Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from California for her remarks. I find myself in complete agreement with what she has just said. I hope that this year, as opposed to last year, we can find a solution, that we can resolve the differences that may not be insurmountable in coming to grips with both of the issues-- family planning and late-term abortion. If we can find the language that says that, with respect to all procedures, postviability abortions ought to be outlawed, except in those rare, rare circumstances involving the life and emergency health situations so that we would protect the woman from irreparable harm or enable her to have another child at a later date, is something that I hope we can all support and come together to resolve. So, again, I thank her for her comments, and I would like to work very much with the Senator from Indiana, who has spent a lot of time on this issue to resolve this matter in a successful way sometime this session.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, based upon the conversations I have had with the majority leader, I have no objection to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say first of all that I appreciate the cooperation of all Senators. This does not mean necessarily that every one of these amendments are going to be offered. In fact, I hope to the contrary that they will not. I would also like to add, if I could, a clause that no motion to recommit be in order to the unanimous-consent request, if that would be in keeping with the majority leader's intent.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider House Joint Resolution 36, the administration's request to begin releasing voluntary fiscal year 1997 international family planning funds on March 1 rather than July 1 this year. This resolution simply reduces the delay in the funds' release from 9 months to 5 since the fiscal year began October 1, 1996. Although some want to characterize this as an abortion vote, it simply is not. The funds to be released could be used only for voluntary family planning--not for abortion. In fact, today's vote is about whether the Senate will help prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. Furthermore, the resolution the Senate is considering does not call for any additional funding for international family planning. Whether these funds are released in March or July, the entire amount of funding appropriated for international family planning in fiscal year 1997 will ultimately be spent. Passage of this resolution merits the support of all Members of Congress who wish to see improvements in the quality of life for women and families around the world. U.S. contributions to international family planning programs have improved the lives of women in developing countries immeasurably. The ability to plan the size of one's family is essential if women and children are to live longer and healthier lives, and if women are to make the educational and economic gains they and we wish to see. A majority of our colleagues in the House of Representatives endorsed the President's plan to release funds for voluntary family planning when it passed House Joint Resolution 36 on February 13. Now the Senate must decide. The fiscal year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which Congress passed as part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill last year, includes a provision that prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development [USAID] from obligating funds for international family planning until July 1, 1997. The provision also states that if the President determines the delay is having a negative impact on USAID's population program, funds may be made available beginning March 1, 1997, if Congress approves the finding. On January 31, the President certified that the restrictions imposed by Congress are, in fact, having a negative impact on USAID's population planning program. The President argues that family planning service delivery and their supporting activities would be disrupted, costs at all levels for the program would increase, and, most importantly, the health and well-being of women, men, and children who are beneficiaries of U.S. assistance would be severely threatened. As a consequence, increases in unintended pregnancies, infants and maternal deaths and abortions would be inevitable. The President also suggests that at least 17 bilateral and worldwide programs will have urgent funding needs in the March-June period. By delaying the release of U.S. funds until July these organizations would be forced to suspend, defer, or terminate family planning activities. One program that would be adversely impacted by the delay is the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University. The institute does research on natural family planning and provides couples with access to family planning methods. In a letter to Congressman David Bonior earlier this month, the president of Georgetown University, Father Leo J. O'Donovan, stated that if funding for international family planning is delayed until July, the institute would be forced to terminate work that provides services to more than one million families throughout the world. Delaying U.S. contributions to international family planning programs will also inhibit the progress that many countries have made toward reducing abortions. The Russian Department of Health reports that the use of contraceptives grew from 19 to 24 percent between 1990 and 1994 with the establishment of 50 International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates across Russia. During that time period, the number of abortions performed dropped from 3.6 million to 2.8 million. According to the administration, if funding for international family planning is delayed until July, two of the largest organizations that receive USAID funds in Russia would be unable to provide 1.7 million couples with access to modern family planning methods as an alternative to abortion. In Bolivia, USAID provides funding for both government and non- governmental organizations. Since the delivery of family planning services was expanded in the country between 1989 and 1994, the use of family planning in Bolivia increased by 50 percent. The administration argues that if funds for international family planning are delayed until July, USAID would be forced to defer ongoing population assistance in that country. This would jeopardize services for 20 percent of Bolivia's population and reduce support to local organizations providing family planning services to an additional 30 percent of Bolivia's rural population. Many other developing countries experiencing rapid population growth would face similar setbacks if U.S. contributions were delayed. USAID currently assists more than 60 countries through 95 bilateral and worldwide programs. For more than 30 years, this organization has had a remarkable impact on the daily lives of people around the world. It has helped millions of families determine the number and spacing of their children through voluntary family planning programs. It has reduced high-risk pregnancies and helped save the lives of hundreds of thousands of women. And, again, it has reduced the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. USAID has also made a significant contribution to slowing down the world population growth. Due in large part to U.S. leadership and bipartisan support for USAID, global population is now growing at a slower rate. Nonetheless, the world's population could double to over 11 billion by the year 2050 unless further progress is made. Delaying U.S. contributions to family planning an additional 4 months will only exacerbate the numerous social and environmental problems associated with rapid population growth. We simply cannot afford to delay U.S. contributions to family planning programs any longer. The President has determined that a continued delay in funding for international family planning will cause serious, irreversible and avoidable harm. Just as our colleagues in the House of Representatives did, it is time for the Senate to lend its support to the President's request. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 36 and permit the President to begin releasing funds for international family planning on March 1.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin the debate about the budget resolution. As everyone knows, yesterday the President sent to Congress his plan for a balanced budget. The way we receive that budget will be the first real test of our ability and our willingness in this Congress to find bipartisan consensus on a budget. Is bipartisanship truly our goal, or is it merely a PR strategy? The debate that begins today will go a long way on both sides of the aisle toward answering that question. The plan the President is sending us balances the Federal budget by the year 2002 while protecting our priorities. It invests in America's future, and pays for those investments. The President's budget offers targeted tax relief for homeowners and families with children; for parents who are struggling to save for their children's college education, and workers who are trying to save for their own retirement; for companies involved in environmental cleanup and converting old industrial sites into new hubs of opportunity. The budget provides a strong framework for a bipartisan agreement. It reflects 2 years of hard negotiations, and contains ideas advocated by both parties. With the requisite sense of purpose and political will, this Congress can enact a balanced budget that protects important national priorities this year. That is my goal, and I am committed to making it happen. It does not take a miracle to balance the budget. I know. I helped write a plan last year that balanced the budget by the year 2002--and protected Medicare, education, and the environment. I voted for it. And so did a lot of other people. The President adopted the plan. And the President is submitting a modified version of that very plan today. So he knows it does not take a miracle to balance the budget. The President has shown us a blueprint that will allow us to make that a reality. It also doesn't require a constitutional amendment. The President's budget will balance the budget by the year 2002 without it. But let me be clear. I support a balanced budget amendment. I have since I was first elected to Congress. I have voted for amendments in the past. I have opposed other amendments. And I will support a balanced budget amendment again this year. But it has to be the right amendment. There is a difference between supporting a responsible amendment and supporting any balanced budget amendment. Senator Dorgan and I and others are cosponsoring an amendment that requires Congress to pass a balanced budget without looting the Social Security trust funds. The version of the amendment now before the Senate contains no such protection. It places current retirees in the most immediate danger. Let me read a letter from the President that I received just last week. In that letter the President states: In the event of an impasse in which the budget requirements can neither be waived nor met, disbursement of Social Security checks could cease or unelected judges could reduce benefits to comply with this constitutional mandate. That was a letter from the President just last week. Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar short. The amendment should not force us to break that historic contract. This version of the amendment also places future retirees at risk. The heart of the 1983 bipartisan agreement that rescued Social Security was a plan to set aside funds for baby boomers' retirement. Because of that plan, Social Security is now running huge surpluses. This year alone that surplus is expected to be $78 billion. By the year 2002, it is expected to be $104 billion. By 2019, when many of the baby boomers start to retire, the Social Security trust funds will have built up a $3 trillion surplus, which will be absolutely necessary to pay the retirees at that time. But, if we pass this version of the balanced budget amendment, none of those funds will be available to pay the Social Security benefits. This amendment says clearly, ``Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that year.'' Total outlays, including Social Security. The Government would be forbidden not only from running a deficit, but also from drawing down the surplus. Social Security benefits could be paid only from taxes raised in the same year. That means, when the baby boomers retire, Congress would have to raise taxes dramatically, or slash Social Security benefits deeply--or both. In addition, this version of the amendment cheats working families. American workers are paying more in payroll taxes today than is needed to cover the Social Security checks that go out. The surplus revenues are supposed to be set aside to meet their future retirement needs. If we pass this amendment without exempting Social Security, the Government cannot save those tax dollars to pay for future Social Security needs of the baby boomers. Instead, the money will be diverted to other Government programs, to everything from highways to salaries of Members of Congress. More than half of American taxpayers, 58 percent, pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in income tax. These taxes place a disproportionately heavy burden on low and moderate-income families. It is justifiable to levy these taxes if they are truly set aside for Social Security, but it is inexcusable if they are used to pay for general Government operations. The Congress should not enshrine this abuse of the payroll tax in the U.S. Constitution. The amendment that is before the Senate contains another flaw that I will seek to change. It would limit in perpetuity how Congress can treat capital investments in our future economic growth. If this amendment passes, any proposal to create a capital budget would be declared unconstitutional. A capital budget would allow us to differentiate between investments and operating costs like every single State in the country. If we were to ask any Governor today, do you have a capital budget, the answer is ``yes.'' If we would ask any Governor today, if you had to work under the same accounting devices that we do at the Federal level, a unified budget, would you have a balanced budget, chances are in every single case the answer would be, ``no, we would have a deficit.'' We would have a large deficit, billions of dollars of deficit. Why? Because for many, many years, in some cases from the very beginning of a State's history, they have known the importance of differentiating between capital investments and operating costs, knowing that you do not treat an investment long term like you do somebody's lunch. I think it is very important for this country to differentiate in that regard at some point in the future as well. And for us at this date, regardless of how one feels about a capital budget, to say that from here on out we are going to make it unconstitutional for this country to even consider budgeting the way we do in business, the way we do in families, the way we do in States, in my view is extraordinarily dangerous to this country's economic health and well- being. How many times have we heard on this Senate floor the following phrase: this Government ought to budget its expenditures the way a family does. We ought to treat our budget the way every single family treats its budget. Mr. President, there are not many families I know of that pay off their mortgage in 1 year. How many families today say that they have a balanced budget, taking into account the mortgage that they themselves must pay? Few families today would have the ability to pay off a mortgage in 1 year. But we are asking the Federal Government to pay off every one of its mortgages in each year, to treat a mortgage the same way we treat a bill for the lights which run this building. There is a big difference, and I think the time has come for this country to have a capital budget. Regardless, as I say, the real question is, should we have an accounting system like families, like businesses, like States? I hope the answer is ``yes,'' someday, and I hope we will have the foresight, regardless of what we may think of a budgeting system of that kind, to at least say that the Senate has the right to consider a capital budget at some point in the future. To make it expressly unconstitutional, in my view, is extraordinary. I ask all of my colleagues to think very carefully about the amendment we write. I have also heard so often Senators come to the floor and say this bill is not perfect; this amendment is not the best we can do, but let us accept the fact that we can improve on it at some point in the future. I hope no one in this entire debate will ever come to the floor and say this bill is not perfect, this amendment to the U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, because we do not have the luxury of coming back and amending it. We do not have the luxury of altering it once it becomes part of the U.S. Constitution. We tried that once before with prohibition, and it took another constitutional amendment to undo the damage we did the first time. So let us not in any way, shape or form be content to satisfy our need to pass an amendment and then say we are willing to accept something that is imperfect. We have imperfections in this amendment that have to be dealt with. There is absolutely no reason to pay for deficit spending with Social Security trust funds. There is no reason to constitutionally preclude us from dealing directly with the real need to pass a capital budgeting system at some point in the future. So let us be honest. Let us recognize that this amendment is not perfect; it needs to be changed; it needs to be amended in a constructive way; it needs to take into account our future; it needs to recognize that we have to be truthful with the American people; and it needs at long last to be dealt with in a bipartisan way, with Republicans and Democrats working together to fashion an amendment that makes sense not only for us but for all posterity. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one of the great fears of our time has been that America is slowly losing its sense of community and, with it, the idea that each of us has a responsibility toward one another. Today, I am proud to say that all around America our spirit of community remains strong. As you know, the Great Plains have been paralyzed this winter by terrible blizzards, high winds, and subzero temperatures. But thanks to the efforts of individuals all over the country, I am happy to report this afternoon that we are pulling through. I am proud to say that during the worst of the bitter cold and howling winds, South Dakotans have been at their best. They have bundled up, put on their boots and trudged outside to help their friends and neighbors--even perfect strangers--make it safely through dangerous storms. Residents of the northern Great Plains are accustomed to harsh winters. But all would agree, this winter has been especially brutal. Some say it is the worst we have seen this century. I remind you that most of this century has already passed. In the blizzards that descended upon us in January, wind chill temperatures dropped to nearly 90 degrees below zero. Blowing snow covered roads with drifts that were as high as 30 feet and 60 feet long. Visibility dropped to less than a few feet as 60-mile-an-hour winds whipped snow into swirling white walls, hiding everyone and everything before it. With roads closed, thousands of South Dakotans were left with only the food in their cupboards and a dwindling supply of propane to heat their homes. Even more seriously, travelers were left stranded on the highways, and many of our elderly residents and those in need of medical attention were cut off from any assistance. I wish I could say that we survived these dangers unharmed, but I cannot. Five people have died directly as a result of these conditions. Others have died in the aftermath of the repeated ice storms and blizzards. While today we honor the heroes of these difficult times, we must also remember the victims. To those who lost loved ones this winter, I want to say that our thoughts and our prayers are with you. Our hearts also go out to those whose farms and homes and businesses have been so hard hit by the heavy snow and cold. No one can know for sure how many livestock have died, but estimates range at least as high as 40,000. I urge all of those who have suffered loss not to go through this tragedy alone. There is no shame in asking for help. Despite our losses, the heavy toll of this winter could be much worse. Many might have died, but did not. Many might have gone without heat and food and medicine, but were brought needed supplies just in time. This is due not to luck but to the simple fact that South Dakotans from every walk of life have pitched in to ensure that we get through this winter as safely as we can and together. No one can list the thousands of people who put themselves at risk to help the victims of these storms, and no one can tell all of their stories. Indeed, the few I want to relate today only scratch the surface of those that might be told. Time and again across South Dakota, neighbor has checked on neighbor, and families have taken in stranded travelers in need of assistance. Emergency snowmobile crews have teamed up with local police departments to ensure that doctors and nurses have made it to work over snow- clogged roads. In fact, just last night my parents told me of a cousin of mine who left his home at 3 o'clock in the morning, on a Saturday morning, to drive 300 miles to buy a new snow blower he was going to use in the community. He brought it back that morning, and his wife told my parents that it was the single biggest event that has occurred in that area in decades. They have delivered medicine to the homebound and brought spare parts to farmers in need of aid. During the darkest, coldest parts of the blizzard that have torn through our State, they have risked their lives to rescue stranded motorists and brought life-saving medical attention to those in need. One of those teams was the Drift Busters. The Drift Busters is a snowmobile club in Aberdeen, my hometown, which went into action shortly after the onset of our most recent blizzard. Their quick action and bravery were instrumental in saving the residents of Aberdeen from serious harm. One of the most threatening situations occurred when 2-year-old Stetson Heirigs accidentally ingested poison and needed emergency care in a hospital. After a quick conference call with Stetson's family and the poison control center, club president Duane Sutton drove his snowmobile over 7 miles through darkness, blowing snow, and bitter cold to reach the family's home near Richmond Lake. Then, with the aid of a comember, Dennis Beckler, he ensured that the boy reached the hospital safely and received the treatment he needed just in time. Today Stetson is safe and healthy. Extraordinary bravery has been a fact of life throughout the course of this winter. We have all heard the remarkable story of Karen Nelson, a nursing home aide from Webster who was stranded for over 40 hours in her pickup after becoming disoriented on the roads she has driven her entire life. With her engine running for heat and her cellular phone her only link to the world, Karen waited through the hours of darkness, crying and praying, as a team from around the State assembled to find her. From Rapid City came aircraft equipped with special heat-seeking sensors to scour the drifts from the sky. From Watertown came experts in communications to triangulate the signal from Karen's phone and narrow down her location. Meanwhile, Day County rescue teams in snowmobiles and four-wheel-drive vehicles combed the roads for any sign of her car. At last she was found when she told the rescue team over her phone that she heard the sound of engines overhead. I cannot adequately express how proud we are of all the outstanding people that made Karen's rescue possible, and of Karen for her bravery in enduring those long, cold hours before the rescuers arrived. Many of the dangerous circumstances of this winter have been found on South Dakota's Indian reservations. Blasted by blizzard after blizzard and woefully short of money and equipment, tribal workers have acted courageously throughout this difficult season. Of particular note are the Rescue Rangers of the Cheyenne River Reservation, who during the height of the January blizzards led convoys of snowplows, ambulances, and four-wheel-drive vehicles to ensure that medical attention was received where it was needed. In dangerous conditions, the Rescue Rangers plowed through 30-foot drifts packed harder than adobe by 80-mile-an-hour winds. Creating an even greater challenge were the vast distances that had to be traveled to reach those in need. At one point this month, seven Rescue Rangers nearly froze after becoming stranded on an 85-mile trip to provide medical attention to a tribal elder. A truly heart-wrenching story was related to me by Gregg Bourland, chairman of the Cheyenne River Reservation, who told me of two families stranded in a snow-blocked pass on highway 63. After 14 hours, frostbitten and certain that rescue would come too late, the parents placed tags with vital information on each of their children so they might be identified after they had died. Thankfully, the Rescue Rangers arrived in time. Luckily, not all of the stories of this winter are as terrible as that. For instance, I was touched to learn of the Bredvik family, who opened their home to stranded motorists along I-29 near the North Dakota border. While Lynn Bredvik picked up the travelers one by one in his snowmobile and brought them home, his mother Dorothy opened up her kitchen and provided each with a hearty breakfast of eggs, sausage, bread, and, in South Dakota, lefse. When asked why she would open her home to over a dozen strangers, Dorothy said it was ``old hat'' to her. It is what families do during blizzards. I think Dorothy has summed it up for all of us. Her