at the 1950 levels have contributed to the continuing exodus of our youth to cities for jobs while the age of our farmers and ranchers average in the 60s. Yesterday, the Senate voted 99 to nothing simply to say, with bipartisan emphasis, we hear you. We understand. We know that when prices are this low, you are going to see the consequences as reported in these stories and this letter. Today, we now offer our solutions. This amendment, the one upon which we will be voting briefly, lifts the cap on marketing loans and extends the loan term as one of the most consequential ways with which to respond immediately to the problem of low prices. Why? Because we are giving farmers some flexibility to say, look, if the prices continue this way, I am going to take out a loan for at least 15 months to see if all of the other things they are doing out in Washington and throughout our agricultural economy will give me a better price later on. That is what we are suggesting. Let's give our farmers the opportunity to obtain a better option in the short term. We are talking about farmers' ability to survive the 1 year that this amendment takes place. That is all it is, 1 year. We are not suggesting this be a permanent change to the legislation pending. We are simply saying the very survival of thousands of family farms depends upon whether we give them the tools right now. For those who oppose this amendment, I would simply ask, What immediate action do they propose? What will they do to help farmers today? We are all for trade. I don't know of a Senator who will come to the floor and say, ``I oppose increasing trade.'' That is like saying I will oppose eating apple pie. We favor trade. We want to see our markets opened. And I might say parenthetically the fastest way to open them is to pass the funding of the International Monetary Fund so that we can open these markets and stabilize the economy. So let me just describe again this first in a series of steps that we are proposing to deal with these prices. The amendment, again, that we will be voting on momentarily would eliminate the caps on marketing loans and set the new rate at 85 percent of the average price of the previous 5 years, and here is the key, ``on an emergency basis.'' On an emergency basis, it would extend the marketing loan term from 9 months to 15 months under the same conditions. I hope everyone will note the distinction between this amendment and earlier legislation to break the loan caps. In contrast to other marketing loan proposals, this measure only goes into effect in the case of an economic crisis. It gives the President discretionary authority to control extreme, persistent income loss by lifting the marketing loan caps and extending their terms in this year only. Regardless of how my colleagues may feel about changes in permanent law, regardless of how they may have voted in the past, I really cannot imagine that anybody can say that for 1 year, under these circumstances, I am opposed to bumping up that loan that has to be paid back by the farmers, regardless of whatever concerns they might have. In every single case that I am aware of in talking to farmers around the country, they tell us that the single most effective thing we can do, the single most important thing we can do to affect price in the short term is what we are offering right now. You can listen to some of our colleagues complain that this is an old solution. The fact is that this is the best solution, the best short- term emergency solution that we are aware can be proposed. It is supported by the National Wheat Growers, by the Barley Growers, by the American and National Corn Growers, and by a growing list of farmer organizations and farmers across this country who say, yes, with an exclamation point, pass this. Combining the two provisions--the extension of the time and the moderate increase in the availability of the loan value--provides our farmers with increased market flexibility and a far better shot at surviving over the next 12 months. Adopting this proposal would result in loan rate increases, and we think price increases, for every single grain commodity. Wheat loan rates would increase 64 cents a bushel; corn loan rates would increase 36 cents a bushel; soybean rates would increase. The flexibility contained in the new farm bill is great. Farmers get their signals from the market but not the Government. But they cannot be left without the marketing tools necessary to capitalize on the new free market. This is an opportunity to send a clear message to farmers in every State, every State where we can add ``rural'' in front. We understand the ag slump threatens rural States, rural South Dakota, rural North Dakota, rural Maine, rural California, rural Louisiana, and we are going to do something about it. We are going to offer this as our best opportunity to deal immediately with price, knowing how consequential this could be for every single farmer who is watching and listening and hoping that we understand. We can use all the rhetoric we want. The only way we are going to get this job done is to match our actions to our rhetoric. The rhetoric came yesterday. The actions now must come today, and they must start by increasing this loan rate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment to Ban Egg Repackaging

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and it is only for clarification and one suggestion, I ask the majority leader whether the order could be Dodd, Torricelli, Johnson and Kerrey?