Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that is correct, the Senator from West Virginia is prepared at some point to enter into a time agreement. We assume he will be on the floor shortly, and we can discuss the matter with him at that time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, Senator Bumpers has been here longer than I have.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the earliest days of our Nation, George Washington said it was the duty of public servants to ``raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair.'' In his more than five decades as a public servant, Senator Edmund Muskie not only raised the standard of wisdom and honesty in public office. On many occasions and in many ways, he set the standard. Today I join my colleagues and, indeed, all of America, in saying goodbye to this extraordinary American. Senator Muskie served two terms as Governor of Maine--something of a minor political miracle in such a rock-ribbed Republican State. He also served with great dignity and distinction as our Nation's Secretary of State under President Carter. But it was his service in this Chamber, and as his party's candidate for Vice President, for which Senator Muskie will be best remembered-- and rightly so. In 1974, I came to Washington as a Senate staffer. Senator Muskie had already served 15 years. What first impressed me about him was his compassion, and his unshakable belief in the infinite possibilities of America. It was a belief he learned from his immigrant father, a belief that animated his entire life. Ed Muskie knew that government cannot guarantee anyone the good life. But government has a responsibility to help people seize possibilities to make a good life for themselves, their families and their communities. He held other beliefs deeply as well. Ed Muskie believed that we have an obligation to be good stewards of this fragile planet. He was an expert on air and water pollution, and he served as floor manager for two of the most important environmental laws ever--the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Water Quality Act of 1965. Ed Muskie believed that more was needed to solve the problem of poverty than money from Washington. Thirty years ago, he called for a new creative federalism. ``No matter how much the Federal partner provides,'' he said, ``no Federal legislation, no executive order, no administrative establishment can get to the heart of most of the basic problems confronting the state governments today.'' Ed Muskie believed that politics ought to be a contest of ideas, not an endless series of personal attacks. In 1970, Ed Muskie was the presumptive front-runner for his party's 1972 Presidential nomination. In that role, he was the victim of malicious and false attacks. Rather than counter-attack, Senator Muskie appealed for reason and decency and truth. I want to quote from a televised speech he made back then, because I think it bears repeating today. ``In these elections * * * something has gone wrong,'' he said. There has been name calling and deception of almost unprecedented volume. Honorable men have been slandered. Faithful servants of the country have had their motives questioned and their patriotism doubted. . . . The danger from this assault is not that a few more Democrats might be defeated--the country can survive that. The true danger is that the American people will have been deprived of that public debate, that opportunity for fair judgment, which is the heartbeat of the democratic process. And that is something the country cannot afford. Senator Muskie went on to say: There are only two kinds of politics. They are not radical or reactionary, or conservative and liberal, or even Democratic or Republicans. They are only the politics of fear, and the politics of trust. Senator Muskie believed in the politics of trust. And he believed in honest negotiation. Testifying before the Senate a few years ago, Senator Muskie said, ``There's always a way to talk.'' There is always a way to talk. In his later years, Senator Muskie helped found an organization called the Center for National Priorities to find new ways to talk in a reasoned manner about the big problems facing our nation. Today, we mourn Ed Muskie's death. But let us also celebrate his extraordinary life. And let us re-dedicate ourselves to the beliefs that shaped that life. The belief that America is and must remain a land of possibilities-- for all of us. The belief that we must protect our environment. The belief that it takes more than money alone to solve our problems. It takes hard work and personal responsibility, and people working together. Let us rededicate ourselves to Senator Muskie's belief the politics can and should be a contest of ideas, and that we have a responsibility to talk straight to the American people. And let us remember that we have a responsibility to talk straight to each other. There are many great and urgent issues facing this chamber. There must be a way we can talk. Ed Muskie is gone. But we can keep his spirit alive in this chamber. The choice is ours. In closing, I offer my deepest condolences to Senator Muskie's widow, Jane, to their children, and to his many friends the world over.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, had to attend to a family emergency and is therefore not able to participate in the debate tonight. I know that I speak for the Senate, Mr. President, in wishing him well as he attends to his personal business, and we look forward to hearing from him on this bill tomorrow. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments tonight. Let me begin by making a couple of general points. First, let me commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for his work on this effort. He and I may not agree on the final product. We certainly may not agree on how we ought to enact farm policy in this country. But I have no disagreement with him in the manner with which he has conducted his responsibilities as chairman. He is an extraordinary leader and a Senator who has earned profound respect on both sides of the aisle. And his skill and diligence in shepherding this bill to the floor again demonstrates why he is held in such high esteem. I would like to draw attention tonight to how late in the season this bill is being considered. I hope that regardless of the outcome we would all agree that we should never allow legislation this important to be considered so late in a Congress. We are dealing with the 1995 farm bill in March of 1996. It is almost April. There is no excuse for that. I do not fault the distinguished chairman of the Committee. But I certainly fault the fact that in both houses of the Congress there appears to have been little priority given among our Republican colleagues to get this legislation to the floor in time to allow us to adequately consider all of these very controversial issues or in time to provide more certainty to farmers than they have been given. There is no excuse for this delay. This legislation should have been passed--or at least considered--at a much earlier date. I also take issue with the title ``Freedom to Farm.'' Farmers have had the freedom to farm--to do whatever they wish--for decades. There is no requirement that farmers sign up for the farm bill. They are not compelled to live under the confines of whatever farm legislation we pass. In every farm bill passed since legislation of this kind was enacted farmers have had the freedom to farm. Regardless of what happens to this legislation, they will continue to have the freedom to farm. Permanent law guaranteed the freedom to farm. If people did not want to be required to comply with the regulations and the legislation as it was enacted, they had the right not to do so. There was no requirement. So