Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think it has been documented now in most of the newspapers and media that the terrorist cells which exist have produced information that would cause us to be concerned that some of these cells and some of these networks have weapons of mass destruction that they certainly intend to target towards the United States. There is no question they have made every attempt to acquire these weapons over the course of the last several years, and if they have been successful, I think it is a reasonable assumption the United States would be the first to experience those attacks. That is why it is so critical for us to do all we can to prepare for whatever possibility there is that these weapons could be used against us. We are not there yet. We have a lot of work to do to create the kind of infrastructure required to provide the maximum degree of safety for all Americans. We don't have that today. Director Ridge has indicated he is prepared to ask for additional resources next year. They have acknowledged that additional cost could entail upwards of a $200 billion commitment in homeland defense resources. But if we are going to require $200 billion, what is wrong with taking the first installment, $7.5 billion, and putting in place at least the foundation of this new homeland defense infrastructure? We have to do it. We know we have to do it. Why do it responsively in reaction to incidents that have occurred? The time to do it is now, before these new incidents occur. That is really the essence of the debate in the Chamber this afternoon. But I thank the Senator for asking the question.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is a historic day in the Senate's history. Our colleague, the senior Senator from South Carolina, is celebrating his 99th birthday today. Bob Dole used to say that he followed Strom Thurmond very carefully; whatever he ate Bob Dole would eat. I have taken on that practice myself. I congratulate Senator Thurmond on his 99th birthday today and wish him well. We are delighted to serve with him and honored that he is here with us today. We congratulate him on a very special occasion, not only in his life but in the life of the Senate as well. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, when our country was attacked on September 11, countless countries came forth to express condolences, to condemn those heinous attacks and to make clear that they stood with America in our time of trouble. The statements were a welcome reassurance from the family of nations that we would not be standing alone in the campaign against terror. I come to the floor today to send my condolences to the families of the 26 Israelis killed in this weekend's attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, to send my prayers to the scores more who were injured, to condemn in the strongest terms those attacks--and the attack that occurred just this morning, and to reassure our friends in Israel that just as they stood with us, we stand with them. Like people all over the world, I went to bed on Saturday deeply shaken by the horrifying images from Jerusalem. Not only were the attacks timed to occur during busiest time of the week in an area frequented by young people, but a second bomb was intended to maim and kill emergency response workers trying to assist the victims. It is some small measure of consolation that the second bomb didn't kill anyone. Still, it is hard to imagine a more inhumane plan; hard to imagine, that is, until I woke up Sunday morning, and heard reports of the second attack--in Haifa. In this case, a suicide bomber boarded a bus full of innocent people just starting their work week. These coordinated bombings marked the deadliest terrorist attacks in the history of the State of Israel. For the past 15 months, the United States, Europe, and moderate Arab states have called on Chairman Arafat to use his authority to put an end to this violence. At times we have heard helpful words, but we have not yet seen decisive action. Even this morning, after 2 days of international pressure to stop such violence, we hear of another suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Terrorists have used the territories as a haven to plan and organize their murderous assaults, to build their bombs and recruit their suicide bombers. Instead of cracking down on this violence, Chairman Arafat has seemed all too willing to use it as a negotiating tool. Such a strategy is more than cynical. It is dangerous, and it stands in stark contrast to the Oslo process that brought the region so close to a comprehensive peace just one year ago. After Jerusalem and Haifa, Chairman Arafat's words alone are not enough. Symbolic actions--rounding up the usual suspects only to let them go again--is not enough. Concrete steps to bring the planners of this weekend's attacks to justice are just a starting point. The world also expects--in fact, the world demands--that Chairman Arafat crack down on the organizations that harbor and support these terrorists. We have already begun to hear a litany of reasons why it is difficult for Chairman Arafat to do what has to be done. He is not responsible for the attacks, we are told. He is not capable of controlling the terrorists. No one is, we are told. We are also told that Israel's response hinders the Palestinian Authority's ability to move against the terrorists. None of these excuses will stop the violence. And none is acceptable. Time has run out. We are at the point where Chairman Arafat's lack of action against terrorists is a question not of capability, but of will. Only if he chooses to act decisively can he put this perception to rest. If not, he will confirm the worst fears of the international-- community that he is unable and unwilling to confront terror. Without concrete action, Israel will be left with no choice but continue to defend itself. The suicide bombings in Jerusalem in Haifa ended 26 innocent lives, but they also ended something else. They ended any patience the world has for excuses and inaction on the part of Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. It is time for them to prove that they have both the ability and the will to stop the bloodshed. It is time for them to join the family of nations and work to end the specter of global terrorism. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will reserve some of my leader time to make a short statement as we wait to complete our work on the railroad retirement bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, after months of hard work by the chairman of nine committees, we are today introducing legislation to establish a national energy policy. The bill we are introducing provides a blueprint for solving many of the nation's energy problems, and will provide the American people with clean, reliable, and affordable energy for generations to come. This bill recognizes that the use of energy has profound consequences for economic health, environmental quality and national security. The energy policy we choose to adopt will have long-lasting consequences in each of these areas. Today, we have an opportunity to dramatically reshape America's energy future, and it is an opportunity we cannot afford to lose. The strength of our economy depends, in large measure, in the abundant and inexpensive supply of energy. The periodic price shocks experienced by American drivers since the mid-1970s underscores the vulnerability associated with our growing dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, the rolling blackouts experienced by California last summer serves as a cautionary tale of the failure to guarantee reliable and abundant supplies of electricity. One of the greatest environmental challenges that our nation--and the world--will face in the coming years is the rising tide of global climate change. The way we generate and use energy in the future will determine whether we effectively face this challenge and prevent the catastrophic impacts of global warming, and whether we can make the air we breathe cleaner and more healthy. And finally, the success of our foreign policy and the security of our nation are inextricably linked to our future patterns of energy use. In the last 12 years we have spent billions of dollars fighting two wars in the Middle East, both of which involved oil. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it endangered the oil fields that supplied a significant percentage of the world's energy. The U.S., in cooperation with much of the rest of the world, was forced to respond to that threat. More recently, we have learned that much of Osama bin Laden's financial support came from supporters made rich by the oil-based economy of the Middle-East. It is long past time when we take whatever steps we can toward freeing ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, and the volatility associated with it. The bill we are introducing today is intended to address these challenges by pursuing a thoughtful, progressive, and realistic energy policies. I thank Chairman Bingaman for the job he has done in working with nine committees to produce this bill. In addition to his Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he also coordinated with: the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Commerce Committee; the Banking Committee; the Indian Affairs Committee; the Foreign Relations Committee; the Governmental Affairs Committee; the Agriculture Committee; and the Finance Committee. The events of September 11 have dictated that committees which have jurisdiction over key elements of energy policy deal with the issues that demand our immediate attention. Those committees are now turning to their energy-related work, and will have their provisions complete prior to floor debate. For Example, the Commerce Committee has worked tirelessly to address aviation security and now is turning its attention to fuel economy. It will develop provisions designed to improve fuel efficiency of vehicles over the next 2 months and add them to this package. The Finance Committee, which has spent so much time working on the economic stimulus legislation, will develop and add an energy tax component designed to spur investment in new, efficient energy technologies. And the Environment and Public Works Committee will add provisions related to the protection and insurance of commercial nuclear facilities. While those elements will continue to fall into place, the pieces of the bill already in place outline a balanced energy plan that will strengthen our economy, protect our environment, and provide energy security for our nation for decades to come. The bill Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today includes provisions promoting renewable energy, clean coal use, oil and gas exploration, as well as greater efforts to improve the efficiency with which we use that energy. It will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Under our legislation, the federal government will lead by exemple-- reducing consumption of energy by 20 percent by 2011 and purchasing 7.5 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2010. Our proposal requires utilities to generate and sell 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. It requires that five billion gallons per year of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, must be used in the nation's transportation fuels marked by 2012. We increase funding for LIHEAP and state energy weatherization grants. Our bill establishes permanent authority for the President to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and request that it be filled. The bill overturns the air conditioner efficiency standard recently adopted by DOE and replaces it with a more aggressive standard. We authorize up to $10 billion in loan guarantees to encourage timely development of a pipeline to bring 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. Construction of this pipeline is expected to generate 400,000 new jobs. To keep our nation moving forward, our plan authorizes billions of dollars of additional funding for research and development of energy- efficient and renewable energy technologies, and more efficient use of fossil fuels. By reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, our bill is designed to help restore American's tattered credibility with the international community on the issue of climate change. This bill includes climate change provisions developed by the Committees on Energy, Environment, Agriculture, Governmental Affairs, Foreign Relations and Commerce. I am pleased that Senator Bingaman has included the Byrd-Stevens climate change legislation. This is a bipartisan and voluntary proposal that was passed unanimously by the Government Affairs Committee earlier this year. It requires the establishment of comprehensive national plan, including a renewed commitment to develop the next generation energy technologies. We have complemented the Byrd-Stevens proposal with other climate change proposals from members on both sides of the aisle. I know many of my colleagues are eager to debate our energy policy, and I look forward to giving this issue the substantive debate it deserves shortly after the new year. I look forward to working with the White House, Senate Republicans, and our colleagues in the House to shape a national energy policy that can be signed into law.