[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8269-S8273]
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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume S. 2159,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2159) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christy
May Carlson, an intern in my office, be allowed on the floor during
today's debate on the legislation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Amendment No. 3172
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning appropriate
actions to be taken to alleviate the economic effect of low commodity
prices)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), for himself, and Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Bond,
proposes an amendment numbered 3172.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:
SEC. 7__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ACTIONS
TO BE TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE ECONOMIC EFFECT OF
LOW COMMODITY PRICES.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Congress should pass and the President should sign S.
1269, which would reauthorize fast-track trading authority
for the President;
(2) Congress should pass and the President should sign S.
2078, the Farm and Ranch Risk
[[Page S8270]]
Management Act, which would allow farmers and ranchers to
better prepare for fluctuations in the agricultural economy;
(3) the House of Representatives should follow the Senate
and provide full funding for the International Monetary Fund;
(4) Congress should pass and the President should sign
sanctions reform legislation so that the agricultural economy
of the United States is not harmed by sanctions on foreign
trade;
(5) Congress should uphold the presidential waiver of the
Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act providing
normal trade relations status for China and continue to
pursue normal trade relations with China;
(6) the House and Senate should continue to pursue a
package of capital gains and estate tax reforms;
(7) the President should pursue stronger oversight on all
international trade agreements affecting agriculture and
commerce dispute settlement procedures when countries are
found to be violating such trade agreements;
(8) the President should sign legislation providing full
deductibility of health care insurance for self-employed
individuals; and
(9) the Congress and the Administration should pursue
efforts to reduce regulations on farmers. The President
should use the administrative tools available to him to use
Commodity Credit Corporation and unused Export Enhancement
Program funds for humanitarian assistance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
regarding the problems that our farmers are experiencing and what we
can do to ease the burden of uncertainty and risk that every farmer
faces.
As those of us from States with major ag economies know, and as my
friends on the other side of the aisle have discussed, farmers across
the Nation have legitimate concerns about the prices they receive for
their products. I know, as do my colleagues who represent ag States,
that commodity prices are not good.
Making that problem worse, in Iowa, for example we are looking at the
possibility of a bumper crop and we still have nearly 40 percent of
last year's grain in storage, which obviously, will work to keep prices
low.
I am not here to say everything is just fine with the ag economy
right now. But I am here to say that in addressing these problems we
must take our marching orders from farmers and the folks who represent
farm interests such as Farm Bureau, the corn growers and the soybean
producers, among others. Opening up the 1996 farm bill, as some
advocate, is not the way to legitimately address these very real
concerns. And it is not what these very respected farm organizations
advocate, and I must say, it is not what farmers in my State have been
telling me to do. Nonetheless, we need to do something to alleviate the
worries our farmers face. Earlier this year, representatives of all the
major agriculture organizations came to Capitol Hill to discuss the
problems the ag industry is facing. Frankly, opening up Freedom to Farm
did not make their list of priorities. In fact, this list consisted
almost entirely of initiatives to support and enhance trade
opportunities. Farmers tell me the most important thing Congress can do
to ensure the long-term prosperity of the family farm is to open and
expand foreign markets for their products. That's why we must give our
farmers the opportunity to compete for every sale, in every market in
the world.
In fact, the message that we were sending to the rest of the world
when we passed Freedom to Farm is that we intend to compete for every
market anywhere in the world and we are going to be a sure supplier in
that market.
We in the Senate ought not be telling farmers what they should want
and need. We should be listening to farmers and doing what they tell us
is important. That is what my resolution is all about. My resolution is
nothing less than a commitment to the American farmer that we have
heard you and we share the principles that you support and we will work
with you to make those principles a permanent part of farm policy.
It is a reiteration of the principles of Freedom to Farm. But it is 3
years later a reiteration of what we ought to be doing and an admission
that in some places we have come up short as far as the marketing
opportunities we promised that they should produce and that there will
be markets for that product.
And as we know, at least in my part of the country, we export about
40 percent of our production, so farmers have to have open markets.