actions might seem extraordinary to someone else, but for people like her they are old hat. We like to think of our State as the biggest small town in America, where everyone is a member of the same community. We understand you cannot make it through this world alone and that we have a responsibility to help each other whenever or wherever we can. We will need to continue to do that because this winter is not over. Weather reports from South Dakota continue to tell us of minus-50 degree windchills. We have received nearly 10 inches of new snow in the past couple of days, and there are over 2 more months of snow to come. We need to make sure that the farmers and ranchers devastated by their livestock losses can get the help they need and that low-income families can keep their homes heated during this freezing weather. We must prepare ourselves for the inevitable floods of spring. When the great drifts that currently cover my State begin to melt, they will release their force on areas that have been declared Federal flood disasters in the last 4 of 5 years. Simply put, come spring there will be nowhere left for the water to go. We need to ensure that prompt Federal assistance is made available when this flooding occurs. These are difficult challenges to be sure, but together I am absolutely convinced that we will overcome them. We always do. Finally, I want to thank everyone whose help has been so vital to South Dakota. This has been more than an individual or a State effort. America has pulled together. Our neighbors to the south, north, west and to the east have all helped and sent something--snowblowers, snowplows, teams of rescue workers. For hours upon end, workers and snowplows donated from States as far away as Texas have labored alongside our National Guard to keep the roads clear. During the worst of the storms, when the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation was cut off from the outside world, 25,000 pounds of food were donated by Feed the Children, based in Oklahoma City, and delivered to Pine Ridge by the 28th Transportation Squadron of Ellsworth Air Force Base. Together they worked to ensure that no one would go without food. Indeed, help has poured into South Dakota from around the country. Even as we speak, Federal Emergency Management Agency teams are fanning out over South Dakota to assess the damage and bring help where it is needed. Thanks to the rapid response of President Clinton, public and private agencies too numerous to mention, and the support of our friends and neighbors all over, I am proud to announce to my colleagues this afternoon that we are pulling through. So thank you, South Dakota, and thank you America. We are proud of you. All of your stories will never be known but you can be sure that they are alive in the hearts of those of us whom you have helped when we needed it the most. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over 2 years after the defeat of health reform in Congress, many opponents of change still claim that Americans are satisfied with their health care and view Federal oversight as the first step in a Government takeover of the system. They assert that minor tinkering may be needed to shore up some of the system's weak spots, but access to and quality of care in our country are the best in the world. If the public thinks the system isn't broken, so the thinking goes, there is no reason for lawmakers to try to fix it. But are Americans so happy with the current state of health affairs? Evidence from a recent survey suggests that there is still much that troubles the public about our current system, and they expect their elected representatives to help them address the problems they are experiencing. People are confused about how the system works; they are anxious about the cost of medical care; and they don't always feel they can obtain information to help them make sound health choices, get care when they need it, and be assured of quality. And contrary to the widely publicized view that most people think Government should not be involved in health care, a bipartisan majority of Americans feel that the Federal Government can play an active role-- working with the private sector--to make health care more affordable and improve its quality. These are the findings of a poll of American households commissioned by the National Coalition on Health Care. The bipartisan coalition, cochaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, is the Nation's largest and most broadly representative alliance of large and small business, labor unions, consumer groups, religious groups, and primary care providers. The National Coalition on Health Care's recent survey reveals a disturbing lack of confidence among the majority of Americans with the state and direction of health care. Eight out of ten agree that ``there is something seriously wrong with our health care system.'' Less than half say they have ``confidence in the health care system to take care of [them].'' Not surprisingly, the poll reveals that lower-income Americans are particularly troubled by their experiences with cost, coverage, and treatment. Perhaps more startling is the pervasive concern of middle- income Americans who also see major flaws in the system related to quality, access, and cost. While a majority feel that their medical plan works for them, 4 in 10 report reductions in coverage. Medicare recipients are among those most satisfied and confident in their care. Perhaps most disturbing for the Congress is the coalition's focus group's finding that Americans believe improvements in the health care system have been held hostage to partisan politics. While Americans do not want Government involved directly in their health care, they do believe that Government has a role in protecting their interests. Americans have voiced their concerns and have asked for Government's help--not in delivering health care, but in giving them greater security about their ability to afford and retain health insurance. We should heed their call. Last year we passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, which helped workers who lose or switch jobs keep their health insurance. This year, Democrats believe it makes sense to build on that success by giving working families financial assistance to help them insure their children. These children do not come from the poorest families, for the poor have Medicaid. The vast majority of the 10.5 million uninsured children in America are sons and daughters of working parents who do not have access to affordable coverage through their workplace. Though many of these parents work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, they are still not able to buy health insurance for their children. Yet we know that a little financial assistance goes a long way toward covering kids and saving health care dollars and precious lives down the line. Numerous studies confirm that uninsured children don't get the cost-effective preventive care they need and end up costing the system more in the long run, through more expensive emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and preventable chronic illnesses. The Government Accounting Office reports that uninsured children are less likely than those with coverage to get needed health and preventive care, and that the lack of such care can adversely affect children's health status throughout their lives. These children are less likely to have routine doctor visits or have a regular source of medical care, less likely to get care for injuries, see a physician if chronically ill, or get dental care, and they are less likely to be appropriately immunized to prevent childhood illnesses. Each of us already helps pay for these children through implicit cost shifting for uncompensated care. But we pay too much, and we get far too little. How much better it would be to help families obtain insurance for their children from the start; to provide continuous, cost-effective health care from birth through age 18 so that children can grow up healthy and maximize their potential. The Children's Health Coverage Act, S. 13, provides tax credits to help working families purchase private coverage for their uninsured children. There are many additional ideas being floated, from both sides of the aisle, to help families obtain coverage for their children. These ideas should be debated, considered, refined, and crafted into bipartisan legislation that can pass the Congress this year. The American public wants us to act responsibly on their behalf to assure access to quality health care at a fair cost. Now is the time to act on that charge. There is ample common ground on the issue of extending health coverage to children. Let's prove there is ample will.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Rodney Earl Slater is the right choice to become the next U.S. Secretary of Transportation. He has earned the unanimous vote by which he was confirmed. He has taken a remarkable path from a childhood of poverty to being selected to head the $39 billion Department of Transportation. His hard work and talents have proven invaluable to every effort he has undertaken. Rodney was born in 1955 in the dirt-poor Mississippi Delta. His first taste of hard work came early, when as a boy he picked cotton and peaches. He was recruited to play football at Eastern Michigan University, rising to become co-captain of the team. His performance in speech class so impressed his professor that he persuaded him to join the college's debate team. He went on to become a national finalist in debate competitions. The coach of his college debate team described him well: ``I knew way back then that here was a very disciplined, goal-oriented young man who was driven by his own competitiveness. He wasn't competing against other students. He was competing against his own measure of success.'' Rodney Slater went on to an outstanding career of public service. He served several years in the Arkansas State Attorney General's Office. After 4 years as an assistant to then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, he directed government relations for Arkansas State University. In 1987, he was appointed to the powerful Arkansas State Highway Commission, making him the first African-American to hold the job. Five years later, he was promoted to chair the commission. As Federal Highway Administrator since 1993, Mr. Slater has managed a $20 billion annual budget in an agency with 3,500 employees and offices in every State. He tackled the politically difficult task of putting together the National Highway System, a 160,000-mile network of roadways. Stitching together that system involved painstaking negotiations with 50 State governments, regional transportation agencies, and city governments. Despite these difficulties, he won praise from all sides for his candor, political skills, and ability to work within the system to get things done. Rodney Slater's nomination has drawn wide and bipartisan support. As President Clinton put it, he ``was recommended by more people from more places in more ways for this job than any person for any position I have ever seen.'' He has won praise from leaders from both parties and both Houses of Congress. Senator John Warner, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Transportation Subcommittee, described him best as ``an effective partner with Congress.'' As a true Arkansas traveler, Rodney has demonstrated he understands rural transportation needs. He has certainly become a good friend of South Dakota. When we needed help, in good times and bad, we knew we could count on him. South Dakotans are deeply grateful for his assistance, which we will never forget. The nomination of Rodney Slater validates a life of hard work. He has earned this nomination. From his roots in rural Arkansas, he worked his way through college and law school. Here in Washington, he has rebuilt and expanded our Nation's highways and linked isolated communities to jobs and opportunities. He has built bridges both of steel and of goodwill to bring people closer together. He is the right person to help us meet the many transportation challenges we face as we enter the 21st century. I supported Rodney Slater's nomination with enthusiasm. He fully deserved the unanimous vote by which he was confirmed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity today to honor my dear friend, Reverend Mark Jerstad, a Lutheran pastor and head of the Good Samaritan Society in Sioux Falls. After having spent much of his adult life comforting the dying and grieving, Mark recently learned that he has terminal colon cancer. This news was a sad blow to all those who know and love him. Yet, as we face the loss of our friend, we are inspired by the strength of character shown by Mark and his family. Mark's ability to help others confront their fears and prepare for their next journey has always been based on his strong faith in God. Now it is this same faith that has enabled Mark to be at peace with his own death. You see, Mark believes himself to be a lucky man. Unlike many, he has the time to say goodbye, and