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The lawsuit, filed by a prolife, pro se plaintiff, names Senator Lott as the sole defendant. The plaintiff has filed a number of prior lawsuits against other public officials, which have been dismissed by several courts. In this action, the plaintiff calls upon Senator Lott to commence impeachment proceedings against the United States Supreme Court for its ruling in Bush v. Gore. The plaintiff contends that because the Supreme Court's decision in that case was unlawful, all actions taken by President George Bush are unconstitutional, including one allegedly denying him disability benefits. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Lott in this suit to move for its dismissal. Of course, under the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives, not the Senate, that initiates impeachment proceedings and the judgment of neither House in impeachment matters is the subject of judicial review.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the weeks since September 11, we've heard a lot about homeland security. Right now, we're working to make our Nation's infrastructure more secure, our food and water supply safer, and to improve our government's ability to respond to chemical and biological weapons attacks. To me, homeland security also means giving all of our Nation's law enforcement officers the tools and training they need to do their jobs. And that means recognizing that law enforcement in rural America has its own unique set of challenges: rural law enforcement officers patrol larger areas, and operate under tighter budgets with smaller staffs, than most of their urban and suburban counterparts. In States like South Dakota, often, just a handful of people are responsible for patrolling an entire county. Law enforcement officers respond to a lot of calls alone, and often have to communicate with each other by cell phone. Backup can be several hours away. Yet we expect the same quality of service, and we demand lower crime rates. I believe Washington can and must do a better job of helping rural law enforcement do their work. That is why I am proud to join my colleague and friend, Senator Tim Johnson, in introducing the Rural Safety Act of 2001. While Tim and I are the ones introducing this bill, we want to thank all of the South Dakota sheriffs with whom we've spoken whose ideas and experiences are incorporated within it. For my part, I'd like to recognize: Sheriff Mike Milstead of Minnehaha County, Sheriff Mark Milbrandt of Brown County, Sheriff Leidholt of Hughes County, Chief Al Aden of Pierre, Chief Duane Heeney of Yankton, Chief Ken Schwab of my hometown, Aberdeen, Chief Doug Feltman of Mitchell; and Chief Craig Tieszen of Rapid City. One theme I've heard repeated on visit after visit is this: Washington needs to do a better job working with State and local law enforcement agencies. To me, that means building on what we know works, and developing new initiatives that respond to the special law enforcement challenges of small towns and rural communities. To that end, this bill does six things: First, it builds on our success with the COPS program. COPS has enabled South Dakota communities to hire more than 300 law enforcement officers. Across the country, it's added more than 100,000 new officers to the ``thin blue line.'' Under this proposal, rural communities that hire officers through the COPS program will be eligible for federal funding to keep those offices on for a fourth year. Second, because rural law enforcement officers have to cover such large areas, rural law enforcement agencies arguably have a greater need for advanced communications equipment than many urban and suburban departments, but have fewer resources to purchase them. Recently, I received a letter from Sgt. Marty Goetsch in the Lawrence County Sheriff's Office in Deadwood, SD. He told me that his office, and its staff of 11, are ``very much behind in the available technology.'' This bill provides funds to help rural communities obtain things like mobile data computers and dash-mounted video cameras. It will also provide additional funds for training to use new technologies. Third, this bill will establish a Rural Policing Institute as a way to help rural law enforcement officers upgrade their skills and tactics. Fourth, it will expand and improve the 9-1-1 emergency assistance systems in rural areas. Many of us take for granted that in an emergency, we can call 9-1-1, and help will be there. In rural and remote areas, the nearest help may be miles away. We need to make sure that people in rural areas can rely on a modern, integrated system of communication between law enforcement, and fire and other safety officials. The Rural Safety Act will provide the resources to finish the job and develop a seamless 9-1-1 system all across America. Fifth, the bill will help communities create ``restorative justice'' for first-time, non-violent juvenile offenders. These programs offer victims the opportunity to confront youthful offenders and require that these offenders make meaningful restitution to their victims. In many cases, that will meet our societal goals more effectively and more efficiently that costly incarceration. Sixth, it will enable us to stop the spread of ``meth'' now, before it becomes a crisis. A study released last year by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University shows that eighth graders living in rural communities are 104 percent more likely to have used amphetamines, including methamphetamine. We need to stop the use of all of these drugs, but in rural America, meth is particularly addictive, and devastatingly destructive. This proposal will increase prevention and treatment of meth use, and cleanup of meth labs that have been discovered and shut down. Seventh and finally, our plan will offer gun owners tax credits to purchase gun safes. It will also provide law enforcement agencies with resources to buy and install gun safes or gun storage racks for officers' homes. I don't believe Washington should restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. But if gun owners want help in preventing accidental gun tragedies, I believe Washington can, and should, help. When we talk about homeland security, I believe we need to think about the law enforcement needs of those who live in America's rural areas. That is what this bill does, and that is why I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in keeping with our understanding of our current parliamentary circumstances, I make a point of order that amendment No. 2171 is not germane.