now those who have opposed farm programs are saying to farmers, you do not have the right to advantage yourself under farm legislation at the end of 7 years because we are going to take away your options with regard to freedom to farm or anything else. We are going to phase out the partnership the government has had with agriculture. I believe that is something that merits a great deal of debate. We ought to be discussing with a lot more care. Regardless of whether or not this legislation passes--I assume it will--I have every expectation we will be back again next year dealing with this issue of the phaseout of farm programs. I come to the floor tonight with the realization that there are some good things in the bill. I want to address those briefly. But first there are a number of things I find to be most difficult to accept, most problematic as I consider the advantages and disadvantages of this legislation. Perhaps the most significant disadvantage I find in the legislation before us tonight is that it fails to provide the safety net we have always guaranteed farmers in those times when they found themselves in extraordinary circumstances, whether they be economic or natural. Loan rates are capped. There is no opportunity for loan rates to go up. We all know what an important financial and economic tool the loan rate system has been in farm legislation for a long time. There is no opportunity now for loan rates to go up. They can go down. They will never go up. The opportunity we provided farmers to store their own grain on their own farms--the freedom to store their own grain, if you will--is now denied farmers. The farmer-owned reserve has been eliminated. Why that is the case I am not sure. Why we do not give farmers the freedom to farm when it comes to storing their own grain is something that I will leave to others to explain. We have eliminated the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. South Dakota had 10 inches of snow this weekend. Everything was shut down, while livestock producers are calving all through my State. The Livestock Feed Program is an extraordinarily important tool in times of disaster. This may not qualify. But there have been times just like this when it did, and farmers availed themselves of the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. But as a result of the passage of this legislation it is no more. There is some flexibility but not for all. Vegetable producers are treated differently. Supposedly there is a signal from the market--not the Government. But I must say there is not a freedom to farm in all cases. Potato producers are not given the freedom to farm. Other producers that are still working under many of the same constraints they have had to work under in past years, and they are going to continue to be confronted with constraints in the future. We do not have the freedom to farm in all cases for all commodities under this legislation. So let no one be misled in that regard. The deficit increases the first 2 years under this legislation by $4 billion--$4 billion in increased costs to the Federal Treasury. In large measure the reason for that is very simple. We will be paying farmers regardless of price. We will see record prices for wheat, perhaps record prices for corn, and we may actually also see record payments from the Federal Government to the same producers. The ultimate effect of that will be very simple--somebody is going to pay. The taxpayers could be billed more than $4 billion in the next 2 years alone as a result of that. Research programs are shortchanged. As one who had the good fortune to chair the research subcommittee in past Congresses, I am very concerned about sending exactly the wrong message on research--to say 2 years from now we will decide it is not enough. Research programs take longer than that. The clear blueprint we must lay out through research on what we intend to do in agricultural production, especially on the applied side of research, needs to be addressed. So to say that for some reason we will deal with that later, we will deal with that in a year or two, is just unacceptable. Nutrition programs also are treated in the same manner. Food stamps, as everyone now knows, will only be reauthorized for 2 years in a 7- year bill. We are going to pay farmers for 7 years whether or not the price is warranted, but people on food stamps will only have the certainty of getting whatever assistance we can provide in this legislation for 24 months. After that, who knows. We did not say that about farmers, but we are going to say that about recipients of food stamps. You have kids out there who are getting less consideration than producers who may not even plant a crop. Finally, Mr. President, of all the flaws, the one that I have alluded to in a couple of my comments tonight, the fact that producers, regardless of price, regardless of need, regardless of production, will receive a payment is something that I think is just unconscionable. We should not be in the business of doing that. It will come back to haunt us. It will come back to undermine the credibility of farm programs in the long run. Nobody ought to be misled about that. It is wrong. Call it what you will--a transition payment, a deficiency payment--it is a welfare payment. It is wrong. Farmers are not comfortable with that. I do not blame them for rolling the dice, taking this legislation, with every expectation that Congress will come back at some point with clearer heads and a much better understanding of the importance of the partnership between our Government and our agricultural industry and recognize that some continuation of farm programs is necessary. So if I were a farmer, I would say, ``Well, look, if I am going to get a good price and I am also going to get a good payment, why not take it? Why not accept it?'' If I were a farmer, as pressed as they are today, I would take it, too. I would not argue against it. But that does not make it right. Economically and financially, it is right for every farmer. If they have the chance legally to do it, they should do it. But as policymakers, it is not right for us, if we are providing huge payments to farmers at times when farm prices are as high as they are. So, Mr. President, for all those reasons, I intend to oppose this legislation. I will vote against it tomorrow. I hope that we will come back and recognize that we can do better than this. We need to do better than this. While that may not happen in 1996, I hope it does happen early next year. I commend the chairman and others for the balance they have shown in other areas. The fact that we continue the Conservation Reserve Program is a good aspect of this legislation, and I support it. I am pleased that people recognize the importance and the tremendous contribution to conservation the CRP now has made for many years. I am pleased that the Fund for Rural America has been provided for in this bill, ensuring that we address the needs of rural America. One of the key opportunities for us in rural areas now is the one I hope this legislation provides in creating new value-added product development. Value-added product development is our long-term future in agriculture. Hopefully, through the Fund for Rural America, value-added processing facilities of all kinds can be considered, financed and built. I also believe that the increased flexibility this legislation represents is something we ought to applaud. Simplification is something that I think is more uncertain, but I do believe the goal intended in this legislation to simplify our current program is something everyone supports. Perhaps, of all things, retaining permanent law is one of the most important aspects of this legislation that I am very enthusiastic about and certainly appreciate having. This farm bill, Mr. President, is long overdue. It did not happen in 1995. It will now happen in 1996. 