They must be overseas. Anybody who wants to price the United States out
of the world market is saying that we ought to shut down 40 percent of
our productive capability. That is not only intolerable for farmers,
but it is economically disadvantageous to small business people of
America who depend upon the business that farmers bring to them, both
in processing of our agriculture products as well as inputs in
agriculture.
So I do not pretend that there is anything new here. But I do intend
to carry out the principles of Freedom to Farm, which is dependent upon
market-opening opportunities overseas. There is a crisis in trade
policy right now and we need to focus more on it. And some of that
crisis is politically oriented. There is not enough activity in this
town on market promotion and on setting a political tone that the
United States will continue to be a leader in market-opening
negotiations around the world, which we have been for the last 50
years, and it is an expression of all of these things coming together,
that we have to have more of an emphasis on trade opportunities.
So this Sense-of-the-Senate resolution states that we in Congress
should act on a variety of measures that have been endorsed by
agriculture groups as providing the best hope for farmers across the
country for sustained economic growth and opportunity. These measures
include fast-track negotiating authority for the President, legislation
that I introduced establishing farm and ranch savings accounts,
sanctions reform legislation, normal trading status with China,
stronger oversight on international trade agreements affecting
agriculture, additional estate and capital gains tax reform, full
deductibility of health care insurance for self-employed individuals,
reducing the regulation on farmers, and finally using the CCC and the
EEP funds for food aid.
Mr. President, these are reforms that the leaders of the farm groups
we met with have asked for. Many of these items were also promised to
farmers when we passed the 1996 farm bill. It is time for Congress to
live up to these promises.
We have heard today and in the days past in the debate on this bill
about the serious problems facing American farmers in the northern
plains States, particularly the Dakotas. So I met with North Dakota
Governor Ed Schafer yesterday morning, and he told me about the serious
circumstances in which his farmers find themselves. But he also told me
emphatically that reopening Freedom to Farm would be a tremendous
disservice to his constituents; that doing so would not give his people
the help they need. It is time that we show our solidarity with the
American farmer and pledge to give these hard-working men and women
fundamental, long-term assistance that they count on from year to year
rather than so-called emergency measures.
I have lived and worked on a family farm all of my life. My son
operates our family farm. I know that farmers are independent, and I
know they want as little Government interference in their business as
possible. The initiatives listed in my resolution will help ensure that
independence. It will help make sure that the promises of Freedom to
Farm, that the farmer was going to be able to operate according to the
marketplace and not according to the dictates of bureaucrats in
Washington, DC, are adhered to.
The 1996 farm bill took positive and necessary steps to bring this
about for the American farmer. Some in this body would reverse that
progress. Let's show that we really listen to farmers' concerns and put
the Senate on record as supporting our farmers in the initiatives they
have asked. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation. It is a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It does not change any policy, but it
reaffirms what we did 3 years ago. It acknowledges the problems that
come from the Southeast Asian economic situation--less exports going to
that part of the world and a deteriorating income situation because of
that.
Now, some people might say, well, what is different than 2 days ago
or just yesterday when there were some negative votes for some help for
the American farmer offered by people on the other side of the aisle?
Well, the difference is this. Those programs would have changed Freedom
to Farm. Those programs would have been short
[[Page S8271]]
term rather than long term. Those programs would not have been budget
neutral. Keeping the budget balanced to keep interest rates low for
American farmers is very, very important.
But what has also happened is very bad signals coming from the White
House. Now, let me emphasize--very bad signals coming from the White
House and coming within the last 24 hours, and so this was not a part
of the political environment when we were talking about farm
legislation yesterday and the day before. The White House is sending
very clear signals through the business community of America that they
do not want fast-track trading authority for the President brought up
this year. They do not want to vote on it.
So we are hearing from the White House, for the first time, that the
United States should withdraw from leadership in world trade as a
matter of fact because of the absence of policy we have had, because we
have not had fast-track negotiating authority for the last 4 years. But
now there is a signal sent that nothing should be done about fast
track.
