[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8165-S8236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Dan 
Weiner, who is an intern in my office, be allowed to be in the Chamber 
during the debate on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3146

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Wally 
Sparby, who is the State executive director of the Minnesota Farm 
Service Agency be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
         United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service 
           Agency, Minnesota State Office,
                                      St. Paul, MN, June 30, 1998.
     Dan Glickman,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Glickman: Please find attached copies of 
     letters received from several County Committees requesting 
     that CCC commodity loans be extended. The Minnesota State FSA 
     Committee is also requesting your assistance and support. 
     Minnesota producers are facing an economic crisis and 
     conditions will continue to deteriorate without assistance.
       Market rates have dropped drastically. The last week of 
     June 1995 producers were receiving an average market price of 
     $2.50 for corn. In the last week of June 1996 corn markets 
     were averaging $4.50 and in 1998 the corn price has dropped 
     to an average $1.92 per bushel. The same is true of wheat. 
     The last week of June 1995 the average market price was $4.50 
     per bushel; in 1996 the average was $5.60 per bushel and in 
     1998 the price has dropped to an average of $3.25 per bushel. 
     Producers have no control over market prices and the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and limited 
     the marketing tool provided by the CCC commodity loan 
     program.
       Due in part to Minnesota's geographic location, 
     transportation can be a major problem. Elevators are 
     indicating there will be a shortage of transportation and 
     storage this fall. As of June 29 there were 13.4 million 
     bushels of wheat, 153.9 million bushels of corn, 31.3 million 
     bushels of soybeans, and 3 million bushels of barely under 
     CCC loan. There are also oats, flaxeed, sunflowers and canola 
     under CCC loan in Minnesota. Of that total 191.2 million 
     bushels and cwt. will mature between July 31, 1998 and 
     December 31, 1998. CCC is already taking delivery of barley 
     and we believe other grains will follow when loans mature. 
     Elevators have indicated that they will be unable to take 
     delivery of grain when the 1998 harvest begins. Harvest will 
     coincide with loan maturity dates creating a major storage 
     problem.
       The CCC Commodity Loan Program is a marketing tool. 
     Historically CCC commodity loans have provided producers with 
     a chance to market their grain while obtaining capital at a 
     reasonable interest rate. Prior to two years ago loans could 
     be extended during periods of market downturns thus providing 
     producers the flexibility to store their grain until the 
     markets improve. Programs also provided for interest 
     forgiveness and storage payments during market downturns.
       Extension of CCC loans will only help producers if storage 
     is available, if interest does not continue to accrue of the 
     loans and if there is some type of income to sustain 
     producers until the markets improve. We are proposing and 
     asking for support of a farm storage facility loan program 
     and the extension of CCC commodity loans. To provide a safety 
     net we propose that when market rates reach a certain low 
     that producers be paid storage and that interest stop 
     accruing on CCC commodity loans. A summary of our proposal is 
     attached.
       We are also asking for full support of the proposal to 
     remove the ``cap'' on corn and wheat loans. The Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 which 
     ``capped'' the loan rate has resulted in loan rates below the 
     five year average (dropping the high and low years). 
     Historically local market have followed the CCC loan rate. It 
     has only been in the past couple of years that has not been 
     true. Higher loan rates would influence an improved market 
     price for commodities.
       We believe that in many cases these changes could mean the 
     difference between the continuation of the family farm and 
     liquidation.
       We appreciate your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Wally Sparby,

                                         State Executive Director,
                                    Minnesota Farm Service Agency.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I speak in favor of this amendment introduced by 
Senator Harkin and ask unanimous consent that if I am not already, I be 
included as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This amendment will lift the cap on the farmer's 
marketing loan rate and extend the loan repayment period from 9 months 
to 15 months. That sounds very impersonal, to lift the cap on the loan 
rate and extend the repayment period, but I say to my colleagues--and I 
know my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, will speak about 
this as well--this proposal goes to the heart of what we must do this 
week if we are to respond to the economic pain, and for that matter, 
the personal pain, of many farm families in our country.
  I will be going to another farm crisis meeting in Granite Falls, MN, 
in western Minnesota, this Saturday. I am hoping and praying I can come 
back with a report that we have been able to take some action that will 
give farmers some hope--it is really a desperate situation.
  Wally Sparby, who is the director of the Farm Service Agency in 
Minnesota, is predicting that on the current course--and we have to 
change the course--we could see about 20 percent of the farmers in 
serious trouble. That is a lot of farmers in the State of Minnesota. 
Agriculture is very important to my State. From 1996 to 1997, we saw 
about a 38-percent drop in farm income.
  When I talk to farmers at gatherings, or when I am in cafes in 
Minnesota, I think the one thing they talk about more than anything 
else--and I imagine you hear the same thing in Arkansas--is price. That 
is really the key thing--a fair price in the marketplace. That is what 
farmers are asking for. They are saying, give us a fair shake.
  Now, unfortunately, that is not what is happening, and I believe that 
one of the mistakes that was made in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, 
which I called then the ``Freedom to Fail Act''--and I wish I could be 
proven wrong, but unfortunately I think the evidence which is staring 
us in the face proves me right--while we gave farmers the flexibility 
in planting, which I am all for,

[[Page S8166]]

the problem is that the loan rate which sets the floor price is set at 
such a low level. Right now, the 1996 farm bill caps the price at an 
extremely low level artificially. The rate is $1.89 per bushel of corn 
and $2.58 for wheat. No one can cash-flow or stay in business at these 
prices.
  Since market prices are now, in fact, nearly down to those levels for 
corn and for wheat, that is exactly why we have this crisis which we 
are calling an emergency. So far in Minnesota this year the average 
price for corn has been under $2 a bushel and it has been about $3.25 
for wheat. In the wheat-producing parts of Minnesota, those low prices 
have combined with the bad weather and scab disease to create truly 
dire economic conditions.
  What I want to say to colleagues, and what I want to say to people in 
our country is that right now $2 a bushel for corn and $3.25 for a 
bushel of wheat is way below the cost of production. Farmers cannot 
make it--nobody can make it--at these prices, unless you are a huge 
conglomerate that can weather low prices while family-sized farms get 
driven out, and then you can buy up that land. But for the Midwest and 
for other parts of the country as well--this is not just a regional 
issue--for all of us who value the family farm structure of agriculture 
where the people who farm the land live there and live in the 
community, this is a crisis all to be spelled out in capital letters.
  What our farm policy used to be was that when the prices were good, 
you let the market pay the farmers. When the market wasn't so good, you 
would help stabilize income by holding the market price up. Freedom to 
Farm changed that. In other words, the loan rates gave the farmers some 
leverage vis-a-vis the huge grain companies because, if the prices were 
down, farmers just held on because they knew at least they would get 
this loan at this price. But, of course, the grain companies needed the 
grain so they would have to pay more. That set the price for the 
farmers.
  Now, what we have done with this cap is we have set the loan rate at 
such a low level, the prices are plummeting, people cannot make it at 
these prices and therefore they are going under. This is a matter of 
elementary justice.
  This amendment that I speak in behalf of lifts the cap on the loan 
rate. That means that the loan rate would rise to $2.25 for corn and 
$3.22 for wheat. This is still too low a price.
  I see my colleague from North Dakota in the Chamber. If we at least 
do that, combined with extending the period that the farmers can hold 
on for another 6 months, extend the loan rate period, then I think we 
can begin to lift the market prices.
  Now, I would like to raise the loan rate further, and Senator Dorgan 
and I may be back in the Chamber to talk about this later or to take 
action on this later. I think it should be something like at least $3 
for corn and $4 for wheat, at least for a targeted level of production, 
which would be a family farm level of production.
  But I want to make it crystal clear that at the very minimum what we 
have to do this week--this is very reasonable; this is a 1-year 
emergency--is take the cap off the loan rate to begin to get the prices 
going up, extending the period for the loan rate, making sure that 
there is some indemnity payment, some disaster relief for farmers that 
have been hit by this disaster of low prices, bad weather, scab 
disease. This is all targeted, all focused on a disaster in rural 
America, in agricultural America, and this for us, for those of us who 
come from the farm States, is a matter of huge importance. There is no 
more important amendment that we could be speaking for than this 
amendment.

  Mr. President, I just want to speak to one argument that has been 
made on the floor, and that is the argument that trade is the answer. I 
am for trade. In fact, I wish we had fairer trade for agriculture. But 
I find it surprising that some so-called advocates for farmers are in a 
big hurry to grant fast track negotiating authority.
  My question is, For what? If we export more bushels of corn, or more 
bushels of wheat, at a loss, how does that do the farmer any good? I 
say to my colleague from North Dakota, it is sort of confusing to me. 
If, in fact, the prices are so low that the farmers in our States are 
losing on every bushel of corn or every bushel of wheat they produce, 
how does it help them to produce more bushels of corn or more bushels 
of wheat? It makes no sense at all.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota remembers a couple 
of years ago this Congress--or a Congress passed a new farm bill, one 
that I voted against and one he voted against. Do you remember, 
following the passage of the new farm bill, some of the large corporate 
agricultural interests were celebrating? They said, ``We won.'' The big 
corporate agricultural interests said they won. So they were having a 
big celebration.
  It is not surprising, then, back when they were trying to push this 
kind of farm bill through, that those of us who voted against this farm 
bill said, ``You are pulling the safety net out from under family 
farmers.''
  You have minimum wages for folks who work at the bottom of the 
economic scale in town. What they were trying to do 2 years ago, with 
the farm bill, is the same as saying to the minimum wage earners: Let's 
cut the minimum wage to a buck an hour and call it ``freedom to work.'' 
It would be the same thing on minimum wage: Let's cut it to a dollar an 
hour and call it ``freedom to work.''
  What they said to farmers was: Let's pull your safety net out from 
under you and call it Freedom to Farm. What a bunch of baloney. Then 
prices collapsed, we have crop disease, we have disaster, we have 
family farmers going broke in record numbers, so many that we don't 
have enough auctioneers to handle the sales in North Dakota, and now we 
are back here a couple of years later and folks say, ``Gee, the farm 
bill is working just fine.'' It is not working just fine. This is not 
an accident. We don't have price supports that are sufficient.
  I would say the amendment before us, offered by the minority leader, 
is the most modest of amendments. We ought to go, at a minimum, to 
$3.75 or $4 on a marketing loan, triggered to the first 20,000 bushels 
of wheat produced, so that you target some reasonable support to family 
farms and say, with that, that family farms matter, they have merit and 
worth and value in our society.
  Does the Senator recall, a couple of years ago, the celebration by 
the corporate interests in agriculture over the passage of that farm 
bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in reply to my colleague from North 
Dakota, I also want to ask my colleague to focus his attention for a 
moment on the original United States-Canadian trade agreement 
superseded by NAFTA and ask him how well our wheat growers have fared 
by that agreement.
  Those who are talking fast track without a fair trade agreement for 
farmers--I want to raise a question about that in a moment. But let me 
say to my colleague, the thing I find maddening right now--and I hope I 
am wrong--is that, yes, obviously, if the farmers don't have the 
leverage and they can't get the price, it is great for the grain 
companies; they get to buy from the farmers at record low prices. The 
problem is that I think a lot of colleagues are not willing to revisit 
this question. In other words, we voted for what was called Freedom to 
Farm. We set the loan rate at such a low level, the prices have 
plummeted, and what I worry about is that somehow this amendment 
becomes a referendum on Freedom to Farm. It is not.

  For those colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, who supported 
the Freedom to Farm bill--fine; we can continue to agree or disagree. 
But for right now, given the fact that prices are way down, all we are 
saying in this amendment is, for 1 year, as an emergency measure, take 
the cap off so we can get the loan rate up, so we can get prices up. 
Combine that with indemnity payments and a couple of other measures, 
but in particular these two measures, and we can help get farm income 
up and enable people to stay on the land and not be driven off their 
land. That is what it is all about. In other words, time is not 
neutral. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.
  I would say to colleagues, I am willing to debate trade policy. 
Personally, I don't think the United States-Canadian agreement has 
worked well at all

[[Page S8167]]

for our wheat farmers. Nor has NAFTA--it has been a terrible agreement, 
a terrible agreement. You can ask the farmers about that.
  But above and beyond any debate about trade policy today, above and 
beyond the overall debate about the Freedom to Farm bill, let me just 
simply make this appeal to everybody who is out here. For right now, 
can't we at least reach some common agreement on some emergency 
measures that we can take? The fact of the matter is, you can export 
more bushels of corn and more bushels of wheat, but if the price is so 
low it is costing the farmers more to produce that bushel of corn than 
the farmer is getting for that bushel of corn or bushel of wheat, they 
go further and further in debt.
  At least let's get the floor up. At least let's get the price up. At 
least let's get the disaster payments out there. If we do that, then we 
will have taken some action that will be concrete, will be real, and 
can make a difference. There is a lot more I would like to say about 
what I call the ``freedom to fail'' bill. I am a critic of it. I think 
it is a terrible piece of legislation. I said it then; I will say it 
now. It was great for the grain companies; it was terrible for the 
family farmers. It looked great when prices were up and transition 
payments were out there, but what goes up goes down, and now we have no 
way of stabilizing the situation for family farmers in this country.
  This amendment goes a significant way toward stabilizing the 
situation, getting the prices up, enabling our farmers to get back on 
their feet to be able to cash-flow. Combine it with the disaster relief 
payments and we will have done something good.
  I hope we will have support for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughts expressed by the 
Senator from Minnesota. I want to follow on, just briefly, on the 
question of trade. It relates to this entire issue of how farmers are 
doing, because farmers are told by some: You go ahead and compete in 
the free marketplace. We will set you loose. Go ahead and compete in 
the free market.
  Then farmers discover there is no free market. When they market up, 
the large grain trade firms have their fists around the neck of the 
body of a few firms that control all that. Four firms control most of 
the flour milling; four firms control most of the meat packing--you 
name it. I have shown the list out here. In every area where farmers 
market, there are four firms that control the majority of the 
processing.
  With respect to trade--the Senator from Minnesota mentioned trade--
farmers are told: You compete in the free market system.
  Let me tell you just about the United States-Canadian situation. The 
vote on the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, when I was in 
the House of Representatives and on the Ways and Means Committee, was 
34 to 1; 34 to 1. Guess who the ``1 '' was. Yes, that's me. It probably 
says one of a couple of things. It probably says I have no influence at 
all with the other 34 members. It may say that. They said to me, ``You 
are going to be the only one who votes against this. Gee, this must be 
a unanimous vote. We must have your vote. Everybody else in this 
committee is going to vote for this.''
  I said, ``This is a terrible piece of legislation for this country. 
You are selling out American farmers with this trade agreement, and you 
know it. And I wouldn't vote for this in 100 years.'' And I didn't.
  Let me tell you what has happened. We have a woman from North Dakota 
who marries a Canadian, and they go back to southwestern North Dakota 
for Thanksgiving. She decides, ``I am going to take some of that good 
hard red spring wheat that they produce in North Dakota--we produce in 
North Dakota, back to Canada, because I am going to crush it a little 
bit back there and bake some whole wheat bread.'' She loves to bake 
bread.
  So they go back to Canada after their Thanksgiving break. She has a 
couple of grocery bags full of hard red spring wheat from North Dakota, 
so that when she gets back home she can bake a little bread. She gets 
to the Canadian border and she is told, ``Oh, we are sorry, you can't 
take that wheat into Canada. You can't take a couple of grocery sacks 
full of wheat into Canada.'' All the way to the border she meets semi-
truckload after semi-truckload after semi-truckload of Canadian wheat 
coming south.
  Or a man with a pickup truck, and just kernels of wheat in the back, 
is told you must sweep out the back of the pickup truck before you can 
enter Canada with kernels of wheat. So he sweeps the pickup truck box 
out. All the time he is sweeping, Canadian 18-wheel semi-truckloads of 
wheat are coming into this country. In fact, we even had an agreement 
with Canada at one point to provide some sort of reasonable limit, and 
they exceeded the limit last year by 25,000 semi-truckloads--25,000 
semi-truckloads.

  I went up to the border--I told my colleagues this many times 
before--with Earl Jensen, and we had a 10-year-old, orange, 2-ton truck 
with a few bushels of wheat on it. We almost had to use our windshield 
wipers to wipe away the grain splattering against our windshield on a 
windy day from Canadian 18-wheelers hauling all that flood of Canadian 
grain into our country.
  Guess what? When Earl and I pulled up to the border, we were told, 
``We're sorry, you can't get that American grain into Canada.''
  Free trade? Who negotiated that kind of soft-headed, weak-kneed trade 
agreement do we have that refuse to stand up for this country's 
interest, that say to other countries, ``Yeah, you can close your 
borders to us and we will open our borders to you, and we will call it 
fair, and we will call it square''--what kind of a deal is that?
  In this town, everybody talks about free trade, never wanting to talk 
about the details. The fact is, every one of our farmers in North 
Dakota and every one of the farmers in Minnesota, represented by 
Senator Wellstone, confront that problem every day, and it is unfair.
  That grain comes flooding across our border, I am convinced unfairly 
subsidized, and we sent the Government Accounting Office up to the 
Canadian Wheat Board to audit their books and records, because we think 
they are dumping illegally in this country. Guess what they said? ``We 
are sorry, we have no intention of opening our books and records to 
you; scram, get out of here.'' So here we are.
  Prices collapsed because of unfair trade and, yes, Canada is a major 
part of that. Prices collapsed for a dozen other reasons. Rampant crop 
disease devastates the quality of the crop, and then we have farm 
families who for 30 years have been turning that yard light off and on 
every morning as they get up to do chores, gas their tractor, go out 
and plant their seeds and hope they can raise a crop. And now they are 
told, ``Well, gee, we are sorry; we have free trade and a free market 
and if you can't make it in either, tough luck.''
  The plain fact is, there is no free trade and there is no free 
market, and anybody who thinks about the details and the specifics 
knows it. We owe it to the farmers of this country in a range of areas, 
whether it is international trade or price supports or other areas to 
say we want to stand for the interest of family farmers.
  Let me also say the Freedom to Farm bill was a bill that had a couple 
of propositions, one of which makes eminent good sense, and I support 
it, and that is, farmers ought to be able to choose to plant what they 
want to plant when they want to plant it. That makes sense to me, and I 
support that. But the other is to say we will now essentially withdraw 
price supports and tell farmers you operate in the free market, despite 
the fact the free market doesn't exist. That doesn't make any sense. If 
ever an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is 
appropriate, it is here.
  We didn't need, in order to give farmers planning flexibility, to 
decide that price supports don't matter. Eighteen years ago, the target 
price for wheat was $4.38 a bushel, and the loan rate was $3.65 a 
bushel. In every other area, prices have gone up for input costs; in 
every other area dealing with other earners, minimum wages have been 
increased some. But the compensation for farmers has been substantially 
diminished in terms of support prices. It is as if to say the economic 
all-stars in this country don't matter. They work hard, they produce 
well, they produce the best quality food for the lowest

[[Page S8168]]

percent of disposable income anywhere on the face of the Earth, and 
they are told, ``By the way, the value of what you produce does not 
have worth.''
  I said yesterday, and I say it again, because at least to 
me personally it is so perplexing and seems so Byzantine, this morning, 
as I speak, halfway around the globe, we are told there are old women 
climbing trees in Sudan to forage for leaves to eat because they are 
near starvation. A million, a million and a quarter people are on the 
abyss of starvation. And then halfway around the globe, again, we are 
told those family farmers, who raise food in such abundant quantity and 
such good food, that what they produce doesn't have value and doesn't 
have worth.

  The marketplace says to them--whatever this marketplace is--choked 
down on the top, choked from the bottom, choked on the sides by unfair 
trade by monopolies from railroads, to grain processors, to millers, 
you name it; they are telling the farmer in this distorted marketplace 
that what you produce doesn't have value. It costs you 5 bucks per 
bushel to produce; we will give you $3 for it. Want to lose $2 a 
bushel? That is fine. Lose your heritage, lose what your dad produced, 
lose what your grandad produced. And you go to these meetings and you 
find these folks who stand up at a meeting, as they have for me, and 
one sticks out in my mind--I have had many of them in recent weeks--a 
big, burly, husky kind of guy with a beard and with friendly eyes who 
said, ``You know, I have been a farmer all my life. I love farming. My 
grandad farmed. My dad farmed, and I have farmed for 23 years.'' He got 
tears in his eyes and his chin began to quiver as he said, ``But I have 
to quit. I can't make it. I can't raise grain at $5 a bushel or $4.50 a 
bushel and sell it at $3.50 a bushel and my lender says I can't get 
enough money to put in the next crop.''
  When you see people like that begin to tear up and talk about what 
family farming means to them, then you understand this is not dollars 
and cents, this is not just some macroeconomic theory, this is 
something much more in this country.
  Family farming has always meant much more than just dollars and 
cents. Thomas Jefferson described it, as I said yesterday, as the most 
important enterprise in America. His words were more eloquent than 
that, but that is what he said. What he meant was these people who dot 
the landscape in America, the broad-based economic ownership that comes 
with family farming contributes immensely to our country. I have said 
before, it contributes to the family values of our country. Family 
values have always originated on family farms and rolled through to our 
small towns, nourishing our small towns and our big cities.
  There is much more here than just dollars and cents. I hope that as 
we begin these discussions we can remember this. At least the first 
amendment that we adopted yesterday says, yes, this Congress recognizes 
there is a crisis. In my State, family farmers have seen a 98-percent 
decrease in net income. Name anybody living anywhere, except the 
wealthiest among us, who could, at the end of a period where they have 
lost 98 percent of their income, stand and say, ``Well, I am doing just 
fine.'' Most everybody on every block in every community in every facet 
of life would be flat on their back losing 98 percent of their income, 
and we know that.
  It is not different for family farmers. They are now flat on their 
backs facing collapsed prices, rampant crop disease and fundamentally 
unfair trade in every direction, markets that are captured and cornered 
and collapsed by a few companies, a few companies that control those 
markets.
  It is one thing to say to farmers, ``It is a free market and free 
trade, and God bless you, and what happens.'' That is not, in my 
judgment, what this country ought to offer family farmers in terms of 
domestic policy.
  (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, may I direct a question to the Senator 
from North Dakota?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand the immediate amendment before the 
Senate having to do with marketing loans, it strikes me, and I wonder 
if the Senator shares this view, that we need to put this in some 
perspective. There are some who view this as a debate on Freedom to 
Farm, and certainly there are those of us who have widely and varied 
opinions on that underlying legislation. But the amendment that is 
pending, does the Senator agree, does not unravel or turn inside out or 
otherwise dispose of the Freedom to Farm legislation?
  The amendment, as I see it before me, builds on what is already in 
the existing farm bill; that is, a marketing loan provision that is 
already there, at an inadequate level, but it is there, and the 
amendment that is pending simply gives the President of the United 
States the authority in a state of emergency for 1 year to remove the 
current loan caps and raise the cap on wheat from $2.58 a bushel to 
$3.22, on corn from $1.89 to $2.25, on soybeans from $5.26 to $5.33 and 
extend the loan period from 9 months to 15 months?
  Would the Senator agree that this is not a radical amendment? This is 
not an amendment that somehow sweeps away the previous legislation--and 
we have different opinions about what ought to happen--but this 
amendment, it would seem to me, is a very modest, in fact, very 
narrowly crafted and a very modest change in what is already existing 
law. Would the Senator agree with that point on this issue?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, states it 
exactly as it is. I have said before, this particular amendment gives 
modesty an understated reputation, in my judgment. It is too modest for 
my taste. I certainly am going to support it. I certainly will support 
it because it does increase the loan rate, albeit to a level that is 
far too low. It does increase the loan rate some. It does extend the 
time in which a farmer can use that marketing loan to better market 
their grain; and certainly we ought to do that.
  If we say, as a consistent philosophy, farmers should go to the 
marketplace for their price, then you must give farmers the time to 
access the marketplace when the price might be better than it is just 
after harvest. Normally, just after harvest they truck that grain to 
the elevator and--guess what--they find prices that are not very high. 
It would be better for them to hold it and wait until it is in their 
advantage to market it.
  The Senator from South Dakota describes it as it exactly is. This 
does not, in any way, unravel the tenets of the current farm program. 
Would I like to unravel it? You bet your life I would. I do not support 
it. I never did. I think it is a terrible farm program. Does the 
planning flexibility make sense? Yes, it does. I support that fully. 
But the notion that somehow we ought to decide that in every other area 
we will provide some basic support because that area has merit and 
worth and value, but in family farming we will pull the support out 
because somehow that is of lesser value to this country--as I said 
earlier, this is a lot more than dollars and cents.
  That is what the farm bill debate missed a couple of years ago. The 
specific amendment which I intend to vote for but which is so 
incredibly modest--it really ought to be replaced by an amendment that 
says for a certain amount of production, 20,000 bushels of wheat, for 
example, we will provide a $3.75 or $4 loan rate, marketing loan rate--
not the kind of loan where the Federal Government takes control of the 
grain but, in effect, it becomes a marketing loan where we pay the 
difference between what the farmer gets on the open market and what the 
support price is. That is what we ought to be doing. But this amendment 
is certainly worth supporting because, as the Senator says, it does not 
fray, undermine or unravel the tenets of the current farm program.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Well, may I ask the Senator from North Dakota--I applaud 
his work on this amendment. I have long supported his concept of 
targeted assistance for family producers in this context and various 
others. We have discussed this over the years. But when we expand the 
loan period from 9 to 15 months, if the producers are required to sell 
their product within a shorter window of time, does that depress the 
price further? And who gains by producers having to sell their grain 
within a shorter window of time than over a longer window of time? Who 
are the winners and who are the losers when

[[Page S8169]]

all of the farmers are required, within a relatively short window, to 
dispose of their grain at one time? Who wins and who loses by that 
policy?
  Mr. DORGAN. The answer to that is clear. The bigger interests win, 
the littler interests lose. That is why it seems to me that if you 
follow the philosophy of the current farm policy, you have to give them 
the flexibility of going to the marketplace when it is in their 
interest. And they do not have that capability now because most of them 
are forced to haul that to the market and sell it as soon as they get 
it off the ground because they have to pay back the operating loans.
  Anybody who says this isn't about big versus little is just flat 
wrong. Look, if somebody wants to farm an entire county, they have 
every right to do that. They can farm the entire county. They can buy 
50,000 acres of land. They can plow as far as they can plow in 24 
hours, camp overnight, and plow back as far as they can. They have a 
right to do that in this country. But they ought to join with the good 
Lord and their banker and figure out how they make ends meet. I am not 
terribly interested if they want to try to farm the whole county, how 
we offer price supports for them.

  But the family out there farming a family-size operation, they are 
turning on the yardlight, they are doing chores, they are taking 
enormous risks--do I want to provide some type of continuity and help 
for them? Of course I do. It seems to me, we ought to construct an 
approach that says to those folks, ``You really do matter.'' We have in 
North Dakota--you probably have the same in South Dakota, and I assume 
other States--we have 53 counties. Ten of them are growing and 43 of 
them are shrinking. My home county was 5,000 people; it is now 3,000 
people. All that has to do with family farmers leaving the farm. And 
they are now leaving at an accelerated pace.
  I do not know that there is a magic answer to all of this. It is just 
that this particular amendment is an amendment that says, let us try to 
find a way to give farmers some flexibility to access the marketplace 
when it is more in their interest to do so rather than be forced to 
haul their grain to market and sell it when perhaps the prices are at 
bottom levels.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Would the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My question is, How long do you intend to hold the 
floor? I am curious--not critical at all--but curious, because I agreed 
to yield to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee time on the 
amendment. He has been on the floor now for almost 30 minutes. I was 
just curious to know when I might be able to yield some time to him.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have nearly completed my statement. I respect the 
Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Mississippi. They both are 
wonderful legislators. We might disagree from time to time on some of 
these issues, but I know he has been here for some while. This is, as 
you might imagine, enormously important. Agriculture drives our State's 
economy. I feel very strongly about a number of these issues. But I 
certainly want the Senator from Indiana to be able to make his 
statement.
  Let me finish by saying, I do not come here trying to figure out who 
is at fault. While I have strong feelings about farm policy, when I 
think this current policy is not good farm policy, and I have opposed 
it in the past, I think everyone comes at this with good will and with 
their own strong feelings about what ought to be done.
  But I do think that family farmers out there, are struggling these 
days against the odds and circumstances where they cannot control their 
own destinies at all. It is not their fault they have been devastated 
by crop disease. That is not their fault. It is not their fault that 
grain prices have collapsed. They did not have anything to do with 
that. And it is not their fault that the Crop Insurance Program, that 
we advertised as replacing a disaster program, does not work at all for 
somebody who suffers five straight disasters.
  One-third of our counties in North Dakota have had a disaster every 
year for 5 straight years--every year for 5 straight years. It is not 
their fault that crop insurance does not work for them. Each succeeding 
year means you get less of a base because you did not get a crop the 
previous year, so you still pay those premiums and get less from the 
Crop Insurance Program.
  Again, farmers ought not to be faulted for these circumstances. We 
ought to find a way to create a connection here to something that does 
work, to say to them, ``You matter. And we want to do something that 
makes a difference for you. We want to do something that gives you the 
opportunity to continue to farm.'' If you are a good manager and if you 
are willing to take some risks, we're willing to stand for you and with 
you to say, `Yes, here's a disaster program. Here's an indemnification 
program. Here's a little better opportunity on a loan rate. Here's the 
ability to hold that grain a little longer. Here are a number of things 
we want to do to try to make your life a little easier.' ''
  If we do that together--and I hope we will--and if we work with 
President Clinton who some of us plan to meet with this afternoon--I 
hope that perhaps at the end of the day we will all have decided that 
we have made a difference for family farmers. And, more importantly, I 
hope that family farmers will decide that we have made a difference in 
their lives as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for his insistence on my gaining recognition. I 
appreciated the colloquy between the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and the earlier 
comments of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  I come before the Senate as a fifth-generation family farmer; that 
is, five family generations of Lugars, from the 1820s in Grant County, 
through the present farming operation we have in Marion County, have 
been involved in the business of farming. We take the family farming 
very seriously on the 604 acres of corn and soybeans and tree stands 
that I am now responsible for and have been for the last 42 years.
  The contents of farm legislation are interesting to me as a citizen 
of this country, certainly as a member of the Agriculture Committee, 
and as one who is affected by those policies as I try to determine what 
I ought to plant, what my opportunities are as a family farmer in 
Indiana. I have been a long-time member of the Indiana Farm Bureau, as 
was my father, Marvin Lugar, and my uncle, Harry Lugar, a long-time 
member of the farmer's union in Indiana. I have been responsive to both 
groups and to others who have been involved in organizational 
agriculture as we helped to fashion the last four farm bills.
  I come before the Senate today just having addressed a meeting 2 days 
ago of the American Farm Bureau President's Group. At least on a couple 
of occasions a year, the president of each of the 50 State farm bureaus 
come to Washington, along with the various persons in their 
organizations. During the course of that colloquy with the farm bureau 
presidents, I was approached by a gentleman who mentioned he is the 
president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. His name is Jim Harmon. Jim 
Harmon, the president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, gave to me an 
article which he had published in the North Dakota Farm Bureau Journal.
  I quote from his article. Mr. Harmon says:

       It seems whenever things get difficult in farming, we look 
     for someone or something to blame. That is certainly the case 
     with the financial crisis facing farmers and ranchers in the 
     northern plains where we have had continuous years of adverse 
     growing conditions, now compounded by low prices. Some would 
     like to assign blame to the ``Freedom to Farm'' bill; and 
     have Congress reopen it to ``fix'' the price problem. This is 
     the wrong route to take, because ``Freedom to Farm'' is not 
     the problem--only the scapegoat. If the Act is reopened, I 
     fear that farmers stand to lose much more than they can 
     possibly gain.

  Mr. Harmon continues:

       The argument is being made that we need to reinstate the 
     old ``safety net'' program of the last 50 years. Fifty years 
     ago, we had almost seven million farmers in the United

[[Page S8170]]

     States. We now have two million. What kind of ``safety net'' 
     lets that many producers slip through it? The only thing 
     those programs guaranteed was a price ceiling on most 
     commodities in most years. Stable prices at low levels with 
     rising production costs is not the prescription for 
     profitability in farming. In the current legislation, the 
     ``safety net'' of price supports and disaster declarations 
     (not always successful), was replaced by ``transition 
     payments'' to offset the impact of depressed prices, and the 
     promise of meaningful risk management tools to reduce the 
     effects of natural disasters. For North Dakota farmers, the 
     promise of an improved crop insurance program in our risk 
     management tool kit still needs to be fulfilled.
       A recent study by researchers in the Agricultural Economics 
     department at NDSU indicated that about three-fourths of 
     North Dakota's 1997 decline in net farm income was due 
     to yield and quality reductions, and one-fourth to low 
     commodity prices.
       Blaming the current farm bill for the depressed cereal 
     grain prices is also off the mark. The bill authorizes $500 
     million for the Export Enhancement Program. Only $150 million 
     was appropriated, of which NONE has been used until the now 
     famous EEU barley shipments into the United States. Adequate 
     funding of the Market Access Program, along with a 
     comprehensive strategy for expanding foreign markets for our 
     commodities are tools that must be developed and implemented 
     if agriculture is to succeed in the global marketplace.

  Mr. Harmon continues:

       Another area that deserves attention is the fact that the 
     United States has made sanctions against countries that 
     comprise 11 Percent of the world wheat market (accounting for 
     40 percent of the world wheat export market). Given American 
     agriculture's dependence on export markets, trade sanctions 
     usually punish farmers more than the leadership of the 
     country we're mad at.
       Farm Bureau strongly believes that the following components 
     are necessary to ensure the success of the current farm 
     programs:

  Mr. Harmon says:

       Improve Federal Crop Insurance and develop new cost-
     efficient income coverage programs.
       Utilize to the fullest extent, all of the trade tools 
     available, including EEP, GSM 102 and 103 Credit Programs, 
     MAP, and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Programs.
       Provided promised reforms in the areas of wetlands, 
     pesticides, air and quality regulations.
       Expand agricultural research funding.
       Other items that will complete an integrated ag package 
     include FARRM accounts, income averaging, estate and capital 
     gains tax relief.
       Changing current farm law will only open the door to false 
     hope for those of us who need real answers. Real answers can 
     be found by using the tools available to their fullest 
     potential.

  I believe that Mr. Harmon, the president of the North Dakota Farm 
Bureau, has made the case very well for the current farm bill. He has 
also offered some excellent suggestions. I am hopeful that, as Senators 
meet with the President today, the President will subscribe to many of 
the suggestions that Mr. Harmon has made.
  Let me simply add, as that conversation with the President commences, 
that it would be helpful to have in front of the President U.S. 
Department of Agriculture estimates that the farm bill now in force in 
this country is providing payments totaling $17.180 billion over the 
1996-1998 marketing years; that is, the first 3 years of this new farm 
bill. This $17.18 billion of payments to producers is in comparison to 
what would have been paid under the old farm bill. That would have been 
only $9.63 billion.
  In essence, the current farm bill, during 1996, 1997, and 1998, will 
have made available to producers in these transition payments $7.55 
billion more than they would have received if we had continued the old 
farm bill. I think that is an important point, Mr. President, because 
that amount of income, $7.5 billion, is out there in farm country now. 
It is in the hands of family producers, family farmers, and it is 
reality, as opposed to speculation.
  Further, the transition payments under the farm bill are made earlier 
in the planting season than were the old deficiency payments. This has 
allowed family farms more latitude for planning as they go into 
planting their crops.
  Under the new farm bill, farmers have the flexibility as to what 
types of crops to plant and in what amounts. Farmers plant for the 
market rather than for the Government. The distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota noted that was one portion of the new farm bill that he 
liked. It is a very important one.
  As a family farmer, let me simply testify that for many years we 
planted corn because we were in the corn program and failure to plant 
corn might diminish the base on which our support payments were based. 
Therefore, we had to follow the dictates of the Federal Government that 
often asked us to set aside 5, 10 or 15 percent of our cropland.
  We could have produced things that did not have a program, Mr. 
President, but that would have diminished the base, so that if we 
wanted to return to the program, we would have been out of luck. As a 
result, for years, USDA essentially dictated the amounts of corn, 
wheat, cotton and rice--so-called program crops--to family farmers. 
Now, as a matter of fact, with Freedom to Farm, we are exercising that 
freedom. We are planting what the market signals the market wants. We 
are maximizing our opportunities. It is a critical point, Mr. 
President, but totally impossible under the old supply management of 
the farm bills of 60-some years.
  I note that current farm prices have prompted some Senators to 
suggest that the 1996 farm bill should be changed to alleviate what 
they perceive to be a farm crisis. Mr. President, we have had a lot of 
testimony before the Agriculture Committee and, indeed, we have heard 
farmers from the Dakotas and from the Chair's own State of Montana, and 
from northern Minnesota, testify about terrible weather problems, 
multiple crop failures--extraordinary difficulties that were recognized 
by this body when emergency disaster relief aid went to the Dakotas and 
to some other States last year.
  Mr. President, let me just say that even granted this crisis--and it 
is one that hopefully can be met by many farmers through the crop 
insurance that they have taken out, and participation in the Dakotas, 
where crop insurance is intensive, perhaps more so than most any other 
two States--given marketing opportunities that have been available 
that, hopefully, will be available again given the cyclical nature of 
crop prices, and certainly the changes in the weather that dictate from 
day to day very sharp changes in the futures market, we are all hopeful 
of trying to alleviate the crisis as perceived by some States and some 
counties that have a genuine crisis.
  I just point out, however, to all Members that 1998 farm prices--the 
ones we now have either for crops that have been harvested, or 
prospectively, for those in the fields--are low in comparison to the 
unusually high prices of 1995 and 1996. But they are about equal to the 
1990-94 average price levels for wheat, corn, and soybeans. I point out 
that 1995 and 1996 had some unusual factors; namely, that the USDA 
guessed wrong and required farmers, such as myself, to set aside 
acreage and, in fact, the weather did not cooperate and we had very 
small crops in the country. Prices went up, predictably.
  I just say, Mr. President, that we are now in more normal planting 
situations in which there are not excessive stocks around the world. 
Farmers are planting for the market. And my point is that the prices 
now are roughly the 1990-94 average for wheat, corn, and soybeans. USDA 
projects that farmers, this year, will receive an average of between 
$2.70 and $3.10 for the 1998 crop of wheat. The 1990-94 average was 
$3.11. Corn prices are projected between $1.95 and $2.35, according to 
the USDA, and that is certainly much more speculative given the fact 
that we still have some time to make that crop, as compared to an 
average of $2.30 in the early 1990s.
  Mr. President, anyone who has watched the futures markets in the last 
few weeks has seen prices reverse direction drastically and 
dramatically. December corn closed on June 23, for example--not long 
ago--at $2.67 and three-quarters, a recovery of 30 cents from the 
contract lows--all in one fell swoop. Similarly, November soybeans 
closed at $6.40 and three-quarters, a 70 cent recovery from contract 
lows earlier in the season.

  Today's low prices are not caused by the farm bill. They reflect 
large world grain supplies, a direct result of the high prices of 1995 
and 1996, distorted somewhat by USDA set-asides. But they reflect 
something much more, Mr. President, and that is a profound crisis

[[Page S8171]]

in the economies of many Asian nations. If it were not for the Asian 
crisis, this Nation would be well on the road to setting another all-
time record for the dollar value of farm exports. USDA's current 
projection of $56 billion in 1998 exports is about $4 billion less than 
the record--$60 billion--in 1996. If Asian demand simply matched last 
year's level, with no growth, we would have matched and exceeded the 
$60 billion figure. USDA forecasts that our exports to non-Asian 
countries will actually be 8 percent greater than in the record-setting 
year of 1996.
  The farm bill is a source of help and not harm for farm income. From 
1996 to 1998, as we pointed out, the payments have been $17.18 billion, 
$7.5 billion more than the old farm bill. I just simply say that this 
money continues throughout the duration of the current farm bill. The 
payments are well known to farmers. So in terms of forward planning of 
their operations, they understand the money in the bank that is 
provided by the current farm bill.
  Let me just say that one of the ways in which many northern plains 
farmers who have been especially afflicted by very bad weather, and 
sometimes by wheat scab disease--a number of the northern plains 
farmers have adapted to these wheat problems, and scab and other 
disease problems, by changing the crops that they plant--oilseed 
acreage, for example, in North Dakota. And other States have expanded 
dramatically at the expense of wheat acres. Such wholesale shifts could 
not have occurred under the old farm policy. The disincentives to 
change crops were simply too great. Freedom to Farm is a package deal. 
Its aim is to leave planting decisions in the hands of the farmers and 
not the Government. And to achieve this goal, the FAIR Act provides 
full planting flexibility, bans production controls, and decouples 
income support payments.
  Another element in the farm bill is the relatively low loan rates, 
and that is the subject of the amendment before us. The purpose of the 
loan rates in the farm bill now is the same as the act's other 
features: to make certain that price supports are a short-term 
marketing tool and not an alternative market. Loan rates should not be 
set high enough to influence farmers' planting decisions, and they 
should not tie up grain in storage for such a long period of time that 
market signals are distorted.
  To state it another way, Mr. President, I have been asked by 
Senators, ``Why is it a bad thing for marketing loans to bring grain 
into the hands of the Federal Government?'' The basic reason is that 
grain doesn't disappear on its own accord. It is there; it is a drag on 
the supply side. It means everybody taking a look at futures markets 
knows it is still there. It has to be sold at some point. It depresses 
price. It depresses income. It is not a quick fix; it is not a good 
fix. Under the current farm bill, it is not meant to happen. That is 
why proposals to raise loan rates or extend the time for loans are 
doubly objectionable.
  Not only do they put a further strain on the Federal budget, but they 
put the Government back in the business of substituting its judgment 
about crop decisions for the market's judgment, and for that matter, 
about marketing the stores of grain the Government accumulates. The 
projected crop prices for the 1998 marketing year are much lower than I 
would like to see, particularly when compared to the high prices of 
1995 and 1996.
  Mr. President, there are a number of steps that we will need to take 
in the Agriculture Committee and on this floor to assist farmers to 
obtain higher prices. I want to discuss some of those later in the day. 
But for the moment on the current amendment, just for the benefit of 
Senators, the amendment deals with removing the 1996 farm bill ceiling 
on loan rates. And it would mean that the USDA would be free to raise 
the 1998 crop loan rate to 85 percent of the past 5-year market price 
average excluding the high and the low years. The amendment would 
remove loan rate caps for marketing assistance loans for wheat, for 
feed grains, for cotton, and rice measured in fiscal year 1999 
effectively uncapping the loan rates for the 1998 crops.
  Finally, the amendment would permit the Secretary of Agriculture to 
extend the term in the marketing assistance loans from the current 9 
months to 15 months.
  I state all of this, Mr. President, because I am not certain in the 
debate thus far that it has been clear exactly what uncapping the loan 
rates means. It means, as I have stated, taking the last 5 years in 
these program crops, excluding the top and the bottom years, and, 
therefore, the average of the remaining three. And this results, for 
the benefit of Senators who are wondering about the amounts of money 
involved, that the current loan ceiling for wheat under the current 
farm bill is $2.58 a bushel. The calculation of the 85 percent of the 
5-year average, excluding high and low prices, would raise that loan 
rate to $3.16.
  Mr. President, I make the point about wheat because I have already 
suggested that the average price of wheat calculated by USDA is now 
estimated after a pretty good harvest at between $2.70 and $3.10 for 
the year. Thus, we would be creating a loan rate higher than the likely 
average price for wheat marketed this year. It is logical in that event 
that very large amounts of that crop are going to go under the 
marketing loan. If, in fact, to take a practical example, a wheat 
farmer has some prospects for the average price of $3.10, or lower than 
that, he or she might decide to use the marketing loan to get the 
$3.16, and let the Federal Government worry about what is going to 
happen generally with the supply of wheat in this situation.
  For corn, the situation is not quite so generous. The current farm 
bill marketing loan would be $1.89 a bushel. Given this 5-year 
averaging, again with the high and low out, that goes up to $2.17. It 
is conceivable that given a bumper crop of 9.5 billion bushels that 
corn could dip below $2.17, and, if so, a good bit of corn would come 
under this procedure.
  Soybeans are at $5.26, the marketing loan rate. Under the farm bill, 
that would be $5.54 given the 5-year calculation if you removed the 
cap. It is hard to tell precisely what the situation would be for 
beans, but maybe a similar one to corn.
  In any event, you can predict that stock accumulations would be 
inevitable. These would lead, I suspect, to calls from the floor for 
supply control for USDA to step in and try to prevent a further 
accumulation of a glut of grain that is depressing prices in this 
country, and depressing farmers as they see those prices going down. 
Mr. President, this is not even a good quick fix. It is a prescription 
for enormous difficulty.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us, as I understand, has been 
tailored in various ways so that, although the Congressional Budget 
Office has not yet scored the amendment, it is clear that it would cost 
at least $1.6 billion, with approximately $400 million of that cost due 
to extending the term in the marketing loan by 6 months, and the 
remaining $1.2 billion due to uncapping the loan rates,

  Mr. President, I point out that in the action taken in this body the 
other day to make possible the tender offer by Pakistan, if it comes, 
for 37 million bushels of U.S. wheat, the Congressional Budget Office 
finally scored that, as I recall, at about $35 million in costs. And a 
huge scramble occurred to try to find where $35 million is, even to 
meet that emergency action. They found it. That is why the legislation 
finally made it through both Houses to be signed by the President.
  But we are talking now about $1.6 billion in this amendment. The 
quick fix of this situation is to say, ``Well, it is an emergency 
outside the budget.'' Unless somebody declared that today with regard 
to each of the same things that we are discussing, I see no majority 
support in this body for a declaration of emergency of this character. 
I see no prospect in the other body for that to occur. The money simply 
would have to come, if it is to be appropriated in this way, from other 
agriculture programs. And the scramble will begin as to who will pay 
the piper. This is a zero sum game.
  Mr. President, I add, finally, I started my talk by mentioning my 
visit with the state presidents of the American Farm Bureau. The 
American Farm Bureau and the 50 presidents who were there are not 
calling for this amendment. As a matter of fact, they do not believe 
the amendment is good policy, nor do I.
  Let me just suggest that there are things for which farm 
organizations

[[Page S8172]]

are calling. The distinguished occupant of the Chair organized an 
important meeting of a good number of producer groups not long ago. 
During the course of that meeting a number of suggestions were made 
that are important policy changes. Among those were reauthorization of 
the Presidential fast-track trading authority. If there is a single 
item, Mr. President, that is important to higher income on the farm, it 
is that one, because in order to have an extension of our exports, an 
extension of our sales and our marketing, the President must have fast-
track authority. No other country will deal with it. It is quite apart 
from the World Trade Organization, which is about to have an important 
meeting in 1999. At that meeting we are all encouraging Ms. Barshefsky, 
our Trade Representative, or anybody else who might represent us, 
including the Secretary of Agriculture, to make certain that 
agriculture is at the top of the priorities. Normally agriculture is at 
the bottom of the priorities. And that will take some pushing and 
shoving, because a good number of other interest groups in our country 
will say, ``We don't want to hold up a deal with other countries due to 
their antagonism to agriculture.'' The most protected of all areas is 
still in agricultural trade.
  So we have to have fast-track authority. We ought to be debating that 
if we are talking about agricultural income, and hopefully we will be 
debating that very soon on this floor.
  Second, we must have International Monetary Fund reform. I start by 
``reform,'' because I appreciate the comments that have been made in 
various meetings of our committees about how IMF operates. But we are 
also going to have to have refunding and replenishment for the IMF. The 
cupboard is almost bare. The possibilities are that the nations of the 
world--we contribute about 18 percent of that money, and it is good to 
have at least 82 percent contributed by others. The nations of the 
world may, indeed, come to the rescue of other nations very promptly. 
Commodity prices are down worldwide. We are discussing today the 
problem of agricultural prices in the world. But, if we were in another 
country at another time, we would be discussing the implications of low 
oil prices, or low copper prices, or the fact that a certain 
deflationary trend seems to have come over primary foods and materials 
throughout the world affecting the economies. Enormous flexibility and 
safety net situations are going to be required.
  Third, the agricultural groups almost unanimously have talked about 
economic sanctions reform with a special emphasis on unilateral 
sanctions, the ones that we impose all by ourselves, and that we have 
imposed 61 times in the last 5 years and that have affected maybe $20 
billion of American income and several hundred thousand American jobs.
  Later in this debate on the agriculture appropriations bill, I will 
be offering as an amendment a sanction reform bill that deals 
prospectively; that is, just with the future, but at least sets in 
motion criteria for the administration and for Congress in considering 
unilateral economic sanctions and estimates as to their cost and a 
sunsetting provision that we can get rid of them after they have 
achieved what they were supposed to do. It is a modest amendment, but 
it is an important amendment in the sense of giving hope to farmers in 
America. Do we care about them enough to be thinking how the sale is 
going to be made, how marketing can occur with this most vital of 
humanitarian commodities, food supply.
  Fourth, farm groups have called for establishment of normal trade 
relations with China. They have called for stronger oversight on 
biotechnology in negotiations with the Common Market and with others so 
that we are not denied the remarkable breakthroughs in our own science. 
They have asked for full funding of the agricultural research bill, and 
hopefully we will pass that as a part of this overall ag appropriations 
legislation.
  Earlier, of course, the farm groups were instrumental in helping us 
all to come to passage of the agricultural research bill itself.
  And 5 years of crop insurance provisions, which we now see were so 
critically important given the precarious nature of agricultural income 
due to weather and other events in so many parts of the country.
  I would point out that act alone, the Ag Research Act, and the crop 
insurance provisions for 5 years were tremendously important in making 
a difference for agricultural income now as well as for the foreseeable 
future in our country.
  The farm groups are calling for estate tax reform. Of anything that 
has come before our committee, that has had greater unanimity in terms 
of farm families, and these are the same family farms bandied about in 
the conversation all the time. They are saying, if we are going to have 
a family farm, we are really going to have to have estate tax reform 
and reduction and preferably abolition. Hopefully, that will come 
before the body.
  These are elements of a successful farm policy. We are finally going 
to have to come down to the point of discussing the difference between 
selling the crop and storing the crop, and there is a big difference. 
What I and many others are advocating is that we sell, that we market, 
that we move the crop. A third of all that we do in agricultural 
America has to move; a tough job in the face of the Asian demands 
falling off precipitously but not impossible.
  As I have pointed out, we are exporting to non-Asian countries 8 
percent more now than we were doing in the 1996 record export year, and 
that did not happen by chance. It happened because agricultural 
marketers and farmers taking trade groups and personally visiting 
countries have done a remarkable job. We have to help that 
substantially, and we can. The policies I have talked about today are 
fully within our purview in the Senate to debate and to discuss and to 
enact.
  Let me just mention that those of us on this side of the aisle know 
that there are no quick fixes, but we do know that action is important 
as well as rhetoric. Less than an hour after the Senate approved the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the distinguished Democratic 
leader last evening, we gave final congressional approval to the broad 
exemption of agricultural products from India and Pakistan sanctions 
under the Glenn amendment. The Senate's action should allow U.S. wheat 
to compete in today's Pakistani tender for 350,000 metric tons of 
exports.
  Yesterday, I joined nine other Senators from farm States in calling 
for action this session on the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley's Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act, which gives farmers 
important new tools to manage the variability of farm income. I am 
hopeful that will be enacted in this session.
  Also, yesterday nine of us from farm States wrote the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Mr. Glickman, in support of actions which he can take now 
without legislation to increase exports of humanitarian food 
assistance. The CCC Charter Act provides authority for a wide range of 
Secretarial action, and our letter lays out how a new initiative could 
use existing funds to expand overseas concessional sales of wheat, 
vegetable oil, feedgrains and other commodities.
  I ask unanimous consent that both of the letters enunciating these 
policies be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
           Forestry,
                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1998.
     Hon. Dan Glickman,
     Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We have reviewed your July 7 letter to 
     the Vice President, transmitting a draft bill to permit 
     unobligated funds of the Export Enhancement Program to be 
     utilized for food aid. We share your goals of enhancing U.S. 
     producers' incomes through higher exports and augmenting our 
     nation's ability to meet humanitarian needs throughout the 
     world.
       Without prejudice to your legislative proposal, we believe 
     it may also be possible for you to take administrative 
     actions, consistent with existing statutes, which will 
     achieve many of the same purposes more expeditiously. We 
     would like to share our reflections on this matter for your 
     consideration.
       The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act grants 
     relatively broad powers to the Secretary to achieve stated 
     purposes. These powers are not unlimited, but they do afford 
     you considerable latitude of action.
       In particular, Section 5 of the Charter Act instructs you 
     to use the CCC's general powers for eight stated purposes. 
     Among these

[[Page S8173]]

     are to ``[p]rocure agricultural commodities for sale to . . . 
     foreign governments, and domestic, foreign, or international 
     relief . . . agencies . . .'' Another priority is to 
     ``[e]xport or cause to be exported, or aid in the development 
     of foreign markets for, agricultural commodities . . .''
       The Charter Act's history suggests that these purposes may 
     be achieved through programs and procedures that are similar 
     to those which exist or have existed under other statutes. 
     Thus, in the mid-1980s the EEP was operated for a time under 
     Charter Act authority after the statute which then authorized 
     EEP had lapsed.
       We believe a fair reading of the Charter Act permits you to 
     establish a program which would operate in the following 
     manner. During a specified period (perhaps the last fiscal 
     quarter as proposed in your draft bill), the Secretary could 
     determine that all or part of funds authorized for EEP during 
     that fiscal year would not be used. In this situation, the 
     Secretary could authorize the use of CCC funds in an amount 
     equal to the unused portion of EEP authority. The CCC funds 
     would be utilized in a newly created Food Assistance and 
     Market Development (FAMD), program.
       The FAMD would be established under Charter Act authority 
     to export agricultural commodities. CCC would purchase 
     commodities at prevailing market prices for concessional 
     sales to foreign buyers, whether public or private. The 
     FAMD's terms and conditions would be similar but not 
     identical to those for Title I of P.L. 480. Notably we would 
     suggest that priority FAMD be given to market experiencing a 
     temporary need for food aid because of macroeconomic or other 
     problems, but likely to resume commercial purchases in 
     future. Other priorities under the new program might be 
     markets which have recently made political or economic 
     reforms, as well as countries with which the U.S. has 
     recently resumed diplomatic relations. It might be that 
     repayment terms and grace periods would also differ from 
     those under Title I, although all terms and conditions would 
     need to be consistent with international norms for bona fide 
     food aid. We intend these parameters to be descriptive rather 
     than prescriptive, and acknowledge that you will want to tap 
     the expertise of market development professionals in both 
     USDA and the private sector in developing any new program.
       We do note, though, that there is ample need for the 
     American products which would be exported under this program. 
     Title I funding has declined by roughly half in recent years. 
     In correspondence which we earlier shared with you, U.S. 
     producer groups identified potential non-emergency food 
     assistance needs of about $150 million for wheat alone. 
     Additional opportunities to assist developing countries and 
     lay the groundwork for commercial relationships exist for 
     vegetable oils, protein meals, feed grains, meats and other 
     commodities.
       In our judgment, you possess the authority to implement the 
     program we have described. We will be happy to discuss 
     further with you or officials of your Department the 
     potential for moving quickly to assist needy populations and 
     enhance U.S. farm exports.
           Sincerely,
         Dick Lugar, Pat Roberts, Larry E. Craig, Rick Santorum, 
           Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Paul 
           Coverdell, Jesse Helms.
                                  ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
           Forestry,
                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 1998.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We write to share our thoughts about one 
     important way Congress can safeguard the future of our 
     nation's family farms.
       The FAIR Act is providing income support to agricultural 
     producers. Because of its system of direct transition 
     payments, farmers in 1996-98 will have received $7.6 billion 
     more in federal assistance then would have been the case 
     under an extension of prior law. We will join you in 
     resisting any changes to the FAIR Act's basic provisions.
       To prosper, however, the agricultural industry requires 
     sound macroeconomic, fiscal and trade policies. In our recent 
     meeting with national farm leaders, all of us heard these 
     producers advocate fast-track trade authority, the reform of 
     economic sanctions and other forward-looking initiatives. We 
     thank you for your leadership in these and other areas.
       The farm leaders also praised S. 2078, the Farm and Ranch 
     Risk Management Act, which Senator Grassley introduced and 
     all the undersigned Senators support. The FARRM Act will 
     allow producers to save a portion of their farm income on a 
     tax-favored basis in an effort to smooth out volatile income 
     streams and minimize the risks involved in farming. If 
     farmers and ranchers had been able to avail themselves of 
     such FARRM accounts in recent years, the impact of this 
     year's lower commodity prices would have been significantly 
     mitigated.
       Under S. 2078, eligible producers may take a deduction of 
     up to 20 percent of taxable net farm income for FARRM account 
     use. Interest income earned from the account will be 
     distributed (and taxable) annually. Withdrawals of principal 
     from the FARRM account will be taxed as ordinary income in 
     the year the withdrawals occur. Money cannot remain in a 
     FARRM account more than five years.
       Thus, the FARRM account is not a retirement plan but a 
     risk-management tool. Revenues in farming and ranching are 
     notoriously volatile. We need only look at the wide swings in 
     commodity prices between 1996 and the present to see that 
     farmers need a range of ways to manage variable prices. The 
     FARRM Act will let producers set pre-tax money aside during 
     good years and then use it during years of financial stress. 
     The responsibility to manage the account will rest with the 
     producer, who is best able to assess his or her individual 
     financial situation in a given year.
       S. 2078 is a bold and innovative proposal. We seek your 
     assistance in securing fair consideration for this important 
     legislation, and hope that if the Senate acts on major tax 
     legislation this year, S. 2078 will be included in any such 
     bill.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Chuck Grassley, Dick Lugar, Larry E. Craig, Thad Cochran, 
           Pat Roberts, Paul Coverdell, Phil Gramm, Dirk 
           Kempthorne, Chuck Hagel, Kit Bond.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Republicans will continue to press for 
prompt action on appropriate legislative vehicles. We will join our 
House colleagues on both sides of the aisle in asking for a vote this 
year on fast-track authority, and we want to proceed with all Senators 
to move ahead on IMF replenishment and reform. We are hopeful of seeing 
passage of sanctions reform legislation.
  We are determined to create additional demand for American farm 
products and thus higher prices and hopefully higher income. We are 
working with farm groups all over the country for implementation of 
those portions of the farm bill which have led to the lowering of 
costs, so that the bottom line in terms of net income for farm families 
might be more positive.
  I share the general feeling in this debate that these are stressful 
times for millions of people in farm country. We have to address that 
up front and soberly. In these comments this morning, Mr. President, I 
have tried to illustrate that I believe the general outline of the farm 
bill has led to more income, more cash in these 3 years for farmers, 
and will in the next 4; that we have great possibilities, given Freedom 
to Farm, to do things on our farms that are most profitable guided by 
market signals. And finally, we have our work cut out for us in the 
Senate in dealing with the strengthening of our foreign trade position 
and the demand that we must have.
  Not long ago, I heard a lecture using this same general idea, that a 
third of our sales now go abroad--a third exported of our farm 
commodities and farm animals. The suggestion was, as a matter of fact, 
that already a third of the world trade that we were doing was with 
Asia. We had hoped for more expansion, and that seemed on the horizon, 
given the rise in Asian incomes prior to this year.
  Most of that third of the Asian trade is gone temporarily. We may 
have some success with this sale in Pakistan, and I hope that we will. 
Certainly, we are active as a Nation in South Korea, and there are some 
possibilities for sales there. The Indonesian market for the time being 
is devastated, and likewise not too much from Thailand, from Malaysia, 
and from other countries that have been afflicted.
  If you take away a third of the third of income that already was 
exported, that amounts to about one-ninth the demand for all that we 
do. It is no wonder that prices have fallen, but it should be a wonder 
if we do not act to market, to sell, to move this grain and this 
livestock by originating new policies that make a difference in world 
trade, where our bread and butter will come in agricultural America.
  For these reasons, I hope Senators will reject the amendment before 
us dealing with the marketing loan fix. In my judgment, it will be 
expensive, with money we do not have, it will depress prices rather 
than lead to an increase, and it will give the impression that this is 
in any way even a partial solution when, in my judgment, it will be a 
strong step backwards.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