to reflect on the life he has led. As he says, we are nothing but the sum of our deeds. I believe him, and by this measure Mark is truly remarkable for he has lived a life of kindness and love. We cannot help but to grieve for the fact that Mark will no longer be with us. We must grieve for his children Rachel, Michael and Sarah, who will be losing their father. And we must grieve for Sandy, who will lose her husband of 31 years. But we can be at peace knowing that Mark is living out his remaining days to the fullest. He is at peace, and with his loved ones. Mark eloquently described the challenge we all face: ``Unfortunately, people just can't seem to live life to the fullest until they come face to face with their own death and incorporate it into his or her own existence.'' Mark has done just that, continuing his work as the chief executive officer of the Good Samaritan Society of Sioux Falls while sharing his remaining precious days with friends and family from throughout the country. He is an example for us all. Mark, we wish you and your family well. Let your faith, grace and dignity be a lesson to all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of an article from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader honoring Mark Jerstad be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with sadness that I note the passing of a unique public servant, our Ambassador to France, Pamela Harriman. Perhaps President Clinton said it best this morning: Pamela Harriman represented the best of America's immigrant tradition. She was someone who enjoyed the opportunities this country offered but gave back so much more in return. Pamela Harriman's legacy will be remembered both in this Capitol Building and in capitals across the world. As a private citizen in the 1970's and 1980's, Pamela Harriman plunged into the rough-and-tumble of American politics. The early 1980's were a difficult time for the people in my party. An incumbent Democratic President had lost the White House and Democrats had lost control of the Senate. But Pamela Harriman helped breathe life into an ailing Democratic Party when she formed ``Democrats for the `80s,'' helping to bring my party's communications operations into the modern age when she gave crucial support for the Harriman Center at the Democratic National Committee Building. She also was a host to numerous functions at her elegant Georgetown home, asking nothing but a passionate commitment to public service and Democratic values from those she assisted. As most of our colleagues know, politics in Washington can be a contact sport. Pamela Harriman played the game well. She played with great dignity, elegance, and style. She did not become involved in politics for personal enrichment or to gain social position; she already had both. She chose to share the fruits of her hard work and good fortune with a generation of Americans who were eager to serve their country in Washington. Hers will be a lasting legacy for all Americans who believe in the nobility of public service and think that politics today does not have to be mean, petty, or destructive. Late in her life, Pamela Harriman brought her tremendous skills and ability to the world stage when President Clinton asked her to be Ambassador to France. Some critics suggested she did not have the experience to handle such a sensitive post. She proved them wrong. She began her assignment in Paris in 1993 with the respect of President Clinton and those who knew her well in the United States. She quickly earned the respect of the people of France and other European countries. Her keen understanding of Washington ways and the experiences of her early life in Europe allowed her to skillfully navigate disputes over trade, CIA activities, Bosnia, the Middle East, and NATO. Her diplomatic acumen protected America's interests without alienating powerful and important allies all through the world. The French Government's unique recognition of her contributions was all the more evident when they made her a commander of the Legion of Honor's Order of Arts and Letters, their country's highest cultural award. No doubt she will be missed in France and across Europe almost as much as she will be missed in America, her adopted home. So this is a sad day for me and many others in this country and across the world whose lives were touched by a very special woman. I am confident that the examples she so graciously established will live on with us and future generations of public servants. For that we should be joyful. Thank you, Ambassador Pamela Harriman. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on Friday, January 31, the President submitted to the Congress a certification that merits the support of all Members of Congress who wish to see improvements in the quality of life of women and families around the world. The President has certified that the restrictions imposed by Congress in the fiscal year 1997 appropriations legislation are ``having a negative impact on the functioning of the population planning program.'' Congress's approval of that certification would allow fiscal year 1997 family planning funds to be released at a rate of 8 percent per month beginning March 1 rather than July 1. Population programs around the world have not received any U.S. fiscal year 1997 funding even though the fiscal year began October 1, 1996, so approval of this resolution would simply reduce the delay of the funds' release from 9 months to 5. U.S. contributions to family planning programs have immeasurably improved the lives of women in developing countries. The ability to plan the size of one's family is essential if women and children are to live longer and healthier lives and if women are to make the educational and economic gains they and we wish to see. The Rockefeller Foundation released a report last week documenting the effectiveness of the family planning programs the United States supports. The report noted that the percentage of women in developing countries using contraception in the past three decades has grown from 10 to 50 percent, and the average number of children they have borne has dropped from 6 to 3. Mr. President, there is a growing clamor that Congress is about to cast its first abortion vote of the 105th Congress when it votes on the President's certification. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that Congress voted to cut U.S. contributions to population planning programs by 35 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1997 and then imposed a series of harsh metering requirements on the rate at which the money could be spent. This vote would simply remove one of the harshest requirements--that the funding be delayed by an additional 4 months. It is tragic that the impact of these cutbacks and restrictions has been to increase the number of abortions. At a time when the number of women of childbearing age is increasing by 2.3 percent, or 24 million, per year, the United States is reducing its commitment to programs that reduce the incidence of abortion. The close relationship between family planning and abortion is clear. In Russia, for example, the Russian Department of Health reports that the use of contraceptives grew from 19 to 24 percent between 1990 and 1994 with the establishment of 50 International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates across Russia. During that time period, the number of abortions performed dropped from 3.6 to 2.8 million. In Colombia and Mexico, USAID has long been a major donor to their family planning programs. In Bogota, a one-third increase in use of all forms of contraception between 1976 and 1986 accompanied a 45-percent drop in the abortion rate. In Mexico City and the surrounding region, the use of all forms of contraception increased 24 percent between 1987 and 1992, while the abortion rate fell 39 percent. Helping to provide women with the means to prevent pregnancy is a far better alternative than contributing to a situation in which they must choose between bringing a child into the world for whom they too often have neither the physical nor financial means to care, and obtaining an abortion that is often illegal and unsafe. No woman wants to face that choice. The statistics clearly document this problem. UNICEF's 1996 ``The Progress of Nations'' reported that each year, 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes, 75,000 of them associated with self-induced, unsafe abortions. These women leave behind at least 1 million motherless children. In addition, an estimated 34,000 children under age 5 in developing countries die every day--a number that would surely decline if mothers were able to space the births of their children to improve the health and nutrition they can provide them. I urge my colleagues to support this Presidential certification to reduce the most onerous restrictions on U.S. contributions to international family planning programs when it comes up for a vote this month.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution commends the service of three very important Senate staff members, members who have served this institution exceedingly well, in some cases for many years, even decades. I want to add my own commendation and congratulations to these three very distinguished members of our Senate family. Arthur Curran has been the Superintendent of Senate Doorkeepers for a long time. He was appointed by the Vice President in 1975, at that time Vice President Rockefeller, and has served as our Superintendent of Doorkeepers since 1981. Those duties involving his particular position are extraordinarily consequential and far-reaching. He is responsible for joint sessions of Congress. He is also responsible for high-profile Senate hearings, and all of the inaugurations, including the one just completed last week. He is a native of Washington, DC, and spent many summers in Maine as he was growing up. But over the time that I have had the good fortune to know him, Arthur has also proved to me to be a real connoisseur of good restaurants and has given me a lot of good tips over the years as to restaurants that I should try. But far more important than his knowledge of good restaurants in the area, Arthur Curran has an institutional knowledge and respect that will be impossible to replace. Arthur Curran leaves tomorrow with our good wishes, with our thanks, with our profuse respect. We thank him for a job well done. We encourage him to enjoy all of his new endeavors. And we thank those members of his family who have sacrificed, along with Arthur, that he might do the kind of job that he has now for more than 20 years. Donn Larson is the Deputy Supervisor of Doorkeepers. He, too, was appointed decades ago. He was first appointed by Senator Milton Young in 1959. He worked in the Republican Cloakroom from 1961 to 1968; and from 1969 to 1977 worked for the State Department and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He returned to the U.S. Senate in 1977, and has been the Deputy Supervisor of the Doorkeepers, also, since 1981. Donn Larson, like Arthur Curran, knows this institution. He has watched Senators come and go. He has watched the progress of democracy and heard all of the noise of democracy each day with all of its volume. His civility, his cooperation, his extraordinary demeanor is something that we will miss, beginning on Monday. We again congratulate and commend Donn Larson for an extraordinary contribution to his country and for a remarkable career here in the U.S. Senate. Richard Gibbons--somebody we all know because he is right here on the floor--is a floor attendant. He began working for the Senate doorkeepers in 1977. For many years he worked as press liaison outside the President's room just off the Senate floor. And during the 103d Congress, Richard was moved out to the floor where he has helped Senators and staff and everybody else who has come through with whatever needs they might have. He has helped to keep order in the Chamber, and he has done an extraordinarily effective job. Richard Gibbons, too, deserves our thanks and deserves the respect that he has now earned on both sides of the aisle. We commend him. We thank him. We wish him well in all of his future endeavors as well. As I mentioned a moment ago, men and women who come to work with us in the Senate Chamber make an immense sacrifice, oftentimes in terms of the income they could acquire at jobs outside of Capitol Hill, in time spent here when they could be spending it with their families. We thank their families for the support that they have given them. We thank them for their understanding. We thank them for allowing us the opportunity and good fortune to work with them with the frequency and with the success that we have. So on this day it is with some sadness that we note the departure of Arthur Curran, Donn Larson, and Richard Gibbons. But with great enthusiasm, we wish them well as they take on new roles and new responsibilities and certainly many more opportunities in their lives ahead. I know this resolution will pass overwhelmingly, as it should, because Republicans and Democrats owe these three individuals a very deep sense of gratitude.