Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous-consent agreement also include campaign finance reform and MFN.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly. I know a lot of our colleagues want to be able to speak. This is unnecessary gridlock. This has nothing to do with the Democratic minority. This has everything to do with Republicans simply not allowing the Senate to be the Senate. I do not recall a time--and we can go back and check--when my predecessor, Senator Mitchell, filled the tree every single time a bill was presented on the floor. I would like to go back and find that time in the last Congress when that happened. I can recall, woefully, how many times we worried about Republican amendments and how we were going to come up with second-degree amendments because we were not going to stop them from being offered. And they were offered. So, Mr. President, we have different views about what happened in the last Congress. I will tell my colleagues on the other side, we are taking notes, and should we have the opportunity again--and I know we will--to be in the majority, what goes around comes around. It may be that we are going to have to extend the session of Congress to 4 years rather than just 2, because I am not sure we are going to get anything done in 2 anymore. How unfortunate. How unfortunate. This does not have to be gridlock. We did not want gridlock. Just last week we passed some good legislation. We can do that again. We ought to do that again, but we ought to be respectful of the minority and the opportunities that we have always had to offer amendments. That is all we are asking. In the name of fairness, in the name of tradition, in the name of this institution, we owe it to the American people to have these reasonable and fair debates. The majority leader offered a unanimous-consent to have up-or-down votes on amendments collectively to a bill that he knows is going nowhere. What we have said is, let us have independent votes, free of the opportunity to obfuscate these issues, opportunities to offer amendments, opportunities to ensure that we can have a good debate about each of these issues--no limits, no filled trees, simply a good, old-fashioned Senate debate about all the issues that the majority leader and I and others want to confront. So as soon as that happens, I have a feeling we can get a lot of work done. But until that happens, nothing will get done.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Apparently the Senator is right. That is the essence of the problem we have here. It is why we are absolutely paralyzed until we can resolve it. All we are trying to do is have the opportunity to have a good debate about each of these issues. We can debate the TEAM Act. We are not averse to having a good old- fashioned debate about whether you roll back 60 years of labor law. We can debate the gas tax and figure out whether there is a way to address the issue that the Senator from North Dakota and others have raised about making sure the consumer, and not the oil companies, get the benefit.

Mr. DASCHLE. We can debate the minimum wage for whatever length of time we want. A half-hour is fine with us, but if they want more time, we can do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to my colleague on my side, the Senator from Louisiana, and then to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DASCHLE. There have been a lot of different discussions regarding various packages and various scenarios, and it is obvious from the exchanges this morning that no decisions and certainly no agreement has been reached. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield to allow me to respond, the answer is in the affirmative. Obviously, we have attempted in good faith to offer the minimum wage amendment to a number of other bills simply because, as the minority, we do not have the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. Studies have shown that an increase in the minimum wage provide over 100 times more benefit to the consumer and to the average working family than this meager amount of tax relief will provide. So what is wrong with having a good debate on this and other amendments? That is really the essence of the Senate. It is to have a debate about amendments, offered by the minority or the majority, to improve legislation--make it more responsive to people. We are simply trying as best we can to protect our rights in this case as we have in so many other cases. That seems to me to be the price of working through legislation on this bill and on other bills. So, yes, it is our intention to offer the minimum wage amendment and other amendments to this bill as the current majority did when they were in the minority.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will wait until the majority leader is finished.