To this point, the administration kept telling us we should be
pushing for fast-track trading authority because this President wants
it, and also because it has been the tradition of this country since
World War II to lead in this area. The administration sent signals,
both through the legislation and the activity of the White House, that
the president wants to continue to get this authority, to continue to
lead.
But now I hear there are meetings going on at the White House with
the business community where the administration is sending a signal
that, no, now is not the time for fast track. Well, this is the first
time in 50 years that now is not the time for the President of the
United States, Republican or Democrat, to be a leader in breaking down
barriers to free trade so that our farmers can export and be prosperous
because of it.
Now, when we are in this environment, where the administration is
sending this signal that they do not want fast-track trading authority,
then it is time for us to reiterate Congress' stand, which has been the
stand of this Congress since World War II, that we should be a leader
in marketing opportunities for our farmers, for our businesses, and for
our services in America.
It is a sad day to hear, particularly for those involved with us in
the Senate who are leaders in international trade, that we are not
getting the support from the White House that we need to pass fast
track. It does not send a very good signal to the people we have been
working with around the world for the last 50 years, looking to the
United States for leadership, that the United States doesn't want to
lead. We are saying to the rest of the world: You lead. We are saying
to the rest of the world: We don't see that it is necessary for us to
be at the table. We don't think it is necessary for the President of
the United States to be at the table to protect our farmers, to be at
the table to protect our business interests, to be at the table to
protect our producers that want to export.
This is an intolerable situation. If we do not reverse this policy,
the legacy of this administration is going to be that the United States
has withdrawn from world leadership in trade barrier reduction. I don't
think that is the legacy this President wants. I don't think that is a
very good legacy for this country as we go into the 21st century.
What is so important? It is not just the economic opportunities we
lose, but commerce breaks down barriers between people. Commerce
promotes peace. Commerce is going to expand the world economic pie for
a growing population so we have more for more people rather than less
for more people, not only from the standpoint of the quality of their
life but from the standpoint of their ability to just survive--just
survive. When we have a growing economic pie, we are going to have more
political stability in the world and we are going to promote the
process of world peace.
That is what is at jeopardy when a President of the United States is
sending a signal--or even his staff is sending a signal--to the
business community of America: Forget fast track.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Kansas asked whether
he might speak, and then I know the Chair wants to speak briefly. I
will be pleased to defer to my colleague. I ask unanimous consent that
I then be allowed to follow those two Senators.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I especially thank my colleague from
Minnesota. I know he will have some important things to say, too.
Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Grassley amendment.
While this vote is nonbinding, as the Senator has said, I believe it
does give the Senate the opportunity to make a very important statement
on our commitment to our farmers and ranchers. We have had a rather
spirited and I think a rather good debate in these past few days in
regard to the many challenges that face farm country. I think this
amendment is very clear. It simply lays out the issues Congress must
address before we finish this session. Time is certainly drawing near.
The time for action is now.
None of these issues, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa has
pointed out, is more important than fast-track trade negotiating
authority. Senator Grassley did actually consider offering the fast
track as an amendment to this bill, but obviously, due to the need to
complete this bill, he has decided not to offer the amendment. So we
have a sense of the Senate, if you will, that this is our priority
action. That does not mean we should not come back to the issue as of
this session, and that is the plan.
Before the Senator leaves the floor, let me point out, I do not know
anybody in this Senate who has been a more distinguished leader in
behalf of agriculture than the Senator from Iowa. There is an
expression in farm country that you need to sit on the wagon to be able
to listen to farmers. Chuck Grassley is the personification of that.
There isn't anybody who speaks more in concert with the corn producer
of Iowa or the hog producer of Iowa or livestock producer or any other
farmer in Iowa, and I think that is reflective of his position of
leadership in the Senate and all throughout the country.
As a matter of fact, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution mirrors a
letter sent to the President, to the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of Agriculture, to the distinguished Democratic leader, to our leader.
