David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. 505. Arkansas is 501. The committee authorized a subpoena asking for every telephone call from the White House in Washington, DC, to any area code 501 number, the entire State of Arkansas, for a 7- month period. Third, they asked, above and beyond the committee's already overbroad authorization, the majority staff unilaterally, unilaterally issued a subpoena for all White House telephone calls from any White House telephone or communications device for a 7-month period in 1993 to anywhere in the country. This is the type of documentation the committee is trying to force the White House to come up with. Now, it is my understanding that the committee is trying to get all of the e-mail messages from the White House. Well, I would say to my friend from New Mexico, I think that this White House has been extremely cooperative, and you know it was not just but a very few years ago when, in September 1992, after a subpoena, after a subpoena had been issued in the Iran-Contra affair, you might remember because the Senator was certainly here at that time, as this Senator was present, in September 1992, an administrative staff assistant, Patty Prescott, found George Bush's diary, President Bush's diary which was under subpoena. Where did they find it? They found it on the third floor of the White House living quarters. Even when the document was not delivered to the investigators, as the subpoena called for--not delivered--Ms. Prescott told President Bush of her discovery and said she believed it was relevant to the latest then- counsel request. The President said he directed Ms. Prescott to have the Presidential counsel at that time, C. Boyden Gray--we all remember--``sort it out.'' That was December 1992, after the election, after the election when Mr. Clinton had won and Mr. Bush had lost. I do not think that the diary was ever turned over to the investigators. If it was, I do not have any knowledge of it. I do not recall my friend from New Mexico or my friend from New York ever coming to the floor of this Senate and saying, ``Oh, my goodness, this has been a terrible transgression; this has been a terrible obstruction of justice.'' George Bush did not present his diary to the subpoena's call and request for that diary. So I just think we ought to put things in perspective. I think we ought to talk about how this White House has cooperated--45,000 pages of statements and testimony and records have been turned over from the White House to this committee. They deposed 202 persons; 121 witnesses have testified to this date before the Committee on Whitewater, and the examination, as I have said, of thousands and thousands and thousands of pages. We on our side of the aisle think that we have proposed a reasonable solution to this so-called impasse, a reasonable solution. April 3, continue with our hearings until April 3, and then allow the Whitewater Committee to, at that time, write a report and submit that report to the Congress and to the public on its findings and any recommendations that it might have. Then after that, any and all information, I assume, would be turned over to the special counsel, Mr. Kenneth Starr, who is in Little Rock, AR. I am sure he would love to receive all of these truckloads of information that will be driven from Washington, DC, down to Little Rock and deposited in Mr. Starr's office, including all of the telephone logs, all of the telephone records, and even the subpoena for Chelsea Clinton's nanny. I am sure he would enjoy seeing that subpoena, too. It is my understanding that there is a whole new list now out that the chairman wants to bring before the Whitewater committee, people who have no way to pay their legal bills, people who have no way to pay the costs of coming, mostly from Arkansas, to Washington, DC, and back. Mr. President, I think we have to talk some sense into this matter. I think we have made a reasonable offer. I am very hopeful that our colleagues on the other side will consider that offer. I have one other thing I wanted to place in the Record. But should my friend desire to ask a question, I will yield for a question.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Senator.

Mr. PRYOR. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am going to yield in just a moment. I have only a few more points I wish to make. I would like to read, if I might, Mr. President, a few sentences from a February 15 editorial from the Atlanta Constitution. This editorial begins by saying, ``The Senate's Watergate hearings of 1973-1974''--Watergate hearings--``were momentous, delving into White House abuses into power, leading to the resignation of a disgraced President, and the imprisonment of many of his aides. That lasted 279 days. Next week Senator Alfonse D'Amato''--I want my friend to know that I am mentioning his name, and I do not want him to think I am abusing his name; I am simply reading from the editorial--``next week Senator Alfonse D'Amato, Republican, New York, and his fellow Whitewater investigators, will surpass that mark. Today,'' which was February 15, ``is the 275th day.'' The Watergate hearings went 279 days. And we have already surpassed probably almost 280 days. ``And they have nothing anywhere near conclusive to show for their labors. To put matters in context, all they have to do is ponder a fairly obscure 1980's real estate and banking scandal in Arkansas.'' Let me interject here, Mr. President. President and Mrs. Clinton made an investment, and it went sour. They lost everything in that investment that they made. I do not know what it was, $50,000 or $60,000, $30,000. I am not sure how much they lost. What would have happened had they made that much money in this investment or had they made $500,000? We would have really seen a momentous explosion. But they lost money, and they show that they lost that money. Reading further: With the February 29 expiration date for the special panel staring him in the face, D'Amato has the effrontery to ask the Senate for more time and more money to continue drilling dry investigative holes. Specifically, he wants open-ended authority and another $600,000. That's on top of the $950,000 his committee has spent so far, plus $400,000 that was devoted to a Senate Banking Committee inquiry into Whitewater in 1994. Mr. President, I conclude with the last paragraph of this editorial: The First Couple is still under investigation by independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, a former Reagan Justice Department official who can be expected to scrutinize the Clinton's legal and business affairs rigorously. Any additional sleuthing by Mr. D'Amato would be a waste of taxpayer money. That comes from the Atlanta Constitution. An editorial that appeared yesterday in, I believe, the Washington Post states, and I read: Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut reluctantly agreed to renewal of the Senate Whitewater committee's expiring mandates, suggesting limiting the extension to 5 weeks ending April the 3rd. Along with the minority leader Tom Daschle and other leading Senate Democrats, Mr. Dodd told reporters yesterday that they were prepared to filibuster against any extension beyond April. Mr. President, there is no desire for anyone to filibuster this legislation. We have offered a reasonable compromise, and that reasonable compromise is to go to April 3 and then to allow a 30-day period for a committee report to be sent out to the public and to the Senate and to the Congress of the United States. We think that is fair. We think that is reasonable. We think and we hope that proposal will be given very careful consideration by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland--who has the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. PRYOR. I was only going to ask what Lasater has to do with Whitewater, which is absolutely nothing, and the Senator from North Carolina should know that.