Mr. DASCHLE. And I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond briefly, and I know the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is prepared to respond as well. We have discussed as many scenarios as the imagination will allow. This is yet another iteration. Basically, all we have said is that we want an up-or-down, clean vote. There are a lot of scenarios that could bring that about. This is another example. Senator Lott and I have discussed many different ways in which to do this. But we still have not been given the assurance that we could have an up-or-down vote on freestanding legislation. So if the majority leader is now proposing that as an option, not marrying the two but have them freestanding, we will consider that. That is not my understanding, however. I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I admire the majority leader a great deal, as he knows. We all know what he is trying to do. We all know that the President, for good reason, opposes the TEAM Act, especially in its current form. Why? Because it gives license to companies to set up rump organizations to negotiate with themselves. That is what this is all about. This is not talking to employees. As the Senator from Massachusetts has indicated, they can do that right now. What they cannot do is set up rump organizations to negotiate with themselves and claim some new victory here. That is what this is all about. So that is what I said earlier, if you will recall. I said if the distinguished majority leader is prepared to separate the issues, the TEAM Act and minimum wage, so we are not amending a bill that is going nowhere, we will take a look at that. But that is not what I understood to be the suggestion here. So, again, as I said, we want to be real here. If we can be real--if we can come up with a scenario that we know will really work--then we are prepared to negotiate in good faith and come to some resolution here. But to add this amendment to a bill that the distinguished leader knows is going nowhere is not a deal at all.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I believe this whole effort has a lot more to do with politics than the price of gasoline. We all know what is going on here. We all recognize what day it is. We all ought to recognize, as well, that this is the first time in our recent history--perhaps in 100 years--that we have been able to reduce the deficit for 4 years in a row--4 years in a row. So, Mr. President, we find ourselves in a situation here where, because we were able to show some courage and send the right message to the American people 4 years ago with regard to meaningful deficit reduction, now the American people are less in debt and have less difficulty visualizing ultimate success with regard to a real balanced budget than they have had in generations. So, Mr. President, a lot of our colleagues are very concerned about what this really means. If we can find so convenient an offset, what is wrong with dedicating that offset to real deficit reduction, rather than a gesture which may or may not help the American consumer? I reserve the right to object now because, I must tell you, I am not convinced that a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is all this is, with regard to ensuring that the consumer gets the benefit, is going to provide any confidence to anybody out there. We cannot accept a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution as our only message to the American consumer that indeed they are going to benefit. With every 1-cent decrease in the tax, we are talking about a billion dollars in new profit to the oil companies. And so, Mr. President, because we do not have that assurance, because we really think this merits some debate, I would ask that Senator Dole's request be modified to permit other amendments to be offered from our side of the aisle. Otherwise, this will be the fifth or sixth bill to which Democrats are completely precluded from offering any amendments. We cannot accept that. If we want to serve in the House, we ought to be in the House. If we want to serve in the Senate, we ought to have a good and open debate about this bill and all other bills that come before us. That is what the Senate process is all about. So unless we can ensure that other amendments will be offered, then I would object, but I will offer that as a modification and ask unanimous consent. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are obviously in a situation now where nothing is going to get done. I think the President's answer to the question is the right one. We are not going to get anything done. We are not going to get the Travel Office issue done, we are not going to get the gas issue done, we are not going to get the Amtrak authorization or anything else done until we can resolve this impasse. I know the majority leader is acting in good faith to try to find a way with which to do that, but we will remain committed to ensuring our rights as the minority to offer these amendments until we can have that assurance. I think the distinguished Senator from Louisiana said it as clearly as anyone can. If they are good bills, regardless of whether there is opposition, you could argue about the merits of the bill, but they are bills offered in good faith. They ought to be voted up or down, independently of one another. Mixing them, as is now being proposed, clearly obfuscates the question and ultimately defeats the purpose. I hope we can recognize that instead of continuing to be mired in absolute paralysis. We do not want to continue that. We want to find a way out, but we are not going to give up our rights. We are certainly not going to give up the opportunities we need to raise the issues we care deeply about. I yield the floor, and I thank the majority leader. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. When I finish, I will be happy to yield. I would be more than pleased to enter into a dialog with my colleague from Utah but let me just finish some thoughts here. I am disappointed, frankly, after all these weeks and with all of these good-faith efforts made, as amendments have come up, as bills have been considered, that we have not been able to resolve this matter. I do not know how much longer it will take, but I do know this. It appears more and more that many of our Republican colleagues secretly desire to be in the House of Representatives. I would urge them to run for the House of Representatives if that is their desire. If they want the luxury of eliminating the opportunity for the minority to offer amendments, if they want the luxury of saying we are not going to have a debate about an issue that we do not want to debate, then run for the House. I still think there may be some seats open this year. They could try it even this year. My heavens, if you want to be in the Senate, if you want all the opportunities that the Senate provides us for good, unlimited, open debate, then let us not act like the House of Representatives. Let us not foreclose every single option that Senators are supposed to have, to be able to consider and vote, consider amendments and consider issues in a bona fide way, trying to work through our differences. That is what this is all about. But to be shut off, bill after bill after bill after bill, and to be told now this is not the bill either, in spite of the fact that we have unanimity on it, I ask the President, what should we do? We have no choice, Mr. President. We have no choice but to make our colleagues understand that this is the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. Senate you ought to be given opportunities. I have a list here. I do not know, I do not think I will go through them because it really does not serve any useful purpose, but I can give you a list of Domenici amendments, Helms amendments, McCain amendments, Roth amendments, Gramm amendments, Hatch amendments--you name it. We have amendments with just about every Republican name on them that were not relevant to a bill in past years, in past Congresses, offered on that side and not precluded by the Democratic majority at the time, because they thought it was important. They thought it was important. So here we are. The roles are reversed. We are the minority. Now we are supposed to offer amendments in those situations where we are not able to get a bill to the floor, and what happens? It is becoming a pattern. What happens is a bill is presented to the Senate floor and the tree is filled. There are so many leaves on this tree it looks like a forest in this place. I must tell you, it gets frustrating when we are not given the same opportunity we gave the minority when we were in the majority. I am sorry the Senator from Utah is frustrated. He is beginning to sense a little of the frustration we feel on our side. This minimum wage vote will happen. It is just too bad that it has not happened already. There will be other votes that may not be comfortable votes. But, my heavens, this is the U.S. Senate, and we ought to have an opportunity to debate them, vote them, have our differences and work through them. We ought to allow debates to take place. Indeed, let me end where I began and where the Senator from Utah ended: Let there be comity. Let there be a way in which to resolve these matters in a good-faith manner. I am prepared to do that. I know he is prepared to do that. The sooner it happens the better.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I heard the statement of the distinguished Senator from Utah, and I did not even have my television monitor on. I wish to begin in my response in agreement with what the Senator has just articulated. I believe as he believes, and there is no one who cares more deeply about comity in this body than does the distinguished Senator from Utah--about the need for comity, about the need for ways in which to resolve our differences in a reasonable way, in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way, and that ought to extend to legislation that may divide us as well. As he has indicated, this bill does not divide us. I do not know that there will be a vote against this particular piece of legislation when we get to that point. I think the Senator from Utah understandably underestimates the extraordinary frustration that Democrats are feeling given the current circumstances. We were told that the so-called Presidio bill was not the bill with which to offer the minimum wage amendment, and it was dropped. We were told then that the term limits bill was not the bill with which to offer the minimum wage amendment, and it was dropped. We were told that the immigration bill was not the bill with which to offer the minimum wage amendment, and again it was dropped. On bill after bill after bill after bill after bill, the Republicans have said this is not the bill, this is not the legislation, and in fact in most cases, whether it was the Presidio legislation or immigration, in many of those cases we then voted for cloture in an effort to move this process along in the name of comity, in the name of trying to resolve the pending issue because, as the distinguished Senator from Utah said, we ought to be able to do that. And we have also said, look, we will agree to a time certain. We will agree not only to a time certain with regard to how much time is actually devoted to the debate on minimum wage, we will take a half hour and a vote; we will do it this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow. If that cannot be done as part of an amendment to a bill, we will take it standing alone any time in the next few weeks. Tell us when. And that too has been denied us. So, Mr. President, I have to ask, what does a guy do? How do you resolve this with comity? How do you resolve this in a way to try as best we can to work through these issues and yet be sure that we as Democrats are given an opportunity to address a very important issue?