1995 is wasted. It was tied to the budget--the first time this has happened since 1947. Unfortunately, it has taken too long. Unfortunately, we are now at a time when farmers need certainty more than ever. It is too late to start over. The winter wheat crop will soon be harvested. Southern crops are already in the ground. Midwestern farmers are already beginning to plan their planting for this year. They do not know what the farm programs will be until we enact them into law. The time for action is long overdue. The President has indicated he will sign the farm bill. He is forced to sign a bad bill because of the late date. He, as I do, has deep concerns about the safety net and the decoupling this represents. He has pledged to propose new legislation next year. I believe the public will demand it in less than a year's time. The bottom line is we have to go back and make improvements, do a better job in a constructive way of addressing the deficiencies that I have pointed out tonight. To paraphrase a famous actor in a popular movie, ``We will be back.'' I yield the floor. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. There does not appear to be any disagreement with regard to the Presidio bill itself. That bill has broad-based, virtually unanimous support, so it is my hope that we can pass at least that bill by unanimous consent. So I ask unanimous consent to strip all amendments and motions and to pass the Presidio bill in its own right.

Mr. DASCHLE. I hope we can resolve that matter. In light of the fact we need to continue to find ways in which to move the legislative agenda, I do not object to the majority leader's request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity until now to debate the minimum wage amendment. On April 1, it will be 5 years since the last time the minimum wage was increased. We are now at the lowest point we have been in nearly 40 years with regard to the purchasing power the minimum wage provides. That is unacceptable, at a time when we see CEO incomes going up by 23 percent to an average in the country today of $990,000--something we do not deny to them and something we certainly would not want to preclude. Many of them certainly deserve it. There ought to be recognition, however, as we consider welfare reform and all of the other legislative measures that we are contemplating, that we need to provide more opportunity for people to go to work, and we ought to give them an economic incentive to do so. People do not have the economic wherewithal, working full time at the minimum-wage today, to stay out of poverty. That is unacceptable. Sooner or later, we will have a vote on the minimum wage. Sooner or later, it has to be resolved. Sooner or later, this minimum wage increase must pass. We can do it sooner or we can do it later. Our preference is to do it sooner. This vehicle affords us the opportunity to do that. Whether it is this vehicle or any other bill, I certainly hope that we can do it soon. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment to the resolution, H. Con. Res. 168, condemning the missile tests and military exercises being conducted by the Peoples Republic of China near Taiwan. Last week I suggested that China's missile tests and military exercises have been dangerous and provocative. Unfortunately, tensions between China and Taiwan have not subsided. In fact, with Taiwan's first democratic Presidential election just around the corner, China's rhetoric continues loud and unabated. The Clinton administration has gone to great lengths to warn China about the potential consequences of its actions and to underscore United States policy that the future of Taiwan must be resolved by peaceful means. I am pleased the Senate has joined in sending a strong signal to China. With one clear voice, the Senate is now on record deploring the missile tests China has been conducting near Taiwan and recognizing that such tests are a potentially serious threat to peace and stability in the region. As I mentioned last week, China's missile tests and military exercises are dangerous in and of themselves, and they increase the chances of an accident that could cause tensions to spiral out of control. It is important to emphasize that this resolution also supports the commitment of the United States, China, and Taiwan to resolve the future of Taiwan through peaceful means. United States policy clearly stipulates that the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully. Taiwan has made similar overtures. China must also begin conducting itself in a way that reaffirms its commitment to that goal. China can do just that by ceasing its attempts to intimidate the people of Taiwan and influence their upcoming Presidential election. This resolution urges China to cease missile tests and military exercises and enter into ``meaningful dialog'' with Taiwan. I completely agree, and it seems to me that Beijing should begin to communicate with Taiwan in a nonthreatening and peaceful way rather than carrying out reckless missile tests and military exercises. I hope the resolution adopted by the Senate today will encourage China to resolve its differences with Taiwan peacefully.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for yielding. I will use whatever leader time I may require to finish my statement. Let me commend the Senator from South Carolina for the arguments he has again made in his summary on this debate. I applaud him for the leadership and the effort he has put forth. I very enthusiastically endorse his position. Let me also thank the distinguished Senators from Washington and from West Virginia and from Connecticut that have, as well as they have, brought this bill closer to a bill that is reasonable. As the distinguished Senator from South Carolina said, Mr. President, it is ironic in the extreme that, in this era of devolution, in this era of States rights, in this era of empowering States with more opportunities to deal with issues at the local level, this Congress, of all Congresses, would now pass a bill that says the Federal Government knows better. It is especially ironic that this Congress would say the Federal Government knows better on an issue as profound as this, affecting victims in the worst set of circumstances. I respect the Presiding Officer for his consistency in suggesting that devolution and new Federalism, or whatever we call it, ought to be sustained, regardless of the issue, that we ought not pick issues depending on the special interests, that we really have a responsibility to be consistent. Certainly in this case it would require, I believe, a second look. We can do better than this. We can do better than what we are going to be voting on this afternoon. I am very troubled by a couple of provisions. One in particular troubles me. Mr. President, to say that someone working on a defective piece of machinery is going to be protected if that machinery is functional for 15 years, but not for 16 years, to me is amazing. To ask people on the work line, to ask people on the combine, to ask people in whatever set of working circumstances they face, to accept the risk that this equipment is going to hold out after that period is more than I can support. To ask American companies to live up to their obligation, to understand how important it is that people working on assembly lines or in a field have the protection and the certainty and the opportunity to come to work knowing they will be able to come home whole is not too much to ask. A 20-year statute of repose is not too much to ask. Mr. President, the other issue has to do with component parts. We have gone through some terrible situations in the last several years involving defective