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate William Daley on his nomination to be Commerce Secretary of the United States. I believe his lifelong experience in the private sector and strong record of public service will provide him with an extraordinary range of skills that make him unquestionably qualified for this position. First, he will bring a business perspective to the Department of Commerce. From the insurance industry, to a law practice that specialized in international trade, to serving as president of the Amalgamated Bank, William Daley understands the needs of the private sector. As a special counsel to President Clinton during the debate over the North American Free-Trade Agreement, he also demonstrated an ability to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and was instrumental in securing its congressional approval. And finally, William Daley believes in the responsibility of the Department of Commerce to enhance the competitiveness of American companies in the global marketplace. He knows that our economy cannot grow without the strength of new ideas and a lasting commitment to the risk takers who develop them. As a successful businessman and a dedicated public servant, I am confident that William Daley will build on the legacy of Mickey Kantor and the late Ron Brown, whose tireless efforts created countless new opportunities for American companies around the world. As Commerce Secretary, William Daley will be an energetic promoter of our business interests, a skilled negotiator in opening new markets, and a visionary who believes in the value of researching and developing new products and ideas. I look forward to working with him in advancing the interests of the American business community in the years ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to provide equitable treatment under the tax law for farmers and ranchers who are forced to sell their livestock prematurely due to extreme weather conditions. I am joined in this effort by Senators Johnson, Conrad, Dorgan, Baucus, and Harkin. The last few weeks have seen the most extreme winter weather of the century in the upper Midwest. Prolonged sub-zero temperatures and back- to-back blizzards continue to devastate herds of cattle and other livestock. An estimated 50,000 cattle have died since the beginning of the year, and countless thousands of other head of livestock are under extreme stress. The President declared the region a national disaster area on January 10. A few summers ago, Midwestern States suffered severe floods, which devastated lives and property along these States' rivers and shorelines. President Clinton responded quickly by providing disaster assistance, $2.5 billion, including $1 billion for agriculture, in emergency aid to flooded areas in the Midwest. In addition to receiving disaster payments, many farmers were able to take advantage of provisions in the Internal Revenue Code designed primarily to spread out the impact of taxes on farmers in these situations. Ironically, however, while farmers who lose their crops due to floods are covered under these provisions, farmers who must involuntarily sell livestock due to flood and other extreme weather conditions, are not. Normally, a taxpayer who uses the cash method of accounting, as most farmers do, must report income in the year in which he or she actually receives the income. The Tax Code, however, outlines certain exceptions to this rule where disaster conditions generate income to the farmer that otherwise would not have been received at that time. For example, one exception allows farmers who receive insurance proceeds or disaster payments when crops are destroyed or damaged due to drought, flood, or any other natural disaster to include those proceeds in income in the year following the disaster, if that is when the income from the crops otherwise would have been received. Two other provisions deal with involuntary conversion of livestock. The first provision enables livestock producers who are forced to sell herds due to drought conditions to defer tax on any gain from these sales by reinvesting the proceeds in similar property within a 2-year period. The second provision allows livestock producers who choose not to reinvest in similar property to elect to include proceeds from the sale of the livestock in taxable income in the year following the sale. For no apparent reason, the two provisions dealing with livestock do not mention the situation where livestock is involuntarily sold due to flooding, blizzards, or other extreme conditions. Thus, these weather emergencies do not trigger the benefits of those provisions. Yet, many livestock producers are currently being compelled to sell livestock because they are under stress, just as they were forced to by the floods the other year to sell their animals because the crops necessary to feed the livestock and the fences for containing them had been washed out. Our proposal would expand the availability of the existing livestock tax provisions to include involuntary conversions of livestock due to flooding and other extreme, weather related conditions. This would conform the treatment of crops and livestock in this respect. Last Congress, I introduced this bill in the Senate as S. 109, and my colleague, Senator Johnson, introduced a companion measure in the House--H.R. 1588--when he was a Member of that body. Similar legislation was passed by Congress as part of the Revenue Act of 1992. Unfortunately, that legislation was subsequently vetoed for unrelated reasons. The Department of the Treasury testified in support of the change in the last Congress. In 1995, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the revenue loss from my bill to be $17 million over 6 years. Let me emphasize that the tax provisions we are dealing with here affect the timing of tax payments, not forgiveness of tax liability. The distinguished Governor of South Dakota, William Janklow, called me a few days ago and emphasized how important it would be for Congress to make this change as soon as possible. I hope my colleagues will agree that we should not shut out some farmers--livestock producers--from the disaster related provisions of the Tax Code simply because the natural disaster involved was severe winter conditions or a flood instead of a drought. That just doesn't make sense. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union have endorsed the bill. I urge my colleagues to give it favorable and early consideration. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to provide equitable treatment under the tax law for farmers and ranchers who are forced to sell their livestock prematurely due to extreme weather conditions. I am joined in this effort by Senators Johnson, Conrad, Dorgan, Baucus, and Harkin. The last few weeks have seen the most extreme winter weather of the century in the upper Midwest. Prolonged sub-zero temperatures and back- to-back blizzards continue to devastate herds of cattle and other livestock. An estimated 50,000 cattle have died since the beginning of the year, and countless thousands of other head of livestock are under extreme stress. The President declared the region a national disaster area on January 10. A few summers ago, Midwestern States suffered severe floods, which devastated lives and property along these States' rivers and shorelines. President Clinton responded quickly by providing disaster assistance, $2.5 billion, including $1 billion for agriculture, in emergency aid to flooded areas in the Midwest. In addition to receiving disaster payments, many farmers were able to take advantage of provisions in the Internal Revenue Code designed primarily to spread out the impact of taxes on farmers in these situations. Ironically, however, while farmers who lose their crops due to floods are covered under these provisions, farmers who must involuntarily sell livestock due to flood and other extreme weather conditions, are not. Normally, a taxpayer who uses the cash method of accounting, as most farmers do, must report income in the year in which he or she actually receives the income. The Tax Code, however, outlines certain exceptions to this rule where disaster conditions generate income to the farmer that otherwise would not have been received at that time. For example, one exception allows farmers who receive insurance proceeds or disaster payments when crops are destroyed or damaged due to drought, flood, or any other natural disaster to include those proceeds in income in the year following the disaster, if that is when the income from the crops otherwise would have been received. Two other provisions deal with involuntary conversion of livestock. The first provision enables livestock producers who are forced to sell herds due to drought conditions to defer tax on any gain from these sales by reinvesting the proceeds in similar property within a 2-year period. The second provision allows livestock producers who choose not to reinvest in similar property to elect to include proceeds from the sale of the livestock in taxable income in the year following the sale. For no apparent reason, the two provisions dealing with livestock do not mention the situation where livestock is involuntarily sold due to flooding, blizzards, or other extreme conditions. Thus, these weather emergencies do not trigger the benefits of those provisions. Yet, many livestock producers are currently being compelled to sell livestock because they are under stress, just as they were forced to by the floods the other year to sell their animals because the crops necessary to feed the livestock and the fences for containing them had been washed out. Our proposal would expand the availability of the existing livestock tax provisions to include involuntary conversions of livestock due to flooding and other extreme, weather related conditions. This would conform the treatment of crops and livestock in this respect. Last Congress, I introduced this bill in the Senate as S. 109, and my colleague, Senator Johnson, introduced a companion measure in the House--H.R. 1588--when he was a Member of that body. Similar legislation was passed by Congress as part of the Revenue Act of 1992. Unfortunately, that legislation was subsequently vetoed for unrelated reasons. The Department of the Treasury testified in support of the change in the last Congress. In 1995, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the revenue loss from my bill to be $17 million over 6 years. Let me emphasize that the tax provisions we are dealing with here affect the timing of tax payments, not forgiveness of tax liability. The distinguished Governor of South Dakota, William Janklow, called me a few days ago and emphasized how important it would be for Congress to make this change as soon as possible. I hope my colleagues will agree that we should not shut out some farmers--livestock producers--from the disaster related provisions of the Tax Code simply because the natural disaster involved was severe winter conditions or a flood instead of a drought. That just doesn't make sense. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union have endorsed the bill. I urge my colleagues to give it favorable and early consideration. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, two important pieces of international trade legislation. These bills are designed with one very simple, clear goal in mind: to secure fair trade opportunities for America's highly competitive producers of agricultural products. There is no more important sector of the U.S. economy than agriculture as far as international trade is concerned. Last year, the trade surplus in agricultural products reached $28.5 billion, the largest of any industry, including aircraft. This surplus offset to an important degree the Nation's large and persistent deficit in manufactured goods. Trade is vitally important to farmers. Production from more than one- third of harvested acreage is exported. Agricultural exports are important to the rest of the economy as well. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, each dollar generated by agricultural exports stimulates another $1.39 in supporting economic activity to produce those exports. Nearly every State exports farm products. Despite the obvious success American producers are enjoying in world markets, a closer look reveals that we could be doing far better. Judging from the annual surveys compiled by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, roughly half of all foreign trade barriers facing U.S. products are in the agricultural sector. This suggests that our overall merchandise trade deficit, which is estimated to total nearly $170 billion for 1996, could be considerably lower if we succeeded in removing more of these barriers. The recent Uruguay round took only the first, tentative steps toward devising effective and fair rules governing international agricultural trade. As our able negotiators would be the first to acknowledge, we have a long way to go. Although we made significant progress in subjecting export subsidies to international rules, the Uruguay round secured only modest commitments by governments to open their markets and administer food health and safety standards fairly. In the long run, the fairness of world trade in agricultural products will depend on how aggressively and systematically the U.S. Government insists on compliance by foreign governments with their existing commitments and presses them for new ones. The two bills we introduce today will improve our ability to meet this challenge both institutionally and with respect to one specific, immediate problem regarding the European Union. Passage of this legislation will help to assure farmers and their communities that trade liberalization remains in their interest as much in practice as in theory. the Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997 The first bill, the Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997, would improve our institutional capacity to set priorities among the vast array of foreign agricultural trade barriers we face and give those priorities the high-level attention they deserve within the executive branch. In so doing, it would provide our negotiators with an important new tool with which to increase their leverage in consultations with foreign governments. The bill would create a ``Special 301'' procedure for value-added agricultural products virtually identical to that which currently exists for intellectual property products. It would require the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] each year to designate as ``priority countries'' those trading partners having the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices resulting in the greatest adverse impact-- actual or potential--on U.S. value-added agricultural products. The USTR would be required to initiate a section 301 investigation within 30 days after the identification of a priority foreign country with respect to any act, policy, or practice that was the basis of the identification, unless the USTR determines initiation of the investigation would be detrimental to U.S. economic interests and reports the reasons in detail to Congress. The procedural and other requirements of section 301 authority would generally apply to these cases with the important exception that investigations, and negotiations must be concluded and determinations made on whether the measures are actionable within 6 months, as opposed to 12 or 18 months for conventional section 301 cases. This 6-month deadline may be extended to 9 months if certain criteria are met. USTR may choose not to designate a country as a priority foreign country if it is entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide fair and equitable access to its markets. According to the Congressional Research Service, agriculture as a whole is the largest positive contributor to the U.S. trade balance, and exports of value-added products--intermediate products such as wheat flour, feedstuffs, and vegetable oils or consumer-ready products such as meats--have recently become the largest component of our agricultural trade. In fiscal year 1996, these higher value exports accounted for $32 billion, or 54 percent by value, of all such exports. It is no wonder that U.S. value-added agriculture is making such gains. Our farmers have worked hard to increase their value-added production, and they should be proud of what they have accomplished. Unfortunately, they are being denied the full fruits of their labors by a varied and complex array of market restrictions in many foreign countries. Notwithstanding the progress made in the Uruguay round, many foreign governments maintain considerably stricter limits on U.S. products than we do on theirs. In addition, even as formal barriers fall or become more transparent as a result of the Uruguay round, new and informal trade barriers often take their place. These may take the form of arbitrary sanitary and phytosanitary measures that ignore sound principles of science and globally accepted food safety and inspection standards. In the past few years alone, United States sausages have been denied entry to Korea because the Korean Government imposed arbitrary and unscientific shelf-life standards on imported sausages; the European Union has banned U.S. beef treated with natural hormones even though scientists from Europe and around the world have declared natural- hormone-treated beef to be safe; and, high-value U.S. pork products cannot be exported to Europe because European meat inspectors require U.S. slaughter and packing plants to meet standards that even their own producers cannot meet. These are but a few examples of the barriers to entry facing U.S. producers of value-added farm products. The unfortunate result is that our farmers are being prevented from realizing their full export potential. The Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that U.S. agricultural exports are reduced by $4.7 billion annually due to unjustifiable sanitary and phytosanitary measures alone. Imagine the impact on farm income, rural communities, and the U.S. economy if these barriers were removed. The Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997 will bring added focus to this set of issues within the trade policymaking machinery of the U.S. Government. We have a strong inter-agency team of trade negotiators and analysts; over the years, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, it has been one of the most efficient operations anywhere in the Federal Government. However, the USTR and its support agencies confront an almost overwhelming variety of demands and challenges. They currently are deeply involved in several very ambitious multilateral trade negotiations or preparations for them, including free trade arrangements in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific rim, NAFTA expansion, and WTO agreements on high-technology products and telecommunications equipment and services. The sheer number and complexity of the issues confronting the USTR make priority-setting one of USTR's most important responsibilities. With so much attention now on visionary multilateral initiatives, we must take care not to lose sight of two other practical aspects of trade policy: our bilateral efforts to improve market access and our responsibility to ensure that governments comply with the agreements they have already signed with us, be they multilateral or bilateral. These two aspects of U.S. trade policy are particularly important to the agricultural community, which, as I have emphasized, is second to none in terms of our international commercial prospects. As my colleague, Senator Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, knows well, Congress holds a major share of the responsibility, indeed prerogative, for setting U.S. trade policy. It is explicitly assigned that power under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Our bill would exercise this authority to institutionalize an appropriate degree of attention on agriculture in U.S. trade policy. U.S. agriculture traditionally has been one of the strongest of any segment of the economy in its support for multilateral trade liberalization, including the negotiation of free trade agreements. Yet, in talking to individual farmers in my State as well as their national representatives, I have the impression that the strength of American agriculture's future support for such initiatives will hinge on how well our Government performs in these areas of our bilateral trade relations. Indeed, I believe that adroit use by the USTR of the procedures established by this bill would enhance our chance of achieving new multilateral rules for agriculture in the next negotiating round of the World Trade Organization in the same way that creation of ``Special 301'' by Congress in 1988 created leverage and momentum for our negotiators in the run-up to the adoption of intellectual property rules in the Uruguay round. Fair Trade in Meat and Meat Products Act of 1997 The second bill we are introducing today addresses one specific, egregious barrier to U.S. value-added agricultural exports: the European Union's [EU] continuing refusal to implement a commitment it made in 1992 to treat our food safety and inspection standards as roughly equivalent in effectiveness to their own. This procedural form of protectionism has shut American exports of pork and beef out of the European market. The loss of this lucrative market has contributed to the severe drop in cattle prices in this country and deprived American pork producers of an estimated $60 million in sales last year. By any objective standard, U.S. meat products are among the most competitive in the world and represent one of the most promising areas of growth for American trade. On November 1, 1990, the European Union prohibited imports of U.S. pork and beef on the grounds that our products did not comply with the safety and inspection requirements of the EU's Third Country Meat Directive [TCD]. The prohibition was imposed despite the fact that the requirements of the TCD are largely similar to those already mandated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As a result, American pork and beef exports to the European Union virtually ceased. Following this action, the industry filed and the Bush administration accepted a petition under section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. After USTR concluded preliminarily that the EU's administration of the TCD imposed a burden and restriction on U.S. commerce, the EU agreed to resolve the dispute in an exchange of letters that came to be known as the 1992 Meat Agreement. At the time, U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills noted that the practices of the European Union would have been actionable under section 301 absent the 1992 agreement and would become so again if the European Union violated its terms. Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the European Union has done just that. The 1992 Meat Agreement outlined a specific series of steps that American producers could take to become eligible for export to the European Union, and concluded that the inspection systems of the United States and European Union provided ``equivalent safeguards against public health risks.'' The GATT Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures corroborated this finding and required the European Union to treat USDA inspection requirements as equivalent to its own. Five years later, after millions of dollars in investment by American producers to meet the terms of the 1992 Meat Agreement, only a handful of American plants have been recertified for export to the European Union. Plants managers report that inspections for certification have not been conducted in an objective or transparent manner, and the European Union has failed to acknowledge changes enacted specifically at its request. The cost of this unjustified action has been millions of dollars in lost sales to American pork and beef producers. The administration has been more than patient with the European Union, consulting with its diplomats for many months. In my view, the time for waiting has ended. The European Union must tear down its walls and give our farmers and ranchers the level playing field they were promised. Indeed, in just the last few weeks, the European Union has been considering yet another change in animal product approval procedures that would block an additional $1 billion in agricultural exports to the European Union. This action was taken despite the fact that the United States has been working in good faith for over 2 years on a veterinary equivalence agreement that would accommodate European Union concerns. Simply put, it is time to send the European Union a clear message that we will not stand by while they ignore their obligations. For this reason, Senator Grassley and I are introducing legislation to require the USTR to determine formally whether the European Union has violated its international obligations, seek prompt initiation of the relevant international dispute settlement proceedings, and review our certification of their meat exporting facilities. This is a straightforward response to a blatant breach of faith on the part of the European Union. The bill sends a clear message that trade is a two- way street, and procedural protectionism is every bit as unacceptable as traditional market barriers like discriminatory quotas and tariffs. Mr. President, we have consulted with the USTR and Department of Agriculture as we have drafted the legislation, and I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the administration is fast coming to an appreciation of the need for the type of action prescribed by the bill. Last week, it notified the European Union via telex that, absent a resolution of this issue, as of April 1, 1997, all European Union meat and meat product exports will have to ``specifically adhere to and meet U.S. regulatory standards.'' Moreover, ``Any plant in the member states of the European Unionropean Union which desires to ship meat, meat products, poultry, or poultry products to the United States will have to be inspected by officials of the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and be certified before it is eligible to ship to market.'' I am pleased that the administration is headed in the direction prescribed by our bill. I call on my colleagues to support this legislation as well as the value-added agricultural products market access bill as a way to reinforce our Government's emerging stance on this immediate problem and ensure that similar problems in the future receive the serious and timely attention they deserve.