[[Page S8174]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am delighted the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, has had 
an opportunity to make the case against this amendment offered by the 
Democratic leader, by Senator Harkin, and by others. It is just as 
clear to me as anything can be that the weight of the evidence is 
against the passage of this amendment by the Senate.
  One other point that I do not think has been made enough is that the 
purpose of this legislation we are dealing with today is to appropriate 
money to fund the Department of Agriculture programs, the FDA, and CFTC 
as well. We are not here to really pass judgment on the legislative 
authority for the Department's expenditure of money. This amendment, 
offered by the Democratic leader, purports to and intends to rewrite 
legislative language that was approved by the Congress in the 1996 farm 
bill and was signed by the President and implemented through 
regulations and administrative actions by this administration.
  Our committee has the responsibility of determining how much money is 
needed to carry out that farm bill and what authorities we have in law 
to spend the funds that have been allocated to our subcommittee under 
the budget. So our responsibilities are really limited by law. If we 
decided to start rewriting provisions of the farm bill of 1996, that 
would be a never-ending ordeal for the Senate to put itself through. 
For that reason, the Senate ought to reject this first amendment that 
seeks to start that process. This is the first amendment offered to 
this bill that seeks to rewrite legislative authority of the Department 
of Agriculture to administer a farm program. If we start down this road 
this morning on this amendment, it may never end.
  Think about this. When we were writing the farm bill of 1996, we had 
the best information, advice, and counsel from experts on agriculture 
programs at our hearings in the Committee on Agriculture. The House 
went through the same exercise. The administration was actively 
involved. There was give and take. There was compromise. But, in the 
end, we developed a consensus of what ought to be done to put our 
country on a firm footing of legal authority for programs that would 
support agriculture. So the end product was the 1996 farm bill. If we 
start trying to undo it and rewrite it piecemeal, section by section, 
we are going to have the biggest mess on our hands you could ever dream 
of.
  So the Senate ought today to vote for the motion to table, which I 
will make in due course, when time has expired or when all time is 
yielded back on this amendment. I hope the Senate will reject this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
suggest the time should be charged equally between the proponents and 
opponents of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time does this side have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 44 minutes 55 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 20 minutes, to begin with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I listened, of course with great interest and intent, to 
the comments by the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, my good friend from Indiana. I am privileged to serve as his 
ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.
  I think, first of all I will just respond to that and also to the 
statement made by the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee about, ``My gosh, we passed the farm bill in 1996. Here we 
are, do we want to rewrite it?''--and all that kind of stuff--``We 
should not open it again right now. It's the third year we are in it.''
  The 1996 farm bill is not the Ten Commandments. It was not written in 
stone for all time. We have a crisis impending on us in agriculture. 
The bottom is falling out. Prices are going down every day. Are we so 
stuck in our ways here, are we so wedded to some ideology imprinted in 
the 1996 farm bill, that we cannot respond?
  ``Oh, I am sorry. We see you are losing your farms. We see the prices 
going down. But, I am sorry, we passed a bill here 3 years ago and we 
cannot touch it.''
  Again, we are not really opening up the farm bill. We are simply 
making one minor change. Loan rates were capped in the 1996 farm bill--
capped, frozen; they are still there. We are not introducing something 
new into agricultural legislation. It is simply that a decision was 
made to cap them.
  That is OK. That was OK for the last couple of years, because grain 
prices have been relatively high. But now when the bottom is falling 
out of the market for a variety of reasons, now is the time when 
farmers need a little bit of assistance. What kind of assistance? They 
need flexibility.
  We hear a lot about that word, ``flexibility.'' In the 1996 farm 
bill, it did give farmers flexibility in planting decisions. That was a 
good part of the 1996 farm bill, a concept that was supported by 
everyone. But how about flexibility for the farmer to be able to decide 
how to market their crops? That is what we are trying to do by raising 
the caps on the loan rates--to give the farmer the ability to harvest 
the crop, get a loan on that crop to pay the bills, and then be able to 
market that crop when the farmer feels it is most advantageous over the 
next 15 months. That is called flexibility, Mr. President, 
flexibility--to give the farmer some flexibility in marketing.
  What I am hearing from the other side now is, ``No, we don't want to 
give that farmer flexibility. We want to give the farmer flexibility in 
what to plant. But when it comes time to market, he is at the whims of 
the marketplace, of weather, of other countries and what they do, over 
which we have no control.'' That farmer is at the whims of the 
disastrous Asian economy. We cannot even give that farmer a little bit 
of support to give him the flexibility to market over 15 months? What 
nonsense. What utter, absolute nonsense.
  Thousands of farm families are facing severe economic hardships. They 
are in danger of losing their livelihood, their life savings. Just 
yesterday, the Senate went on record with a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution saying there is a great economic crisis in agriculture and 
calling for immediate action by Congress: 99 to nothing. Nice words on 
paper. But now, here is the first vote to implement that sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that we passed yesterday.
  We are for the first time trying to raise the caps on the loan rates 
to give the farmer the flexibility to market, and now we can't even 
give them that much. We can't even do this modest step. What did that 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution mean?
  Mr. President, I offered that sense-of-the-Senate resolution along 
with Senator Daschle. It passed 99 to 0. I am wondering, if we can't 
even do this modest little step to help our farmers out, maybe we ought 
to recall that amendment. Maybe we ought to have another vote on it and 
this time vote it down. Why give all this flowery support that we are 
going to help agriculture? There is a problem out there and on the 
first vote, ``I am sorry, the farm bill is written in stone; we can't 
touch it.''
  What we are proposing is a quite modest and reasonable response to 
try to prevent the farm situation from becoming any worse and to help 
turn it around. Quite frankly, I am a little embarrassed at the modesty 
of our proposal, but we thought in order to minimize any opposition, we 
would keep it limited. We are not proposing any radical changes in farm 
policy. We are not opening the floodgates of the Treasury. We have been 
very careful in that respect.
  I must confess, if we cannot manage to adopt even this modest 
amendment today, it will speak volumes about the willingness of this 
body to respond to the dire situation in rural America that we just 
recognized yesterday in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I underscore that the rural economic crisis is not the fault of 
America's farmers. We have a world situation where large supplies of 
commodities

[[Page S8175]]

have combined with weakened demand, with a terribly depressed Southeast 
Asian economy that has driven commodity prices lower. In the last 2 
years, farm level prices for corn, wheat and soybeans have declined 39 
percent. Cattle prices are 20 percent below the level earlier this 
decade. Hog prices for the first half of 1998, are the lowest seen in 
20 years. On top of that, numerous regions have experienced bad weather 
and crop diseases that have devastated our farmers.
  As of yesterday, a farmer would receive a price of $2.50 a bushel for 
wheat at a country elevator in Dodge City, KS. At that price, the 
average Kansas farmer with about 350 acres of wheat in the ground right 
now will suffer a loss of more than $40,000 over his cost of 
production. And we are telling that farmer we can't do anything to help 
him?
  With the average corn market price announced by USDA on July 10, the 
typical Iowa corn farmer will be losing more than 35 cents of every 
bushel of corn he markets, even considering the modest Government 
payment that he is going to receive under the 1996 farm bill.
  Mr. President, 32 of 50 States have suffered declines in farm income 
in 1996 and 1997. Here it is, 32 of 50 States: North Dakota, 98 
percent; Iowa, down 16 percent; New York, 44; Pennsylvania, 32 percent; 
Kentucky, down 29 percent; Tennessee, loss of 28 percent; Missouri, 
down 72 percent. That is what is happening. That is the loss in farm 
income, according to Dept. of Commerce figures. As I noted yesterday, 
Standard & Poor's Index for Wall Street has gone up 36 percent in the 
last year. Look what has happened in agriculture. And yet we can't do 
anything? Not even this modest, little increase in loan rates?
  If the price estimates released July 10 by USDA hold up, lower corn 
and soybean prices will cause an additional loss of farm income in my 
State of Iowa alone of over $1 billion this year. That translates into 
19,000 jobs in my State affected directly or indirectly by agriculture.
  On a national basis, this year's crisis will strike a severe blow. 
USDA estimates suggest that 1998 farm income will fall below $50 
billion, 13 percent lower than it was in 1996. With the season average 
corn and rice projections being lowered 6 percent in July, that number 
is going to fall even more. The $5.2 billion decline in farm income 
could translate into a loss of nearly 100,000 jobs in the agricultural 
sector and ag-related businesses.
  Mr. President, 1998 total farm debt is estimated to amount to $172 
billion, the highest level since 1985. For those of you who don't 
remember 1985, let me refresh your memory. That was the height of the 
farm crisis. From 1985 to about 1988, hundreds of thousands of farmers 
lost their farms in the United States. It devastated rural America. It 
took us, well, almost the next 10 years to climb out of it. Now that we 
are getting out of it, farmers are hit once more.
  We are going to have a huge farm debt again this year. We are going 
to have another wave of farm foreclosures and farm losses. Families are 
losing the equity they have built up in their farms. Those who survived 
the 1980s and thought they had it made because they weathered the worst 
financial crisis in agriculture since the 1930s are on the edge and 
they are getting pushed off.
  Farm families and communities are facing an emergency, and we in the 
Senate must act, as we have traditionally done when emergencies strike.
  It is important that all Senators understand what our amendment does. 
It focuses on the level of the loan that a farmer can take out on farm 
commodities after harvest using the crop as collateral. This loan 
allows the farmer to pay the bills, as I said, and retain the crop for 
up to 15 months so they can market it in a flexible manner. It let's 
the farmer make the decision of when to sell rather than being forced 
to sell because the bills are due. You can think about this amendment 
as the ``flexibility to market'' amendment.
  The formula has been around for a long time. As I said, there is 
nothing new about this. It is in the farm bill: 85 percent of the 5-
year average, throwing out the high and the low years. That is the 
basic formula, 85 percent.
  The distinguished Senator from Indiana went on at great length 
talking about how we don't want this loan rate set so that it will 
influence farmers to make their planting decisions, because if the loan 
rate is too high, then the farmer plants for the loan, not for the 
market.
  I have three observations on that. First of all, this amendment only 
covers the 1999 Fiscal year. We re talking about crops that are already 
planted, for the most part. So how can a one-year amendment have any 
substantial influence on farmers' decisions about what to plant next 
year? I think perhaps people who have been speaking against the 
amendment don't understand that. It is only for one fiscal year.
  Even assuming somehow psychologically it did because the farmer might 
say, ``Well, I got that loan this year and if things remain bad next 
year, maybe they will do the same thing next year, so, therefore, I 
will make my planting decisions based upon that possibility'' that is 
ridiculous in the extreme. Why? Because, first of all, this loan rate 
is only 85 percent of the last year 5-year average, throwing out the 
high and low years--85 percent. For corn right now, the farm bill cap 
is $1.89 a bushel. Our modest amendment would remove that rate, raise 
it to $2.19 for this crop year. Wheat right now is capped at $2.58 a 
bushel. Removing the cap would put the rate at about $3.22 a bushel. 
Both of those are way below the cost of production.

  If you are a farmer, and you are making planting decisions based upon 
the loan rate, then what my friend from Indiana is saying is that the 
farmer is going to plant more corn to get a loan rate that is lower 
than his cost of production. It reminds me of the old joke, the old saw 
we always hear around my State about farmers. Someone asked the corn 
farmer how he expected prices to be? He said, ``Well, I hope to at 
least break even because I need the money.''
  According to the Senator from Indiana, raising the loan rate to $2.19 
would somehow encourage a corn farmer to plant corn. Nonsense. That is 
way below the cost of production and no farmer would ever do that. They 
are going to plant based upon what they think they can get in the 
market next year.
  So those are two things. First of all, our raising the caps only 
apply to this upcoming fiscal year; secondly, there is no way that this 
modest raising of loan rates will in any way influence any farmer to 
plant for the loan. In no way would that do that.
  And third, I must again remind our Senators and others that in 
agriculture--I do not know why we never learn the lesson of ag 
economics--a farmer has a fixed amount of land, he has fixed machinery, 
he has a lot of fixed input and equity costs. If prices drop, there are 
those who say, ``Well, see, that will send a message to the farmer. If 
the prices go down, they will plant less of that crop next year.'' That 
is not so. Because when you have your fixed base and your fixed amount 
of land and your machinery, if prices go down, your first impulse is to 
get more production out of that unit of land. Maybe you will check on 
fertilizer prices. Maybe you will put on a little more fertilizer. 
Maybe you will put the rows a little closer together. Maybe you will do 
some other things. Maybe you will plant a little more on some land you 
did not want to plant on because you already have the machinery out 
there.
  The marginal cost of production for an additional acre of corn, if 
you are already planting 500 or 1,000 acres of corn, that marginal cost 
of planting that extra 20 acres or 50 acres is minimal. Yet, if you can 
raise your production, well then, that will take care of the lower 
prices. But that feeds on itself.
  I predicted 2 years ago, when the 1996 farm bill passed, that that is 
exactly what would happen: We would see increasing production. 
Hopefully, the price would stay up. But if other countries' economies 
went to pot--and we saw a couple years ago that it looked like that 
might happen--well, then, prices would drop. And how would farmers 
respond? They would plant more and produce more. And that is exactly 
what has happened--exactly what has happened.
  We probably have a record production of soybeans this year, near 
record production of both wheat and corn. But

[[Page S8176]]

somehow people just think that agriculture is just like making widgets. 
And it is not. It is a lot different.
  This amendment is very modest--very modest. We are not proposing to 
change the 1996 farm bill in any way. As I said, this provision is in 
the 1996 farm bill. It is just capped. We are just raising the caps. We 
are not interfering with planting flexibility, for farmers to make 
their own decisions. In fact, we are enhancing the flexibility of 
farmers to market their commodities when it is advantageous for them to 
do so.
  Then, I know we keep hearing the old refrain about keeping Government 
out of agriculture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator has used the 20 
minutes yielded to him.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself another 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. So we hear the old refrain, get the Government out of 
agriculture; give the farmers more freedom. That is what this amendment 
does. If that is what you like, this amendment gives the farmers more 
freedom. I just ask my colleagues, what kind of freedom do they have in 
mind when they talk about giving farmers freedom? The freedom to be 
forced out of business by events beyond their control?
  As I said yesterday, I read a comment in the newspaper by one of my 
colleagues here who said they wanted to give farmers more ability to 
manage their destiny. I said, I do not understand that. How can my corn 
farmer in Iowa manage El Nino? How can my soybean farmer in Iowa manage 
the disastrous Southeast Asian economy? How can our wheat farmers 
manage the subsidies that other governments give their wheat farmers to 
compete unfairly with us? How can those wheat farmers manage the 
disastrous scab disease that we have had in some of our northern Great 
Plains States? These are all events that are beyond their control.
  Is this the kind of freedom that my colleagues have in mind for 
farmers? To be forced out by events beyond their control? The freedom 
to be forced to sell their crops at a loss because they cannot afford 
to hold onto them or get a decent loan to be able to market it when 
prices improve a little; is that the kind of freedom we have in mind? 
Is the freedom that my colleagues have in mind the freedom to struggle 
at poverty-level income while growing the food for our Nation? Is it 
the freedom for farmers to take less and less and less of the consumer 
dollar? Is that the kind of freedom they have in mind?
  Well, we have heard a lot of arguments on this amendment. It has been 
claimed that farmers receive more money under the 1996 farm bill than 
they would have under the continuation of the 1990 farm bill. That is 
true for the last 2 years when commodity prices were high. You have to 
understand, in the 1996 farm bill we gave farmers all the planting 
flexibility, but there was this payment called the Agriculture Market 
Transition Act payment, AMTA payments, without any payment limitations. 
No matter what farm income was like, you got a paycheck. I always 
thought that was kind of ridiculous.
  I had a farmer come up to me once in Iowa last year, after the 
previous year's crop, and he said, ``Gee, I had one of the best years I 
have ever had. I had a great year, and I got a paycheck from the 
Government. What are you people thinking about?'' See, I always thought 
that Government safety nets ought to be there when prices were low. If 
a farmer can make their money from the marketplace, that is the way it 
ought to be. But when there are events beyond their control, like bad 
weather and bad markets and interference by foreign governments, that 
is when the Government has to come in with a safety net.
  The last couple of years farmers got Government payments. But for 
this year--when prices are in the tank--for wheat farmers they will 
have less income protection than they would have had under the 1990 
farm bill. According to current USDA price estimates, per-bushel 
payments to wheat farmers would have been 40 percent higher under the 
1990 farm bill than they are scheduled to be under the 1996 farm bill 
this year. That difference would amount to nearly $22,000 for a farmer 
with 1,000 acres of wheat.
  One might infer that these farmers got these Government payments, and 
they could have taken these payments and sort of invested them and put 
them in the bank, so to speak, to get them through this year. Sounds 
nice. But is that really what happened? Hardly.
  First of all, a lot of farmers were paying off buildup debt, No. 1. 
They used the payments for that. No. 2, what happened was, a lot of 
farmers who rent found that their landlords increased the rent. Why? 
Because the landlords knew the farmer was going to get this Government 
paycheck, knew exactly what he was going to get. So the landlords 
raised the price of rent. Consequently, a lot of farmers did not even 
see the Government payment that came out in the form of that cash 
payment under the 1996 farm bill. A lot of farmers did not even get 
that money. But I will tell you who did get the money. The big farmers. 
The larger the farmer you are, the bigger the check you got over the 
last couple of years. And the larger the farmer you are, the better 
able you are to go through periods of stress.

  So it was all kind of screwed up. The bigger farmers got the most 
money over the last 2 years when prices were high. Now, when prices are 
low, our smaller farmers can't get enough help. The bigger farmers are 
able to get through it because they have more equity.
  Now we are going to say we can't even modestly raise the loan rates? 
I don't know, but I would think wheat farmers out there who are 
suffering would say they could use the ability to market their wheat 
over the next 15 months rather than have to sell this fall. Right now, 
the wheat loan is $2.58 a bushel. We are just asking to raise it to 
$3.22 a bushel. That is not a lot of money, but it might be a little 
bit of help.
  As I said, I think we checked the wheat in Dodge City, KS, 
yesterday--$2.50 and going down. The first of July, it was $2.64. Now 
it is down to $2.50 and going down every week. So our wheat farmers and 
our corn farmers need some help.
  I talked about farmers getting less and less of the share. This chart 
shows the farm share of the retail beef dollar, going down all the 
time. So for every dollar, when you buy that steak or you buy that 
hamburger, the farmer is getting less and less from the dollar you 
spend for it. Here is the pork dollar. Every time you buy a pork loin 
roast or one of our delicious Iowa chops--if I can put in a plug for 
that--our pork farmers are getting less and less of that dollar you 
spend for pork.
  Here is the wheat prices--farm-level wheat price. Here is when the 
Freedom to Farm bill was enacted. Here are the wheat prices, going 
down, over the last couple of years. Same thing for corn. Here we are 
coming up to Freedom to Farm; down it comes. So corn prices are going 
down, also.
  There is a crisis out there. We are not talking about increasing 
consumer food costs or livestock feed costs, nor are we going to price 
the United States out of world markets. If the price of the commodity 
is below the loan rate, the farmer can sell at that lower price and 
repay the loan at the going market price. So the marketing loan does 
not prop up the U.S. price among world market prices. Hence, there is 
no adverse impact upon U.S. competitiveness because of this amendment.
  Taking the cap off will help our farmers stay in business. The fact 
is, it may be the only thing that will keep them in business for 
another year.
  Again, we have heard all these arguments, but for the life of me, I 
can't understand--I can't understand--why we on one day can say there 
is a crisis in agriculture, Congress has to respond, and 99 Senators 
vote for that; the next day, we want just a modest increase in the loan 
rates to help, and we can't do that? I hope that is not so. I hope we 
do this today.
  Lastly, I heard the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee talking about getting fast-track legislation through, as if 
somehow that is going to help prices this year. Even if fast track were 
to pass this year, it would take several years to conclude agricultural 
talks. I point out, the last Uruguay Round of multilateral talks took 7 
years. Keep in mind, even if we got fast track through, that is not 
going to mean a darn thing for 3, 5, 6, 7 years. That will not help 
this year--not going to help a bit.

[[Page S8177]]

  Second, the crisis is now, not 7 years from now. It is right now. 
Sometimes we have short memories around here. We talk about, yes, we 
will do all this stuff; we are going to get our trade going again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time the Senator requested has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  In addition, my colleague from Indiana worries about the potential 
implications for stocks from this amendment. World grain reserves right 
now, as a percentage of consumption, are at historically low levels. I 
believe the American people would be appalled to learn that our 
Government holds virtually no food in reserve to help us out if we ever 
have a widespread crop failure.
  The chairman suggests that if the Government holds this grain, it 
stays over the market and depresses prices. Not if you have a 
government reserve withheld from the market--absolutely not true. But 
this concept of having a modest reserve is not a new idea. Someone said 
it began with the Roosevelt administration. This is a Roosevelt New 
Deal idea, to have a grain reserve, and, as such, we had to do away 
with it because it was a New Deal idea and we don't need all that stuff 
around anymore.
  The concept of a grain reserve is as old as the Book of Genesis. 
Surely my colleagues remember the story of Joseph interpreting the 
dream of the pharaoh, that there would be 7 good years followed by 7 
lean years and that food should be stored during the 7 good years to 
feed the people when the bad years came.
  It was true at the time of Genesis and it is true today that we need 
some food set aside in this country and around the world to meet 
exigencies. For the life of me, I can't understand why people want to 
ignore history. We ignore it at our own peril. Ignore it, and we will 
lose more and more farmers, and we will see a day come when there will 
be panic because we will have those lean years and we won't have any 
food to help feed our hungry people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are getting to the point where I think 
the Senate should seriously consider preparing for a vote on a motion 
to table this amendment. I know the time continues to exist on both 
sides, but I am hopeful we can yield back whatever time has not been 
used as soon as everybody who wants to talk has had a chance to talk.
  We don't want to cut anybody off. I am not going to do that. I am 
just expressing the hope that if everybody has had their say on this 
amendment, and we have had arguments on both sides--we had a very 
strong, convincing argument by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, 
the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee; we have had 
discussions on the Democratic side by four Senators that I recall 
speaking in support of the amendment; Senator Daschle talked in support 
of the amendment yesterday when he offered the amendment--so I am 
hopeful that those who want to speak will come to the floor and speak 
on this amendment and then we will have a motion to table and a vote.
  I think the time expires sometime a little after 2 o'clock. We had 3 
hours on the amendment. That is just a request. I hope Senators will 
respond to that request so we can make progress to complete action on 
this bill today.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I inquire of the chairman, I understand we have one other 
Senator on this side who would like to come down and speak.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We will be glad to accommodate that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to inquire of the chairman--obviously it is well 
within his right to move to table--why can't we have an up-or-down 
vote?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is in the order. We negotiated that last night.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thought perhaps the chairman might be willing to place 
this matter for an up or down vote, rather than vote on a motion to 
table.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It was in the unanimous consent agreement. We can get 
the clerk to read it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry if I am impeding the business of the Senate in 
raising this question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It was contemplated I would move to table the Daschle 
amendment. That is what the Democratic leader understood. We talked 
about it last night. It was in the order as entered last night--3 hours 
of debate on the amendment--and that is what we are operating under.
  I want to remind everybody that it is my intention to move to table 
and to have a vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is fully within the chairman's right to do that.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is not any reflection on anyone.
  It is certainly not personal.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand that. I hope we have an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, the 
esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee. Let me say how 
much I appreciate his perseverance and patience as we work to try to 
get what I think is a very good agriculture appropriations bill.
  I made some remarks yesterday. I will not take up much time of the 
Senate to go over that again. But I do have some comments, more 
especially as to the criticism by those across the aisle in regard to 
the loan rate and in regard to the Daschle amendment which, I 
understand, is intended to be of help to the farmers and, more 
especially, the farmers in the northern plains who are going through a 
very difficult time.
  Mr. President, we have heard that there is no longer a ``safety-net'' 
for America's farmers. Advocates of this position argue that we must 
extend marketing loans and remove the caps on loan rates. Based upon 
recent figures, it is estimated the loan rate for wheat would rise to 
$3.17 per bushel from its current level of $2.58. However, when you add 
the transition payments of 63 cents per bushel on the historical base 
that farmers are receiving for wheat, you have a new safety net of 
$3.21. We are told raising the loan cap will cost nearly $1.5 billion 
for one year. And, if we were to come back and make the increase 
permanent, we are told it would cost $3.5 billion to $4 billion over 
five years. Why should we approve amendments that will bust the budget 
when they provide a lower safety net than the current program?
  Raising and extending loan rates will not improve prices and producer 
incomes. Extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in 
the long-run. Extending the loan for six months simply gives producers 
another false hope for holding onto the remainder of last year's crop. 
Farmers will be holding onto a portion of the 1997 crop, while at the 
same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998.
  Thus, rolling over the loan rate actually increases the amount of 
wheat on the market and results in lower prices--not higher prices. 
Since excess stocks will continue to depress prices, will we then 
extend the rate again? It will become an endless cycle that will cost 
billions of dollars, and which will eventually lead to a return to 
planting requirements and set-aside acres in an attempt to control 
agricultural output and limit the budgetary effects. Where will we get 
the offsets the Senate and House will require?
  Extending and raising loan rates will only serve to exacerbate the 
lack of storage associated with the transportation problems in middle 
America, because it simply causes farmers to hold onto their crops and 
fill elevator storage spaces. Kansas just harvested its second largest 
wheat crop in history and there are predictions of record corn and 
soybean crops in the fall. If we do not move the wheat crop now, it 
will create transportation problems in the fall that will surpass 
anything we experienced last year.
  I feel it should also be mentioned that advocates of higher or 
extended loan rates argue that it will allow farmers to hold their 
crops until after the harvest when prices will rise. To those who 
advocate this position, I would point out that Kansas State University 
recently published a report

[[Page S8178]]

which looked at the years 1981 through 1997 and compared farmers 
earnings if they held wheat in storage until mid-November versus 
selling at harvest. In all but five years, farmers ended up with a net 
loss as storage and interest costs exceeded the gains in price. Simply 
put, extending and raising the rates provides a false hope for higher 
profits that most often does not exist.
  Mr. President, we must ask what is the purpose of loan rates? Are 
they intended to be a marketing clearing device or a price support? 
They cannot be both as the other side of the aisle would. And, if we 
set price at $3.17 it very well may become a ceiling on price.
  Mr. President, raising loan rates is simply not the answer. We need 
to continue on course and continue to pursue the new trade markets and 
tax relief that farmers need. And, as I mentioned yesterday, I would 
remind my colleagues of the meeting 14 Senators had with 12 major farm 
organizations approximately one month ago. At the top of every 
organizations wish list was trade, trade, and more trade.
  Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday that I like to think I have 
spent more time on the wagon tongue listening to our farmers than any 
Member of Congress. And, farmers tell me to leave loan rates alone. 
They want export markets opened. They want sanctions that shoot them in 
the foot removed. These are the policies we should be pursuing, not the 
policies of the past that put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage 
in the world market.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles, which fit 
within the restrictions of Senate rules, by Pro Farmer's Washington 
Bureau Chief Jim Wiesemeyer, be printed in the Record. One is regarding 
failed policies of the past, and the second one is regarding trade 
policy.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From Inside Washington Today, June 18, 1998]

       Populist Democrats Again Push Failed Policies of the Past

                          (By Jim Wiesemeyer)

       Saying ``I told you so'' to any lawmaker and any person or 
     farmer who either voted for or pushed for the 1996 Freedom to 
     Farm legislation, a group of decidedly populist Democrat 
     senators on Wednesday railed at the omnibus farm policy 
     contained in that legislation and said it was that measure 
     and not trade problems which alone is the reason for 
     slumbering U.S. commodity prices.
       The group of naysayers to Freedom to Farm who showed up at 
     a press briefing with very few answers to questions were: 
     former House Speaker and very likely presidential candidate 
     Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri), Senate Minority Leader Tom 
     Daschle (D-S.D.), and Democrat Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Paul 
     Wellstone (Minnesota), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.) 
     and Byron Dorgan (N.D.).
       What they said and didn't say: Headed by Daschle, the group 
     squarely and wrongly laid the blame for the current farm 
     price doldrums with the Freedom to Farm concept enacted into 
     law in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton who did not 
     receive a veto recommendation from his Secretary of 
     Agriculture Dan Glickman.
       Displaying price charts showing the decline in commodity 
     prices since 1996, the lawmakers took turns ``briefing'' the 
     Washington press corps (but very few took questions), 
     claiming the 1996 Farm Act failed and they could all say ``I 
     told you so'' to those who voted for the package.
       ``This was radical, extreme policy brought on by (House 
     Majority Leader) Dick Armey (R-Tex.), Gephardt charged. 
     Others at the gathering quickly chimed in to say it was 
     merely a ``Republican farm bill.''
       Sen. Wellstone pledged an ``all-out, full-court press'' to 
     get the following four main components of the group's plan 
     enacted into law: dramatically increasing commodity loans 
     rates and allowing 6-month loan extensions; addressing 
     livestock concentration and requiring labels on imported 
     meat; waiving of sanctions on agricultural trade; making 
     indemnity payments to farmers.
       Where's the proof? The senators cited dramatic downturns in 
     farm income but based that on data from the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis (Commerce Department) regarding personal 
     income derived from farming.
       The group should have referred to a recently completed USDA 
     analysis of spring wheat farms in the Plains states. That 
     survey shows that in 1996, the average net cash farm income 
     for these spring wheat farms was $37,500; in 1997 it was 
     $14,500; and a projected 1998 net cash farm income of only 
     $5,000.
       The USDA info clearly shows pain, and a crisis for spring 
     wheat producers in a specific area of the country. But as one 
     USDA official told me this morning, ``Do we have a crisis in 
     U.S. agriculture today or a regional crisis, and if we do, 
     what is the best way to deal with it?''
       Certainly a blunt instrument of help would not be to jack 
     up wheat loan rates to over $4 as proposed by Sen. Conrad.
       Populist Democrat senators didn't note popular Freedom to 
     Farm transition payments. USDA data show that for the 1996, 
     1997 and 1998 crops (combined), Freedom to Farm legislation 
     will provide $7 billion to $8 billion in additional payments 
     to farmers that would have been the case under the prior farm 
     policy. Talk about indemnity payments!
       Sure, if loan rates would not have been capped via the 1996 
     farm bill, there would have been a larger cash infusion this 
     year especially for wheat producers, but certainly not the 
     prior two years relative to those payments I previously 
     mentioned, and when wheat prices were higher to much higher 
     than current values.
       I asked several USDA analysts to list reasons why U.S. 
     commodity prices are lower. They listed the following two 
     major reasons:
       1. Lack of export growth.
       2. Good grain crops around the world the last three years.
       What does the above have to do with Freedom to Farm? 
     Nothing.
       Questions for the populist senators. While the senators 
     didn't take much if any time to answer reporter questions, 
     here are a few they should ponder:
       Rep. Gephardt labeled Freedom to Farm legislation as a 
     ``radical extreme policy brought on by (House Majority 
     Leader) Dick Armey'' (R-Tex.).
       Question: Since you will very likely run for president in 
     the year 2000, why didn't you say that President Clinton 
     should have vetoed the farm bill? Why didn't you say that 
     USDA Secretary Glickman should have recommended a veto?
       Another question: Rep. Gephardt in the 1985 farm bill 
     debate, along what Sen. Harkins, pushed mandatory supply 
     controls. That was soundly repudiated by Congress, which just 
     so happened to be controlled at the time by Democrats. If 
     there is one major aspect of Freedom to Farm that most non-
     dissident farmers love, it is the planting flexibility 
     contained in that legislation. Do you agree?
       Sen. Byron Dorgan said the group ``didn't have the 
     details'' regarding their proposals and thus did not know the 
     costs. ``We're working on a number of things,'' Dorgan said.
       Question: It would be costly, and not just in budget 
     outlays, but in a return to failed farm policies of the past. 
     Why don't you agree?
       A specific question for Sen. Dorgan: You keep pushing for 
     targeted farm program payments, having done so for what 
     appears to be over 10 years. Some analysts told me to ask 
     you, ``What chances do you think of this happening? And are 
     they simply to provide feel-good comments for the folks back 
     home?''
       Questin to all Democrats: Many Democrats in Congress 
     honestly say they are showing some fiscal discipline. But to 
     propose major changes in farm policy without any budget 
     assumptions runs counter with the previous goal. Question: 
     What are the costs? And to the extent the agriculture 
     committees boost spending on any of the Democrat senators' 
     proposals means a budget offset would have to be found. What 
     will be cut to pay for your proposals?
       Sen. Harkin said that by just removing the loan cap on 
     wheat, prices for wheat would be 25% higher than current 
     levels and corn prices would be up 20% from their current 
     level. Question: U.S. commodities are already having trouble 
     competing in the export market, why do you think higher 
     prices at this time would bode well for exports? And would 
     this not also provide incentive for increased production for 
     wheat and corn outside the United States, as was the case 
     under prior U.S. farm policy when loan rates (not an income 
     transfer tool) were set much higher than market-clearing 
     levels? And, wouldn't such a scenario cause prices to 
     eventually be lower than the track they currently are on?
       Also, why wouldn't pushing prices far above market-clearing 
     levels result in government-owned surplus wheat that no one 
     wants and lead to calls for a return to an ever upward spiral 
     of set-aside requirements to slow the growth in the mountain 
     of government-owned grain? Usually the answer is, ``Marketing 
     loans will take care of that?'' But that raises the question 
     again: ``At what cost?'' And if marketing loans shouldered 
     those significant costs, wouldn't they be seen as a subsidy 
     by the rest of the world and completely undo many years of 
     work on trade issues and renew the race toward subsidized 
     production and subsidized exports worldwide?
       What many farmers say are the big-ticket issues: Ask a 
     group of farmers what their long-term issues and concerns are 
     and you will surely find disagreement, but based on many 
     conversations with this great industry, they boil down to the 
     following three areas:
       1. Taxes.
       2. Environmental regulatory reform.
       3. Trade issues (sanctions, denied market access, etc.).
       To repeat, farmers in the Northern Plains are hurting and 
     hurting bad. I met Wednesday with several North Dakota 
     farmers at the Washington office of the National Farmers 
     Union. It didn't take many testimonials to feel their pain. 
     As for the reasons why, they centered on low yields, scab and 
     drought--compounded by those events happening in successive 
     years with a crop insurance program unable to cope with those 
     events. Solution: fix crop insurance.

[[Page S8179]]

       Is this just an aberration of bad luck? Or, should the 
     United States come up with a regional assistance program 
     rather than changing comprehensive U.S. farm policy?
       Northern tier farmers need help, but they're certainly not 
     going to get it based on the political-platform briefing the 
     stated Democrat senators provided on June 17.
       We asked USDA Secretary Glickman to comment on remarks the 
     Democrat senators made Wednesday. Glickman said current farm 
     policy needs some modifications to address low prices and 
     growing problems in some regions.
       ``I think the best view is to not engage in recriminations, 
     but to recognize that there are strengths and weaknesses in 
     the Freedom to Farm legislation,'' Glickman said. `One of the 
     weaknesses,'' he added, ``is the inability of my office to 
     respond when prices are weak and supplies are high. I think 
     that Freedom to Farm needs some modifications to it, and 
     we're working on it now.''
       Asked how much in payments farmers have received in the 
     past several years under the Freedom to Farm compared to what 
     would have been the case under the previous farm policy, 
     Glickman replied, ``Many billions (of dollars)--I can't tell 
     you how much. (I've provided him the answer, above.) The 
     first two years (of current farm policy), there was much more 
     (paid to farmers via market transition payments) than (would 
     have been the case) under the old program. This year, it's 
     hard to tell, but I think in some of the crops it might be 
     less.''
       Regarding current prices and global supply and demand, 
     Glickman said grain supplies are high for a lot of reasons--
     Asian markets are weaker and higher U.S. dollar valuations 
     have reduced exports, resulting in higher domestic supplies.
       Also, Glickman said he lacks the marketing tools available 
     to previous ag secretaries.
       ``I don't have the power to deal with the marketing of 
     commodities in the way that prior (USDA) secretaries have 
     had,'' Glickman stated. ``I think those things need to be 
     fixed.''
       Glickman pointed out that the lack of federal disaster 
     programs for farmers and a crop insurance program that works 
     better in some parts of the country and not so good in other 
     regions as a difference in the tools he has available versus 
     previous USDA chiefs.
       ``So, without any kind of intermediate assistance,'' 
     Glickman concluded, ``it makes it difficult to respond to 
     certain conditions in some regions of the country that have 
     been currently (adversely) affected.''
       Bottom line regarding the populist Democrat senators' 
     proposals: A wise man once said that one form of insanity is 
     doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different 
     result.
                                  ____


             [From Inside Washington Today, June 19, 1998]

               Fast-track Approval Part of Top Ag Agenda

                          [By Jim Wiesemeyer)

       What a difference a day and different senators make when it 
     comes to the focus of U.S. agriculture and trade policy. 
     Thursday we highlighted the drive by some Democrat farm-state 
     senators to change U.S. farm policy to address the current 
     very low price and income situation in parts of the country 
     but especially the Northern Plains. Their plan focused on 
     higher loan rates, extending commodity loans and making 
     indemnity payments to producers.
       By stark contrast, some Republican farm-state Senators 
     Thursday morning met with 12 farm and commodity groups to 
     prioritize the farm policy agenda. These lawmakers and farm 
     group representatives did not recommend wholesale if any 
     changes to the 1996 farm act. Instead, they focused on what 
     can be done in trade and trade policy to keep U.S. 
     agriculture products moving to overseas markets.
       Republican senators huddle with farm commodity groups on 
     priority agenda. In a meeting Thursday with major farm 
     groups, the session concluded with the following list of 
     priorities: Reauthorization of presidential fast-track 
     trading authority; IMF funding and reforms; passage of 
     sanctions reform legislation; Most Favored Nation (MFN) 
     trading designation for China; stronger oversight on GMO and 
     biotechnology negotiations; full funding for Sen. Dick 
     Lugar's agricultural research bill; estate tax reform; and 
     reform of the farm savings system
       Farm groups represented at the session: American Farm 
     Bureau Federation; American Soybean Association; National 
     Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley Growers 
     Association; National Corn Growers Association; National 
     Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cotton Council of 
     America; National Grain Sorghum Association; National Grange; 
     National Oilseed Processors Association; National Pork 
     Producers Council; and National Sunflower Association.
       Senators participating in the agenda-setting confab: 
     Majority Leader Trend Lott (R-Miss.); Senate Ag Committee 
     Chairman Dick Lugar (R-Ind.); Senate Ag Appropriations 
     Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.); Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Conrad 
     Burns (R-Mont.); Larry Craig (R-Idaho); Craig Thomas (R-
     Wyo.); Rod Grams (R-Minn.); Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); Dick 
     Kempthorne (R-Idaho); Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); Wayne Allard (R-
     Colo.); and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
       What was said and wasn't said: ``Farmers and ranchers tell 
     us they don't want the government back in their back 
     pockets,'' says Sen. Burns. ``That means doing everything we 
     can to open up markets to them and to provide more of the 
     agricultural dollar to the producer level. We've also 
     determined that while trade is very important, issues such as 
     fast track are worthless unless the (Clinton) administration 
     commits to sending trade negotiators abroad who are sensitive 
     to the needs of agriculture.''
       Burns said that while income averaging and some estate tax 
     relief has come for farmers, more still needs to be done.
       Sen. Lugar says the group agreed that ``the current debate 
     should not be about changes to the 1996 Farm Bill, as some 
     are proposing, but what can be done in this new farm 
     environment to move ahead.'' The Senate ag panel chairman 
     noted ``there are some, even in the Senate, who are talking 
     about supply management,'' a policy that Lugar labeled as ``a 
     defeatist, defensive policy.''
       Lugar was asked to comment on proposals unveiled Wednesday 
     by a group of Democrat senators which included a call to 
     raise loan rates and to make indemnity payments to farmers. 
     ``These would not be helpful,'' Lugar responded. ``We've gone 
     down that trail before. They led to an increase in supplies 
     so that the price was depressed for years, not just a few 
     months.''
       ``Why people want to repeat history . . .'' Lugar continued 
     in his pointed comments regarding some Senate Democrats' farm 
     policy proposals. ``My own view,'' he said, ``is that we 
     would not change the loan rate, we should not extend the loan 
     (term), we should not be sending indemnities out, we should 
     not be sending massive amounts of money. We've got a good, 
     solid farm policy.''
       Sen. Pat Roberts, the ``father of Freedom to Farm'' when he 
     was House Ag Committee chairman, also responded to 
     alternative farm policy proposals from a small group of 
     Democrat senators. He said he would be the first one in line 
     to back raising loan rates if that was a sound idea. Key word 
     there is if.
       The issue of loan rates, Roberts continued, comes down to a 
     debate on the purpose of the loan program. ``You have to have 
     a policy judgment,'' Roberts stated. ``Do you want the loan 
     rate to be a market-clearing device, or an income protection 
     device?'' He noted that today, farmers are receiving 
     ``transition payments that are twice as much as they would 
     have had under the previous (farm policy) program.''
       Roberts zeroed in on farm woes in the Northern Plains. He 
     said a look at what is causing the trouble in this region 
     shows: ``Number one, you've had bad weather; ``Number two, 
     you've had wheat disease for six years; ``Number three, 
     you've got some real border problems with Canada; ``Number 
     four, (Northern Plains) cost of production is historically 
     higher.''
       ``There is a serious problem'' in the Northern Plains, 
     Roberts stressed. ``But what is the answer?'' he asked. He 
     said a return to the failed policies of the past such as 
     raising the loan rates ``is a dead-end street.''
       Roberts signaled a possible assistance tool ahead for needy 
     producers when he said he has talked to USDA Secretary Dan 
     Glickman about credit issues such as getting loans on coming 
     Freedom to Farm transition payments.
       Sen. Chuck Hagel focused on getting the IMF funding package 
     and fast-track negotiating authority as top priorities.
       Hagel admitted that the House Republican leadership will 
     have to be encouraged to bring these measures up for votes. 
     But he quickly added, ``Let's recall that all trade issues 
     have been non-partisan,'' noting that he certainly hopes the 
     situation remains that way.
       Fast-track gets new life. One of the top agenda items Lugar 
     and other senators mentioned was getting the administration 
     fast-track trade negotiating authority. Consider the 
     following recent developments:
       Sen. Roberts said that while he can't and won't speak for 
     House Speaker Newt Gingrich, discussions he's held with 
     Gingrich indicate a plant to bring fast track to a vote in 
     the House in September. Roberts says, ``Why wait? Let's do it 
     now!''
       Gingrich, in an interview with CongressDaily earlier this 
     week, confirmed that Congress will consider fast-track trade 
     legislation sometime before adjourning this fall. He cited 
     the ongoing Asian financial crisis as a reason to bolster the 
     United States' trade position. He said renewing this 
     authority to negotiate trade deals via fast track would be 
     good for U.S. business, particularly agriculture.
       House Ag Committee Chairman Bob Smith (R-Oregon) said he is 
     waiting for a response from the Clinton administration to a 
     previous proposal he made that he estimates could deliver up 
     to 30 votes for fast track. That could be enough to pass the 
     contentious trade measure.
       Smith sent a letter last month to U.S. Trade Representative 
     Charlene Barshefsky proposing the administration change 
     authorizing language in the measure so the House and Senate 
     Ag panels would have greater authority to review implementing 
     agreements related to fast track. (In Beijing this week, 
     Barshefsky welcomed Gingrich's call for a vote on fast-track 
     trade legislation this year.)
       ``If they give me the go-ahead,'' Smith said he could 
     ``deliver the votes.'' Noting the fast-track measure was 
     within around 10 votes of achieving House passage last year, 
     Smith said his idea could help switch as many as 30 votes. He 
     said his approach would allow members to ``cross over and 
     they could then go back home and answer the people who say 
     that agriculture always gets traded out.''

[[Page S8180]]

       Sen. Grassley this week called on President Clinton to 
     ``back up his speech that he made in Geneva'' on the 
     importance of trade. He further called on Clinton to use 
     ``his power of persuasion'' and the ``power of the office'' 
     to muscle up support for fast track.
       Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) said that without the ability to 
     negotiate trade deals and keep U.S. ag trade moving, 
     ``serious problems facing U.S. agriculture today are apt to 
     get worse.'' He added that U.S. agriculture is relying 
     heavily on ``demand in foreign markets.''
       Bottom line: sooner or later in this town common sense 
     prevails. Momentum for getting congressional approval of 
     fast-track trade negotiating authority is growing. But in the 
     past, fast-track proponents didn't keep the issue front-and-
     center. It looks like farm groups and others have learned 
     some hard lessons. Frankly, I think fast track would have 
     passed before if there would have been an actual vote on the 
     floors of Congress (a minority viewpoint, for sure). Let's 
     just hope a vote occurs this time, this year. We need to see 
     the true Hall of Shame of those lawmakers who vote against 
     authority to simply negotiate. Any trade agreement can be 
     voted down. But not to give U.S. trade negotiators a chance 
     can only be deemed for what it is: protectionism in disguise.
       And if Rep. Smith gets his worthwhile proposal okayed, then 
     farm-state lawmakers voting against fast-track would have a 
     lot of fast explaining to do--to their agribusiness 
     constituents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time run equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to correct myself. I did look at 
the order that was entered. The Senator from Mississippi is right. The 
order was entered that there would be a motion to table. I did not 
think that was the case. I stand corrected.
  Mr. President, I was still waiting for one Senator on our side to 
come and speak. So, again, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the 5 minutes remaining to the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and then I will use my leader 
time to close up the debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank our leader for 
yielding time to me.
  I wanted to speak earlier for the Record to give my distinguished 
colleague from Iowa some words from Louisiana. We talk a lot about the 
Midwest and the Northwest, and the difficulty that our farmers are 
experiencing, actually all over our country. And the South, Mr. 
President, is no different.
  I had a very lengthy conference call with the leaders of many of our 
commodity groups. I am sorry to bring to this floor that the situation 
is fairly urgent in Louisiana. I am sure that is true in other places 
in the South. They are facing economic hardships, unparalleled in many 
instances. In fact, I asked Ken Methavin, one of our cotton producers 
from Natchitoches, LA, if he could describe the situation. He said, 
``Ms. Landrieu, there ain't nobody alive that has ever seen anything 
like this for a hundred years.'' We are experiencing in Louisiana a 
100-year drought, and for us with usually an ample supply of water it 
is hard for me even to be able to speak here about the situation that 
the farmers are experiencing. It is very unusual.
  Over the past 3 and a half months, our State has received virtually 
no measurable rainfall in the crop-growing regions of the State. As of 
this week, the average rainfall totaled 13 inches below our State 
average.
  In addition to facing one of the worst droughts in our history, the 
State is experiencing very high temperatures, over 100 degrees. The 
combination has resulted in extensive damage to our corn crop.
  Our soybean farmers, in addition, tell me that about a third of their 
crop will be in jeopardy.
  Our dairy farmers continue to face not only the weather conditions--
the lack of water and the high temperatures--but depressed prices are 
also driving many of them out of business. Milk production has 
decreased more than 50 percent, in addition, due to damaged 
pastureland.
  Our cotton and rice farmers are also expecting to suffer from the 
drought. In addition, the Asian financial crisis, which has not yet 
completely hit, threatens to further complicate the situation.
  Our forest production report is equally disturbing. We planted 100 
million seedlings this last year and to date have lost over 50 million, 
and 15,000 acres of forest in Louisiana have burned, resulting in fire 
not to be compared to what is happening in Florida, but still a 
significant amount of acres has been lost.
  In parish after parish, I am hearing nothing but grim news about the 
impact of the drought on depressed prices in some areas, and the 
extreme heat. I am told that even with crop insurance under the current 
Crop Insurance Program, many of our farmers will not be able to recoup 
any measurable portion of their input costs. Other farmers who are not 
eligible for crop insurance have no similar assistance at all to avail 
themselves of.
  So I am pleased to be here today on the floor to join our leader, 
Senator Daschle, in his plea--his urgent plea--for this Congress to 
come together and to give appropriate assurance and appropriate 
measures to our farmers at this time. It is not enough, Mr. President, 
I don't think, to pass a sense of the Senate. What is appropriate is to 
give meaning to that resolution that we passed yesterday. We should 
have specific, concrete relief and a safety net for our farmers to get 
them through a difficult time and to realize that perhaps the laws that 
we have outlined are not perfect and could be improved with some 
changes that our leader has put forward.
  So I am happy to join him today, and Senator Harkin, to continue to 
fight and to support our farmers not only in Louisiana but around the 
Nation.
  Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
her excellent statement and appreciate very much her reflecting on the 
seriousness of the situation in Louisiana as well.
  As I noted, Mr. President, I will use my leader time to finish the 
discussion of this amendment.
  I think this poster probably says it as well as anything. The only 
thing I would call to everyone's attention is that when it says ``rural 
S.D.,'' it could say ``rural Louisiana,'' it could say ``rural 
Illinois,'' or it could say ``rural'' any State in the country. ``Ag 
slump threatens rural''--blank. For me, it is ``rural S.D.''.
  The problems that we are having here that are outlined in these 
articles say it very well. Prices have dropped dramatically. Prices 
have dropped in corn, in wheat, sorghum, barley, soybeans--you name the 
commodity. Prices have plummeted. It is not just the grain, it is the 
livestock as well.
  There is a statement here in the first part of the article by David 
Kranz, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles, one by 
David Kranz of the Argus Leader, and the other by Kevin Woster of the 
Argus Leader, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Argus Leader, July 15, 1998]

   Ag Slump Threatens Rural S.D.--Small Towns Vulnerable to Downturn

                            (By David Kranz)

       As politicians scramble to prop up a flagging farm economy, 
     South Dakota's small-town main streets are bracing for the 
     financial ripples.
       Cheap grain coupled with depressed livestock prices have 
     farmers in an unusually tight economic clutch this summer. 
     And some small businesses are already seeing the effects.
       ``We are seeing a major impact. It's all because of $2 corn 
     and under--$5 beans and

[[Page S8181]]

     going lower. And you have $30 hogs and $50 cattle. I don't 
     know if you could call it a depression, but it is awfully 
     close to it,'' said Tom Reecy, owner of Reecy Farm Supply Co. 
     in Dell Rapids.
       Contributing to farmers' problems are weakened demands for 
     agricultural imports and some prolonged periods of weather 
     disasters and crop diseases. Some agriculture economists are 
     predicting financial fallout as harsh as during the farm 
     crisis of the mid-1980s.
       Some small businesses, already struggling to survive 
     economically, may lose the battle.
       ``Those (towns) that are detached from urban centers may 
     have some problems. When a community becomes totally 
     dependent on one industry, any blip on the graph will hit 
     them more than your commuter towns,'' said James Satterlee, 
     head of the Department of Rural Sociology at South Dakota 
     State University.
       Satterlee said many small towns have been reluctant to 
     accept change and diversify their economies over the years.
       Census reports show about 200 South Dakota communities are 
     steadily losing population, and some of those will be 
     vulnerable to another downturn in agriculture.
       ``If those towns have been diversifying, it won't be as 
     severe. There will be less chance of impact because of 
     something that happens with one particular product,'' 
     Satterlee said.
       Freeman is one South Dakota community largely dependent on 
     the ag economy. The town is also watching its population 
     continue to shrink.
       Rita Becker closed her clothing store in Freeman in March 
     because the store was no longer profitable. She now works on 
     the farm with her husband, Rudy.
       ``When we talk with people in the business, ag prices are a 
     part of it, but another part is that people just go elsewhere 
     to shop. We are 50 miles away from Sioux Falls, but nowadays, 
     50 miles isn't a long ways to drive.''
       The current agricultural situation has Becker and her 
     husband questioning the advantages of farming.
       ``We are in our mid-40s. We raise about 500 acres of beans 
     and corn. Hearing my husband speak with his friends, they are 
     discouraged. People have just had it. They have farmed all 
     their lives and there is just no money in it,'' she said.


                         hardware store hurting

       Down the street from where Becker once did business. Don 
     Wipf is watching a decline in agriculture-based spending at 
     the Coast-to-Coast hardware business his family has owned for 
     59 years.
       ``We have seen it coming for a couple of years. The farmers 
     aren't spending money like they normally do. Sales are down. 
     I think they are buying more nonnecessities,'' he said, 
     ``They notice it over at the grocery store, too. They are 
     buying more of the cheaper cuts of meat these days.''
       Wipf says Freeman business people are worried about the 
     future.
       ``Everybody is trying to come up with ways to keep the 
     businesses we have. It is just generally tough for small 
     towns. I wish we could come up with an answer. I'd be rich.''


                        census numbers down, too

       Things aren't much brighter in Redfield. This community, 
     located between Aberdeen and Huron, is also losing 
     population. The 1996 census update showed another 3.3 percent 
     drop in population from the year before.
       Rod Siegling owns the family's grocery store, Siegling 
     Super Value, which has been operating in Redfield for 40 
     years.


                          Tougher in bad times

       He has seen the ups and downs that come with agricultural 
     prosperity and decline, but says it is getting tougher to 
     absorb the bad times.
       ``It hasn't had much of an effect yet, but it will come 
     gradually. They will watch how they spend their dollar,'' he 
     said.
       Ironically, a drive through the countryside this summer can 
     be deceiving, he said.
       ``The crops look good, but it isn't worth anything if you 
     can't get a good price,'' he said.
       Feed is Reecy's business and he has ridden the agriculture 
     price roller coaster since 1973.
       ``It (the farm economy) has affected our total feed 
     business very dramatically. Our major customer with 20 to 50 
     sows . . . They are just getting out,'' he said ``That style 
     of person is farming their farm land, looking to cash it out 
     and look for another job.''
       The low prices don't reduce farmers' financial obligations, 
     though, Reecy said.
       ``At the same time they all know their taxable valuation is 
     going up. School cost is going to go higher. Those things 
     have them very concerned.''
       Tim Clarke hears the talk from farmers about the pending 
     economic predicament. He opened a farm equipment business 
     last April in Howard.
       ``I am starting from scratch. I have nothing to compare 
     with, but I sell smaller ticket items like live-stock-
     handling equipment and business has been good,'' Clark said.