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, once again, I commend the distinguished Senator from Utah for appealing to reason and calm. I was thinking just as I was listening to his thoughtful remarks about how easy it would be to easily insert the minimum wage as he made an appeal for compassion, for doing what is right, for bipartisanship, for some appreciation of the magnitude of this problem as it affects those people who are directly going to be the beneficiaries, should the legislation pass. Indeed, one could make that case, that it is time for us to put aside our partisan differences and do what is right, recognize that it has been a long, long time--5 years--since we passed the minimum wage. The purchasing power is the lowest it has been now in 40 years. I would be willing to commit this afternoon to the chairman of the committee that we will vote for cloture, we will vote for final passage if he can work with me this afternoon to get a commitment for an up-or- down vote on minimum wage immediately following the vote on this particular bill. If we can do that, we have exactly what the two Senators currently on the floor both want: Passage unanimously perhaps for this legislation, a bill to provide for the expenses of those who were victimized by the unfortunate circumstances in the travel office, and then send a clear message to more than 14 million Americans, most of whom are heads of household, that at long last we are going to give you a little more empowerment, we are going to give you a little more purchasing power. That is really what this is all about. This is an effort to try to find a way to address our mutual agendas, the majority's and the minority's. I agree with so much of what he said, but I will disagree with one point. He made the comment that he has never seen so many filibusters. Let me tell you, as one who served in the majority in the last few Congresses, this side in the 102d and the 103d Congress, our Republican colleagues were the Babe Ruths of filibusters. We are still in the minor leagues when it comes to filibusters, when it comes to shutting this place down. At one point, there were 60 filibusters pending in a Congress. It was unbelievable. There was nothing we could do. There was no legislation we could advance. And so we learned, hopefully well, and we will keep trying to learn better, we will keep trying to apply the lessons given us in past Congresses to be effective as Members of the minority, but we are not in that league yet. It is not even close. When we have insisted on a filibuster in large measure is when we have been prevented from being equal partners in the legislative process, when we have not been given an opportunity to offer amendments, to participate in the debate, to have our say, to have some balance here in striking this legislative comity that we do want. So I hope we can resolve it. I hope we can find a way to work through this. I hope that maybe this problem can be resolved in the next day. I would like to see in the next 24 hours a way to resolve it once and for all. It is within our grasp. We need to do it. The sooner we do it, the better. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the colloquy by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I wanted to come to the floor for a couple of minutes to respond and I know that a number of our colleagues will also be doing so a little bit later on this morning. I find the selective memory very intriguing, and I certainly appreciate the good words by so many of our colleagues about the impact that the 4-cent gasoline tax has had. What I am surprised at is that they have chosen not to also direct some of their concern and attention to the dime's worth of increases in gas taxes in the 1980's and early 1990's--increases that most of them supported. We raised the tax in 1982 by 5 cents and again in 1991 by an additional 5 cents. As I understand it, almost every single Republican supported those two increases--a dime. In fact, our distinguished majority leader was one of those who supported the increase in gasoline taxes of 10 cents. We like to refer to that 10-cent increase as the ``Dole dime'' because, in effect, that is what has been the result of the gasoline tax policy over the last 15 years. Mr. President, a 10- cent increase was supported by virtually every single Republican in 1982 and again in 1991. In order to cure this selective memory about gasoline taxes, I would remind my colleagues that the 4.3-cent increase that we passed in 1993 was part of an overall budget package that has led to the single most consequential deficit reduction program in the history of this country. We have not seen 4 consecutive years of deficit reduction since the Civil War, but we did it in 1993, we did it in 1994, we did it in 1995 and now for the 4th year in a row we have done it in 1996. What a remarkable achievement. We have brought the deficit down to about half of what it was when the Republican Presidents left office after 12 years of dramatic increases in the size of the deficit. The deficit in 1980, as everyone recognized when President Reagan took office, was about $800 billion. After 12 years of Republican White House domination, that deficit had ballooned from $800 billion to $4.5 trillion. This, despite all the rhetoric about deficit reduction, despite all the promises we were given about how we would bring down the size of the debt--it increased to $4.5 trillion. It took a Democratic White House, with leadership