This is the letter I referred to in my remarks when we had the debate
on the Daschle amendment. It was sent, as I have said, to the
President, the Secretary of State, to our Special Trade Representative,
the Secretary of Agriculture, everybody on the House Committee on
Agriculture, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Ways and Means.
The person who really paid attention to this was, in fact, the
distinguished Senator from Iowa. He pretty much took what these farm
organizations--and I might add, it is: the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Association
of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers--obviously they
would be here if Senator Grassley did it--the National Cotton Council
of America, the National Grain Sorghum Producers Association, National
Grange, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork
Producers Council, National Sunflower Association.
They had a meeting with Senator Lott and 12 Senators, attended by
Senator Grassley. Not content with just saying, ``Here's the list of
what we need to do,'' Senator Grassley has come to the floor of the
Senate and said, ``These are our marching orders. It's the sense of the
Senate that we do these things.'' Consequently, he listened to
agriculture. He followed the farm summit that the agriculture leaders
of America had with Republican Senators, and this is bipartisan as
well. So I certainly credit him in that regard.
I do have some concern about the President first saying, ``Yes, let's
do this,'' and then, ``Perhaps, you know,
[[Page S8272]]
let's not.'' So, consequently, in that regard I am happy that both the
distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Lott, and Speaker
of the House Newt Gingrich, have indicated we will vote on fast track,
and hopefully it can be combined with IMF funding, a Caribbean
initiative, or the African trade bill. I cannot think of a more
important message to say to our farmers or more important work that we
should do prior to this session ending.
With that, I thank, again, the Senator from Minnesota, and I yield
the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have suggested to the Democratic
manager, on the other side, that this amendment ought to be accepted.
But I understand that there are some Senators who have objections to
certain provisions of the resolution.
My observation is that at the beginning of the debate on this bill
there was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which we approved
unanimously on a recorded vote, that talked about the plight of
agriculture, the problems in production agriculture, the low prices in
some commodities, disasters that occurred in some parts of the country.
It is a very uneven situation in agriculture right now. But the serious
problems are serious. There are serious problems that need the
immediate attention, as that resolution said, of the Congress and the
President. This resolution spells out what some of those specific
things are that can be done by the Congress and the President to
relieve problems in production agriculture and strengthen our
agricultural economy.
So I applaud the Senator from Iowa for going further than the sense-
of-the-Senate resolution in getting into the details of some specific
ideas that he has for improving the plight of farmers and those
involved in the agriculture sector. I intend to support the resolution.
I recommend the Senate approve it. There will be some others who will
have other ideas, and they are here on the floor to speak to them, but
I suggest to Senators, if you do want to be heard on this resolution,
you should come to the floor and express yourself on the resolution,
because I expect we will vote on it--whether it is a voice vote or a
record vote--and that could occur soon.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Arkansas is
recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. I just want to echo the words of my chairman, Senator
Cochran, and state, first of all, this is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution. So the world is not going to come to an end, no matter how
strenuously somebody might object to a particular provision of the
bill. I would have been willing--when I came on the floor, I discussed
it with Senator Cochran--I would be willing to accept it and go to
conference with it. It doesn't seem all that ominous to me. But there
are some really strenuous objections on this side. So I suppose, as the
chairman said, we are going to have to have a vote on it. I not only
find nothing objectionable, I find a lot in it to commend.
I think it is an excellent, very thoughtfully crafted proposal, and I
agree with every one of the items he has listed here. I understand, as
I say, that there are strong feelings on the other side.
In conclusion, this is one of those things--I see my colleague from
Arkansas seeking the floor, and I think I know which provision he
dislikes intensely in it, and Senator Byrd, I think, has voiced
objection to the fast-track provision. I wish we could adopt it on a
voice vote. If we can't do that, why, then do something else. Maybe we
can get Senator Grassley on the floor and at least get a time agreement
on this amendment. It is the kind of amendment that can just go on all
day long and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We never will get
the bill passed if we spend this much time on sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions. We have a lot of work to do here. If we finish this bill
today, we will be lucky, in my opinion.