component parts. One example involves women who were given breast implants that were defective, when it was well known that a component of the breast implants posed severe health risks in the body of a woman. Now to immunize from liability people who manufacture defective component parts and to say we are going to, through statute, give them our blessing is wrong. It is wrong. Mr. President, we can do better than this. We have to do better than this. Those of us opposing this bill will continue to do so. This fight is not over. The President has said in no uncertain terms this bill will be vetoed. I predict we will have more than enough votes to sustain a veto. Again, this fight is not over. We can do better than this. We ought to do better than this. In working with the President, the Presiding Officer and others, we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last 2 days we have discussed the merits and shortcomings of the Public Rangelands Management Act. It is apparent that this is a complicated debate, riddled with hyperbole and misunderstanding. Let no one misunderstand, however, the context within which this debate has been conducted. There exists today throughout the West a palpable sense of economic anxiety that has its roots in the issuance of new grazing regulations by the Department of the Interior 2\1/2\ years ago; regulations that fueled fear among ranchers that they face a campaign by the Government to permanently remove them from Federal lands. This apprehension about Government insensitivity to the economic realities of ranching is tangible in my State of South Dakota and widespread throughout the West. Moreover, it has been aggravated by a prolonged period of extremely low cattle prices coupled with record high feed costs. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. President, that ranchers' frustration with current Federal grazing policy is justified. Their grievances are both procedural and substantive. It was apparent that the regulations issued by the Interior Department in 1993 were conceived and issued in a manner that discounted the views of ranchers who earn their livelihood from public land. Those rules clearly reflect the dominant views and interests of other users, including environmentalists, conservationists, sportsmen and other recreationists. While these groups all have legitimate interests in the quality of Federal land management, the new rules simply do not strike a fair balance among competing uses. Like the first law of thermodynamics, every political action has a political reaction. The political reaction in the West to the new grazing rules was one of outrage and protest. Many in the ranching community understandably began to demonize these regulations. The legislation we are considering today was conceived in reaction to those rules. But unlike the laws of physics, in politics the appropriate reaction is not always an equal and opposite reaction. Often a political reaction does not solve problems, but rather only recasts them. That is the case with S. 1459. And that is why I will oppose the bill, and why I have worked with many of my Western States Democratic colleagues to develop an alternative to it. The Bingaman substitute solves many problems for ranchers without harming the interests of other users of Federal lands. For grasslands ranchers in South Dakota and elsewhere, it would create a separate management regime apart from the National Forest System--a system that is ill-suited to dealing with the unique requirements of Federal rangeland. Moreover, the Bingaman substitute overrides the language in the current regulations with respect to the United States Government perfecting all the water rights on Federal land. It places NEPA analysis in its proper perspective, ensuring that agency resources are spent evaluating the impacts of decisions that truly will effect the environment. And, it establishes a realistic fee formula with which ranchers can live. In other words, the Bingaman substitute addresses the legitimate concerns of ranchers in the West. It represents a better way of addressing prevailing concerns about Federal grazing policy. I do not question the commitment or motives of my colleagues who developed the committee bill. They have attempted to redress a serious matter through a serious effort. But their product moves Federal policy too far back in the opposite direction to the detriment of other public policy goals. S. 1459 strikes me as an overreaction to a very real threat to American ranchers. It will not bring us closer to a reasonable and balanced compromise. It will simply shift the equilibrium. If this bill is enacted, I suspect it will not be long before we are back here on the Senate floor debating the same issue from the opposite perspective. Mr. President, while we need grazing reform, S. 1459 shifts the balance past the sensible middle ground we should be seeking. Let me elaborate. To begin with, S. 1459 curtails public input beyond what I consider to be reasonable or necessary by restricting the ability of the public to be involved in the development of grazing proposals and to challenge specific decisions. What does this mean for users of Federal lands: campers, hikers, and scientists to name a few? It means that those who may know and use the land will have their opportunity for input into the decisionmaking process restricted, despite the fact that they may be able to offer very credible and useful advice. It means that recreational users will no longer be able to challenge a decision they feel precludes them from having access to lands they have a right to use. In contrast, Senator Bingaman's alternative retains the rights of ranchers and other interested parties to protest management decisions-- a provision that exists in current law. This is a very important point. The opportunity for public comment, protest, and appeal has become one of the most contentious elements in the grazing policy debate. The history of public involvement by various interest groups has not always been constructive. Appeals and protests have not always been used to offer useful advice or to ensure that decisions are faithful to the letter and spirit of the law. On occasion, they have been used to delay and derail reasonable decisions, sometimes on the basis of flimsy or irrelevant evidence or argument. Despite this acknowledgment, I am voting today to protect the public's right to comment on decisions that affect the public's lands. The course that some propose--to curtail comment process--is one that I do not feel can be justified by the historical evidence. Only through the unfettered competition of ideas will we be able to ensure development of the very best policies. No process of government should be sheltered by legal artifice from the force of a compelling argument. The management of our public lands demands no less a standard. I am also concerned that S. 1459 creates an unworkable system for holding title to range improvements. The Bingaman alternative retains the title to permanent range improvements in the name of the United States, while the committee bill would share the title between the United States and the ranchers. Under the substitute, ranchers are compensated for their expenses if they give up the permit or the land use changes and they can no longer graze the land. Further, S. 1459 restricts the ability of those outside the livestock business to obtain permits for conservation purposes. No longer would a Nature Conservancy be able to obtain permits and rest the land in conservation use. It simply is not fair to prohibit nonlivestock entities from obtaining permits to use Federal lands. The Bingaman alternative amendment allows anyone meeting basic requirements to obtain permits and rest the land in conservation use. The