from this President, beginning the first year he was in office, to force this deficit to come down now for 4 years in a row. We want to continue to do that. The President has made every overture I would expect him to make, urging the majority leader, the Speaker, and others to continue negotiations, trying to find a way, in a bipartisan effort, to maintain this downward trend in the deficit. We can achieve a meaningful deficit reduction package for the next 7 years, bringing deficits to absolute zero if we have the courage and the wherewithal and the determination to do what this President did in 1993. The opportunity is there. The door is open. We do not have to use new gas taxes. We do not have to find new sources of revenue. We can do it with the cuts proposed in this President's budget. As everyone understands, it is a budget that has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, something that the Republican leadership has said again and again is one of the key ingredients to coming to some resolution. The President's CBO-scored budget is, in large measure, the effect of many months of negotiations with the Republican leadership in an effort to continue the progress that this President has made now for the last 4 years. I must say, this selective memory amazes me--I did not hear a word today about the dime increase, the 10-cent increase supported by virtually every Republican Senator in the past decade. If they are so concerned about the 4.3 cents, why is it we have not heard anything about the 10-cent increase proposed by our colleagues and supported almost unanimously on the other side? If we are going to give tax relief, maybe we ought to go to the Dole dime as well as to the 4.3- cent increase that has been discussed this morning. I think the real issue here is obfuscation with regard to meaningful ways of which to help working families. If they really wanted to help working families who are struggling to make ends meet--in many cases, with reductions in purchasing power year after year after year--the best thing they could do would be to pass the minimum wage increase. We are talking about a 4.3-cent reduction in taxes, when if we wanted to, this very day we could pass a 45-cent increase in the minimum wage. This afternoon we could pass a 45-cent increase, 41 cents more than the relief we get out of a gallon of gasoline, providing purchasing power to millions of struggling American families. This week marks the 35th anniversary of the signing of President Kennedy's increase in the minimum wage back in 1961. As a result of raising the minimum wage in 1961, purchasing power for a working family increased, in 1996 dollars, to $6.61 an hour. You heard it right: $6.61 an hour in 1963. That is what working families had at the lowest rung of the economic scale 35 years ago--$6.61. Today, they are relegated to $4.25. Their purchasing power goes down year after year after year after year. We are now at a 40-year low in terms of purchasing power. While CEO's across this country saw a 28-percent increase in their purchasing power just last year to an average of $950,000 per year in salary, the purchasing power of working people at the lowest rung of the economic scale has gone down to a point where it is almost more beneficial for them to stay on welfare than to go out and work. How wrong is that, Mr. President? I do not deny any one of those CEO's a good income. In many cases, they deserve it. But if we can find ways in which to advance the economy and build the growth within the economy that we have seen in the last several years--8.5 million jobs, an economy that is booming, the stock market has reached unprecedented levels--why is it we cannot come up with the wherewithal in this country to provide some purchasing power for people at the lowest end? We have produced an action agenda that we want to pass sooner rather than later. That action agenda has everything to do with the paycheck-- first, passing a minimum wage that every single American could ultimately benefit from; secondly, passing retirement security that allows people to take their health insurance with them; and finally, passing pension and retirement security, making sure that every time a worker changes jobs--and the average worker changes jobs now seven times in his or her lifetime--they can take that pension with them. They can go from one job to the next with the assurance they will have a pension when they ultimately retire. Pension security, especially for women, is something we ought to talk a lot more about in the Senate. We will do that in the coming weeks. Mr. President, we can talk about gasoline taxes, this 4.3 cents. I suppose that is something that has relevance to the increase in gas prices. We ought to figure out a way to ensure that taxpayers have relief. I think we better make absolutely certain that if we provide relief, it goes in the pockets of the consumers and not the oil companies. For every 1-cent decrease in tax, we could see $1 billion in additional profit for the oil companies, unless we ensure that the benefits actually get back to the people who need it. We must make absolutely certain our tax relief is for consumers and not some bailout for the big oil companies. If we are really serious about economic security, if we are really serious about helping working families, then the best way to help working families, Mr. President, has a lot more to do with minimum wage, it has a lot more to do with health security through passing the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, it has a lot more to do with pension security and making sure retirements are secure when people retire, than it has to do with 4 cents on a gasoline tax. So we hope to work with our Republican colleagues and do a number of things this year that can provide real relief. No. 1, let us pass minimum wage. No. 2, let us pass Kennedy-Kassebaum. No. 3, let us ensure that we have pension security. No. 4, let us continue this deficit reduction effort that the President has laid out for us in such an able way now for the last 4 years. No. 5, let us pass a balanced budget resolution that allows us deficit reduction, and reduced interest rates, and a healthy economy which can be brought about by a balanced budget. All of this is within our grasp. It is going to take a bipartisan effort to do it, but we ought to do it. We can do it now. Let us do it, commit to it, and send a clear message to the American working family that we are on their side. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for an extraordinarily strong statement with regard to gas prices and gas taxes. I do not know that anyone has said it more eloquently and passionately and more compellingly than has the senior Senator from Arkansas. There are, indeed, a number of things we can do if we are serious about addressing high gasoline prices. The Senator from Arkansas has mentioned again yet another opportunity for us to reduce prices, and that is to find ways with which to make gasoline-powered automobiles, all kinds of vehicles, more efficient. By providing an increase in the CAFE standards, we can, indeed, make gasoline-powered vehicles a lot more efficient--not just gasoline vehicles, but diesel-powered vehicles and all transportation more efficient. He has taken, as well as the Senator from Nevada, a very strong leadership position in making that happen. So whether or not we take that approach and whether or not we give people across this country the assurance that any tax reduction goes into their pocket, whether we take other approaches, we will have the opportunity to debate it. But I think there is a clear, clear choice here. We can bail out the oil companies, as some have suggested, or we can help consumers and taxpayers. If we really want to help consumers and taxpayers, we are going to make vehicles more efficient and we are going to ensure that whatever relief we offer goes in the pockets of consumers, and not into the pockets of the oil companies. So we will have that opportunity perhaps as early as next week. I hope next week we can work out an arrangement that will allow us to address the real issue here, and that is, how can we address the economic stagnation that so many working families are feeling. Working families are not getting their share of the benefit of the economy in part because they are not seeing increases in wages, in part because they are not getting the kind of health benefits they deserve, in part because they do not have the pension security that they so badly need. And so we will have an opportunity to address those issues in the coming days and hopefully resolve them successfully.

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, I come to the floor to make a couple of remarks. It was not my intention to come back to the floor, having spoken a little bit earlier today, but I wish to make three points. The first has to do with the issue raised by the distinguished majority leader about livestock prices. He mentioned that the market is responding, and I am very hopeful that it will continue to respond to the actions taken this week. There is no one more responsible for the fact that those actions have been extraordinarily beneficial to cattle producers across this country than the President himself. The President and I discussed, as he did with other Senators, the possibility of holding a livestock meeting last weekend. We held that meeting Tuesday afternoon, and as early as Wednesday morning the livestock markets began to respond. They responded Wednesday, they responded Thursday, and now they have responded again today. We have seen about a 12- to 14-percent increase in livestock prices in the futures markets directly as a result of the actions taken by the White House, by this President on Tuesday afternoon. The President is limited, of course, in the actions he can take unilaterally, but he has, in my view, pulled out virtually every stop to ensure that those prices go up. He is going to do all he can within his power and authority, both internationally and domestically. So I applaud him for the actions he has taken. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity here on the Senate floor to provide him with additional authority. There is $300 million sitting without the prospect of any utilization this year in the Export Enhancement Program. That money could be directed toward livestock and other markets abroad. It will take legislative authority, and we will provide our colleagues with an opportunity to vote on that Export Enhancement Program in the future. Clearly, we have to respond. Prices in real terms are as low as they were in the 1930's, and the more we do, the more action we can take both in the short and the long terms, the more we can send as clear a message to the markets as possible that we want to work with those in the livestock industry to ensure a stable price, to ensure longer term viability, to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a disaster situation in the weeks and months ahead if we can avoid it. So I applaud the President in his actions on Tuesday. It was he and the Secretary of Agriculture, of course, who formed the livestock concentration commission that, in our view, could also be very beneficial in providing some guidance on how we deal with those markets more effectively. When three corporations control more than 80 percent of the livestock market, we should not be surprised that prices are as volatile and certainly as difficult to bear for thousands of producers across the country as they are today. So we will wait with some confidence that