Mr. PRYOR. I would like to inquire, Mr. President, of the very distinguished Democratic leader. Yesterday I was sitting in a Finance Committee hearing. We were listening to the Governors' reports on Medicare and Medicaid. And, by the way, we were here almost at the first of March. For the information of Members of the Senate, this was only the fourth meeting this year, the fourth meeting this year of the Senate Committee on Finance. One of our colleagues on the committee, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, expressed disbelief that we have not yet dealt with the welfare package, that we have not dealt with passing the welfare reform bill. And I happened to calculate, well, one reason we are not dealing with legislation is pretty simple: The Senate is not functioning this year. As a matter of fact, in 1995, up until this point, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, the distinguished leader of the Democrats, we have had 97 votes; we have had 97 votes in this body. In 1996, by the same date, we have had only 21 votes in the U.S. Senate, in 1996. There is only one committee, for all practical purposes, that has been functioning, and that is the so-called Whitewater committee. In 1996, with 15 hearings, 15 hearings thus far, 47 hearings total--time consumed, resources of the Federal Government. In fact, we have had almost as many hearings of the Whitewater committee as we have had votes in the Senate in the year 1996. I wonder if the distinguished minority leader was aware of those facts?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wonder if my distinguished leader would also answer this question. I wonder if the distinguished leader was aware that already the Whitewater committee has deposed 202 persons-- 202 persons?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me and for my colleague from North Dakota yielding me this time. I have been listening to my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, the distinguished chairman of our committee. I will just simply say to our distinguished friend from Indiana, Mr. President, that the Dorgan amendment is not a killer amendment by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply an effort to address what promises to become a totally outrageous section and provision of the freedom-to-farm act. We are saying in the Dorgan amendment--and I am a cosponsor--we are saying that farmers do not have to do anything in order to receive their payments. If the Senator from Indiana has a fear that farmers are not going to plant anything and go to Hawaii, if he says, ``Why, they are not going to do that,'' if he maintains that position, then he should accept this amendment, he should be for the Dorgan amendment, because the Dorgan amendment couples production with an ultimate payment under certain circumstances. It does not decouple as the freedom-to-farm act does. We want a defendable farm program. This is one, Mr. President, this particular program, this particular proposal, that I do not think we can ultimately defend. I have been through, I think, about four farm bills, and I have never seen one like this, because this is going to be, in my opinion, not an ordinary 5-year farm bill. It is not going to be a 7-year farm bill. It is going to be about a 90-day farm bill, because when people wake up and ``20/20'' and ``60 Minutes'' and everyone else becomes exposed to what we have done to agriculture and to the agriculture industry and the economy in this country, they are going to demand that the Congress go back and draft a new farm bill that will work. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, it is so remarkably easy from time to time to do something. This is one of those times. This is a time when it is going to be very easy to say to farmers across our country that you do not have to plant to have a check. You are going to get a check in advance. You can go on vacation, you can get your check from the taxpayers. This is one of those times when I think we are about to make the terrible mistake, a terrible compass error, trying to do something that is easy when actually we should be doing something that is responsible. Many of the farm organizations have come out now in support of the concept of the freedom-to-farm movement. The freedom-to-farm legislation has received the support, in the last several days and hours, of many of the groups that have opposed it. But, Mr. President, that does not mean this is a piece of legislation without flaw. It is seriously flawed. It was a seriously flawed piece of legislation when it was introduced. It is seriously flawed today as we go to a vote with a very short time to debate it. I applaud the Democratic leader for offering us an opportunity, offering us a chance to save ourselves from making an enormous mistake that could affect agriculture and affect our country for generations to come. This is a measure offered by the distinguished Democratic leader and others of his colleagues who say that we want to keep a basic safety net. We want to keep flexibility, but we do not want to decouple those payments from production. We need to couple those payments with production. We need to say to the farm sector in our country: Let us slow this down just a moment. We know there is no farm program. But is it better to have a bad farm program than no farm program at all for the moment? I think the Daschle alternative--very respectfully, I think his alternative gives us that opportunity and that chance to speak to the future of American agriculture. One, it does not tie us for 7 years. It only obligates us and this Congress and the American farmer for a period of 3 years. In that 3-year period, hopefully we will have sorted out where we are and we will have the opportunity to revisit this issue. The Senator from South Dakota has offered us a very good, constructive option. I hope we will heed his wisdom.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I am stunned listening to my good friend from Idaho talk about the politics of the season. If talking about the politics surrounding the vote this afternoon on a bill that the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee has never had hearings on, has never passed, when the other party has frozen this side of the aisle totally out of any negotiations relative to meeting our commitment to an agriculture bill for the farmers of this country--they come forward with something known as the freedom-to-farm-bill. The freedom-to-farm bill, Mr. President, frankly, is a bill that the farmers in France should love. Our competitors overseas should love the freedom-to-farm bill because what it is going to mean is that our farmers are going to be unable to compete in the international and world markets. This bill spells doomsday for the farmers of America. It spells doomsday for the agriculture programs in our country that are the envy of the world. Mr. President, I cannot believe that my friend from Idaho is talking about the politics of the moment when it is his party that has prevented a real debate on the 1996 agriculture bill to take place. This bill was written by budgeteers. It was not written by the Agriculture Committee in the House or in the Senate. It was written by the budget committees, Mr. President. My friend from Idaho knows that.