                        Trying to stay positive

       Although he prefers to stay positive, he's also realistic.
       ``I try to ignore it (talk of the bad farm economy), 
     Agriculture has always been cyclical. But if it (the 
     downturn) is not brief, there will be nothing but tail lights 
     in this part of the country.''
                                  ____


                 [From the Argus Leader, July 15, 1998]

                   Democrats Turn up Heat on Farm Act

                           (By Kevin Woster)

       South Dakota's two U.S. senators joined other Democrats on 
     Tuesday in an increasingly pointed attack on Republican-
     inspired farm policy that critics claim has failed.
       In an assault that Democrats hope can produce more 
     congressional seats as well as better market prices. Sen. Tom 
     Daschle said almost every major commodity has dropped in 
     price since Congress in 1996 passed the Freedom to Farm Act.
       That act is phasing out decades-old farm subsidies and 
     production controls in favor of free-market, free-planting 
     policies. It allows farmers to take better advantage of 
     market highs but also leaves them more at risk during lows.
       ``We've seen some of the lowest prices in decades for 
     months now,'' Daschle said during a teleconference with 
     reporters across the nation. ``We'll see a serious decline in 
     farm prices for the foreseeable future unless something is 
     done.''
       That something is included in a five-point relief plan 
     presented Tuesday by Daschle. Sen. Tim Johnson and Democratic 
     senators from Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota.
       The Democrats intend to offer the rural relief package as 
     amendments to an agricultural appropriations bill. The Senate 
     could vote on some parts of that proposal today.
       On Tuesday night, the Senate approved an amendment by 
     Daschle acknowledging that there is a crisis in farm prices 
     and that it must be addressed. Daschle and other senators are 
     scheduled to meet with President Clinton tonight to discuss 
     the situation.
       The center of the Democrats' package is a proposal to 
     increase the rate and extend the repayment period for 
     government marketing loans. Farmers can use the loans, based 
     on a set price per bushel, to acquire operating cash. When 
     prices rise, they can sell their grain for a batter price, 
     repay the loans and have money left.
       Other provisions would require large meatpackers to reveal 
     more information about prices they pay for livestock, require 
     labeling of imported beef and lamb, boost foreign-trade 
     programs and create a $500 million fund for targeted disaster 
     assistance.
       Providing a higher loan rate and a longer repayment 
     period--from the current nine months to 15 months--would give 
     farmers more cash immediately and allow them more time to 
     find better markets, Democrats said.
       Critics complain about the cost, which Daschle said would 
     be $1.6 billion a year. They also worry that the longer 
     marketing period could allow grain stocks to build and 
     actually depress prices.
       ``The buyers know that product is there. And it has to come 
     to market sometime. It can't stay in the bins forever,'' said 
     Kimball farmer Richard Ekstrum, past president of the South 
     Dakota Farm Bureau.
       The Farm Bureau supports the current farm bill, while the 
     South Dakota Farmers Union has pushed for changes, including 
     those advanced by the Democrats.
       Ekstrum said he supports some portions of the Democrats 
     plan, such as provisions aimed at improving foreign markets. 
     He said market development is the long-term key to better 
     prices.
       Although raising the marketing loan rate might help boost 
     prices for grain farmers, even that benefit creates negative 
     impacts in the complicated world of agriculture, Ekstrum 
     said.
       ``That loan rate has an impact on grain prices, which 
     livestock producers have to purchase. And they already are in 
     a very tight squeeze. If they have to pay more for grain, 
     they might cut production,'' he said. ``There's just no 
     simple solutions.''
       Ekstrum said the depressed market prices re painful for 
     farmers, but the entire outlook isn't bleak. Many farmers in 
     South Dakota have promising fields of corn and soybeans, he 
     said.
       ``It's not in the bin yet. But right now we have the 
     potential for yields much, much above what is average. If you 
     can produce more grain with the same inputs, that's always a 
     positive thing,'' he said.
       South Dakota's Republican congressman, Rep. John Thune, 
     said he probably would support the loan-rate increase. He 
     also might support the loan-repayment extension, although he 
     worries about the potential effect of stockpiling more grain.
       Either way, the Democratic plan faces a hard collision with 
     Republican leaders intent on maintaining the new free-market, 
     less-government approach to federal farm policy, Thune said.
       ``When you get outside of the Northern Plains states, they 
     aren't experiencing the type of stress that we are, so it's a 
     harder case to make,'' Thune said. ``I certainly don't think 
     there's any inclination there now to overhaul Freedom to 
     Farm.''
       Supporters of current farm policy think the long-term 
     answer is in new and expanded foreign agricultural markets, 
     which will help boost market prices. The House moved Tuesday 
     evening to help in that area by approving a companion bill to 
     one already approved by the Senate exempting agricultural 
     commodities from trade sanctions imposed against Pakistan and 
     Indian.
       Thune said work on foreign trade needs to be a national 
     priority. But he said there might be ways to provide farmers 
     and ranchers with needed assistance while maintaining the 
     free-market approach.
       He hopes to announce related proposals later this week.
       Democrats said that without immediate action, Congress will 
     fail rural America.

[[Page S8182]]

       Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said farmers in his state are 
     experiencing a 98 percent drop in farm income in one year 
     because of lower market prices, crop diseases and weather 
     problems. Such severe financial pain deserves federal 
     assistance, he said.
       ``It isn't a wind or tornado. It's not a flood. It's not a 
     fire. It's not an earthquake. But it's every bit a 
     disaster,'' Dorgan said.
       Johnson said the Freedom to Farm concept, which phases out 
     farm subsidies by 2002, amounted to giving farmers ``five 
     years of declining payments, then a pat on the back and good 
     luck.''
       Johnson continues to push for meat labeling laws that would 
     allow consumers to choose between U.S. and imported meats. He 
     said that would help lift prices for U.S. livestock 
     producers.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will quote from the article:

       ``We are seeing a major impact. It's all because of $2 corn 
     and under $5 beans and going lower. And you have $30 hogs and 
     $50 cattle. I don't know if you could call it a depression, 
     but it is awfully close to it,'' said Tom Reecy, owner of 
     Reecy Farm Supply Co. in Dell Rapids.
       Contributing to farmers' problems are weakened demand for 
     agricultural imports and some prolonged periods of weather 
     disasters and crop diseases. Some agricultural economists are 
     predicting financial fallout as harsh as during the farm 
     crisis of the mid-1980s.

  This isn't a Democratic Senator saying this. This isn't even a farmer 
saying this. What they are saying is that, because of these falling 
crop prices, you have got the owner of a very important business in 
Dell Rapids, SD, saying, ``It's over.'' Its over unless we change what 
is happening out here today.
  The article by Kevin Woster makes it very clear that the problem goes 
beyond--it is not on this chart--but it goes beyond Dell Rapids, SD. He 
talks about Redfield, a very important community in the northeastern 
part of our State. The 1996 census update showed a 3.3 percent drop in 
population in just that year. Rod Siegling owns the family grocery 
store, Siegling Super Value, which has been operating in Redfield for 
40 years.
  Mr. Siegling talks about the extraordinary reduction in the business 
in his store, in the article that I have already inserted in the 
Record. Why? Because prices are so low people can't afford to buy their 
groceries.
  Mr. President, I have one other matter I would like to insert in the 
Record, and that is a letter sent to the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee by the Tripp County Board of Commissioners: Louis 
Polasky, Ray Petersek, Harold Whiting, Neil Farnsworth, and Marion G. 
Best.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the ________________ was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                                      Tripp County


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                                         Winner, SD, July 7, 1998.
     Senator Richard Lugar,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Agricultural Committee, Senate Hart 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: The Tripp County Commissioners are 
     writing this letter to inform you as to the economic disaster 
     involving the farmers and ranchers in Tripp County, South 
     Dakota.
       The county consists of approximately 700 farm and ranch 
     families in a populas of 6,900. During the last decade, the 
     devastating effect of low commodity and cattle prices have 
     affected every household in the county. Commodity prices at 
     the 1950 levels have continued the exodus of our youth to 
     cities for jobs while the age of our farmers and ranchers 
     average in the 60's.
       Ever since the NAFTA and GATT agreements were entered into, 
     the farm and ranch economy has plummeted. While trying to 
     become more efficient, they cannot compete with the 
     inflationary rate that the rest of the economy or businesses 
     have placed on their products while receiving historical low 
     prices!
       While the large four packers have capitalized on the 
     livestock market, the stock market moves up or down only to 
     the pleasure of the traders' profit at the expense of the 
     farmers and ranchers. Where else can a market move lower 
     because it rains in Indiana or higher because Texas is dry!
       It has, for these reasons and many others, become very 
     important for the need of assistance to restore a safety net 
     to grain and livestock producers! All our producers need are 
     fair prices for both grain and livestock and the rural 
     economy will heal itself! This crisis has escalated to the 
     point where immediate help is needed. The rural outcry has 
     become a deafening cry for help.
           Sincerely,
                                       Tripp County Commissioners:
     Louis Polasky,
       Chairman.
     Ray Petersek.
     Harold Whiting.
     Neil Farnsworth.
     Marion G. Best.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I will simply read one paragraph:

       During the last decade, the devastating effect of low 
     commodity and cattle prices has affected every household in 
     the county. Commodity prices at the 1950 levels have 
     contributed to the continuing exodus of our youth to cities 
     for jobs while the age of our farmers and ranchers average in 
     the 60s.

  Yesterday, the Senate voted 99 to nothing simply to say, with 
bipartisan emphasis, we hear you. We understand. We know that when 
prices are this low, you are going to see the consequences as reported 
in these stories and this letter.
  Today, we now offer our solutions. This amendment, the one upon which 
we will be voting briefly, lifts the cap on marketing loans and extends 
the loan term as one of the most consequential ways with which to 
respond immediately to the problem of low prices.
  Why? Because we are giving farmers some flexibility to say, look, if 
the prices continue this way, I am going to take out a loan for at 
least 15 months to see if all of the other things they are doing out in 
Washington and throughout our agricultural economy will give me a 
better price later on.
  That is what we are suggesting. Let's give our farmers the 
opportunity to obtain a better option in the short term. We are talking 
about farmers' ability to survive the 1 year that this amendment takes 
place. That is all it is, 1 year. We are not suggesting this be a 
permanent change to the legislation pending. We are simply saying the 
very survival of thousands of family farms depends upon whether we give 
them the tools right now.
  For those who oppose this amendment, I would simply ask, What 
immediate action do they propose? What will they do to help farmers 
today?
  We are all for trade. I don't know of a Senator who will come to the 
floor and say, ``I oppose increasing trade.'' That is like saying I 
will oppose eating apple pie. We favor trade. We want to see our 
markets opened. And I might say parenthetically the fastest way to open 
them is to pass the funding of the International Monetary Fund so that 
we can open these markets and stabilize the economy.
  So let me just describe again this first in a series of steps that we 
are proposing to deal with these prices. The amendment, again, that we 
will be voting on momentarily would eliminate the caps on marketing 
loans and set the new rate at 85 percent of the average price of the 
previous 5 years, and here is the key, ``on an emergency basis.'' On an 
emergency basis, it would extend the marketing loan term from 9 months 
to 15 months under the same conditions.
  I hope everyone will note the distinction between this amendment and 
earlier legislation to break the loan caps. In contrast to other 
marketing loan proposals, this measure only goes into effect in the 
case of an economic crisis. It gives the President discretionary 
authority to control extreme, persistent income loss by lifting the 
marketing loan caps and extending their terms in this year only.
  Regardless of how my colleagues may feel about changes in permanent 
law, regardless of how they may have voted in the past, I really cannot 
imagine that anybody can say that for 1 year, under these 
circumstances, I am opposed to bumping up that loan that has to be paid 
back by the farmers, regardless of whatever concerns they might have. 
In every single case that I am aware of in talking to farmers around 
the country, they tell us that the single most effective thing we can 
do, the single most important thing we can do to affect price in the 
short term is what we are offering right now.
  You can listen to some of our colleagues complain that this is an old 
solution. The fact is that this is the best solution, the best short-
term emergency solution that we are aware can be proposed. It is 
supported by the National Wheat Growers, by the Barley Growers, by the 
American and National Corn Growers, and by a growing list of farmer 
organizations and farmers across this country who say, yes, with an 
exclamation point, pass this.
  Combining the two provisions--the extension of the time and the 
moderate increase in the availability of the loan value--provides our 
farmers with increased market flexibility and a far better shot at 
surviving over the next

[[Page S8183]]

12 months. Adopting this proposal would result in loan rate increases, 
and we think price increases, for every single grain commodity. Wheat 
loan rates would increase 64 cents a bushel; corn loan rates would 
increase 36 cents a bushel; soybean rates would increase.
  The flexibility contained in the new farm bill is great. Farmers get 
their signals from the market but not the Government. But they cannot 
be left without the marketing tools necessary to capitalize on the new 
free market. This is an opportunity to send a clear message to farmers 
in every State, every State where we can add ``rural'' in front. We 
understand the ag slump threatens rural States, rural South Dakota, 
rural North Dakota, rural Maine, rural California, rural Louisiana, and 
we are going to do something about it. We are going to offer this as 
our best opportunity to deal immediately with price, knowing how 
consequential this could be for every single farmer who is watching and 
listening and hoping that we understand. We can use all the rhetoric we 
want. The only way we are going to get this job done is to match our 
actions to our rhetoric. The rhetoric came yesterday. The actions now 
must come today, and they must start by increasing this loan rate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we have had a full and complete 
debate on the Senator's amendment. We have heard from Senators on both 
sides of the aisle. I am prepared to yield back any time that remains 
to this side on the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, but 
before doing that I am happy to announce to the Senate that we have 
reached an agreement on both sides with respect to the amendments that 
will be in order to this bill and, following the disposition of the 
Daschle amendment, we will proceed to consider other amendments.
  With the authority of the majority leader and with the permission and 
consent of the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill, the following be 
the only first-degree amendments in order, subject to relevant second-
degree amendments, and following the disposition of the amendments, the 
bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate proceed immediately to 
Calendar No. 430, the House companion bill.
  I further ask that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the 
text of the Senate bill as amended be inserted, the bill be advanced to 
third reading and passage occur, all without intervening action or 
debate.
  Finally, I ask that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and the 
Senate bill be placed back on the calendar.
  I submit the list of amendments to be offered on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the list be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                Amendments to Agriculture Appropriations

       Craig--Bio-diesel.
       Grassley--S.O.S. on farmers relief.
       Grassley--S. 1269--Fast track.
       Lugar--Sanctions.
       McConnell--2nd degree place holder.
       Hatch--Interstate distribution of meat.
       DeWine--S.O.S. on asthma inhalers.
       Kempthorne--Funding for secondary agriculture education 
     programs.
       Brownback--Limit length of agriculture census.
       Coverdell--Ag. credit.
       Coverdell--E coli.
       Roberts--Nuclear nonproliferation.
       Roberts--Nuclear nonproliferation.
       Cochran--Managers amendment.
       Cochran--Managers amendment.
       Stevens--Relevant.
       Santorum--Farmland preservation funding.
       Brownback--Nine month waiver permanent sanctions--Pakistan/
     India.
       Baucus--Research.
       Baucus--Commodity loans.
       Baucus--Research.
       Baucus--Relevant.
       Bryan--Market access program.
       Bryan--Market access program.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Bumpers--Relevant.
       Bumpers--Relevant.
       Bumpers--Relevant.
       Conrad--Emergency indemnity payments.
       Conrad--Relevant.
       Conrad--Relevant.
       Daschle--Market loan rate (pending).
       Daschle--CRP hay.
       Daschle--Fund for Rural America.
       Daschle--Price reporting.
       Daschle--Conservation reserve.
       Dodd--Waive sanctions food and medicine.
       Dodd--FDA recall drugs and medical devices.
       Dodd--Authorize experiment station research $.
       Dorgan--Scab research.
       Dorgan--Cost of production.
       Dorgan--Sanctions.
       Dorgan--Food for peace.
       Dorgan--Fruits and veggies.
       Durbin--Clinical pharmacology.
       Durbin--National corn-to-ethanol.
       Durbin--Meals on wheels.
       Feingold--Small farms.
       Feingold--Relevant.
       Graham--Fires.
       Graham--Country origin produce labeling.
       Graham--$ Med fly.
       Harkin--Relevant.
       Harkin--WIC related.
       Harkin--Food safety.
       Harkin--Relevant.
       Harkin--Relevant.
       Harkin--Relevant.
       Harkin--Bio containment.
       Johnson--Meat labeling.
       Kerrey--Mandatory price reporting pilot.
       Kerrey--Economic research service study.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Levin--Fire blight.
       Levin--Disability discrimination.
       Mikulski--Relevant.
       Mikulski--Relevant.
       Robb--Remedy discrimination by USDA.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation and assistance in reaching this point of the debate on the 
agriculture appropriations bill. I now yield back all time that remains 
on this side on the Daschle amendment.
  I move to table the Daschle amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3146) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3155

   (Purpose: To amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide waiver 
    authority on certain sanctions applicable to India or Pakistan)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Kansas, Mr.

[[Page S8184]]

Brownback, and other Senators, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Brownback, for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Gorton 
     and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 3155.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
                 TITLE ____--INDIA-PAKISTAN RELIEF ACT

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``India-Pakistan Relief Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. ____02. WAIVER AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority.--The President may waive for a period not to 
     exceed one year upon enactment of this Act with respect to 
     India or Pakistan the application of any sanction or 
     prohibition (or portion thereof) contained in section 101 or 
     102 of the Arms Export Control Act, section 620E(e) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or section 2(b)(4) of the 
     Export Import Bank Act of 1945.
       (b) Exception.--The authority provided in subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to any restriction in section 102(b)(2) (B), 
     (C), or (G) of the Arms Export Control Act.
       (c) Amounts made available by this section are designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, That such 
     amounts shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

     SEC. ____03. CONSULTATION.

       Prior to each exercise of the authority provided in section 
     ____02, the President shall consult with the appropriate 
     congressional committees.

     SEC. ____04. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       Not later than 30 days prior to the expiration of a one-
     year period described in section ____02, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on economic and national security developments in 
     India and Pakistan.

     SEC. ____05. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       In this title, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the India-
Pakistan Relief Act, which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from 
Kansas.
  Even as we have implemented a strict regime of sanctions on India and 
Pakistan as called for by law, it is my belief that we must also look 
to the future and to creating the sort of environment which will allow 
the United States to engage India and Pakistan in a positive 
relationship and to restore stability to South Asia.
  To that end, this Amendment does something very simple, and something 
much needed. It is also something which I believe the great majority of 
this body supports.
  The Amendment provides the President with the discretion to waive the 
application of any sanction or prohibition, for a period of 1 year. It 
contains an exception for those sanctions dealing with dual-use exports 
or military sales, which will remain off-limits.
  Before the waiver authority is exercised, the President is required 
to consult with Congress.
  And, prior to the expiration of the waiver authority granted in this 
Amendment, the Secretary of State must report to Congress on 
developments in India and Pakistan.
  This last point is crucial. The waiver authority granted in this 
Amendment is limited to 1 year. Should India and Pakistan prove to be 
unwilling to resolve their differences--should the Secretary be unable 
to report on substantial and significant progress--this Amendment will 
sunset, and the current sanctions will go back into effect.
  It is my belief that the President be given flexibility to use and 
shape sanctions as most appropriate to attempt to create a positive and 
constructive environment for the resolution of political and security 
problems in South Asia. Our current sanctions policy does not provide 
for that flexibility.
  In fact, without this flexibility it is difficult to conceive how the 
United States can play a positive and constructive role in attempting 
to head off a potential nuclear arms race in South Asia or to restore 
stability to the region.
  Indeed, the Administration currently has a high-level delegation, 
headed by Deputy Secretary Talbott, en route to the region to continue 
talks with India and Pakistan and to continue discussions on bringing 
the current crisis to a close.
  Hopefully, this Amendment will send a positive signal to India and 
Pakistan that the United States is interested in working with them to 
resolve their problems, and will provide our negotiators with the 
leverage that they need if they are to have success in moving the 
process in a positive direction.
  This Amendment structures U.S. policy to secure commitments from 
India and Pakistan to make real and meaningful progress in rolling back 
the current crisis, to settle their differences, and to bring peace to 
South Asia.
  Although we do not spell out explicit conditions that India and 
Pakistan must meet in this Amendment, it is my hope and belief that the 
flexibility that this Amendment introduces will allow the 
Administration to work with India and Pakistan to take necessary 
actions to resolve their political and security differences, including 
ceasing any further nuclear tests; engaging in a high-level dialogue, 
putting confidence and security building measures in place; and, take 
steps to roll-back their nuclear programs and come into compliance with 
internationally accepted norms on the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Indeed, my support of this Amendment lies, in part, in my belief that 
this is that path that India and Pakistan themselves have indicated 
that they would like to pursue.
  Both India and Pakistan have made statements indicating that they 
will refrain from future testing. Both have indicated that they are 
prepared to consider joining the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And, in 
a message to the Security Council on July 9, Secretary General Annan 
wrote that ``I have been encouraged by indications from both sides of 
their readiness to enter into dialogue addressing peace and security 
matters and causes of tension, including Kashmir.''
  In South Asia today it appears to be too late to talk about 
preventing the capability of developing nuclear weapons. As I stated on 
this floor immediately following the first Indian nuclear test, the 
international community cannot successfully impose nonproliferation 
policies on South Asia. Ultimately, India and Pakistan must determine 
for themselves that their own interests are best served by ridding 
South Asia of weapons of mass destruction--and not by turning the 
region into a potential nuclear battleground.
  The United States, however, must seek ways to work with India and 
Pakistan to help them reach that determination. It is my belief that 
this Amendment serves to structure our policies to make that outcome 
more likely. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
Amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as has been made clear, this amendment is a 
version of a bill offered last week by Senators McConnell, Biden, and 
others. At that time, Senators felt pressure to lift sanctions on India 
and Pakistan, thereby precluding U.S. companies from participating in a 
significant wheat tender.
  I understood the urgency, and I therefore supported my colleagues. On 
the question of sanctions in general, and sanctions on India and 
Pakistan in particular, however, several points need to be emphasized.
  The sanctions tasks force appointed by the majority and minority 
leaders, as of last week's sanctions relief bill, had met twice at a 
staff level. No one saw the proposed bill language, which, as 
originally written, would have lifted not only economic, but also 
military and dual use sanctions on India and Pakistan for a period of 
nine months.
  Mr. President, I believe the majority leader was serious in his 
desire to constitute a group of Senators who, after due deliberation, 
would make recommendations on sanctions. That did not happen. Instead, 
we have rushed

[[Page S8185]]

forward, willy nilly, with bills and amendments that the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee has not considered. Indeed, last week we were 
presented with language that even the members of the sanctions task 
force had not considered.
  It is my firm belief that at any given time we have one Commander in 
Chief and one Secretary of State. I support the President's right to 
make decisions on foreign policy, even when I disagree with those 
decisions. I also agree that it is important that the President have 
some flexibility in making those decisions.
  That is why I am willing to support a limited waiver on economic 
sanctions--economic sanctions only--for nine months for India and 
Pakistan--which I do with some reservations. I shall expand on this 
further at another time. Suffice it to say that I do not believe 
foreign aid, foreign loan guarantees or international bail outs are an 
``entitlement'' to any nation.
  Equally importantly, Mr. President, no nation deserves military 
hardware, services or dual use items capable of supporting military 
programs if and when that nation engages in conduct dangerous to the 
national security of the United States. I shall never support U.S. 
supercomputers going to help the Indian nuclear program or U.S. space 
technology supporting a South Asian missile program. The line must be 
drawn somewhere.
  The bill presented to me last Thursday at 9:30 a.m., one hour prior 
to its consideration by the full Senate, would have allowed anything--
munitions list items, aircraft, weapons, advanced weapons technology--
to go to India or Pakistan. I refuse to believe that even those most 
ardent to appease big business could countenance a U.S. military 
relationship with a nation that just detonated a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. President, sanctions have their downsides, and I am ready to 
address those downsides. What I am not willing to do is to permit 
Congress to rush headlong into approving legislation which would open 
the floodgates to the rogues of this world.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment deals with the sanctions 
against India and Pakistan. The amendment has been cleared on this side 
of the aisle. I understand that it has also been cleared on the other 
side. But I yield to my friend from Arkansas for any comments.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I am sorry, I am not aware of the amendment the Senator from 
Mississippi is talking about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am told there are a couple questions on 
our side of the aisle. I regret that I announced earlier there was no 
objection on this side. Apparently, there are at least a couple 
questions. So if we could leave that amendment, set it aside in order 
to let Senator Lugar go, then we will try to clear it between now and 
the end of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not want to object and will not, maybe the thing to do is put in a 
quorum for a second or two and see exactly what the questions are. 
Maybe they can be answered. If not, then I agree with you, we will set 
it aside and go to another amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we are ready now to proceed to a 
vote on the Brownback amendment
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the vote.
  The amendment (No. 3155) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 3156

 (Purpose: To provide a framework for consideration by the legislative 
  and executive branches of unilateral economic sanctions in order to 
  ensure coordination of United States policy with respect to trade, 
                      security, and human rights.)

  Mr. LUGAR. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3156.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to propose an amendment that seeks 
to improve the way Congress and the executive branch consider and 
impose unilateral economic sanctions on other countries and entities. 
There has been a dramatic rise in the number and variety of U.S. 
economic sanctions directed against other countries to achieve one or 
more foreign policy goals. More often than not they have not been 
successful. Despite this record, we continue to impose one new 
unilateral sanction after another. We typically do so without careful 
analysis of their effects on our interests and our values.
  Because of this, I believe it is time we engage in a serious debate 
on the merits of using unilateral economic sanctions to accomplish 
foreign policy goals. That is the purpose of this amendment. My 
amendment is a modification of Senate bill S. 1413, the ``Enhancement 
of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act'', or 
simply the Sanctions Policy Reform Act, which we introduced last 
November. The companion bill was introduced in the House at the same 
time. There are now 36 Senate cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
  Let me take a moment to note some of the important changes from 
Senate bill 1413 that are now in my proposed amendment. These changes 
were included to reflect discussions with the administration, with 
legal counsel of the Senate, with our colleagues in the House, and with 
others. First, we clarify in the amendment that our general sanctions 
guidelines, procedural requirements, analytical reports and sunset 
provisions pertain only to future sanctions. I underline that point. 
This amendment deals only with the future. It is not an amendment about 
sanctions past or sanctions present. We are talking about sanctions in 
the future and only unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States 
alone.
  Our bill is totally prospective. We have eased some of the public 
notification requirements about the proposed new sanctions. We do not 
want the President to inadvertently alert a country targeted for 
sanctions to take steps to avoid our sanctions before they are imposed. 
If a country knows in advance that we intend to impose an asset freeze, 
for example, it would initiate moves to conceal, shift, or otherwise 
avoid our sanctions, thereby undermining their effectiveness.
  We have strengthened the language in the bill against the use of 
food, medicine, and medical equipment as a tool of American foreign 
policy. As a guideline, we believe food should never be used this way 
except in cases of war or a threat to the security of the United 
States. We have also included language in the bill that permits a 
slowing down of the process in the Congress to help guarantee that 
information about proposed new sanctions is available to the Members 
prior to their voting on the floor.
  There are other minor changes in reporting requirements and 
procedures.
  The fundamental purpose of my amendment is to promote good governance 
through thoughtful deliberation on those proposals involving unilateral 
economic sanctions directed against other countries. My amendment lays 
out a set of guidelines and requirements for a careful and deliberative 
process in both branches of Government when considering new unilateral

[[Page S8186]]

sanctions. It does not preclude the use of economic sanctions, nor does 
it change those sanctions already in force. It is based on the basic 
principle that if we improve the quality of our policy process and our 
public discourse, we can improve the quality of the policy itself.
  This principle is familiar to us all. James Madison wrote eloquently 
in the Federalist Papers on the merits of slowing down the legislative 
process on important matters in order to achieve more careful, 
thoughtful deliberation and avoid the passions of the moment. This 
amendment is consistent with Madison's view. When we introduced Senate 
bill 1413 last fall, we did so because we believed that unilateral 
economic sanctions, when used as a tool of foreign policy, rarely 
achieved their goal, and frequently harmed the United States more than 
the target country against whom they were aimed.
  The imposition of unilateral sanctions may help create a sense of 
urgency to help resolve a problem, but it often creates new problems, 
many of which may be unintended. In some cases, unilateral sanctions 
may be counterproductive to our interests.
  Over the past several years, there has been a growing interest in the 
practice of unilateral economic sanctions as a tool of American foreign 
policy. Numerous studies have been conducted by think tanks, trade 
groups, the business communities, the U.S. Government, and foreign 
governments. These studies reached similar conclusions that unilateral 
economic sanctions that are utilized to achieve foreign policy 
objectives rarely succeed in doing so.
  They further conclude that unilateral economic sanctions seldom help 
those we seek to assist, that they often penalize the United States 
more than the target country, and that they may weaken our 
international competitiveness and our economic security. The studies 
also show that unilateral economic sanctions have increasingly become a 
foreign policy of first choice, even when other policy alternatives 
exist.
  Because of these studies, data on the use of sanctions are becoming 
familiar. According to Under Secretary of State, Eisenstat in testimony 
before the House International Relations Committee, the United States 
has applied sanctions 115 times since World War I and 104 times since 
the end of World War II. Nearly one third of the sanctions applied over 
the last 80 years have been imposed in just the past 4 years.
  There are now dozens of new proposals before the Congress that would 
tighten or impose sanctions on one or more countries, many of whom are 
our friends or our allies. There are other sanctions pending at the 
State and local level directed at nearly 20 countries.
  The 1997 Report of the President's Export Council on U.S. Unilateral 
Economic Sanctions, for example, cited 75 countries representing more 
than half the world's population, that have been subject to or 
threatened by U.S. unilateral sanctions. The application of new 
sanctions in the past 2 years have increased this global percentage to 
nearly 70 percent of the world's population affected or threatened by 
one or more U.S. sanctions.
  These sanctions are not cost-free. They are easy to impose because 
they appear to be cost-free and are almost always preferable to the use 
of force or to doing nothing, but they have many unintended victims--
the poor in the target countries, American companies, American labor, 
American consumers, and, quite frankly, American foreign policy. One 
cost estimate put the income loss to the American economy from economic 
sanctions at between $15 billion and $19 billion, while impacting more 
than 150,000 jobs in 1995 alone. Magnify this overtime, and the 
economic and foreign policy costs to the United States become enormous. 
These sanctions weaken our international competitiveness, lower our 
global market share, abandon our established markets to others and 
jeopardize billions in export earnings--the key to our economic growth. 
They may also impair our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. 
They sometimes anger our friends and call our international leadership 
into question.

  Someone compared the use of unilateral economic sanctions in foreign 
policy to the use of carpet bombing in warfare. He noted that both 
tactics are indiscriminate and fail to distinguish between innocent and 
guilty victims. Those who are well-off financially, entrenched 
politically, or responsible for foreign policy actions we oppose, are 
those who tend to be least affected by unilateral sanctions. The point 
is that unilateral sanctions are blunt instruments of foreign policy 
that are too readily employed against foreign targets, even when other 
persuasive instruments of foreign policy may be available.
  The statute regulating our actions against India's and Pakistan's 
behavior, for example, is unusually inflexible and limits our options 
to develop solutions that work in South Asia. Our punitive sanctions, 
however meritorious they may be, do not help us achieve cooperation 
with either country in coping with regional and global problems; nor do 
they promote essential American goals of democracy, human rights, 
religious freedom, or other values we would like to see in both 
countries. Indeed, these particular sanctions could inadvertently serve 
to destabilize an already unsteady situation in Pakistan--a nuclear 
Pakistan--which would not be in anybody's interest.
  Mr. President, my amendment does not prohibit sanctions. There will 
always be situations in which the actions of other countries are so 
outrageous or so threatening to the United States that some response by 
the United States, short of the use of military force, is needed and 
justified. In these instances, sanctions can be helpful in getting the 
attention of another country, in showing U.S. determination to change 
behaviors we find objectionable, or in stimulating a search for 
creative solutions to difficult foreign policy problems.
  Indeed, many unilateral sanctions are intended to achieve very 
laudable foreign policy goals--human rights improvements, the non-
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, stemming the flow of 
international narcotics, countering terrorism, prohibiting child labor, 
and others. These goals are worthy foreign policy objectives. 
Unfortunately, unilateral economic sanctions are not effective tools 
for advancing these objectives or our interests. They may, in some 
cases, undermine them. In the end, they typically inflict punishment on 
the American people or on the most vulnerable populations in the 
country against whom the sanctions are directed.
  Mr. President, if we use unilateral economic sanctions to advance our 
foreign policy, we must be more sparing in their use, we must improve 
the process by which we consider international sanctions, and find ways 
to increase their effectiveness once they are implemented.
  My amendment proposes to do that by improving the way we consider 
unilateral sanctions in both branches of the government. It is a modest 
amendment. It applies to a very limited class of sanctions which are 
unilateral in scope and which are intended to accomplish one or more 
foreign policy objectives.
  My amendment excludes those trade remedies and other trade sanctions 
imposed because of market access restrictions, unfair trade practices 
and violations of U.S. commercial or trade laws. It excludes those 
multilateral sanctions regimes in which the U.S. participates, when 
other participating countries are imposing substantially equivalent 
sanctions and taking their burden. Our legislation is prospective and 
would not change, amend or eliminate existing U.S. sanctions, although 
I believe they should be reviewed as well. The Sanctions Task Force set 
up by the Senate leadership is undertaking that review. Finally, the 
amendment does not pertain to state and local sanctions intended to 
achieve foreign policy goals. It deals simply with those of the Federal 
Government.

  To help achieve a more deliberative policy process, the bill 
establishes procedural guidelines and informational requirements before 
unilateral economic sanctions are considered by the Congress or the 
President. My amendment provides that any unilateral economic sanction 
proposed in the Congress or by the President should conform to certain 
guidelines. These should include:
  clearly defined foreign policy or national security goals;
  contract sanctity;

[[Page S8187]]

  Presidential authority to adjust or waive the sanctions if he 
determines it is in the national interest to do so;
  narrowly targeted sanction on the offending party or parties;
  expand export promotion if our sanctions adversely affect a major 
export market of American farmers;
  efforts to minimize the negative impact on humanitarian activities in 
targeted countries; and
  a sunset provision to terminate new sanctions 2 years after they are 
imposed, unless reauthorized.
  The amendment includes provisions to fully inform members of the 
proposed sanctions and requires new sanctions be consistent with these 
guidelines. It also mandates that all proposed new unilateral sanctions 
include reports from the President which assess the following:
  the likelihood that the proposed sanctions will achieve the stated 
foreign policy objective;
  the impact of the sanctions on humanitarian activities in affected 
countries;
  the likely effects on our friends and allies and on related national 
security and foreign policy interests;
  any diplomatic steps already undertaken to achieve the specified 
foreign policy goals;
  the prospects for multilateral cooperation and comparable efforts, if 
any, by other countries to impose sanctions; against target country;
  prospects for retaliation against the U.S. and against our 
agriculture interests;
  an assessment as to whether the benefits of achieving the stated 
foreign policy goals outweigh any likely foreign policy, national 
security or economic costs to the U.S.; and
  a report on the effects the sanctions are likely to have on the U.S. 
agricultural exports and on the reputation of U.S. farmers as reliable 
suppliers.
  I include that section, Mr. President, because agricultural exports 
are usually the first hit in retaliation. This is the area in which our 
Nation does best and has, by far, the largest surplus. Therefore, this 
is of special importance to the American agricultural producers that 
are the focus of our attention today in this appropriations bill.
  A separate section includes similar analytical requirements for any 
new sanctions the President considers. These include those sanctions 
imposed by executive order under the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act (IEEPA). these requirements must be shared with the Congress 
before imposing new sanctions. However, the bill allows the President 
to waive most of these requirements if he must act swiftly and if the 
challenge we confront is an emergency. The requirements on the 
President are as rigorous as those on the congress.
  FInally, my amendment establishes an inter-agency Sanctions Review 
Committee to include all relevant agencies in the executive branch in 
order to coordinate U.S. policy on sanctions.
  If unilateral sanctions are approved and implemented, the amendment 
requires annual reporting on their economic costs and benefits to the 
United State and any progress they are having on achieving the stated 
foreign policy goals.
  There would also be a sunset provision in each new sanction that 
would terminate new sanctions after two years unless they are re-
authorized by the Congress or the President.
  The agriculture provision merits special comment because it singles 
out American farmers and ranchers whose exports are especially 
vulnerable to retaliation and whose products are most easily 
substituted by foreign competitors. American agriculture is heavily 
dependent on exports. About a third of all of our sales from the farms 
of this country are in the export trade. Last year, American 
agriculture contributed a net $22 billion surplus to our balance of 
trade, more than any other sector. Economic sanctions can have a 
serious long-term adverse impact on American agriculture. My amendment 
provides authority to compensate for lost exports through agriculture 
export assistance permitted under current statutes and agreements. No 
new appropriations would be required.

  To protect American agriculture, my amendment defines humanitarian 
assistance to include all food aid provided by the Department of 
Agriculture for the purchase or provision of food or other agricultural 
commodities. As such they would be exempt from sanctions other than in 
response to national security threats, where multilateral sanctions are 
in place, or if we are engaged in an armed conflict.
  I have focused many of my remarks on the economic and trade 
consequences of unilateral sanctions because they are more easily 
measured. But, the use of sanctions also raises a fundamental question 
about the effects of unilateral sanctions on the conduct of American 
foreign policy. Can we further our national interests and promote our 
values as a nation through the use of unilateral sanctions which 
distance ourselves from the challenges we face, or can we better 
accomplish our purposes by staying engaged in the world and keeping our 
options open to solutions? The answer is not always black and white 
because sanctions can sometimes be an appropriate foreign policy tool.
  On balance, I believe American interests are better advanced through 
engagement and active leadership that afford us an opportunity to 
influence events that threaten our interests.
  In some cases, unilateral sanctions restrict our ability to take 
advantage of changes in other countries because trade embargoes impose 
a heavy bias against dialogue and exchange. Unilateral sanctions may 
create tensions with friends and allies--including democratic 
countries--that jeopardize cooperation in achieving other foreign 
policy and priorities, including multilateral cooperation on the 
sanctions themselves.
  U.S. leadership and American values are better promoted through our 
presence abroad, the knowledge we share and impart, and the contacts 
we make and sustain. Many countries want to be exposed to our values 
and ideas if they are not imposed. The lessons of the free market and 
democratic values are learned more easily when they are experienced 
first hand, not as abstractions from a distance and not behind 
artificial barriers imposed by unilateral sanctions.

  Let me suggest a number of fundamental principles that I believe 
should shape our approach to unilateral economic sanctions: Unilateral 
economic sanctions should not be the policy of first resort. To the 
extent possible, other means of persuasion and influence ought to be 
exhausted first;
  If harm is to be done or is intended, we must follow the cardinal 
principle that we plan to harm our adversary more than we harm 
ourselves; when possible, multilateral economic sanctions and 
international cooperation are preferable to unilateral sanctions and 
are more likely to succeed, even though they may be more difficult to 
obtain; we should secure the cooperation of the major trading and 
investing countries as well as the principal frontline states if 
economic sanctions are to be successful; and we ought to avoid double 
standards and be as consistent as possible in the application of our 
sanctions policy.
  To the extent possible, we ought to avoid disproportionate harm to 
the civilian population. We should avoid the use of food as a weapon of 
foreign policy and we should permit humanitarian assistance programs to 
function; our foreign policy goals ought to be clear, specific and 
achievable within a reasonable period of time; we ought to keep to a 
minimum the adverse affects of our sanctions on our friends and allies; 
we should keep in mind that unilateral sanctions can cause adverse 
consequences that may be more problematic than the actions that 
prompted the sanctions--a regime collapse, a humanitarian disaster, a 
mass exodus of people, or more repression and isolation in the target 
country, for example; we should explore options for solving problems 
through dialogue, public diplomacy, and positive inducements or 
rewards; and the President of the United States should always have 
options that include both sticks and carrots that can be adjusted 
according to circumstance and nuance; the Congress should be vigilant 
by insuring that his options are consistent with Congressional intent 
and the law.
  In those cases where we cannot build multilateral cooperation and 
where our core interests or core values are at risk, we must, of 
course, consider acting unilaterally. Our actions must be part of an 
overall coherent and coordinated foreign policy that is coupled

[[Page S8188]]

with diplomacy and consistent with our international obligations and 
objectives. We should have a reasonable expectation that our unilateral 
actions will not cause more collateral damage to ourselves or to our 
friends than the problem they are designed to correct.

  Mr. President, the United States should never abandon its leadership 
role in the world nor forsake the basic values we cherish in the 
pursuit of our foreign policy. We must ask, however, whether we are 
always able to change the actions of other countries whose behavior we 
find disagreeable or threatening. If we are able to influence those 
actions, we need to ponder how best to proceed. In my judgment, 
unilateral economic sanctions will not always be the best answer. But, 
if they are the answer, they should be structured so that they do as 
little harm as possible to ourselves and to our overall global 
interests. By improving upon our procedures and the quality and 
timeliness of our information when considering new sanctions, I believe 
we can make that possible. We should know about the cost and benefits 
of proposed new sanctions before we consider them. That is the intent 
of my amendment.
  I ask that all Members look closely at my amendment and hope you will 
agree that it is good governance amendment that will help improve the 
quality and conduct of American foreign policy.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by pointing out that a bipartisan 
sanctions task force has been appointed by the leadership of this body. 
That task force has met. I look forward to making a contribution to the 
work of that group.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier in the debate today, I visited 
with the presidents of the 50 farm bureaus in our country. I visited 
with them because they are concerned about the farm prices that we have 
been talking about, and I am concerned as well. Very clearly, the farm 
organizations of our country have a strong and clear agenda, to which I 
subscribe. They believe that we must pass fast track authority for the 
President, that we need reform of the IMF and replenish those funds, 
and that we must have sanctions reform.
  The American Farm Bureau has been a strong contributing member to the 
U.S.A. Engage movement, which now includes 675 American companies who 
are involved in exporting. The American Farm Bureau and these American 
companies are companies who say, first of all, that sanctions have to 
remain a part of our foreign policy apparatus; that unilateral 
sanctions, those imposed by ourselves, usually fail and usually cause 
more harm upon us than upon the target countries; that on occasion we 
may be so outraged that we may be prepared to accept that cost, 
understanding that the harm to our jobs and our income will be greater 
than that which we have fostered. But, Mr. President, the farmers of 
America and their organizations are crying out in this legislation for 
attention.
  I argued on the last amendment that our best policy in this country 
was to sell grain, to sell livestock--not to store it. I think that is 
the issue, Mr. President. But if we are to be credible with regard to 
the export side, farmers and farm groups are saying, ``You must reform. 
You must do more.'' And I agree with that.
  That is why I offered this amendment on the appropriations bill for 
agriculture, because it is a passionate cry by our farmers to take this 
concrete action to give some hope that their concerns are being 
addressed, that, in fact, we are going to move exports, and are going 
to do so because we are beginning to think more carefully here in this 
body about what we are doing.
  To reiterate the bidding, Mr. President, before unilateral sanctions 
alone are imposed, there has to be a purpose stated for why we are 
doing them. And criteria and benchmarks that would show the degree to 
which we have been successful in interim reports, and an assessment of 
the cost to American jobs and the lost income. I mentioned $20 billion 
of lost income in a year and 150,000 jobs. These are not 
inconsequential. Debates occur on this floor frequently over 100 jobs 
or 1,000 jobs. I am asking that to consider very carefully these cost 
implications before we adopt another unilateral sanction. And finally, 
I am saying that after 2 years there should be a sunset provision. The 
sanction ends at that point, unless it is authorized again by the 
Congress or by the President for valid foreign policy reasons. These 
sanctions go on forever. This amendment is prospective. It deals with 
the future. I hope the sanctions task force set up by the leadership 
will deal with the present and past sanctions.

  Mr. President, I ask for careful consideration by this body of my 
amendment. I am hopeful it will be a strong plank in this 
appropriations bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise in respectful opposition to some of the 
implications of the amendment offered by my good friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar. Now, we all know that 
sanctions have come under assault of late. It is the politically 
correct thing to do amidst Senator Lugar's and my friends in the 
business community. And I think neither Senator Lugar nor I has failed 
to stand up for the free enterprise system and the business community 
when the community deserved to be supported, which is most of the time.
  Nevertheless, there are some powerful corporate interests in this 
town which have launched a well-financed lobbying campaign against 
sanctions, all sanctions, in an obvious attempt to convince Congress 
that all sorts of unreasonable sanction laws have been presented and 
that these sanctions are something new and unusual and somehow 
detrimental to the best interests of this country.
  On that point I beg to differ. The fact is, as an effective and 
principled foreign policy tool economic sanctions are older than this 
Republic itself. What did the American colonies do in response to 
Britain's imposition of the Stamp Act? The American colonies imposed 
economic sanctions forcing its repeal as a matter of fact. What did the 
Continental Congress do when Britain imposed the Intolerable Acts? The 
Continental Congress imposed economic sanctions on Britain.
  Why has Congress always authorized sanctions when needed? This is a 
question that is worth reviewing, and that is what I propose to do 
briefly, if it may be possible. Amazingly, some in the business 
community, and they have always been and will continue to be close 
friends of mine, have jumped to the conclusion on the recent events in 
India and Pakistan to pursue their attacks on the U.S. bilateral 
sanctions. But it is precisely those events in India and Pakistan, the 
decision by these governments to detonate a dozen separate nuclear 
weapons, that should heighten our resolve to enforce tough sanctions 
against governments that seek to destabilize the world.
  The fact is, in that instance, Madam President, I believe, and I 
believe I can demonstrate, that India detonated its devices because of 
India's fear that the United States was coddling China and bidding 
friendship for China that ought not to be a part of the foreign policy 
of this country.
  Now, just weeks ago the Senate passed the Iran Missile Proliferation 
Sanctions Act by an overwhelming vote of 90 to 4. Why did we do that? 
In order to place a cost on the specific companies for transferring 
dangerous missile technology to a terrorist regime in Iran which will 
use that technology to destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region.
  Now, we authorize the President to sanction states and foreign 
companies that threaten the safety of the American people by spreading 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction. We 
authorize sanctions on states, and when I say the word ``states,'' I 
mean governments, foreign governments, which provide training, weapons 
and political or financial and diplomatic support to terrorists who 
kidnap and murder American citizens. We authorize sanctions on 
governments involved in the smuggling and transshipment of illegal 
drugs that poison our children. We authorize sanctions on governments 
that commit acts of genocide and armed aggression against their 
neighbors and crimes against humanity.
  The question must be faced: Are we unreasonable in doing this? Should 
we

[[Page S8189]]

be ashamed? I do not think so. Obviously, sanctions are not always the 
answer. I do not contend that they are, but we cannot escape the fact 
that sometimes they are the only answer.
  I think we better face the facts. There are only three basic tools in 
foreign policy. There is diplomacy, sanctions, and war. Without 
sanctions, where would we be? Our options with the dictators and 
proliferators and terrorists of this world would be three: empty talk, 
sending in the Marines, or withdrawing into isolation. And I for one am 
not willing to place such artificial limits on our foreign policy 
options.
  But this is exactly, I fear, what the pending amendment proposes to 
do. Perhaps the Senator from Indiana can persuade me and the remainder, 
the rest of the Senate that that is not intended and at least make some 
statements for the Record that can be viewed in the future.
  In practice, this amendment is not about sanctions reform as it 
states. It is an obvious attempt by opponents of sanctions and the 
business community to hamstring Congress' ability to authorize 
sanctions. The proposed amendment would tie Congress' hands with 
mandatory waiting periods for the implementation of all sanctions, 
require mandatory sunsets on all future sanctions laws and define a 
wide range of congressional actions known or referred to as 
``sanctions'' when they are nothing of the sort.
  This amendment, I fear, would impose a mandatory 2-year time limit on 
all U.S. sanctions law. I'm afraid that would be opening a Pandora's 
box. Imagine if this was the law of the land when the United States 
enacted the Arms Export Control Act which prohibits the sale of 
sophisticated weapons to nations that the State Department determines 
annually support terrorism--governments like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya 
and North Korea. Would we have wanted those sanctions to be eliminated 
under an arbitrary 2-year timetable? I think not.
  Further, what exactly is meant by the term ``sanctions''? The pending 
amendment, it seems to me, breaks new ground on what henceforth would 
be considered a ``sanction.'' Under this amendment, it seems to me, the 
denial of U.S. foreign aid would be deemed a sanction. Any 
conditionality on U.S. funding to the World Bank or the IMF would be a 
``sanction'' on a foreign government. And let me remind Senators that 
since it was created in 1945, American taxpayers have anted up billions 
of dollars for the World Bank and now the antisanctions crowd tells us 
that we can't place any conditions on the expenditures of those funds.
  According to a recent report by the USIA, the conditions placed by 
Congress on U.S. foreign aid to the Palestinian Liberation Organization 
are a ``sanction.'' Really? Conditioning U.S. foreign aid to the PLO--
an organization whose modus operandi for most of its existence has been 
killing innocent civilians--is now deemed a sanction?
  What this amendment, I fear, proposes to do is to enshrine U.S. 
foreign aid giveaways as an entitlement, an entitlement to foreign 
countries.
  Wait one moment before jumping to conclusions. While this amendment 
expands the definition of sanctions to absurd proportions, it doesn't 
cover all sanctions. Oh, no. You see, our friends in the business 
community--and they are my friends, and they are Senator Lugar's 
friends--and their lobbyists who helped write this amendment have 
quietly carved out an exemption for bilateral sanctions they like--
sanctions that directly benefit them. The same folks who are busy 
telling us that sanctions don't work and should be scrapped, have 
ensured that certain retaliatory trade sanctions are exempt from the 
restrictions of this legislation.
  The way some in the business community have influenced the crafting 
of this amendment, Congress would be hamstrung in implementing 
sanctions against any nation that poses a threat to the safety of the 
American people, even if a government proliferates dangerous weapons of 
mass destruction, commits genocide, or supports terrorists responsible 
for murdering American citizens. But, if they flood the American market 
with cheap television sets--whoa, that is a different proposition. We 
can throw the book at them.
  Under this amendment, the President would be prohibited from 
implementing sanctions against any country for at least 45 days, 
supposedly under the guise of a ``cooling off'' period. On the surface, 
that sounds pretty reasonable. But in practice, a 2-month lapse is not 
only foolish, it can be downright dangerous.
  One example--after the Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103, 
murdering 263 innocent citizens in cold blood, the United Nations spent 
months and months debating appropriate actions against Libya. 
Meanwhile, Libya divested itself of most reachable assets in order to 
avoid the impact of sanctions. So the pending amendment would 
essentially afford other terrorist states the same courtesy. While the 
United States ``cools off'' for 45 days, the terrorists, the 
proliferators, the genocidal dictators, would have 2 months to quietly 
divest their finances and conceal the evidence and provide safe haven 
for fugitives. That strikes me as being something short of reform.
  The pending amendment would not place these requirements on 
multilateral sanctions. Of course, multilateral sanctions are more 
effective than bilateral sanctions. But, should the United States be 
handcuffed to the will, or more likely the lack of will, of the so-
called international community? Should we tie our hands to the whims of 
our European ``allies''--and I put quotation marks around allies 
because their slumping welfare state economies are driving them to 
employ increasingly mercantilist foreign policies.
  Right now the United States is waging a lonely battle at the United 
Nations to stop our allies from caving in and lifting U.N. sanctions on 
Iraq. If it were up to the French and the Russians, international 
business would be rushing headlong into Baghdad to renew commercial 
ties with Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding his continued defiance of 
U.N. weapons inspectors. Yet, we should give these people a veto over 
our national security policy that was won through the sacrifice and 
courage and blood of American men and women just 7 years ago?
  I believe we need sanctions reform. One reform we might consider is 
requiring that the sanctions which Congress passes would be actually 
implemented. Not long ago, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions 
Act--a targeted law much of whose language, I might add, was drafted by 
the Clinton administration itself. Live on CNN, the President signed it 
into law with great pomp and circumstance. But then, when the time came 
to implement that law, the President lost his nerve and the U.S. 
foreign policy suffered yet another devastating loss of credibility.
  The distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott, and the Senate minority 
leader, Mr. Daschle, have established a bipartisan ``sanctions reform 
task force'' to determine if, as critics have complained, Congress has 
gone ``sanctions mad.'' This, in my view, is a wise plan, and I serve 
on that task force; the Senator from Indiana serves on it, as does 
Senator Glenn and other interested Senators from both parties. The 
first question we are seeking to answer is, What is a sanction? In 
fact, we are having a hearing planned for July 31 to study this and 
other questions.
  In conclusion, Madam President, instead of rushing forward with any 
sort of ill-considered amendment--and I say that as respectfully as 
possible--the ramifications of which are unknown to most Senators, we 
should let that task force do its work and consider ways Congress can 
strengthen its consideration of proposed sanctions laws.
  Those who are prone to criticize the ``impulsive'' actions of the 
U.S. Senate, actions which I happen to believe are motivated by a 
devotion to the security of this country and its people, should 
themselves be wary of impulsive ``one-size-fits-all'' solutions such as 
this amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I will be very brief. I commend my 
colleague from Indiana for his sponsorship of this amendment to the 
agriculture appropriations bill. In my view, it is long overdue that 
this Senate develops

[[Page S8190]]

a more thoughtful, more deliberative, a more analytical approach to our 
sanctions strategy on the part of the United States.
  An observer noted during this discussion last week that Congress is 
in general opposed to sanctions, but in specific supports each one of 
them that comes along--all too often, sanctions that are contradictory, 
that are counterproductive, that do not, in fact, carry out the goals 
of the sanctions themselves. So I think the framework that Senator 
Lugar of Indiana has developed, which would cause us to approach this 
in a much more analytical perspective--to see to it that we have a 
cost-effectiveness that results from our sanctions, or even if it 
doesn't, that we deal with the sanction from that perspective--I think 
makes all the sense in the world.
  It is true that sanctions most often are effective when they are 
multinational in nature. There is nothing, as I understand Senator 
Lugar's amendment, that says we can only engage in multinational 
sanctions. We can engage in unilateral sanctions if we so choose. We 
can engage in sanctions that may not be cost-effective, if we so 
choose. But we ought to be fully cognizant of the nature of the 
sanctions and their consequences if, in fact, we are going to go down 
those roads. It is not tying our hands, it is not tying the hands of 
American foreign policy or trade policy or economic policy, to know 
with certainty what it is we are doing and to approach it in the kind 
of thoughtful manner that Senator Lugar suggests.
  There is nothing in this amendment, as I see it, that constitutes the 
development of an entitlement for foreign aid or anything of that 
nature. I think that is a gross misreading, not only of the intent, but 
the actual effect of this amendment. There is nothing that would 
restrict the ability of the American Government to impose sanctions as 
a response to terrorism or genocide or the development of weapons of 
mass destruction. It does not tie our hands in that regard.
  I want to say that I think we made a step in the right direction this 
past week with the handling of the sanctions that were about to be 
imposed on Pakistan in terms of agricultural sales. I think it is 
appropriate that this amendment be brought up in the context of this 
particular bill.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Indiana for a great deal of work, a 
great deal of thought and care that has gone into this. The foreign 
policy of the United States and oversight that this body, the U.S. 
Senate, can exercise will be enhanced and not detracted from by the 
adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I, too, rise and commend our colleague 
from Indiana for this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment, along with a number of my colleagues. To use the language in 
another situation, this is indeed a very modest proposal. This is 
prospective. It affects none of the sanctions that are presently in 
place.
  As the Senator from Indiana has rightly pointed out, sanctions are a 
very effective and useful tool when applied well. I think the threat of 
sanctions may have an even greater impact in utility. I certainly agree 
with him on that.
  What he is merely asking us to support today is that when a proposed 
sanction is being suggested by the executive branch--by the way, I wish 
we were applying this to ourselves because too often, when the Congress 
of the United States offers sanctions legislation, which is oftentimes 
where these bills originate, we should also be asking the question of 
what is the cost-benefit effect of this proposal. It doesn't say don't 
impose the sanction. In fact, there may be situations that arise when, 
in fact, the outrage is so egregious that is the subject of the 
sanction that we would be more than willing to pay the economic price 
to impose it. This amendment does not preclude that result. It merely 
suggests that we have some ability to make an analysis of what that 
relationship would be and to ask for a few days to allow for objective 
analysis of what the sanction cost might be. I hope this will enjoy 
strong, unanimous, bipartisan support.
  We have heard eloquent statements made on the floor of this Chamber, 
Madam President, over the last several weeks, as I think all of us have 
begun to focus on sanctions policies as a result of the tragic events 
in India and Pakistan with the detonation of nuclear weaponry. That was 
a very sad occasion, still a very worrisome occasion in terms of what 
it means and the implications for us in the near term and longer term.
  If there has been any silver lining, if you will, in these clouds, to 
draw an even tighter analogy, it is that I think everyone in this 
Chamber has stepped back a little bit and said,

       What are these sanctions policies and how do they work? 
     What is going on here? Are we really achieving the desired 
     results that are the subject of our rhetoric in speeches? Are 
     we causing policies to be changed in countries on whom we 
     impose sanctions? Are the political elite of these nations 
     affected by our policies? Are they in some way being impacted 
     by these decisions? What damage do we do to ourselves in the 
     process as a result of sanctions being imposed? Are average 
     people in these countries, who have nothing to do with 
     setting policies, being affected in some way? What does that 
     do in terms of eroding support for our country and our 
     policies where public support in foreign countries can be 
     pivotal in unpopular decisions that may have been made by 
     allies of ours around the world? What sort of corrosive 
     effect do sanctions have on those decisions?