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Dorgan and others in introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The amendment we are offering is identical to the one scheduled for markup in Judiciary Committee with one essential difference: Our amendment would protect Social Security by prohibiting the counting of Social Security trust funds toward balancing the budget. The amendment to be considered in Judiciary Committee is likely to be the same as the one offered last year. It simply requires a balanced budget by a date certain without any consideration of the effect that it would have on Social Security. We offered the amendment we are introducing today as an alternative in the last Congress. If the proponents of the Republican leadership amendment had accepted this single change, the amendment would have been sent to the States 2 years ago with resounding bipartisan support. Instead, they insisted on an amendment that in the year it claims to balance the budget will actually have a $104 billion deficit, masked by Social Security trust funds. We believe to enshrine the practice of using Social Security funds as a part of the calculation for a balanced budget is just wrong. So our amendment would simply delete the Social Security trust funds from the calculations in determining whether the budget is balanced. It would ensure that, for all perpetuity, Social Security will not be abused again to balance the budget. Therefore, again this year, we will offer a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that maintains a firewall between Social Security and rest of budget. Why must Congress exclude Social Security? Looking back on the history of the program, it becomes clear that to do otherwise would perpetuate a massive fraud on the American taxpayer. In 1977, and again in 1983, Congress took bold steps to shore up Social Security with major legislation to restore solvency to the program. The intention was to forward fund the anticipated retirement needs of future generations, especially the large cohort of so-called baby boomers. The result was successful in terms of generating large surpluses. This year alone, the Government collects $72 billion more than it pays in benefits. Since 1983, the trust funds have developed reserves of over $550 billion. This experiment has been far less successful than intended in terms of setting those surpluses aside. Instead of being saved to meet the retirement needs of future generations, the surplus revenues are being spent as soon as they are collected to finance the deficits being run up in the rest of the budget. In other words, Social Security payroll taxes of hard-working Americans are being used to pay for programs having absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. Mr. President, this practice must end. Congress should balance the budget without counting Social Security so that those reserves will be there when they are needed. Consider the magnitude of this problem. Over the next 6 years, by 2002, surpluses will total $525 billion. In 2002, when the budget supposedly balances, Congress will rely on $104 billion in Social Security revenues. Raiding the trust funds borrows from the future and places the burden on our children and grandchildren. Congress must not enshrine this practice in the Constitution. If we adopt a balanced budget amendment without excluding Social Security, it would have the effect of reversing an earlier decision by Congress to take the program off-budget. In 1990, the Senate voted 98 to 2 for an amendment by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] to take Social Security off-budget. The amendment proposed in the Judiciary Committee this year breaks that promise: Social Security could be used to pay for any other spending Congress chooses. If we do not properly craft a balanced budget amendment, the retirement security of today's workers and future retirees will be at risk. By 2020, the trust fund reserves will total about $3 trillion. At that time, however, when those reserves are needed, two circumstances will make them unavailable. First, unless we balance the budget not counting Social Security and actually build real reserves, no funds will be available in the future to draw down. Second, and equally importantly, if Social Security outlays are counted under a balanced budget amendment, any funds that are paid out from a reserve will have to be offset in the same year with other tax increases or spending cuts. Mr. President, this second point deserves emphasis. Unless Social Security is exempted from a balanced budget amendment, the reserves now accumulating through the tax contributions of America's work force will not be available as promised for retirees. The balanced budget amendment would make a mockery of the supposed reason for the high payroll taxes currently endured by today's workers. Even if those funds were saved as they should be, they could not be used to pay for Social Security benefits in the future. Thus, the balanced budget amendment proposed in the Judiciary Committee condones the continued reliance on payroll taxes to finance general government expenditures. Keep in mind that Social Security is funded by a 12.4-percent payroll tax. It is collected only on the first $62,700 of income. This arrangement forces low- and moderate-income taxpayers to pay a larger share of their income than higher-income taxpayers. These taxes are justified by the progressive nature of Social Security benefits. However, this rationale would be eviscerated by enactment of the proposed balanced budget amendment. It would absolutely prevent these surplus payroll tax collections from being used for their intended purpose. Mr. President, 58 percent of taxpayers pay more Social Security than income taxes. These workers, and indeed all American taxpayers, reject the systematic abuse of dedicated payroll taxes for purposes other than Social Security. We should stop playing with fire regarding the future of the Social Security system. Congress should not approve an amendment to the Constitution that threatens Social Security's future and makes a mockery of the financing system it has put in place. If Congress votes on our version of the balanced budget amendment, it will be approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would be the appropriate note with which to begin the 105th Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, two important pieces of international trade legislation. These bills are designed with one very simple, clear goal in mind: to secure fair trade opportunities for America's highly competitive producers of agricultural products. There is no more important sector of the U.S. economy than agriculture as far as international trade is concerned. Last year, the trade surplus in agricultural products reached $28.5 billion, the largest of any industry, including aircraft. This surplus offset to an important degree the Nation's large and persistent deficit in manufactured goods. Trade is vitally important to farmers. Production from more than one- third of harvested acreage is exported. Agricultural exports are important to the rest of the economy as well. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, each dollar generated by agricultural exports stimulates another $1.39 in supporting economic activity to produce those exports. Nearly every State exports farm products. Despite the obvious success American producers are enjoying in world markets, a closer look reveals that we could be doing far better. Judging from the annual surveys compiled by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, roughly half of all foreign trade barriers facing U.S. products are in the agricultural sector. This suggests that our overall merchandise trade deficit, which is estimated to total nearly $170 billion for 1996, could be considerably lower if we succeeded in removing more of these barriers. The recent Uruguay round took only the first, tentative steps toward devising effective and fair rules governing international agricultural trade. As our able negotiators would be the first to acknowledge, we have a long way to go. Although we made significant progress in subjecting export subsidies to international rules, the Uruguay round secured only modest commitments by governments to open their markets and administer food health and safety standards fairly. In the long run, the fairness of world trade in agricultural products will depend on how aggressively and systematically the U.S. Government insists on compliance by foreign governments with their existing commitments and presses them for new ones. The two bills we introduce today will improve our ability to meet this challenge both institutionally and with respect to one specific, immediate problem regarding the European Union. Passage of this legislation will help to assure farmers and their communities that trade liberalization remains in their interest as much in practice as in theory. the Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997 The first bill, the Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997, would improve our institutional capacity to set priorities among the vast array of foreign agricultural trade barriers we face and give those priorities the high-level attention they deserve within the executive branch. In so doing, it would provide our negotiators with an important new tool with which to increase their leverage in consultations with foreign governments. The bill would create a ``Special 301'' procedure for value-added agricultural products virtually identical to that which currently exists for intellectual property products. It would require the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] each year to designate as ``priority countries'' those trading partners having the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices resulting in the greatest adverse impact-- actual or potential--on U.S. value-added agricultural products. The USTR would be required to initiate a section 301 investigation within 30 days after the identification of a priority foreign country with respect to any act, policy, or practice that was the basis of the identification, unless the USTR determines initiation of the investigation would be detrimental to U.S. economic interests and reports the reasons in detail to Congress. The procedural and other requirements of section 301 authority would generally apply to these cases with the important exception that investigations, and negotiations must be concluded and determinations made on whether the measures are actionable within 6 months, as opposed to 12 or 18 months for conventional section 301 cases. This 6-month deadline may be extended to 9 months if certain criteria are met. USTR may choose not to designate a country as a priority foreign country if it is entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide fair and equitable access to its markets. According to the Congressional Research Service, agriculture as a whole is the largest positive contributor to the U.S. trade balance, and exports of value-added products--intermediate products such as wheat flour, feedstuffs, and vegetable oils or consumer-ready products such as meats--have recently become the largest component of our agricultural trade. In fiscal year 1996, these higher value exports accounted for $32 billion, or 54 percent by value, of all such exports. It is no wonder that U.S. value-added agriculture is making such gains. Our farmers have worked hard to increase their value-added production, and they should be proud of what they have accomplished. Unfortunately, they are being denied the full fruits of their labors by a varied and complex array of market restrictions in many foreign countries. Notwithstanding the progress made in the Uruguay round, many foreign governments maintain considerably stricter limits on U.S. products than we do on theirs. In addition, even as formal barriers fall or become more transparent as a result of the Uruguay round, new and informal trade barriers often take their place. These may take the form of arbitrary sanitary and phytosanitary measures that ignore sound principles of science and globally accepted food safety and inspection standards. In the past few years alone, United States sausages have been denied entry to Korea because the Korean Government imposed arbitrary and unscientific shelf-life standards on imported sausages; the European Union has banned U.S. beef treated with natural hormones even though scientists from Europe and around the world