Mr. PRYOR. Yes.

Mr. PRYOR. I will answer my friend from North Dakota by saying that just a few months ago, I went before our farm bureau organization down in Arkansas. I spent about an hour and a half visiting with them. They begged me and they pled with me to oppose the Freedom to Farm Act. Now, suddenly, they have made a reversal. They say, ``Well, maybe it is the best we can do.'' Mr. President, I do not think it is the best we can do. I think that we can do better. I think that we can go back and draft at least an extension of the farm bill of the past 5 years and extend it for a year and make certain that we do not make the gargantuan mistakes that we are likely to make today by enacting the Freedom to Farm Act. Mr. President, I think the appointed hour has arrived, and I therefore yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for yielding to me. I ask if the Chair will remind me when I reach the 4-minute mark. At that point, I will yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. No, I want to speak only 4 minutes, Mr. President, and then I will yield to the distinguished minority leader. Mr. President, I was standing here listening a moment ago to my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He talked about regulations and bureaucrats and freedom to farm and all of those things that we talk about generally when we have an agriculture bill on the floor. For us to have an agriculture bill on the floor for a 1996 program, I might say, is somewhat unique, because the normal process for the first time in 60 years did not work. We did not draft this legislation in the Agriculture Committee. This legislation, basically, was born and drafted, passed from the Budget Committees of the House and the Senate. But when we talk about regulations and bureaucrats and freedom to farm and all of the constraints placed on farmers today in our country, let us also remember something else: That we today are the envy of the world with the production of food and fiber in our country for the rest of the world. We have the opportunity to feed the rest of the world. In many instances, had it not been for the American farmer and the American farm system, which we are about to annihilate, we would see that many areas of the world would have gone hungry. I say this in all respect to those advocates for the freedom to farm legislation. If we pass this legislation, we will be going on a cheap drunk. We will be sorry, and we will rue the day that we totally dismantled the farm programs that have served this country and served this world so well. The two people and the two groups of persons and the two entities, I think, who should be supporting the freedom to farm bill are those competitors of ours in the international market. They should be supporting the freedom to farm bill, because it is going to be a total disruption of farm ownership ultimately in our country. We are going to see the small fail and the large and the powerful prevail. Second, the big landowners should love the freedom-to-farm bill. They should love the freedom to farm bill because their farms are going to get bigger, their farms are going to become richer, their farms are going to produce more and more, and the small family farmers are going to be there with less and less. The other aspect of this legislation--and I hope my friend from Iowa will address this, or some other proponent of freedom to farm--does anyone in this Chamber feel that we can in this calendar year implement, have the regulations and administer a totally new farm program for all of America's farmers? This is not a 7-year farm bill. This is a bill that is going to last until the first show on ``60 Minutes'' embarrasses us, embarrasses farmers by showing that the farmer no longer has to produce in order to get a big paycheck from the Federal Government. It is a 7-year welfare program. It is wrong, Mr. President, and we should be no part of it. We should defeat the motion for cloture. We should enact a farm bill only after we, in this Senate, and in the Senate Agriculture Committee, perhaps the House committee, have the opportunity to shape a farm bill that will look beyond 7 years and then to the next seven generations. Mr. President, today we are considering what will prove to be one of the most important and most disastrous pieces of legislation affecting the State of Arkansas and family farms across this Nation. Agriculture has been and continues to be an integral part of the fabric that makes up rural America and is responsible, directly or indirectly, for about 1 out of every 5 jobs throughout America. In Arkansas, from Texarkana to Blytheville, from Gentry to Eudora, families all across our State make enormous contributions to the world's food and fiber supply. In 1994 alone, Arkansas farmers harvested over 8 million acres of agricultural products: rice: 1.42 million acres produced over 175 million bushels of rice; cotton: 970,000 acres produced over 1.7 million bales of cotton; soybeans: 3.4 million acres produced 115.6 million bushels of soybeans; wheat: 880,000 acres produced 40.5 million bushels of wheat; and corn: 90,000 acres produced 10.8 million bushels of corn. With crops, poultry, and livestock combined, Arkansas' farmers and ranchers were responsible for over $5 billion in economic activity for our State. So why am I concerned? Because, the legislation under consideration before the U.S. Senate is the beginning of the end for farm programs and the safety net function they perform. We can argue over whether it will happen in 2 years or in 7, but the undisputable fact is that the safety net will disappear. Perhaps some of my colleagues favor this approach. Perhaps some Senators feel that farm programs are not a good deal. I would simply point out that for roughly one-half cent out of every Federal dollar, our farm programs provide the safest, most affordable, and abundant supply of food and fiber in the world. Americans spend about 10 percent of their disposable income on food--compared to the French who spend 16 percent, the Japanese who spend 18 percent, Chinese who spend 48 percent, and Indians who spend 53 percent--it is hard to imagine a better deal. My good friends may be wondering--how did this come to be, how could we pay so little and get so much? The answer, in large part, is due to just how productive our farmers and ranchers have become. The U.S. agriculture represents some 3 percent of the world's agriculture labor force, yet it produces about 40 percent of the world's corn, about 15 percent of the world's cotton, about 50 percent of the world's soybeans, about 10 percent of the world's wheat, about 25 percent of the world's beef, and about 11 percent of the world's pork. Now, I can hear someone suggesting that if agriculture is so productive and costs so little, why do they need any support at all? Why should we help agriculture over other industries? Mr. President, agriculture is unique. It is like no other industry in our economy. Farmers are almost entirely at the mercy of Mother Nature, as well as the actions of foreign governments, both of which are entirely out of their control. But even worse, unlike most businesses, farmers and ranchers have no control over the prices they receive. They are price takers, not price setters. The weather and policy in China could, and usually