In any event, Mr. President, I hope that people who want to speak on
this bill will hurry to the floor and get said whatever they want to
say, and we can get Senator Grassley on the floor and maybe work out a
time agreement so we have some definition of what the day in front of
us is going to look like. I yield the floor.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other distinguished Senator from Arkansas
is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, before I raise my
concerns about this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I pay my respects
and my thanks to the Senator from Iowa for his leadership and his
advocacy for agriculture, as well as the Senator from Kansas, who is
presiding at this time, for his many years of service to agriculture
and service to our country as a proponent and advocate for the
agriculture community. I think that the intent of the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution is admirable. It has many very laudable provisions.
Certainly, I am a proponent of fast track. We need to give the
President fast-track authority. I regret that President Clinton has
expressed his unwillingness to pursue that aggressively in the House of
Representatives, and I applaud the Speaker of the House for scheduling
a vote in September on fast-track authority.
I believe the votes are there to pass fast-track authority in the
Senate, and I hope we have the opportunity to do that. I hope we have
more than sense of the Senate. I hope we will, in fact, have the
opportunity to give the President that negotiating authority, which I
believe will be an important step in opening markets for the
agriculture community. I am glad that we have a sense of the Senate
that has that provision in it.
I also applaud the provisions regarding sanctions reform. I believe
very strongly that we misuse the sanctions tool. Sanctions is not a
policy; sanctions is a tool, and it is a tool that we should not
abandon. We have only three great tools: one is military, one is
economic, and one is diplomatic. We need all three of them, and it
would be a mistake for us to make a wholesale abandonment of the use of
sanctions in dealing with other nations. It would make the use of
military force a greater likelihood, and that would be a mistake.
There is no doubt we need to reform sanctions laws in this country,
and I am glad to be serving on the leader's bipartisan task force to
bring about comprehensive reform of the sanctions laws. It is
important, and the leader has said by September 1, we should try to
produce comprehensive reform of the sanctions in this country. I don't
know that we will make the September 1 deadline, but it is a mistake
for us to prematurely begin to make those kinds of reforms
incrementally. I think we should wait for a comprehensive approach to
sanctions reform, but I am glad to support the sense of the Senate that
advocates that we reform the sanctions.
My concern about this resolution, nonbinding though it is, is that
there is a provision included that would put us on record in support of
extending most-favored-nation status to China. Next week, the House of
Representatives will begin what I think will be a heated and intense
debate on whether we should, once again, provide most-favored-nation
trading status to the People's Republic of China. For the U.S. Senate,
1 week before the House begins its debate, to have, in a sense of the
Senate, one little provision that says, ``Yes, we should extend MFN
and, in fact, extend MFN permanently to China,'' would be a great
mistake. I regret that the authors of the sense-of-the-Senate
resolution saw fit to include that one provision which I think, more
than any other provision in this resolution, becomes controversial.
This week there was a headline in the Washington Post that said this:
``Chinese Resume Arrests.''
Mr. President, perhaps nothing is more prophetic or revealing about
the lack of impact the President's recent trip will have on the future
of democracy in China than this week's headlines announcing a multitude
of new arrests of political dissidents in China.
Less than 1 week after the President of the United States ended his
tour of China, Chinese police arrested 10 prodemocracy advocates in
China. I will read the first paragraph in that Post article, dated July
12, Beijing:
[[Page S8273]]
Police detained 10 democracy advocates just one week after
President Clinton ended a tour of China, during which he
emphasized the benefits of freedom and the rule of law, and
praised Chinese President Jiang Zemin as a man who could
transform this nation into a modern democracy.
The detainees included two cofounders of the opposition
China Democratic Party, who tried to register it on June 25,
the day Clinton began his nine-day visit.
These people were arrested for one reason: They dared to start an
opposition party to the Communist Party in China. For daring to say we
will be an opposition voice, for daring to say we will dissent from the
ruling political party in China, they were arrested.