  I think these are good questions that deserve answers. What the 
Senator from Indiana has suggested is that, at least in one aspect of 
these, that we know and understand what the cost-benefit relationship 
is.
  Madam President, at a later point in this debate, I will offer 
another amendment dealing with food and medicine, to merely just take 
food, medicine, and agricultural products off the table as a tool of 
sanctions, for the primary reason that I don't think it has any impact 
on trying to modify the behavior of nations on whom we have a 
substantial or less-than-substantial agreement. I will wait for the 
appropriate time to do it when this debate is concluded.
  I also have authored, along with my friend, whom I see on this floor, 
who has cosponsored that amendment, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, 
Senator Roberts from Kansas, Senator Warner from Virginia, Senator 
Burns from Montana, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, proposals that 
will deal with a broader issue of how sanctions ought to be dealt with. 
But I will save that debate for a later day. It is a broader question 
and one for which we have a task force taking a look at some of these 
issues. I certainly want to make sure we are heading in the right 
direction.
  On the food and medicine and agricultural products, I think that 
makes a lot of sense, and I will offer that at the appropriate time.
  I conclude by urging my colleagues to be supportive of the Lugar 
proposal. It is a significant step in the right direction and one that 
I think deserves broad-based support as we try to sort out how best to 
advance our foreign policy interests while not unnecessarily doing 
damage to our own Nation and to innocent people around the world, 
particularly in the unilateral application of these sanctions.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Madam President.
  I rise to support Senator Lugar's amendment. I am an original 
cosponsor of that amendment. I am an original cosponsor of the Lugar 
amendment because I believe the Lugar amendment applies some common 
sense and some relevancy to the issue of sanctions.
  I know that we have a bipartisan task force on sanctions. I think 
most of this body supports the efforts of that task force, but I don't 
see any conflict in what Senator Lugar is proposing today, and what 
Senator Dodd and others will propose later, with the task force 
assignment.
  It is interesting to note that since 1993 we have imposed 65 
unilateral sanctions on 35 nations. We have some responsibility to give 
some focus and some understanding to our trade policy, which is part of 
our foreign policy, which is connected to our national security, which 
is connected to our economy and jobs and growth and productivity.

[[Page S8191]]

  I fail to appreciate why this is not relevant, why this is not 
important. This is not getting in the way of the task force. The task 
force, as I understand it, is to help frame up this issue.
  This amendment would not undo any existing sanctions. This amendment 
would establish a process for a more rational consideration of future 
use of sanctions. Sanctions surely must remain a tool of foreign 
policy, but sanctions are not foreign policy. Sanctions are only 
effective when they are multilateral. The world is dynamic. The world 
is changing. Trade is spherical. It moves. It will move right over the 
top of us unless we attempt to manage the movement.
  Every great event in history has produced new opportunities, new 
challenges, new threats, new uncertainties, and the collapse of the 
Soviet empire has given the world great new opportunities and hope. 
Only one nation on Earth can help lead the nations of the world to that 
hope and opportunity, and trade surely must be a major part of that.
  Why in the world would we continue to impose unworkable, 
unachievable, outdated, irrelevant policy rather than looking forward, 
getting us into the next century, with the promise that only this 
country can give?
  Does anybody really believe, in this body, that any nation on Earth 
cannot get any service, any commodity, any product if they want it from 
some other nation? Of course not. This is a new world. Both the 
President and the Congress want some control of the issue of sanctions. 
We want some definition of what this is about. The Congress of the 
United States owes this Nation some leadership on this issue. The 
President must lead on this issue.
  Senator Lugar has described his amendment in detail. It would sunset 
new sanctions after 2 years. The way it is now, Madam President, we go 
on and on with sanctions. This amendment starts to clean up sanctions. 
Do we need them? Are they relevant? Does the world change? I fail to 
see that that is a threat to our foreign policy and to those who wish 
us ill.
  It would require cost-benefit studies. My goodness, imagine that. 
What a terrible thing--a cost-benefit study. It would require an 
effort, first, to make sanctions multilateral. It would require an 
evaluation of whether a sanction is likely to achieve its policy goal. 
Again--again--what a questionable objective. My goodness, actually 
focusing on an action and figuring out, if you can, if there are 
consequences, if it is workable.
  I know some in this body care occasionally about a headline, about a 
press release.
  A CRS study, January 22, 1998--this year--listed 97, total, 
unilateral sanctions now in place. Since that report came out, we have 
added sanctions against India and Pakistan, for a total of at least 99 
sanctions now in place. We dealt with some of that a little earlier.
  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that from 
1993 to 1996 we imposed, as I mentioned, another 61 sanctions. These 35 
nations--these 35 nations--where we have imposed these sanctions make 
up 42 percent of the world population. Almost half of the 5.5 billion 
people on the Earth are included in these sanctions and 19 percent of 
the world's export market--$800 billion.
  Who are we kidding here? Who are we hurting? We are not isolating 
anybody except ourselves. We are isolating our producers, our farmers, 
our ranchers, our manufacturers. We are isolating ourselves. And for 
what end? Bring a little sanity and common sense to this? I think so. I 
think so.
  I might add, is there something really wrong about business actually 
stepping into this debate? Is there something really wrong about having 
business say, ``Gee, we're being hurt''? Is that a special interest? Is 
American business a special interest? Is industry a special interest, 
people who work in business and the industry, produce jobs, create 
wealth, pay taxes? Be careful of that special interest. Be careful of 
that special interest. That is America. That is why we are the most 
powerful, dominant, free nation on Earth.
  A new study by the International Institute of Economics estimates 
that, in 1995 alone, unilateral sanctions cost Americans $20 billion in 
lost exports, losing 200,000 jobs. That does not include, Madam 
President, what is referred to as the ``downstream loss.'' The 
downstream loss, when you lose markets--it means the suppliers and the 
jobs and the adjunct jobs--no way to really calculate that.
  The National Foreign Trade Council has identified 41 separate 
legislative studies on the books that either require or authorize the 
imposition of unilateral sanctions.
  Well, it goes on and on. The fact is, Madam President, what Senator 
Lugar is doing is important. It is really relevant to today. It is more 
relevant to our future. It is relevant to our place in the world. What 
is the U.S. interest in the world? It is relevant to our children, and 
it is relevant to everything we are and who we are. That is why I 
strongly support this, why I was an original cosponsor, and why I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Madam President, thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me applaud the Senator from Nebraska 
for a statement that I think was eloquent and filled with good sense. 
And I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks he has just 
made. And even though we were on different sides of the previous 
amendment, let me say, as I did previously, the Senator from Indiana is 
a very respected Senator, someone for whom I have great respect on 
foreign policy issues.
  I am pleased to be here to speak as a cosponsor of the amendment that 
he has offered. It makes good sense to me. And I say, I think, as the 
Senator from Nebraska said, I would only go further than this. I 
certainly support this. I think it is a step in the right direction, 
but there is even more that we can do.
  The question that is required to be asked now is, When we impose 
sanctions around the world, for various purposes, many of them 
important purposes that deal with national security and other issues, 
should those sanctions include the shipment of food and the shipment of 
medicine?
  Frankly, I wonder if anyone believes that Saddam Hussein has ever 
missed a meal because of sanctions imposed by this country. Does 
anybody believe that Saddam Hussein has missed a meal? I do not think 
so. We cut off food shipments to Iraq. And if Saddam Hussein is making 
all of his meals, guess who misses their meals? It is almost always the 
poor and the hungry who are injured when you cut off shipments of food.
  Does anybody believe that Fidel Castro does not eat well nearly every 
meal when he chooses to have what he wants to eat? But when we cut off 
food shipments to Cuba, we know that it will be the poor and the hungry 
who will be injured by that.
  Our country, for very legitimate reasons, says we are very concerned 
about what is happening in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and more. For 
legitimate reasons we say that. I am sure the Senator from Indiana, at 
greater length than any others of us, could recite the foreign policy 
issues and the national security issues that attend to those countries 
and their relationship with us and others in the world.
  But the question before us is not, Should we be concerned about those 
countries? Of course we should. The question is, When we impose 
sanctions, what should those sanctions contain? Is it in our interest 
and in the interest of the hungry and the poor around the world to 
include in those sanctions the withdrawal of shipments of grain and the 
withdrawal of shipments of medicine?
  I have clearly an interest here on behalf of family farmers. I 
represent one of the most agricultural States in the Nation. And nearly 
10 percent of the market for wheat is out of limits or off limits to 
our family farmers because we have decided to impose sanctions and 
therefore take those markets off limits to our farmers. Does that cost 
farmers money? You bet. It takes money right out of their pockets. They 
are, in effect, told by these sanctions, ``You, Mr. And Mrs. Farmer, 
you pay the cost of these sanctions. You pay the cost as a result of 
lost income.''
  Where I would go further is, I would support and am a cosponsor of an 
amendment that will be offered by Senator Dodd, and I think cosponsored 
by Senator Hagel, saying, let us not include food and medicine in 
future sanctions. That is not appropriate as part

[[Page S8192]]

of sanctions. I am a cosponsor of that amendment to be offered. I would 
go further to say, this country ought to decide, if it is to impose 
sanctions in the future, or for sanctions that now exist, it ought to 
reimburse farmers for the cost of those sanctions. Why should this 
country simply say, ``Here is our desired effect, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. 
You pay the cost of it''? If it is for national security, let it come 
out, then, of the national security accounts from which we pay for many 
other matters, and say to family farmers, ``We'll reimburse you for 
those lost markets.'' That is an amendment I am thinking of offering to 
this as well. We will see what results from that.
  But it is required, I think, to say, as we discuss this issue, as I 
said earlier today, there is some horrible disconnection in this world.
  Halfway around the world there are people in Sudan, we are told, old 
women, climbing trees to forage for leaves to eat, leaves because they 
are on the abyss of starvation; a million to a million and a quarter of 
them are on the edge of starvation because they don't have enough to 
eat.
  Turn the globe another halfway around and you will find America's 
farmers, who are the economic all-stars, produce food in abundant 
quantity, and they are told in our system that when they take that 
grain which represents that food to market, that their product doesn't 
have value, doesn't have worth. There is something that is terribly 
disconnected about that.
  I have been in many parts of the world. What I remember most about 
the desperate poverty and hunger that exists, for example, is in the 
desperate slum called Cite Soleil, on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, 
Haiti. You see poverty as bad and conditions as desperate as anywhere 
else in the world. I leaned over a crib where a young child was dying 
of starvation in one of the worst slums you can imagine. This child had 
no one. The child had lost most of its hair; what hair was left was 
turning red as a result of severe malnutrition and starvation. This 
child, the doctor told me, was dying.
  I thought to myself, there is such a terrible, terrible, 
disconnection here because we produce food in abundant quantity. How on 
Earth can moving food around the world to all parts of the world that 
need our food in a way that connects our interests to the interests of 
those who need it, how on Earth could that ever threaten our national 
security? It does not and it could not.
  The Senator from Indiana offers an amendment on the issue of 
sanctions. It is very simple. It describes sanctions in the future. We 
ought to deal with sanctions that now exist, as well. It describes 
conditions for the imposition of those sanctions that deal with 
unilateral sanctions. It says the Secretary of Agriculture should use 
export assistance under various programs to offset any damage or likely 
damage to producers and so on.
  I fully support that and I am pleased to be a cosponsor, but I say 
again we have much, much more to do. Hubert Humphrey, many years ago, 
used to say, ``Send them anything they can't shoot back.'' What he 
meant by that is it will never injure our national security interests 
to send American food around the world, to sell it in markets where we 
can sell it, and to move it to other markets under title II and III 
under Food for Peace, and in some cases, title I, in other markets 
where they cannot afford to purchase it. It is always in our best 
interest. Is it in the best interest of farmers? Of course, but it also 
happens to run parallel to the national interests of our country.
  Let me finish where I began and say I am pleased to vote for this 
amendment, pleased to be a cosponsor, and will cosponsor an amendment 
that will go further, that Senator Dodd will offer, and may offer one 
myself, that deals with present sanctions and reimbursement to farmers 
for those sanctions, saying that the Government ought to not force them 
to bear the full burden of the cost of sanctions.
  But I thank the Senator from Indiana for offering this amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not intend to delay matters at all. Whenever the 
chairman is ready to go, I certainly won't be on my feet. I want to 
rise and congratulate Senator Lugar and those who helped put his 
amendment together. I am a cosponsor, but I don't take credit for any 
of the innovation and thoroughness of this work.
  I just want to say on a very personal note that every now and then 
when you see things out in our country or in the world sort of mixed 
up, and you see mixed signals, you wonder just what is our country 
doing, and somebody like Dick Lugar comes along and makes sense out of 
something that appears to be just a mess.
  There can be no question, whatever support there is in this body for 
sanctions--and clearly they must be an instrument, a tool--whatever 
support there is for that concept does not mean our country ought to be 
living under a ``quilt'' of sanctions, many of which are just bilateral 
between us and some country, when we already know that many of them 
don't work or they work to our detriment.
  Here we sit today with an emerging crisis in agriculture, probably 
mostly from the Asian flu; that is, from the failure in the Asian 
markets because of their banking systems falling apart, and those 
people can't buy the products they were buying. Nonetheless, when we 
added Pakistan for something they did, which we were all worried about, 
and they depended upon our grain and that kind of product to feed their 
people, obviously American agriculture is hurting.
  Now, there are some who would like to make it that the new 
legislation creating an open market at some time in the future, a 
totally free and open market, is the cause of the problem. That is not 
the cause. The cause is that America's trading in foodstuffs and 
products from our farms is not working as well as it should because we 
have done something that is harming it, or failed to do some things 
that would cause it to work better.

  Let me repeat one more time, why in the world are we still holding up 
IMF? If we want to reform it, why don't we reform it and pass it? There 
is hardly anybody in agriculture or American industry that hires our 
people that doesn't think we ought to do that.
  Now, Senator Lugar would like to do that. That isn't what he is doing 
here today. He is doing the next best thing. If that isn't a 
prescriptive manner, postmanner, trying to get rid of some of the 
nonsense of the unilateral, bilateral and multilateral situations that 
we have where we say we can't sell countries our product. Why don't we 
get on with fast track? If you want to talk about what would help our 
farmers, that is what would help. Get America's trade markets open so 
they can sell their products.
  Obviously, what we are doing here today is a very rational, sensible 
approach to a very, very, confused set of policies which are not 
working to America's benefits, which we can pass and then sit back and 
say we did something. Isn't that great; we did something. We never 
measured it. I gather the new guidelines will ask us to at least 
measure before we do it; is that correct, Senator Lugar?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. At least measure before we do it.
  I commend you again, Senator Lugar. You have done it a number of 
times before. We have been here a long time together. I regret, even 
though the color of your hair might indicate to the contrary, I have 
been here longer than you. Nonetheless, we have been here a long time 
together. I do compliment you because every now and then when things 
are confused, you make up for that and come up with something like 
this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to join the chorus of 
well-deserved accolades--common-sense, I guess, accolades for the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana, the outstanding chairman of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee.
  The Senator from New Mexico has summed it up very well. I am not 
going to take the Senate's time to repeat what has already been said in 
regard to this debate. Senator Lugar has already done that. Others have 
done that.
  I do have a statement that involves obvious ``golden words of truth'' 
in regard to this issue that I will simply insert for the record, but I 
do want to say

[[Page S8193]]

again that the use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool have 
skyrocketed since the conclusion of World War II. The last 4 years, as 
has been said on the floor, 61 new U.S. laws or executive actions were 
enacted authorizing the unilateral sanctions against 35 countries, and 
in all, over 70 foreign nations representing 75 percent of the world's 
population are currently subjected to a unilateral sanction by the 
United States.
  These are easy perceptions, I guess, actions that people take. I 
think in earlier days we used to call it gunboat diplomacy. Maybe we 
sent a gunboat over to a nation to demonstrate our unhappiness with a 
foreign nation and their policy. But there have been terrible 
repercussions in regard to these sanctions. They do not achieve their 
policy goals. They are very counterproductive, and as has been 
indicated by some across the aisle, and others, we shoot ourselves in 
the foot. So the distinguished chairman has, for a considerable amount 
of time, taken a look at the overall objective of sanctions and what 
has happened in a counterproductive way, not only to U.S. agriculture, 
but the entire U.S. economy and the global marketplace. He has come up 
with a comprehensive, thoughtful approach, and it is commensurate with 
the debate that will take place and the discussion that will take place 
in this body with regard to sanctions reform overall.

  There are those of us--Senator Dodd, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, as 
well as Senator Lugar and myself--who want to take a look at all of the 
sanctions that we have in place. And that is appropriate. We have taken 
action in a 98-0 vote last week regarding the GSM program and the 
possibility of selling wheat to Pakistan. The chairman was a real 
leader in that effort. We have taken action now by unanimous consent on 
the India/Pakistan situation, which will give the administration 
flexibility to deal with that issue. The next logical step is to 
consider, and I think favorably pass, the Lugar reform initiative. So I 
stand in solid support of the chairman for what he is trying to do.
  Madam President, U.S. influence, prestige and resolve in foreign 
affairs currently rests at a cross-roads. The United States, which has 
prided itself on providing international leadership through strength 
and by example, has increasingly turned away from that legacy by 
embracing ambivalence and sanctions instead of engagement and respect. 
Nowhere is this more clear than in the area of unilateral economic 
sanctions.
  The United States in recent years has developed a seemingly 
uncontrollable desire to show our displeasure over a specific action, 
behavior or belief in a foreign country by punishing that country 
through the imposition of unilateral sanctions. Regardless of whether a 
Republican or Democrat was President, regardless of whether Republicans 
or Democrats ran the Congress, the use of sanctions as a foreign policy 
tool has literally sky-rocketed since the conclusion of the Second 
World War. In fact, in just the last four years, 61 new U.S. laws or 
executive actions were enacted authorizing unilateral economic 
sanctions against 35 countries. All in all, over 70 foreign states 
representing nearly 75 percent of the world's population are currently 
subjected to unilateral sanctions by the United States.
  Unfortunately, with few exceptions, sanctions very rarely work. In 
order for sanctions to be successful, the United States must--
absolutely must--convince the entire rest of the world to join our 
boycott. Unless this occurs, the sanctioned country simply gets what it 
needs--food, financing, etc.--from the other countries that chose not 
to join the Sanctions Circle.
  There are two serious repercussions when this happens. First, the 
sanctions hurt us instead of their intended targert. Yes, that's right, 
when U.S. businesses lose access to markets for their products, U.S. 
workers lose job opportunities. So instead of joining us in professing 
outrage about some particularly repugnant act, foreign governments 
simply feign indignation while they quietly slip in to take away 
business from U.S. companies. And if you don't think that's true, just 
ask a foreign businessman or government official whether they support 
or oppose the American penchant for unilateral sanctions. They love it 
and they hope it continues.
  Yes, this is the second repercussion. Foreign governments--even our 
allies--have figured out that by refusing to join the United States in 
imposing sanctions, their countries actually benefit. What a bonus! 
They can stick it to the United States and create new markets for their 
businesses at the same time! As a result of this revelation throughout 
the world, it has become nearly impossible for the United States to 
build a unanimous case for sanctions against anyone.
  Just look at Iraq. If ever a case could be made for sanctions, Saddam 
Hussein is the poster child. After all, armed aggression against a 
peaceful neighbor and use of weapons of mass destruction on one's own 
citizens are truly reprehensible offenses, right? Surely Iraq deserved 
tougher sanctions when Saddam refused to accept U.N. weapons inspectors 
just a few months ago, right? Wrong. When Saddam pulled his latest 
stunt, the vast majority of the world flatly refused to support further 
sanctions. If we can't build a case for sanctions with Saddam Hussein 
as our target given the utter disregard he has shown for the United 
States and the rest of the world, will we ever be able to? I wonder.
  Where do sanctions come from anyway? They usually are issued by the 
President under the authority of at least twelve different laws 
governing international affairs. Again, in recent years, sanctions have 
been used far more frequently than ever before in U.S. history. This 
isn't an indictment of the current administration or any previous 
administrations; it is simply an assessment of how U.S. foreign policy 
is changing. Instead of using our influence and diplomacy to encourage 
good behavior, we attempt to use our power to punish bad behavior. And 
as I've just discussed, whether used as a threat to try and prevent 
unwanted actions or imposed as a punishment for undesirable actions, 
sanctions rarely work.
  Although most sanctions are imposed directly by the President, 
unilateral sanctions can be particularly damaging when they are imposed 
by Congress. The President of the United States is the Commander in 
Chief of our country. He is charged with implementing our foreign 
policy. While the Congress can and should be involved in the 
construction of that policy, the President is ultimately responsible 
for implementing it. When the Congress forces the President to impose 
sanctions on a country for a given action or behavior, it takes away 
the flexibility the President needs to address distinctly different 
foreign policy problem that may arise. The Congress basically says, 
``we don't know or care what caused the action or behavior; however, we 
insist that you impose these sanctions regardless of what the 
ramifications may be.'' That is a dangerous and irresponsible manner in 
which to conduct U.S. foreign policy.
  Let me make one other point regarding the perception of the United 
States abroad. Foreign countries and their citizens do not distinguish 
between U.S. military/diplomatic policy and U.S. trade policy. To them, 
they are the same thing. To them, it's just plain, old-fashioned U.S. 
foreign policy. When the United States imposes unilateral economic 
sanctions, when we fail to pass fast track negotiating authority, when 
we fail to renew IMF funding and when we threaten to withhold regular 
trading status with China, the prestige and authority of the United 
States in foreign affairs is greatly and permanently diminished.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to speak to this amendment and 
express a contrary view to that expressed by my colleague who has just 
spoken. With all due respect to the Senator from Indiana, who has put a 
lot of work into this, and who has offered the amendment, and while 
agreeing with much of what is in the amendment and much of what he 
proposes to try to do, I have to object for two reasons to the 
consideration of the amendment at this time.
  First of all, it is in reaction to--at least partially, although he 
has been at this for a long time, and understanding that we do need to 
make some

[[Page S8194]]

changes--what has occurred with the sanctions placed on India and 
Pakistan. We just resolved the issue with India and Pakistan primarily 
because of the amendment we just passed, which eliminates the 
agricultural component, broadly defined, of the India/Pakistan 
sanctions. Therefore, to the extent that my colleague, Senator Roberts, 
was just speaking, and others who have talked about the impact on our 
farmers as a result of the imposition of those sanctions, we have 
solved that situation.
  As a matter of fact, if you analyze the other sanctions imposed as a 
result of their nuclear tests, it gets down to a very narrow issue of 
some Eximbank loans or World Bank loans primarily and, therefore, I 
urge us not to rush into a consideration of this amendment on this 
particular appropriations bill because of the need to fix something 
that was not done with respect to India and Pakistan, when we have 
already begun to solve that problem.
  Secondly, because of the fact that sanctions have not always worked 
as we have desired them, and because of the obvious deficiencies with 
the sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan, the majority leader has 
appointed a bipartisan task force, consisting of Members of both 
parties, with different backgrounds, to deal with this question. We had 
a meeting yesterday.
  I am somewhat shocked that the Senator from Indiana would offer this 
amendment today, because yesterday he said that he wanted to preserve 
the option of proposing this amendment at some time in the future. But 
he seemed to agree with the majority opinion expressed there--in fact, 
all but one of the Members, in one way or another, expressed a view 
that a September 1 deadline was somewhat unrealistic in trying to deal 
with this problem. The Senator did preserve his option to offer an 
amendment at a future date, but I am shocked that it is offered today 
because the task force has not had an opportunity to review this matter 
in any depth.
  Madam President, I would like to now discuss some of the things that 
we talked about yesterday, which I think will illustrate the fact that 
this amendment is prematurely offered at this time. Again, 
notwithstanding the fact that the goals behind it--to review broadly 
our sanctions policy and some of the specifics about it, and to be more 
careful about how we impose sanctions--are both worthwhile and, in many 
respects, something we can all agree on, one of the things we can't 
agree on is a definition of what a sanction is. There is a broad 
definition, according to the Senator from Indiana. I wonder whether we 
are really ready to apply the limitations and the tests that are called 
for in this amendment to foreign aid reductions, because as I read the 
proposal, one of the sanctions would be a reduction or elimination of 
foreign aid.

  U.S. aid is not an entitlement. We are going to make different 
decisions every year about how much foreign aid we may want to give to 
a country. Should that be subject to the limitations imposed in this 
amendment? How about export controls on sensitive U.S. technology?
  We just came from a very highly classified briefing of a committee 
that was specially appointed to examine the missile threat to the 
United States. That report is, I must say, extraordinarily concerning, 
I am sure, to everybody who received it. On some of the countries that 
pose this threat to us, we have imposed stringent export controls with 
respect to sensitive technology going to those countries, which could 
assist them in the development of their ballistic missile technology 
programs. Are we going to impede the President's ability and Congress' 
ability to impose those kinds of limitations on the sensitive export of 
technology to countries that we don't want to have that technology? As 
I read the amendment of the Senator from Indiana, that is all covered.
  We need to have a common definition of what a sanction is in order to 
apply these kinds of limitations. And there should not be a 45- or 60-
day--I think it is now reduced to 45 days--waiting period. There are 
all kinds of things that would cause either the President or Congress 
to want to impose sanctions right away and not wait 45 days.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am not sure I ought not to propound 
this question to the Senator from Indiana.
  It is my understanding that this morning the President announced 
sanctions and trade reductions, under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act, against certain Russian companies. Is it the 
understanding of the Senator from Arizona that that is the kind of 
sanction that might not be allowed under the Lugar amendment?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will give the Senator my understanding of 
it, but I would be pleased, also, to refer that question to the Senator 
from Indiana. As I read it, that kind of sanction would, of course, be 
controlled by the 45-day limit, and the rules of the Senate that would 
apply, and so on. I think the Senator from Indiana should defend his 
own proposal.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then I pose the question to him.
  Mr. LUGAR. Clearly, the President, in the case of an emergency, has a 
right to impose whatever sanction he wants. There is no prohibition. 
Obviously, when national security is involved--and the national 
security situation is explicitly mentioned--I think that is important. 
But I ask the President to tidy things up. In other words, after 
imposing the sanction, he should state, if he has not already, the 
objectives and benchmarks and the cost to the American people of jobs 
and income. Some administration people have objected to the President 
playing by the same rules as the Congress. Nevertheless, the amendment 
is evenhanded. He has to fill it in. But he has emergency powers, of 
course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So, if I can follow up with the Senator from Indiana, 
is that the 614 national security waiver? Does that sort of override 
everything? Is that some sort of override?
  Mr. LUGAR. If that is the correct text of the national security 
waiver, yes.
  Mr. KYL. We will get back to that because I am not sure--if that is 
the intent of the Senator, I will have to see whether or not, in fact, 
it is effectuated.
  Let me get to another national security issue. We have, I think, come 
to the conclusion--most of us, but not all in this body--that it would 
be a mistake to put an explicit time limit, for example, on our 
presence in Bosnia, or an explicit time limit on certain other kinds of 
military activities or threatening national security activities 
because, of course, what that does is enable the party against whom the 
action is being taken to simply ride it out and to understand if they 
can just get by the next 60 days or 6 months, then they will not have 
to worry about that. So we have always taken the position that when it 
comes to this kind of thing--national security--our actions should be 
somewhat open-ended to ensure that the other party begins acting in the 
way that we would like to have that party act.
  Obviously, when you have a 2-year sunset on these kinds of sanctions, 
you eliminate that flexibility. I think that is one of the reasons why 
most of us have tended to want to support the kind of review and 
analysis about which the Senator from Indiana is talking. Clearly, that 
kind of thing should be done. But there should be a mechanism for the 
Congress and the President to, in effect, pull the plug on a sanction 
whose time has run rather than to have an arbitrary time limit for its 
imposition.
  If the Senator from Indiana would like to respond, I am happy to 
yield.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, to answer the question posed, both the 
President and the Congress can reauthorize the action after two years. 
Additionally, they are constrained simply to explain how successful 
things have been and what their objectives were to begin with. But the 
law--at least my amendment--explicitly gives them the ability to 
reauthorize. They have to take that affirmative action.
  Mr. KYL. If I could, Madam President, go to another point; that is, 
the failure to discriminate among or between different kinds of 
sanctions.
  The amendment, as I read it, treats all sanctions alike. It does not 
differentiate between sanctions imposed for the transfer of nuclear 
technology, for example, or the exploding of nuclear devices in 
violation of treaties, and

[[Page S8195]]

sanctions imposed for less dangerous activities, for example. In a 
sense, when one reads it, it appears to condone sanctions which have as 
their goal the promoting of trade but severely restricts sanctions for 
other purposes.
  I understand that the Senators from farm States have been very 
concerned about limitations on exports of agricultural products.
  As I say, I think we are all pleased to support the amendment which 
enables India and Pakistan to import American agricultural products. 
But I think we ought to examine this in a balanced way and understand 
that many of the sanctions are imposed for national security reasons. I 
think most of us understand that national security has to take a front 
seat to other considerations of a lesser degree of priority, if, in 
fact, it has gotten to the point that the country, either the President 
or the Congress, thinks it is in our national interest to impose 
sanctions. Yet, under the sweeping definition of a sanction here to 
mean literally ``any restriction or condition on economic activity,'' 
it appears there is no differentiation to account for the differences 
in reasons why we impose sanctions.
  For example, as I said before, we may have a reason to sanction a 
particular country, or a particular kind of trade activity, because of 
the national security implications of that. With respect to China, for 
example, we require a special waiver for certain kinds of technology 
transfers, or the launching of satellites, just to cite one example. It 
seems to me that is an entirely different kind of sanction than the 
typical kind of trade sanction on imports or quotas that we might apply 
for some other reason.
  I think it is very important for us to try to come to some agreement 
on a definition of just exactly what is a sanction before we begin 
applying across the board a set of rules that would automatically 
sunset sanctions after 2 years; that would require a 45-day time period 
before sanctions could be implemented; that would change the rules of 
the Congress, in effect, after first stating that it is our policy that 
these things should be done, and changing the rules of the Senate to 
ensure that policy is affected.
  It seems to me that we have time to deal with this now since we have 
dealt with the immediate emergency. The leader has appointed a task 
force, and we have identified this as one of the things that we need to 
do in this task force so that we are clear about the differentiation 
between the different kinds of sanctions before we begin identifying 
what kind of limitations should be placed upon each of them, and, 
therefore, that consideration of this amendment at this time is 
premature notwithstanding the fact that many of the ideas in the 
Senator's amendment might well be the kinds of things that we would 
adopt for certain kinds of sanctions when we end up actually adopting 
legislation.
  But, clearly, this is not something in which there is an easy one-
size-fits-all solution. I fear that is what we are doing by trying to 
rush this matter.
  I will be happy to yield the floor at this time. I will have other 
things to say, but I know the Senator from Kentucky, who chairs the 
task force, wants to speak to the issue as well.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as a follow-on to my good friend from 
Arizona, let me say first I am a farm State Senator. I have been on the 
Agriculture Committee for 14 years. I am a supporter of GATT, NAFTA, 
fast track, and replenishment of the IMF, which we handle in our 
subcommittee of appropriations for foreign ops. So put me down as a 
free trader. Also, put me down as a principal sponsor of the amendment 
last week to lift the agricultural sanctions on India and Pakistan. We 
did sort of a partial job on that last week, and then, as the Senator 
from Arizona pointed out, sort of finished the job today.
  Also, put me down as a great admirer of the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee and his distinguished work over the years in 
foreign policy, and on trade matters as well.
  The majority leader asked me to chair the task force on sanctions. 
The Democratic leader asked Senator Biden to do that. As the Senator 
from Arizona just pointed out, we have had an opportunity to only have 
one meeting. It was yesterday.
  I say to my good friend from Indiana, by September I might well be 
supporting this bill. But I am, frankly, among those in the Senate--and 
I expect this is almost everyone in this body--who has not been exactly 
consistent on the subject of sanctions over the years. Having supported 
MFN to China, I have also advocated certain kinds of sanctions against 
Burma. My guess is that there is hardly anybody in this room who has 
been entirely consistent on this subject.
  What the distinguished Senator from Indiana tried to do here is to 
enact a broad piece of legislation that may well be justified. But let 
me say I am just not yet comfortable in taking that step. Maybe by 
September I will be comforted that this is what we ought to do. But I 
want to echo the observations of the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
that I am just not sure we are ready, as a body, to wipe the slate 
clean.
  Reading from Senator Lugar's bill, unless I am missing something 
here, it says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
President may not implement any new unilateral economic sanction under 
any provision of law with respect to a foreign country, or foreign 
entity, unless at least 45 days in advance of such implementation the 
President publishes notice in the Federal Register of his intent to 
implement such sanctions.''
  It is my understanding that just today the President announced 
sanctions and trade restrictions under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act against certain Russian countries. I am concerned, 
for example, whether under this bill the President could have taken 
that step. Maybe he should not have. Maybe that is the point of the 
bill.
  But let me just say, Madam President, that I am queasy about taking 
such a broad, comprehensive step, even though it is only prospective, 
before we have even had a chance to work our way through it. I confess 
that many of us have not spent the amount of time the Senator from 
Indiana has already spent on it. He is undoubtedly one of the experts 
in the Senate on this subject.
  But, since all of us are called upon to vote, let me appeal to those 
in the Senate who may not yet have the level of expertise on the 
sanctions issue that the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee has, and ask the question, Are we ready to enact on this 
appropriations bill a broad, sweeping sanctions policy at this time?
  Let me repeat. The Senator from Indiana may be entirely correct that 
this is the way to go. But I will suggest to the Senate that we give 
this a little more time and think it through a little further. I am not 
sure the work of the task force, on which many of us serve, including 
the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Arizona, is going to shed 
a whole lot of light on this. But we are going to try. We are going to 
try to shed some light on it by having a hearing on July 30. We are 
going to try very hard to meet the majority leader's deadline of having 
at least a report by September 1. That may or may not enlighten a whole 
lot of Members of the Senate.
  But for those of us who have not spent as much time on this as the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana maybe, that report will be helpful 
to us. Maybe we will get a chance, as the Senator from Arizona pointed 
out, to kind of start out with what a sanction is. I am not even sure I 
know, frankly, at this point exactly what is and what isn't a sanction. 
Is a restriction in a foreign aid bill a sanction? Do we make a 
distinction between transfers of military significance? I think most 
Senators would argue that you should make that kind of distinction on 
things like agricultural products, food and medicine, and the like.
  So I commend the Senator from Indiana for a very important piece of 
legislation and just suggest that maybe this isn't the best time for 
most of us to be going forward on this, and I hope we can shed some 
light through the task force over the next few weeks on this whole 
subject.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to join with my colleagues from Arizona and Kentucky, who have 
just

[[Page S8196]]

spoken, with a certain sense of reluctance about opposing the amendment 
of the Senator from Indiana because of the respect I have for him, 
because of the thoughtful way in which he goes about matters generally 
and particularly matters of foreign policy. But to echo what has just 
been said, this is a very complicated and controversial subject, an 
important exercise of one of the major options that the United States 
has in carrying out its foreign policy.
  The bipartisan Senate leadership has created a task force that has 
been referred to. As has been said, we only had an opportunity to hold 
our first meeting yesterday. So I think for us to act on this quite 
comprehensive piece of legislation, which will dramatically alter the 
landscape in which the United States, Congress, can impose economic 
sanctions, is a rush to judgment before we have had a chance to hear 
from all sides, as the task force will do--a public hearing is going to 
occur--to reason together and then to come up with a proposal.
  As the Senator from Kentucky said, the end proposal may contain major 
parts of the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. But I think 
we would do much better and serve our national interest better if we 
worked this out over a period of time. There is no emergency now that I 
can think of, that I know of, that requires us to adopt this wholesale 
change in what has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for a 
long time now, deriving, incidentally, from a constitutional premise of 
the ability, Congress' ability, to regulate commerce with other nations 
of the world.
  So I think this is premature, though probably thoughtful. But I say 
``probably'' because this is a detailed amendment which I, frankly, 
have not been able to absorb in the time it has been in the Chamber, to 
make a reasoned judgment, even if there was not a task force that had 
been appointed on this very subject.
  I hear the Senator from Indiana; his intention is for its effect to 
be prospective, not to affect any sanctions that are in law now, and 
yet there are sections of this that begin ``notwithstanding any other 
provision of law'' and impose procedural requirements that make me 
wonder whether they would affect, for instance, the President's ability 
to impose sanctions in an emergency situation which, if we adopted this 
amendment, he might be limited from doing.
  So there are questions. And I think we should step back, acknowledge 
that there is a chorus that has risen rather rapidly in the last period 
of months questioning the extent to which we have applied sanctions, 
the manner in which we have done it, and listen to that chorus but not 
rush to act in response to it before we have had a chance, each of us, 
to deliberate and do what is right.
  Now, I want to offer one other set of thoughts here, Mr. President. 
Why is this so important? Well, let's all begin with the fact that most 
of us acknowledge, as the Senator from Kentucky said, we have not, most 
of us, been consistent in our votes on these matters. It is hard to be 
consistent in our votes on matters of sanctions, that they have been 
used too much. I think most of us in this Chamber would say that. That 
is why the leadership created the bipartisan task force, to begin to 
set some guidelines. But in all the criticism that we are heaping on 
ourselves, I think it is important not to lose sight of the value of 
sanctions. They are, roughly speaking, one of three options that a 
government has to protect its strategic interests and uphold its 
ideals--diplomatic, economic, and military.
  If I may say so--and I know people sometimes say that we are foolish 
to do this, that it is self-defeating--we have to consider the impact 
some of the sanctions have had not just on farm States. I can tell you, 
some of the sanctions regimes have had an effect on manufacturing, high 
tech and industrial, from my State. And I am not reaching judgment on 
the net effect.
  Let's just say a word for the fact that there is a part of our 
national character that, as Americans, is prepared to say we care so 
much about what is happening in another country, about the way that 
country is suppressing its people, or the threat that that country 
represents to our security because they are threatening their 
neighbors, who are our allies, or they are building missiles, that we 
are prepared, if our allies will not go along with us, to impose 
economic sanctions on them to affect their behavior. In an age when a 
lot of people question, well, all we care about is materialism, I am 
speaking respectfully of the impact of sanctions on people. This is in 
its way an expression of American idealism and principle and values. 
And while we may have overused it, we should not diminish its utility 
and its substance.
  Finally, Mr. President, there is a very important question to ask: 
Have they worked? I think the record is mixed, but that is something I 
would like to have our task force study and, at least as one Member, 
learn more about. I don't know enough about it.
  I know most people cite South Africa as a case where sanctions 
worked. Those were multilateral. More recently, sanctions we imposed on 
Colombia did work to alter the fundamental policy of the Government on 
an issue that matters to us. We have sanctions against Iraq and Libya. 
Well, I note that the heads of those regimes worked mightily in 
international diplomatic circles to get the sanctions off, so they must 
be having an effect on them. The same is true about the opposition of 
the Chinese to sanctions that we consider, and the Russians with regard 
to supplying components of missile parts to Iran.
  I know that Senator Lugar is not speaking against sanctions 
generally, and I appreciate that, and I share that view with him. We 
share that view because we understand, I hope all of us, that sanctions 
have value and have had effect. We are using them too much, but I think 
it requires more thought than we have had the opportunity to give 
before we vote on this amendment to change the ground rules so 
dramatically. So I intend to vote against the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote against tabling the Lugar 
amendment. It is a useful starting point in bringing some 
rationalization to our sanctions policy.
  I have been in the Senate for over 25 years. Over that time, I have 
supported many sanctions laws, and even authored a few. But I am now 
re-examining my approach to sanctions policy. I do so not because I 
oppose sanctions--sanctions are an important part of our foreign policy 
arsenal.
  But I believe we need to rethink our overall approach. Statutory 
sanctions, once imposed, are difficult to repeal, and they therefore do 
not provide the President the flexibility that I believe he needs to 
conduct foreign policy. As we all know, it is easier to block 
legislation than to pass it; accordingly, lifting a sanction to meet 
changed circumstances is difficult, and sometimes impossible. I 
believe, therefore, that we have to start building into our sanctions 
policy the necessary flexibility for the President to waive, modify, or 
terminate sanctions with the ability of the Congress to respond to his 
actions.
  The Lugar bill is not perfect. It has a few provisions that I believe 
should be changed or modified. For example, I do not believe it is wise 
to provide, as the amendment does in Section 806(c), for a point of 
order against legislation in cases where the Senate has not received 
required reports from the Executive Branch. This provision would 
conceivably permit the President to prevent consideration of a bill 
simply by withholding the required report. In addition, I believe the 
bill should clearly exclude from the definition of ``sanction'' those 
measures taken to enforce criminal laws and those measures taken 
pursuant to the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration to ban 
foreign airlines from flying to the United States which do not satisfy 
our safety standards. Finally, I believe the contract sanctity 
provision is too broad, for two reasons. First, there may be cases 
where a multi-year option contract would render the sanction--at least 
as to that contract--a nullity. Second, there may be cases--a 
proliferation sanction comes to mind--where it may be in our national 
security interest to stop the flow of technology immediately.
  Despite these concerns about the Lugar amendment, I will vote against 
the tabling motion. The bill is a good framework upon which we can 
begin to construct a more rational sanctions policy, and I believe the 
Senate should continue to consider it further on this

[[Page S8197]]

bill. I did not offer amendments to perfect the amendment because it 
was obvious that it was not going to be adopted and if it was it could 
be perfected in conference. We will surely revisit this issue at which 
time I'll have more to say.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
share my views on the amendment of the Senator from Indiana which was 
voted upon earlier this evening. I agree with those of my colleagues 
who have argued that we have too many unilateral sanctions in place, 
many of them mandated by Congress, and that often these sanctions fail 
to achieve the stated foreign policy objectives while hurting American 
business and competitiveness. I support the overall objective of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana--to provide a rational 
framework for the imposition of sanctions by both the Congress and the 
President. However, some aspects of this legislation concern me, in 
particular the broad definition of the term ``unilateral economic 
sanction'' and the extensive process which is to be exhausted before 
sanctions are imposed.
  I have always believed that sanctions are most effective when they 
are multilateral not unilateral, but I also recognize that there may be 
circumstances in which we need the option of imposing sanctions 
unilaterally, for example to send a message of disapproval of a given 
regime as we did with respect to the military junta in Burma, or to 
respond to a horrific event such as the use of force against those 
protesting for democracy in Tiananmen Square in 1989. I recognize that 
the legislation of the Senator from Indiana does not prevent us from 
imposing sanctions in these cases but I fear that the process in the 
bill would make it more difficult to do so expeditiously. In light of 
these concerns and the fact that the Senate Task Force on Sanctions, of 
which I am a member, is trying to address the question of unilateral 
sanctions and is going to begin hearings later this month, I voted to 
table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana at this time. However, 
I believe there is much of worth in this legislation, and I would like 
to work with him and others who believe, as I do, that we must reign in 
the tendency to address every foreign policy problem with a sanction.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just say, at the rate we are 
going, we should be able to finish this bill by Saturday night a week 
around midnight. We have 64 amendments left. We have spent about 2\1/2\ 
hours on this one. A lot of the people on this side are going to the 
White House at 4:30, and I hoped we could get a vote on it before they 
had to depart. I am always reluctant to suggest to anybody they cut 
their remarks short, and I guess we have already missed the 4:30 
deadline. I see two Senators who are just chomping to speak, so there 
is no point in asking for a time agreement at this point. But I just 
want to make the Members aware, and I know I am joined by my 
distinguished chairman in saying, we are going to have to do something 
to speed this process up or we are not going to get out before December 
1.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the Senator from Arizona wants to propose a 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. KYL. Yes. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Alaska.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  I ask unanimous consent that John Rood be admitted to the floor 
during the pendency of this amendment and other amendments on which he 
may desire to be present under my supervision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. I recognize the 
timeframe.
  I think it is fair to recognize another thing though: That two-thirds 
of the world's population, or thereabouts, are under some type of 
sanctions or threatened sanction by the United States. I think the 
question we have to ask ourselves is, As we address the justification 
of sanctions, are we really helping the people we want to help?
  I commend the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for bringing this 
matter up, because we can continue to debate it, we can continue to 
evaluate it, but the reality is, it is time to address the 
effectiveness of these sanctions. And, as a consequence, I rise to 
support the amendment of the Senator from Indiana on sanctions.
  I think he is offering the amendment for one reason, which is because 
sanctions are now a popular choice to promote our agenda and, of 
course, legitimately protect our national interests. There is nothing 
wrong with this reasoning except many times sanctions simply do not 
work in the manner that we have intended. They are one tool that we can 
use against rogue nations--granted. The question is, How effective are 
sanctions? In what cases should they be used? Unfortunately, as I have 
indicated, the tool of choice is sanctions. Some suggest it is a hammer 
for brain surgery.
  In any event, it is time to take stock in whether this amendment by 
the Senator from Indiana passes now or later. I think it is fair to say 
we should take up this matter and resolve it and examine, if you will, 
the posture of our policies.
  Let me conclude with one reference that is in the amendment of the 
Senator from Indiana; that is, he sets guidelines before imposing 
sanctions. That is important, in his amendment. The amendment will 
require a check and balance. It will require information on the goals 
of the sanctions, the economic costs to the United States, the effect 
on achieving other foreign policy goals, and whether other policy 
options have been explored. It is kind of a cost-benefit risk analysis. 
I wish we could apply it to some of our environmental measures. That is 
what we are proposing here, and that is why I support the amendment of 
the Senator from Indiana.
  This amendment will require careful thought before imposing 
sanctions. It does not prohibit sanctions. Dozens of sanctions are now 
pending before Congress. Sanctions, because they are the easy way out, 
have become a knee jerk reaction.
  Between 1914 and 1990 we imposed unilateral sanctions 116 times. 
Between 1993 and 1996 alone we imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times on 
35 nations. In 1995 alone, it is estimated that sanctions cost the 
United States $20 billion in exports.
  The President has declared a national emergency 16 times during his 
term. In the case of Burma, the President invoked unilateral powers 
reserved to ``deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.''
  Is Burma an ``unusual and extraordinary threat'' to the national 
security of the United States? I will go out on a limb and say perhaps 
no.
  But that is the problem. The choice to use unilateral sanctions is 
easy. It is a choice made for the short term to appease special 
interest groups. No thought is given to the chances of success or 
possible alternatives.
  Will unilateral sanctions work in Burma--probably not! Will they hurt 
the people we are trying to help--definitely so!
  We must look to the long term.
  I think a perfect example of this is Vietnam. Restoration of 
diplomatic relations and the lifting of the trade embargo on U.S. 
exports led to progress on the MIA issue and greater economic freedoms 
in Vietnam.
  The old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is true.
  When we decide on appropriate action to take against rogue countries, 
we must make decisions based on what are the most persuasive actions 
rather than the easy way out.
  I do not condone the policies of Iran, or Libya, or North Korea. All 
these countries clearly pursue policies contrary to our national 
interests.
  But I believe it has come to the point where U.S. unilateral 
sanctions run the risk of being completely counterproductive because 
they get in the way of more effective multilateral steps that could be 
pursued.
  Unilateral sanctions should be a tool of last resort and only used 
after careful thought about the consequences, the costs, and the 
chances of success. I urge my colleagues to support Senator

[[Page S8198]]

Lugar. Implementing sanctions should not be based on emotion but on a 
rational process. This is what this amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will also keep my statement very short.
  Mr. President, I also strongly support Senator Lugar's amendment to 
include the Enhancement of Trade, Security and Human Rights through 
Sanctions Reform Act to the agriculture appropriations. Consistent with 
our commitment yesterday to help American farmers, I believe this is 
the appropriate time to consider this important amendment that will 
help us think about the consequences of unilateral sanctions before 
they are imposed, either by the Congress or by the President.
  As you have heard, this amendment does not prohibit the Congress or 
the administration from imposing Unilateral sanctions, but it forces us 
to think before we act. It is easy to look like we are combatting 
various problems such as human rights abuses, religious persecution, 
nuclear proliferation, child labor, etcetera, by imposing unilateral 
sanctions. But it is not so easy to determine the negative effect they 
will have. It is my opinion that unilateral sanctions do not work. They 
do not force countries to adopt our policies, or our standards. 
Therefore, they wind up doing nothing but hurting our American farmers 
and workers who lose export opportunities to the affected nations.
  Senator Lugar's amendment, which I have also cosponsored in its bill 
form, establishes procedures by which we can analyze the impact of the 
sanctions--first, whether they----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Mr. GRAMS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to notify the Senate that at 
6 o'clock I shall seek the floor to move to table the Lugar amendment. 
I think it is a vote that must be taken to see where the votes are on 
this amendment. If it is not tabled, then it will still be open to 
amendment, but hopefully we might be able to work something out to see 
in what shape we would agree to take the Lugar amendment to conference 
and have a vote on whatever the Senator wants. But I do expect to make 
a motion to table the Lugar amendment at 6 o'clock. I ask cloakrooms 
notify their respective sides of that.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMS. Just to briefly finish my statement today, I believe the 
Lugar amendment will help to establish procedures by which we can 
analyze the impact of these sanctions. That is first by whether 
they will accomplish the intended purpose, and second, the impact they 
have on U.S. international competitiveness and other foreign policy 
goals.

  This amendment is also flexible. The President can waive the 
provisions of this amendment in an emergency, and the amendment does 
not affect existing sanctions. It also does not apply to multilateral 
sanctions.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at this, to support this 
amendment which will help us determine whether a particular unilateral 
sanction will work or whether we should pursue the problem in another 
way. If unilateral sanctions are imposed, we need to ensure they will 
work and they are initiated only as a last resort, and only after 
multilateral sanctions are pursued.
  Again, I thank Senator Lugar for his leadership on this important 
issue. For those of us concerned about the growing trend toward 
unilateral sanctions without analyzing whether they will work or how 
they will affect our farmers and workers, I think this is a no-brainer. 
This is an amendment that should have no opposition from this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am sure when my colleague just referred to 
a ``no-brainer,'' that no one would be in opposition to it, he wasn't 
suggesting there is not a logical, reasonable argument in opposition to 
the amendment, and I would like to again try to make that and urge my 
colleague, if he would like, to engage in any kind of colloquy he would 
like to clarify what I have to say, to at least assure him that there 
is a reasonable argument on the other side.
  I want to begin by commending Senator Lugar for identifying many of 
the things which ought to be done with respect to the imposition of 
sanctions in his amendment. He has a lot of good material in this 
amendment. I know he has given it a lot of thought. I think, at the end 
of the day, we will be able to accept a lot of that.
  Mr. President, I also believe there are some things that are not 
adequately thought out here. I would like to focus on a few of those. 
One of the things I am pleased with is a very broad definition of 
national emergency, which would permit the President to essentially 
waive the requirements of the legislation in the event of a national 
emergency, which is very, very broadly defined here. In one sense, that 
is good. But in another sense, all of the good that we are trying to 
achieve here could be easily undone, simply because the President 
decided to go forward and waive in the interests of national security. 
If the national security definition were a little tighter, then what we 
are seeking to accomplish here could probably be done, and the 
President would not be able to undo it easily through the invocation of 
a national emergency waiver.
  So I want to begin this part of the debate by acknowledging that some 
of what the Senator from Indiana is seeking to do clearly is going to 
gain wide acceptance here. In some cases, we are not going to want to 
let the President easily get out from underneath these requirements, 
which the definition of national emergency, in my view, would allow him 
to do.
  I also want to begin by making a point that one of my colleagues 
made, and that is to establish bona fides with respect to this. I have 
been getting a lot of calls from commercial associations seeking 
support for this, in the name of free trade. I have always supported 
fast track and do to this day, and I hope we will take fast track up 
again this year and pass it. I have supported GATT. I have supported 
NAFTA. I will proudly call myself a free trader, too. So my comments 
are not made from the perspective of someone who has not supported 
trade. In terms of business support, I certainly provided that.
  But we also have a national security obligation as Members of the 
Senate, and what I do not see adequately addressed in this amendment is 
the careful balancing between support for economic considerations on 
the one hand, and national security on the other. Those interests have 
to be very carefully calibrated. I think, with some additional work on 
the amendment of the Senator, we might be able to help achieve that 
calibration, but not if we have to vote on that today.
  Third, I mentioned the definitions problems, and I would like to get 
into that in detail now. I would like to read from the amendment of the 
Senator, the very first definition of what we are talking about when we 
talk about a unilateral economic sanction. Here is the definition. I am 
quoting:

       The term ``unilateral economic sanction'' means any 
     prohibition, restriction or condition on economic activity, 
     including economic assistance, with respect to a foreign 
     country or foreign entity. . .

  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  That means foreign aid, for example. So before we do a foreign aid 
bill here, are we going to have to go through the requirements of this 
legislation? Before we reduce a country's foreign aid, is the President 
going to have to give the Federal Register notice for 45 days? Is the 
Congress going to have to wait for 45 days before we can reduce that 
aid? Is that reduction going to be in force only 2 years and then we 
would have to revisit it? Something as simple as foreign aid--we raise 
and lower a country's foreign aid every year for lots of different 
reasons.
  We may apply a little more money to the foreign aid budget and be 
able to increase aid, or we may reduce it and have to increase aid. It 
has nothing to do with whether we are trying to sanction somebody or 
punish somebody or prohibit trade. Yet, that would be implicated 
because of the breadth of the definition of ``economic sanction'' 
contained in the legislation.
  What about some of the other actions that we may take? I mentioned 
before export controls on sensitive U.S. technology. I think it is 
absolutely incredible that restrictions of U.S. trade,

[[Page S8199]]

technical assistance, or any other way in which the United States would 
provide assistance to another country with respect to sensitive matters 
would be deemed subject to the requirements of this legislation.
  This legislation may well be appropriate for the kind of sanctions 
that we would apply against a country that doesn't agree with us on a 
particular human rights policy, for example, or something of that sort 
or perhaps with whom we have a trade dispute. But it certainly should 
not apply to the limitations that this country imposes upon U.S. 
businesses wanting to transfer technology to another country. There are 
good and sufficient reasons we have an entire regime of export controls 
in place.
  To show just exactly how far this legislation goes--and I think this 
is critical before Senators vote in favor of this amendment--they had 
better understand the following: We have just had exposed a tremendous 
technology transfer to the country of China that occurred because a 
couple of U.S. companies may--may; they are under investigation for 
it--allegedly have violated U.S. law with respect to technology 
transfer.
  When a missile blew up and destroyed a satellite, information was 
provided to the country of China. That may have been in violation of 
U.S. law. It may well have compromised our national security. Yet, the 
kind of things that we impose upon companies that are going to do 
business with a country like China to limit the transfer of that highly 
sensitive technology would be implicated because of the breadth of the 
definition of this legislation.
  Would we be able to limit the kind of technology transfer that has 
gone on to China that we are trying to stem?
  Would we be able to require defense monitors to accompany this 
equipment?
  Would we be able to preclude reports being issued to the Chinese 
Government on what went wrong with a particular launch?
  Would we be able to require an export license for the kind of 
satellites being exported here or the kind of technology that is being 
transferred in aid of the launch of U.S. satellites to make sure the 
rockets themselves don't blow up?
  Would we be precluded from putting those kind of technology transfers 
on a munitions list?
  Would we be precluded from requiring reviews by the Justice 
Department?
  This morning I talked with the Attorney General in a hearing of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, and I said, ``Even though you had this 
matter under direct investigation, pending investigation, and Sandy 
Berger, the National Security Adviser, was advised that it could 
significantly adversely impact the judicial process of the prosecution 
of people who would be indicted for having possibly violated the law, 
for the President to grant a subsequent waiver, notwithstanding that 
the President granted the waiver,'' and I asked the Attorney General, 
``did you object to that in any formal way?''
  She said, ``No, there is nothing in the law today that permits or 
requires that, and there is not even any procedure for that.''
  I said, ``Do you think there should be?''
  Her answer was, ``We are working right now on recommendations that 
would get the Justice Department into the loop here.''
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is that with regard to the transfer 
of highly sensitive technology that could jeopardize the national 
security of the United States, we do impose limitations, and as I read 
the definition of ``unilateral economic sanction,'' many of the kind of 
activities in which we engage here would be implicated by this 
definition.
  I know, or at least I firmly believe, that the Senator from Indiana 
would not want to jeopardize our national security and that it would 
not be his intention to have that kind of technology transfer limited, 
or the limitations on that kind of technology transfer limited by his 
amendment. Yet, as I read his amendment, that is exactly what occurs, 
because, again, the definition is:

       Any prohibition, restriction or condition on economic 
     activity.

  Clearly, all of the things that we imposed on Loral and on Hughes are 
restrictions and conditions on their economic activity with China, and 
for a good reason: to prevent the transfer of technology that we think 
might harm our national security.
  Are we saying today, are we willing to vote for an amendment that 
essentially says, with respect to that kind of condition, we are going 
to treat that as a sanction and we are going to put all kind of 
limitations on whether or not it can be done?