does, have more control over how well an Arkansas cotton farmer does from one year to the next than anything the farmer could do. Perhaps, there are other colleagues who are under illusions that agriculture spending has been like most other Federal programs that have grown ever larger. Perhaps they believe agriculture must be one of those programs where we debate what is a true cut or what is just a cut in the rate of increase. Among many other points, a bipartisan group of Senators pointed out to the Budget Committee that agriculture spending has come down by about 60 percent in the last decade, from $26 billion in fiscal year 1986 to less than $11 billion fiscal year 1994. Mr. President, I wanted to point out all of this information for one simple reason. It makes absolutely no sense to abandon these successes--and successes they are--for a policy that is irresponsible, irrational and, most importantly, indefensible. The freedom-to-farm bill under consideration would pay farmers whether the market warranted it or not--despite the other side calling this a market-oriented bill. Under freedom to farm, it makes absolutely no difference what the market conditions are. The farmer gets his or her payment regardless. According to economists, prices are supposed to be good for the next couple of years, but as we all know, few years of high prices are most commonly followed by a few years of low prices as farmers around the world create an oversupply of a commodity chasing that higher price. The tragedy, in this scenario, is as follows: Suppose in 2 years farmers receive payments despite high market prices. The media and the public become outraged by the waste and the 105th Congress responds to the outcry by removing the remaining payments from the farmer. This could happen because the so-called contract doesn't bind a future Congress. The next time commodity prices plummet and farmers need a safety net, it will be gone. Some proponents have called this a contract modeled after the popular CRP contract which paid farmers to remove land from production. They point out that over the 10-year life of these contracts, Congress always honored them. The difference, Mr. President, is that in return for funding a CRP contract the taxpayers receive a specific public benefit such as conservation, wildlife habitat, or water quality. The freedom-to-farm contract has nothing in it for the public or taxpayer. The taxpayer simply transfers money to the farmer for no other reason than that the farmer was in some sort of agriculture program in at least 1 out of the last 5 years. The bill we are considering is a perfect script for a ``60 Minutes'' or a ``Prime Time Live'' show called the ``Fleecing of America,'' when it's discovered that under this bill a farmer can receive the freedom- to-farm payment and not do anything at all. That's right, Mr. President, under this legislation, a farmer can receive thousands upon thousands of tax dollars and spend the entire growing season in the Caribbean or Bahamas. In fact, the only restriction is that if they grow something it can't be fruits or vegetables. Other than that, sand and sun would be the only worries on the minds of farmers as the taxpayer would foot the bill. But, a word of warning. For all those that would take this approach, may I suggest they invest your payments wisely. Find a good money manager or investment banker because they're going to need them. If what many predict will happen when word gets out about this program, you will have to make a couple of years worth of promised payments last a very long time. Mr. President, supporters of this bill tout endorsements by agribusiness companies and big processors. This should not come as a surprise to my colleagues. It is very simple; this freedom-to-farm bill will ultimately drive the price of commodities down. Whether a big company is purchasing feed for livestock or grain to process and mill, they want to pay the family farmer as little as possible. They want to buy low and sell high like Wall Street speculators, with no concern for the future of farming. The freedom-to-farm bill gets worse. By capping the programs based on economic projections and theoretically locking those in, we give no room for error. I would defy anyone to find an economist anywhere in the world who has accurately predicted the price of a commodity with any accuracy for a full 7-year stretch. It simply cannot be done. Yet, that is the logic embodied in this bill. We are entrusting the future of the farmers of this country with some guess by economists down at the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. And, if they guess wrong about, for instance, the price of rice in the year 2001, the farmers in my State will be left with little recourse and less help. The proponents of this legislation have said that it is important because of the baseline problem. Baselines in agriculture only matter in two circumstances: First, if you require ag to come up with unfair and unreasonable cuts, as the Republicans have; or second, if you cap the programs so the baseline can never adjust upward, which the Republicans also have done. So, there is a budget baseline problem, but only if you buy into the rest of the flawed Republican policy. Although the Republicans did indeed manage to capture the baseline, I am at a loss to understand why they would want to capture it after a decade of reduction--over 60 percent. Conversely, why not wait until this bill forces a decline in market prices that will automatically raise the baseline again before we try to capture anything. We will rue the day we pass a freedom-to-farm bill. What we must all realize is this ends farm programs. It unilaterally disarms our farmers against the rest of the world. In fact, the only farmers this bill is good for are those in France, Thailand, Argentina, and any other foreign country. In the first years, this bill will prove to be a taxpayer ripoff. In the later years, it will prove to be false hope and empty promises as the safety net for American agriculture is destroyed. Let us at least change the name to reflect accuracy. Maybe we should call it the bait and switch act of 1995, or as others have suggested, the freedom-from- farming bill or the farmers death assistance act. For all the reasons I have mentioned today and many more I have not had the opportunity to make, I cannot and will not be associated with ending the necessary safety net our farmers and our consumers depend on. Therefore, I will vote against the freedom-to-farm bill.