Nature Conservancy does this with 24 permits now and the Republican bill would curtail this ability. In addition, S. 1459 significantly restricts the flexibility of the land managers to ensure adequate flows of water on Federal lands. If this proposal is enacted, the Federal Government will no longer be able to protect fish and wildlife populations on Federal lands. Under the substitute, no such punitive restrictions would be imposed. Taken together, and particularly when read in the context of the objectives of the bill, these provisions persuade me that S. 1459 goes too far in one direction and fails to strike a reasonable balance among the multiple uses of public lands. It is not a solution to favor one group of users of the public lands over another. To manage this resource in a fair and equitable manner, a careful balance must be struck that responsibly addresses the legitimate concerns of all the public land users. Passage of S. 1459 will not end the debate over grazing in the west. In its current form, this legislation will be vetoed, and that veto will be sustained. Under that scenario, we will not have accomplished anything except to have provided more grist for the political mill. The Bingaman substitute will not please everyone. Environmentalists may feel that in some respects it is too generous to the ranching community, while ranchers may feel that it does not adequately insulate them from appeals, protests, red tape and the whims of the Federal Government. I believe it strikes a fair balance. The Bingaman substitute will protect the public's right to participate in grazing management decisions. It will ensure that Federal land managers have the authority and flexibility to guarantee sound stewardship of the land and protection of fish and wildlife populations. It will allow conservation organizations the opportunity to obtain permits and rest the land. In short, Senator Bingaman offers a sound, fair, and moderate amendment that will establish security for western ranchers, while genuinely protecting the interests of other users of the land. And, I believe, it can be signed into law. I sincerely want to resolve this issue--for the permittees and lessees who reside in our States; for the communities that rely on the livestock industry; for the users of the public land; and for the American public in general. The uncertainty surrounding the management of the public lands must be clarified. I believe the Bingaman approach will allow us to achieve our common goal--healthy public rangelands. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman substitute.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to commend the hard work, competitive spirit, and teamwork recently exhibited by thousands of young people across South Dakota during the State High School Boys' Basketball Tournament. Each year during late February and early March, towns from across the State come together in support of their high school basketball teams in district, regional, and State tournaments. This exciting period culminated last week with three teams from across South Dakota winning State championships in their respective divisions. There is a tremendous amount of pride that each community in South Dakota feels for its high school sports teams. Having grown up in one of those communities, I know that each time a high school team is successful, its community glows with the same accomplishment. Communities like these are still proud of their young people's abilities, their hard work, and their determination to work together and achieve a common goal, both on and off the court. Today, I would like to congratulate all of the teams who participated in this year's tournaments. In particular, I would like to commend the high schools of Warner, Douglas, and Mitchell for having earned their respective State boys' basketball championship titles in 1996. Clearly, these schools exemplify the commitment to excellence and teamwork that all South Dakota high schools share with their communities.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to commemorate the long and distinguished life of Peter A. Jennings, an outstanding American who passed away last November. Peter Jennings was born June 9, 1911, in the small town of Bridgewater, SD, and passed away on November 3, 1995, in Fort Meade, SD. Throughout his life he was very dedicated to his family, his community, and his work. As a father and husband, Peter epitomized the term ``family values.'' He spent his life taking care of his family by always putting their needs and concerns first. He is survived by his wife of 56 years, Anita Sessions Jennings, his son Thomas Jennings, and his sisters Bernadette Stoltz and Irene Rotert. As an active member of his community, Peter was constantly working to improve the quality of people's lives. He belonged to the DAV, VFW, American Legion, Catholic Order of Forresters, the Retired Officers Association, and the Knights of Columbus. Peter served in the U.S. Army for much of his life, including 26 years of service at four VA medical centers in Fort Meade, SD; Kerrville, TX; Indianapolis, IN; and Hines, IL. During my travels as a U.S. Senator, I am constantly humbled by the people of my State and the basic principles by which they live their lives: a love of family, an obligation to community service, and a strong commitment to an honest day's work. Peter A. Jennings lived by those principles, and we remember him today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, passage of the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act will mark an important milestone in our efforts to provide American business with reasonable, common sense regulatory relief. It is a bill that should be passed by Congress and sent to the President with dispatch. This legislation, which was approved unanimously by the Senate Small Business Committee, and which I expect will pass the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, will provide much needed change in the way Federal agencies deal with American small business. It acknowledges that the Federal bureaucracy often chokes small business in red tape, and institutes a number of reforms that will unleash their productive energy without diminishing the Federal responsibility to protect the public health and safety. Passage of this bill will send an important message to small business owners across the country that their voice is being heard in Washington, DC. Small businesses already face a daunting array of challenges, from the uncertain economic climate to the myriad daily paperwork burdens of accounting, bookkeeping, and bill paying. The further burden of keeping up with, and complying with, Federal regulations can discourage even the most stalwart business men and women from striving to achieve their dream of entrepreneurship. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect worker health and safety, public health, and the environment. In that effort, agencies issue regulations, but experience shows that many of those regulations look good on paper, but don't work in the real world. This bill acknowledges that fact and demonstrates our determination to both confront and correct mistakes. Federal agencies should be as sensitive as possible to the challenges faced by small businesses in America, and I expect this bill will help achieve that goal. Many of this bill's provisions were developed by small business owners from South Dakota and across the country during the White House Conference on Small Business last summer. No one knows more about the risks and pitfalls associated with owning a small business than businesspeople themselves. The White House conference gave them a forum in which to discuss how the regulatory process could be improved, and I am glad that Congress has taken to heart what they had to say on this subject. One of the most frequent criticisms I hear from small business owners is that Federal agencies bring harsh enforcement actions against businesses for relatively insignificant and unintentional violations of Federal rules. This legislation responds to that concern by requiring agencies to develop policies to waive fines for first-time, nonserious violations. The legislation also requires Federal agencies to publish easy-to- read guidance for small business to comply with Federal rules and creates a small business and agricultural ombudsman at the Small Business Administration to provide a means to comment on agency enforcement personnel and to develop a customer satisfaction rating of Federal agencies. It assists small businesses in recovering attorneys' fees if they have been subject to excessive and unsustainable enforcement actions, and subjects final agency actions under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to judicial review. Small businesses will now be able to hold the feet of Federal agencies to the fire and ensure that they comply with the letter and spirit of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Finally, I am very pleased that the congressional veto legislation developed by Senators Reid and Nickles and passed by the Senate last year has been added to the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act. The Reid/Nickles provision establishes a process through which Congress can review major regulations before they are issued, thereby ensuring that the agencies developing these rules adhere to the intent of Congress and develop reasonable requirements for American business. Mr. President, the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act was written with advice from the small business community and will pass the Senate with strong bipartisan support. It reaffirms Congress' belief in the essential role that small business plays in the American economy and sends a clear signal that the public and private sectors are ready to work together in promoting the economic growth and expansion we will need to compete in the 21st century. I urge all my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object--I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the President, Senator Dole, Senator Hatfield, Senator McConnell, Senator Leahy, and I are offering an amendment to provide $50 million in antiterrorism assistance to Israel. All of us in the United States Senate have been shocked and saddened by the rash of terrorist bombings that have occurred in Israel. The four attacks from February 26 to March 4 have killed 58 people bringing terror and grief to Israelis and, for the moment, putting a halt to the peace process. One tragedy is compounded by another. In the days since the bombings, both Israeli and Palestinian security forces have moved against the terrorists. I am pleased the Palestinian authority has moved to round up more than 600 Hamas members and raid mosques, businesses and schools owned by militants. Its arrest of three senior members of Hamas' military wing over the weekend is further evidence that it is taking seriously the need to confront Hamas' terrorist threat. Despite these encouraging signs, however, I share Prime Minister Peres' view that these steps, while a good beginning, are clearly not enough. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authority must continue their efforts to root out the terrorist threat in its entirety. Finally, the United States must also contribute to the antiterrorism effort, for, without U.S. assistance, hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East could be in serious jeopardy. The images of the bombs' victims lying in Jerusalem's streets, of young girls at their friends' funeral, will haunt us indefinitely. The pain and loss of the victims' families and the people of Israel will always remain. Mr. President, I can think of only one thing that could worsen the tragedy of these bombings, and that would be for these extremists to be successful in their effort to permanently derail the peace process. The Israeli people have suffered greatly through each of these bombings. While their patience must have its limits, we cannot allow the terrorists to achieve their ultimate objective. This amendment addresses those concerns. It will assist Israel in its effort to combat terrorism. It will also add to the momentum for peace in the Middle East that was aided by President Clinton's initiatives and the resulting ``summit of the peacemakers.'' I hope Israelis will derive some encouragement from the international community's condemnation of the attacks as well as from Wednesday's summit. I am hopeful, as well, that this unprecedented summit will demonstrate to the terrorists that the international community stands united against them and their despicable acts. It is unfortunate that Syria, among others, did not attend the summit, but the list of countries, including moderate Arab nations, that participated in this historic conference is most impressive: Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tunisia, Canada, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Turkey, and the United States. This extensive list of participants clearly represents the international community's continued commitment to the Middle East peace process. And, again, it is a sign to the Israelis that they are not alone in their battle against terrorism. President Clinton should also be commended for establishing an international counter-terrorism alliance involving espionage agencies of several nations. I am hopeful that this initiative will help ensure that terrorist threats will not be tolerated. This bipartisan amendment is important because it, in concert with the summit in Egypt, puts the Senate squarely in support of Israel and squarely on the side of urging the Palestinians and the Arab states, with support from the United States, to move forcefully against the terrorist threat. I hope we will send a strong, united message of support for it.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the acting majority leader for his comments and for his leadership in bringing us to this point. The distinguished Senator from California had a misunderstanding about when the Coats amendment was going to be debated and has informed me it would be of great help to her if she could have 15 minutes in this debate. I wonder if we might modify the unanimous consent agreement to provide her with that opportunity.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I rise to call attention to a serious problem facing our Nation's farmers. Currently farmers are required to purchase crop insurance coverage to be eligible for farm program benefits. The deadline for purchasing crop insurance has already expired for southern commodities and will expire Friday, March 15, for midwestern commodities. Under normal circumstances, these deadlines would not be a problem; however, the farm bill has yet to be enacted, farm program provisions have not been announced, and farmers are uncertain about what crops they can or can't plant and still be eligible for farm program benefits. As you know, I have strongly supported a viable crop insurance program and have urged farmers to utilize important risk management tool. However, to require farmers to meet the crop insurance closing deadlines without knowing what will be in the farm bill, what they can or can't plant, or whether or not they even have to purchase crop insurance at all does not make common sense to me. Madam President, I would prefer to address this issue by simply extending the deadline to purchase crop insurance, but I understand it will be scored by CBO as and cost and thus require an offset.