  One of the answers is, ``Well, there's a section in here that permits 
the President to waive any of this if there is a national security 
interest involved in that case.''
  Mr. President, it seems to me that we simply ought to make an initial 
determination that there are certain kind of things that we do not deem 
to be economic unilateral sanctions and they ought to be excluded in 
the legislation in the first instance, because otherwise we are going 
to have an extraordinarily cumbersome procedure where thousands of 
things that this Government does, in either the executive or the 
legislative branch, from foreign aid decisions of the Congress to 
highly sensitive national security technology transfer limitations, are 
going to be deemed to be sanctions that have to go through the 
processes of review and delay and sunset, and so on, of this 
legislation, or else be exempted by a waiver that the President would 
then have to specifically invoke with respect to each one of those 
particular actions.
  That doesn't make sense. That is why I say this one-size-fits-all 
kind of approach is not the right approach. The kind of things the 
Senator from Indiana should be dealing with are a fairly narrow range 
of economic activities and limitations on those activities that either 
the President or the Congress has imposed in the past but that don't 
have anything to do with foreign aid, that don't have anything to do 
with national security technical assistance limitations and the like.
  That is the third point I want to make.
  I should also note that there are other things that could be deemed 
conditions or restrictions on economic activity, like denials of visas, 
cuts in taxpayer-funded export credits such as from OPIC or Eximbank. 
Are those things implicated by this? I think clearly they are. Is that 
the intent of the Senator from Indiana? And, if so, how are we going to 
get around those with a national security waiver? There are some things 
that I don't think we want this to apply to for which the national 
security waiver isn't going to be available. There, again, the one-
size-fits-all approach to this just isn't going to work.
  I will conclude this third point by reiterating what I said before. 
One of the things the Senator from Indiana is trying to do here is to 
be sure, before we invoke sanctions, we think it through, we analyze 
the impact, and we have a set of standards by which to measure whether 
it is effective or not and we have a mechanism for ending the sanction 
that forces us to, in effect, focus on whether or not it has been 
effective and we want to continue it or not.
  All of those are valid propositions. My guess is, before we are done 
with this, that kind of approach will be adopted by the Senate. I am 
not arguing against those things, but what I am doing is reiterating 
the argument of the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from 
Kentucky, and expanding on a point that I made earlier, and that is 
that just as we are getting into this issue with the first meeting of 
the sanctions task force--a bipartisan task force--yesterday to 
identify exactly what we want to cover by the kind of reforms and 
others that the Senator from Indiana is proposing, just as we are 
beginning this process, we have placed on the desk an amendment that is 
going to do it all and do it with a definition that is so broad that it 
would cover virtually any condition or limitation on economic activity. 
That is not, I think, what the sanctions task force views as the proper 
approach.
  I urge my colleagues to slow this process down just a little bit. We 
don't have to have this amendment on this appropriations bill today. I 
am sure that if the Senator from Indiana will work with us, if there is 
deemed to be a necessity to put something in place fairly soon, and 
certainly before the end of this legislative year, we can come up with 
a good set of criteria,

[[Page S8200]]

such as those the Senator has in his bill, for imposing sanctions--a 
good review process, some mechanisms for revisiting the sanctions after 
a point in time to ensure we still want them in place. All of those 
things that Senator Lugar's amendment goes to I think we can include in 
a piece of legislation. But I also think we are going to want to take a 
look at these definitions carefully and modify them to some extent so 
in one case it does not go too far and embrace just too many things, 
and in another case it perhaps does not go far enough.

  Finally, I will close with this point, Mr. President. Sanctions--and 
because of the breadth of the definition of sanctions here, I think we 
are literally talking about any kind of action the United States might 
take--can be in response to all kinds of different things.
  We have the Jackson-Vanik sanctions that were imposed upon the Soviet 
Union when it would not allow the immigration of Jews from the Soviet 
Union. We have sanctions that were imposed on South Africa to try to 
change that country's behavior. We have sanctions that were imposed 
upon the Soviet Union after it invaded Afghanistan. We have sanctions 
in aid of various treaties or agreements that are hard to enforce 
unless you can impose some kind of sanction. The NPT, Non-Proliferation 
Treaty, and other kinds of treaties that we have signed, some 
bilateral, some multilateral, have to provide some kind of enforcement.
  As Senator Lieberman pointed out, you do not want to have to turn to 
the military option right off. So all you have are economic or 
diplomatic activities. Now, diplomatic activities sometimes work; 
sometimes they do not. They more frequently work if you have some other 
kind of hammer behind it, like a military or economic card to play. 
What it boils down to is that an economic limitation can sometimes be 
very important. But I do not think we ought to blame sanctions 
necessarily when things do not go right.
  The best example of a failed policy is one which we have all dealt 
with here very recently, and that is the automatic sanctions that were 
imposed upon India and Pakistan--for doing what?--for nuclear testing.
  Mr. President, I submit that the problem here is not sanctions per 
se. The problem is that the policy that was put in place was a failed 
policy to begin with, and to attach sanctions as the only way to 
respond to that was simply wrong. Congress was in error for doing that. 
We are now rushing to correct that error. But we are doing it in the 
wrong way.
  Let us understand that the problem with the sanctions on India and 
Pakistan go back to the fact that as a nation we should have recognized 
that, just like China, Russia, and France, these nations are going to 
do what they think is in their best national interest, which may 
include testing nuclear weapons, and that they are going to do that 
irrespective of world opinion or economic sanctions. Their own internal 
country opinion was more important to them.
  In both cases, they were willing to suffer the consequences 
economically that might result from sanctions being imposed. In fact, I 
think in both countries there was a certain sense of pride that they 
did this and that they could stand up to the rest of the world. So for 
us to have had to impose economic sanctions was folly. It was never 
going to work. These countries were going to do what they felt was in 
their best interest, and we were not going to be able to stop them with 
economic sanctions.
  All we did was hurt a couple of countries that have been friendly to 
the United States--in the case of Pakistan, a country that is really 
hurting economically. And the last thing I think we really wanted to do 
is hurt the people of Pakistan with these sanctions; nor did we want to 
hurt our own country's agricultural interests. The problem was not 
sanctions per se. The problem was in ever thinking that we could, by 
the use of something like sanctions, prevent them from doing what 
inevitably they were going to do.
  Let us not blame sanctions; let us blame a failed policy embraced by 
the U.S. Congress. Sanctions sometimes do work; and, as Senator 
McConnell said, sometimes they do not work. Our record has been 
inconsistent in this regard. I know that is one of the things that 
Senator Lugar is trying to address here. But that should animate our 
thinking here--not that sanctions are per se wrong and, therefore, they 
have to be used only in very, very limited situations, and so on, as 
some of the language in this amendment suggests. I agree with that as a 
general proposition.
  We ought to be careful how we use sanctions because in some cases 
they are never going to be effective because the underlying policy is 
not a valid policy. But by the same token, in the interest of 
satisfying our commercial constituents, I do not think we should rush 
to judgment here and literally throw out the baby with the bathwater by 
making it very difficult to impose or retain sanctions in the future 
when, in point of fact, there are certain areas, like national 
security, for example, where we very definitely want to have conditions 
or limitations on economic activity--the definition in the bill--that 
have nothing to do with the ordinary understanding of sanctions.
  For that reason, I urge my colleague from Indiana to withhold for a 
few days or a few hours or some point in time where we can sit down and 
try to rework the definitions and rework some of the other language so 
that we are not applying a one-size-fits-all solution to what is, as 
Senator Lieberman pointed out, a very complex situation.

  We were going to address this through the task force and take quite a 
bit of time to do it. If there is any reason to rush to judgment here, 
let us at least take enough time to narrow what we are doing and try to 
make it apply in a fairly restricted way to achieve whatever short-
range objective we have here until we have time to think it through 
more thoroughly to impose a policy that would cover all of the 
different kinds of limitations that, as a country, we may wish to 
impose.
  Mr. President, I urge that this amendment not be supported, that if a 
motion is made by Senator Stevens, that we support that motion, and 
that we not consider the amendment at this time. I certainly, as a 
member of the sanctions task force, will work with Senator Lugar to try 
to take many of the good ideas he has in this legislation and pull them 
into a bill I think all of us can support at the appropriate time.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary 
situation on the floor? The intention of the Senator from Nevada is to 
offer an amendment, of which I have alerted the manager. If there is a 
pending amendment, if I could be so advised, I will make the necessary 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment to be laid aside.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee is rising. I would 
certainly yield to him.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask the Senator a question. If it is just a 
parliamentary procedure, I have no objection if it is a 
noncontroversial amendment, because I would like to help the bill 
proceed. But I want us to move toward the conclusion of the debate on 
my amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Responding to the inquiry of my friend, the senior Senator 
from Indiana, I wish I could represent to the Senator that this was 
noncontroversial. In this Senator's judgment, it ought to be. But 
fairness requires me to say, this is an amendment which has been before 
the Senate on many occasions dealing with the Market Access Program. It 
is controversial. I was under the impression that we could lay the 
pending amendment aside and consider it, but if the chairman has a 
concern about that, it is not my purpose to interrupt the orderly flow 
of the processing of this appropriations bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8201]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senator Lugar desires to make further 
remarks in support of his amendment, and we hope the Chair will 
recognize him for that purpose. Any other Senators who want to speak on 
that amendment should do so now, because there is the plan that has 
previously been announced that Senator Stevens will move to table the 
Lugar amendment at 6 o'clock. We will have a vote on that motion to 
table. But if Senators have completed their remarks on the Lugar 
amendment, then we could set that amendment aside, if the 6 o'clock 
hour has not yet arrived, and have other amendments debated. That would 
be our hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, during this debate on the pending 
amendment, three arguments have been made. I want to respond to them 
briefly. One came about through Senators suggesting that the President 
of the United States, who just today proposed sanctions on certain 
firms in Russia and pertaining to Iranian missile transfers, would not 
have had the ability to impose those sanctions if the amendment that we 
are debating had been the law of the land.
  Later, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, after a careful 
reading of the legislation, noted that on page 30 of the amendment--
this is the language: ``The President may waive any of the requirements 
of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)''--and so forth--in the event 
that the President determines there exists a national emergency that 
requires the exercise of the waiver.
  I made that point in an earlier presentation, but I simply wanted to 
reiterate there are emergency situations regarding the national 
security of this country. The President must have the ability to act. 
Our legislation expressly gives him that waiver ability.
  Then the distinguished Senator from Arizona raised the question as to 
whether, in fact, that waiver might be too broad. Perhaps. But, you 
cannot have it both ways. If on one hand you argue that the President 
of the United States is constricted in terms of what he may do, but 
then you find out he has full ability to do it, I suppose you could 
then argue that you do not want to have full ability at that point.
  Let me just offer a moment of reassurance. On the same page 30 of the 
amendment, there is a section setting up a Sanctions Review Committee 
in the executive branch. It reads:

       There is established within the executive branch of 
     Government an inter-agency committee, which shall be known as 
     the Sanctions Review Committee, which shall have the 
     responsibility of coordinating United States policy regarding 
     unilateral economic sanctions and of providing appropriate 
     recommendations to the President prior to any decision 
     regarding the implementation of a unilateral economic 
     sanction.

  Now, that committee is composed of the Secretaries of State, 
Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, and so forth.
  The point being that the President of the United States should be 
well advised before he decides on a unilateral waiver for even national 
emergency purposes.
  I suspect that this could be perfected further, but during the course 
of the debate on this legislation I simply note that many Members--and 
this is understandable--say this is very complex matter and we need 
more time to walk around it, try to think through the national security 
implications, the ability of the players to deal with this 
successfully.
  I point out, respectfully, that my original legislation on which this 
is based was introduced last October. This has been widely discussed in 
this city for many months. It is supported by 37 Senators explicitly 
who have thought through all the implications of this and have studied 
it at some length.
  Finally, Mr. President, I respond to the argument that the India and 
Pakistan incidents are the reason we are discussing this. As I recall, 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona pointed out we have resolved 
some of those problems and, therefore, it may be premature to move on 
to other problems. But, in fact, India and Pakistan had not gone 
through their nuclear testing regimes last October.
  The problem that has to come back to this body is that of the 
American farmers--the gist of the overall agriculture appropriation 
bill--need some hope that this body understands the effect of economic 
sanctions on agriculture. The USA*Engage group, composed of some 675 
businesses, including the American Farm Bureau, have strongly 
encouraged this body to understand the problems faced by American 
business.
  I think the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, 
stated it well: American business is not a special interest. It is not 
a nefarious group of people with whom we should have no contact as we 
talk about national security or economic security. American business 
and American farmers provide the money that gives us the ability to 
provide security to this Nation. These are the people who actually are 
out there working and providing jobs. They are saying to us: You folks 
with all of your sanctions are creating unemployment for 200,000 
Americans. That number of people are losing their jobs because of what 
is occurring in the sanctions regime.
  Of course, we have to be considerate of each and every aspect of 
making certain that national security is not compromised. It would be a 
stretch to think of many of these sanctions that have had a substantial 
national security implication to begin with.
  I suspect, finally, there has to be a balancing of interests in our 
country. Even as we are deeply concerned about democratic procedures in 
other countries, about religious procedures in other countries, about 
economic procedures in other countries, we ought to weigh and we ought 
to have a procedure in which we say we are going to impose a sanction 
on some country and take the time to state why, and then take time to 
say, ``What would be considered a success? How would we know we have 
victory? What are the benchmarks of our success?'' At least once a 
year, we should think about what the sanction did. Did it make any 
difference? Did it make a difference in American jobs and income that 
was totally disproportionate to whatever the impact might have been, in 
the target country?
  Now, that is what my amendment calls for--however you weave the 
argument around it, the need to state the purpose of what we are doing, 
the benchmarks of success, to examine periodically whether we have hit 
the mark even remotely, and, in any event, to estimate the cost of 
sanctions to Americans. It really is time to think about Americans, 
people in this country, farmers, producers, even as we are spinning 
wheels of economic sanctions for whatever economic purpose we might 
think of.
  From the beginning--and I think everyone has heard this clearly--we 
are talking about sanctions in the future, prospective sanctions. I 
hope Senators understand that. But that is the case.
  Secondly, we are talking about unilateral sanctions which we do 
ourselves that hurt us, that have no cooperation from others, with 
every other country grabbing our markets, entering in to eat our lunch. 
We have prescribed any number of ways in which people in this Congress 
and the administration have to think about it, and at the same time 
giving the President, as our Commander in Chief, the ability in terms 
of our security, to act if he must.
  Finally, we have said after 2 years the sanction comes to an end 
unless the Congress reauthorizes it. That is, take some more time to 
think about what has occurred, what the implications and the costs for 
Americans have been.
  I am hopeful this amendment will not be tabled. I regret that the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee feels he must do 
that at 6 o'clock, but I understand the expeditious procedure of this 
bill, and it is an important bill, has to go on. I hope Senators will 
vote against tabling the amendment when that time comes, about an hour 
from now, because I think that a vote against tabling sends a signal of 
hope to American farmers that we care, and we had better send that 
signal.
  I hope Senators understand that we have a difficult situation in 
American agriculture, not because of the farm bill but because demand 
from Asia is down and demand from other countries will be coming down 
as their income is constricted. We will need all of our

[[Page S8202]]

weapons of trade in order to meet that, and the same eventually will 
occur to other industries.
  I stress agriculture today, Mr. President, because that is the first 
wave. That is where the first implications of economic downturn have 
come, with raw materials and food. But it will spread unless we are 
successful in adopting a new trade strategy that must surely include 
greater thoughtfulness about sanctions.
  Therefore, I call for a new regime of thoughtfulness--not a 
prohibition of sanctions, not a breach of international or national 
security, but a thoughtful approach, giving full latitude to the 
Commander in Chief and, hopefully, better latitude to us, to think 
through what we are doing and to do it more correctly and positively.
  I conclude by saying, as I recall, the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona was asking a hypothetical situation whether as to whether the 
President could act or not, I think I have answered the question that 
he could have acted on today's sanction. But let's say that the 
President acts, or the Congress acts; how do we know in advance that 
this is going to have any particular effect? The answer is that we 
don't. As a matter of fact, in most cases, the effect has been dismal, 
inappropriate, and costly to the United States and to our citizens.
  So I say that the President of the United States has the full ability 
to act, but whether he will act appropriately is another question. And 
that is why even the President is asked to consult with his Cabinet, 
and why we are asked to consult with each other--in the hope that if we 
do adopt a sanction, it will do some good, that it will have some 
wisdom behind it, some rationale and some procedure that the American 
people can follow. I submit, Mr. President, that many of the sanctions 
we have adopted have not had that wisdom, that procedure, and they have 
not had a very good effect.
  It is for this reason that I ask the support of Senators for this 
amendment and the support, particularly, on the vote to table. I am 
hopeful that that tabling motion will not be adopted when that moment 
comes.
  Mr. President, I thank all Senators for allowing us to have this full 
debate. I appreciate that there are many other issues that should come 
before the body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the premise of the amendment proposed by 
the distinguished Senator from Indiana is that--as President Clinton 
recently put it--the United States has gone ``sanctions happy.'' We've 
all heard the statistics, repeated without question by the media, that 
the United States has enacted sanctions 61 times in just 4 years, 
thereby placing 42% of the world's population under the oppressive yoke 
of U.S. sanctions.
  Well, it just ain't so.
  I've examined these so-called statistics. And I've found that they 
are fabricated. The ``61-sanctions'' figure, which came from a study by 
the National Association of Manufacturers, and circulate widely by an 
anti-sanctions business coalition calling itself ``USA Engage.''
  The NAM claims that, over a 4 year period (1993 through 1996) ``61 
U.S. laws and executive actions were enacted authorizing unilateral 
economic sanctions for foreign policy purposes.'' According to NAM, 
these sanctions have targeted 35 countries, over 2.3 billion people 
(42% of the world's population) and $790 billion--19% of the world's 
total--in export markets.
  NAM lists a catalogue of 20 new laws passed by Congress and 41 
Executive Branch actions for a total of 61 new sanctions in just 4 
years.
  The ``61 sanctions'' figure cries out for examination. I asked the 
Congressional Research Service to analyze the NAM claim. After 
examining the NAM study, CRS reported to me, ``We could not defensibly 
subdivide or catagorize the entries in the (NAM) catalogue so that they 
add up to 61.''
  How did NAM come up with this 61-sanctions claim? Here's how:
  The National Association of Manufacturers includes as examples of 
``unilateral economic sanctions'' every time the U.S. complied with 
U.N. Security Council sanctions--which are, by definition, multilateral 
sanctions;
  The NAM used double-, triple- and quadruple-counts certain sanctions;
  They included as a so-called ``sanction'' any executive branch or 
Congressional actions denying, limiting or even conditioning U.S. 
foreign aid. (Since when, I ask, did foreign aid become an 
entitlement?)
  The NAM lists as sanctions instances where no sanctions were actually 
imposed, cases sanctions were actually lifted, and cases where 
sanctions were imposed briefly and then lifted.
  The NAM piled into their ``sanctions'' list any decision to bar the 
sale of lethal military equipment to terrorist states, and various 
actions which affect just a single corporate entity or individuals--not 
countries.
  Mr. President, this is not what most of us have in mind when we think 
of ``sanctions.'' We think of trade bans and embargoes on states--not 
seizing the assets of Colombian drug traffickers, blocking imports from 
a single factory in southern China which is using prison labor, or 
banning the sale of lethal equipment to states which arm and train 
terrorists.
  The fact is, there is no credible way to argue that the U.S. has 
imposed 61 sanctions in just four years, or that anywhere near 42% of 
the world's population has been targeted by U.S. sanctions. In other 
words, there is no basis for the claim that we in Congress have gone 
``sanctions happy'' or for the problem that the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Indiana proposes to fix.
  But don't take my word for it. The staff of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations has prepared a document which analyzes the NAM study and 
exposes its failings. I now ask uninanimous consent that this analysis 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
       The NAM study charges that Congress enacted 20 new 
     sanctions laws between 1993 and 1996. This is a deliberate 
     falsehood.
       In reality, three-quarters of this total (15) were denials, 
     restrictions or conditions on U.S. foreign aid, included as 
     part of normal Foreign Operations and Defense Appropriations 
     legislation.
       What were these so-called sanctions? One so-called sanction 
     is a prohibition on aid to foreign governments that export 
     lethal military equipment to countries supporting 
     international terrorism. Another barred U.S. assistance for 
     military or police training in Haiti to those involved in 
     drug trafficking and human rights violations. Another placed 
     conditions on assistance for the Palestinian Liberation 
     Organization. Another prohibited Defense Department aid to 
     any country designated as supporting international terrorism.
       Another withheld foreign aid and directed U.S. to vote 
     ``no'' on loans in international financial institutions for 
     countries knowingly granting sanctuary to persons indicted by 
     the international war crimes tribunals for the former 
     Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for the purpose of evading 
     prosecution.
       Are these the kinds of ``objectionable'' and 
     ``irresponsible'' actions Congress needs to reign in? I think 
     not. Indeed, of the 20 congressional actions listed by NAM, 
     in reality only 5 can really be called ``sanctions laws.'' 
     These are: The Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act (April 
     30, 1994); the LIBERTAD (Helms-Burton) Law (March 12, 1996); 
     the Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act (April 24, 
     1996); the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (August 5, 1996); and the 
     Burma Sanctions (September 30, 1996--part of FY97 Foreign 
     Operations Appropriations Act).
       The fact is, Congress has passed a handful of carefully 
     crafted, highly-targeted sanctions in recent years--most of 
     which passed the Senate by comfortable margins.


                         executive actions (41)

       And what about NAM's claim of 41 ``Executive Actions'' 
     implementing sanctions in just four years? This list is also 
     deceiving. Consider the following breakdown of the NAM list:


               multiple counting of the same sanctions: 7

       The NAM study double-, triple- and quadruple-counts the 
     same sanctions over and over again on seven different 
     occasions.
       Cuba--Same Sanctions Counted 2 Times. (NAM counts the 
     LIBERTAD (Helms-Burton) law as two separate sanctions, once 
     on the date it was enacted by Congress (in Table I) and a 
     second time when the President took measures to implement 
     Title III of the act.)
       Sudan--Same Sanctions Counted 5 Times. (NAM counts the 
     imposition of sanctions on Sudan, and then each adjustment to 
     existing sanctions policy as a separate new sanctions 
     episode.)


multilateral sanctions imposed in compliance with u.n. security council 
                             resolutions: 5

       The study counts U.S. compliance with multi-lateral U.N. 
     Security Council sanctions as ``unilateral economic 
     sanctions'' five times:
       Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Jan. 21, 1993 (NAM: ``These 
     restrictions were designed to help implement U.N. Security 
     Council Resolutions 757, 787, 820, and 942.'')

[[Page S8203]]

       UNITA & Angola, September 26, 1993 (NAM: ``Designed to help 
     implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 864.'')
       Libya, December 3, 1993 (NAM: ``President announces 
     tightened economic sanctions against Libya in accordance with 
     U.N. Security Council Resolution 883.'')
       Haiti and Angola, April 4, 1994 (NAM: ``The regulations are 
     amended to add Haiti, as a result of the U.N. arms embargo 
     against it, and to reflect the qualified embargo of Angola, 
     also in line with U.N. multilateral sanctions.'' (Sudan?)
       Rwanda, May 26, 1994 (NAM: ``Prohibition on sales of arms 
     and related material to Rwanda. Designed to help implement 
     U.N. Security Council Resolution 918)


           limited bans on trade in lethal military items: 8

       The NAM study lists every single executive order or 
     decision blocking the sale of lethal military items to a 
     rogue states as a broad-based ``sanction'':
       Zaire, April 29, 1993 (NAM: ``Ban on the sale of defense 
     items and services to Zaire.'')
       Nigeria, June 24, 1993 (NAM: ``Steps taken in reaction to 
     the military blocking a return to civilian government. . . . 
     U.S. announces there will be a presumption of denial on all 
     proposed sales of defense goods and services to Nigeria.''
       China, May 26, 1994 (President announces support for MFN 
     for China, but imposes ban on import of certain Chinese 
     munitions and ammunition)
       Nigeria, November 1994 (NAM: ``U.S. bans the sale of 
     military goods to Nigeria. In reaction to hanging of nine 
     environmental activists, U.S. adds to sanctions already 
     imposed . . . Besides ban on the military sales, the U.S. 
     also extended a ban on visas for top Nigerian leaders.'')
       Nigeria, December 21, 1995 (NAM: ``Suspension of all 
     licences to export commercial defense articles or services to 
     Nigeria.'')
       Sudan, March 25, 1996 (NAM: ``Departments of State and 
     Commerce announce new anti-terrorism export controls on 
     Sudan. . . . They are nearly identical to the controls 
     maintained on Iran for anti-terrorism purposes.''
       Iran, Syria, Sudan, March 25, 1996 (NAM: ``Departments of 
     State and Commerce impose new export controls on explosive 
     device detectors to Iran, Syria and Sudan.'')
       Afghanistan, June 27, 1996 (NAM: ``U.S. announces policy to 
     ban exports or imports of defense articles and services 
     destined for or originating in Afghanistan.'')


   CASES WHERE NO SANCTIONS IMPOSED, IMPOSED BRIEFLY THEN LIFTED, OR 
                   THREATENED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN: 4

       Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, 
     December 29, 1993 (NAM: ``This is a restructuring of existing 
     export controls, and did not result in the imposition of new 
     controls, except on Sudan.''
       [Note: See multiple-counting of existing Sudan sanctions])
       Executive Order, November 14, 1994 (NAM lists as a sanction 
     an Executive Order which, in NAM's own words, ``establishes 
     some policies and bureaucratic responsibilities within the 
     U.S. Government for dealing with the proliferation of weapons 
     of mass destruction. It did not impose any specific new 
     sanctions on any countries.'')
       China, February 28, 1996 (NAM: ``Secretary of State asks 
     Ex-Im Bank to postpone any financing for U.S. companies 
     planning to export to China because of reports that China had 
     shipped ring magnets to Pakistan and was otherwise supporting 
     Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Secretary makes a second 
     request on April 24, 1996. Sanction lifted on May 10, 1996)
       Taiwan, August 9, 1994 (Import restrictions imposed based 
     on Taiwan's trade in tiger and rhinoceros products, lifted 
     several months later)


 SANCTIONS AFFECTING ONLY INDIVIDUALS OR SPECIFIC CORPORATE ENTITIES: 7

       None of us would consider seizing the assets of drug 
     traffickers, or blocking imports from one company using in 
     prison labor as a ``sanction.'' The NAM study does--seven 
     times:
       Haiti, June 4, 1993 (NAM: ``limits on entry into U.S. and 
     freezing of personal assets of specially-designated nationals 
     who act for or on behalf of the Haitian military junta or 
     make material contributions to that regime.'')
       China, June 16, 1993 (One entity affected: Qinghai Hide & 
     Garment Factory. Reason: Use of slave labor)
       China, August 24, 1993 (Two Chinese entities affected. 
     Reason: Nuclear proliferation to Pakistan.)
       Middle East, Jan. 23, 1995 (NAM: ``President blocks assets 
     of persons determined to have committed or present a 
     significant risk of committing actions of violence that would 
     disturb the Middle East Peace process, and he blocks 
     transactions by U.S. persons with these foreign persons.'')
       Colombia, October 21, 1995 (NAM: ``Executive Branch blocked 
     property subject to jurisdiction of important foreign 
     narcotics traffickers. Original list of four traffickers 
     expanded to 80 entities and individuals on October 24, and 
     more added in November 1995 [4] and March 1996 [198].'')
       China, April 29, 1996 (One Chinese entity affected: Tianjin 
     Malleable Iron Factory. Reason: Use of slave labor.)
       North Korea, Iran, June 12, 1996 (NAM: ``Sanctions imposed 
     on three entities in Iran and North Korea that have engaged 
     in missile proliferation activities.'')


       DENIAL, RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS ON U.S. FOREIGN AID: 6

       And, once again, NAM lists every restriction on foreign aid 
     as a sanction, asserting in effect that foreign aid is an 
     entitlement:
       Guatemala, May 27, 1993 (NAM: ``Suspension of U.S. aid 
     programs to Guatemala, except for humanitarian assistance, 
     and U.S. opposition in . . . international financial 
     institutions for loans to Guatemala . . . [in] opposition to 
     a military coup.''
       Nigeria, April 1, 1994 (NAM: ``President decertifies 
     Nigeria for its inadequate anti-narcotics efforts,'' making 
     it ineligible for most U.S. foreign aid and most programs 
     from Ex-Im Bank or OPIC.)
       Gambia, August-October 1994 (NAM: ``Cut off of all U.S. 
     economic and military aid because of a military coup in July 
     against the duly elected head of state . . . pending the 
     return of democratic rule to Gambia.'')
       Afghanistan, February 28, 1995 (President decertifies 
     Afghanistan for inadequate counter-narcotics efforts. 
     Ineligible for most U.S. foreign aid, Ex-Im Bank or OPIC 
     support, direct U.S. to vote ``no'' in international 
     financial institutions)
       Colombia, March 1, 1996 (NAM: ``President Clinton 
     decertifies Colombia for its inadequate anti-drug efforts,'' 
     making it ineligible for most foreign aid, Ex-Im Bank or OPIC 
     support, and subject to U.S. opposition for loans in 
     international financial institutions.)


                DECLINE TO ISSUE A LETTER OF INTEREST: 1

       NAM even lists a decision by the Ex-Im Bank not to issues a 
     ``letter of interest'' in one case as a ``sanction.''
       China, May 30, 1996 (NAM: ``Ex-Im Bank board of directors 
     declined, because of environmental concerns, to issue letters 
     of interest to three U.S. exporters.'')

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as the review of the NAM study makes clear, 
most of these actions were taken at the President's discretion, either 
by Executive Order or based a law where President had broad waiver 
authority.
  If the Senate is going to have a debate over sanctions policy, we 
should do so on the basis of facts, not distortions presented by the 
anti-sanctions lobby. That is the reason that the Republican and 
Democratic leaderships have formed a bipartisan sanctions task force to 
examine the facts, and make recommendations.
  Apparently, some in the business community would prefer for the 
Senate to act before the facts come out. We should not fall for such 
tactics.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there are no other Senators wishing to 
speak on the Lugar amendment at this time, and I see none on the floor, 
I think we should proceed to set aside the Lugar amendment and turn to 
an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan. 
It is my hope that we can complete debate on the amendment of the 
Senator from Nevada before the hour of 6 o'clock, and at 6 there would 
be a motion to table the Lugar amendment and a vote thereon. Then I 
will move to table the Bryan amendment and we will have a vote on that. 
That is the plan of action.
  With that, and if there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Lugar amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I preface my comments by thanking the 
Senator from Mississippi. I think the arrangement he suggests is 
workable, and we will work within those time constraints.
  Once again, I will offer an amendment to eliminate funding for one of 
the most egregious examples of corporate welfare in America--the Market 
Access Program. This program continues to waste millions of dollars 
subsidizing advertising and other promotions in foreign countries.


                           Amendment No. 3157

(Purpose: To eliminate funding for the market access program for fiscal 
                               year 1999)

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] for himself, Mr. Reid, 
     Mr. Gregg, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3157.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8204]]

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 60, strike lines 4 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 717. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance under, or to pay the salaries 
     of personnel who carry out, a market promotion or market 
     access program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to make some general observations. 
This is an area that I have had an interest in for a number of years. 
We have debated it many times on the floor, and I say to my friends 
from the agricultural heartland of America that I am not unmindful that 
in some of the agricultural regions of our country, there is real 
economic crisis out there, particularly in the plains States.
  I am not unsympathetic to the concerns of farmers. Indeed, I intend 
to be supportive of many of the amendments that will be offered to 
provide assistance to farmers who face real economic crises for a 
variety of reasons, many of which I suggest have probably been debated 
on the floor during the course of this appropriations bill.
  Having said that, I want to talk about a program that, in my 
judgment, provides no real help to America's farmers or agricultural 
producers and, instead, continues to subsidize some of the largest 
corporations in America in terms of their advertising dollars. I 
believe this is a wholly inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. As I 
will point out during the course of this discussion, the analysis of 
the Market Access Program by the General Accounting Office, just 
released, is a definitive analysis of the efficacy of this program.
  Notwithstanding those who have advocated on its behalf and those who 
continue to defend it, the GAO report reveals that in spite of repeated 
attempts to make this program accountable, no credible evidence could 
be found to support the claims that the Market Access Program benefits 
the economy. That is why a broad range of organizations have been 
joined in opposition. These are groups that cover the political 
spectrum, from right to left. Among them are: Americans for Tax Reform, 
Capital Watch, the Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 
Friends of the Earth, the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. All of these 
organizations have called for the elimination of this program. Many of 
these organizations have joined together in a ``stop corporate 
welfare'' effort that named the Market Access Program among a select 
group of the most blatant of Federal handouts.
  The Green Scissors report, which recommends cutting programs that 
hurt both taxpayers and the environment, has also cited the Market 
Access Program as a waste of money.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list I have be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       LIST OF COMPANIES IN BRANDED BUDGETED DOLLAR ORDER FOR 1997      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Participant                                    Budget 1997 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. & J. Gallo........................  WI                    $597,874.00
Tyson Foods..........................  USAPEEC                440,000.00
Mederer Corporation..................  CMA                    297,000.00
M&M/Mars, A Division Of Mars, Inc....  CMA                    280,547.00
Sun Maid.............................  CRAB                   163,938.00
Brown-Forman Corp....................  XDA                    161,680.00
NAF International....................  MIATCO                 125,000.00
Precise Pet Products.................  SUSTA                  110,000.00
Ralston Purina International.........  MIATCO                 108,547.00
Quality Products Intl., Inc..........  USAPEEC                105,710.00
Canadaigua Wine Company..............  BEA                     89,620.00
The Seagrams Classic Wine Company....  WI                      81,000.00
Shoei Food (USA) Inc.................  WUSATA                  70,000.00
Russell Stover Candies...............  CMA                     60,000.00
Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corp.........  WUSATA                  56,000.00
Schwan's Food Asia Pte. Ltd..........  MIATCO                  52,100.00
Specialty Brands.....................  WUSATA                  52,000.00
A. Smith Bowman Distillery, Inc......  SUSTA                   50,000.00
Franklin Mushroom Farms, Inc.........  EUSAFEC                 50,000.00
Lyons Magnus.........................  WUSATA                  50,000.00
Twin County Grocers..................  EUSAFEC                 50,000.00
Seald-Sweet Growers..................  SUSTA                   48,000.00
Golden Valley Microwave Foods........  MIATCO                  46,000.00
Lion Packing Company.................  CRAB                    46,062.00
Fruits International, Inc............  SUSTA                   45,500.00
The Iams Company.....................  MIATCO                  44,800.00
Great Western Malting Co.............  WUSATA                  41,000.00
Frontier Foods, International........  USMEF                   39,500.00
Blue Bell Creameries, L.P............  SUSTA                   39,000.00
Bush Brothers & Company..............  SUSTA                   39,000.00
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.........  CMA                     38,000.00
Heublein, Inc........................  WI                      36,000.00
Austin NIchols & Co., Inc............  KDA                     35,786.00
Protein Technologies International...  MIATCO                  35,500.00
Jones Dairy Farm.....................  USMEF                   35,000.00
Macfarms of Hawaii...................  WUSATA                  35,000.00
Certified Angus Beef.................  USMEF                   32,500.00
H.J. Heins Company Ltd...............  EUSAFEC                 32,500.00
Beechnut (Ralston Foods).............  MIATCO                  30,900.00
European Vegetable Specialties Farms,  WUSATA                  30,000.00
 Inc..                                                                  
Fetzer Vineyards.....................  WI                      30,000.00
CPC International/Best Foods Exports.  EUSAFEC                 29,250.00
Rockingham Poulty....................  USAPEEC                 27,500.00
Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.............  WUSATA                  27,000.00
Gourmet House........................  MIATCO                  26,642.00
Pierce Foods.........................  USAPEEC                25,,000.00
Prime Tanning Co., Inc...............  EUSAFEC                 25,000.00
The J.M. Smucker Company.............  MIATCO                  24,750.00
Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc.........  KDA                     22,410.00
Star Fine Foods, Inc.................  WUSATA                  22,000.00
General Mills, Inc...................  MIATCO                  21,200.00
Vie De France Corp...................  SUSTA                   21,000.00
H.E. Butt Grocery Company............  SUSTA                   19,290.00
Grimmway Enterprises, Inc............  WUSATA                  19,000.00
Kroger Co............................  MIATCO                  17,600.00
Well's Dairy, Inc....................  MIATCO                  17,500.00
Schreiber Foods, Inc.................  MIATCO                  15,600.00
Barbara's Bakery, Inc................  WUSATA                  15,000.00
Del Rey Packing Company..............  CRAB                    15,000.00
Giumarra Vineyards...................  WI                      15,000.00
Southern Pride Catfish...............  SUSTA                   13,000.00
Robert Mondavi Winery................  WI                      12,000.00
Sara Lee Bakery......................  MIATCO                  10,500.00
Acclerated Genetics..................  GENETIC                 10,300.00
Chinchiolo Fruit Company.............  WUSATA                  10,000.00
DiMare Company.......................  WUSATA                  10,000.00
Domaine Chandon......................  WI                      10,000.00
Hudson Foods, Inc....................  USAPEEC                 10,000.00
Jacklin Seed Company.................  WUSATA                  10,000.00
Simi Winery..........................  WI                      10,000.00
Stimson Lane Vineyards...............  WI                      10,000.00
Vogel Popcorn........................  MIATCO                  10,000.00
Wine Alliance........................  WI                      10,000.00
Continental Mills, Inc...............  WUSATA                   9,000.00
Island Coffee Company................  WUSATA                   9,000.00
Supervalu International..............  WUSATA                   9,000.00
Sunday House Foods, Inc..............  USAPEEC                  7,500.00
Avonmore Ingredients.................  MIATCO                   6,600.00
Red River Commodities, Inc...........  MIATCO                   6,400.00
Mission Foods........................  SUSTA                    6,000,00
Bil Mar Foods........................  USAPEEC                  5,850.00
EBS, Inc.............................  GENETIC                  5,000.00
Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd..........  WUSATA                   5,000.00
Stahlbush Island Farms...............  WUSATA                   5,000.00
                                                         ---------------
      Total..........................                       4,427,555.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is just not outside groups that are 
calling for the elimination of this program. The Market Access Program 
was specifically targeted for elimination in the fiscal year 1999 
Republican budget resolution. This provision was included in the 
legislation passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 57-41 on April 2 of 
this year.
  Unfortunately, however, like Lazarus, this program seems to rise from 
the dead every year and is currently authorized to receive some $90 
million in fiscal year 1999.
  The Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS, is a branch of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and it distributes this $90 million that has 
previously been authorized in three different categories. One is a 
direct contribution to private companies. Two is a contribution that is 
made to industry associations which, in turn, makes grants to members 
within that association. And the third category is cooperatives. These 
moneys are frequently used for the promotion of brand-name products, 
specifically identified household names in America, as well as generic 
commodities overseas.
  So we have private companies that receive money directly from the 
funding source--industry associations and cooperatives.
  In spite of numerous reforms that we have debated and enacted in 
recent years in efforts to limit the aid provided to giant 
corporations, millions of dollars continue to flow to large, well-
established producers, agribusinesses to subsidize their advertising 
budget.
  Let me again make the point.
  As part of the ongoing debate that we have had annually on this 
program, we have been able to persuade the Congress that with respect 
to the direct contributions made to private companies that are 
providing some of the largest organizations and companies in the world 
with money to supplement their advertising accounts, it simply cannot 
be defended and is an outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. So we created 
a small business category that is eligible to receive the private 
company distributions. That is currently part of the law.
  But that only tells part of the story, because as you will see, the 
top recipients of the Market Access Program--this is the specific brand 
of the product that you can see here--continue to be some of the 
largest companies in America: Sunkist Growers, $2,594,000; Blue Diamond 
Nuts, $4,419,000; Welch's Foods, $707,000; Sunsweet, $616,000; Ernest & 
Julio Gallo, $598,000; Tyson Foods, $440,000; and Ocean Spray, 
$320,000.
  The way that they have been able to effectively circumvent the 
limitation that this money should be made available only to small 
businesses is that industry associations and cooperatives that receive 
the money directly from the Foreign Agricultural Service can in turn 
make grants to members of the association or to the cooperative members 
themselves. So that is how we continue to see these substantial amounts 
of money that continue to flow into these large companies.
  Proponents of the program will justify this corporate giveaway by 
pointing to various studies that exalt the benefits reaped by these 
advertising campaigns, but none of the studies cited, nor the benefits 
that are assigned to this program, can be authenticated.

[[Page S8205]]

  Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this floor over the 
years, we have seen near magical benefits attributed to this program--
claims that each dollar of spending through the Market Access Program 
yields about $16 in new agricultural exports in addition to thousands 
and thousands of jobs. Those have been the arguments essentially that 
have been used to oppose the elimination of this program.
  First of all, if this analysis were correct, perhaps what we ought to 
do is put more money into this program and in effect have our Head 
Start youngsters participate in this program in order to achieve these 
dramatic ``multiplier affects'' that the advocates and defenders of 
this program have asserted for it.
  I want to make a further point: The figure that is used for these 
multiplier numbers is data taken from a 1995 inagency study of the 
Market Access Program that has drawn much criticism from GAO.
  The GAO found that the analysis on which this and other fanciful 
claims are based is flawed and does not follow standard cost-benefit 
guidelines--guidelines that are recommended by the Office of Management 
and Budget.
  The GAO's September report--this is the report that was released in 
September of this last year--has found that the data that has been used 
and the methodology does not support the conclusions that advocates of 
this program attribute to this Market Access Program.

  This report, which was completed at the request of the Budget 
Committee in the House and its chairman, could not authenticate any of 
these claims that have been made. Here is just a brief summary of what 
the GAO concluded.
  First, the GAO said there is no credible evidence that the Market 
Access Program has expanded employment and output, or reduced the trade 
and budget deficits.
  Second, it goes on to say that increases in farm employment and 
income cannot be attributed to Market Access Program spending.
  Finally, that the Market Access Program is not an effective 
counterweight for the export programs of other nations.
  That is another argument that I am sure that we will hear--that other 
countries are helping to subsidize their agricultural industry in 
providing a number of export subsidies to assist those.
  But, as the GAO has reported, this program has not been an effective 
counterweight to the export programs designed by other countries.
  I must say that this hardly is a ringing endorsement for continued 
expenditures for this program. That is, putting aside the philosophical 
objections for a moment, there is really no evidence that the money 
that we are spending--$90 million--accomplishes a thing.
  Let me suggest that the Market Access Program has another 
questionable aspect to it; that is, what is the justification for 
continuing to subsidize promotional efforts for well-known brand-name 
products that do not receive Federal assistance? These companies that I 
have cited, Sunkist, Blue Diamond Nuts, Welch's Foods, Tyson Foods, and 
Ocean Spray, are fine companies, are highly successful companies and 
are huge companies in terms of their size. What justification is there 
to use taxpayer dollars to support in effect augmenting or increasing 
the kinds of advertising dollars that these companies clearly have the 
ability on their own to do? They know how to make a judgment as to how 
their advertising budgets should be spent. That is a private sector 
determination. The Government has no business, in my judgment, taking 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars and saying to each of these companies we 
are going to give you an additional $2.5 million or $1.5 million to add 
to your budget. I have an objection to that philosophically.
  Moreover, when the GAO concluded that these dollars that we have 
spent over the years really have not accomplished anything, I think it 
is just totally indefensible.
  It is true, Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, that some positive 
changes have been implemented in the program in an effort to focus more 
effort on small business and new-to-export producers. However, one-
third of all MAP promotions are still brand names. They are product-
specific promotions identifying a particular company, and not a generic 
product that is being exported abroad.
  I think when you look at how the money is actually spent, 
notwithstanding the well-intentioned efforts to focus this program on 
smaller companies, that we have really failed in that objective.
  The top 10 brand-name promotion grants awarded by USDA, the United 
States Department of Agriculture, in fiscal year 1997 includes some of 
the well-known products that most Americans probably recognize from 
U.S.-based advertising.
  These are the companies.
  My feeling is that I think it is very hard--I think it is 
impossible--to justify spending taxpayer dollars. Sunkist, for example, 
a company that employs between 500 and 900 people, and posted sales of 
over $1 billion, received $5 million in Federal advertising assistance 
in 1996 and 1997.
  What in heaven's world are the taxpayers doing subsidizing the 
advertising budget of a company with sales exceeding $1 billion 
annually? You simply can't justify that.
  Welch's Foods, another fine product, with over 1,000 employees, rang 
up more than $550 million in sales, yet was awarded over $1.5 million 
over the past 2 years as part of this program.
  These examples illustrate what I have been saying for a number of 
years--that this program is a waste of money and public funds should 
not be used to underwrite private corporate activity.
  Proponents of this program will point out accurately that in the last 
few years, the largest number of awards have gone to small businesses 
and cooperatives. Much of this is due to the changes to the program 
that were passed--with the support of the ranking member of the 
Agricultural Appropriations Committee on the Senate floor--that gave 
preference to small and nonprofit applicants.
  However, it is important to note that the other types of MAP 
recipients, the cooperatives and the industry associations, as we 
pointed out, do not limit the contributions that they make to their 
members based upon size. That is how we have these rather large 
companies receiving a staggering amount of public assistance. That is 
why you will not see these names on MAP's award list. Large companies 
still receive funds through their associations. In fiscal year 1997, 
the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Kentucky Distillers' 
Association and the Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council passed 
through funds to M&M/Mars, Maker's Mark Distillery, and General Mills, 
Inc., respectively, to conduct name brand promotions overseas.
  Finally, let me note in this context that we take a look at the names 
of the top 10 awards for brand name promotions--the top 10 for brand 
name promotions. It is interesting to note that small businesses 
received only $825,000 of the $7,816,000 that went to these 10 
applicants. In contrast, the top two name brand recipients, Sunkist and 
Blue Diamond, received more than $4 million, more than half of that 
$7.8 million total.
  We have attempted to tighten the program, with limited funding, to 
change the definition of preferred participants, but the same large and 
well-known recipients show up on the MAP award list year after year.
  Many of the problems we discussed 5 and 6 years ago continue to go 
unresolved, and this recent report by the GAO still cannot verify the 
claims made by the USDA to justify MAP.
  The distribution, Mr. President, of millions of dollars of public 
funds to private businesses for self-promotion does not win any 
commonsense awards, but continued spending on such a program without 
confirmation of the program's competitiveness is an unforgivable abuse 
of public funds.
  Before I close my comments, I want to put this program in some 
perspective, because I expect many of my colleagues will come to the 
floor to defend this program that takes $90 million of taxpayer dollars 
and uses it for foreign advertising.
  Mr. President, the MAP cannot offset foreign competitors' export 
subsidies, because it does not make U.S. products more affordable. It 
is an advertising subsidy, not an export subsidy. We need to ensure 
that our agricultural programs provide real and measurable

[[Page S8206]]

benefits to U.S. farmers and consumers, especially as farmers are 
facing falling prices, and MAP's benefits do not in any way meet this 
test.
  Perhaps a little history on this program is in order to give some 
perspective:
  The Targeted Export Assistance (TEA) program was authorized as part 
of the 1985 Food Security Act to reverse the decline in U.S. 
agricultural exports and specifically to counter the unfair trade 
practices of foreign competitors.
  Unlike products promoted under MAP, only commodities adversely 
affected by unfair foreign trade practices were eligible for funding 
under TEA. This restriction continued until 1994, but was eliminated as 
part of the implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round trade 
agreements. So, while a link between USDA export promotion aid and 
foreign trade practices once existed, it is no longer a requirement for 
MAP participants.
  Even when the program was still targeted at unfair trade practices, 
it was prone to wasteful spending on behalf of huge corporations such 
as McDonalds, Campbell Soup and a host of others. After a critical 
audit by GAO, the program's name was changed to the Market Promotion 
Program as part of the 1990 farm bill.
  Then, after two more reports critical of the program, its name was 
again changed in 1996, this time to the Market Access Program. At that 
time, Congress was under extreme pressure to end the corporate handout, 
and some positive and significant changes to the program's management 
were proposed and adopted:
  USDA was directed to stop awarding funds to foreign companies; 
Participation was restricted to small businesses, cooperatives, and 
trade associations; and companies were required to certify that funds 
were not merely substituting for private marketing funds that were 
already being spent.
  I wish that I could say that these changes have ensured that the 
program provides a fair return to the American people. Unfortunately, 
even with these restrictions written into law, millions continue to 
flow to large corporations through associations and cooperatives with 
no real assurance that the funds are not used to replace private 
advertising dollars.
  These criticisms were restated by the GAO in the report released last 
fall following yet another GAO investigation, requested by 
Representative John Kasich, into the effectiveness of the Market Access 
Program and the claims made about its success.
  In this key report, the GAO discredits the analysis used by the USDA 
in reports that claimed that MAP has a significant impact on the 
economy, the agricultural sector, and U.S. trade efforts. The GAO audit 
found fault with each of these conclusions because each was based on 
the agency's use of flawed methodology and incomplete evaluations of 
the program's costs and benefits.
  The GAO leveled additional changes at the program's management, 
pointing out enduring problems that Congress has tried to fix in the 
past. For example, in spite of the requirement that companies use MAP 
funds to supplement, not supplant, their own advertising spending, GAO 
found no way to confirm that MAP funds were indeed being used for 
unique expenditures. The 1993 reconciliation bill required applicants 
to verify that MAP funds would not replace their own advertising 
dollars, but this requirement is largely unconfirmed by USDA officials 
and verification is left up to MAP applicants.
  It is also difficult to establish that MAP's stated goal of 
introducing firms to new markets is being met. Major questions remain 
unanswered, such as: when have companies or associations had ``enough'' 
assistance? Some firms will have been participating in the program for 
13 years before the 5-year ``graduation'' requirements (instituted in 
1994) will begin to take effect. The USDA currently does not have a 
standard method for deciding when their own program goals are reached, 
so business interests or associations can stay in the program without 
regard to their NEED for funds to open new markets.
  At the center of the GAO's criticisms of MAP's effectiveness is the 
faulty economic analysis used by USDA to make its case for the program. 
GAO reported that USDA's flawed evaluations made it extremely difficult 
to analyze MAP's contributions to the economy, because the program 
analysis for MAP does not conform with the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB) agency guidelines for cost-benefit analysis. These 
guidelines are used by agencies to construct a uniform standard for 
evaluating programs' performance as required under the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Without using a standard method of 
evaluating various government programs, it would be nearly impossible 
to judge any program's effectiveness.
  OMB instructs agencies, when analyzing the impact of any program, to 
assume that resources are ``fully employed'' [``Guidelines and Discount 
Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,'' OMB Circular No. 
A-94, sec 6b(3) (Oct. 29, 1992)]. These guidelines are in place to 
ensure that, in keeping with the implementation of the Government 
Performance and Results Act, each agency follows a uniform framework 
when evaluating costs and benefits of its programs. This framework 
includes the assumption of fully employed resources.
  However, in its 1995 analysis of the Market Access Program, USDA did 
not adhere to the OMB cost-benefit guidelines and assumed that program 
resources would otherwise be unemployed. Clearly, it is not accurate, 
in today's economy, to assume that the funds designated for MAP, or any 
program, would have no benefit, no alternate use, if otherwise deployed 
in the economy.
  Put another way, USDA took the untenable postion that the resources 
that went into MAP could not yield benefits to the economy through 
other uses, such as tax breaks for American families, investment in 
education, or paying down the debt.
  USDA also assumes that MAP-promoted agricultural products would not 
be exported at all in the absence of this program, which implies that 
the private sector would not pursue these export opportunities without 
MAP assistance. This premise holds that on the one hand, these markets 
would be unprofitable without help from the federal government, but on 
the other hand, these same markets bring in high returns on promotion 
expenditures. If the returns on investment are indeed as great as the 
agency holds, why would the private sector not undertake its own 
promotional activities?
  For a recipient like Sunkist, whose homepage on the Internet boasts 
that ``Sunkist is the 43rd most recognized name brand in the United 
States and the 47th most recognized in the world,'' it becomes clear 
that this program is wasting scarce federal dollars subsidizing an 
already highly-successful company's advertising budget.
  Finally, in its 1995 report USDA also assumes that all of the workers 
and farmers whose labor and output is associated with MAP-promoted 
exports would be completely unemployed were it not for the MAP program. 
Under this premise, USDA calculates these workers' employment and 
income as benefits generated by MAP, crediting the program with 
economic expansion and increased tax revenues.
  Mr. President, any federal program evaluated under this same set of 
assumptions would appear to generate income. This type of accounting is 
not permitted for other programs, and should not be permitted to stand 
here. The result is that USDA's analysis of MAP includes exaggerated 
estimates of the program's worth that are misleading but are 
nonetheless often quoted by proponents of the program.
  Let me give you some examples of the overblown gains attributed to 
MAP as a result of the department's faulty analysis. According to 
information included in the USDA's 1999 Performance Plan and the 
Foreign Agriculture Service's five-year strategic plan, the $90 million 
annual allocation for MAP, through a multiplier effect, results in $5 
billion in agricultural exports, expands the national economy by $12 
billion, and creates 86,500 jobs. And that is jsut the 1997 impact.
  It sounds too good to be true, and it is.
  These incredible returns are the result of USDA's ``free lunch'' 
analysis--

[[Page S8207]]

an irrational conclusion that MAP benefits the economy, based on faulty 
assumptions that federal and private resources have no alternate use or 
impact on the economy.
  Another major claim made in support of MAP is that these funds are 
needed to counteract the export assistance of our foreign competitors. 
The GAO report finds this claim, like the others, unreliable because of 
the lack of verifiable information about foreign competitors' export 
assistance activities.
  We often hear about the large amounts of money that foreign 
competitors pump into export subsidies, and how important it is to make 
U.S. crops competitive in foreign markets or risk being locked out of 
these markets altogether. This argument is irrelevant to any discussion 
about MAP, however, because unlike USDA's export subsidy programs which 
lower the prices of U.S. crops abroad, the Market Access Program is not 
an export subsidy, it is a promotion subsidy, and does not lower prices 
of U.S. goods in foreign markets.
  Furthermore, while it is true that MAP's focus at its creation was 
countering unfair trading practices employed by our competitors in 
overseas markets, this is no longer the case. As I mentioned earlier, 
MAP's focus on matching competitors' moves was removed when the 
implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round agreements was approved 
in 1994, allowing MAP funds to be used for general export promotion 
purposes as the Foreign Agricultural Service sees fit. This change, 
combined with a lack of firsthand knowledge about foreign export 
activities, led the GAO to conclude that claims about MAP's 
effectiveness in countering other nations' export assistance cannot be 
verified.
  Another question that has been raised about this program is whether 
its export promotion subsidies are undertaken by other programs at 
USDA. The Congressional Research Service, in a February 1997 report, 
raises this question in relation to the Foreign Market Development 
Program (FMD), which has been around since 1954. The FMD program is 
much like the MAP except that it is focused on developing foreign 
markets for U.S. commodities, as opposed to name-brand and processed 
exports. Therefore, its jointly-funded activities are aimed more at 
technical assistance and market research rather than advertising and 
other consumer-oriented promotions. However, unlike MAP, funding levels 
for FMD have remained under $50 million annually, and activities have 
not grown to include brand-name promotions.
  While these two programs take a similar approach to different 
markets, there has been very little analysis of which type of promotion 
is more effective. It would be helpful to be able to compare MAP's 
track record with the results attributed to FMD, but this information 
has not been compiled by the USDA. Nor has there been a study to simply 
evaluate whether generic or branded promotions are more successful in 
promoting exports, and where these efforts are most successful.
  Mr. President, there is just not enough evidence out there which 
backs up the claims we have all heard about the Market Access Program. 
I can think of no other federal program that we allow to receive funds 
without a rigorous examination of the costs and benefits associated 
with the government's investment. We demand this kind of analysis even 
for D&D programs which often have uncertain future outcomes and 
benefits that are difficult to forecast.
  We must ask ourselves, if a policy of underwriting the advertising 
expenses of large producers and corporate interests makes sense when we 
are cutting back on funding for domestic food security and important 
research initiatives. We cannot justify spending one more dime on this 
unproven program, and this view is shared by a long list of government 
watchdog and consumers groups representing a broad range of beliefs: 
Americans for Tax Reform, Capitol Watch, the CATO Institute, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group.
  I urge all of you to take a long, hard look at this program's track 
record and vote to end the waste of taxpayer dollars on foreign 
advertising and promotion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think it is very clear from the 
unanimous vote we had on the resolution with which we started the 
debate on this legislation that all Senators agree our agriculture 
sector is under tremendous pressure and the Congress and the President 
ought to take immediate action to respond to these needs in the 
agriculture sector because of low prices in some areas, because of 
adverse weather conditions in other areas, because of a decline in 
demand resulting from the Asian economic crisis. Some of our strongest 
customers and markets are in that area of the world.
  So I think we have all gone on record as agreeing we need to use our 
best efforts, we need to mobilize our agencies of Government to take on 
the responsibility of helping to develop access to new markets, to try 
to help expand old markets so that we can sell what we are producing 
and create a better prospect for profit in agriculture in the 
production sector.
  So I don't think we have seen a situation in the last several years 
when there was any more reason to have a Market Access Program and to 
invest in an effort to expand these markets and make them more 
accessible to U.S. agriculture exports.
  The purpose of the Market Access Program, which we began in 1985, was 
to help expand foreign markets. Since then, agriculture exports have 
doubled. Last year, agriculture exports amounted to $57.3 billion, 
which resulted in a $21.5 billion agriculture trade surplus, providing 
jobs for approximately 1 million Americans.
  When we had our hearings in our agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee this year, we had representatives from the administration 
before our committee talking about the Foreign Agricultural Service 
programs. I am going to read the Senate something from the statement of 
one of those officials.
  He said:

       The outlook for U.S. agricultural exports is heavily 
     influenced by competitive pressures that differ by commodity 
     and can affect price and/or quantity of sales. One of the 
     primary sources of this pressure is the rising value of the 
     U.S. dollar, especially against the currencies of our major 
     competitors. This has the effect of making U.S. exports more 
     expensive to our customers relative to those of our 
     competitors.