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent to Senator Domenici be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what the Senate is doing actually tomorrow on a very, very critical and important resolution that would put the Senate in recess for 1 month. To my way of thinking this could be the most irresponsible vote the U.S. Senate has taken in a long, long time. A month--30 days, Mr. President. I think that such action would be the height of irresponsibility. If we think the American public is losing faith and confidence in our legislative institutions, just wait and see how they react when they see the Senate is voting to take a 30-day recess with all of the work that lies ahead. The Senate and the Congress as a whole has much work to do, a lot of work to do. The shrinking amount of time in which to do it is something that I would like to discuss for a few moments this afternoon. The first session of the 104th Congress, Mr. President, was one of the busiest that we have ever seen. Unfortunately, however, it was one of the least productive. I will cite my friend, Senator Bill Cohen's op-ed piece recently in the Washington Post when he said--I think I can quote--``There's a great deal of motion, but very little movement.'' I think that aptly describes last year. That first session of Congress lasted 365 days, 1 whole year. Only two other first sessions have lasted 365 days in the course of the Republic's history, Mr. President, the 77th Congress in 1941-42 and the 102d Congress in 1991-92. The Senate, for example, was in session for 211 days. We took 613 rollcall votes. The House was in session 167 days. The House took 885 rollcall votes. What was the result of all of this movement and action, Mr. President? Only 88 bills were signed into law, the smallest number of bills becoming law since 1933. Mr. President, a 30-day recess, like the one that is being proposed tomorrow, is truly unprecedented. A review of the Senate's congressional calendar shows the normal pattern for Congress is to begin work after the State of the Union. A short recess around the President's Day holiday is the norm. However, to simply shut down the U.S. Senate, for us not to work until the beginning of March, is a remarkable inconsistency. So what does that mean for us today? It means that there is a lot for us to do in a year already shortened by the Presidential election. Some have even suggested that the Senate is arranging its schedule, depending upon the primaries in New Hampshire and the special caucuses in Iowa. I am not here to argue whether that is true or false, but that is being charged. There are bills awaiting our attention that must be addressed, not to further the Democratic agenda or the Republican agenda, but to help the American people and to make their lives better and to live up to our responsibility. I rise today to talk about some of this imperative legislation that I think we should be working on now rather than recessing tomorrow for a whole month's period. For example, we are in the midst of a crisis in agriculture, and this affects all of rural America. In fact, it affects all America. On January 1, some 25 days ago, the 1990 farm bill expired. Because no Congress in 40 years has failed to pass a farm bill, we are still exploring the ramifications of what it means to live under an expired farm bill. In short, chaos in rural America could very easily result. We need action in this area. What we know for sure is that because there is not a farm bill, American agriculture is now, in large part, operating under laws enacted in the year 1949. In the past several weeks, lawyers and staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture began to piece together just what this means for farmers, for consumers, and for the taxpayers. For example, while the cotton program operates as is until 1997, the rice program, as we know it, has now been terminated. Today across our country, there is no rice program. There has not been for 25 days. The so-called permanent law, or 1949 law, to which we are now reverting, includes provisions for commodities, such as wheat or corn; however, no provisions for rice. The Secretary of Agriculture has said he would have to use some general authority under the CCC Charter Act to run a rice program, but research is still underway to see what kind of program he might legally operate. There is great confusion. Arkansas grows 40 percent of all of the rice produced in our country, but other States, such as California, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, are also large rice producers. Pulling together some kind of general authority and running a partial program could be devastating to the rice industry and to the rice farmers in these five States. It is not just rice farmers who are very anxious right now. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, most farmers cannot even find out if they will be able to plant a crop, much less what that crop might be. Necessary operating credit, those loans that are so important to the American farmer, will not be extended to many farmers unless the various lending institutions have some idea of what the rules or regulations are in rural America relative to the new farm proposals. Mr. President, with all of this uncertainty hanging over us in rural America, from producers to millers to ginners to seed salesmen to tractor dealers to processors and all the other businesses that serve the agriculture sector, it is unconscionable, I think, for this Congress to even contemplate recessing for a 30-day period. Let me give you another example of how the American people are paying as a result of congressional inaction. Last year, Congress made a legislative error in the GATT treaty which is forcing American consumers to pay millions and millions of dollars more for their prescription drugs every day. We had a debate on this floor. We had a very close vote on this floor. For instance, the world's largest drug company, Glaxo, today is gaining $6 million a day in undeserved enrichment--$6 million a day in undeserved enrichment and profits. This single company has so far gained $300 million, all of it subsidized by the American consumer from this congressional mistake. We had a chance to correct it. We did not meet that obligation. We must have that opportunity again. Instead of acting quickly to fix it, Congress has let it drag on week after week after week. If we recess for 30 days, consumers across America will be paying another $180 million in unnecessary health care costs for their drugs. That is outrageous. But there is no company in this country today who would love to see the Senate adjourn, recess and leave town for the next 30 days more than the company of Glaxo. It means another $180 million to them in undeserved enrichment. This is not the only important health care issue being held up. A bipartisan proposal which would require insurance companies to stop dropping people when they change jobs and to prevent insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions is being blocked today from consideration. There was an excellent article in this morning's Washington Post related to this situation. This legislation, which would help almost 25 million Americans, is much too important to let die, it is much too important to let it be crowded off the Senate floor schedule simply because we are not in session, we are scattered to the four corners of the land and we cannot be found to do our legislative duty. There are a number of tax credits that have expired. They need to be extended. The education tax credit, which encourages employers to help their employees improve their education, the research and development tax credit, the targeted jobs tax credit, which helps employers who hire disadvantaged workers, are just some of the examples. These tax credits are helping American business and workers all across this country today. But for 30 days, if we vote to go into this recess, they will be ignored while the Congress leaves town. There are other bills pending that would change tax policy and make life simpler and better for Americans. For