Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Leland ``Lee'' Schoenhard, a good friend and one of the most charitable men South Dakota has ever known. At the age of 4, Lee Schoenhard moved with his family to South Dakota in 1924. At the young age of 17, he moved to Chamberlain, SD, to begin a career in farming. He would change careers often in life. At different times, he made a living in the construction, trucking, and the lumber businesses. In 1965, he built and opened Lee's Motor Inn, a 60-unit motel that is still one of the finest places to stay in Central South Dakota. From 1973 to 1977, he owned and operated the Missouri Valley Grain Co. as well as a feed lot in central South Dakota that fed over 80,000 cattle. Lee's hard work and keen sense of business turned almost every opportunity he encountered into a success. Despite having attained only a sixth grade education, he became one of the most successful and wealthy businessmen in the State of South Dakota. But, Lee Schoenhard's wealth extended far beyond his earnings. After he passed away last month, Lee was remembered, not as a man of riches but rather as a man of compassion, and the fond recollections of the people he helped will forever remain the most powerful public statement that can be made about his life. People will remember him driving over 18,000 miles in 4 months to raise money for a hospital in Lyman County. They will remember the 22 carloads of scrap iron and the 500 carloads of wheat straw that he bought and delivered to the Army for material purposes in World War II. They will remember the $9,000 he gave every year in scholarships for area school children, and the $1 million foundation he created to fund community projects in his hometown and surrounding areas. Through these and other numerous gifts, his wealth will continue to help South Dakotans into the next century, and it is in these acts of kindness that the memory of Lee Schoenhard will continue to live. I will remember Lee Schoenhard as a dear friend, and can truly say he was among the wisest and most caring men I have known. He embodied the South Dakota spirit with a kind and honest heart, and we will all miss him greatly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we might want to bring it up under regular order. I am told, just now, we may have amendments to the legislation. So that might be the most appropriate vehicle.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is the first time we have had the opportunity to see this unanimous-consent request. Ordinarily, we are given unanimous-consent requests ahead of time so we can check with our colleagues. No one has given us this unanimous consent request. So, in order to clear it with our colleagues, I object at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, usually we do these things leader to leader. I will be happy to talk to Senator Thomas about the legislative calendar, or I might be able to talk to other Members of the Senate Republican caucus, but I prefer to deal with the majority leader. I think we ought to see the reciprocal here. I have not had a chance to see it or check with my colleagues. Until that happens, nothing is going to get done on this side.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am informed that that is the commitment he was looking for. On that basis, I think we would be prepared to move to that particular piece of legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader raises the question on the floor, so I think it is important that I again reiterate to him for the Record that there was absolutely no desire on my part to avoid doing business, whatever the business may be. There are obviously some very serious questions that the distinguished Senators from Nevada have attempted to raise in light of their concern on nuclear waste. But at no time have I instructed members of our caucus that they should feel free to leave. Our desire is to get some work done, regardless of whether we make a great deal of progress or not, at least to be here to try to get the work done. I have emphasized that. I cautioned them not to leave because there could be votes either tonight or tomorrow. I reiterate that statement now, as I did this afternoon in our Democratic policy committee. So I think that point ought to be very clear to everybody. I hope we can put that rumor to rest once and for all.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, responding to the distinguished majority leader, we have consulted with the senior Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn. It is my understanding that, on the assumption that we can insert in the Record at the time of the consideration of H.R. 2337 a colloquy between Senators Roth and Glenn concerning confidentiality of records, I think we would be prepared to move the taxpayers bill of rights. That is assuming, of course--and the distinguished majority leader has been very good about moving these judges and keeping them ahead, but I would like to do that as well today if we could.