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could respond, I know some of our colleagues are trying to catch airplanes. We need to get on with this vote. I am very sympathetic to the Senator from Alaska. I have been in exactly his position three times now in the last month. I was in his position when we tried to address the unemployment compensation bill on the airline security legislation. I was in it when we tried to address the firefighters legislation as an amendment. I was in it for the last week as we have attempted to bring closure on an up-or-down vote on this bill, the Railroad Retirement Act. In all three cases, of course, the Senate has worked its will and Senators have used their prerogatives under Senate rules to extend debate. We have not had an up-or-down vote on my three priorities. We all face these circumstances where as much as we would like to bring a particular bill or amendment to closure with an up-or-down vote, as I have attempted in the last month on those three issues, Senators have used their prerogatives as Senators under the rules to continue the debate. We will have to see how the energy debate plays itself out, especially with regard to ANWR. I have already stated very emphatically my desire to bring up the energy bill prior to the Founders' Day recess, to have a good debate, to talk about all of the issues, including those which are controversial. It is my expectation we will do just that. We will have a good debate and have many votes on many of the issues that the Senator has so passionately addressed in the Senate Chamber. I ask for regular order.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Republican leader and appreciate very much his efforts at asserting his ability to bring his caucus's agenda to the Senate. When we were in the minority, we tried to do that on many occasions, and I certainly do not deny him the right to do it. Let me make sure everybody understands the state of play. The current bill pending is the Railroad Retirement Act. Our Republican colleagues have filed an amendment that actually combines the comprehensive energy bill with the question about whether or not we ought to drill in ANWR with the question on whether or not we ought to allow cloning in this country. I must say, in all my years, I do not recall a more unusual marriage of issues involving public policy than this one. What the Republicans are saying is not only should they have the right to offer this amendment but they want to extend debate on their own amendment. They actually are now advocating we not vote for cloture, which is the Democratic position. We had expressed some concern about an amendment of this kind on this bill, and we will have an opportunity to vote on cloture on the bill as soon as we dispose of the cloture motion on this particular amendment. We may have a unanimous vote on this amendment on cloture, which is an extraordinary situation given the complexity of these issues and the unusual juxtaposition of the two issues together. I am confident there will be those who are going to be confused with our colleagues' strategy, but certainly that is their choice. Let me simply say three things: First, these are very important questions. Energy policy alone should dictate a debate in the Senate that would require days, if not longer, to ensure we carefully consider all of the ramifications of energy policy, additional production, additional efforts at conservation, additional ways in which to research alternative energy sources, our infrastructure, the environmental questions associated with where we draw our additional production. All of those questions will be addressed. Ought they be addressed as an amendment to the railroad retirement bill? Is this the best forum within which to address something as complex, controversial, and as far-reaching? I think even our Republican colleagues would have to say it is not. The question of cloning may also fall into that category. As complex, as difficult, as extraordinarily sophisticated as this whole question of public policy is, is this the right place, an amendment to the Railroad Retirement Act, to take up the issue of cloning? I think not. It is for that reason I have said this Senate will take up, consider carefully, and dedicate whatever time is required to both issues early next year. We are trying to address railroad retirement now. We have to address the farm bill soon. We have the Defense appropriations bill upcoming. We also have the economic stimulus plan in addition to terrorist insurance--all of those issues in what amounts to a few days remaining in this session of Congress. Our colleagues have been demanding we take up energy, with all of its complexity, and cloning, with the controversies associated with that issue as well. That is virtually an impossibility unless we are in session between Christmas and New Year's, and I do not think anyone is serious about a schedule of that kind. So I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on this amendment, vote for cloture on the bill, so we can bring our debate on railroad retirement to closure. That is the way we can address these issues in a careful, constructive, and meaningful way. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that the following bills are at the desk, having been read the first time: H.R. 3210 and S. 1748.