example, a bill to increase the health care deduction for the self-employed lies idle. This bipartisan bill would give self-employed Americans more of the tax cut that large corporations get for funding full health insurance. Also put on hold is legislation introduced by the majority leader, myself and 44 other Senators to ease the tremendous burden placed on family-owned businesses by the estate tax. This bill would benefit farmers and family-owned businesses across our country. Another bill on the sidelines is the Church Retirement Benefits Simplification Act, which would clarify the rules that apply to church retirement and welfare benefit plans and make it easier for churches to administer their retirement and benefit programs. These bills all try to make the tax system friendlier and fairer, and all Americans should not be ignored while the Congress takes a month- long break. Mr. President, in addition to these bills that I have discussed this afternoon, and many others that are also very important, there is also the issue of the Federal budget. The House, today, is likely to pass a 30-day continuing resolution to keep the Government running. We hope so. The Senate will probably pass it tomorrow. We hope so. And then what happens, Mr. President, is we all leave town. We will be doing nothing to resolve the basic problems that have prevented us from enacting a budget and passing the final six 1996 appropriations bills. Mr. President, I am talking about finishing up the spending bills that should have been completed last year. I have not even mentioned the fact that the work on the 1997 budget should begin in 10 days when the President submits his budget to the Congress. In addition, the debt ceiling must be lifted by March 1, Mr. President. If we recess and come back on the 26th of February, we will be returning with only a precious few hours to deal with this most important, very critical issue. Moody's has already issued a warning that they may downgrade Treasury bonds as a result of this pending uncertainty. The full faith and credit of the United States of America rests on our actions. There could be possible catastrophic results if we do not take action. Finally, the people's business needs to be tended to--it is that simple--from rural America to Wall Street, and tomorrow could be the most irresponsible time that I have ever known for us to even consider beginning a 30-day recess. Rather, we should vote tomorrow to recommit ourselves, not to our business, but to the people's business. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Mr. David Cole for his outstanding 34-year career with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mr. Cole is currently Officer in Charge at the I&NS office in Memphis. I was recently informed that he will be retiring very soon. In fact, I believe his retirement party is set for January 13. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank David Cole for the outstanding work he has done in this difficult and often frustrating profession. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the public discourse on immigration and immigrants is largely negative. We do not hear enough about the success stories that occur everyday as a result of the hard work of people like David Cole. David Aaron Cole began duty as an Immigration Patrol Inspector on August 15, 1961, at Laredo, TX. Following several years of front-line work, Mr. Cole was promoted and transferred to Boston, MA, as a records and information specialist. In 1970, he assumed the post of officer in charge at Memphis, where he has worked to the present day. Although the Memphis office does not directly serve Arkansas, I know that David Cole's work has impacted my State. Mr. Cole has helped hundreds of impoverished immigrants get their new lives off to a postive start. I would guess that a good number of those immigrants eventually made their way to Arkansas, where they have been productive members of my State. Mr. President, the mission of the I&NS is not just enforcement, it is not just about keeping people out of the country. It is also about helping the legal immigrants who come here to assimilate into American society. David Cole has always understood that mission, and we will certainly miss his work at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I know all my colleagues join me in wishing Mr. Cole the best of luck in the future.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in these days of budget crisis and heated rhetoric, it is very easy to become cynical or disillusioned about government. In fact, some people around here would have you believe that the Government is simply incapable of playing a positive role of any kind. So, Mr. President, I wanted to rise today and recognize one Government entity, the U.S. Postal Service, for the good work it is doing for Americans. Earlier this month, the State of Oregon completed the primary phase of the Nation's first mail-in congressional election. That's right, over a 3-week period, Oregon voters mailed in their ballots for the State's open Senate seat. While vote-by-mail has its skeptics, the results in Oregon were impressive. Some 52 percent of Oregon voters cast their ballots, as compared to the 43 percent who took part in last year's primaries. On January 30, the general election will also be conducted through the mail system. Mr. President, whether or not vote-by-mail is the wave of the future, we should certainly commend the Postal Service for its critical role in this effort. The hard-working men and women of the Postal Service in Oregon saw to it that the ballots were delivered and returned on time. Without a postal system that could be counted on, neither Oregon nor any other State could even experiment with a mail-in election. Oregon is not the only place where the Postal Service is getting the job done for Americans. Right now, millions of Christmas cards and packages are moving through the Nation's mail system. Believe it or not, Postal Service officials are estimating that today, as many as 725 million pieces of mail will be delivered. This is the delivery volume for just 1 day. While these numbers may sound overwhelming, the men and women of the Postal Service are up to the challenge. As the latest on-time statistics confirm, the vast majority of Americans can drop that card or letter in the box and be confident that their mailing will be delivered on time. In fact, just yesterday, the Postal Service announced that its on-time delivery scores had reached a record high of 88 percent. Mr. President, the Postal Service, like any organization, has its problems. In the past, I have been critical of both its performance and management decisions. But, I have never had cause to question the dedication of its people. From the Postmaster General on down, the men and women of the Postal Service are getting the job done during this Christmas season. They are a welcome reminder that government can work for America.