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I only want to complete my thought in urging colleagues to use the time we have available to us on Friday and Monday. We have 2 full days here. There is no reason why we ought not be able to use them to the fullest extent possible. Everyone now knows what the amendments are. They ought to be laid down and debated. We ought not lose the time we have available to us on Friday and on Monday. So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor in the next 2 days to get that work done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Until we have all the facts, Congress must continue, as we have done since 1981, to give veterans the benefit of the doubt and provide them free health care for conditions potentially related to their exposure. The NAS is helping us compile an important scientific record that is instrumental to Congress' effort to address the health and compensation needs of veterans. I commend the Institute of Medicine for its excellent work. This report builds on our scientific knowledge of the long-term health consequences of exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides. It recognizes that our understanding of these issues is still evolving. And it recommends additional work that should be done to further that understanding. The NAS report also serves as a valuable reminder that the impact of war is felt decades beyond the final shots. This holds for the Persian Gulf war as well as the war in Vietnam. We must be prepared to learn from the scientific effort on Agent Orange and apply these lessons to the effort to discover the true health effects of environmental hazards on the men and women who served in the gulf and on their children. I look forward to working with the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, veterans organizations, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the NAS, independent scientists, and others to address the issues raised in this report and to continue to search for the truth and a better understanding of the lasting health effects of military service. Exhibit 1 Table 1-1. Updated summary of findings in occupational, environmental, and veterans studies regarding the association between specific health problems and exposure to herbicides. sufficient evidence of an association Evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a positive association. That is, a positive association has been observed between herbicides and the outcome in studies in which chance, bias, and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For example, if several small studies that are free from bias and confounding show an association that is consistent in magnitude and direction, there may be sufficient evidence for an association. There is sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: Soft-tissue sarcoma, non- Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease chloracne. limited/suggestive evidence of an association Evidence is suggestive of an association between herbicides and the outcome but is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence. For example, at least one high-quality study shows a positive association, but the results of other studies are inconsistent. There is limited/suggestive evidence of an association between exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: Respiratory cancers (lung, larynx, trachea), prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy (new disease category), spina bifida (new disease category), porphyria cutanea tarda (category change in 1996). inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of an association. For example, studies fail to control for confounding, have inadequate exposure assessment, or fail to address latency. There is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: Hepatobiliary cancers, nasal/nasopharyngeal cancer, bone cancer, female reproductive cancers (cervical, uterine, ovarian), breast cancer, renal cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, spontaneous abortion, birth defects (other than spina bifida), neonatal/infant death and stillbirths, low birthweight, childhood cancer in offspring, abnormal sperm parameters and infertility, cognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders, motor/coordination dysfunction, chronic peripheral nervous system disorders, metabolic and digestive disorders (diabetes, changes in liver enzymes, lipid abnormalities, ulcers), immune system disorders (immune suppression and autoimmunity), circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, skin cancer (category change in 1996). Limited/Suggestive Evidence of No Association Several adequate studies, covering the full range of levels of exposure that human beings are known to encounter, are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to herbicides and the outcome at any level of exposure. A conclusion of ``no association'' is inevitably limited to the conditions, level of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small elevation in risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded. There is limited/suggestive evidence of no association between exposure to herbicides and the following health outcomes: Gastrointestinal tumors (stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer), bladder cancer, brain tumors. Note.--``Herbicides'' refers to the major herbicides used in Vietnam: 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid); 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and its contaminant TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin); cacodylic acid; and picloram. The evidence regarding association is drawn from occupational and other studies in which subjects were exposed to a variety of herbicides and herbicide components.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to call to our colleagues' attention important new findings on the relationship between Agent Orange exposure and certain health conditions. Earlier today, the Institute of Medicine [IOM], which is part of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS], released an update to their 1994 report, ``Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam.'' These reports were mandated in the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102- 4), which I authored with Senator John Kerry, Senator Alan Cranston and Representative Lane Evans. This report confirms what Vietnam veterans have long known: The Vietnam war is still claiming innocent victims. Unfortunately, the findings announced today validate veterans' worst fears about Agent Orange--that their children are suffering serious health consequences as a result of their parents' military service. The report found evidence suggestive of an association between veterans' exposure to Agent Orange and the presence of a severe form of spina bifida in their children. This type of spina bifida is an incurable birth defect characterized by a deformity in the spinal cord that often results in serious neurological problems, which require lifelong medical treatment. The cost of caring for a child with spina bifida can devastate a family. The report concluded that there is inadequate evidence at this time to determine whether there may be an association to Agent Orange exposure and any other birth defects. The Federal Government has a moral responsibility to help veterans whose children suffer from spina bifida and to meet their children's health care needs. This should include the provision of essential medical care and case management services to coordinate health and social services for the child. But the Government's responsibility does not end there. American soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange, and some of their children are now paying a terrible price. The Federal Government also has a responsibility to compensate these families. Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown has said he will appoint a task force to review the findings of the new IOM-NAS report and make policy recommendations to him within 90 days. I applaud the Secretary for his aggressive pursuit of the scientific facts related to Agent Orange and am hopeful that the task force will help Congress and the Secretary identify appropriate measures to address this unprecedented situation. Toward that end, I am asking Secretary Brown to direct the task force to consider the following several specific questions as part of their review: First, what is the most appropriate way to provide health care to veterans' children with spina bifida--through the VA directly or through contracts with other providers? Second, what kinds of case management services are needed to maximize the quality of life for these children, and their ability to function? And how can they be delivered most effectively? Third, should veterans' children with other birth defects be provided those same services? Finally, what is the most appropriate means of compensating the families of children who suffer from spina bifida as a result of their parent's exposure to Agent Orange? I am also asking the Secretary to ensure that the task force, as it considers these questions, seeks the input of organizations and individuals familiar with the unique treatment and case management needs of children suffering from spina bifida and other birth defects. I also hope the panel will consult with experts in the field of injury compensation for children. Congress and the VA have an obligation to seek and heed the best advice these experts have to offer. We need answers to these questions as soon as possible. The families of these children need help, and they have waited long enough. Mr. President, the association between Agent Orange exposure and spina bifida was not the only new finding in this report. The IOM Committee also updated its finding on skin cancer, moving it from category IV--``uggestive of no association with exposure''--to category III--diseases for which there is ``insufficient evidence to make a determination.'' This change underscores the fact that we still do not understand fully the long-term effects of Agent Orange exposure. To facilitate my colleagues' and the public's understanding of these findings, I ask that a table from today's report, which explains the four-tiered classification system and summarizes the results of this study, be printed at the close of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, during the past 3 weeks, several unfortunate events that threaten peace and stability around the world have occurred. In Israel and in the skies off the Cuban coast, innocent men, women, and children have lost their lives as a result of those tragedies. Moreover, countless others continue to suffer the consequences of increased tensions between countries and groups of people who have long been separated by ideological or religious differences. Like many of my colleagues, I have already expressed my outrage at the unnecessary tragedy in the Straits of Florida and the unconscionable suicide bombings in Israel. I want to take this opportunity to voice my strong concerns about the recent escalation of tensions between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan. In the past week, China has taken several actions intended to intimidate the people of Taiwan and influence its upcoming presidential elections. On March 5, Beijing announced its decision to conduct guided-missile tests near Taiwan. Three days later, China launched the first three missiles in tests it intends to conduct until March 15. On March 9, China announced its plans to conduct live-ammunition war exercises in the Strait of Taiwan until March 20, just 3 days before Taiwan's presidential elections. As Secretary of State Warren Christopher indicated recently, these actions are ``risky, and smack of intimidation and coercion.'' China's actions create grave risks to stability in that region. I urge China's leadership to halt these dangerous and provocative actions immediately. Make no mistake, the risk is real. China's missile tests and military exercises are dangerous in and of themselves, and they increase the chances of an accident that could cause tensions to spiral out of control. When China conducted similar missile tests in July and August of last year, the target areas were 85 and 80 miles north of Taiwan, respectively. By contrast, the target zone for the surface-to-surface missiles fired last week are only half as far from Taiwan, and far too close to major airline and shipping routes. Of the three missiles launched last week, two landed near the port of Keelung which is only 23 miles from Taiwan's northern coast and approximately 30 miles from Taipei, Taiwan's capital. The third missile landed in a target zone near the port of Kaohsiun, which is only 35 miles from Taiwan's southern coast. Thankfully, the three missiles fired last week and the one fired this week landed where the Chinese intended. However, China intends to conduct similar missile tests in the same zones. If one of these missiles should stray off-course and mistakenly land in Taiwan, or hit a ship or an airliner, the repercussions would be severe. Needless to say, under such circumstances, Taiwan could not be expected to sit idly by, and the Clinton administration has continually warned that if an accident occurs, China ``will be held accountable.'' I would like to lend my voice to those warnings. Even if China's missile tests and military exercises go as planned, the inevitable result is greater difficulties in the day-to-day lives of the Taiwanese people. Taiwan's stock market has already experienced a great deal of volatility, and the fluctuations would have been greater had it not been for government initiatives. Flights for commercial airlines will also be disrupted this week when aircraft will be forced to change routes to avoid China's military exercises, and shipping has been delayed or diverted to avoid the missile test zones. Despite the heroic efforts by President Lee to keep the people of Taiwan calm during these trying times, China's threatening actions will continue to inject fear into the daily lives of the Taiwanese people. Beijing's time and efforts would be far better spent trying to communicate with Taiwan in a non-threatening and peaceful way rather than carrying out reckless missile tests and military exercises. Finally, Mr. President, there should be no misunderstanding that if China's missile tests and military exercises should develop into actual military action against Taiwan, the United States is well prepared to respond. The carrier U.S.S. Independence, accompanied by three warships, was recently ordered to move near Taiwan. Moreover, the U.S.S. Nimitz and five to six additional ships are expected to arrive near Taiwan before the upcoming presidential elections. The irony is that China is conducting missile tests and military exercises in order to curb support for Taiwan independence. The fact of the matter is, most Taiwanese, as well as a majority of their elected leaders, are committed to reunification, but only reunification achieved through peaceful means. United States policy, as spelled out in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, stipulates that the future relationship between China and Taiwan should be determined by peaceful means. I sincerely hope China will not miscalculate United States resolve in this regard. With the leadership of President Clinton, the United States stands ready to assist Taiwan if necessary. Again, I urge the People's Republic of China to cease its intimidation of Taiwan and to resolve its differences with the Taiwanese peacefully.