  Then there is a discussion in another part of this witness' statement 
about what some of the competitors are doing to try to enlarge their 
share of the world market for their products:

       We continue to face stiff competition in markets around the 
     globe. Our annual review of the export promotion activities 
     of the two countries that account for our major competition 
     found that, just like the United States, many of our 
     competitors have ambitious export goals. The EU and other 
     countries assist their producers and small businesses to 
     develop foreign markets through activities similar to our 
     Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program.

  He goes on to say that in the EU countries, it is estimated that $400 
million in 1995 and 1996 would be spent for market promotion:

       In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, those governments 
     have strong governmental promotion agencies and rely heavily 
     on their statutory marketing boards to carry out market 
     development activities for producers of specific agricultural 
     products.

  With this information and with the understanding of the success of 
many of these countries that are competing with us for market access 
and market goals, it would be the height of folly, in my judgment, to 
abandon one of the most successful programs that we have had to assist 
our agriculture producers in finding new markets and expanding those 
markets. We have had almost every year since I have been managing this 
agriculture appropriations bill an effort to either reduce the amount 
of money we were spending on market access promotion or to eliminate 
the program entirely.
  In the writing of the 1996 farm bill to try to deal with some of the 
criticism that had been directed toward this program, it was reformed 
and changed so that this year for the first time only small businesses 
and farm cooperatives will be eligible to have the benefits of

[[Page S8208]]

this Market Access Program. There had been criticism that only the big, 
wealthy companies were benefiting, only brand names were being 
advertised. It was a way for big companies to avoid having to pay their 
own advertising costs.

  Let me explain that. Because of the reforms that have been made and 
the experiences that many have had in the program, the evidence is very 
compelling that this program has been working by attracting attention 
to the fact that American-made products do have high quality. Not only 
the raw agriculture commodities that are sold, but those that are 
processed and manufactured--some of those qualify and are eligible for 
participation in this program. Let me just give one example.
  The U.S. cotton industry, through the Cotton Council International 
organization, working under the Department of Agriculture's oversight, 
retains control over the expenditure of funds that are made available 
for the cotton industry. These Market Access Program funds are applied 
only to Cotton Council International advertisements that are produced 
to communicate the benefits of U.S.-grown cotton and establish consumer 
preference for products that bear the name ``Cotton USA.'' This is a 
trademark. It is registered. It represents all of U.S. cotton and 
manufactured cotton products in export promotion. These funds are used 
to advertise ``Cotton USA,'' and it associates that brand name with 
qualified manufacturers. The funds are not used to subsidize the 
advertising of private companies but, rather, all U.S.-grown cotton.
  Let me tell you what the results are. In 1997 alone, the Market 
Access Program helped combat unfair trading practices of other 
countries. It helped U.S. cotton producers get more income from the 
market as farm program payments declined. It helped generate $2.5 
billion in cotton fiber exports and $5 billion in manufactured cotton 
product exports. It helped expand jobs, with over 150,000 workers 
depending directly on cotton and cotton product exports. That is one 
example of an agriculture commodity that is very important in my State 
of Mississippi and throughout our country. It is one of our major 
agriculture exports from our State.
  There are many others. The cooperatives that are involved in produce, 
the fruit and vegetable business in California and elsewhere, have 
indicated how important this program is to them. As a matter of fact, 
there is an entire list of organizations which have banded together and 
described themselves as the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural 
Exports. They wrote me a letter dated June 22, 1998. The coalition 
membership list is attached to this letter. It runs the gamut across 
the country of various kinds of agricultural organizations and producer 
groups. But I wanted to just read a couple of things from this letter, 
and then I will have the entire letter, and the list, printed in the 
Record:

       Reducing or eliminating [Market Access Program] funding in 
     the face of continued subsidized foreign competition, and 
     with another round of trade negotiations set to begin in 
     1999, would be nothing less than unilateral disarmament. Such 
     action would also violate the commitments made when Congress 
     approved the 1996 farm bill and [it would] jeopardize its 
     continued success.

  The letter also points out that this amendment to reduce funding that 
the Senator from Nevada is offering again this year was defeated last 
year--the effort to eliminate the funding--by a vote here in the Senate 
of 59 to 40. I think the Senate has come to realize this is an 
important program, it deserves the support of the Senate, and it has 
been reformed and revised so that the eligibility standards, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture oversight, all make sure that the funds are 
spent wisely and that we get our money's worth as a result of this 
investment.
  Mr. President, there are also other specific groups that have 
benefited from the Market Access Program. It has come to my attention, 
for example, that the catfish industry--which is still a new industry 
that has been growing enormously in our country--is dependent upon the 
exports that we have come to appreciate. And in the European market, 
one example is Germany. Since 1991, catfish exports to Germany have 
increased from 18 metric tons a year to 237,437 metric tons in 1996.
  The Washington apple industry credits the Market Agriculture 
Promotion Program with fostering its dramatic apple export expansion to 
Indonesia. Here is a country that has had substantial economic problems 
recently, but back in 1990 they had less than $800,000 worth of apples 
being sold into that market. But each year since then, in spite of 
economic conditions there, sales have expanded, culminating in recent 
exports totaling $34 million.
  Another example is the U.S. Meat Export Federation. It offers a 
Branded Product Promotion Program to help private companies, small 
businesses and cooperatives, promote their own labels in foreign 
countries. This Branded Product Promotion Program has been instrumental 
in helping a small Ohio company called Certified Angus Beef introduce 
new-to-market meat cuts overseas. The sales have risen from 6.2 million 
pounds in 1990 to 37.3 million pounds in 1996. The association members 
throughout the country have benefited from these export sales. The 
association has received $53,000 in funding from MAP over a 6-year 
period.
  This is another specific example where we have targeted the MAP funds 
to small businesses, to associations, to cooperatives, and, for the 
first time in 1998, according to Secretary Glickman when he testified 
before our committee, this will be the first year when all of the funds 
will go to such entities.
  I think it is very clear from the evidence we have accumulated and 
the testimony we have had, and our hearings, that for U.S. agriculture 
to remain competitive, we are going to have to continue the policies 
and programs that have been effective, and we are going to have to deal 
with the reality of competition from others. The amendment proposed by 
the distinguished Senator from Nevada would make us take a step 
backwards. It would make us give up one of the most effective tools we 
have to help American agriculture continue to prosper.
  The promotion activities of the Department of Agriculture have 
established a foundation for future market growth and expansion. But it 
is more important now, with the world situation as it is and hardships 
in American agriculture that have been identified over the last day and 
a half in discussions here on the floor, that the Department continue 
to work as hard as it can to use its resources to be a partner with the 
farmers and the exporters of America to meet our expansion objectives 
for American agriculture. Our exports are essential, not only to 
agriculture, but to the Nation's economic well-being as well.
  Jobs are created in the producing and packaging industries, in 
transportation--a wide range of economic activities are affected by 
agriculture. It is one of the strongest economic sectors we have. To 
keep it that way, we are going to have to take care of it. We can't 
just let it shrivel. We can't let it be the victim of international 
conditions as exist in Asia today. We have to do our part. The Senate 
has to do its part, too. American agriculture needs us, needs the 
programs like the Market Access Program, in order to compete in this 
new global environment.
  I can't stress any more than I have tried to the importance of our 
rejecting this amendment. I urge all Senators to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to 
from the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agriculture Exports and list of 
members be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Coalition to Promote


                                    U.S. Agricultural Exports,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1998.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and 
         Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge your continued 
     strong support for USDA's Market Access Program (MAP) when 
     the Senate considers the FY 1999 Agriculture Appropriations 
     bill (S. 2159). Such support is essential to help encourage 
     U.S. agriculture exports, counter subsidized foreign 
     competition, strengthen farm income and protect American 
     jobs. Last year with your leadership, the Senate rejected 
     efforts to eliminate funding for MAP by a vote of 59 to 40.
       Both farm income and the economic well-being of agriculture 
     are heavily dependent on exports, which account for as much 
     as one-third or more of domestic production. This is 
     especially true since passage of the 1996 farm bill (FAIR 
     Act), which gradually reduces farm programs over a 7 year 
     transition period, while providing producers with

[[Page S8209]]

     greater planting flexibility to respond to the global 
     marketplace.
       Much of the support for the 1996 farm bill was based on 
     assurances that programs encouraging U.S. agriculture exports 
     would remain a key component of U.S. policy. The global 
     marketplace continues to be characterized by subsidized 
     foreign competition. Last year, the European Union budgeted 
     $7.2 billion for export subsidies. Along with other foreign 
     competitors, it also spent nearly $500 million on market 
     promotion efforts. (This compares with $90 million authorized 
     for MAP.) The EU spends more on wine promotion than the U.S. 
     spends for all commodities combined.
       While small compared to similar efforts by other countries, 
     MAP has been a tremendous success as a cost-share program in 
     helping encourage U.S. agriculture exports. Last year, such 
     exports amounted to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive 
     $22 billion agricultural trade surplus. Without U.S. 
     agriculture exports, our nation's trade deficit would be even 
     worse. U.S. agriculture exports also provided jobs for nearly 
     one million Americans. Every additional billion dollars in 
     agriculture exports help create as many as 17,000 or more new 
     jobs.
       Reducing or eliminating MAP funding in the face of 
     continued subsidized foreign competition, and with another 
     round of trade negotiations set to begin in 1999, would be 
     nothing less than unilateral disarmament. Such action would 
     also violate the commitments made when Congress approved the 
     1996 farm bill and jeopardize its continued success.
       Again, we urge your continued support for this vitally 
     important program by opposing any amendments that would 
     either eliminate or reduce funding.
           Sincerely.
                                              Coalition to Promote
                                          U.S. Agriculture Exports


                       coalition membership--1998

       Ag Processing, Inc.
       Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Forest & Paper Association.
       American Meat Institute.
       American Seed Trade Association.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       Blue Diamond Growers.
       California Agricultural Export Council.
       California Canning Peach Association.
       California Kiwifruit Commission
       California Pistachio Commission.
       California Prune Board.
       California Table Grape Commission.
       California Tomato Board.
       California Walnut Commission.
       Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.
       Chocolate Manufacturers Association.
       CoBank.
       Diamond Walnut Growers.
       Eastern Agricultural and Food Export Council Corp.
       Farmland Industries.
       Florida Citrus Mutual.
       Florida Citrus Packers.
       Florida Department of Citrus.
       Froedtert Malt Corporation.
       Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
       Hop Growers of America.
       International American Supermarkets Corp.
       International Dairy Foods Association.
       Kentucky Distillers Association.
       Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Confectioners Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
       National Dry Bean Council.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Grange.
       National Hay Association.
       National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Peanut Council of America.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Potato Council.
       National Renderers Association.
       National Sunflower Association.
       NORPAC Foods, Inc.
       Northwest Horticultural Council.
       Pet Food Institute.
       Produce Marketing Association.
       Protein Grain Products International.
       Sioux Honey Association.
       Southern U.S. Trade Association.
       Sun-Diamond Growers of California.
       Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California.
       Sunkist Growers.
       Sunsweet Prune Growers.
       The Catfish Institute.
       The Farm Credit Council.
       The Popcorn Institute.
       Tree Fruit Reserve.
       Tree Top, Inc.
       Tri Valley Growers.
       United Egg Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
       USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
       USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.
       USA Rice Federation.
       U.S. Apple Association.
       U.S. Feed Grains Council.
       U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
       U.S. Meat Export Federation.
       U.S. Rice Producers Association.
       U.S. Wheat Associates.
       Vinifera Wine Growers Association.
       Vodka Producers of America.
       Washington Apple Commission.
       Western Pistachio Association.
       Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association.
       Wine Institute.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the benefit of the record, I quoted 
one of the witnesses who testified before our hearing. The person I 
quoted was Lon Hatimaya, who is Administrator of the Department of 
Agriculture's Foreign Agriculture Service.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, has the distinguished floor manager yielded 
the floor? Apparently the answer is yes. Mr. President, if I might be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I find myself in agreement with at least 
the concern that is expressed by the able chairman of the subcommittee. 
There is no question that certain agricultural segments in America face 
a real crisis. As I said at the outset of our discussion on this 
amendment, I am not unmindful, I am not unsympathetic, of these 
concerns and, indeed, I expect to support a number of proposals that 
will be advanced to assist American agriculture as it moves through 
this crisis period.
  I do not deny that the decline has demanded, that the turmoil in Asia 
has created a problem, that there are some weather-related phenomena, 
that, indeed, there may be some competitive practices by those who 
compete in the world's international agricultural markets that may be 
decidedly unfair to American agriculture. I am concerned about that as 
a citizen and am prepared to support measures that effectively deal 
with that issue and help American farmers. I am for that.
  I recognize that, as the myth of this program has taken on legendary 
proportions, it is an article of faith, unshaken by factual analysis, 
that somehow the Market Access Program provides additional farm 
employment, expands exports internationally, is a significant 
contributor to the growth of the American economy, and somehow is an 
effective counterweight to some of the unfair competitive practices 
which American agriculture faces abroad.
  Mr. President, the problem with that is that each of those arguments 
has been analyzed in considerable detail, not by the Senator from 
Nevada but by the GAO in its most recent report of September 1997.
  Very simply, what the GAO report concludes is that none of the 
claims, none of the assertions made, can be verified or authenticated--
none; none. The GAO report goes to the heart of the argument that, 
notwithstanding this mythic epic that seems to have arisen that 
suggests that this program is indispensable to American agriculture, 
the GAO report says, ``Look, none of that, none of that can be 
verified.'' That is the basic premise here.
  Yes, I want to be supportive and helpful to American agriculture in 
its time of crisis, but how can you support a program that in 10 years 
has cost the American taxpayer $2.3 billion?
  Let me make it clear--and this is not the subject of debate today, 
and the Senator from Nevada certainly will yield to the Senator from 
Mississippi in terms of his expertise in agricultural programs--but so 
none of my colleagues is somehow under the impression that this Market 
Access Program which I seek to eliminate strikes at the core of what we 
are trying to do to help American agriculture, let me point out that in 
this same 10-year period that we spent $2.3 billion on a program which 
the GAO says does not do what it is intended that it does, or at least 
it cannot verify or authenticate it, we have spent $9 billion on export 
subsidies, $7.8 billion on food aid, $53.1 billion in loan guarantees. 
We have tried to deal with some of the issues which American 
agriculture faces in the international marketplace.
  Point No. 1: If nothing else is taken out of this debate, the GAO 
says this program, notwithstanding the intensity and the passion that 
its advocates share for it, simply doesn't do the things that the 
advocates contend. Point No. 1.
  The second point that I think needs to be raised, even if one 
conceded for the sake of argument--and I do not and the GAO does not--
how can you continue to justify paying $2.5 million to

[[Page S8210]]

the good folks at Sunkist? How do we justify paying $1.5 million to the 
good folks at Blue Diamond Nuts? These are sophisticated, highly 
effective American companies whose products are world class, and, 
notwithstanding the fact that none of these products are grown in my 
State, I think as Americans we take great pride in their success, and 
the fact these products are found in the storefronts in the markets of 
the world, that is wonderful, but how do we justify subsidizing with 
taxpayer dollars? These companies have advertising budgets of tens of 
millions of dollars--probably much more than that. So the American 
taxpayer is asked to write a check to subsidize these advertising 
accounts.
  This program is not an export subsidy, it is an advertising subsidy. 
The point I make in response to the point of my able colleague from 
Mississippi is, No. 1, the GAO says it doesn't accomplish what it says 
it is designed to accomplish; and, No. 2, the philosophical point, 
notwithstanding all of our attempts to reform this program that it 
ought to be confined--I don't think it ought to be in existence--to 
small companies, still when you look at the top 10 companies that 
receive these dollars, small businesses receive only $825,000 of the 
$7,816,000 that went to these top 10 applicants.
  Notwithstanding what we attempted to do in previous years, in effect, 
large companies continue to be the beneficiaries of a substantial 
amount of taxpayers' dollars to supplement their advertising accounts.
  My good friend and I have an honest difference of opinion. I think 
that is wrong. I am willing to work with and to support Members from 
agricultural States in trying to do something that makes sense, that 
works, that can be helpful, but at this point the GAO has concluded 
that none of the claims has any validity. I think it is very difficult 
to continue as we have for the last decade where we spent $2.3 billion 
on this program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3157

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Bryan, in my opinion, is a meritorious amendment. He and I 
fought this battle. I fought it for maybe 3 or 4 years alone, and then 
Senator Bryan came to the Senate, and we have labored in the venue of 
trying to do away with what was then the Market Promotion Program and 
now called the Market Access Program.
  I have absolutely no quarrel with trying to assist people who really 
need help. The Export Enhancement Program isn't being used. It is a big 
program, but it isn't being used. When I started on this, the Market 
Promotion Program included the biggest companies in America, and that 
is the source of my objection.
  I am talking about some of the biggest corporations in America. And I 
see my good friend, Tyson Foods, is on the list still. I am sure they 
welcome getting $440,000 a year. Tyson Foods does over $5 billion a 
year, and I certainly do not want to pick on a company in my home 
State, particularly one that has so many of my close friends in it. But 
that is precisely the reason I have always objected to this program. I 
know that it does some good.
  I heard the chairman, Senator Cochran, talking a while ago about some 
of the benefits of it, and who has benefited, and how much, and so 
on. I just think it is welfare for the rich. That is the reason I have 
always opposed it.

  Senator Cochran and I disagree. I guess this is about the only 
thing--maybe one or two things--we will disagree on in this entire 
bill. We get along famously in the committee, but this is one that I 
simply could not let my dear friend, Senator Bryan, take on alone. I 
just wanted to get my 2 cents' worth in and to state that I will vote 
with Senator Bryan on this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Market 
Access Program. This program continues to be a vital and important part 
of U.S. trade policy aimed at maintaining and expanding U.S. 
agricultural exports, countering subsidized foreign competition, 
strengthening farm income and protecting American jobs.
  The Market Access Program has been a tremendous success by any 
measure. Since the program was established, U.S. agricultural exports 
have doubled. In Fiscal Year 1997, U.S. agricultural exports amounted 
to $57.3 billion, resulting in a positive agricultural trade surplus of 
approximately $22 billion and contributing billions of dollars more in 
increased economic activity and additional tax revenues.
  For example, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture received 
$125,000 of Market Access Program funds during the past year. These 
funds were used to promote Idaho and Western United States agricultural 
products in the international markets of China, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, 
Guatemala, and Costa Rica. One particular activity, the promotion of 
western U.S. onions in Central America, required $15,000 of MAP funds 
and generated inquiries for onions valued at $150,000.
  Demand for U.S. agricultural products is growing 4 times greater in 
international markets than domestic markets. MAP has been an enormously 
successful program by any measure in supporting this growth. Since the 
program began in 1985, U.S. agricultural exports have more than 
doubled--reaching a record of nearly $60 billion dollars in 1996; 
contributing to a record agricultural trade surplus of $30 million; and 
providing jobs to over 1 million Americans.
  MAP is a key element in the 1996 Farm Bill, which gradually reduces 
direct income support over 7 years. Accordingly, farm income is now 
more dependent than ever on exports and maintaining access to foreign 
markets.
  Two years ago, European Union (EU) export subsidies amounted to 
approximately $10 billion in U.S. dollars. The EU and other foreign 
competitors also spent nearly $500 million on market promotion. The EU 
spends more on wine promotion than the U.S. spends for all its 
commodities combined.
  Mr. President, the Market Access Program should be fully maintained 
as authorized and aggressively utilized by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to encourage U.S. agricultural exports, strengthen farm 
income, counter subsidized foreign competition and protect American 
jobs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the National Taxpayers Union, the 
Friends of the Earth, Citizens Against Government Waste and other pro-
consumer government watchdog groups in supporting Senator Bryan's 
amendment to terminate the Market Access Program. Throughout the years, 
this wasteful program has sometimes carelessly used taxpayer money to 
help those who can afford to help themselves--instead of this country's 
struggling small farmers.
  Mr. President, over the last ten years, the USDA has shelled out $1.4 
billion for the Market Access Program (MAP), which is intended to 
promote U.S. products abroad. MAP has been roundly criticized for 
giving away millions of taxpayer dollars to agribusiness giants in the 
name of trade, but the program has managed some unusual feats, 
including scaring off foreign consumers. As we face the already 
challenging task of reducing the deficit and preserving Social 
Security, MAP is a program that the federal budget, and the taxpayer, 
can do without.
  I do not need to remind members of the millions of dollars wasted on 
MAP and the programs preceding it. In 1989, we had the Japan/California 
raisin fiasco. The California Raisin Board ran untranslated ads to 
promote their raisins in a market where raisins were rare. Baffled at 
the sight of these strange dancing blobs, many Japanese children were 
frightened. Mr. President, it's safe to say that if the California 
Raisin Board had done any market research, they would not have wasted 
$3 million on those commercials. They wouldn't have been so careless.
  MAP is the kind of program most taxpayers know little or nothing 
about, but we are paying dearly for it. Though the program has 
undergone some changes over the last nine years, it continues to dole 
out money to some of the largest agriculture companies in the country 
with funds that could instead be used to help small farmers.
  Some of the companies receiving MAP funds in fiscal year 1998 include 
Sunkist Growers and Blue Diamond Growers. Both are big companies that 
can afford to market their own products abroad without spending tax 
dollars. The list includes a host of other beneficiaries of MAP's 1998 
$90 million dollar budget, including the California Pistachio 
Commission, the Mohair

[[Page S8211]]

Council of America, Kentucky Distiller's Association and the Wine 
Institute.
  Mr. President, it is true that MAP was changed in the 1996 Farm bill 
to direct funds to cooperatives and trade associations instead of 
corporations, but a loophole still allows the companies that belong to 
those trade associations to continue to receive and spend taxpayer 
funds.
  Mr. President, I believe in supporting and strengthening America's 
position in foreign markets, but when we allocate precious tax dollars 
to be used toward that end, we must spend them on concrete efforts to 
get American products on to the shelves in those markets, instead of 
subsidizing advertising campaigns for major corporations.
  The USDA's own estimates put U.S. agricultural exports in 1998 down 
more than two billion dollars from the previous year. More than ever, 
Wisconsin farmers need the USDA to promote and place U.S. agricultural 
products in foreign markets through more successful export programs, 
not to line the pockets of big agribusiness and Madison Avenue.
  I urge support of the Bryan amendment and yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other Senators who want to 
debate this amendment.
  Let me just state for the information of all Senators the plan, as I 
understand it, that most who are involved have agreed upon, and that is 
to have a vote on a motion to table the Lugar amendment, which will be 
made by Senator Stevens at 6 o'clock, and following that, a vote on a 
motion to table the Bryan amendment, which I intend to make. We will 
have the yeas and nays on both of those amendments.
  It is the suggestion of the managers that if the Lugar amendment is 
not tabled, that that be the pending business following the vote on the 
motion to table the Bryan amendment. I don't want to speculate on how 
the vote on the motion to table the Bryan amendment will come out. The 
last time we voted, it was 59 to 40 in favor of tabling the amendment. 
That vote occurred on July 23, 1997, and it was an amendment to reduce 
the Market Access Program by $20 million. The vote No. was 199.
  So I am making that as an announcement to the Senate. If anyone has 
any comments to the contrary or observations to make about it, we will 
be glad to consider those comments and observations.
  Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator from Mississippi will yield for a moment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BRYAN. The procedure that he outlined is certainly agreeable to 
the Senator from Nevada. He correctly recites the vote, which I greatly 
regret, a year ago. I simply say, this is a time for redemption for 
Senators tonight. Tonight they have an opportunity to exercise that 
redemption. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3156

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lugar 
and others in offering this amendment today. The proposal seeks to 
establish a more balanced, deliberative U.S. policy as regards 
international sanctions.
  Today, nations throughout the world look to the United States for 
leadership. The end of the cold war has clearly left the United States 
as the sole remaining superpower. We are sought after for many reasons: 
Financial assistance, military might, political leadership, and the 
advocacy of democratic ideals.
  When the world looks to us for leadership on international sanctions, 
I am afraid that the administration and Congress have taken steps that 
increasingly have undermined our Government's reputation and influence 
abroad. The tendency--and it is particularly true with regard to 
Congress--to impose sweeping unilateral--that is, we do it alone--
economic sanctions against nations whose behavior we disapprove of, I 
believe, is detrimental to our national interest and certainly has not 
succeeded in producing the results that we seek.
  Let us look at several recent examples. We have heard much about the 
situation with respect to Pakistan, in which the threat of tough, 
mandatory U.S. sanctions did nothing to dissuade the Pakistanis from 
testing nuclear weapons. The 30-year embargo on Cuba, has done nothing 
to hasten the end of the Castro regime or ease the suffering of the 
Cuban people. And just this year, we passed legislation to impose 
sanctions on entities suspected of assisting Iran's missile program.
  Moreover, when our sanctions have been structured to punish countries 
who continue to deal with the rogue nation we are trying to isolate, 
the outcome has been even murkier. All that these secondary sanctions 
end up doing is generating bad feeling among our allies about 
``American imperiousness,'' and precipitating complaints from our 
trading partners to the World Trade Organization. As a result, the 
world's attention turns away from the rogue nation in question, and 
instead focuses on the United States and its actions.
  Mr. President, if Congress continues this habit of imposing, on an ad 
hoc basis, unilateral sanctions against any nation because of a form of 
behavior we find objectionable, our influence in the world will be 
diminished. While sanctions laws may feel good and bolster our sense of 
righteous indignation, sanctions imposed under these laws far too often 
do nothing more than antagonize nations and their peoples, and get us 
into trouble with our trading partners. Moreover, sanctions mean that 
our influence on the region in question drops sharply. And less U.S. 
influence means that the values we hold dear--democratic government, 
market economics and respect for human rights--will not be promoted 
worldwide. There must be a better way.
  I am an original cosponsor of S. 1413, the original Lugar bill to 
make wide-ranging reforms of our laws on unilateral sanctions. The 
amendment before us today, which is based on that legislation, would 
establish procedural guidelines and informational requirements before 
any further unilateral sanctions are imposed. It also provides for 
enhanced consultation between the executive and legislative branches of 
government prior to the imposition of sanctions. Finally, it mandates a 
two-year sunset for such sanctions, unless Congress specifically 
chooses to renew them.
  This amendment does not preclude Congress or the President from 
taking action necessary to achieve vital national security and trade 
objectives. However, it does ensure that such measures first will be 
considered in a thoughtful and responsible manner, and that we at least 
will have some idea as to whether these policies may actually achieve 
their intended goals. Thus, I urge my colleagues to support the Lugar 
amendment.
  I do want to stress that I think it is a great mistake for us to 
embark on these unilateral sanctions as freely as we do. This 
amendment, I believe, is a good one. Furthermore, it says that if we do 
impose sanctions, that there is to be a sunset provision. That sunset 
provision goes into effect after 2 years, unless, of course, Congress 
chooses to renew the sanctions.
  This amendment does not preclude Congress or the United States from 
taking action necessary to achieve vital national security or trade 
objectives, but it does assure that such measures are, first, very 
carefully considered in a responsible manner and that we at least have 
some idea as to whether the policies may actually achieve their stated 
goal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am saddened to have to attempt this, 
but I want to state to the Senate that it is to me a watershed issue 
now for this year. This bill really is going to go into serious 
gyrations if the Lugar amendment is adopted. In the first place, if it 
goes to the House with this amendment, it means an entirely different 
committee will have to review this amendment and it will make 
conferencing this bill very difficult.
  I find myself in the position where I probably support a lot of what 
is in the amendment of the Senator from Indiana. I understand it is a 
bill that was

[[Page S8212]]

introduced and has not moved forward as he would like. We do have a 
task force that was appointed by the leader to look into the problem of 
sanctions; the whole approach of Senator Lugar is under review by that 
task force. We are hopeful we will have a proposal to act on that, we 
will have bipartisan support. Broad support in the Senate would be 
necessary to pass it.
  The Senate, last week, passed legislation that was suggested by a 
group here in the Senate and it has been considered by the House. It 
has been modified and sent to the President to deal with one part of 
the sanctions program. I congratulate the current occupant of the Chair 
for his part in that effort. I think it is an effort that must be made.
  As chairman of this committee, I want to tell the Senate that we are 
approaching the time when we will lose the first week of the August 
recess. We will probably have to come back the first week of September 
and we still won't finish by September 30, if we add to appropriations 
bills full bills that deserve the consideration of the Senate. That 
will add to the time it takes to get the appropriations bills through 
this process.
  I hope that the majority leader will assist in trying to convince 
Members of the Senate, let's not do this this year. There are 
legitimate riders. There are legitimate limitations on expenditures. 
There are legitimate concepts in terms of dealing with the 
appropriations process that we will have to fight out here on the 
floor, but we should not have to fight out here on the floor amendments 
that will require the bill, when it goes to the House, be subject to 
conference by another full committee in the House. It is not right to 
do that, and I hope the Senate will agree with me.
  I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Indiana, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 3156. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Collins
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3156) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for 
recognizing the process we have to follow now to limit the 
consideration of issues that are extraneous to the basic appropriations 
bills so we can get them through.
  I apologize to my friend from Indiana. I do support his effort. But 
we had to take that action.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 3157

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is now my intention to move to table 
the Bryan amendment. Before doing so, the Senator from California has 
asked for 1 minute to speak in opposition to the Bryan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I hope the Senate will vote to table the Bryan amendment for four 
reasons: One, we reformed the program and the proceeds do not any 
longer go to big business; they go to small businesses and 
cooperatives; two, we have cut this program down from a high of $300 
million to about $90 million; three, other countries spend billions of 
dollars promoting their exports; this is the least we can do; and, 
four, for every $1 that we put into this Market Access Program, we get 
back $12 in increased exports. So I hope you will join me in voting to 
table the Bryan amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that the sponsor of the 
amendment, Senator Bryan, be given 1 minute to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would simply make the point that all of 
the assertions and claims that have been made by the advocates for the 
Market Access Program have been considered by the GAO in a report 
released last September. They have rejected all of them. We have spent 
$2.3 billion in the last 10 years and the GAO concludes that they 
cannot establish any benefit of the program. Unfortunately, our attempt 
to reform the program does not prevent the largest businesses in 
America from continuing to have their advertising budgets supplemented 
to the tune of millions and millions of dollars--$5 million subsidizing 
the advertising budget of one of these large companies.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize that this is a program that 
simply does not work and support the Bryan amendment by voting against 
the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Bryan amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Bryan amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Feingold
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Reed

[[Page S8213]]


     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3157) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment to Ban Egg Repackaging

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and 
Senator Bumpers for accepting the amendment I offered to ban egg 
repackaging as part of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This 
amendment is a first step in continuing to ensure the safety of the 
nation's egg supply.
  On April 17, 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture announced a 
prohibition on the repackaging of eggs packed under the United States 
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) voluntary grading program. This 
amendment codifies Secretary Glickman's prohibition which took effect 
on April 27, and affects eggs packed in cartons that bear the USDA 
grade shield.
  A recent ``Dateline NBC'' program focused public attention on the 
repackaging of shell eggs by egg packers, and raised concerns about 
this practice. This amendment will prohibit shell eggs that have left 
the packing plant, and been shipped for sale, from being returned to 
the packing plant for repackaging into USDA shielded cartons. This 
amendment affects the approximately 30% of shell eggs voluntarily 
graded by USDA.
  The amendment also directs that not later than 90 days after the date 
of its enactment, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services shall jointly submit a status report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate. This report is intended to provide the status of actions taken 
to enhance the safety of shell eggs and egg products. The report also 
will provide the status of the prohibition on the repackaging of USDA 
graded eggs, and provide an assessment of the feasibility and 
desirability of applying to all shell eggs, not just USDA graded eggs, 
the prohibition on repackaging in order to enhance food safety, 
consumer information, and consumer awareness.
  The safety of our egg supply is a primary example of the confusing 
array of laws, regulations, and voluntary programs which divides 
regulation among four federal agencies and the states. The legislation 
I have introduced with Senator Torricelli--The Safe Food Act (S.1465)--
focuses attention on the problems of having multiple federal agencies 
with jurisdiction over various food safety laws, and how fragmentation 
and duplication cause waste and confusion. Jurisdiction over eggs is a 
good example of how confusion, overlap, and the lack of coordination 
leave the American public subject to food poisoning outbreaks.
  The health of American families is at risk if we do not work to 
ensure that only safe eggs reach America's store shelves. USDA recently 
reported that each year over 660,000 persons in the United States 
become sick from eating eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis 
(SE). Illnesses from SE can be fatal to the elderly, children, and 
those with weakened immune systems. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, the SE bacteria caused more reported 
deaths between 1988 and 1992 than any other foodborne pathogen. The 
Center for Science in the Public Interest estimated an annual cost of 
illness from SE at $118 million to $767 million.
  Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with the safest and 
most abundant food supply in the world. However, we can do better. This 
amendment to ban egg repackaging will help advance the federal 
government's commitment to continue providing Americans with the safest 
food supply.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers for the work they have 
been doing, the progress they have made and the two votes we just had. 
We have been working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to 
identify what amendments we can do tonight. Senator Daschle has been 
working with me on this. So I announce the proposed lineup for the next 
few amendments to be considered tonight. I think it is important we 
keep working so we can complete this very important legislation for the 
Agriculture Department and the farmers of America.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the next first-degree amendments in order and limited to 
relevant second-degree amendments: Senator Kerrey of Nebraska regarding 
livestock; Senator Johnson regarding meat labeling; Senator Dodd 
regarding sanctions; Senator Graham regarding disaster assistance; and 
Senator Torricelli regarding sanctions.
  I further ask unanimous consent that if debate is concluded and a 
rollcall vote is requested that the amendment or amendments be laid 
aside to recur in the order in which they were debated, and the votes 
occur beginning at 8:45 with 2 minutes of debate equally divided before 
each vote begins.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and it is 
only for clarification and one suggestion, I ask the majority leader 
whether the order could be Dodd, Torricelli, Johnson and Kerrey?
  Mr. LOTT. I guess we did say in that order, but that order can be 
rearranged, unless the manager has a problem.
  Mr. COCHRAN. For clarification, the 8:45 time that the majority 
leader indicated for the vote will be this evening rather than in the 
morning?
  Mr. LOTT. At 8:45 p.m. tonight. That will give Senators a chance to 
have a meal that they might have agreed to have and also give the 
managers time to work through these amendments, but lock in their 
conclusion, and then that will be it for tonight after that block of 
votes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also ask if the majority leader will 
object to dividing the time for the four amendments equally between now 
and 8:45?
  Mr. LOTT. Is the Senator suggesting each amendment get the same 
amount of time? Mr. President, I do want to amend my unanimous consent 
request to comply with the lineup that Senator Daschle asked for. Will 
the Senator repeat that? What order?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was going to suggest Senator Dodd, Senator Torricelli, 
Senator Johnson, Senator Graham and Senator Kerrey.
  Mr. LOTT. Unless the managers have an objection, I amend my unanimous 
consent request to that extent.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the leader clarify for me the time in opposition 
to Senator Dodd, who will be controlling time?
  Mr. LOTT. It will be controlled by Senator Cochran, the opponent of 
the amendment, but I am sure he will be very fair in the disposition of 
that time so that others can speak against that amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. His disposition looks very fair, so I withdraw the 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 3158

   (Purpose: To exempt agricultural products, medicines and medical 
                equipment from U.S. economic sanctions)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grams and Mr. 
     Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3158.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is the Senator from Kansas 
objecting?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I want, Mr. President, to offer an amendment in the 
second degree.

[[Page S8214]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the dispensing with the 
reading of the amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill at the following new 
     section:
       Sec.    (A) Findings.--(1) Prohibiting or otherwise 
     restricting the donations or sales of food, other 
     agricultural products, medicines or medical equipment in 
     order to sanction a foreign government for actions or 
     policies that the United States finds objectionable 
     unnecessarily harms innocent populations in the targetted 
     country and rarely causes the sanctioned government to alter 
     its actions or policies.
       (2) For the United States as a matter of U.S. policy to 
     deny access to United States food, other agricultural 
     products, medicines and medical equipment by innocent men, 
     women and children in other countries weakens the 
     international leadership and moral authority of the United 
     States.
       (3) Sanctions on the sale or donations of American food, 
     other agricultural products, medicine or medical equipment 
     needlessly harm American farmers and workers employed in 
     these sectors by foreclosing markets for these United States 
     products.
       (B)(1) Exclusion From Sanctions. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall not restrict or 
     otherwise prohibit any exports (including financing) of food, 
     other agricultural products (including fertilizer), medicines 
     or medical equipment as part of any policy of existing or 
     future unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a 
     foreign government.
       (2) Exceptions. Section (B)(1) of this section shall not 
     apply to any regulations or restrictions of such products for 
     health or safety purposes or during periods of domestic 
     shortages of such products.
       (C) Effective Date. This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this act.

  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President.


                Amendment No. 3159 to Amendment No. 3158

  (Purpose: To perfect the amendment exempting agricultural products, 
     medicines and medical equipment from U.S. economic sanctions)

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have an amendment in the second degree 
that I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3159 to amendment No. 3158.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment an 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(A) Findings. (1) Prohibiting or otherwise restricting 
     the donations or sales of food, other agricultural products, 
     medicines or medical equipment in order to sanction a foreign 
     government for actions or policies that the United States 
     finds objectionable unnecessarily harms innocent populations 
     in the targeted country and rarely causes the sanctioned 
     government to alter its actions or policies.
       (2) For the United States as a matter of U.S. policy to 
     deny access to United States food, other agricultural 
     products, medicines and medical equipment by innocent men, 
     women and children in other countries weakens the 
     international leadership and moral authority of the United 
     States.
       (3) Sanctions on the sale or donations of American food, 
     other agricultural products, medicine or medial equipment 
     needlessly harm American farms and workers employed in these 
     sectors by foreclosing markets for these United States 
     products.
       (B)(1) Exclusion from Sanctions. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall not restrict or 
     otherwise prohibit any exports (including financing), of 
     food, other agricultural products (including fertilizer), 
     medicines or medical equipment as part of any policy of 
     existing or future unilateral economic sanctions imposed 
     against a foreign government.
       (2) Exceptions. Section (B)(1) of this section shall not 
     apply to any regulations or restrictions with respect to such 
     products for health or safety purposes or during periods of 
     domestic shortages of such products.
       (C) Effective date. This section shall take effect one day 
     after the date of enactment of this section into law.''.

  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment and the second-degree 
amendment, which fills out the tree on behalf of myself, Senator 
Warner, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator Dorgan, Senator Grams 
and Senator Harkin.
  Very simply, what this amendment does is codify what Members have 
expressed over the last several days that they would like to see 
accomplished worldwide. We eliminated last week the use of food and 
medicine to people as a sanction in the case of Pakistan and India. We 
felt that was an unwise use of the sanctions; that average people, poor 
people should not suffer at the hands of our Nation despite the 
decisions made by the power elite in their own nations.
  What my colleagues and I who have offered this amendment today are 
suggesting is that same principle ought to be applied worldwide. It is 
counter to everything we stand for as a people--everything we stand 
for. To deny people anywhere in the world food and medicine--basic food 
and medicine--runs contrary to the moral values that we embrace as a 
people.
  Whatever anger we may feel and properly focus on the leadership of 
nations, we should not cause the innocent people of those nations to 
suffer as a result of our policies. For far too long, we have allowed 
the use of food and medicine to be used. There are only two or three 
countries in the world that today allow their food and their medicine 
to be used as a tool in foreign policy or as part of a sanctions 
policy.
  Tonight we have an opportunity to change that law, to say that with 
regard to any sanctions policy, whatever other tools we may want to use 
depriving countries of certain economic issues, technical equipment, 
military hardware, availability of our lending institutions--whatever 
else we may want to use--that food and medicine will not be a part of 
that mix.
  I hope no one has any illusion that in the case of a Saddam Hussein 
or a Fidel Castro or the leaders of North Korea, the leaders of Iran, I 
guarantee you tonight that they are eating well. I promise you that if 
they get sick, they get medicine and they see doctors.
  Too often, we have allowed our foreign policy to also work against 
the innocent people who live in these regimes, in these terrorist 
countries. If this amendment is adopted, I am told that there will be 
an amendment offered immediately thereafter which will say that this 
provision should not apply to terrorist countries. None of us want 
anything to do with terrorist countries, but does anyone in this 
Chamber or America believe that the average Iraqi citizen, that the 
average citizen in Iran, that the average citizen in Cuba or North 
Korea, despite the leadership of their nation, should suffer because 
their leaders may engage in activities which are cruel or support 
terrorist activities?
  I happen to believe that ought not to be the case; that the use of 
food and medicine ought not to be a vehicle in the conduct of our 
foreign policy.
  Mr. President, it was noted earlier today that we have become 
extremely generous in the application of the sanctions policy. Since 
World War II, there have been 100 occasions where the United States has 
imposed sanctions. More than 60 percent of those sanctions have 
occurred since 1993.
  And 61 U.S. laws and Executive orders have been enacted authorizing 
various types of unilateral economic sanctions against 35 countries in 
the name of foreign policy. The sanctioned countries comprise 42 
percent of the world's population. Roughly 2.3 billion people--
potential customers of U.S. goods and services--are being affected.
  Mr. President, I suggest that to deprive these people of foodstuffs--
I hear that one of the reasons that our farmers are not doing well in 
this country is because of the difficulty in foreign sales. Aside from 
the legitimate concern about seeing to it that innocent people are not 
going to be deprived of food and medicine, here is an opportunity to be 
able to sell some products that can actually benefit the people in 
these countries.
  Why not take an argument away from those terrorist leaders, those 
dictators, who constantly want to point to us, the United States, as 
the reason their economies are in trouble? Why not say this evening 
that: You can no longer point an accusing finger at America when it 
comes to the issue of your children, your innocent women,

[[Page S8215]]

your innocent civilians, from getting food or medicine? We no longer 
use that tool in our foreign policy. If your people are suffering, it 
is not because the United States is banning the exportation of food and 
medicine. It is because of the economic policies of your own 
leadership.
  Tonight, no matter how angry and legitimate that anger may be at a 
dictator or a terrorist leader of a country, let us not say to the poor 
people who have to live under those dictators and terrorists that the 
United States, as a result of our own policies, will deny you the 
opportunity to get decent food and decent medicine.
  Let us not be a part of only two or three other nations--Third World 
countries--that I can find who use that kind of a vehicle in the 
conduct of their foreign policy. There is not a single member of the 
industrialized world, the civilized world, that utilizes food and 
medicine. We are the only example of it.
  Tonight we have an opportunity, across the board, to eliminate the 
use of food and medicine as a part of our sanctions policy--still have 
sanctions, still deprive them, if you will, of the advantage of our 
engineering, our technology, our military hardware, but we are not 
going to say that food ought to be a part of that.
  Let us join the rest of the world in eliminating that. We, the United 
States of America, we, the nation who embraces, with great legitimacy, 
the issue of human rights where innocents are involved, where the meals 
and the food they need and the medicine they require are involved, we 
are not going to be the nation that deprives them of the opportunity to 
use some of the best products in the world.
  Mr. President, the world looks to us, particularly in the area of 
medical devices and medicines. And to deprive poor people of an 
opportunity to get some of those medicines, to get some of the food--
the best grown in the world--I think would be a tragedy. Mr. President, 
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  I note my colleagues are here from Nebraska and Kansas and may want 
to be heard on this issue. I yield the floor and request how much time 
may remain.
  We don't have time agreements, do we? No time agreements?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). There is no time agreement on the 
amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in regard to the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, this institution should take 
some pause. This is some moment. Thirty years of American foreign 
policy by Democrats and Republicans are about to be put aside. The 
consequences of what Senator Dodd suggests that we do here are 
enormous. Consider the moment.
  These are not isolated humanitarian items. This would open trade for 
the United States of America with the greatest rogue regimes in the 
world, where Presidents of the United States, through 3 decades, have 
drawn the line and said that we will not do business with these 
governments unless and until they take specific actions to free their 
people, allow basic human rights, or make basic concessions in their 
relations with the United States. We are about to clear the table and 
tell them all is forgotten and all is forgiven.
  Consider the actions, Mr. President, through the years about what 
would be changed. In my State, perhaps more than most in this country, 
tonight every Member of this Senate would have to address the families 
of the victims of Pan Am 103. It has been clear to Mr. Qadhafi, until 
he brings those to justice who were responsible for destroying that 
aircraft and the lives of all of those families, there will not be 
trade with the United States on a bilateral basis.
  With the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, the war of wills 
in which we have been engaged with Mr. Qadhafi, even now while he is 
discussing bringing those murderers to justice--we proceed. The line 
that was drawn those years ago is now erased.
  With the Sudan--another terrorist state to which now we would sell 
food and medicines, engage in normal commerce; it harbors Hezbollah 
guerrillas, the assassins who attempted to kill President Mubarak of 
Egypt; we were so brave in those days, the United States was so 
forthcoming in drawing this line--all is forgotten and forgiven.
  In North Korea--just when we have succeeded in getting the North 
Koreans to come to the table and enter into an agreement to stop the 
development of atomic weapons and try to get some responsible 
behavior--no need for the negotiations, we are now going to engage in 
commerce.
  With Syria--its harboring of terrorism against Israel; its occupation 
in Lebanon--we will now engage in commerce.
  And Iraq--at the moment, sanctions against Iraq are multinational.
  But every Member of this Senate knows that the day is fast 
approaching when America could stand alone. Inspectors would be barred, 
our military would be barred from the skies. And the United States 
would have to have its own sanctions. And this amendment--even though 
Saddam Hussein has been identified again as a terrorist regime and 
America could be alone in its sanctions --here we would engage in 
commerce.
  It has been contended to the Senate that we do this as a decent 
people because the real victims here are the poor of all these nations. 
That indeed is not fair, Mr. President, to this country or this 
Government, because, indeed, while we maintain sanctions on each of 
these terrorist States, for good and sound reasons that I have 
outlined, this Government has gone to every length to protect the poor 
of the poor.
  In North Korea, the shipment of 800,000 tons of food, only on the 
condition that we know who is getting the food and that it is not going 
to the North Korean military. But it is not fair that the poor of the 
poor of North Korea are victimized because of our embargo--800,000 tons 
of food distributed to the poor.
  And the Sudan, one of the poorest nations in the world--Senator Dodd 
is right, the poor of the poor should not be victimized because that 
Government harbors terrorists and assassinates foreign leaders. And so 
we have approved $76 million in food assistance, only on the condition 
that we know that it gets to the poor of the poor.
  And in Iraq, $2.8 billion worth of food and medicine, only on the 
condition that it not go to Saddam Hussein, that it not go to the 
elite, that it not support the Iraqi military--just that it go to the 
poor of the poor under U.N. inspections.
  The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, if indeed we at one 
point predictably stand alone against Saddam Hussein, our food sales 
will not just go to the poor of the poor, they will go to the entire 
Iraqi establishment.
  As the author of the modern Cuban embargo, I make no apologies in 
this case, either. The United States provides more food and medicine 
per capita to Cuba than any nation in the world provides to any other 
nation of the world, bar none. No Member of this Senate has any 
apologies to make for American support of the poor of the poor in Cuba. 
In the last 12 months alone, there were 123 licenses to ship food and 
medicine to Cuba, worth $2.5 billion. I challenge any Member of the 
Senate to find any country more generous than the United States of 
America, giving to any adversary, more generously than we have to the 
people of Cuba.
  We have a license program and we have a license program for a reason, 
rather than unrestricted sales of food and medicine, as the Senator 
from Connecticut suggests. The reason is because we found when those 
food and medicines are not licensed, Mr. Castro has resold them or used 
them to support his own military establishment, like Saddam Hussein. 
There is no denial of food and medicine. We simply are requiring that 
it be done properly.
  Senator Helms and I, with other colleagues, have joined in this 
Congress in an alternative to Senator Dodd's proposal. Humanitarian 
shipments go to Cuba through the church and are licensed, on an 
unrestricted basis--simply that we know who is distributing them, the 
church, humanitarian organizations, not the Communist Party

[[Page S8216]]

and not Fidel Castro. It is a question of control.
  It is argued, finally, that these sanctions, this restriction on 
commerce with terrorist regimes should be lifted because they don't 
succeed. On the contrary. The record is otherwise. Sanctions on South 
Africa to end apartheid, to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to allow Soviet 
Jews to leave Russia, to restrictions on Vietnam until they cooperated 
with POWs, the record is that, while imprecise, while offering no 
guarantees, economic sanctions, including the leverage on our greatest, 
most successful export products, foods and pharmaceutical products, can 
and do yield results. No one should assume, no one should believe that 
they work in every case or work quickly. But the historic record is 
that they are an alternative to military action.
  Where would Ronald Reagan--or George Bush--have been when Pan Am 103 
was shot down, if he did not have the opportunity to have economic 
sanctions and this leverage? There would be nothing available but 
military action. Where would we have been after the shoot down of an 
American aircraft 2 years ago in the Straits over Cuba, if the 
President could not have tightened economic sanctions?
  No, they are not perfect, but they give the President added authority 
and weight to change policy. Every one of the countries most impacted 
by Senator Dodd's amendment in the course of the last year and every 
year for the last 5 years has been identified by the State Department 
as a source of terrorism against the international community, every 
country I have mentioned on this floor tonight.
  Is it really the intention of this Senate, after all these years of 
claiming that we had the will to fight this war on terrorism, we were 
as resolved as Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, after all 
these years, now we are to say to them we have lost our will, we 
changed our minds? If that is the intention of the Senate, at least 
have the intellectual honesty to come to the floor, repeal the 
terrorism list, repeal sanctions entirely, because that is the effect 
of this statement. We will identify you as a terrorist, we will claim 
you are killing our citizens, harboring assassins, but we are glad to 
trade with you.

  I recognize that sometimes it is necessary, unfortunately, that the 
United States stand alone. Only Britain and the United States are still 
remembering the victims of Lockerbie; only the United States, the 
people who are jailed in Cuba. Only the United States may have the 
resolve to see it through with Saddam Hussein. That is too bad. But if 
the end result is the United States has to stand alone against these 
terrorist regimes, then we never stood in better company. We can be 
proud that we alone remember the victims and we alone are going to 
impose a price for those who violate international law and victimize 
people.
  But let it not be said, however, the Members may vote on this 
amendment, that any of us were a party to the poorest of the poor, and 
the hungry being victimized by our foreign policy, because those 
simply, my colleagues, are not the facts--from the tons of wheat that 
goes to North Korea to the pharmaceutical products licensed and 
distributed in Cuba.
  My colleagues, consider carefully this amendment. This is not a 
question of the Clinton administration. It is policies and embargoes 
that go back as far as John F. Kennedy. It is not just a question of a 
couple of governments. It is virtually every nation on the terrorist 
list. It is not simply a question of taking the stand because of an 
isolated incident, like Pan Am 103 or a disagreement with Saddam 
Hussein. They are issues as serious as preventing another Persian Gulf 
war by using our leverage and continuing leverage on North Korea to 
cooperate on a missile regime and on atomic weapons.
  This is, indeed, a serious matter. I hope if an amendment is offered 
to table Senator Dodd's amendment, as I am informed may happen, 
Democrat and Republicans, on a bipartisan basis, will not only vote to 
table the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, but it will do so 
in an expression of true and strong resolve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank you, Mr. President.
  I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Dodd as a coauthor of 
this legislation, along with Senator Hagel and Senator Biden, and many 
other Senators. As has been stated, it does provide a broad exclusion 
for all food and medical products in regard to unilateral sanctions.
  Now, I want to emphasize that right away--unilateral sanctions, not 
multilateral sanctions. You would hope that if you are going to put any 
sanction on a country that works, that is effective, or the pragmatic 
result results in some kind of policy change that is in the best 
interest of our national security, that would have the support of your 
allies. It is only when you have unilateral sanctions that this bill 
applies.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Delighted to yield.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to add, it is unilateral economic 
sanctions, so it is even more narrow. This does not apply to sanctions 
across the board but unilateral economic sanctions. If on a national 
security basis some of the advisors and the President want to impose 
the sanction, he would be allowed to. Only when we impose unilateral 
economic sanctions is this tool taken off the table.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator and the author of the bill for that 
explanation. I hope that would take away some of the concern as 
expressed by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  This amendment recognizes that until the United States is literally 
at war or we have a national security problem with another country--and 
certainly terrorism fits into that category--there is no positive 
benefit in denying the most meager necessities of life, food and 
medicine, to the people of this world. Certainly it doesn't benefit the 
sick and hungry, Mr. President.
  In regard to the people of Africa and Asia, and blocking the sale of 
food and medicine, it does severely damage, I think, America's image in 
the eyes of people across the globe. As a matter of fact, as a member 
of the Transatlantic Partnership, which is an organization dedicated to 
better understanding between the peoples and the parliamentarians of 
Europe and the United States, this subject comes up again and again and 
again. Why are you basically hurting the people who are most 
disadvantaged in any kind of a unilateral sanction that makes no sense 
in terms of any policy change?
  So I think the world must know that the U.S. Government and the 
American people care about what goes on outside our borders, and the 
world must also know that the United States stands ready to provide 
food and medicine--on commercial terms--to anybody, any time, any 
place, unless there is national security involved, and unless we have a 
situation like the Senator from New Jersey pointed out with regard to 
terrorist activities or exporting terrorism. This amendment represents 
one very critical component of what is becoming a sweeping debate on 
the use of acting unilaterally--and I emphasize unilateral--all by 
ourselves, in U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions serve no 
purpose other than to hurt the U.S. businesses and workers and to 
diminish U.S. strength and prestige.

  I firmly believe that the Congress and the administration must 
continue to work together on a broad-based effort to reassess all 
instances of unilateral sanctions. This amendment would represent an 
excellent step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, with a few add-ons, those are my prepared remarks. I 
want to respond to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. The 
Senator from New Jersey indicated that for the last three decades the 
Presidents of the United States have reaffirmed in each and every case 
unilateral sanctions, including the use of food and medicine. To a 
certain degree, I think that is true, because it was in 1980, when 
President Carter was President, that this issue really hit a flash 
point. President Carter, thinking of the terrible tragedy when the 
former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, decided we would cancel out of 
the Olympics. He also decided he would put on a grain embargo. I know 
that the President intended on sending a strong message to the former 
Soviet Union. I know President Carter hoped that the perception in the 
world community would be such that somehow the Russians would change 
their policy. And they did not.

[[Page S8217]]

  I will tell you who was hurt in that particular instance by the 
Carter grain embargo--and I am not trying to perjure it; I am saying 
this happened in terms of a pragmatic effect. It was like shattered 
glass and it headed us toward the farm crisis of the 1980s, in some 
ways, and it took us years to get back contract sanctity to the point 
that our exports made anything. We had an excellent Olympics; I think 
it was in L.A. Americans won a great many battles and medals. But I can 
tell you that, in terms of perception, it didn't do a thing. No Russian 
troop ever left Afghanistan.
  Now, that was a terrible tragedy. Again, we were using unilateral 
sanctions, and we were using the farmer and rancher with regard to that 
price. I submit to you that if you want to put sanctions on people, all 
American taxpayers should pay for it, not just farmers and ranchers. 
That is called an embargo. I can tell you that you can spell embargo S-
A-N-C-T-I-O-N-S. No country that has sanctions put on them 
unilaterally, regardless of what progress we are making in terms of 
whatever objective we are trying to achieve, will buy from us as long 
as that is available from other countries. That is precisely what is 
happening regarding the countries where we have the unilateral 
sanctions.
  Look at Pakistan. Thank goodness, we acted on this 98-0 this week in 
the Senate. They have a wheat tender. Guess who was standing in line. 
There was the French. They were going to buy the wheat from the French. 
They may anyway. We acted wisely and we said, ``This isn't going to 
work. Why are we hurting the American farmer or rancher or, for that 
matter, anybody in the business community when the sanctions 
don't work?'' Yes, it has been 30 years of a broad policy, trying to 
look at sanctions to see if they are going to work. But the fact is 
that was started with the Carter embargo. I must say that it took 
President Reagan 2 years to get around to getting contract sanctity. In 
the meantime, we suffered great harm in terms of farm country.