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, and Nickles, to introduce the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill represents months of work by the EPA, the White House, both Houses of Congress, as well as the regulated community, to come together in a bipartisan manner to implement real regulatory reform. This legislation makes small adjustments in the current Land Disposal Regulations [LDR] Program under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act [RCRA], to provide more flexibility for the treatment of nonhazardous waste. More importantly, it helps alleviate the type of over-regulation that has been the source of so much controversy among the general public. Our legislation achieves this goal by denying the implementation of a court ordered rule that requires the EPA to treat nonhazardous waste as though it were hazardous waste. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in 1976, it was intended to work as a campanion to other existing environmental laws. However, the court decision previously mentioned, would create just the opposite of what was intended. It would require the EPA to write a rule that would overlay RCRA requirements on top of existing Clean Water Act treatment standards. The cost of this additional treatment, according to EPA estimates, would be approximately $800 million per year--all to achieve what EPA says is almost no environmental improvement. What we are doing today with the introduction of the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act, is correcting this court decision by amending a very narrow portion of the RCRA law. Simply put, we are asking Congress to clarify that the LDR Program does not apply to wastes that are no longer hazardous when managed in Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act systems. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope my colleagues will support this legislation as it moves through committee to the Senate floor for a vote.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, and Nickles, to introduce the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill represents months of work by the EPA, the White House, both Houses of Congress, as well as the regulated community, to come together in a bipartisan manner to implement real regulatory reform. This legislation makes small adjustments in the current Land Disposal Regulations [LDR] Program under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act [RCRA], to provide more flexibility for the treatment of nonhazardous waste. More importantly, it helps alleviate the type of over-regulation that has been the source of so much controversy among the general public. Our legislation achieves this goal by denying the implementation of a court ordered rule that requires the EPA to treat nonhazardous waste as though it were hazardous waste. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in 1976, it was intended to work as a campanion to other existing environmental laws. However, the court decision previously mentioned, would create just the opposite of what was intended. It would require the EPA to write a rule that would overlay RCRA requirements on top of existing Clean Water Act treatment standards. The cost of this additional treatment, according to EPA estimates, would be approximately $800 million per year--all to achieve what EPA says is almost no environmental improvement. What we are doing today with the introduction of the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act, is correcting this court decision by amending a very narrow portion of the RCRA law. Simply put, we are asking Congress to clarify that the LDR Program does not apply to wastes that are no longer hazardous when managed in Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act systems. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope my colleagues will support this legislation as it moves through committee to the Senate floor for a vote.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, here we are, almost the night before Christmas, in the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and we find ourselves still in session. We do not find ourselves, tonight, ironically, talking about what to do about the budget impasse. We do not find ourselves on the floor of the U.S. Senate this evening talking among each other and colleagues as we should about how to reopen the Government. No, Mr. President, we find ourselves this evening talking about a more arcane and mundane situation, something called Whitewater. Whitewater has become the fixation of one of our political parties. There is no secret about that. Today, the Republicans control the Congress. They set the agenda for what committees meet, when they meet, what issues come before those committees, what issues are brought before the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think it very timely, Mr. President, for us to examine the priorities of this session of Congress. I think it very interesting to note that tonight, a few hours before Christmas, when we had hoped to be back in our home States or wherever we might have been, when all of the employees of the Federal Government who are furloughed would prefer to be working and serving the public, as they do so well, we find ourselves once again engaged in what I call the Whitewater fixation. Here are the priorities that are established not by this Senator, not by this side of the aisle, but by our colleagues who might be well meaning on the other side of the aisle. I think it bears listening to for a few moments, Mr. President, to see that in this year we have had some 34 hearings relating to Whitewater. That would be the red bar going up the chart. Thirty-four hearings in 34 days of the U.S. Senate that have been designated for Whitewater--the Whitewater fixation. How many days have been set aside for Medicaid funding? Mr. President, six hearings, Mr. President--six compared to 34 for the Whitewater fixation. How many hearings have we held in the U.S. Senate in the calendar year 1995, in this session of Congress, that relate to education funding, Mr. President? Four hearings--four hearings compared to 34 hearings of Whitewater. And how many hearings, Mr. President, have we had on the Medicare plan, as proposed by the majority party? How many days of hearings have we heard about Medicare? One day, one hearing. There it is, the small green bar on the bottom of the chart. That tells the story, Mr. President, I think of priorities for 1995 and this session of Congress, where the priorities lie with the leadership of this Congress and what we really are faced with in determining what to do about this very critical vote this evening on what I call the Whitewater fixation. Mr. President, that is not the end of the story about the so-called Whitewater fixation and the Whitewater priority, because I think that sometimes we fail to recognize, as we go through 1 week, 1 month, one Congress at a time, continually appropriating money to chase the Whitewater fixation and to further study the Whitewater matter. I think from time to time it might be good to recapitulate how much it is actually costing the American taxpayers to engage the U.S. Senate, the resources of the special counsel, the resources of our Senate committees, in dealing with the Whitewater concern. For example, the first special counsel that was named to look into the Whitewater matter, who, I might add, was a Republican and in very, very good standing, Mr. Fiske, Mr. Fiske, as special counsel, spent $5.9 million--$5.9 million, Mr. President, in his investigation of the Whitewater matter. Mr. Fiske, evidently, did not find enough. He did not find a smoking gun. He