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order en bloc for these two bills to receive a second reading. I would then object to any further consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 4:45 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. At 4:45 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of the Railroad Retirement Act. There will be 30 minutes of debate prior to a 5:15 p.m. cloture vote on the Lott amendment. If cloture is not invoked on the Lott amendment, a second cloture vote will occur on the Daschle substitute amendment. As a reminder, all second-degree amendments must be filed prior to 4:15 p.m.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every December first since 1988, World AIDS Day has been a day dedicated to sending messages of compassion, hope, solidarity, and understanding. Commemorating this day is a small but important gesture, and it is the least we can do in the face of the worst pandemic mankind has ever known. Yesterday, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization released a joint report that illustrates the enormity of the AIDS pandemic. The numbers are so staggering that they are almost incomprehensible. There are now 40 million people living with AIDS. Two point seven million of them are children. In the past year, there have been 5 million new HIV infections and 3 million AIDS deaths. Many countries are seeing their future--embodied in their young people--ravaged by this disease. People under the age of 25 represent half of all new HIV infection cases, and there are now 10 million people between the ages of 15 and 24 living with HIV/AIDS. Every minute, five more young people are infected with HIV. As I have argued before, this is not just a humanitarian issue, it is also an economic and national security issue. The International Labor Organization reports that by 2020, AIDS will reduce national workforces so much that countries with the highest rates of prevalence will see their GDPs drop by as much as 20 percent in the next 20 years. How can companies in these nations afford the increased costs for insurance, benefits, training, and illness in his environment? The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 7 million farm workers have died from AIDS-related causes since 1985, and 16 million more are expected to die in the next 20 years. How can these countries maintain--let alone increase--agricultural output under these circumstances? The United Nations reports that in 1999, 860,000 students in sub- Saharan Africa lost their teachers to AIDS. How can countries educate their children with these losses? These numbers are a disturbing snapshot of the epidemic today. Tragically, they may only be the tip of the iceberg. Experts tell us that the epidemic in many parts of the world is still in its early stages. Globally, most people infected are unaware they carry the virus. Many millions more know nothing about HIV and how to protect themselves against it. If we are ever to staunch the AIDS epidemic, we must continue--and increase--our efforts at prevention. Since the 1980s, the United States has found prevention efforts such as school-based education, perinatal prevention programs, and screening the blood supply, to prove effective. As a member of the family of nations, we have to do a better job of promoting and supporting international prevention and education programs. We were able to take a positive step in the foreign operations appropriations bill, where the Senate added significant funds to invest in prevention programs around the globe. I am hopeful the final bill will include those funds, but prevention and treatment must go hand in hand, because without treatment options, at-risk individuals have no incentive to submit to testing or to practice prevention. We have taken some positive steps in treating HIV/ AIDS, but much more needs to be done. We have worked hard to invest $300 million for the U.N. Global Trust Fund on AIDS, TB, and Malaria. While it is not nearly enough for this challenge, it is a significant first step. As that fund is developed, we have to make sure that its resources are dedicated to fighting this disease on all fronts--including treatment. While there is pressure to limit the focus of the fund to prevention alone, that would be a mistake--and it would limit our ability to develop a comprehensive agenda to confront this pandemic. The theme designated for this year's World AIDS Day is simply: ``I care. Do you?'' While our words today are important, it is our action every day--on all fronts, in all nations--that are the true measure of our caring. On this day, let us recommit ourselves to fighting, and ultimately defeating, this scourge.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I move to proceed to the railroad retirement bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his comments. He is absolutely right. The tourism industry has been very hard hit. This is yet another indication of the difficult time they are having. I wasn't aware that these two companies declared bankruptcy. But it certainly illustrates yet another instance of just how difficult a time many of these companies are experiencing. So I appreciate his comment and especially appreciate so much his sensitivity to the agricultural situation. He noted he does not have a lot of farmers, but he has been extremely supportive and understanding about the farm situation. I appreciate that very much. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota and I have been through a lot of legislative battles over the years on rural issues. As he has noted, nothing is more important to rural America than passage of this bill to allow us to go to conference first and to allow us to resolve the outstanding issues that remain between the House and the Senate membership on farm policy so we can get the bill to the President in time to provide all the assurance and confidence we can to farmers and ranchers all over this country. We understand their economic plight. I note, as the Senator from North Dakota has on several occasions, that last month--the month of October--we saw the single biggest 1- month depression in prices that we have seen in all the time the Department of Agriculture has been keeping records. We have never seen the prices plummet as dramatically in 1 month as we saw them plummet last month. If there is no other reason to move forward on farm legislation than that, it would be enough. I am hopeful that people understand the urgency of the issue--the urgency of the issue of completing our work on the bill in time to go to conference, resolve our differences, and enact it into the law.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes. I yield the floor.