  So I say to my distinguished friend from New Jersey, you are darn 
right, it has been a 30-year policy and, for the most part, it hasn't 
worked. Now, in terms of terrorism, I personally agree. Libya? I would 
hope that we would have multilateral sanctions. I would hope the world 
community would understand that Mr. Qadhafi and Libya have, in the 
past, exported terrorism. I might add that one of the reasons it has 
been so successful in terms of keeping him under wraps is that the 
administration at the time sent a strong message to Mr. Qadhafi. He 
woke up one morning to find that part of the place where he spent most 
of his time to watch television and do other matters was no longer 
there. All of a sudden, he got the message. He probably scratched his 
head and said, ``Had I been sitting there, it might have been a little 
different.'' And then he calmed down right away. Have we gotten to the 
bottom of all of the tragedies that he has inspired? No. Are we ready 
to sell him product, i.e., Kansas wheat, or any other product? No, 
because his behavior is such that we feel it is in our national 
security interest not to do that.
  I agree with the Senator from New Jersey with regard to food 
products. They are fungible. What happens is, if you are able to 
arrange a sale, or for a humanitarian purpose you provide food, 
obviously, they have the ability in a totalitarian state to simply use 
that for other purposes, and they can continue whatever practices they 
may have. But in the end result, the people who are at the lowest 
levels are the people who get hurt--the women, children, all of the 
people mentioned by Senator Dodd.
  So while it is fungible, I think, with regard to agriculture and 
medicine, the basic question you have to figure out here is, are we 
using agriculture as a tool for peace? Or are we using agriculture as a 
foreign policy weapon? I can tell you that, for too many years now, we 
have used agriculture as a foreign policy weapon--to the detriment of 
farmers and ranchers, for no apparent reason, with no pragmatic result, 
with the nations that we are now talking about.
  I might add that there are some moderating forces that are now at 
work in Iran. And I might add that when I went to Saudi Arabia with 
Chairman Stevens and six other Senators, we asked the Saudis--we made 
indirect inquiries, and we were working with the Secretary of State to 
make further indirect inquiries: Could we help the forces of moderation 
in Iran by offering agriculture as a tool for peace? Would that work? 
Could they increase their diet, basic protein diet, so they are better 
off, and become, hopefully, more dependent on the United States with 
regard to their basic needs and their food supplies?
  Think what could happen if we would use agriculture as a tool for 
peace, as opposed to a weapon, on a selective basis. The Senator from 
New Jersey mentioned Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I think it is 
disingenuous to say that the people who support this amendment somehow 
support Saddam Hussein. We are now allowing Iraq and Saddam Hussein to 
export as much oil as they did prior to the gulf war. They, in turn, 
used the cash that we allowed them to expend regarding oil sales to buy 
wheat in regard to the French. Hello. Why does that make any sense? If 
we are going to sanction Iraq under a banner of, well, everything 
except something that is humanitarian, and we say you can sell this oil 
to achieve humanitarian needs, food and medicine, i.e., food products, 
agriculture products, and they buy from our competitors, that doesn't 
make any sense. If you have sanctions, it seems to me you ought to make 
them across the board. We didn't do that. We backed off of that. There 
is a whole history as to where we are with Iraq and the United Nations 
and plans by the administration to have a limited armed conflict and 
where we are with that. I am not going to second guess that. But let's 
don't say that since we support this amendment, we support Saddam 
Hussein.
  North Korea--if there ever was a totalitarian regime that is rather 
bizarre in its nature, it is North Korea. I have been in North Korea. I 
went to Pyongyang to meet with the North Koreans, along with Senator 
Stevens, Senator Inouye, and others. We met with representatives of the 
North Korean Government. We were trying to arrange a grain sale by a 
third-party country so they could somehow get an experience of trading 
with other nations--moderate, a little. That is a tough chore, I will 
tell you--what is happening in North Korea. We saw children who are 16 
and 17 whose growth and whose stature really represents somebody who is 
11 or 12. We saw young people marching out into the fields to plant 
some kind of crops and to hunt for grubs. We saw no animals whatsoever, 
not even a pigeon, not a dog, not a cow, not any kind of a farm 
animal. Bark on the trees was taken off up to that height.

  Do you know who is helping the North Koreans? It is the World Food 
group led by Catherine Bertini.
  So the United States, what we do under a humanitarian banner is we 
say, All right. We will contribute X amount of dollars. We will give it 
to the World Food organization. They, in turn, will buy grain on the 
open market. They will give the grain, then, to the North Koreans. Is 
there any real guarantee that they are going to use it for that? No. 
But under the circumstances the situation was so dire that I think that 
happened, to some degree.
  So here we are expending money to the World Food group who, in turn, 
uses it to provide the humanitarian aid. I am not in a position to say 
that we are going to say to North Korea that we are going to enter into 
any kind of trade negotiations. That is a very oppressive regime. It is 
probably the most Stalinist, if I can use that word, I guess, regime in 
the entire country. And Kim Chong-il, ``The Dear Leader,'' has no 
illusions otherwise. Now, however, we have the South Koreans making 
overtures that if the North Koreans will finally behave themselves, 
there might be a glimmer of change in North Korea. Could it well be 
that we could use agriculture once again as a tool for peace? I do not 
know. But the bottom line is that the President under this bill --under 
the Dodd-Roberts bill, under the Dodd-Roberts-Hagel-Biden bill--has the 
authority to come in and say, if this is in our national security--if, 
in fact, the export of terrorism is such that this is really something 
that is not in our national interest, he can do so.

[[Page S8218]]

  Why on Earth on unilateral sanctions we continue to shoot ourselves 
in the foot and make agriculture and farmers and ranchers pay for this 
when the fact is it is not working is beyond me.
  Again, I say this is not an effort by Senators in some kind of 
disingenuous fashion to encourage terrorism, or to encourage rogue 
states or pariah states. Nobody wants to do that. But when you have an 
opportunity to use agriculture again as a tool for peace, I think we 
ought to do it.
  I appreciate this opportunity to take this time. I thank my 
colleagues for their indulgence.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I wonder if the 
Senator from Connecticut would yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, it appears the 
operative language in the amendment--I hope this is the most current 
version--says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any exports 
(including financing) of food, other agricultural products (including 
fertilizer), medicines or medical equipment as part of any policy of 
existing or future unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a 
foreign government.''
  That is really the most operative paragraph of this amendment, is it 
not?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's question, that 
is correct. That is the language of the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. The reason I raise that question is that during the 
course of the debate there have been some questions raised about 
whether we are restricting the power of the United States to deal with 
questions of terrorism and national security.
  I want to ask the lead sponsor of this amendment to explain, if he 
will, what he means in using the term ``unilateral economic 
sanctions.'' Do we, in fact, preclude this President, or any future 
President, if we adopt this amendment, from imposing sanctions for 
purposes of national security or national defense?
  Mr. DODD. Absolutely not, Mr. President; none whatsoever. To 
characterize the amendment as such is completely misleading, or as not 
to have read it at all. It only applies to unilateral economic 
sanctions. For instance, this amendment does nothing with regard to the 
multilateral sanctions on Iraq. Those are not unilateral sanctions. 
Those are multilateral sanctions that apply to that country. So it only 
applies there. If the President, this President, or any future 
President, wants to apply sanctions on some basis other than economic, 
they may utilize this tool. We are merely removing it from the 
unilateral economic sanctions.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask the Senator to give me a little more 
information, should this President, or any future President, decide 
that another nation is guilty of terrorism against the citizens of the 
United States, and he seeks to apply sanctions against that country, 
would that President be precluded from including in those sanctions a 
prohibition against shipping food and medicine?
  Mr. DODD. None whatsoever, I say to my colleague.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for making that 
point clear, because I would like to join him and the Senator from 
Kansas, as he says, in making a very clear record hear that none of us 
intend to in any way restrict the power of the President--this one, or 
any future President--to fight terrorism, or to stand firmly in 
opposition to nuclear proliferation or anything that might in any way 
assault the integrity of the United States or the integrity of any 
American citizen.
  I rise in support of this amendment that has been offered by Senator 
Dodd, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, and Senator Biden in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  The seat that I usually occupy over here is a desk once occupied by 
Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota. Senator Humphrey of Minnesota was 
from an agricultural State, and said in the darkest days of the cold 
war when the United States was engaged in massive troop commitments in 
Europe to protect against the possible encroachment of communism, when 
we were fixated in our foreign policy of the possibility of Soviet 
expansionism, said that we should be willing to trade anything they 
can't shoot back at us, and on that basis promoted the idea of 
agricultural trade.
  You may remember visits by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States to 
farms in Iowa during the midst of the cold war and the suggestions that 
we should still engage in trade involving food with a nation that was, 
in fact, our mortal enemy, the U.S.S.R. A lot of us in the Farm Belt 
felt that this was a reasonable means to provide some exchange not only 
of goods but of ideas. We felt that it also said to the average Soviet 
citizen that the United States of America represented people who not 
only had a bounty to share but were willing to do it despite our clear 
political differences.
  Senator Humphrey inspired a policy which was followed by Democrats 
and Republicans for years. Soviet grain sales was a major source of 
discussion, even during the height of the cold war. I guess when 
President Reagan announced that the Soviet Union was the ``Evil 
Empire,'' we were still dealing in grain. We believed we could deal in 
food and still have a serious difference in terms of political 
philosophy.
  Does it make a difference? Are we kidding ourselves to believe that 
if American food products should be sent to another country it has any 
impact? I think it does.
  Eight years ago I went to India. Outside of Calcutta in a dusty 
little village I visited a site where some of America's agricultural 
products were being sent. It was a little facility where children--tiny 
little emaciated children--were being brought in for what, in effect, 
was their best meal of the day. I looked, and was somewhat amused to 
find that the bag of grain came from Peoria, IL. Imagine my pride that 
what we had grown in Peoria--the corn, soybeans, and wheat that was 
brought in--was a food product being fed in a small village outside 
Calcutta. What we provided these children looked like some mass of 
dough. It was just these basic grains mixed with water and a little 
sugar. They ate it like they were on a trip to Baskin-Robbins. It was 
the biggest treat of their lives. But before they ate the food from the 
United States, an interesting thing occurred. The person who was 
supervising the feeding of these small children in this nutrition 
center asked the children to pause for a moment and bow their heads and 
say a Hindu prayer of thanks to the United States for sending this 
grain.
  Does it make a difference? Would it make a difference in Libya, or in 
North Korea, for children and their parents to know that the people of 
the United States were involved in either humanitarian aid or the sale 
of food? I think it does. I think it says something about us as a 
Nation.
  Look at the situation in North Korea. The Senator from Kansas has 
been there. I have not. But it had to be absolutely frightening to see 
that sort of deprivation and famine in that struggle to survive.
  The Senator from Connecticut is telling us in this amendment that the 
United States should establish standards when we push for our political 
policies which define us to the world. I believe, as he does, that the 
export of food and medicine should be above the political agenda. We 
are talking about the survival of children, of pregnant women, and of 
their families. As much as we may abhor that form of government that 
rules over those families, we should never be in a position where the 
United States has denied its bounty, its excess, to those who are in 
need.
  As I have traveled, I have noticed the need for medicine in some 
countries around the world. Even those that have been liberated from 
the Soviet Union--now new democracies--really have medical care which 
is at the lowest level. Many times the basic medicines which we have in 
such great supply in the United States could make a world of difference 
in terms of disease like cholera, diphtheria, and other problems that 
children suffer from around the world. And so I think what the 
amendment seeks to do is to say that we will not deny to the children, 
in a country led by some dictator whom we might

[[Page S8219]]

disagree with, the basic protection of medicine.

  This amendment really speaks to our values. This amendment draws a 
line in defining America to the world. This amendment says that we will 
not show our hatred at the expense of innocent children. This amendment 
says that when we apply unilateral economic sanctions, we have enough 
muscle in so many other areas to make our political point that we need 
not take it out on the most helpless in countries around the world.
  I am happy to stand in support of this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I rise to strongly oppose this amendment, and I believe that the 
amendment has been mischaracterized, or at least the most reasonable 
reading of this amendment is different from the interpretation it has 
been given. If in fact it is the intention to have this amendment not 
apply to applications for national security purposes or purposes of 
punishing those who have engaged in terrorist activities or other 
events which were directed against the citizens or the society of the 
United States of America, then the amendment should be clarified, 
because the plain reading of the amendment on page 1 beginning at line 
14 states:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
     shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit any exports 
     (including financing) of food, other agricultural products 
     (including fertilizer), medicines or medical equipment as 
     part of any policy of existing or future unilateral economic 
     sanctions imposed against a foreign government.

  Now, the sanctions are the remedy for the action that has led us to 
be in a state of opposition to that foreign government. The cause of 
that might be that they were encouraging terrorism or they were engaged 
in activities that were considered to be a threat to our national 
security.
  The means of achieving that retaliation against a foreign government 
is a sanction, in this case an economic sanction. The economic sanction 
is not the reason that we are imposing; it is the means of the 
imposition. And so this language does not speak to the causation of why 
we are imposing the sanction; it just says that whatever the cause, 
whether it is terrorism, national security, or whatever reason, the 
President is prohibited from having as one of his arrows in the quiver 
of remedies an economic sanction that includes all of those items which 
are listed in this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Will my good friend and colleague yield on that point?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will yield for a question, yes.
  Mr. DODD. It is a question.
  Mr. President, the authors and I could not be more clear. This is 
unilateral economic sanctions, and clearly in the case of some 
countries where we have applied that, food and medicine come off. Now, 
if the President wants to apply sanctions on some basis other than 
economic sanctions, he has all the freedom to do so.
  A wonderful example of that we have just debated over the last 2 
weeks. Here India and Pakistan detonate two nuclear weapons. I do not 
know what you could argue may be more threatening to the long-term 
security of the United States than two nations detonating nuclear 
weapons. We voted 98 to nothing to take off food and medicine as a part 
of the sanctions policy there.

  All I and my colleagues are saying here in this case is that if the 
President wants to impose sanctions on the basis of something other 
than unilateral economic sanctions, he can do that without any 
restriction of this amendment. But when he only goes to impose, or we 
go to impose, Members of Congress--and we are far more guilty of this, 
by the way. Let's face it, we are talking about ourselves to some 
degree, and we all know what goes on here. We have a proliferation of 
these amendments. We all draft and issue the press releases to satisfy 
constituencies in this country. That is what happens. And we apply 
unilateral economic sanctions and deny people food and medicine, and we 
think that ought to stop, but not if you want to impose sanctions on 
bases other than economic and unilateral sanctions.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I don't know what the question was.
  Mr. DODD. That was a question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. But clearly, the plain interpretation of the sentence 
that I just read is that the remedy against whatever the cause might 
be, whether it is nuclear proliferation, support of terrorists, attack 
against our national security, harboring drug traffickers, or whatever 
the cause may be, we are just saying that, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, we have denied from the President of the United 
States as one of the remedies against that causation the use of 
unilateral economic sanctions when those sanctions include food, 
agricultural products, medicines, and medical equipment.
  If that is not the intention, then I think the sponsors of this 
amendment should offer a modification--and I believe that is now within 
their power to do so--to clearly state it is not intended that the use 
of food, agricultural products, medicines, and medical equipment not be 
a restriction on the President's ability to use those products where 
the causation is terrorism, causation is an attack against national 
security, or some other cause. And then we could have a reasoned debate 
on just what would be the reach of this amendment.
  I might also say, I am concerned about the language of this amendment 
in that we have been focusing on food--wheat, corn, other products of 
human nutrition. But the language goes on to say ``other agricultural 
products (including fertilizer).''
  Now, with that parenthetical, it seems to me that we are not to 
sanction not only food but other agricultural products, including those 
products which are used by that country in the production of its own 
indigenous agricultural food and fiber. That obviously would be the 
only reason to specifically exempt fertilizer. What about seed? Would 
that be an agricultural product against which the President could not 
impose a sanction? Would tractors, combines, other of the mechanics and 
equipment of agricultural production be similarly excluded from the 
President's range of sanctions that could be used?
  I believe the very fact that those questions are raised goes to one 
of the reasons that it is imprudent, at 7:50 p.m. on this Wednesday 
evening, for us to be considering this amendment. This amendment has 
been introduced as freestanding legislation. I assume it is before some 
committee of the Senate. The normal manner in which we would consider 
an issue of this importance would be to have a hearing, to have the 
language subjected to close scrutiny, not just the kind of scrutiny 
that can be provided here on the Senate floor by those of us who have 
an interest in and some knowledge of this matter, and a genuine public 
debate. After the idea has withstood that kind of inquiry, then it is 
mature to come to the Senate for consideration, for adoption, adoption 
that would reverse three to four decades of powers which the President 
of the United States has been granted by this Congress in order to 
achieve important U.S. national objectives.

  It is also ironic that we are doing this at this time, when we have 
recently established a separate task force whose purpose will be to 
review our current sanctions policy and to bring to us their reasoned 
judgments as to what we should do. It seems to me that prudence would 
indicate that the appropriate thing to do would be to at least wait 
until that group that we have just established has an opportunity to 
complete its work and give us the benefit of its recommendation, as to 
what our policy should be in this area.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield, yes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator has indicated we are rushing to judgment 
here. I would only point out that in 30 years every agricultural group, 
every farm group, every commodity organization, everybody connected 
with every hunger organization has been pointing out the insensitivity 
and the counterproductivity of unilateral sanctions with food and 
medicine.
  I have some figures here from 1995. I don't have them yet for 1996, 
but they are very similar. U.S. sanctions cost an estimated $15 to $20 
billion of lost exports. One way or other, I guess my question to the 
Senator would be: Would you support a sanction indemnity payments for 
those industries or

[[Page S8220]]

those businesses who have suffered the losses, through no fault of 
their own, more especially agriculture?
  I don't know how we fund--I know how we fund it. We do it. We could 
declare it an emergency. As a matter of fact, that is one of the 
proposals that was being talked about, in terms of the package put 
together by the folks across the aisle, and some of us over here, on 
down the road.
  We can't go on like this. I hope, after 30 years of this debate, I 
would hope the wheat growers, the corn growers, the barley growers, the 
cattlemen, the pork producers--the Senator's State of Florida is a 
tremendous State in regard to agriculture output. I hope these farm 
groups have met with the Senator.
  Would the Senator be in a position to help us support some kind of 
sanction indemnity payment, given the situation?
  I am not even talking about the humanitarian aspects of this. But we 
have sanctions now on 75 percent of the world's population. We just 
can't go on like this. So, consequently, I think this is a step in the 
right direction. Rather than do it piecemeal, each country by country--
as the Senator from Connecticut so aptly pointed out, 98 to 0, and we 
just had a UC bill pass here in regards to India and Pakistan because 
they were counterproductive.
  I think the Senator is obviously concerned about an island not too 
far from his State and I am concerned about that.
  I would just pose the question. Would he support sanction indemnity 
payments?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I say to the Senator, that is one of many of the kinds of 
questions that I would assume this bipartisan commission, which is just 
commencing its review of our current sanctions policy, will be looking 
at.
  I am not prepared tonight, nor do I feel myself competent tonight, to 
respond to the Senator's question as to whether we should have an 
addendum to our policy that relates to indemnification. But I am 
certain tonight that we also do not know enough to say that we ought to 
change 40 years of U.S. policy by adopting this amendment which has not 
been subjected, to my knowledge, to the first hour of serious Senate 
hearing consideration.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. One more question.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the indulgence of my friend and colleague. 
I just want to point out that after every sanction, after every 
embargo, after every hindrance to every export program that we have 
had, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in the House 
Agriculture Committee. I was privileged to be the chairman of that 
committee for 2 years. I have attended more hearings, more discussions, 
more farm meetings, been to more farm organization resolution meetings 
in State after State, to do something about a clear, comprehensive 
export policy that wards off these very counterproductive embargoes--
and is simply misdirected. We have ample, ample evidence that this does 
not work.
  I am on the sanctions task force. I went to the first meeting. We 
have taken some rifleshot reforms here that are sorely needed right 
now. It doesn't take away from the sanctions task force and their 
overall approach, to see if Senator Lugar's bill is appropriate, or 
Senator Dodd's bill, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, myself--to look back 
on sanctions. That is the appropriate agenda in regard to the task 
force. But I can assure the Senator, in terms of voluminous hearings ad 
nauseum, because of the hurt it has caused in farm  country that we 
have had ample hearings.

  I didn't ask the Senator a question, except to say I truly appreciate 
him yielding. I will cease and desist at this point.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am sorry that we didn't have a question, but the 
Senator has moved me to point 2 of my remarks, which is the 
undercurrent of much of this debate, where we focus on the poor, 
particularly the hungry children. Everyone is moved by those emotions. 
There is a natural humanitarian concern about people, particularly 
innocent people, being denied access to the basic necessities of life.
  What offends me is the assumption that it is the U.S. embargo policy, 
whether it is against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or whatever rogue 
state, that is the cause of that impoverishment. This is a return to 
that classic ``Let's blame America first'' argument. Let's find out 
what is wrong with the world and then let's blame the United States of 
America for being responsible.
  The person who is responsible for the economic conditions in Cuba is 
not sitting in this room and is not residing at 1600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue. The person who is responsible for Cuba's impoverishment is 
named Fidel Castro and he lives in Havana. Whether we do or do not 
adopt this amendment tonight, he still is going to be living in Havana 
and he still is going to be following discredited economic policies. He 
is still going to be following a personal attitude of disrespect to his 
own people. He still is going to be following authoritarian dictates--
because he wants to stay in power.
  So, Mr. President, the idea that we have to blame America first and 
find ourselves to be at fault for the poverty and the misery of the 
poor, particularly the young and the halt and the elderly, in these 
rogue nations, I reject and I find to be offensive personally, I find 
to be offensive to the values of the United States of America.
  Mr. President, let me move to the third point, if I could, and that 
is I do want to speak specifically.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for one short question. I know I am 
batting, now, for the third time. If the Senator would indulge me?
  Mr. GRAHAM. It is going to be a question at the end of this 
statement?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I can promise the Senator there will be a question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I look forward to the question.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It is a question I know the Senator will respond to in 
an affirmative way because it makes so much sense.
  What would happen if we added a new section to the second-degree 
amendment that is pending at the desk, stating something like this:
  ``The President may retain or impose sanctions covered by this bill, 
sections (B) and (C), if he determines that retaining or imposing such 
sanctions would further U.S. national security interests.''
  I had thought about listing some of the concerns that the Senator 
from New Jersey and the Senator from Florida have indicated, but I 
thought better of that, and put a blanket situation here--U.S. national 
security interests. Obviously, the export of terrorism would be 
included. Obviously, I think, some of the concerns that have been 
raised by the Senator from Florida would be included.
  Would the Senator be amenable to considering something like that?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator's question makes the first point I 
made, and that is the inappropriateness of trying to write a piece of 
legislation that is as nuanced and delicate as this on the floor. I 
pointed out what I thought was clearly an interpretation that said that 
whatever the cause, we were going to be denying as a remedy the use of 
unilateral economic sanctions which included this prescribed list of 
food, agricultural products, medicine and medical equipment. Now the 
Senator is suggesting that he doesn't really want to go as far as this 
language and would like to say, at least in the area of national 
security, that we don't have to deal with our enemies.
  I think, personally, that is too narrow a construction. I think there 
are a variety of types of activities that the President of the United 
States, with the authorization of Congress, ought to be able to 
sanction in the most severe possible way, including denying them the 
products that are listed in this legislation.
  I don't think we ought to try to write that on the Senate floor at 
now 8 o'clock at night. This is exactly the type of considered judgment 
that we would say in this great deliberative body ought to be 
deliberated in an appropriate committee with appropriate public input.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I take it the Senator's answer is no.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think my answer would be no, and my reason would be 
point 1 of my remarks. I am now about to move to point 3 of my remarks.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Then this gift horse will ride back into the sunset and 
withdraw the offer.

[[Page S8221]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. I would be very happy if this amendment would ride into 
the sunset as long as it didn't return.
  Point 3 does relate specifically to Cuba which is an object case of 
the point 2, which is that the reason that Cuba is in its desperate 
economic circumstances is not to be blamed on the United States and our 
policy, it is to be blamed on Fidel Castro. The reason it didn't happen 
20 or 30 years earlier is because as long as there was a Soviet Union, 
the Soviet Union was subsidizing Cuba to the extent of 20 to 30 percent 
of its gross domestic product. When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 
late eighties, its ability to continue to provide that kind of subsidy 
to Cuba also collapsed and all of the underlying inadequacies of a 
statist, Communist economic policy surfaced.
  For us to say that we are responsible for the impoverishment of the 
Cuban people because we have denied them access to food, agricultural 
products, medicine and medical equipment, I think, is, frankly, absurd 
and an affront to the people of the United States of America. It is 
Fidel Castro who has placed his people in that condition, not the 
people of the United States.
  Maybe the most dramatic example of that, just a few years ago when 
our colleague and visionary, the Senator from New Jersey, was a Member 
of the House of Representatives, he sponsored legislation which 
established the modern U.S. embargo policy relative to Cuba. I am 
pleased to say that I was honored to be the Senate sponsor of that 
legislation.
  In that legislation, medicine was excluded from the commercial 
sanction against Cuba. There is a license policy required in order for 
a Cuban entity to purchase medicines from the United States, but that 
is available.
  Do you know what has happened in the intervening now some 5 years 
since that access to commercial purchases of U.S. medicines by Cuba has 
been in effect? What has happened is zero has happened, because Cuba 
has not availed itself of this opportunity it had. Why hasn't it 
availed itself? I suggest primarily because Fidel Castro has some 
higher priorities in terms of his use of Cuban resources, like 
continuing to fund one of the most oppressive state police in the 
world, continuing to try to maintain what is left of a military 
capability. Those have all had higher priorities and, therefore, there 
were little resources left to use the special access through license 
policy for U.S. medicines.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator from Florida yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator from Florida makes a valuable point that 
somehow the responsibility for the economic ailments of failing Marxist 
governments incredibly is being placed on the U.S. Senate. The reason 
that there is hunger in Cuba and North Korea is because their systems 
have failed.
  I recognize that in the great farm belts of America, there is 
tremendous frustration and suffering because of the farm crisis. But it 
is not frank, it is not fair to the American farmer to suggest that if 
the United States abandons its human rights policies and its economic 
embargoes on these terrorist governments, that is the salvation for the 
American farmer.
  As my friend and colleague from Florida stated, the per capita income 
of Cuba is $300. Cuba has 7 days' worth of foreign exchange. Just how 
much wheat or corn does the Senator from Kansas believe Fidel Castro 
will be buying? North Korea has no foreign exchange at all. Nothing. 
The Sudan has a per capita income of $100 per year. These are not 
countries that are markets for American farm products.
  I share the concern of our colleagues from the Midwest of the plight 
of the American farmer, but believing that we can compromise our 
policies on terrorism or for human rights by offering sales to nations 
that have no resources is a false promise and, what is more, simply 
contradicts the facts.
  The Senator from Florida has said it right. There is blame for these 
failing economies and the fact the poor are suffering, but it is not 
here. The Senator from Florida was my cosponsor in offering in the 
Senate the Cuban Democracy Act which is the foundation for the current 
embargo against Cuba. He should be proud of everything that he did 
because, indeed, as is now the case with the Sudan and with North Korea 
and with Iraq and with Cuba, we have assured that the poor, on a 
humanitarian basis, will get food even though they can't buy it.
  That policy now will be undermined by offering to sell these products 
to people who can't buy it. I think the Senator from Florida has made 
the case persuasively. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. I appreciate those kind remarks, and no one is 
more dedicated to the freedom of the people of Cuba than is our friend 
and colleague from New Jersey. He has demonstrated that dedication time 
and time again.
  As he said in his earlier remarks, not only are we not the source of 
the blame of the impoverishment of the people of Cuba, in fact, the 
United States, both governmentally but primarily through the generosity 
of its people, has provided through donations more humanitarian 
assistance to Cuba in the last 4 years than the foreign aid of all 
other governments in the world combined. Now to say blame America 
first, make us the object and the source of Cuba's poverty is an 
affront.
  My final point is that by adopting this policy, we will also be 
missing the opportunity to adopt a policy that has the potential of 
making a significant difference in terms of the U.S. national interest, 
but more importantly the human interest of the people living in Cuba.
  What is that policy? It is also one to which the Senator from New 
Jersey alluded in his opening remarks, and that is a policy that says: 
Let us increase the opportunities for the people of the United States 
with modest Government assistance to join that philanthropy to provide 
humanitarian needs to the people of Cuba. But instead of being done on 
a commercial basis, which means that Fidel Castro will be in control of 
what is purchased and how it is distributed and how it is used to 
either reward or punish activities which the state considers to be 
beneficial, let us use the nongovernmental organizations, such as the 
religious organizations in Cuba, to be the means of distributing the 
humanitarian products. Let us use that as a means of assuring that this 
humanitarian effort will not be perverted for political goals.
  Let us use it as a means of increasing the strength of those 
nongovernmental organizations, because they will play a critical role 
today in the life of the people of Cuba, attempting to lift some of the 
burden which Fidel Castro has imposed upon those people. Those same 
nongovernmental organizations will play a critical role during the 
period of transition in Cuba.
  One of the key questions for the United States is not whether there 
will be change in Cuba. Of course there will be change. No one can tell 
you exactly the hour and the date of that change, but that it will come 
is assured. What we do not know is whether that change will be more 
like Czechoslovakia, a ``velvet revolution,'' relatively without 
bloodshed or conflict, or whether it will be more like the nation whose 
head of state spoke to us earlier today, Romania, where thousands of 
people were injured or killed during the course of the transition from 
an authoritarian to a democratic government.
  I believe the nongovernmental organizations in Cuba will play a 
critical role in facilitating a peaceful transition and that by using 
them rather than, as this amendment would propose to do, the Government 
of Cuba, as the instrument for the distribution of humanitarian 
assistance, we have the opportunity to strengthen and elevate those 
nongovernmental organizations.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. For a question.
  Mr. DODD. I think I have a question at the end of this one.
  Mr. President, I know my colleague from Florida is very familiar with 
Cardinal Ortega, who is the leading Catholic figure on the island of 
Cuba. I know he knows who he is, and is aware of the recent visit by 
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, when he was in Cuba in January. 
Obviously, my colleague is well aware, as well, of the position of the 
U.S. Catholic Conference with regard to lifting the sanctions on food 
and medicine.
  I say and raise the question, certainly we all, I think, would know--
and my colleague, I presume, would agree--

[[Page S8222]]

that Castro, Fidel Castro, has no greater enemy on the island of Cuba, 
or anywhere, for that matter, than Cardinal Ortega, yet is it not the 
fact that Cardinal Ortega, the Catholic Conference, and in fact His 
Holiness, Pope John Paul II, has called for the lifting of restrictions 
on food and medicine sales when it comes to Cuba?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I believe it is even more broad. I believe they have 
advocated a total lifting of the U.S. embargo.
  Mr. DODD. I am only referring to this particular proposal.
  Mr. GRAHAM. They would not be constrained to the items included in 
this amendment. They would advocate a total lifting of the embargo 
against Cuba.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, is the answer to the question, regarding 
food and medicine, Cardinal Ortega has called for the lifting of the 
ban on food and medicine?
  Mr. GRAHAM. As well as every other aspect of the embargo. And with 
great respect, I believe that the policy that says, rather than lift 
the embargo, strengthen Fidel Castro, with no real prospects, with a 
country so impoverished as Cuba, that they are going to be able to 
compete in the commercial market to buy agricultural products--why 
aren't they buying medicines today? They have been authorized to do it 
for 5 years, and yet they have not availed themselves.
  The reason is probably that it is not a high enough priority of Fidel 
Castro to use his limited resources to buy antibiotics. He would rather 
buy equipment that his military and secret police can use to suppress 
the people. There is no expectation he is going to use any availability 
of the commercial purchase of foods to any greater extent that he has 
used his potential of commercial purchase of medicines.
  What I think does offer hope is to encourage a policy of U.S. private 
citizen, with limited Government support, philanthropy through 
nongovernmental organizations to the people of Cuba, both to meet and 
alleviate some of their current deprivations and build up some 
institutions that will help in the transition in Cuba.
  Mr. President, for those four stated reasons, I believe this 
amendment, well intended as it might be, is inappropriate for our 
consideration at 8:14 p.m. on the evening of July the 15th. I hope that 
it will be the wisdom of the U.S. Senate, if we are given the 
opportunity, to set this aside through a motion to table, and that we 
would see the wisdom of that opportunity and then would look to the 
bipartisan commission on sanctions as well as the standard traditional 
processes of deliberation in the Senate as a means to fully explore 
whether we, in fact, want to change a 40-year policy of the use of 
economic sanctions against some of the most rapacious or rogue states 
on this planet.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much.
  I rise this evening to strongly support the amendment by Senators 
Dodd, Warner, Roberts, Hagel, and myself, which would exclude food and 
medicine sales from existing trade sanctions.
  As one who has growing concern about the use of unilateral sanctions 
to accomplish various foreign policy and other goals, I am very pleased 
tonight that we are considering this very important measure. Food and 
medicine should not be used as a weapon in our disputes with leaders of 
other countries. As we have seen repeatedly, and as we have heard 
repeatedly on the floor of the Senate here tonight, withholding food 
and medicine does nothing but hurt the people whom we are trying to 
help in these countries.
  The leaders, such as Fidel Castro, are always going to have access to 
these necessities. They are going to get the food, the shelter, the 
medicine, the care that they need. But inclusion of food and medicine 
in embargoes or in sanctions only makes the choices fewer for the 
residents of those countries and the prices higher for the average 
citizen.
  I simply do not believe that anyone in this body can tell me this is 
a prudent policy in any country of the world. As just referred to here 
a few moments ago, somehow we are blaming the U.S. Senate or the United 
States for the problems in countries such as Cuba. We do not blame the 
United States for the bad economy. We know that that is Cuba's problem. 
That is Fidel Castro's making and his problem. But we are here tonight 
trying only to address the needs of the peoples of those countries and 
do it in a very humanitarian way, and not to use food and medicine as a 
weapon in our foreign policy arsenal.
  It was also said by the Senator from Florida just a few moments ago--
he said that we should have held hearings on a bill like this, that we 
should not be writing this kind of an amendment on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate tonight.
  But I think he knows very well that Senator Dodd and I, for many 
weeks, tried to schedule hearings. I am the subcommittee chairman of 
the subcommittee of jurisdiction in the Banking Committee over this 
bill. We requested numerous times--we held meetings with opponents of 
this legislation trying to get a time when we could hold the hearing to 
bring out the concerns and to help write legislation and bring it out 
to the floor of the Senate.
  Those who are opponents of this bill are not only opposed to it 
tonight, but they have been opposed to it and would not allow us--now, 
I do not know how often that happens, but the opportunity to even hold 
a hearing was blocked. There have been many, many, many other attempts 
and meetings to try to hold a hearing on this very bill, this very 
amendment, and to try to work out the differences that we might have.
  But for those who will say that food and medicine can still be 
donated as well under these embargoes, I respond by stating that the 
licensing process that donators have to go through is so time-consuming 
and it is so cumbersome that it simply is a process that does not work. 
What has resulted is fewer donations. Improving the distribution system 
is not going to work as well. We need the certainty of free market 
sales, unencumbered by Government regulations or dictation and 
direction.
  Certainly, we do not need the Congress to be involved in implementing 
food and medicine distribution in any countries, as has been suggested 
here in the past. We need to help our farmers and medical supply 
companies preserve their excellent reputations globally. Why earn them 
the reputation again of being an unreliable supplier by continuing to 
include them in our sanctions? American farmers are still suffering 
from the effects of the Russian grain embargo from the late 1970s. As 
we heard, they got the reputation of being unreliable suppliers. And it 
hurt the farm economy for many, many years following that.
  You have heard the statistic often in the past few days--over 60 
sanctions have been imposed by this Congress and by this 
administration. They are based on the laws that we have passed. They 
target some 70 countries, and the numbers affect from one-third to two-
thirds of the world's population. It is no wonder that our agricultural 
producers and most of the business community have united to oppose 
these unilateral sanctions. Why would other countries consider us 
reliable suppliers in the future if we continue to have this kind of a 
record, to hurt ourselves, to hurt our economy, to hurt our jobs, and 
not to accomplish the goals we have?
  If these sanctions, or these unilateral sanctions, could produce the 
very type of reforms that we were asking or that we thought should be 
made, I think everybody in this Senate would line up behind it and vote 
for it tonight. But over 30 years we have seen that these types of 
sanctions and embargoes just do not work. All they do is have the exact 
opposite effect of hurting our farmers, our businesses, our jobs, our 
economy, and they also do not provide the type of health and 
humanitarian relief to the people of these countries suffering under 
these types of regimes.
  Why would other countries consider us reliable suppliers in the 
future if we continue this kind of record? Right now we have pending, 
just pending, 26 unilateral sanctions--unilateral, just the United 
States, nobody else coming into this. When we talk about the Iraq 
sanctions and how we have lifted and allowed them to sell oil to meet 
some of their needs with food and medicine, that was a world community 
effort

[[Page S8223]]

that put pressure to allow this to happen. We cannot get our allies to 
support this type of sanctions or embargo. The world community doesn't 
support it. Many in the Senate do not support it.
  There are 11 other bills that could target an unlimited number of 
countries, as well. One is the pending religious persecution sanctions 
bill which alone targets over another 100 countries.
  Now, in my judgment, sanctions will only accomplish their intended 
goal if they are applied, again, multilaterally. Anything short of that 
is bound to fail. The only result, then, again, is that our farmers, 
our workers, are going to suffer, not the leaders. Fidel Castro is not 
going to suffer. Fidel Castro is not going to move out of that office 
one day sooner because of these sanctions. In fact, he has probably 
stayed in office much too long because of this type of action.
  This is an important amendment which follows the commitment that we 
made yesterday, and that is to try to help our farmers and other 
businesses expand markets abroad. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this evening to strongly support 
this amendment. We have heard a number of dynamics--issues, good 
questions, relevant questions--about what is being attempted in this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, we are not talking about some revolutionary change in 
our foreign policy here. What we are talking about is what works. We 
are talking about common sense, relevance. There has been much talk 
tonight about humanitarian issues, human rights, trade, foreign policy, 
national security, all wrapped up into this debate.
  But my goodness, Mr. President, as we are about to embark on a new 
century, a new millennium, the greatest power on the Earth, the 
greatest power the world has ever seen, are we to rely on embargoing 
medicine and food to leverage and implement our policy and our position 
in the word? I don't think so. We are better than that.
  We have heard much conversation tonight about unilateral sanctions, 
multilateral sanctions. The world has changed, shifted. There is no 
nation on Earth today that can't get medicine and food, commodities, 
services, products, somewhere else. They don't need to go through the 
United States. So, in fact, what are we doing? Are we isolating some 
other country? Are we isolating a leader? No; we are isolating 
ourselves. We are isolating our farmers. We are isolating our ranchers, 
our producers, our people, our future, our growth. And for what? We are 
not compromising our national security when we talk about these issues 
of medicine and food. We are not exchanging trade for security. We have 
gotten a little off focus here this evening in some of this debate, a 
little bit off focus.
  Foreign policy is about dynamic change, about a world of great 
change, a world of hope and opportunity. It is about our role in the 
world and how we best position ourselves in the world to make our 
point.
  The question always comes back to, How best do we do that? How best 
do we leverage what we have? What works? Does withholding food and 
medicine work? Well, look around; look around. This is not some fly-by-
night quick deal that we are talking about here. We have debated these 
issues.
  My colleagues have talked about efforts, which I have been part of, 
to get hearings. Again, I go back to one point of reality here: This is 
not a revolutionary shift in policy. And if, in fact, we are to enlist 
more allies and do what America has always done--defend and enhance 
more liberty for more people--we come back to the question of how we do 
that. Does trade and commerce improve people's lives? Does it open 
societies? I think history has answered that rather clearly.
  Yes, I am from a Midwestern State. I am from a large agriculture 
exporting State. That is important. Those interests are important. But 
there is not a farmer in Nebraska who is saying, ``I would trade 
America's national interests in the world'' --or even entertaining that 
bargain--``for selling more corn or beef.'' So let's not mislead anyone 
here tonight that that is the trade. That is not the trade here. That 
is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what works and 
who is really penalized here.
  I can go through a list. You all know about what has happened when 
wheat embargoes have been put on. President Nixon in 1973 banned 
soybean exports. What has that done? Well, it has made Brazil a very 
significant soybean producer, is what it has done. I have pages of 
these things to talk about, specifically narrow, focused issues on 
agriculture and medicine. But in the interest of time and the interest 
of good judgment, so that my colleagues won't be completely offended by 
this debate, suffice it to say that this is a debate about the totality 
and the completeness of what encompasses foreign policy, and trade is 
part of that--trade is part of it--and how we best work our way in to 
nations that don't have the same values and standards and morals and 
respect for rights as we do.
  I close by a point I made at the beginning of my remarks. A great 
power, the greatest power on Earth, this Nation that has done so much 
for so many for so long, should not need to rely on embargoes for food 
and medicine to implement and further our policy.
  I hope my colleagues look at this in the completeness of how we, who 
have offered this, intend it to be viewed and would support this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today as a strong supporter and 
principal cosponsor of this important amendment sponsored by my friend 
and colleague, Senator Dodd.
  This amendment would exclude the export (including financing) of 
food, other agricultural commodities, medicines and medical equipment 
from any unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States.
  In recent weeks, we have heard over and over again here on the Senate 
floor, on the weekend talk shows and in the editorial pages of numerous 
newspapers how unilateral sanctions on the export of agricultural 
commodities, medicine and medical equipment primarily hurts American 
producers of those producers.
  Also, in most cases, the prohibition or restriction on the sales of 
food, medicine and medical equipment in order to punish a foreign 
government harms the general population in the targeted country rather 
than that country's leadership.
  Gary Hufbauer--a renowned expert on the issue of sanctions--made that 
very point in his recent article in the Washington Post. He stated:

       . . . economic sanctions can inflict pain on innocent 
     people while at the same time increasing the grip of the 
     leaders we despise. When sanctions are applied broadside--as 
     against Haiti, Cuba and Iraq--the hardest hit are the most 
     vulnerable: the poor, the very young, the very old and the 
     sick. Left unharmed, and often strengthened, are the real 
     targets: the political military and economic elites.

  Finally, unilateral sanctions on food and medicine rarely achieve the 
goal of having the targeted nation alter its actions or policies. In 
light of that, I believe it is time to stop using food and medicine as 
a foreign policy weapon.
  As a member of the recently established Sanctions Task Force, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the broader issue of reviewing 
on the broader issue of reviewing the overall U.S. sanctions policy.
  However, I believe that is appropriate at this time to proceed with 
this amendment to exempt food and medicine--what I consider 
humanitarian products--from unilateral U.S. economic sanctions.
  Mr. President, Senator Dodd and I have been working towards this goal 
for a considerable time. Our former colleague, Senator Wallop of 
Wyoming, has been a valued resource for facts which compel this action. 
Likewise, a number of Cuban Americans have urged this goal. The time is 
now.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this issue has now been debated at 
great length. And having listened to so many of my colleagues, for my 
own part, I wanted only to respond to several things that have been 
said and then leave the issue with the Senate.
  It is being suggested that somehow the idea of economic sanctions is 
some aberration of policy, inconsistent with our values, inappropriate 
in the final years of the 20th century. I want to remind my colleagues 
that the American effort to impose economic sanctions

[[Page S8224]]

began with Woodrow Wilson, after the Great War, as an alternative to 
military conflict. So many lives had been lost and the war was so 
senseless that we began this 20th century with a commitment that this 
was the better alternative. I don't believe that Members of this Senate 
have been dissuaded from that view, given the outrageous conduct by 
terrorist states and facing the choice of military attack or expressing 
our outrage by separating them out of the international trading 
community. Sanctions are the better choice.
  Contrary to the statements of my friend, the Senator from Nebraska, 
the record is replete that they do succeed. How many Soviet Jews would 
have left Russia had it not been for Jackson-Vanik? What cooperation 
would we have had from Vietnam in finding POW crash sites if it hadn't 
been for sanctions? Where would North Korea had been now in stopping 
the development of atomic weapons if not for sanctions? Where would we 
be in negotiating with Qadhafi for the killers of Pan Am 103 if not for 
sanctions? Indeed, would Fidel Castro have had the Pope in Havana if 
there had not been sanctions? They are not always perfect, but they are 
the better alternative to military action.
  My friend Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, asked the 
rhetorical question whether or not there would be an impact on national 
security. What an easy vote to cast on this floor. But what a difficult 
thing it would be to face if tomorrow morning Castro, Saddam Hussein, 
and Qadhafi found that the sum and the substance of America's economic 
boycott on principle against their regime had been destroyed. Thirty 
years of American foreign policy is on the line. Without a hearing, 
without the administration being heard, without an alternative being 
offered, the sum and substance of American foreign policy would be 
taken off the books.
  I suggested earlier in a colloquy with my friend from Florida, 
Senator Graham, that I know why it is being done. I understand the 
frustration of our colleagues from the Middle West. But the suffering 
of American farmers is addressed by changing American farm policy, not 
changing American foreign policy. These are the poorest nations in the 
world. It is not fair to the American farmer to say that plummeting 
prices and failing farms are going to be answered by ending the embargo 
on Cuba, where the average person makes $300 a year, or the Sudan, or 
North Korea. These are poor, small nations, without the ability to buy. 
If they had the ability to buy farm products, they would be buying them 
from Argentina, Australia, or France, or other American competitors. 
But they are buying from no one, because they have nothing.
  Let's at least be honest about the debate. This will not add up to 
one dime of American farm sales. It is a political answer for an 
economic problem. I suspect that the numbers would bear me out that my 
State of New Jersey manufactures as much in the gross value of 
pharmaceutical products as the State of Nebraska and the State of 
Kansas produce in agricultural products. Every major pharmaceutical 
company in America is in my State. I have never heard one 
pharmaceutical executive or one worker suggest that we should give in 
to Qadhafi on Pan Am 103, or the political prisoners in Cuba, or 
terrorism in Syria or Sudan because of a market opportunity--not one. 
And I don't believe that your farmers feel any differently than my 
pharmaceutical executives.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second? We are going to have 
a vote in 10 minutes. I haven't had a chance yet. I made opening 
remarks, but I wanted to speak again.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I wanted to ask a question, if I could, and then I 
will yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  In my reading of the Senator's amendment, not only would it be 
lifting these restrictions on food, but also on pharmaceutical 
products, including medical devices, and including the financing of 
food; is that accurate?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Well, let me conclude, and then I will allow the 
Senator from Connecticut to end on his amendment, as is only right and 
appropriate.
  I don't know how a Member of this Senate tomorrow morning could call 
the families of the victims of Pan Am 103, who are now suing to get 
financial reimbursement for the loss of their loved ones from Qadhafi, 
and now suggest that we are going to be financing food exports to Libya 
or Cuba. Not only are we not selling, but we will be financing.
  This brings us back to where we were with Saddam Hussein when the 
gulf war started. How could we explain to any American that, while 
American soldiers were having to fight in Iraq, Iraqi soldiers were 
eating food not only made in the United States but financed by American 
taxpayers? That would be returned to. Senator Graham and I specifically 
prohibited medical devices because there was evidence that Fidel Castro 
was using medical devices made in the United States to torture and 
interrogate prisoners in Cuba. That is the sum and substance of what 
the Senate faces.
  I apologize to the Senator for consuming so much time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I yield to my colleague from 
Kansas for a modification he wishes to make.


                    Amendment No. 3159, As Modified

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification in the 
best interests of the Senators who have expressed strong opposition to 
this legislation. Obviously, they have some additional concerns that 
have been expressed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment, and the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3159), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment an 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(A) Findings.--(1) Prohibiting or otherwise restricting 
     the donations or sales of food, other agricultural products, 
     medicines or medical equipment in order to sanction a foreign 
     government for actions or policies that the United States 
     finds objectionable unnecessarily harms innocent populations 
     in the targetted country and rarely causes the sanctioned 
     government to alter its actions or policies.
       (2) For the United States as a matter of U.S. policy to 
     deny access to United States food, other agricultural 
     products, medicines and medical equipment by innocent men, 
     women and children in other countries weakens the 
     international leadership and moral authority of the United 
     States.
       (3) Sanctions on the sale or donations of American food, 
     other agricultural products, medicine or medical equipment 
     needlessly harm American farmers and workers employed in 
     these sectors by foreclosing markets for these United States 
     products.
       (B)(1) Exclusion From Sanctions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the President shall not restrict or 
     otherwise prohibit any exports (including financing) of food, 
     other agricultural products (including fertilizer), medicines 
     or medical equipment as part of any policy of existing or 
     future unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a 
     foreign government.
       (2) Exceptions.--Section (B)(1) of this section shall not 
     apply to any regulations or restrictions with respect to such 
     products for health or safety purposes or during periods of 
     domestic shortages of such products.
       (C) The President may retain or impose sanctions covered 
     under (B)(1) if he determines that retaining or imposing such 
     sanctions would further U.S. national security interests.
       (D) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day 
     after the date of enactment of this section into law.''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have sat here patiently listening to a lot 
of rhetoric associated with this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I hope that at some point someone will explain what that 
modification is. But this question relates to a different issue.
  One of the typical restraints that the United States has imposed on 
the sale of food and medicine to suspect countries has been that there 
has to be an independent source of distribution so that the food and 
medicine will not be, as allegedly has occurred in North Korea, 
diverted just to feed the soldiers and let the civilian population 
starve.
  In light of that, I am concerned with the language on line 15, where 
it states that ``the President shall not restrict or otherwise prohibit 
any exports,'' and then it lists the items.
  Would this mean that the President could not impose a restriction, 
such as the requirement that, yes, we will provide food and medicine, 
but in a manner that will assure that the people for whose good we 
intended it to be utilized will be fed, will be medicated, not

[[Page S8225]]

the elite or those elements of the society that are serving to oppress 
the people? Would the President be prohibited from making those kinds 
of restrictions?
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for the question. If I thought for a 
single second that anything I might offer in this amendment would win 
his support, I would engage it with a higher degree of seriousness.
  Obviously, I can be confident that any American President would want 
to make sure that any program we were endorsing on the sale of food and 
medicine was going to maximize the potential for it to reach the 
intended consumer, and that is the innocent people in these 
countries. But let me, if I can, come back to some points that have 
been made here over the last hour and a half or so.

  First of all, we have heard about Lockerbie. I take a backseat to no 
one in my sense of outrage, nor do any of my colleagues who support 
this amendment, over the grotesque and violent shooting down of Pan Am 
Flight 103 that caused such a tremendous loss of life over Lockerbie, 
Scotland.
  But let me take Libya off the table. There are multilateral sanctions 
against Libya. There is nothing in this bill that affects Pan Am Flight 
103. And to suggest so is to not have read the amendment nor to 
understand the sanctions regimen against Libya. It is multilateral 
sanctions. This bill is unilateral sanctions only on economics.
  So to raise the prospect of the tragedy over Lockerbie in the face of 
this amendment is either not to understand what exists in Libya or not 
to understand what this amendment proposes. So Libya is not in play at 
all.
  I point out that many of my colleagues over the last few days have 
indicated their own strong feelings on the subject of the use of food 
and medicine as a tool of our sanctions policy with unilateral economic 
sanctions. My colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, quoting him in his 
remarks of the day during the debate on Pakistan and India, and I 
quote: ``Cutting ourselves off through unilateral sanctions seldom 
benefits us as a nation, and almost always hurts the producer. Food 
should never be used as a tool of foreign policy.''
  Our colleague from Montana, Senator Burns: ``Let me tell you a little 
bit about sanctions. I have never been convinced that sanctions on food 
really worked.''
  Our colleague from Kansas says, who is the Presiding Officer, if I 
may in his presence quote him in that debate: ``Food being used as a 
tool of foreign policy should never ever occur.''
  Senator Dorgan: ``We ought to decide as Congress right now that 
sanctions do not include food shipments.''
  I can go on. Our colleagues, I think, across party lines, across the 
great spectrum of this country, have come to realize that, as my good 
friend and colleague from Nebraska so eloquently pointed out, we are a 
great nation. We are the most powerful nation on the face of this Earth 
economically, and militarily. We are the envy of the world politically. 
And for us on this evening to say that this great power still finds it 
necessary in order to advance its foreign policy interests that food 
and medicine that would go into the mouths and bodies of innocent 
people who live in these dreadful regimes may be the subject of 
unilateral economic sanctions, I think, is sad. I think it is sad.
  We who sit here this evening and have full meals--those who oppose 
these policies and never worry about whether or not their child can get 
an inoculation, or an immunization, whether or not they are ever going 
to have food on their table--look in the face of an innocent North 
Korean child, if you want to, or look in the face of an innocent Cuban 
child who has to live under Fidel Castro--that child didn't make that 
choice. That family didn't make that choice. Are we in this great power 
of ours, the United States of America, saying this evening that we will 
not allow the sale of food or medicine to help out that child of those 
countries? I don't believe that. I don't believe that. I think we are 
bigger, I think we are better than that.
  I think this debate on sanctions has been healthy. It is beginning to 
recognize the awakening in America that, as our colleague from the farm 
States and others have pointed out, we need to have policies that 
work--not that make us feel good. This is not about press releases. It 
is not about satisfying constituencies here at home. It is about doing 
something that advances our legitimate foreign policy interests. Do we 
do that by causing injury to our own people and causing injury to 
innocent people in these countries while the elite economically and 
politically grow fat on their own dictatorships at the expense of their 
own people, and we in our own unwitting way assist them in that 
process?
  Mr. President, I hope as our colleagues come over here--this is not 
about endorsing terrorism or excusing Libya in Flight 103, or any other 
dreadful atrocity that a dictator has imposed. It says that with regard 
to unilateral economic sanctions the United States of America, at the 
close of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, that we take 
food and medicine with regard to unilateral sanctions off the table--we 
take it off the table--and we will advance our cause by building 
support on the suggestion in the minds and hearts of innocent people in 
these countries that they overthrow these very dictators, and we let 
them know this evening that we are not going to allow our wealth and 
our technology, which has produced the largest abundance of food and 
the best medicines in the world--that if we can get them to these 
people, we want to see that it happens and that we stand for that.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment which has been 
offered by a bipartisan group of us--from the East, in the Midwest, the 
far West--this evening, and that it be supported by our colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Kerrey 
amendment we will have a vote on.
  Let me ask the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, 
it is our hope, given the fact that only one amendment really has been 
debated--and that is the Dodd amendment up to the point of 8:45 under 
the order--that a vote will occur on a motion to table the Dodd 
amendment, which will be made by the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. That will take with it, if it is agreed to, 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas in the second degree. 
Then, that would be the only vote ordered to occur right now. We still 
have four other amendments that have been cited as in order to come up 
tonight: The Torricelli amendment, the Johnson amendment, the Graham 
amendment, and the Kerrey amendment. If the Dodd amendment is tabled, 
there won't be a need for the Torricelli amendment, as I understand it, 
and that would be withdrawn.
  Then we think we can work out an agreement to accept the Johnson 
amendment, which is the third amendment, and the Graham amendment on 
disaster assistance. But we would have to have a vote on the Kerrey 
amendment. That could occur tonight, or tomorrow, whatever the pleasure 
of the leadership is.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want the Senate to know that when the Leaders arrive, 
we will have to discuss the arrangement on whether or not that vote 
will occur tonight. And it will be my hope that it will occur tonight, 
Mr. President.
  But, under the circumstances of the situation now, again in order to 
facilitate the management of this bill, I move to table the Dodd 
amendment, which, as I understand, would also carry with it the second-
degree Roberts amendment. I reluctantly make that motion, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Alaska to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Connecticut. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?

[[Page S8226]]

  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Ashcroft
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--60

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bingaman
     Glenn
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3158) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. STEVENS. May we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let's have order in the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. If I can explain what the order will be now. The Chair will 
put the question on the Roberts amendment to the Dodd amendment. I 
presume that will be accepted by a voice vote. Then we will go to the 
Torricelli second-degree amendment, with 2 minutes for him to describe 
his amendment, 2 minutes for Senator Dodd in opposition, and then a 
vote on that.