did not nail any scalps to the wall, so Mr. Fiske was relieved of his responsibility. He was relieved. He was fired. Then came on to the scene Mr. Kenneth Starr, who has spent, from August 5, 1994 to March 31 of 1995, $8.7 million in the investigation of this illusory situation known as Whitewater. Mr. Starr could not finish his work, Mr. President. He had to come before the Congress and he had to have more money as a special counsel. So he comes back to the Congress this April. From April to November of 1995, independent counsel Kenneth Starr spent another $8 million. So we are adding up the figures. No, we could not quite spend enough money to satisfy Mr. Starr. In two appropriations, we could not spend enough to satisfy Mr. Fiske. He got no indictments of any consequence. He did not nail any scalps to the wall. So what happens next? We hire, by the RTC, the Pillsbury law firm, basically a firm with very strong Republican connections. I might add, a very splendid law firm, according to all reports. The U.S. taxpayer writes a check for $3.6 million to the Pillsbury law firm in California, to come forward with a report that basically says this: The Clintons are clean, the RTC should not pursue any criminal action whatever against the Clintons, nor this administration. Mr. President, that is still not enough: $3.6 million, $5.9 million, $8.7 million, $8 million. So now we have to go back and see what our own committee spent: in 1994, $400,000; in 1995, $950,000--a total, Mr. President, of $27.6 million that we have spent that we can account in this illusory situation, this illusory item known as Whitewater. This is the Whitewater fixation. This is the Whitewater fixation, Mr. President, that I think really is the Whitewater witch hunt. It is the witch hunt of the 1990's. It has become a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. What we are doing today is simply, in my opinion, showing where the priorities of this session of Congress are: with 34 hearings dedicated to Whitewater, 6 hearings dedicated to Medicaid, four hearings dedicated to education, and 1 hearing dedicated to Medicare. That is the priorities of this particular Congress thus far, in 1995. We have had brilliant arguments this afternoon and, I think, some brilliant arguments in the Banking Committee, perhaps, on each side of the aisle, relative to the question of the privilege created between attorney and client. I am not going to argue this. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I am not one who specialized in this particular area of the law. But I would just say this. I think it is very, very necessary for the American public at this time to have the knowledge that this administration in no way is trying to keep the U.S. Senate, the Banking Committee charged with this particular concern, keeping the notes of November 5, taken by Bill Kennedy, away from this committee. The White House has repeatedly said: We want you to have these notes. We think you should have these notes. We will give you these notes, taken by Mr. Kennedy and/or Mr. Lindsey. I forget which. But, what we want to make sure is that we are not waiving the very important, crucial matter of the attorney-client privilege. If we can, basically, in a political arena, invade or take away this privilege in any form, shape or fashion, if we erode that particular privilege, if we come before the U.S. Senate and say that privilege does not exist, then what is the next step? Are we going to come to the U.S. Senate and say we do not think we need to have a doctor-patient privilege? We want to do something about eroding that? So we start pecking away at that. I do not think that should be the business of the Senate at this particular time, to start eroding and emasculating the particular right that we revere in the common law and have for so many years, and that is the right of privilege created between lawyer and client. The White House wants to know how far this action extends. Should they make these notes available, they are seeking clarification. That is basically what this is about and I am very, very concerned that some people are making a very, very overrated political issue about the Whitewater matter. The Senate has spent a total of $1.35 million in 1994 and 1995 on the Whitewater matter. I would like to ask this question. What is the charge? What is the accusation against the White House? What is the accusation against any of the people who have been brought before the committee in the last 12 months, before the Senate committee? What are they being charged with? I would like to also know if anyone is taking cognizance of the fact that, even though some may be enjoying this event and may be making a little political hay out of it from time to time, I wonder if anyone has taken cognizance of how much the legal fees and the expenses of these witnesses are, some of whom certainly cannot afford the very, very high cost of counsel. The $27 million that the taxpayers have spent on the Whitewater investigation is almost three times what it would have been to have closed down Madison Savings & Loan institution in Little Rock, AR. The White House has provided, I think, according to the information that we have, over 15,000 pages of documents to the Senate committee. The President's personal attorney has produced more than 28,000 documents for the Senate committee. The Senate committee has deposed some 152 individuals. The Senate committee has heard testimony from 78 people during the hearing, in the hearing examination process. All of this activity has been done with the total cooperation of the White House. And still there is no smoking gun. The so-called smoking gun that some say would be found in the notes taken by Mr. Kennedy and/ or Mr. Lindsey, those particular notes, in my opinion, even though I have not been privy to seeing them, probably, in all likelihood, contain no more of a smoking gun than has been found in the past several months during this investigation and during the tenure of two special counsels, Mr. Fiske and now Mr. Starr. I think we are going to have to face, Mr. President--I do not know when this comes up, perhaps in February--we are going to be faced with a decision. OK, we spent some $27 million on this, and I am not sure that includes the cost of all of the army of FBI, of the RTC, of the FDIC, all of the Federal employees, all of the Federal negotiators, all of the resources of the Federal Government, all the copying, the printing, the committee reports and all this--I am not certain that this cost even covers that particular amount. But we are going to be faced in the Senate, in February, I believe, if I am correct, with another question. Are we going to appropriate another $5, $6, $8 million for the committee to continue down this same path of dragging these people before the committee, of interrogating them, of asking them to pay for their own lawyers' fees and basically bringing them in and putting them in the lockbox, so to speak, as they wait their turn to testify before the committee? Is this the best that we can do in all of these months and all of these years of investigating this thing called Whitewater? During this period of the Whitewater witch-hunt? During this period of Whitewater fixation? I think we are better than that. I think this Senate is better than that.