I asked an advocate of MFN today, a Member of the House of
Representatives who is a proponent of MFN, ``Sir, what would it take
for you to vote against normal trading status with China? What would
they have to do? What abuse would they have to perpetrate in order for
you to cast a vote against MFN?''
There was a thoughtful response, and I think a cause for pause. I ask
all those who say we need to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
today advocating MFN for China to ask themselves the question: What
would it take? Is it forced abortion? Apparently not. So a nation that
continues to practice taking women who are 7, 8 and 9 months pregnant
against their will forcibly to a labor camp, putting them in a cell and
forcing them against their will to have an abortion, if that is not
enough to deny normal trading status or MFN, what does it take?
China today continues to persecute religious minorities, whether they
are Hindus, whether they are Buddhists or whether they are Evangelical
Christians, they continue to incarcerate them, they continue to require
registration, they continue to monitor the messages.
If religious persecution is not enough to deny MFN for China, what
does it take? What would they have to do? China continues to
proliferate weapons of mass destruction. In committee testimony this
week, officials of this Government admitted they cannot guarantee that
China is not today continuing to proliferate. So if the proliferation
of missiles and weapons technology is not enough to deny MFN, what does
it take? What would it require that we say no to giving them normal
trading status?
For us to go on record in light of the ongoing abuses--what a thumb
in the eye to the U.S. Senate and to the United States of America and
to the President of this country, within 1 week of our President's
visit, to round up those who dare to say, ``We would like to be an
opposition political party,'' and who dare to call their political
party the Democracy Party. They rounded them up and put them in jail.
How ironic that the President would refer to, and I quote the
President's words in his speech in China, what he called ``a steady
breeze of freedom blowing through China.''
That gentle breeze has become a brittle wind chilling any hope for
true freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of political expression,
freedom of religion in this Communist nation.
So while there were dazzling pictures and eloquent rhetoric about
human rights, the President's tour of China was full of missed
opportunities and mistakes that are sure to have a much more
detrimental impact on human rights in China in the long run than the
benefit of any short-term afterglow.
I will not today itemize what I think were the missed opportunities
during the President's trip to China. But there is one--there is one--
certainty, that on the heels of that trip, the Chinese Government once
again cracked down on those who would make the mildest of political
dissent and seek to register as a new political party.
Any pretense that the government, the regime, that dominates China
today is moving toward reform and democracy should have been dispelled
by what they did this week. And for the U.S. Senate to say, we are
going on record in favor of most-favored-nation status, in view of what
they did, I think would be a great mistake.
I would welcome the opportunity for the sponsors of this amendment to
simply take the MFN provision out of this sense of the Senate; and I
would wholeheartedly support it. But I think it is a mistake for us to
go on that kind of record in view of what China has done in the wake of
the President's recent trip in which he spoke so eloquently for freedom
and for democracy.
I add, to my colleagues in the Senate, that it was this week that the
Communist government in China rebuked the U.S. Senate for our audacity
in passing a resolution reaffirming our traditional support for Taiwan.
I believe the President made mistakes in his trip to China, and I
could enumerate them. But the greatest mistake was this: pinning our
hopes for democratic reform in China to this regime. And the laudatory
comments made about Jiang Zemin and the expression of the belief that
he would be the leader to move in a transition from the current
totalitarianism and repression to democracy and freedom, that hope was
surely dashed in the actions of the Chinese Government this week.
I ask my colleagues to think again. I ask my distinguished colleague
from Iowa, whom I admire and respect so much, to rethink the inclusion
of a pro-MFN statement in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleagues--I have been waiting for
awhile--have asked me whether they could have a minute--a minute, I say
to my colleague from Arkansas--to speak. But I understand their passion
and know how strongly they feel about these issues.
My very good friend from New Mexico has also asked for some time, and
I would be pleased to defer to him. I ask unanimous consent that I
follow the Senator from New Mexico, and that then I will be free to
speak and take more than a minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my good friend.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from New
Mexico is recognized.
____________________