  Mr. DODD. Will the leader yield?
  I say, Mr. President, that is not a second-degree amendment. It is a 
freestanding amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Freestanding amendment then.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If the leader would yield, it is my understanding, 
from our conversation, that the Roberts amendment would be accepted; 
and I will, in turn, have a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. That was my understanding.
  Mr. DODD. If the leader would yield, the Roberts amendment is a 
second-degree amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. If it is dealt with, that clears the tree.
  Mr. LOTT. So after 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, we could go 
to a recorded vote on the Torricelli amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that we then go to--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, of course.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad, of course, to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I apologize to the leader for interrupting him.
  Mr. LOTT. It is certainly all right, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  Mr. LOTT. On the Torricelli amendment? I do not believe they have.
  Mr. BYRD. Then the leader did not mean to include in his unanimous 
consent request that it would be a recorded vote.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the 
yeas and nays on the Torricelli amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Torricelli amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that then we proceed to the Kerrey 
amendment and that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided on the 
Kerrey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder 
if, since everybody is here, whether we could limit the vote on the 
Torricelli amendment to 10 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. I think that is an excellent request.
  And I ask unanimous consent that that vote be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe then we are ready to put the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 3159, the Roberts amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3159) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to make one more unanimous consent request. I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Kerrey amendment--if 
ordered, and we get the yeas and nays on that--be also limited to 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask 
for the yeas and nays on the Kerrey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kerrey amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


          Amendment No. 3160 to Amendment No. 3158, As Amended

   (Purpose: To exclude the application of the amendment to certain 
                               countries)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, we are about to 
cast a vote that we will remember for many years. I know the issue of 
the day is the farm crisis in the Midwest. The answer to that problem 
is in this market, in this Senate, not by changing a fundamental of 
American foreign policy. The issue today may be the farm crisis, but 
last year and the years before that, it has been the war against 
terrorism.
  My amendment is simple. We have lifted the American embargo against 
selling food and medicine unless--unless--you are from a country that 
is engaged in terrorism against the United States of America.
  Mr. Qadhafi does not deserve, tomorrow morning, to wake up and find 
out we forgot about Pan Am 103; or Castro, with his political 
prisoners; nor should we end with North Korea our actions just when we 
are negotiating the control of atomic weapons.
  I know the frustration of my colleagues from the Midwest, but these 
nations, with per capita incomes of $100, $200, $300, they are not 
buying agricultural products from anyone in the world, so they are not 
going buy them from us, because they have no money, because they are 
failing Marxist regimes.
  For 30 years, this country has held the line that on human rights and 
on actions of terrorism against our country we would not deal with 
them. Things are so close, the handful of Marxist regimes that are 
left--the handful--do not throw them a lifeline.
  Can you imagine the frustration tomorrow morning of activists in Cuba 
who are fighting for freedom to find out we have taken the heart out of 
this embargo? Make no mistake, this is the heart. These countries, from 
Libya to North Korea, to those that are harboring assassins in the 
Sudan, the Hezbollah in Syria, these terrorist nations, they are not 
seeking to buy airplanes or high technology. This is all they would 
have if they had the resources.
  This is not a message you want to send. Today it may be the farm 
crisis. But terrorism is not gone from this Earth. The State Department 
has told us that there are these nations, these six nations, engaged in 
terrorism against our people. They do not deserve an exception. The 
Senate has done its will. It has lifted food and medicine. Just keep 
this exception on these few terrorist states.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in the rush to end sanctions, I find it 
incredible that some of our colleagues appear

[[Page S8227]]

willing to forgive and forget the conduct of regimes like those in 
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Sudan, and North Korea.
  The inescapable impression is that they are willing--I hope 
unwittingly--to cast aside U.S. laws designed to ensure that U.S. 
taxpayers' money will not be sent to regimes that proliferate weapons 
of mass destruction, or smuggle drugs over our borders, or promote acts 
of terrorism around the world.
  More disheartening is an apparent willingness to abandon the Cuban 
people to the brutality of Fidel Castro.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the Majority Leader has taken the 
initiative to create the Sanctions Task Force, of which I am a member. 
That bipartisan group has been tasked with studying sanctions in a 
deliberate process and produce recommendations for the consideration of 
the Senate.
  Rather than wait for that careful review, Senator Dodd has offered an 
amendment today that would have the effect of undermining existing 
sanctions on rogue states.
  Mr. President, there should be no mistake about Senator Dodd's 
seeking to undermine the U.S. embargo of Fidel Castro's regime. So 
eager is the Senator to achieve this end, that he is willing to blow a 
hole in all other U.S.-supported embargoes as well. That is what the 
Senator's amendment would do.
  The Senator's amendment is based on the mistaken notion that people 
in Cuba go without food and medicine due to U.S. sanctions. The facts 
paint a very different picture. Cubans have been impoverished by a 
failed Communist economy. Moreover, Castro denies his own people such 
necessities as a means of keeping them under his thumb. But, he makes 
state-of-the-art medical care available to Communist party cronies and 
foreign tourists who provide hard currency to his regime.
  Mr. President, U.S. and multilateral sanctions routinely contemplate 
humanitarian needs of the people in these countries. In the case of 
Cuba, U.S. law currently permits the sale of medicines and the donation 
of food and other humanitarian necessities. Indeed, just since 1992, 
Americans have provided about $2.3 billion in aid directly to the Cuban 
people.
  The comprehensive trade embargo on Iran allows for humanitarian 
donations to be sent. Even with North Korea, the U.S. has been able to 
accommodate humanitarian needs without loosening the restrictions in 
other areas.
  In Iraq, the food-for-oil agreement allows humanitarian aid to flow. 
Our Treasury Department also licenses the donation and sale of these 
items.
  The bottom-line is that the Dodd amendment is not good for the Cuban 
people or any other country--including our own. Therefore it is 
imperative that the Torricelli second degree amendment be approved by 
the Senate.
  In Cuba, as with other countries, there are reasonable, pro-active 
steps that we can take to promote the liberation of the people and, in 
the mean time, provide humanitarian assistance. But, we should do this 
without letting up the pressure on the tyrants who torment their own 
people.
  Mr. President, in closing, I am persuaded that it is not and never 
will be in the interest of the United States of America to relax 
pressure on governments that promote terrorism, destabilize regions 
with their aggression, proliferate nuclear weapons technology, and 
enslave their own people. Therefore, I urge that the pending Torricelli 
second degree amendment be approved overwhelmingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3160 to amendment No. 3158, as amended.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of its amendment add the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     section B(2) shall read as follows:
       (2) Exceptions.--Section (B)(1) of this section shall not 
     apply to any country that--
       (1) repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism, within the meaning of section 6(j)(1)(A) of the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2405(j)(1)(A)); or
       (2) systematically denies access to food, medicine, or 
     medical care to persons on the basis of political beliefs or 
     as a means of coercion or punishment; or to
       (3)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate has just expressed its will on 
this issue. My colleagues, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator 
Warner, Senator Grams, and Senator Dorgan and I offered the amendment 
and, in fact, included language by Senator Roberts which very 
specifically allows the President to retain or impose any of the above 
sanctions if he determines such sanctions to be in the national 
interest of the United States.
  Our underlying amendment only deals with unilateral economic 
sanctions. On any nation where there are multilateral sanctions, such 
as Libya and Iraq, this amendment would not apply. It is only in those 
countries where there are unilateral sanctions being imposed.
  Now, it should come as no great surprise to my colleagues that the 
nations on whom we impose unilateral sanctions are the very nations 
that my colleague from New Jersey would now like to exempt. What we 
have been suggesting here this evening is that this great Nation, as my 
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, so eloquently said--this great 
Nation, with its great economic and military power, we ought to be able 
to take food and medicine out of the arsenal of sanctions we use for 
the very economic elite and political elite of these terrorist 
countries. They do not suffer for lack of food. They do not suffer for 
lack of medicine. It is the innocents who live under these regimes who 
pay the price, and also the very farmers of this country who grow the 
products who are suffering today as a result of a farm crisis, denied 
the opportunity where there are nations who can afford to buy these 
products who pay the price. And we do not change policy in these 
countries.
  With all due respect to my good friend from New Jersey and those who 
would support this amendment, we have provided for language here that 
would allow for an exception should that occasion arise. But let us not 
undo the will that the Senate just expressed on the underlying 
amendment to take food and medicine off the table. Use whatever other 
sanctions we will or we might, but food and medicine ought not to be a 
part of the unilateral economic sanctions regime that this country 
would seek to impose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  All time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment No. 3160. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Grams
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--67

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell

[[Page S8228]]


     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bingaman
     Glenn
     Jeffords
  The motion to lay on the table was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3160) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3158, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the first-degree amendment, 
as amended.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the first-degree amendment, as 
amended.
  The amendment (No. 3158) as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3161

(Purpose: To ensure the continued viability of livestock producers and 
              the livestock industry in the United States)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Mr. 
     Burns, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3161.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 67, after line 23 add the following:

     SEC. 7____. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Domestic Market Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Section 203(g) of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(g)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(g) To'' and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Collection and Dissemination of Marketing 
     Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Domestic market reporting.--
       ``(A) Mandatory reporting pilot program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a 3-year 
     pilot program under which the Secretary shall require any 
     person or class of persons engaged in the business of buying, 
     selling, or marketing livestock, livestock products, meat, or 
     meat products in an unmanufactured form to report to the 
     Secretary in such manner as the Secretary shall require, such 
     information relating to prices and the terms of sale for the 
     procurement of livestock, livestock products, meat, or meat 
     products in an unmanufactured form as the Secretary 
     determines is necessary to carry out this subsection.
       ``(ii) Noncompliance.--It shall be unlawful for a person 
     engaged in the business of buying, selling, or marketing 
     livestock, livestock products, meat, or meat products in an 
     unmanufactured form to knowingly fail or refuse to provide to 
     the Secretary information required to be reported under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty.--

       ``(I) In general.--If the Secretary has reason to believe 
     that a person engaged in the business of buying, selling, or 
     marketing livestock, livestock products, meat, or meat 
     products in an unmanufactured form is violating the 
     provisions of subparagraph (A) (or regulation promulgated 
     under subparagraph (A)), the Secretary after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing, may make an order to cease and 
     desist from continuing the violation and assess a civil 
     penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.
       ``(II) Considerations.--In determining the amount of a 
     civil penalty to be assessed under clause (i), the Secretary 
     shall consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the 
     business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the 
     ability of the person to continue in business.

       ``(iv) Referral to attorney general.--If, after expiration 
     of the period for appeal or after the affirmance of a civil 
     penalty assessed under clause (iii), the person against whom 
     the civil penalty is assessed fails to pay the civil penalty, 
     the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General, 
     who may recover the amount of the civil penalty in a civil 
     action in United States district court.
       ``(B) Voluntary reporting.--The Secretary shall encourage 
     voluntary reporting by persons engaged in the business of 
     buying, selling, or marketing livestock, livestock products, 
     meats, or meat products in an unmanufactured form that are 
     not subjected to a mandatory reporting requirement under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall 
     make information received under this paragraph available to 
     the public only in a form that ensures that--
       ``(i) the identity of the person submitting a report is not 
     disclosed; and
       ``(ii) the confidentiality of proprietary business 
     information is otherwise protected.
       ``(D) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     restricts or modifies the authority of the Secretary to 
     collect voluntary reports in accordance with other provisions 
     of law.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--Section 203 of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary is directed and 
     authorized:''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of each of subsections (a) 
     through (f) and subsections (h) through (n), by striking 
     ``To'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall''.
       (b) Prohibition on Noncompetitive Practices.--Section 202 
     of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (g), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Engage in any practice or device that the Secretary 
     by regulation, after consultation with producers of cattle, 
     lamb, and hogs, and other persons in the cattle, lamb, and 
     hog industries, determines is a detrimental noncompetitive 
     practice or device relating to the price or a term of sale 
     for the procurement of livestock or the sale of meat or other 
     byproduct of slaughter.''.
       (c) Protection of Livestock Producers Against Retaliation 
     by Packers.--
       (1) Retaliation prohibited.--Section 202(b) of the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 192(b)), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or subject'' and inserting ``subject''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, or retaliate against any livestock producer on 
     account of any statement made by the producer (whether made 
     to the Secretary or a law enforcement agency or in a public 
     forum) regarding an action of any packer''.
       (2) Special requirements regarding allegations of 
     retaliation.--Section 203 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 193), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Special Procedures Regarding Allegations of 
     Retaliation.--
       ``(1) Consideration by special panel.--The President shall 
     appoint a special panel consisting of 3 members to receive 
     and initially consider a complaint submitted by any person 
     that alleges prohibited packer retaliation under section 
     202(b) directed against a livestock producer.
       ``(2) Complaint; hearing.--If the panel has reason to 
     believe from the complaint or resulting investigation that a 
     packer has violated or is violating the retaliation 
     prohibition under section 202(b), the panel shall notify the 
     Secretary who shall cause a complaint to be issued against 
     the packer, and a hearing conducted, under subsection (a).
       ``(3) Evidentiary standard.--In the case of a complaint 
     regarding retaliation prohibited under section 202(b), the 
     Secretary shall find that the packer involved has violated or 
     is violating section 202(b) if the finding is supported by a 
     preponderance of the evidence.''.
       (3) Damages for producers suffering retaliation.--Section 
     203 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 193) 
     (as amended by subsection (b)), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(f) Damages for Producers Suffering Retaliation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a packer violates the retaliation 
     prohibition under section 202(b), the packer shall be liable 
     to the livestock producer injured by the retaliation for not 
     more than 3 times the amount of damages sustained as a result 
     of the violation.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--The liability may be enforced either by 
     complaint to the Secretary, as provided in subsection (e), or 
     by suit in any court of competent jurisdiction.
       ``(3) Other remedies.--This subsection shall not abridge or 
     alter a remedy existing at common law or by statute. The 
     remedy provided by this subsection shall be in addition to 
     any other remedy.''.
       (d) Review of Federal Agriculture Credit Policies.--
       The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Chairman of 
     the Board of the Farm Credit Administration, shall establish 
     an interagency working group to study--
       (1) the extent to which Federal lending practices and 
     policies have contributed, or are contributing, to market 
     concentration in the livestock and dairy sectors of the 
     national economy; and

[[Page S8229]]

       (2) whether Federal policies regarding the financial system 
     of the United States adequately take account of the weather 
     and price volatility risks inherent in livestock and dairy 
     enterprises.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the financial 
crisis growing in our rural economy and to send an amendment to the 
desk.
  Nebraska's farmers and farm communities are confronting a series of 
events--most of them completely out of their control--that will lead 
most of them to lose money this year and may drive a fair share out of 
business. I have been meeting with groups of farmers for as long as I 
have been in the Senate, and the message I hear resounding across 
Nebraska is that the situation is very grim.
  This is a clear case of a situation in which families won't have a 
shot at the American dream if we don't put the law on their side.
  These events are a good reminder of why agriculture is such a 
precarious business to be in. Farmers are entrepreneurs who operate 
small businesses that manufacture their product outdoors. And on top of 
the always risky proposition of dealing with mother nature, this year 
our farmers are dealing with grain and livestock prices at their lowest 
levels in more than a decade, land rental prices that have increased by 
an average of 37%, a cost of living--particularly for health 
insurance--that keeps going up, even when commodity prices keep 
falling, and a rail transportation problem that will almost certainly 
leave record bushels of grain on the ground across middle America again 
this year.
  And I haven't even mentioned the event over which farmers have the 
least control--the economies of foreign countries. Nebraska sends a 
third of its agricultural exports to Asia. Or rather, we used to. With 
more than 60 million people now living on less than a dollar a day in 
Indonesia, those markets in Asia are gone.
  Many ``experts'' suggest that the key to a profitable farming 
operation is diversification. But when every major sector of production 
agriculture is operating at a loss--from corn to cattle to wheat to 
hogs--my farmers find that diversification is simply a decision of what 
to grow that will lose the least.
  What is most troubling to me about the financial crisis in rural 
America is that it comes at a time of unprecedented economic success 
for the rest of the country. But make no mistake: trouble in rural 
America will not stay confined to the farm. When Nebraska farmers lose 
money, Omaha laborers find themselves with less work and it will happen 
on a nationwide scale, too. Though less so now than in the past, the 
United States remains an agriculture-based economy. Agriculture is our 
only sector that runs a trade surplus. In Nebraska, it accounts for one 
of every four jobs.
  So I come to the floor today to issue a wake up call to the Senate. 
It doesn't matter what you call it--a crisis, a disaster, or just plain 
misfortune--family based agriculture in America is in grave danger. And 
there is no one who can act to preserve family based agriculture but 
us. The Secretary of Agriculture cannot do it and the U.S. Trade 
Representative cannot do it. If we believe in the value of family based 
agriculture, this Congress must act to preserve it ourselves.
  Under the leadership of Senator Daschle, we are bringing a number of 
amendments to the floor that will help farmers regain a measure of 
profitability this year. These amendments are reasonable and I believe 
that the Senate will recognize that they strengthen the existing farm 
law, rather than weaken it. And I hope that in a spirit of 
bipartisanship, we can agree that if we add these amendments to the 
farm bill we can make it work for our farmers.

  I am sending one of those amendments to the desk now. This amendment 
would try to improve market conditions in the livestock industry by 
mandating reporting requirements.
  We have price spreads between retail beef prices and the price paid 
to producers that are at record levels. We all know what happens when 
the price of crude oil goes down--we pay less for gas at the pump. But 
although the price of cattle has dropped precipitously, beef is still 
the same price if not higher at the supermarket. That defies logic and 
it says to me that something does not work in the cattle market. We 
have an amendment that would address that.
  This amendment will restore transparency to livestock markets by 
mandating the price reporting of live cattle and boxed beef.
  The cattle feeding industry is in an extended period of sharply 
negative feeding margins, with losses of about $100 per head.
  Earlier this year, hog prices sank to a 26-year low.
  But at the same time, consumer prices at the retail level remain 
unchanged.
  Producers are concerned that there is not enough information to 
determine fair market prices for livestock, and this price reporting 
amendment will change that.
  Common sense tells us that complete price information is vital to an 
efficient market. But the majority of cattle are now sold under secret 
pricing deals, and those transactions are not recorded in the cash 
market.
  The lack of transparency in the market creates the potential for 
exploitation, and we must act to stop that. My democratic colleagues 
support this approach and I am optimistic that Republicans can support 
this amendment, as well.
  So I hope that we will come together in a bipartisan way this week 
and pass these measures to help alleviate the financial crisis 
occurring in rural America. For we have a great deal at stake here, and 
it is more than just a partisan quibble over whether or not to make 
changes in a law.
  At stake is the preservation of family based agriculture and whether 
or not Congress has the good sense and the courage to step in while 
there is still time. For all of our sakes, I hope we do.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment that authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 3-year pilot program in mandatory 
price reporting so that we can get a true market in the cattle 
industry. It has been long debated by the Agriculture Committee. I 
think most Members have pretty well made up their minds on it.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the amendment allows the head of the 
stockyards division to look into a way to set up mandatory price 
reporting. Right now, we only have one segment of the chain in the 
cattle market that is doing any price discovery at all; that is at the 
auction market. When cattle changes hands in feedlots and packing 
houses, these prices are not reported, or they go unreported for a 
week. We cannot make marketing decisions if you are producing 
replacement cattle while doing business like that. I suggest the 
adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from Montana for this amendment.
  We have a very serious situation with regard to price transparency. 
Can you imagine going into a store and not knowing the price? Can you 
imagine a retailer going into the market and not knowing what the 
prevailing price is?
  What these two Senators are doing is simply asking that we have a 
pilot project to be able to decide if there is a way by which to better 
describe prices and a way to bring about price transparencies so 
producers and retailers or anybody has a better understanding of what 
the market is.
  If you really believe in a free market, you will support this pilot 
project because it simply allows the free market to do its work.
  Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed by the number of small to 
medium-sized producers going out of business in our states, and by 
mounting evidence that anti-competitive forces within the livestock 
market are contributing to this trend of shrinking income.
  This amendment offered by Senator Kerrey will help end the secret 
livestock deals that are driving small to medium-sized producers out of 
business in our states, by requiring that they report the prices they 
pay for live cattle.
  This in turn will assure that the market price accurately reflects 
the real value of livestock, in other words increases market 
transparency.
  In South Dakota, smaller livestock producers are leaving the industry 
literally by the hundreds.

[[Page S8230]]

  According to South Dakota State University, in the past five years 
South Dakota has lost over 1,000 of our smaller cow/calf operators, and 
over 800 small feedlots.
  Not only do these losses cripple rural communities, they threaten the 
vitality of the agriculture industry itself.
  Small business plays an essential role in any market; it is small 
business that can respond most rapidly to changing consumer demand, and 
small business that is most likely to innovate and meet the preferences 
of niche markets.
  As packers and feedlots continue to merge, as smaller operations go 
out of business, and as producers face progressively fewer markets for 
their production, we lose an important segment of the industry.
  The result will be a less diverse, less responsive marketplace.
  Increasing market transparency is essential to ensuring our producers 
at least have a chance to compete.
  I appreciate that USDA publishes voluntarily reported price 
information, but we need to do more.
  The contract prices that currently are not reported may have market 
distorting effects because reported cash prices do not reflect true 
market conditions.
  Formula pricing, captive supplies, and vertical integration all 
contribute to transactions off of the cash market, and severely impede 
many producers' ability to compete.
  This amendment would ensure, on a test basis, that all livestock 
prices are reported.
  This means producers and feedlots will know that the market price 
accurately reflects the prices being paid in private transactions.
  This is the way the free market is supposed to work.
  The majority of producers who talk to me about conditions in the 
industry today simply say they want a fair shake.
  They want a chance to work hard to produce a high quality product and 
to sell it for a fair price.
  We expect our foreign markets to be open and fair so that we can 
compete abroad. Producers absolutely should be able to expect the same 
of our domestic markets.
  Producers and farm organizations have been saying for some time that 
as prices and terms of trade become increasingly limited, there isn't 
enough information available to determine the fair market price for 
livestock.
  I continue to hear that not only is complete price information vital 
to an efficient market, but also that it may reduce the potential for 
exploitative relationships in the industry.
  This is an important, reasonable step to take on behalf of our small 
livestock producers.
  If we care about small business, if we care about the rural 
communities they serve, if we care about having a fair and open 
marketplace in agriculture, we will pass Senator Kerrey's amendment.
  I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with some reluctance, I oppose the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. I do so 
because the industry is not for this amendment. The National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association has written a letter in opposition to the 
amendment. And just one word of that letter says the following. They 
refer to the Daschle amendment. This is the same amendment dealing with 
mandatory live cattle price reporting:

       These amendments are not fair and equitable to beef 
     producers, and many of these provisions are counter to our 
     producers' policies.

  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the total letter from the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the record, as follows:

                                              National Cattlemen's


                                             Beef Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1998.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: S. 2159, the Agricultural 
     Appropriations bill, will soon be considered on the Senate 
     floor. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association strongly 
     supports increasing funding for essential programs such as 
     food safety research and cooperative extension, emerging 
     animal disease research, the Market Access Program and the 
     Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.
       In addition to these priorities, there are a number of the 
     proposed amendments to this bill that have the potential to 
     affect America's cattle producers. The National Cattlemen's 
     Beef Association supports the following amendments to S. 
     2159:
       Johnson (D-SD)/Craig (R-ID) amendment would require 
     labeling of retail meat as either U.S. product or imported 
     product. This provision addresses frustrations among U.S. 
     producer who question why livestock imported into the U.S. 
     for immediate slaughter are marketed as U.S. product. The 
     proposed language is consistent with U.S. responsibilities 
     and commitments to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Consumers demand 
     quality and consistency, and producers are continually 
     working to meet consumer demands. Import labeling will help 
     differentiate products in the retail meat case and increase 
     competition among product lines. With labeling, consumers 
     will have the ability to make more informed purchases.
       Hatch (R-UT) amendment would allow for the interstate 
     shipment and sale of state inspected meat provided that the 
     state inspection process meets or exceeds federal inspection 
     standards. State-inspected beef, pork and poultry are the 
     only food products banned from interstate distribution. This 
     provision also provides an additional incentive for state 
     inspected meat plants to implement Hazard Analysis and 
     Critical Control Point (HACCP) methods. The time is right for 
     Congress to address this unjust policy that discriminates 
     against thousands of small business owners.
       Lugar (R-IN) amendment and the Roberts (R-KS)/Robb (D-VA) 
     amendment would require thorough evaluation of international 
     trade sanction. International trade sanctions are stifling to 
     beef export sales and the entire U.S. economy. While 
     sanctions are sometimes necessary, these measures should 
     undergo thorough scrutiny to ensure they are meeting their 
     intended goals.
       The nation's cattle industry opposes the following proposed 
     amendments to S. 2159:
       Daschle (D-SD) amendment dealing with mandatory live cattle 
     price reporting, packer concentration, and nonemergency 
     haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program acreage. 
     These amendments are not fair and equitable to beef producers 
     and many of these provisions are counter to our producers' 
     policy.
       Bryan/Reid (D-NV) amendment would eliminate funding for the 
     $90 million Market Access Program (MAP). MAP is crucial to 
     maintaining, developing and expanding agricultural export 
     markets. Eliminating this program would be a huge step back 
     for American agriculture.
       Brownback (R-KS) amendment would seriously restrict the 
     Agriculture Census. Data provided by the Agriculture Census 
     is crucial to farmers and ranchers who need the best 
     information available to make timely, informed decisions.
       Leahy (D-VT)/Santorum (R-PA) amendment would cap the amount 
     of money available to the Wetlands Reserve Program and 
     earmark this savings for the Farmland Protection Program.
       Daschle (D-SD) loan rate amendment, Baucus (D-MT) loan rate 
     amendment and the Conrad/Dorgan (D-ND) indemnity payment 
     amendment changes farm bill policies. The National 
     Cattlemen's Beef Association strongly opposes any amendment 
     that would significantly change ``Freedom to Farm'' policy.
       Bennett (R-UT) amendment would prohibit the Commodities 
     Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) ability to regulate over-
     the-counter trades and derivatives. CFTC's ability to ensure 
     open and accurate price discovery is paramount to beef 
     producers.
       On behalf of over one million beef producers from across 
     the country, we appreciate your consideration of these issues 
     that are crucial to America's cattle industry. If you have 
     questions or you would like to discuss any of these issues 
     further, please contact our office at (202) 347-0228.
           Sincerely,
                                            G. Chandler Keys, III,
                                    Vice President, Public Policy.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the American Meat Institute points out in 
a letter to me that this amendment is not a good idea in a free 
economy, and you don't need a pilot program to learn that. It does not 
add information so much as it burdens industry and compromises 
legitimate business interests.
  In the Department of Agriculture, there is opposition to the 
amendment. They say that it reports already 75 percent or more of the 
40 to 50 percent of boxed beef sales that comply with the reporting 
criteria. The Department estimates that more than two-thirds of the 
live negotiated cattle sales are reported.
  I might conclude by pointing out that no other segment of agriculture 
has to undergo mandatory reporting of all private business 
transactions. This

[[Page S8231]]

pilot program will only add more burden on the industry and it 
compromises legitimate business interests.
  I suggest that the amendment should be defeated.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my intention to move to table, but I will withhold 
the motion to table the Kerrey amendment and to ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just so there is no mistake in here, the 
administration, the Department of Agriculture, strongly supports this 
amendment.
  Again, let me remind my colleagues that this is a pilot project. It 
is an opportunity to see whether it works. We want to see the 
opportunity for price transparency. Let us know what the market price 
produces. Let's see what the prices are going to be to give and take 
between processors and producers. That is what this study is all about.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senate is not in order, Mr. President.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the manager will withhold for a minute, 
this will be the last vote of the night. We hope to take up the 
Grassley amendment the first thing in the morning, with the first vote 
hopefully occurring at 10:30, although that has not been worked out. 
This will be the last vote of the night.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the letter from the American Meat Institute, the letter that I referred 
to, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      American Meat Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1998.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Thad Cochran: Some Members who are concerned about 
     USDA-reported market prices for meat may offer an amendment 
     to the pending Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration Appropriations Bill that would establish a 
     pilot program on mandatory price reporting. AMI strongly 
     opposes such a program. I respectfully request that you raise 
     a point of order opposing any attempt to amend the bill with 
     a pilot price-reporting program.
       As I testified in the June 10 Senate Agriculture Committee 
     hearing, voluntary reporting by industry currently captures a 
     significant share of what is happening in today's market. On 
     the boxed beef side; for instance, USDA estimates it reports 
     75 percent or more of all boxed beef sales that comply with 
     the department's reporting criteria. A similar reporting 
     situation exists on the live cattle side, where USDA 
     estimates it captures and reports on more than two-thirds of 
     all negotiated sales.
       Mandatory reporting of all private business transactions 
     between parties does not exist in any other segment of 
     agriculture. It is not a good idea in a free economy, and you 
     don't need a pilot program to learn that. It does not add 
     information so much as it burdens industry and compromises 
     legitimate business interests. As you know, USDA reporting 
     criteria are designed to enhance the reporting of information 
     that is meaningful to the market.
           Sincerely,
                                                 J. Patrick Boyle,
                                                   President, CEO.

  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, while it is true that the packers and many 
of the processing industry do not like the idea of having to disclose 
prices and bidding, you would be hard-pressed to find a single rancher 
or cattle feeder in the United States of America who opposes this 
amendment. This is a pilot program. It will make the market work 
better. There are only three packers in America controlling 
approximately 80 percent of the market today. That is why this 
amendment is needed.
  I say to colleagues who want the free market to work and like the 
marketplace, go talk to your feeders. Go talk to the people who are out 
there ranching right now. They want to know what the prices are in 
order to get full price discovery so that they are able to know whether 
or not they are getting the best price for their product. It is true 
that the packing industry and many processors do not like this 
requirement. But, as I said, again you would be hard-pressed to find a 
single feed lot operator or rancher in America who will not support 
this change in law.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the first letter that I read an excerpt 
from was from the American Cattlemen's Association. They represent all 
the beef cattlemen, many of them, throughout the country.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, that letter comes on behalf of people who 
are in the packing industry. I just tell colleagues that if you have 
ranchers or feed lot operators in your State, they support the change. 
There is a division in this particular association that comes as a 
consequence of packers being a part of this association. I don't object 
to the packers at all. I believe this change will enable them to be 
profitable. It doesn't shut them down at all. It merely says they have 
no surprise when they bid on the cattle in the marketplace.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, could we have order. This is a very 
important issue for people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have order in the body.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association 
does not represent the feeders. It represents the rank and file 
rancher, large and small, across our Nation. This letter says they 
oppose the amendment. It is very clearly, very clearly stated.
  We developed a futures market not only to look at current but future 
prices. Most of the livestock industry today effectively operates off 
of that and the market trends.
  Would I like to see more transparency? We all would like to see it. 
Does a government system and new government regulations dictating it 
cause it? The marketplace causes it. But this is a pilot program. Like 
it or not, it is new regulations in the process.
  As a former rancher, as a former cattle feeder, I will tell you this 
is a new set of Government regulations that may resolve the question 
for a very small number of operators. But for the industry itself--
large, small, packer, feeder, producer, cow-calf operator--this is not 
for what they are asking. I don't believe it is the effective way to do 
it. I hope you would support a motion to table.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I was going to move to table, but I understand the 
Senator from Montana wishes to speak.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I just want to make one point. You have 
three packers that are handling 85 percent of the national cattle that 
are killed today. And they don't want to report the prices so that the 
people who produce calves and replacement cattle and feed cattle in the 
feed lots, the individual producers, or a small packer, can compete 
with them. It doesn't make sense. We have always reported those prices. 
And now, with a lot of packer-owned cattle moving in there, we get no 
information at all.
  Let's look at this pilot program. Let's work with the postmarketing 
surveillance. We can come up with some way to report these prices so 
that we know what these cattle are worth all the way back to the ranch.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to say amen to the Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded. Is there a sufficient 
second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman)

[[Page S8232]]

and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bingaman
     Glenn
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3161) was rejected.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERREY. I move to table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3161) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the remaining amendments that we have 
identified to complete action on tonight were the Johnson amendment 
regarding meat labeling and the Graham amendment regarding disaster 
assistance. We are prepared to recommend that the Senate accept those 
amendments, along with other amendments that have been cleared by the 
two managers. I am prepared to ask unanimous consent that we accept 
those amendments en bloc, those that we have identified, and include 
statements in the Record describing the amendments.
  Mr. President, Senator Graham is here. We could do his amendment 
first. We are prepared to accept it, and then the other list of 
amendments we will do en bloc if there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 3162

    (Purpose: To appropriate funds for certain programs to provide 
assistance to agricultural producers for losses resulting from drought 
                                or fire)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr. 
     Mack, proposes an amendment numbered 3162.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 29, after line 21, add the following:


                          DISASTER ASSISTANCE

       For necessary expenses to provide assistance to 
     agricultural producers in a county with respect to which a 
     disaster or emergency was declared by the President or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture by July 15, 1998, as a result of 
     drought and fire, through--
       (1) the forestry incentives program established under the 
     Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 
     et seq.), $9,000,000;
       (2) a livestock indemnity program carried out in accordance 
     with part 1439 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     $300,000;
       (3) the emergency conservation program authorized under 
     sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201, 2202, 2204), $2,000,000; and
       (4) the disaster reserve assistance program established 
     under section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 
     1427a), $10,000,000;
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that the 
     President submits to Congress an official budget request for 
     a specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement for 
     the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.): Provided further, 
     That the entire amount of funds necessary to carry out this 
     paragraph is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)).

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, members of the Senate, today I join my 
colleague, Senator Mack, in offering an amendment to the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill that will provide much needed relief to agriculture 
in the State of Florida in the wake of the extreme drought and severe 
wildfires that have plagued our State in the last two months.
  The fire crisis is the latest example of our State's meteorological 
reversal of fortune in 1998. Florida's hot summer temperatures are 
typically accompanied by afternoon thunderstorms and tropical weather. 
This year's heat and drought, and the lush undergrowth and foliage that 
sprung up in the wake of Florida's unusually wet winter, combine to 
fuel the fires that have put the State under a cloud of smoke and 
chased nearly 112,000 residents from their homes, 2,000 of them into 
emergency shelters.
  These fires have had severe consequences. More than 220 homes, 
businesses, or buildings have been destroyed or heavily damaged. Nearly 
100 individuals, mostly brave firefighters battling the blazes, have 
been injured. A 140-mile stretch of Interstate 95 was closed for 
several days. 458,000 acres of land have burned.
  Florida has sustained almost $300 million in damage. In a step never 
before taken in Florida's long history with violent weath, every one of 
the 45,000 residents of Flagler County--a coastal area between 
Jacksonville and Daytona Beach--had to be evacuated from their homes 
over the Independence Day weekend.
  On June 19, 1998, President Clinton declared all 67 Florida counties 
as a major disaster area and made them eligible for immediate federal 
financial assistance. In the weeks that followed that declaration, FEMA 
officials skillfully coordinated relief efforts and worked hard to 
channel additional aid to the hardest hit areas.
  Both the fires and their original cause, the extreme drought 
throughout the state, have contributed to a drastic impact on Florida 
agriculture, particularly in the North and West areas of the State. 
600,000 acres of summer crops were destroyed or severely damaged by the 
drought conditions. Hardest hit has been corn which has suffered a 100 
percent low on about 80,000 acres and 50 percent yield loss on another 
20,000 acres. Value of the lost corn crops as of June 22, 1998, was 
identified to be $20 million. Cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and 
watermelons have suffered 25 to 30 percent losses.
  At the end of June, virtually none of the $60 million hay crop was 
harvested, causing the potential for a major shortage of winter feed 
even when the drought subsides.
  In the Panhandle area, many of the 7,000 farmers are facing their 
third straight year of destructive weather conditions after tropical 
storms and hurricanes in 1996 and 1997. In this region alone, farmers 
have invested more than $100 million in borrowed money to plant this 
year's crop, only to find themselves with no prospect of harvest at 
this time.
  In response to this dire situation, on July 9, 1998, Secretary 
Glickman declared the state of Florida to be an Agriculture Disaster 
area, making agriculture in Florida eligible for federal financial 
assistance.
  This declaration makes Florida agriculture eligible for several 
Department of Agriculture programs including:
  (1) the Emergency Loan Program which provides assistance to family 
farmers, ranchers, and aquaculture operators with loans to cover losses 
resulting from natural disasters.

[[Page S8233]]

  (2) the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) which 
provides assistance to eligible owners of non-insured crops when a 
natural disaster causes a catastrophic loss of production; and
  (3) the Emergency Conservation Program which provides assistance to 
farmers fro the purpose of performing emergency conservation measures 
to control wind erosion, to rehabilitate farmlands damaged by natural 
disasters, and to carry out emergency water conservation measures.
  These programs will provide vital assistance to the Florida 
agriculture community. However, there are some needs of Florida in the 
wake of this disaster that are not addressed by existing programs.
  First, in the area of forestry, we currently have almost 500,000 
acres that were completely destroyed. To provide assistance for 
reforestation in this type of situation, the Department of Agriculture 
has created the Forestry Incentive Program which authorizes USDA to 
share up to 65% of the costs of tree planting, timber stand 
improvements, and related practices on nonindustrial private forest 
lands. In the state of Florida, there are over 7 million acres in this 
ownership class equal to 49% of our state's timberland. To support this 
need, Senator Mack and I have proposed an emergency appropriation of $9 
million to be expended over the next 3 years to spur the rebirth of the 
Florida forests.
  Second, in the area of livestock, the state of Florida is suffering 
in two ways. We have had a small number of livestock deaths and are 
experiencing a widespread food shortage due to drought and fire. To 
compensate livestock owners for livestock deaths attributable to the 
natural disaster, my colleague and I are requesting an emergency 
appropriation of $300,000 for the Livestock Indemnity Program. Many of 
you are familiar with this program as it has provided support for 
livestock casualties in many of your states. This program will provide 
benefits in the state of Florida to beef and dairy cattle, swine, 
goats, poultry, equine animals used for the production of food, and 
ostrich.
  The need for livestock feed is a long-term issue that is affecting 32 
counties with approximately 1,073,000 head of cattle, with severe 
problems with approximately 750,000 head. In the state of Florida, the 
majority of dairy and beef producers grow their own hay on individual 
farms for future use as cattle feed. The majority of these hays are 
seasonal, with a growing season spanning approximately 7 to 8 months. 
During the 2-3 months of severe flooding followed by severe drought and 
subsequent fire, approximately 1.5 million acres of pastureland has 
been completely destroyed, leaving approximately 1.1 million cattle 
with the threat of malnutrition leading to decreased dairy production 
and substandard beef production. Extension specialists estimate a need 
for 30 million pounds of roughage a day for Florida cows with only 15 
million pounds per day available from current pasture production even 
with welcomed rains on part of the state. These producers desperately 
need assistance in order to provide adequate feed grain for their 
livestock.

  The state of Florida is fortunate to have received approximately 170 
truckloads of feed that have been donated from Oregon, Kentucky, 
Illinois, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland, although only 82 tons have 
been delivered to producers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and North 
Carolina due to lack of transportation. While this feed would provide a 
starting point for renourishment of livestock, there are no funds 
available to transport it.
  To combat this situation, Senator Mack and I are introducing in this 
amendment a request for $10,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Assistance 
Program to be used in support of a livestock feed program providing 
reimbursement for feed purchase or transport for over 1.1 million head 
of cattle. Prior to 1996, the Emergency Feed Assistance Program was the 
primary user of the DRAP, providing 25,716,113 bushels between 1984 and 
1996. This program was suspended by the 1996 Farm Bill.
  Finally, we are requesting an additional $2,000,000 for the Emergency 
Conservation Program (ECP) in support specifically of conservation. For 
example, in the state, there are currently approximately 390 miles of 
destroyed fences in just 3 counties from fires resulting in potentially 
12,000 cows roaming outside of home pasturelands.
  Mr. President, and fellow members of Congress: I ask that you give 
full consideration to this amendment and the dire needs of agriculture 
in the state of Florida as we seek to recover from the devastating 
effects of this year's drought and fire.
  Mr. President, unfortunately, the Nation and the world are aware of 
the very severe circumstances through which Florida has recently 
suffered and continues, fortunately in a less degree, to suffer, as a 
result of drought and severe wildfires. The purpose of this amendment 
is to restore various accounts within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture that are intended to provide disaster assistance and makes 
that assistance available to those areas which have been designated, as 
of July 15, 1998, to be agricultural disaster areas.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment on behalf of myself and my 
colleague, Senator Mack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Department of Agriculture advises us 
that they cannot at this time verify whether available disaster money 
has been depleted. I understand this has been a devastating disaster 
for Florida and that other areas of the country have also been affected 
by various disasters. We will work with the administration and the 
House conferees to address the needs of the areas affected by these 
recent disasters and to determine whether these needs are being met 
through available funds.
  It is my hope that the Department of Agriculture and the Office of 
Management and Budget are assessing the need for additional funding to 
meet the needs resulting from these most recent disasters and that the 
President will soon submit to the Congress requests for supplemental 
funds which are determined to be required.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3162) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


               Amendments Nos. 3163 Through 3170, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas and I have 
reviewed a number of amendments and have agreed to recommend the Senate 
accept them. I now ask unanimous consent the following amendments be 
considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be 
laid upon the table: An amendment of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Coverdell, on food safety research and E. coli; Senators DeWine and 
Hutchison, a sense of the Senate on inhalants; Senators Harkin and 
Grassley on APHIS biocontainment facilities; Senator Cochran, a 
technical correction on conservation operations; Senators Kempthorne 
and Baucus and others, secondary agriculture education, with a 
Kempthorne statement for the Record; an amendment for Senator Bryan 
dealing with the Market Access Program report; another amendment in 
behalf of Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Mack on the 
Mediterranean fruit fly; an amendment for Senator Johnson on meat 
labeling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 3163 through 3170, en bloc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments (Nos. 3163 
through 3170), en bloc, are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 3163 through 3170) agreed to en bloc are as 
follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3163

 (Purpose: To earmark funding for the food safety competitive research 
                program for research on E.coli: 0157H7)

       On page 14, line 17 before the period, insert the 
     following:
       ``: Provided, That of the $2,000,000 made available for a 
     food safety competitive research program at least $550,000 
     shall be available for research on E.coli:0157H7.

[[Page S8234]]

                           amendment no. 3164

  (Purpose: To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to conduct 
assessments and take other actions relating to the transition from use 
    of chlorofluorocarbons in metered-dose inhalers, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. METERED-DOSE INHALERS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the 
     Ozone Layer (referred to in this section as the ``Montreal 
     Protocol'') requires the phaseout of products containing 
     ozone-depleting substances, including chloroflourocarbons;
       (2) the primary remaining legal use in the United States of 
     newly produced chloroflourocarbons is in metered-dose 
     inhalers;
       (3) treatment with metered-dose inhalers is the preferred 
     treatment for many patients with asthma and chronic 
     obstructive pulmonary disease;
       (4) the incidence of asthma and chronic obstructive 
     pulmonary disease is increasing in children and is most 
     prevalent among low-income persons in the United States;
       (5) the Parties to the Montreal Protocol have called for 
     development of national transition strategies to non-
     chloroflourocarbon metered-dose inhalers;
       (6) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs published an advance 
     notice of proposed rulemaking that suggested a tentative 
     framework for how to phase out the use of metered-dose 
     inhalers that contain chloroflourocarbons in the Federal 
     Register on March 6, 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 10242 (referred to in 
     this section as the ``proposal''); and
       (7) the medical and patient communities, while calling for 
     a formal transition strategy issued by the Food and Drug 
     Administration by rulemaking, have expressed serious concerns 
     that the proposal, if implemented without change, could 
     potentially place some patients at risk by causing the 
     removal of metered-dose inhalers containing 
     chloroflourocarbons from the market before adequate non-
     chlorofluorocarbon replacements are available.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Food and Drug Administration should, in 
     consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, assess 
     the risks and benefits to the environment and to patient 
     health of the proposal and any alternatives;
       (2) in conducting such assessments, the Food and Drug 
     Administration should consult with patients, physicians, 
     other health care providers, manufacturers of metered-dose 
     inhalers, and other interested parties;
       (3) using the results of these assessments and the 
     information contained in the comments FDA has received on the 
     proposal the Food and Drug Administration should promptly 
     issue a rule ensuring that a range of non-chloroflourocarbon 
     metered-dose inhaler alternatives is available for users, 
     comparable to existing treatments in terms of safety, 
     efficacy, and other appropriate parameters necessary to meet 
     patient needs, which rule should not be based on a 
     therapeutic class phaseout approach; and
       (4) the Food and Drug Administration should issue a 
     proposed rule described in paragraph (3) not later than May 
     1, 1999.


                           amendment no. 3165

(Purpose: To provide for the construction of a Federal animal biosafety 
                      level-3 containment center)

       On page 20, line 7, strike ``expended'' and insert: 
     ``expended: Provided, That the Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service shall enter into a cooperative agreement 
     for construction of a Federal large animal biosafety level-3 
     containment facility in Iowa''.


                           amendment no. 3166

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for conservation operations)

       On page 31, line 4, strike ``$638,231,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$638,664,000''.


                           amendment no. 3167

  (Purpose: To provide funding for a secondary agriculture education 
   program, as authorized by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
                          Reform Act of 1996)

       On page 14, line 5, after the semicolon, insert 
     ``$1,000,000 for a secondary agriculture education program (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(h);''.
       On page 14, line 17, strike ``$436,082,000'' and insert 
     ``$437,082,000.''
       On page 35, line 7, strike ``$703,601,000'' and insert 
     ``$702,601,000.''

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have come to 
this floor today to talk about the state of American agriculture. 
Simply put, we are in a state of emergency.
  Whether it be low commodity prices, lack of export markets or too 
many government restrictions, farmers are facing catastrophes from 
every angle. If we are truly going to take steps to fix this problem, 
and not just use short-term fixes, we must to examine and correct the 
alarming rate at which children are leaving the family farm in pursuit 
of other occupations.
  Wilder, Idaho, is a small town in Idaho known for its fertile soil 
and exceptional growing conditions. Wilder is also the hometown of 
Idaho's distinguished governor, Phil Batt. In fact, Phil still lists 
his occupation as a farmer and can still be seen driving his pickup 
around the farm periodically. Wilder is also the home of the Churches--
Tom and his son Mike. When Mike Church turned 18, he left for one of 
the most prestigious agriculture universities in the nation, Texas A&M, 
with the intention of getting his degree in agriculture economics and 
eventually returning to the land that his family has farmed for 
generations. Something happened to Mike while at A&M, he decided that 
he could not follow in his father's footsteps as a farmer. While 
studying agriculture balance sheets, Mike realized it was becoming more 
and more difficult for farmers across the country to break even, much 
less make a profit on their family farm.
  It's not that Mike didn't want to farm, the fact is he had worked on 
the farm since he was a young boy. Mike felt that the future was bleak 
in farming and had witnessed the struggles that Idaho farmers faced 
every day on the family farm. It was based on these realizations that 
Mike decided there was more of a future in speculating the paper 
commodities as a stockbroker than growing the actual commodities as a 
farmer. Twenty or thirty years ago it was understood that a son, or 
sometimes a daughter, would take over the family farm. This is no 
longer the case.
  If we are going to save the American family farm, we must start with 
the children who live on it. We must inspire the young people in our 
rural communities, like Wilder, to continue in the field of 
agriculture. Agriculture is not just about judging the weather anymore; 
the science of agriculture has become the cutting edge as we continue 
to compete against farmers in countries around the globe.
  This amendment provides much needed funding to an area that can and 
will inspire those young people to continue in farming. The Agriculture 
Education Competitive Grants Program would fund a competitive grants 
program for school-based agricultural education at the high school and 
junior college levels of instruction. The program was authorized in the 
1996 Farm Bill. Competitive grants targeted to school-based 
agricultural education would be used to enhance curricula, increase 
teacher competencies, promote the incorporation of agriscience and 
agribusiness education into other subject matter, like science and 
mathematics, and facilitate joint initiatives between secondary 
schools, 2-year postsecondary schools, and 4-year universities.
  Most importantly, the program would encourage young people to pursue 
higher education in the food and agricultural sciences--something in 
which this country is currently making a failing grade.
  Mr. President, we must find a way to keep talented young people like 
Mike Church in the classroom and on the farm. The agriculture 
competitive grants program is the first step in that direction. This a 
bipartisan effort. Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, Senator Johnson, 
Senator Dorgan, Senator Thomas, and Senator Faircloth have all lent 
their cosponsorship to this amendment. It is through this bipartisan 
spirit that we can begin to bring the next generation of farmers back 
to the farm I thank my colleagues for joining in supporting my 
amendment to fund the Agricultural Education Competitive Grants 
Program.


                           amendment no. 3168

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress 
             a report concerning the market access program)

       On page 67, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, shall submit to the committees of Congress specified 
     in subsection (c) a report that, as determined by the 
     Secretary--
       (1)(A) analyzes the costs and benefits of programs carried 
     out under that section in compliance with the cost-benefit 
     analysis guidelines established by the Office of Management 
     and Budget in Circular A-94, dated October 29, 1992; and
       (B) in any macroeconomic studies, treats resources in the 
     United States as if the resources were likely to be fully 
     employed;
       (2) considers all potential costs and benefits of the 
     programs carried out under that section, specifically noting 
     potential distortions in the economy that could lower 
     national output of goods and services and employment;

[[Page S8235]]

       (3) estimates the impact of programs carried out under that 
     section on the agricultural sector and on consumers and other 
     sectors of the economy in the United States;
       (4) considers costs and benefits of operations relating to 
     alternative uses of the budget for the programs under that 
     section;
       (5)(A) analyzes the relation between the priorities and 
     spending levels of programs carried out under that section 
     and the privately funded market promotion activities 
     undertaken by participants in the programs; and
       (B) evaluates the spending additionality for participants 
     resulting from the program.
       (6) conducts an analysis of the amount of export 
     additionality for activities financed under programs carried 
     out under that section in sponsored countries, controlling 
     for relevant variables, including--
       (A) information on the levels of private expenditures for 
     promotion;
       (B) government promotion by competitor nations;
       (C) changes in foreign and domestic supply conditions;
       (D) changes in exchange rates; and
       (E) the effect of ongoing trade liberalization;
       (7) provides an evaluation of the sustainability of 
     promotional effort in sponsored results for recipients in the 
     absence of government subsidies.
       (b) Evaluation by Comptroller General.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States submit an evaluation of the 
     report to the committees specified in subsection (c).
       (c) Committees of Congress.--The committees of Congress 
     referred to in subsection (a) are--
       (1) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3169

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for fruit fly exclusion and 
                       detection, with an offset)

       On page 19, line 10, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of the amounts made 
     available under this heading, not less than $22,970,000 shall 
     be used for fruit fly exclusion and detection''.
       On page 19, line 23, strike ``$95,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$93,000,000''.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment will increase by $2 million 
the funds available to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
in their battle against the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, or medfly. I am, 
unfortunately, all too familiar with the devastation caused by these 
tiny pests, and I am particularly concerned this year, because Florida 
has experienced an unusual number of medfly infestations.
  In the past, medflies have caused significant damage to Florida fruit 
and vegetable crops. This year's infestation is particularly troubling, 
because it has occurred in the heart of Florida's citrus and tomato 
growing country. In Lake County, over 1,300 medflies have been detected 
since the end of April. In Manatee County, over 550 medflies have been 
detected since the first find in mid-May. In fact, just last week, a 
medfly was discovered in Highlands County, and as of today, over 100 
new flies have been detected in this area.
  Unless fully eradicated, the medfly has the potential to cause 
hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to Florida fruit and 
vegetable crops. In addition, medfly infestation provides our trading 
partners with a convenient reason to deny the entry of Florida fresh 
fruits and vegetables into their country. Florida's growers have spent 
a considerable amount of time and money in their efforts to gain access 
to important markets, like Mexico. Each time medflies are discovered in 
Florida, growers are forced to take a giant step backwards in their 
markets access efforts.
  The eradication efforts themselves, through ground or aerial spraying 
and the release of sterile medflies, are also expensive, costing the 
State of Florida and the federal government over $20 million last year.
  The funds provided by this amendment will enhance APHIS's efforts to 
exclude and detect the medfly. Funds will be utilized to increase 
trapping and detection activities, particularly in urban areas and near 
ports-of-entry, where the introduction of this pest is most likely. 
Increasing funds for this program will also help to reassure our 
trading partners that the U.S. is committed to medfly control, and will 
deter them from restricting the entry of citrus products and other 
important agricultural exports.
  In conclusion, I would like to make it very clear that this is only 
the first step in a more comprensive strategy to address this critical 
problem. Because medflies commonly enter the United States via larval-
infested fruit carried through ports-of-entry by travelers or by 
commercial fruit smugglers, I have asked the Department of Agriculture 
to undertake an immediate review of their inspection procedures at 
Florida ports-of-entry, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
inspection process. The Department of Agriculture has indicated that 
this review will be completed within the next three to four months. The 
results of the review will provide us with a roadmap for future 
actions, including the appropriate funding levels for a fully effective 
inspection program. I look forward to working closely with the Chairman 
and Ranking member to find a more permanent solution to this critical 
problem.
       On page 67, after line 23 add the following:
                       TITLE VIII--MEAT LABELING

     SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
     601) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(w) Beef.--The term `beef'' means meat produced from 
     cattle (including veal).
       ``(x) Lamb.--The term `lamb' means meat, other than mutton, 
     produced from sheep.
       ``(y) Beef blended with imported meat.--The term `beef 
     blended with imported meat' means ground beef, or beef in 
     another meat food product that contains United States beef 
     and any imported meat.
       ``(z) Lamb blended with imported meat.--The term `lamb 
     blended with imported meat' means ground meat, or lamb in 
     another meat food product, that contains United States lamb 
     and any imported meat.
       ``(aa) Imported beef.--The term `imported beef' means any 
     beef, including any fresh muscle cuts, ground meat, 
     trimmings, and beef in another meat food product, that is not 
     United States beef, whether or not the beef is graded with a 
     quality grade issued by the Secretary.
       ``(bb) Imported lamb.--The term `imported lamb' means any 
     lamb, including any fresh muscle cuts, ground meat, 
     trimmings, and lamb in another meat food product, that is not 
     United States lamb, whether or not the lamb is graded with a 
     quality grade issued by the Secretary.
       ``(cc) United states beef.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `United States beef' means beef 
     produced from cattle slaughtered in the United States.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `United States beef' does not 
     include--
       ``(A) beef produced from cattle imported into the United 
     States in sealed trucks for slaughter;
       ``(B) beef produced from imported carcasses;
       ``(C) imported beef trimmings; or
       ``(D) imported boxed beef.
       ``(dd) United states lamb.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `United States lamb' means 
     lamb, except mutton, produced from sheep slaughtered in the 
     United States.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `United States lamb' does not 
     include--
       ``(A) lamb produced from sheep imported into the United 
     States in sealed trucks for slaughter;
       ``(B) lamb produced from an imported carcass;
       ``(C) imported lamb trimmings; or
       ``(D) imported boxed lamb.''.

     SEC. 802. LABELING OF IMPORTED MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS.

       (a) Labeling Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601(n)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13)(A) If it is imported beef or imported lamb offered 
     for retail sale as fresh muscle cuts of beef or lamb and is 
     not accompanied by labeling that identifies it as imported 
     beef or imported lamb.
       ``(B) If it is United States beef or United States lamb 
     offered for retail sale, or offered and intended for export 
     as fresh muscle cuts of beef or lamb, and is not accompanied 
     by labeling that identifies it as United States beef or 
     United States lamb.
       ``(C) If it is United States or imported ground beef or 
     other processed beef or lamb product and is not accompanied 
     by labeling that identifies it as United States beef or 
     United States lamb, imported beef or imported lamb, beef 
     blended with imported meat or lamb blended with imported 
     meat, or other designation that identifies the percentage 
     content of United States beef and imported beef United States 
     lamb and imported lamb or contained in the product, as 
     determined by the Secretary under section 7(g).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 20(a) of the Federal 
     Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 620(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``All imported beef or imported 
     lamb offered for retail sale as fresh muscle cuts of beef or 
     lamb shall be plainly and conspicuously marked, labeled, or 
     otherwise identified as imported beef or imported lamb.''.
       (b) Ground or Processed Beef and Lamb.--Section 7 of the 
     Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Ground or Processed Beef and Lamb.--
       ``(1) Voluntary labeling.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall provide by

[[Page S8236]]

     regulation for the voluntary labeling or identification of 
     ground beef or lamb, other processed beef or lamb products as 
     United States beef or United States lamb, imported beef or 
     imported lamb, beef blended with imported meat or lamb 
     blended with imported meat, or other designation that 
     identifies the percentage content of United States and 
     imported beef or imported lamb contained in the product, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Mandatory labeling.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall provide by regulation for the 
     mandatory labeling or identification of ground beef or lamb, 
     other processed beef or lamb products as United States beef 
     or United States lamb, imported beef or imported lamb, beef 
     blended with imported meat or lamb blended with imported 
     meat, or other designation that identifies the percentage 
     content of United States and imported beef or imported lamb 
     contained in the product, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Application.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the 
     extent the Secretary determines that the costs associated 
     with labeling under subparagraph (A) would result in an 
     unreasonable burden on producers, processors, retailers, or 
     consumers.''.
       (c) Ground Beef and Ground Lamb Labeling Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct 
     a study of the effects of the mandatory use of imported, 
     blended, or percentage content labeling on ground beef, 
     ground lamb, and other processed beef or lamb products made 
     from imported beef or imported lamb.
       (2) Costs and responses.--The study shall be designed to 
     evaluate the costs associated with and consumer response 
     toward the mandatory use of labeling described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report the 
     findings of the study conducted under paragraph (1) to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 803. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate final 
     regulations to carry out the amendments made by this title.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I am sure my distinguished colleague, 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee, is aware, the Food and Drug 
Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) included a significant 
provision related to FDA's review and approval of indirect food 
additives. For the benefit of my colleagues, these are products that 
are used for containers, wrappings and packaging of food products.
  To ensure the safety of indirect food additives, these materials that 
touch or contain food, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must 
receive safety data submitted by the manufacturer. Often, FDA's process 
of evaluating these data has been extremely lengthy and has worked to 
delay the market availability of new and improved products. As a 
result, many companies have chosen simply not to bring new products to 
market, thus depriving the public of improvements in products and 
technology.
  In order to address this concern, a provision was included in FDAMA 
which requires the FDA to establish a new and expedited new product 
notification and review process that will substantially improve the 
situation for manufacturers of indirect food additives and thus the 
consumers of packaged food products. However, under section 309 of 
FDAMA, the provision will only become effective if the FDA receives an 
appropriation of $1.5 million for FY 1999. Subject to this new 
appropriation, FDA would be required to set the program in motion by 
April 1, 1999.
  I am aware that the House mark does include funding for the indirect 
food additive pre-market notification program, but at a level of 
$500,000. While this certainly indicates the intention and willingness 
of the House to fund the program, unfortunately the amount is not 
sufficient to meet the specific requirements of FDAMA.
  I am extremely mindful of the tight allocation under which S. 2159 
was crafted, and I recognize that it was not an easy task to bring this 
bill forward today. I am very grateful for the Subcommittee's efforts 
under the leadership of Chairman Cochran. At the same time, I hope the 
Chairman will agree with me that funding of this important FDA reform 
is critically important and that the conferees will try to work this 
out so that the new program can be implemented next year.
  Mr. COCHRAN: The Committee was mindful of this problem, and, in fact, 
included report language indicating its awareness of the need to 
implement the premarket notification provisions in order to spur 
innovation of new and improved food packaging materials. As you said, 
we are operating under a very tight allocation, but we will do our best 
to try to work this out.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________