have declared natural- hormone-treated beef to be safe; and, high-value U.S. pork products cannot be exported to Europe because European meat inspectors require U.S. slaughter and packing plants to meet standards that even their own producers cannot meet. These are but a few examples of the barriers to entry facing U.S. producers of value-added farm products. The unfortunate result is that our farmers are being prevented from realizing their full export potential. The Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that U.S. agricultural exports are reduced by $4.7 billion annually due to unjustifiable sanitary and phytosanitary measures alone. Imagine the impact on farm income, rural communities, and the U.S. economy if these barriers were removed. The Value-Added Agricultural Market Access Act of 1997 will bring added focus to this set of issues within the trade policymaking machinery of the U.S. Government. We have a strong inter-agency team of trade negotiators and analysts; over the years, through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, it has been one of the most efficient operations anywhere in the Federal Government. However, the USTR and its support agencies confront an almost overwhelming variety of demands and challenges. They currently are deeply involved in several very ambitious multilateral trade negotiations or preparations for them, including free trade arrangements in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific rim, NAFTA expansion, and WTO agreements on high-technology products and telecommunications equipment and services. The sheer number and complexity of the issues confronting the USTR make priority-setting one of USTR's most important responsibilities. With so much attention now on visionary multilateral initiatives, we must take care not to lose sight of two other practical aspects of trade policy: our bilateral efforts to improve market access and our responsibility to ensure that governments comply with the agreements they have already signed with us, be they multilateral or bilateral. These two aspects of U.S. trade policy are particularly important to the agricultural community, which, as I have emphasized, is second to none in terms of our international commercial prospects. As my colleague, Senator Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, knows well, Congress holds a major share of the responsibility, indeed prerogative, for setting U.S. trade policy. It is explicitly assigned that power under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Our bill would exercise this authority to institutionalize an appropriate degree of attention on agriculture in U.S. trade policy. U.S. agriculture traditionally has been one of the strongest of any segment of the economy in its support for multilateral trade liberalization, including the negotiation of free trade agreements. Yet, in talking to individual farmers in my State as well as their national representatives, I have the impression that the strength of American agriculture's future support for such initiatives will hinge on how well our Government performs in these areas of our bilateral trade relations. Indeed, I believe that adroit use by the USTR of the procedures established by this bill would enhance our chance of achieving new multilateral rules for agriculture in the next negotiating round of the World Trade Organization in the same way that creation of ``Special 301'' by Congress in 1988 created leverage and momentum for our negotiators in the run-up to the adoption of intellectual property rules in the Uruguay round. Fair Trade in Meat and Meat Products Act of 1997 The second bill we are introducing today addresses one specific, egregious barrier to U.S. value-added agricultural exports: the European Union's [EU] continuing refusal to implement a commitment it made in 1992 to treat our food safety and inspection standards as roughly equivalent in effectiveness to their own. This procedural form of protectionism has shut American exports of pork and beef out of the European market. The loss of this lucrative market has contributed to the severe drop in cattle prices in this country and deprived American pork producers of an estimated $60 million in sales last year. By any objective standard, U.S. meat products are among the most competitive in the world and represent one of the most promising areas of growth for American trade. On November 1, 1990, the European Union prohibited imports of U.S. pork and beef on the grounds that our products did not comply with the safety and inspection requirements of the EU's Third Country Meat Directive [TCD]. The prohibition was imposed despite the fact that the requirements of the TCD are largely similar to those already mandated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As a result, American pork and beef exports to the European Union virtually ceased. Following this action, the industry filed and the Bush administration accepted a petition under section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. After USTR concluded preliminarily that the EU's administration of the TCD imposed a burden and restriction on U.S. commerce, the EU agreed to resolve the dispute in an exchange of letters that came to be known as the 1992 Meat Agreement. At the time, U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills noted that the practices of the European Union would have been actionable under section 301 absent the 1992 agreement and would become so again if the European Union violated its terms. Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the European Union has done just that. The 1992 Meat Agreement outlined a specific series of steps that American producers could take to become eligible for export to the European Union, and concluded that the inspection systems of the United States and European Union provided ``equivalent safeguards against public health risks.'' The GATT Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures corroborated this finding and required the European Union to treat USDA inspection requirements as equivalent to its own. Five years later, after millions of dollars in investment by American producers to meet the terms of the 1992 Meat Agreement, only a handful of American plants have been recertified for export to the European Union. Plants managers report that inspections for certification have not been conducted in an objective or transparent manner, and the European Union has failed to acknowledge changes enacted specifically at its request. The cost of this unjustified action has been millions of dollars in lost sales to American pork and beef producers. The administration has been more than patient with the European Union, consulting with its diplomats for many months. In my view, the time for waiting has ended. The European Union must tear down its walls and give our farmers and ranchers the level playing field they were promised. Indeed, in just the last few weeks, the European Union has been considering yet another change in animal product approval procedures that would block an additional $1 billion in agricultural exports to the European Union. This action was taken despite the fact that the United States has been working in good faith for over 2 years on a veterinary equivalence agreement that would accommodate European Union concerns. Simply put, it is time to send the European Union a clear message that we will not stand by while they ignore their obligations. For this reason, Senator Grassley and I are introducing legislation to require the USTR to determine formally whether the European Union has violated its international obligations, seek prompt initiation of the relevant international dispute settlement proceedings, and review our certification of their meat exporting facilities. This is a straightforward response to a blatant breach of faith on the part of the European Union. The bill sends a clear message that trade is a two- way street, and procedural protectionism is every bit as unacceptable as traditional market barriers like discriminatory quotas and tariffs. Mr. President, we have consulted with the USTR and Department of Agriculture as we have drafted the legislation, and I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the administration is fast coming to an appreciation of the need for the type of action prescribed by the bill. Last week, it notified the European Union via telex that, absent a resolution of this issue, as of April 1, 1997, all European Union meat and meat product exports will have to ``specifically adhere to and meet U.S. regulatory standards.'' Moreover, ``Any plant in the member states of the European Unionropean Union which desires to ship meat, meat products, poultry, or poultry products to the United States will have to be inspected by officials of the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and be certified before it is eligible to ship to market.'' I am pleased that the administration is headed in the direction prescribed by our bill. I call on my colleagues to support this legislation as well as the value-added agricultural products market access bill as a way to reinforce our Government's emerging stance on this immediate problem and ensure that similar problems in the future receive the serious and timely attention they deserve.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we recognize the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as Juneteenth Independence Day. It was only on this day that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Since that time, for over 130 years, the descendants of slaves have celebrated this day in honor of the many unfortunate people who lived and suffered under slavery. Their suffering can never be repaired, but their memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. We commemorate Juneteenth Independence Day to honor the struggles of these slaves and former slaves, to acknowledge their suffering and so that we may never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history. But this day and this joint resolution in honor of the end of slavery should also make us feel proud, proud that we as a nation have come so far toward advancing the goals of freedom and justice for all of our citizens. While we must continue ever forward in the search for justice, we should be thankful that the tireless efforts of vigilant Americans have enabled us to achieve a society built on democratic principles and the recognition that all men and women are created equal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate must bid farewell to a great group of young people who served as U.S. Senate pages during the fall semester. These young men and women from across the country witnessed history during their service to the Senate. Among other things, this class of pages saw the inauguration of President Clinton, the first Democrat to be reelected President since Franklin Roosevelt. They also were here for the confirmation of the first woman to become Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright. These pages witnessed the final weeks of Senate service of our colleagues who retired at the end of the 104th Congress, many giants of the Senate among them. In the last few weeks, they also saw the swearing in, the first speeches, and the first votes of our new freshmen Senators, any one of whom may be a Senate giant of the future. Having seen our debates and deliberations up close, this group of pages will take away from here many memories and valuable learning experiences. But they also should take with them our gratitude for everything they have done for us and recognition for a job well done. Mr. President, a page's life is not easy. They are up before dawn, at page school at 6:15, then here in the Senate for the rest of the day. While they are here, their duties run the gamut. They help set up the Chamber, deliver messages all over the Capitol complex, help things work here on the Senate floor, and pack up the Chamber at the end of the day. Then, it is back to the dorm for homework, a little down time, and a little sleep before they wake up and do it again the next day. On behalf of all Democratic Senators, I would like to thank the following Democratic pages for all their hard work and contributions to the Senate: Rachel Bravman of Massachusetts; Cameron Crow of South Dakota; Taylor Fitzgerald of Montana; Lewis Golden of Mississippi; Amy Kitzmiller of Vermont; Amanda McMenamin of Maryland; Kevin McMillan of California; Melissa Schultz of New Mexico; Kathryn Sheldon of Wisconsin; Nathan Sydnor of Virginia; William Wright of Maryland; and Nathan Zukas of Wisconsin. I hope that each member of this page class takes back to his or her home State a better understanding of how this government works and a better appreciation of the need to work together to achieve a common goal. These young people are our future leaders. Measured by their brief service here in the U.S. Senate, we can all feel confident about our country's future. Perhaps someday, one or more of them will return as Members of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.