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, let me begin by saying the distinguished majority leader made comments about how nice it would be to have regular order. I would just note for the Record that the first two unanimous consents were not in keeping with regular order. There is nothing regular about asking unanimous consent with a predetermined procedure. Regular order is to take up a bill and deal with it. With regard to the health insurance reform conferees, for the reasons I have already stated on the Record just moments ago, we object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since 1993 the James River has flooded nearly 3 million acres of valuable farmland in my State. This flooding has cost South Dakota producers millions of dollars in lost revenue and greatly diminished the value of their land by washing away valuable topsoil. Clearly, the extreme wet conditions of the last 4 years have contributed to these floods. However, Mother Nature does not bear sole responsibility for the flooding. The problem has been exacerbated by the James River management policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. President, it is unfair and unacceptable to ask producers to continue to bear economic losses that could be mitigated by a more reasonable corps river management policy. In recognition of this fact, I recently introduced legislation that, among other things, would ensure that South Dakotans are included in the revision process of the Jamestown dam and Pipestem dam operations manuals. By assuring consideration of down river interests in South Dakota, this legislation would provide landowners along the James River with a measure of security against future high water flows and induce the Federal Government to assume greater responsibility for the damaging effects of its river management policies. Specifically, this legislation would give landowners the opportunity to sell easements on their land to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if they so desire. Local producers who wish to grant these easements not only will be reimbursed for the loss of productivity on their flooded land, but also will retain their haying and grazing rights. Thus, the land will continue to provide value to farmers in relatively dry years. Those who do not wish to grant the corps these easements will be under no obligation to do so. It was my intention to attach this legislation to the Water Resources Development Act, which was developed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. While receptive to this approach, the committee expressed its desire to allow the corps to examine a range of solutions, including structural and nonstructural efforts, to reduce the flooding and/or mitigate the damage suffered by landowners. I appreciate the desire to examine all options before settling on a final solution, as long as this evaluation is accomplished in a reasonable period of time and includes a review of the use of easements. During committee deliberations, Senator Pressler objected to the inclusion of language explicitly directing the corps to evaluate the purchase of easements from willing sellers. While I would have preferred to include such language in the bill, the compromise provision directs the corps to examine all options, including the purchase of easements from willing sellers. It is my expectation and understanding that the corps will assess the feasibility of allowing South Dakotans to sell easements, and thus gain some financial relief, as one means of mitigating the damage caused by the flooding, as part of its evaluation of structural and nonstructural solutions to the flooding and its associated damage. The Water Resources Development Act should set in motion a process that will lead to the corps providing relief to landowners affected by the frequent flooding of the James River in South Dakota. This problem will only be solved through a number of actions, including, I hope, both allowing the landowners along the river to sell easements to the corps and changing the overall management of the Jamestown and Pipestem dams. I will continue to urge the corps to take seriously the concerns of South Dakotans as this process continues.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, now the majority leader knows why they pay him much more now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I find all these unanimous consent requests intriguing, given the eloquent comments made by the distinguished majority leader about how wonderful it would be to have regular order. This is not regular order. As I have indicated to the majority leader, we have amendments we would like to offer to this bill, and to several of the other pieces of legislation he is propounding today. So obviously we have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to make a statement on behalf of my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Senator Murray is unable to attend today's session of the Senate, because she has been called away to participate in very important national business. She is charting the course of Democratic priorities for the balance of this century, and into the next, as part of a distinguished group of 16 Americans meeting today to write the National Democratic platform on which the President and all of us will run this fall. As a person who came to public service as an outsider, with a message of commonsense middle class values, Senator Murray is uniquely qualified to make sure the 1996 National Democratic Platform reflects the hopes and dreams and concerns of all Americans. Her priority is making modern Government policies relevant to families in particular, including workers, young parents, senior citizens, and all people looking to work hard, get ahead, and live the American dream. I speak for all my colleagues on this side in saying that we are grateful for her leadership, and we take comfort in knowing she is bringing an important personal touch to our national agenda. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say two things. First, reference was made to the fact that the Democratic caucus--and those of us who are concerned about going to conference on health care also--oppose going to conference on the minimum wage. That was not the case. We do not oppose going to conference on the minimum wage. The unanimous consent was propounded in a way that combined the two, and, obviously, under those circumstances, we oppose. I am pleased to hear the distinguished majority leader's comments that it is his desire to go to conference next week, and I am hopeful that on both these issues they can be resolved. The second issue has to do again with the conferees. I do not want to be any more repetitive than he is. But since we tend to be repetitive on the floor to make our points, it is important again that I indicate our desire to be participants in conferences. We will be watching this Coast Guard conference very carefully because that will really be one of the prototypes. We are under new leadership now. It is my expectation that with new leadership there will be a new opportunity for bipartisan discussion, dialog, and resolution when it comes to the conference. This will be a good opportunity to demonstrate our good faith. I am hopeful that with that one over, we can move to others and see equal demonstrations of good faith and real bipartisanship in conferences. I have a feeling we will not have this conference problem in the future were that to be the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield. As I understand it, we have three amendments that may be offered by one of the members of our caucus. At this point, he would like to be protected to offer those at the appropriate time.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, they are germane amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Absolutely. If the majority leader will yield. I was not aware amendments were pending. As we tried to clear it, we were told that at least one Member--I think it is only one Member--has amendments. He said there were three. We would be happy to share them with you. He may be willing to agree to time agreements in an effort to expedite the situation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today several colleagues and I are introducing the Cattle Industry Improvement Act of 1996. This legislation addresses the deep concern of cattle, hog, and sheep producers across the Nation that the livestock industry does not operate in a free and open market. Livestock producers, especially cattle producers, are receiving the lowest prices in recent memory. Producers can barely make ends meet, let alone make a profit. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act is a fair, substantive bill which offers commonsense solutions to problems that have plagued the livestock industry for a long time. For the last 2 years the issue of livestock concentration has been the No. 1 agricultural issue in South Dakota, even exceeding interest in the farm bill. Livestock concentration and low cattle prices do not just affect farmers and ranchers in my State. The impact is felt by the entire economy of South Dakota, affecting people who live in cities, towns, and rural communities alike. A recession in the cattle industry has a ripple effect throughout the entire State the consequences of which are potentially devastating. Farm foreclosures, job layoffs by agriculture related businesses and bank failures are all likely if cattle prices do not rebound in the immediate future. I began the effort to address the issue of livestock concentration last year with the introduction of legislation creating a livestock commission to review the impact of packer concentration. This bill was a bipartisan effort that passed the Senate but was blocked in the House. Fortunately, Secretary Glickman rescued the effort by creating the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. This advisory committee, which included livestock producers, has served a vital role in addressing concentration in agriculture. The advisory committee submitted its findings and recommendations to Secretary Glickman on June 6. Some of its recommendations can be implemented administratively and are currently under review by Department of Agriculture officials to determine their feasibility. Others require legislative action. The conclusion the committee reached is unequivocal: the status quo is unacceptable. Modern livestock production has changed, the USDA must keep pace, and Congress must give the Department of Agriculture the tools necessary to respond to these changes in a way that gives producers a chance to make an honest living and compete fairly in the marketplace. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act of 1996 gives the Department those tools. The bill requires the Secretary to define and prohibit noncompetitive practices. It mandates price reporting for all sales transactions conducted by any entity who has greater than 5 percent of the national slaughter business, and requires timely reporting of quantity and price of all imports and exports of meat and meat by products. Livestock producers will be able to count on Federal protection against packers and buyers who retaliate against them for public comments made regarding industry practices. Federal agriculture credit policies will be reviewed to determine if they are adequate to address the cyclical nature of modern livestock production. The bill also calls for the review of Federal lending practices to determine if the Government is contributing to packer concentration, and directs the President and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to formulate a plan consolidating and streamlining the entire food inspection system. Finally the bill requires the USDA to develop a system for labeling U.S. meat and meat products. Companies will be encouraged to voluntarily participate in labeling their products as originating from U.S. livestock producers. Swift congressional action is crucial for our Nation's livestock producers. Free and open markets are one of the foundations of our Nation and our economy. We as consumers all suffer if markets, especially food markets, do not operate freely. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act is critical to ensuring a fair shake for hard-working livestock producers and the Nation's consumers I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent the clerk be directed to make the following changes in the enrollment of H.R. 3448, the small business minimum wage bill, and the bill be sent to the House for its consideration. These changes, which I shall send to the desk, change the effective date for the minimum wage increase to 30 days after the date of enactment, and they take care of the problem regarding the utilities which Senators Moynihan and D'Amato discussed on the floor yesterday.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving further the right to object, I would only point out the minimum wage title in the bill passed in the Senate is identical to the minimum wage title passed in the House. There is no need for a conference. But, if they insist on a conference at this time, given the fact they have also insisted on health care conferees, for both reasons, we object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have a number of amendments to this legislation we would like considered. So we object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Because we have amendments pending, we are not prepared at this point to agree to this unanimous consent as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, in that regard, the Senator from Nevada makes a very good point. The Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, has labored on this issue probably longer than anybody here in the Senate and deserves much praise for his efforts. This is his second work product, along with others. We commend him for that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today several colleagues and I are introducing the Cattle Industry Improvement Act of 1996. This legislation addresses the deep concern of cattle, hog, and sheep producers across the Nation that the livestock industry does not operate in a free and open market. Livestock producers, especially cattle producers, are receiving the lowest prices in recent memory. Producers can barely make ends meet, let alone make a profit. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act is a fair, substantive bill which offers commonsense solutions to problems that have plagued the livestock industry for a long time. For the last 2 years the issue of livestock concentration has been the No. 1 agricultural issue in South Dakota, even exceeding interest in the farm bill. Livestock concentration and low cattle prices do not just affect farmers and ranchers in my State. The impact is felt by the entire economy of South Dakota, affecting people who live in cities, towns, and rural communities alike. A recession in the cattle industry has a ripple effect throughout the entire State the consequences of which are potentially devastating. Farm foreclosures, job layoffs by agriculture related businesses and bank failures are all likely if cattle prices do not rebound in the immediate future. I began the effort to address the issue of livestock concentration last year with the introduction of legislation creating a livestock commission to review the impact of packer concentration. This bill was a bipartisan effort that passed the Senate but was blocked in the House. Fortunately, Secretary Glickman rescued the effort by creating the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. This advisory committee, which included livestock producers, has served a vital role in addressing concentration in agriculture. The advisory committee submitted its findings and recommendations to Secretary Glickman on June 6. Some of its recommendations can be implemented administratively and are currently under review by Department of Agriculture officials to determine their feasibility. Others require legislative action. The conclusion the committee reached is unequivocal: the status quo is unacceptable. Modern livestock production has changed, the USDA must keep pace, and Congress must give the Department of Agriculture the tools necessary to respond to these changes in a way that gives producers a chance to make an honest living and compete fairly in the marketplace. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act of 1996 gives the Department those tools. The bill requires the Secretary to define and prohibit noncompetitive practices. It mandates price reporting for all sales transactions conducted by any entity who has greater than 5 percent of the national slaughter business, and requires timely reporting of quantity and price of all imports and exports of meat and meat by products. Livestock producers will be able to count on Federal protection against packers and buyers who retaliate against them for public comments made regarding industry practices. Federal agriculture credit policies will be reviewed to determine if they are adequate to address the cyclical nature of modern livestock production. The bill also calls for the review of Federal lending practices to determine if the Government is contributing to packer concentration, and directs the President and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to formulate a plan consolidating and streamlining the entire food inspection system. Finally the bill requires the USDA to develop a system for labeling U.S. meat and meat products. Companies will be encouraged to voluntarily participate in labeling their products as originating from U.S. livestock producers. Swift congressional action is crucial for our Nation's livestock producers. Free and open markets are one of the foundations of our Nation and our economy. We as consumers all suffer if markets, especially food markets, do not operate freely. The Cattle Industry Improvement Act is critical to ensuring a fair shake for hard-working livestock producers and the Nation's consumers I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.