the commission will make recommendations that also could be very beneficial, beginning in early June. The Minimum Wage The second point I want to raise this afternoon has to do with the procedural situation we face yet again on the Senate floor. We will be taking up a bill that I think will probably enjoy pretty broad support. Frankly, I am disappointed once again that the so-called parliamentary trees have been filled in an effort to preclude Senators from offering other amendments. I have never seen so many of my Republican colleagues so willing to act like Members of the House as I have in the last couple of weeks. If they want to be in the House of Representatives, perhaps they should run for the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives of course we have limited opportunities to offer amendments, limited opportunities to debate important issues, rules that constrain individual Members. But that has never been the purpose of the U.S. Senate. Here in the U.S. Senate we have always had the opportunity to bring up amendments, to have good debates on important issues, regardless of whether committees have reported out that specific legislation. Yet, over the last several weeks, the majority has precluded amendments from the minority in an effort to thwart those of us who want to bring to the floor an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. We may be denied that vote temporarily. The majority can continue to delay that vote. But ultimately we will have a vote on minimum wage, whether it is this week or next week or the week after or the week after that. Sooner or later the Senate must come to the realization that we cannot for all perpetuity and for the rest of this session of Congress, deny the right of Members to have a vote on something they view to be very important. The minimum wage must come before our Senate colleagues. The minimum wage must be voted upon. Whether it is on this bill or another bill, hopefully in the not too distant future we can work out an arrangement that will allow us the opportunity to vote on an issue that is of great importance to millions and millions of working families. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later. Congressional Investigations Finally, I think it is important to note that there will be many, many investigations on a lot of different issues. Senator Bumpers said it so well just a moment ago. Often the reason investigations occur is that is where the lights are, that is where the cameras are. While there is an unlimited array of opportunities for our colleagues to investigate, I must say I am astounded, absolutely astounded that so many of our colleagues in the House of Representatives, who claim to be fiscal conservatives, who claim to be protecting the taxpayer at each and every turn, will now support a so-called investigation for $1 million in taxpayers' money to look at whether or not arms shipments were made to Bosnians in a way that may or may not be questionable--$1 million. This is from our colleagues in the House who have said over and over again we want to balance the budget, we want to cut down expenses, cut Head Start, cut school lunch, cut all the programs directly affecting children and education; we are going to cut and cut and cut everything affecting real people. But when it comes to an investigation that has virtually no basis, which has already been investigated in the intelligence committees, we are going to find a way to spend $1 million and we are going to try to spend that $1 million in the next couple of months. For Heaven's sake, where does it all end? And how, with a straight face, can any of our colleagues conclude that an issue of this limited scope is worth a $1 million investigation? I do not even know how they are going to spend it. Maybe they will buy television ads with it, who knows? But I must tell you, I think that is a waste. And I hope our colleagues on the other side will do everything in their power to see the taxpayers are given a better accounting; to see that we put a stop to that kind of flagrant abuse of authority. That ought not happen. We have seen too much of it in this Congress. Again, it is an illustration of the extreme level, the extreme degree to which some on the other side will go to make a political point. That is wrong. It is deeply unfortunate. It sends all the wrong messages about what we ought to be doing and how sincere we are in bringing about a balanced Federal budget. We will be debating a balanced budget perhaps as early as next week, once again. And how ironic, as we talk about amending our Constitution, that somehow we can find ways to spend $1 million on whether or not arms were shipped to our Bosnian friends in a way that was generally supported by many of our colleagues on the other side. So, we will have much more to say about that in the future. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to resolve whatever outstanding questions there are about what happened, whether it was in our long-term best interests to do so. All we can say with certainty is that our Bosnian policy is working. Having been there myself, having talked to the military, having talked to all of those directly involved, I can say without equivocation, this has been a success story the likes of which nobody could have realized a few months ago, a success story for which we can be very, very proud. I hope we can continue to build upon that success and send the right message about our intentions there and the opportunity to bring real peace. That can happen. But it is not going to happen if we find ourselves mired in politics, spending millions and millions of dollars on investigations that are unwarranted. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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