[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.

                          ____________________